Thread Rating:

Poll

5 votes (18.51%)
13 votes (48.14%)
9 votes (33.33%)

27 members have voted

Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 6:50:17 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

No, it has suddenly made perfect sense to me.

Dan has repeatedly stated that HE is a service fee for players that they MUST fork over.


Well, yes, exactly.
But I take this view for any business I use or need; most people do.
I pay the cover charge, whether or not it's an entrance fee, a service fee, or playing a game by the establishment's rules.

Here's what I think AP boils down to: the intention, the goal is to thwart the house edge, (or the cover charge), in some way, - to breach their game protection rules, and as the primary purpose for being there.
...

Quote: darkoz

And since customers are always right by the worldwide standards of business he must find some way of making AP's not be customers. By stating that we are not gambling, we are no longer paying customers in his mind and of course, non-paying customers may be asked to leave an establishment.


The customer isn't always right; I saw a security guard expel a "customer" from a department store for having unpaid merchandise under his shirt. He was declared "not a customer" by the store while pretending to be one. He was trying not to pay the fee, the price, what have you, but that was his primary goal for being there; this, instead of genuinely shopping as store management knew it.

I didn't think he was shopping in the sense of real shopping, and neither did the "house" or store think he was really shopping. And it was not this false customer who made the determination as to whether or not he was really shopping, it was the house, so to speak, or the store itself.
And he was backed off from doing what he was doing.

Yes, I do think a store can make a determination if he was a legitimate shopper, and yes, I think a casino can make a determination if a customer is there as a legitimate player, a gambler, or is there to see if he can defeat a gambling hall's loss prevention protocols for personal financial gain.

So yes, I do believe that if you are in a casino primarily for personal financial gain by defeating game protection house rules, then you are not there for just "gambling,"
You're there to see if you can get away with something that is not sanctioned as the ground rules for gambling there; I think that is a different game, so to speak.

Quote: darkoz

The fact that this logic requires an equally ridiculous logic twist that the casino defines words in the English language is of no import to him.


That's going a little far, darkoz.
I think that the casino house - to a great degree - also determines whether or not you are legitimately gambling at their place., or if your purpose for being there is to deliberately try to breach their game protection rules.
The casino determines - "defines" - if what you are doing is being a legitimate customer or gambler, or if your real goal is to breach their game protection rules under the pretense of being a legitimate customer or gambler, by their definition. This is what the casino determines or defines. You can respond to this by saying the casino is trying to define "English" here, or this is illogical, if you happen to disagree with it.

If you are told to leave a Gambling Hall, or that you cannot gamble there, then it is because there was something present in your gambling that was not gambling, something related to defeating their game protection guidelines, certainly in there eyes.
,
Last edited by: Paigowdan on Jul 16, 2016
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12979
July 16th, 2016 at 7:08:02 AM permalink
I recognize that this aspect of the Discussion almost boils down to (in my opinion, bizarre) semantics, but here is my question:

Why would you suggest that the casino would categorize the Advantage Player as, 'Not gambling,' rather than, 'Not gambling in tyhe fashion intended by the casino.' The difference between those two statements is simply the recognition that the Advantage Player is, in fact, still gambling...and to say the Advantage Player is not gambling at all is simply a position that I can find no definitive (literally meaning, 'Defined' in this case) basis for.

Making a bet is simply risking money, or something else of value, in order to potentially gain monies or something else of value in the form of a wager. That definition, in my opinion, does not suspend itself simply because an individual is playing at an Advantage, something of value (or money) is still being risked in order for the AP to gain money, or money and something else of value in the form of Comps.

I would say the only time the AP is, 'Not gambling,' is if he gets 86'ed, in which event the AP legally no longer has the right to gamble there. To that point, I would never debate that the casino does not have the inherent right to refuse service to whoever they like provided the person is not a protected class and service is being refused only because the individual belongs to that class. To wit, they can kick out whoever they like.

But, that doesn't mean the person they kicked out wasn't gambling!
Vultures can't be choosers.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 8:13:48 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I recognize that this aspect of the Discussion almost boils down to (in my opinion, bizarre) semantics, but here is my question:

Why would you suggest that the casino would categorize the Advantage Player as, 'Not gambling,' rather than, 'Not gambling in tyhe fashion intended by the casino.


Well, this is because when the intention is to deliberately breach game protection, this is something different than gambling, - even if it is mixed in with gambling, or under the pretense of "I'm just gambling." Any attempt to gaffe or to determine the results of game play, whether it is by marking cards, hole carding, etc. to alter or to discern the results of a round of play - before that round - falls under game protection.

In card counting the issue is also being able to know, to discern, the "cards to come" before a round of play, where one can parallel or match bet size to the count, for profit, based on knowing the composition of the cards to come - before a round of play. The game of blackjack - up until Thorpe et al - was thought not to be countable, but that was discovered after the game became entrenched. Now with a method to know the cards to come for a round (high cards versus low cards), this breaches the uncertainty or randomness requirement or definition for gambling by having statistically meaningful information going into a round, - but only if it is used.

Since blackjack was entrenched, it was decided that those who play randomly by not tracking and utilizing the decks composition for an advantage may play, as here there is no game protection issue, of knowledge of the hands to come in these cases; those that do count are using a method to determine, to know the cards to come (high versus low). This breaches the original (and in error) design of the game as not countable. By deliberately using a method to know the cards to come before a round, the uncertainty or randomness required for gambling is gone, as this knowledge does have a mathematical effect on the probability of wins over losses and on player return. You mathematically know when you're more likely to win, and know when you're more likely to lose, and can profit from this information. This isn't quite gambling.

Casinos also address this by eliminating the high versus low card count advantages; 6:5 blackjack reduces the high count advantage by increasing the house edge over the statistical effect of the count's impact on that house edge. CSMs (continuous shufflers) maintain a continuous "full deck" composition to draw cards from, instead of allowing a depleted deck for form certain compositions that are statistically meaningful to game play. Newer versions of blackjack variants transfer the high count side advantage (from the 3:2 blackjack bonus payouts) to the low or negative count side (via Charlie type hand bonuses). All this is better game protection than backing players off upon AP discovery.



Quote: M146

' The difference between those two statements is simply the recognition that the Advantage Player is, in fact, still gambling...and to say the Advantage Player is not gambling at all is simply a position that I can find no definitive (literally meaning, 'Defined' in this case) basis for.


Well, I explain this above. If you're doing something to obtain information on the results of the upcoming rounds before the round of play occurs, that's a gambling definition issue.

Quote: M146

Making a bet is simply risking money, or something else of value, in order to potentially gain monies or something else of value in the form of a wager. That definition, in my opinion, does not suspend itself simply because an individual is playing at an Advantage, something of value (or money) is still being risked in order for the AP to gain money, or money and something else of value in the form of Comps.


Altering or discerning the odds on a round of play to come, before that round of play occurs, is not truly risking money in comparison to (or in the sense) of a genuinely uncertain outcome.

Quote: M146

I would say the only time the AP is, 'Not gambling,' is if he gets 86'ed, in which event the AP legally no longer has the right to gamble there. To that point, I would never debate that the casino does not have the inherent right to refuse service to whoever they like provided the person is not a protected class and service is being refused only because the individual belongs to that class. To wit, they can kick out whoever they like.

But, that doesn't mean the person they kicked out wasn't gambling!


Well, there is a difference between gambling and deliberately trying to breach the game protection policies of a casino, though the two can be mixed. Some APs advocate spending some time on craps or Pai Gow as "cover."
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14230
July 16th, 2016 at 9:18:15 AM permalink
Dan,

I have a problem with your equating a shoplifter and AP'S above. They are not equivalent; one is illegal theft, the other is exercising awareness and intelligent choices of games, bets, and situations. Had you equated the shoplifter to cheating gamblers, those using light wands on slots for example, I would have been with you. But there's a distinct line between cheating and playing to best advantage, and I think your indiscriminate mixing of the two leads to a lot of these arguments.

Let the casinos retrain their sloppy dealers, do the math before they offer promotions, protect their games. Then they can welcome all comers, because really, every customer they have is trying to take a shot at them. Some are just better at it than others. But nobody goes to lose.

The house edge will keep them in business. Juicy looking bad bets will keep them in business. Alcohol and eye candy, the same. Even the occasional big winner or even frequent jackpots keep them in business; there's a reason the machines (and often the casino) whoop it up when someone wins, and that's jackpot envy.

But skilled play, maximizing promos, careful bet selection, those should not be the basis for 86ing or accusations of bad action.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 166
  • Posts: 9812
July 16th, 2016 at 9:46:49 AM permalink
If a person shows up on a black Friday sale, buys an expensive appliance, sells it later at a profit, it is certainly not the intention of the retailers for people to do that. But it's a stretch to call it something more. It's not like stealing.

Indicating retailers want to discourage it is fine. Indicating that it might hurt retailers bottom line is fine too. Indicating that retailers might even want to pass laws that might hinder it would be fine.

But it's nothing like smash and grab ---nothing.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 7475
July 16th, 2016 at 10:02:16 AM permalink
Babs beat me to the comparison argument with shoplifters.

Dan, the problem you seem to have is in that very comparison. However, there is a distinct difference between a shoplifter and a card counter. In your mind they are the same because they are both trying to get around your definition of a service fee.

Certainly you can see that the major difference is:

A shoplifter is PHYSICALLY placing items under their shirt (in your example),

A card counter is USING HIS MIND TO COUNT CARDS.

So, Dan you equate thoughts and thinking with theft in any way shape or form.

Oh, wait, but people are acting on it physically by raising and lowering bets. But raising and lowering bets is not against the rules in Blackjack. It is casinos who are trying to stretch their own rules.

And when someone, even a gambling house, changes the rules in such a way that they always win, that is the classic definition of cheating.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
gordonm888
gordonm888 
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2732
July 16th, 2016 at 11:06:40 AM permalink
Underlying Dan's arguments is this simple unspoken and undocumented rule/presumption:

"Blackjack is a game in which the player's decisions on bet size must not be influenced by the cards that have previously been dealt from the shoe. Additionally, the player's H/S/D/SPLIT decisions must be based solely on the cards in his own hand and the dealer's face-up card, and may not be influenced by any other cards that he sees or has seen previously."

First, these rules are never stated - but they are enforced. That violates the "rule of law." No one should be penalized or punished for lack of compliance with an undocumented, unstated rule. This principle is known in every civilized country in the world as "the rule of law."

Secondly, when stated this way, the absurdity is clear. When the casino seats multiple players at the same table and the dealer reveals other cards during the play of the game, then why must the player not allow those cards to influence his H/S/D/Sp decisions and his bet size decisions? Apparently, its because that's the way that some dough-faced analyst did his analysis of the House Edge for the game. And because that dough-faced mathematician lacked the imagination to realize how people would actually play the game, the casinos proceed to insist that everyone must conform to the mathematician's erroneous assumptions?

Dan, how can a smart guy like you not understand the absurdity of this?
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7204
July 16th, 2016 at 12:56:09 PM permalink
This is really a ridiculous thread. Of course an AP playing a game with an edge is gambling by any realistic definition of the word.
When the AP notices the count turns his way, and has a 2% edge that hand, there are non APs at the table as well. Is the bet placed by the AP not gambling but the bet placed by the non AP is gambling? Or are they both not gambling that hand? Try and explain that to the non AP..... Of course you can't.....
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 1:26:05 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

This is really a ridiculous thread. Of course an AP playing a game with an edge is gambling by any realistic definition of the word.
When the AP notices the count turns his way, and has a 2% edge that hand, there are non APs at the table as well. Is the bet placed by the AP not gambling but the bet placed by the non AP is gambling? Or are they both not gambling that hand? Try and explain that to the non AP..... Of course you can't.....


It's an interesting thread, and the thread is called derogatory names because it is slaughtering a sacred cow. But it is not a ridiculous thread; the ridiculous thread is the spam thread where y.o.u...c.a.n...b.u.y..U.K...f.u.r.n.i.t.u.r.e and that everybody flagged.

As for SOOPOO's argument, If you are using illicit information (information that you're not supposed to have on the game) that materially changes the outcome or gives forehand knowledge of the outcome, that arguably isn't gambling.
Last edited by: Paigowdan on Jul 16, 2016
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
July 16th, 2016 at 1:31:02 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

It's an interesting thread, and the thread is called derogatory names because it is slaughtering a sacred cow. But it is not a ridiculous thread; the ridiculous thread is the spam thread where y.o.u...c.a.n...b.u.y..U.K...f.u.r.n.i.t.u.r.e and that everybody flagged.

As for SOOPOO's argument, If you are using illicit information (information that you're not supposed to have on the game) that materially changes the outcome or gives forehand knowledge of the outcome, that arguably isn't gambling unless.


If you aren't shuffling every hand, then YOU are VOLUNTEERING the information. Therefore it's not illicit.

In any sense, guys, quit pestering Dan.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!

  • Jump to: