Getting backed off / 86'd / barred / restricted / etc for winning
Quote: IbeatyouracesCasinos hate winners no matter what they say or advertise. Any commercials, ads, or whatever you see with people hooting and hollering while winning are ACTORS and are not the people casinos want on their premises. Eventually there will be enough outrage to change the laws allowing this.
Even though both the AP and the casino can win at the same time if the progressive is set up correctly. If I had a casino (or bar) I'd put progressives on everything, including a 6-spot keno with a FAST meter, and advertise the sh*t out of it.
This is the kind of mentality AHigh was trying to tap into with his gambling video games. It's the same psychological principle that makes people spend hours and hours trying to get a world record high score on Donkey Kong or Asteroids.
Not everybody wants to sit in front of Willy Wonka slots and hit an $0.80 "repeat bet" button over and over again. (Although there are of course people who do and they will always be there. But they're the low hanging fruit and there are only so many.)
Is this true? I remember reading that, at least in Nevada, casinos are legally considered to be private clubs (just like Augusta National). As such, they can limit their membership however they want. (I.e., throw out counters, winners, etc.).Quote: IbeatyouracesThe whole problem I have is that casinos are a PUBLIC business. They are not Augusta National. You're doors are open to ALL COMERS. No exceptions.
Quote: JoemanIs this true? I remember reading that, at least in Nevada, casinos are legally considered to be private clubs (just like Augusta National). As such, they can limit their membership however they want. (I.e., throw out counters, winners, etc.).
Can the public walk in free of charge? And as far as I'm concerned, if you are a publicly traded Corp., you aren't private anything.
I worked in the film industry for many years and to this day, I refuse to purchase or watch bootleg films. Most of the people I know seek these out so they can get cheap entertainment. To me, it's robbery of the film-makers who worked so hard to produce these films, including myself (even if my name on those I worked on is at the bottom of the 500 or so listed), I always felt bootleg tapes were somehow taking out of my pocket.
Even being out of the film business for some years, I can't shake that ingrained emotion.
I am sure Dan will argue AP'ing is comparable. The casinos work hard to produce entertainment and AP's seek to rob them of their hard-earned income, however, for me, the main difference is that casinos advertise and promote their main appeal is to come and win money. They are false advertising when winners are then backed off and excluded.
You don't see any advertisments that say, Please DON"T try to win, just see if you get lucky. Every advertisement I have seen makes it seem like trying to win is the best way to play.
Finally, I don't know of any ploppies who don't try to win. Every single person I see go into a casino is trying to win. Rubbing the screen of a slot machine is an attempt to win. Switching seats to another game is an attempt to win. Accepting free-play is even an attempt to win. But the ploppies are simply going about it in an uneducated and ridiculous manner. The casinos have no problem with people being deluded as they attempt to win, just AP's who are smart about it.
Quote: AxelWolf]I guess you don't hold most of the public gaming figures in high regards including The Wizard who's actually attempt to get backed off and possibly 86ed for fun. Mission our administrator.
Mike I hold in great regard, but it is because of his other work, particularly his industry work, not because he's an ex-AP. For that matter, he also worked for an operator. What he has in his portfolio is from his WOO work, which is considered THE casino game reference and repository, not because tried his hand at being an AP.
Quote: AWLet's make a List of people you generally don't hold in high regards. Actually that list is going to be a mile long so I'll just get it started and let others add to it. I probably won't mention all the people who have been tossed out for DI and that sh*t doesn't even work I would love to hear your excuse for that.
Fair enough - and here you go....Most of the list isn't impressive because of having been 86-ed from a gambling Hall, but for other reasons. You could just as easily make a list of successful recovering addicts and put Robert Downey Jr. at the top of the list, and have an equally impressive list of candidates proving the merits of addiction as a key right of passage. But here, taking drugs didn't make them the successes that they are, not any more than getting 86-ed from a gambling joint also made anyone great. You could pretty much pick your affectation and create a list and claim a point to make (The list tries to say: "Card counting made me the awesome man I am today!" Robert Downey Jr: would not say "Slamming meth gave me GREAT acting chops!")
Probably 85% of the AP's on this forum - [I consider this neither a reference to have, nor a detraction; it is simply a meeting place/discussion forum].
Ben Affleck the Actor - good actor, but not a role model, if you ask Jennifer Garner. No success due to card counting)
Bob Dancer - don't know the man.
Derren Brown magician (He was just standing in a casino when he got 86ed) - clearly he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, but this doesn't make him Rosa Parks.
Edward Thorp - he abandoned card counting for stock schemes.
Anthony Curtis - great publisher, great guy.
Richard Munchkin - great writer, love his books.
Stanford Wong - loved his Pai Gow Poker tome.
As you can see, all of the success stories came generally from media work (publishing books or Internet sites, with one magician and one actor), and where their success really is not due from pulling chips from the table via AP play.
I don't think being publicly traded or privately held has any bearing on whether the business or businesses of that company can have private membership. For example, ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. (ticker MYCC) is publicly traded on the NYSE, but its businesses consist of private country clubs, business clubs, etc.Quote: IbeatyouracesCan the public walk in free of charge? And as far as I'm concerned, if you are a publicly traded Corp., you aren't private anything.
IANAL, but I take this to mean that most anyone who walks in is given tacit membership, which can be revoked at the casino's discretion.Quote: Pg. 33, The Experts' Guide to Casino Games: Expert Gamblers Offer Their Winning Formulas by Walter ThomasonHowever, courts have held that Nevada casinos are private clubs and therefore can bar players.
Quote: odiousgambitadd the Wizard, at least I know he has written that he has been stopped from playing [not sure about 86'd]
I'll see if I can get both sides mad at me LOL:
APs: I suspect they are largely exaggerators who mostly fail to really profit, or not enough at least, in the face of true total expenses. Some who seem to do well may have other means of support, like SS, other pension, and retirement funds. I know there are exceptions, and I do admire those with that kind of ability, if not what I suspect their typical morals are. Sort of like admiring a street-smart person [in a way] while knowing you don't want to get too close.
Dan and his ilk: I actually like Dan* but I just don't dig the anti-AP stance from someone who should no longer care. A big reason for that to me is that I don't like in general the effect that bean-counter reasoning has in other aspects of life. And yes, I do think the actions taken against especially non-rule violating APs is originated by this kind of thinking. In my book it is an accounting trick to keep pointing to what the effect of something is on the 'bottom line' ... and that is what they do. Even Teliot had a recent article pointing out that most of the efforts against even card-counters is misplaced, the house spending more money to catch them than they could possibly gain by it. And as Mission points out in an article, that effort is much better spent in tracking and stopping employee cheating.
OK, everybody can hate on me now LOL
*never met him so I guess I mean I like him from his persona that he projects from his writing
No, we love ya OG, you're fine.
Agree with ya, less effort should be spent on any "human interaction" addresses to CC, and more on "self-performing" game protection game designs, which include CSMs and 6:5 and variants. This is better than shoulder-tapping and 86-ing, and frees up resources to focus on all cheating, including internal causes, lest 86-ing become some sort of a positive right of passage.
I know a casino that 86ed the wrong person in a case of mistaken identity, after discovering their mistake the casino never bothered to correct it.
Another case a college student was on spring break and went to a casino with his parents, while watching someone playing bj and talking with him the player and the student were both 86ed. The student didn't know the other player and had never gambled in a casino, yet he was listed as an associate and put in a database of undesirables.
These are just a few examples of how casinos operate.
Quote: HunterhillI was 86ed for hitting 2 royals in 3 days. Another time I was 86ed after hitting 90k in w2gs in 2 days.
I know a casino that 86ed the wrong person in a case of mistaken identity, after discovering their mistake the casino never bothered to correct it.
Another case a college student was on spring break and went to a casino with his parents, while watching someone playing bj and talking with him the player and the student were both 86ed. The student didn't know the other player and had never gambled in a casino, yet he was listed as an associate and put in a database of undesirables.
These are just a few examples of how casinos operate.
This does need to be fixed/improved, and shows the weakness of human identification error in game protection.
This has to be one of the most utterly bizarre and spectacularly delusional things I've ever heard in this strange little corner of the 'net. A very small number of seriously troubled people with significant emotional and metal problems become "fascinated by AP." Equivalent to the those who are "fascinated by" alcoholism. If you do what you do because you like it and doing so benefits you, then that's all well and good. If you are expecting to be widely respected or admired or to be the object of 'fascination' by many people for it, you are shopping for cabbage in a hardware store.Quote:People are fascinated by AP.
As opposed to those who are a sole proprietorship, or limited partnership? It isn't yours; it isn't up to you. It is up to those who created it and own it. Which is certainly a good thing if you imagine incorporation, which is the form of ownership of most small family farms among many other things, has some magic power to give you some weird kind of entitlement to be in it.Quote:....as I'm concerned, if you are a publicly traded Corp., you aren't private anything.
I have played with an edge on your game- should I be 86d because the casino let me bank in ez pai gow?
Also if the math is wrong on a game - fix it
Ez bacc was beatable on the side bet -
If I go to target and use their price match promise should they throw me out because another store he it at below cost? No
Until the corporation is sued for negligence or some other liability.Quote: IbeatyouracesCan the public walk in free of charge? And as far as I'm concerned, if you are a publicly traded Corp., you aren't private anything.
Quote: WizardofnothingDan some of what you say is just out of left field, 6-5 rips people off - it doesn't do anything but make the casino more money...
I have played with an edge on your game- should I be 86d because the casino let me bank in ez pai gow?
No, feel free to play it to death. DEQ states "no banking necessary" (a la the Cannery Group), but if a house allows it at a one-off location, no biggie. But there's no banking edge, as the banker pays commissions. If a casino lets a player bank with no commission, that's a pit implementation error, not a design error. I will talk with DEQ today on this. Thanks for reporting this hole, I'll get some caulk.
Quote: WONAlso if the math is wrong on a game - fix it.
Yes, absolutely true. But this is the argument that the adopters of 6:5 make, as annoying as that is. "More money? Clearly it is from the improved math!" Again, you're dealing with gaming industry people, enough said.
Quote: WONEz bacc was beatable on the side bet -
I'm not behind the Baccarat game, Robin and Paco (Talisman Group) were. I believe in incorporating IAST methodology during game design, for innate game protection.
Quote: Paigowdan
It's clear that I don't have either an optimistic view or an ethical respect for AP players. I state my reasons why I think it is just an alluring quagmire for its practitioners in the end. I know a lot of ex-APs who either got burnt out or just crashed and burned as APs who went on to other areas in gaming to great success. For many, I also thought game designers often lead lives of quiet exasperation in “the relentless denial of the fruitless, silly pursuit” while adamantly subscribing, endorsing and defending it. Ahh, Ruined for life. Personally, I just can’t tow the AP or game design recommendation/endorsement line for most. Failure is the actual experience of a majority of both AP players (wannabes) and game designer (wannabes) - and while the door is closing harder than ever at this point. [Yes, take the bar exam/GMAT/dealer school, what have you, instead….] Add to this a sense or an entitlement of the AP, that “the casinos are evil and are denying our constitutional rights in our Robin Hood-like struggle for some extra cash” in justifying the undermining of their businesses services to the general gambling public. I think neither is a fine recommendation for new members.
The business service of a casino in regards to gambling is to provide games that follow set rules and are not fraudulent. If I happen to play and win at a game where the edge is in my favor, its not "extra cash", its my cash that I have won. If I am playing a game where the house has an edge and I lose money, the house didn't take "extra cash" from me, its theirs that they won. In either case, one party is not "undermining" the other (provided they both follow the rules).
I don't know where you get the idea that casinos are super special and get to be dishonorable because they are casinos. Any other businesses honors any deals they offer, even if it comes as a loss to them. If it so happens the the business cannot sustain the offering of such a deal, in the future they amend the deal so its so favorable or stop offering it in the future.
Quote: IbeatyouracesLet's not have another 20 page thread about this please.
Good luck with that request, lol.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2
The business service of a casino in regards to gambling is to provide games that follow set rules and are not fraudulent.
Exactly. What AP players are in denial about is that these rules absolutely and clearly include card counting, as it is codified and procedural-ized in internal documentation that customers don't get to see - yet are undeniably clear and visible whenever an AP gets backed off or 86-ed, (just as customers don't get to see the Colonel's secret recipe at KFC.)
Quote: DM2If I happen to play and win at a game where the edge is in my favor, its not "extra cash", its my cash that I have won.
Yes it is. If a player had done something that is a) against the house rules as determined by the house, and visible to both surveillance (who are watching the game) and to the player (clearly visible when he gets backed off or 86-ed), and b) implemented by the player precisely to gaff or destroy the house edge that the casino needs to pay its bills, then yeah, this extra cash is the issue.
Quote: DM2If I am playing a game where the house has an edge and I lose money, the house didn't take "extra cash" from me, its theirs that they won. In either case, one party is not "undermining" the other (provided they both follow the rules).
These are different cases. The house edge that you talk about is supposed to be there as a "fee for [gambling] service" (this is exactly what it is and why it is supposed to be there, and a game can't even get approved without a house edge for the operator). When a player attempts to destroy the required house edge it is the AP player who is undermining the fee, not unlike using a counterfeit transit pass or sneaking into the movies.
Quote: DM2I don't know where you get the idea that casinos are super special and get to be dishonorable because they are casinos.
I don't; you're making that accusation about me. I say that a) the casinos are businesses, and that b) the entire goal of the AP player is to thwart or undermine the house edge fee mechanism to obtain extra cash, (and as the AP's focus, interest, or even obsession of the session.) You're not reading this or seeing this because AP advocates have to take the position that a) casinos aren't business, but evil blood-sucking entities, and b) destroying or undermining a business' fee mechanism is righteous to do in these cases. There is no way to subscribe to AP as righteous to do without subscribing to these two basic declarations, and I think this is malarkey. I take this radical position because casinos are legitimate businesses, and have a right to their business fee mechanisms without it being hacked as sport.
Quote: DM2Any other businesses honors any deals they offer, even if it comes as a loss to them.
They generally do honor their deals, it's just that card counting or other AP maneuvers are not a part of this deal, and this is undeniable from their procedures and countermeasures (along with camouflage and cover plays being needed), as is barred APs vulturing a promo.
Quote: DM2If it so happens the the business cannot sustain the offering of such a deal, in the future they amend the deal so its so favorable or stop offering it in the future.
They are in the process of doing this. It's called 6:5 Blackjack and CSM machines.
Quote: WizardofnothingI banked with no commission
Thanks! Caulk applied.
Wow, where to begin... Um, so you're saying the "no counting" rule is clearly included... in their internal documentation that we don't have access to? Perhaps there is a rule in there that states if you're an attractive female you have to show cleavage at the table? HEY, just because you can't read that rule doesn't mean it's not in our INTERNAL rules and you therefor have to abide by it!!!Quote: PaigowdanExactly. What AP players are in denial about is that these rules absolutely and clearly include card counting, as it is codified and procedural-ized in internal documentation that customers don't get to see - yet are undeniably clear and visible whenever an AP gets backed off or 86-ed, (just as customers don't get to see the Colonel's secret recipe at KFC.)...
If you're referring to anything OTHER than their "internal documents" (which have zero baring on the rule presented to the public) then I encourage you to SHOW ME THE RULE against card counting. It's impossible because such a rule would indicate YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH YOUR BRAIN when you play. After all, we all know that's all card counting is, is using your brain.
Quote: RomesWow, where to begin... Um, so you're saying the "no counting" rule is clearly included... in their internal documentation that we don't have access to? Perhaps there is a rule in there that states if you're an attractive female you have to show cleavage at the table? HEY, just because you can't read that rule doesn't mean it's not in our INTERNAL rules and you therefor have to abide by it!!!
No. No AP allowed, and y'all already know it, no explanation aside from "you're too good for us" needed. .
Quote: RomesIf you're referring to anything OTHER than their "internal documents" (which have zero baring on the rule presented to the public) then I encourage you to SHOW ME THE RULE against card counting.
The rule is based on mutual consent: that no two parties are compelled into entering a gambling transaction. If they don't want your action, well, you don't get to play, just as you are not required to play any game at a casino, either. No further explanation is necessary or required by the casino, although all parties know the reason why. You basically get shown the rules when you get shown the door. This is not hard to figure out, especially if you're a fast learner who is using your brain.
Quote: RomesIt's impossible because such a rule would indicate YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH YOUR BRAIN when you play. After all, we all know that's all card counting is, is using your brain.
Clearly, yet for some reason all the ploppies and the floormen seem to think and say, "Look, another genius is getting backed off/ejected from this gambling hall." Particuarly common at the El.
Quote: PaigowdanThe rule is based on mutual consent: that no two parties are compelled into entering a gambling transaction
If you believe this to be true, your conclusion about the casino's acceptance of anyone who can play with a negative house advantage is completely wrong
Anytime someone is able to overcome the house edge, the casino has the option to not take the bet. Yet only a small percentage of the time do they choose not to. Every time that happens and the casino chooses not to backoff the player, the casino is admitting they are perfectly ok with that action. The vast majority of card counters are backed off such a small fraction of the time. There are plenty of blackjack players who earn six figures per year (and many who earn less than that, but still have earnings approaching $100 per hour). The vast majority of the time they play the casino chooses to enter into those transactions.
Quote: Paigowdanmutual consent (for the action) still applies and decides.
Pointing out again that this must mean that every time the casino does not backoff someone who is playing with an edge, the casino is saying that they are perfectly ok with it
Quote: TomGPointing out again that this must mean that every time the casino does not backoff someone who is playing with an edge, the casino is saying that they are perfectly ok with it
Apparently, If they know and agree to it. They might not know if the counter doesn't tell them. So as long as they both (player and house) agree to play that action, the game play happens. The casino may let a know but lousy card counter play. This happens......
Now what if the casino says, "the player placed his action and we booked it. - and what exactly is your issue with that? He wanted to play, and we let him play."
What are you going to say? "But I was counting- AP-ing, and so you're suppose to back me off." The casino can say:
1. "We didn't know - and thanks for telling us now."
2. "You're not suppose to AP - and you know it and you now admit that, and yet you placed your action without telling us this." or....
3. "we do indeed back off card counters - at our discretion. You see this all the time."
I mean, if a casino lets a card counter play and he loses, the casino can also say: "but it was legal!" - and using the very same argument the counter uses. I'm against playing both sides of the fence, but there isn't much a counter can say when he loses. I mean, can a card counter claim, "Listen, I was counting but I still lost. Can you give me a refund?" See what they tell you.
Quote: PaigowdanThey might not know if the counter doesn't tell them.
They absolutely know that every player that sits down at the table will make bets based on the thoughts inside their head. And the casino is almost always ok with it, even when the bets rise and fall with the count.
Quote: PaigowdanI mean, if a casino lets a card counter play and he loses, the casino can also say: "but it was legal!" - and using the very same argument the counter uses. I'm against playing both sides of the fence, but there isn't much a counter can say when he loses. I mean, can a card counter claim, "Listen, I was counting but I still lost. Can you give me a refund?" See what they tell you.
If the casino has a rule against card counting, any bet made by a card counter should be declared no action. Because the casino won't do that, they are making it clear that they are ok accepting action from card counters.
Quote: TomGThey absolutely know that every player that sits down at the table will make bets based on the thoughts inside their head. And the casino is almost always ok with it, even when the bets rise and fall with the count.
No. Not when the bets rise and fall with the count; that's the issue. That's no random thought nor accident here, as surveillance can visibly see this, making this discernable AP actions, and this is a bit more than just fleeting thoughts: actual bets are rising and falling in step with the count - as part of a very visible AP practice.
Quote: TomGIf the casino has a rule against card counting, any bet made by a card counter should be declared no action.
Why should they? Because this is your opinion? The casino may just handle it by backing off card counters when caught (and when determined that this is the best action to take), or....by installing 6:5 blackjack, or by using CSM machines. Actually, they do all of these.
Quote: TomGBecause the casino won't do that, they are making it clear that they are ok accepting action from card counters.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means something different: that they will book the action that is acceptable to them also, just as the player wishes to do, being one of the two parties involved in a gaming event. If a card counter places a bet on the table, then he is declaring that he wants his action accepted by the casino, right? So how is it a problem if the casino accepts the bet?
And if the casino, as part of the two-party consent agreement, doesn't accept the action, then how too is this a problem?
Quote: PaigowdanNo. Not when the bets rise and fall with the count; that's the issue. That's no random thought nor accident here, as surveillance can visibly see this, making this discernable AP actions, and this is a bit more than just fleeting thoughts: actual bets are rising and falling in step with the count - as part of a very visible AP practice.
Now you're contradicting yourself. If the casino can see exactly what the player is doing (and even has the evidence on video) and still accepts the bet, that means they are completely fine with it
Quote: TomGNow you're contradicting yourself. If the casino can see exactly what the player is doing (and even has the evidence on video) and still accepts the bet, that means they are completely fine with it
For that hand, yes. If they book a bet, they can't renege on it. The hand plays. No question on this.
What they can do, if they determine that your play is unacceptable, is to bar you from making any more subsequent bets, after they have determined there is a problem.
This is called a back off. Nothing contradictory here.
Quote: PaigowdanWhat they can do, if they determine that your play is unacceptable, is to bar you from making any more subsequent bets, after they have determined there is a problem.
Everyone is in complete agreement that they can do that. But until they do so, whatever the play is -- even playing with a negative house edge, or raising and lowering bets with the count -- the casino is saying it is perfectly acceptable and welcome.
Quote: TomGEveryone is in complete agreement that they can do that. But until they do so, whatever the play is -- even playing with a negative house edge, or raising and lowering bets with the count -- the casino is saying it is perfectly acceptable and welcome.
Up until (and if) you are backed off. Either you can play or you can't.
Which means they have to pay you if you win, when they had booked your action, yes.
"When a player attempts to destroy the required house edge it is the AP player who is undermining the fee, not unlike using a counterfeit transit pass or sneaking into the movies."
Dan, you make some logical points even though I don't agree with your over-reaching logic. Don't you feel you are over-reaching when you equate winning with your brain, lets say card counting which has stood the test of the courts as to not being illegal, with counterfeiting and sneaking into movies?
If a person was caught sneaking into a movie and it made its way to court would the judge conclude that it was legal to do it but movie theater owners had the right to ban the person? Or counterfeiting transit passes was legal but the transit authority could ban who they wished?
Your view of AP's fits right in with the view of casino personnel in general, i.e. that AP's are criminals, however, this is the very trap that casino personnel continuously fall into. By believing this, they think they are doing a righteous move by back-rooming these audacious criminals and the courts have concluded that it is not criminal and indeed the casinos were the ones acting criminally.
I
It's legal, but it is arguably a legal form of theft of services if it undermines/eliminates the casino's service fee business mechanism, which is the house edge.
Blackjack was implemented long before its game protection issues were known, and when the issues became apparent via Thorpe, the game was both intractable and a sitting duck for exploitation. If casinos close up this hole, and they are doing that, this is to be expected, albeit with complaint from the AP community.
As for "AP-ers are criminals," I have no issue with any AP I know, neither the guys I design casino games with or my mathematician, Charlie Ray CRM. I Couldn't care less.
My personal view is that it is ethically challenged in the way of seeing free movies, getting free rides, getting unpaid food, etc. Yes. Really not very major, but because I don't see eye to eye, I'm a pariah. Some Casino execs see it as theft of service fees, which I can see and agree with in that light.
Do I think Advantage players should be hanged from trees with hoods on their heads while the townspeople gather around with pitchforks and pelt them with rocks? No. A back off or 86-ing? Yes.
Do I think there are many AP players who have an extreme sense of entitlement as to any right to arguably fleece card rooms and gambling halls? Yes, and it's always done with an extreme "it's us Robin Hoods against the Evil Empire who must DIE!" NSR = Never Stop Rationalizing the glory of AP-ing casinos. A tremendous sense of that.
Marriott offers a 25 percent price match /best rate promise.
To make this an ap travel play you simply book a hug. Rate on Marriott website- then search the Internet for the upcoming days to find a cheaper rate, then book it and email to Marriott who will beat it by 25, it may even mean the room is below marriotts cost... Should I be excluded from staying at Marriott for using their own guarantee?
If both THEY and YOU agree to enter into this, then book this bet - and the room.
Enjoy. And order room service.
Marriott put out there rules and I do my homework and brain to get more ev
Casino puts out rules and I do my homework and brain to get. More ev
Quote: WizardofnothingI'm just not sure how you think both examples are not indentical.
There not identical.
One's okay with a hotel company, one's not okay with a casino.
Your "EV method" is okay with one company versus the EV method is not okay with the other company. and the company will let you know.
Listen to what they tell you: "Welcome to Marriott" versus "You need to leave. Security will escort you out."
These two things are not identical, and they indicate which EV plays are okay or nor okay. Take notes if you have to, if it will help learning that they are not quite identical.
EDIT: Would making certain he's not on the jury be considered a +EV move that is reprehensible by PGD?
Quote: darkozWell, everyone, just make sure if you do have a lawsuit with B. Nersessiann representing you in LV that you make certain PaiGowDan is NOT on the jury.
HA!
I swear, "Hang 'em High Danny" does not even get jury summonses anymore, so I think you're okay.
Although I have no inside knowledge, I am sure casinos perfectly understand the statistics of the games they offer. I'm also sure they analyze their games to look for scenarios where there are outlier events (from a statistical perspective). Some outlier events are due to Lady Luck, some are due to AP, and some are due to cheating. Although the player (likely) knows their situation, the casino may not know for sure. They can analyze betting/play history & study the player to try and assign probabilities to the 3 possibilities. Clearly, if it's Lady Luck, the casino should not intervene since allowing the player to make additional bets is in the best interest of the casino. However, in the other two situations, it's in the best interest of the casino to back off/bar the player.
This is an exercise in Bayesian probability theory. The casino knows the person is winning excessively and has to make a judgment as to the reason. Since the cost of making the correct assessment 100% of the time is too expensive and time consuming, there will be cases where the casino will incorrectly bar someone just because they are winning too much. Why? To protect the bottom line.
I appreciate that this may seem unjust to some. But, in my opinion, it's just good business sense. If casinos knew that no one was cheating or trying to get an advantage, then they would never back anyone off. We all know that cheaters exist and AP exists.
Quote: MBThe casino is a business. Like all businesses, the purpose of a casino's existence is to make a profit for the owners (e.g. shareholders). Anyone who is consistently winning *may* represent a threat to the casino's ability to generate profits.
Although I have no inside knowledge, I am sure casinos perfectly understand the statistics of the games they offer. I'm also sure they analyze their games to look for scenarios where there are outlier events (from a statistical perspective). Some outlier events are due to Lady Luck, some are due to AP, and some are due to cheating. Although the player (likely) knows their situation, the casino may not know for sure. They can analyze betting/play history & study the player to try and assign probabilities to the 3 possibilities. Clearly, if it's Lady Luck, the casino should not intervene since allowing the player to make additional bets is in the best interest of the casino. However, in the other two situations, it's in the best interest of the casino to back off/bar the player.
This is an exercise in Bayesian probability theory. The casino knows the person is winning excessively and has to make a judgment as to the reason. Since the cost of making the correct assessment 100% of the time is too expensive and time consuming, there will be cases where the casino will incorrectly bar someone just because they are winning too much. Why? To protect the bottom line.
I appreciate that this may seem unjust to some. But, in my opinion, it's just good business sense. If casinos knew that no one was cheating or trying to get an advantage, then they would never back anyone off. We all know that cheaters exist and AP exists.
Just because its good business sense doesn't make it just. I mean take NJ for example, the Casino Control Commission says that:
"The success and ongoing viability of the gaming industry remains inextricably linked to the public's confidence that the State of New Jersey will ensure that people in the industry possess good character, honesty and integrity. Stewardship over that public confidence is a principal responsibility of the Commission and its Chairman. "
Backing off players is not of good character, honesty, integrity, or give confidence to the public. Do to the high regulatory nature, its not like players can get together to make their alternative place to play where all players are treated fairly. In this environment I would expect the powers to be to step in and say treating players like this is not ok.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2Just because its good business sense doesn't make it just. I mean take NJ for example, the Casino Control Commission says that:
"The success and ongoing viability of the gaming industry remains inextricably linked to the public's confidence that the State of New Jersey will ensure that people in the industry possess good character, honesty and integrity. Stewardship over that public confidence is a principal responsibility of the Commission and its Chairman. "
Backing off players is not of good character, honesty, integrity, or give confidence to the public. Do to the high regulatory nature, its not like players can get together to make their alternative place to play where all players are treated fairly. In this environment I would expect the powers to be to step in and say treating players like this is not ok.
True. Backing off players is at the very least off putting and ugly for any business, and gives opening to litigation if mishandled. But if warranted, it is done, and should be done politely and correctly. The El Cortez - notorious for back offs to the point of lunacy, seems to have no real business issues, no less the strip properties and local properties with an occasional back off or expulsion. Back offs seem to not only be okay, but less of an issue as time goes by. Keep in mind that if a player is flat-betted, barred from BJ, or even asked/told to leave, this is usually not a major issue to do when needed. If a criminal cheating event happens, then yes, police are called.
New Jersey has a rare right to play position, where BJ conditions are not desirable. If an "absolutely no back off" scenario were to come to be, it may give such global 6:5/CSM/50% penetration/flat-betted conditions that AP would be impossible. Keep in mind that in order for no AP back offs to occur, then basically few or no AP conditions to AP would be present.
