Getting backed off / 86'd / barred / restricted / etc for winning

" The very fact that Advantage Play even exists proves that they think it is often times acceptable. " Shop lifting exists also.

Quote: TomG

Just because someone has played with an Advantage for many hours doesn't mean they'll be backed off. It's their call to make. The very fact that Advantage Play even exists proves that they think it is often times acceptable. Obviously that's too difficult for you to understand.

I understand it just fine. This is how it works: The very fact that Advantage Play even exists proves that they think it is often times acceptable if they can make a profit from a poor card counter. This is why they instead say "your play is just too good for us." That's different.

Quote: Paigowdan

.

So you don't mind being friends with people who you believe are "parasites", "cheaters", "scammers, "RIPPING OFF CASINOS"? What does the people you work with think about you liking, and or hanging out with and having friendships with individuals who are possibly doing, and have done many of the things you fit into some of the above categories?

I'm confused because you said you have very little respect for AP's or something like that. Yes you consider AP ripping of the casinos. Most normal people tend to not consider "parasites", "cheaters" and "scammers, good people or actually be friends with them.

The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you don't actually believe what you preach, it's all just a persona. I'll compare it to the persona of someone like Jimmy Hart the Mouth of the South from pro wrestling.

I actually think you're a closet AP lover however that probably wouldn't sit well with the people in the casino industry considering what you do.

----------------------------------------------------------

I'll say this again, If not for Advantage players I bet Blackjack wouldn't be as popular as it is/was. I guarantee if people didn't actually think that there were ways to actually get an advantage and beat the house there wouldn't be nearly as many gamblers. Most people are not in casinos for a little bit of entertainment like going to the movies or a show.

Even many of the little old ladies playing slots believe they have some special system that helps them win. Things as simple as "that machine just hit a jackpot don't play it" Or "those machines don't pay well that's a house machine" "That progressive VP machine never gets that high, it's due to hit" "that a bad machine it's cold" The casino switched dealers because we were winning to much, i'm moving tables" "I been playing in Vegas for x years I know the best machines"

Many people even believe the casinos have certain machines set to win. People think the casinos set machines to to all win or lose at will. I know people that absolutely believe certain times of the day you have a better chance to win. They will only play during them times. That sounds like attempted AP to me.

Oftentimes they are trying to AP they all want to be advantage players, however they just don't know the difference between fact or fiction. They don't understand exactly how to advantage play.

Yes they know the house always wins, however they think they know something different, they actually think they can overcome the HA if they *PLAY SMART*. The use of money management is an attempt at advantage play.

It's rare that someone comes to Vegas with the thinking they are happy losing or winning because it's a form of entertainment like the movies. Sure we have many non AP people here that know all of that stuff is bunk and they are happy giving up some EV for entertainment knowing they don't or can't have an advantage. That's rare.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I would bet you if you told the average gambler/person that the reason they have crappie paytables and get less value in vegas is because of Advantage players who count cards, play only positive games and even legally break the unwritten casino rules and you explained exactly how. A large majority of people would say they were fine with it and they would encourage the right to AP within the law. They would find it outrageous that casinos are allowed to exclude people for legally beating the casinos. Most people would take advantage of hole carding opportunities.

There's a reason Advantage Play is one of the most talked about gambling subject.

Advantage Players have made gambling more popular and enticing. Especially with movies like 21. All the books and websites talking about AP. It's doubtful you would even be in the gambling business if not for advantage players.

Advantage players give everyone hope that there's actually a way to win and beat the casinos.

Quote: Paigowdan

I understand it just fine. This is how it works: The very fact that Advantage Play even exists proves that they think it is often times acceptable if they can make a profit from a poor card counter. This is why they instead say "your play is just too good for us." That's different.

You are just defending your illogical position by finding even more illogical ideas. If it is true that Advantage Play will result in a backoff, there would be very little profits from Advantage Play. According to this, counting cards before getting backed off should earn about as much money as the free play you get when you sign up for a players card. If Advantage Players are told to stop playing, Advantage Play does virtually nothing to circumvent any fees casino's charge.

Quote: Paigowdan

I understand it just fine. This is how it works: The very fact that Advantage Play even exists proves that they think it is often times acceptable if they can make a profit from a poor card counter. This is why they instead say "your play is just too good for us." That's different.

Deleted
But why did I delete it?
Don't ask me, ask yourself after you read it again ;-)

Quote: Paigowdan

No one defends what they do. If you're committed to doing something, you own it.


So were we taught. We didn't think card counting was clever, it was as old as the hills. We shut APs out because of loss prevention, much in the same way that Walmart tries to shut down shop lifting and pilferage, as loss prevention for business operations.

We weren't taught to admire APs. Everyone just did, because that's how 99% of people see it. Not that it's an admirable position in general or that they are heroes, but people see the movie 21 and think, "wow, that's pretty cool." Not, "poor, innocent Steve Wynn!"

Quote: Paigowdan

The unusual and radical claims made here we a) employing AP maneuvers at a casino isn't gambling, much in the same way that shoplifting at Walmart isn't shopping, it's a loss prevention issue, and b) that AP is generally justified as righteous (and that the casinos are evil and so deserve it) by using the claim
"We're exploiting the exploiters, it's our crusade for extra money, so it isn't really a scam!"

LOL. Elementary schools try to keep solicitors who'd like to talk to the teachers off their property, just like they do child molesters. So I guess it's the same thing.

Again, these elaborate justifications exist mainly in your mind. Most people don't see AP as inherently immoral and needing justification. As others observed, it's like extreme couponing or beating credit card promos. It might feel extra good because you are beating a dirty business. But the main point there is pointing out the hypocrisy of someone in that business condemning APs.

I'll concede that I'd feel better about taking money of some people than others in any scenario. I'd rather beat an obnoxious rich guy at poker than a minimum wage worker. If I'm buying a car off a little old lady, I might feel compelled to give her a better price than I could negotiate. That doesn't mean I think playing poker, or haggling about car prices are inherently bad.

Quote: Paigowdan

No. It is sabotaging the business' service fee mechanism for personal profit by using disallowed techniques that's immoral. Not majorly immoral, but minor, petty. I play with a house edge, and pay the admission cover at movies also.

Sabotaging? That would be like, screwing up a machine. That would be both immoral and illegal. Nobody has mentioned that.

Quote: Paigowdan

You don't have to do things that benefit society, and as you say here about righteous AP play, "I see no moral obligation to earn an income in a way that benefits society." You admitting an aspect that the AP fleecing of casino businesses benefits society none. But it's when you become parasitic instead of neutral that a negative is introduced, - as someone actually pays for APs personal profit, and that someone is the casinos and the good faith recreational players, the real customers.


Because it isn't true, AP play isn't comparable to sitting on the couch watching a ball game.


I agree with you that fleecing gambling halls is not a right occupation. But it's not neutral in nature, - good faith players, casino workers, management and stockholders have to pay for it, the AP income is paid for by other people.


If you honestly believe this then don't ever walk into a casino establishment pretending to be a customer when your own intention is to try to rip them off, at least as they view it.

Unless you are using it specifically as an insult, a parasite can be good, neutral or negative. So just saying someone is a parasite doesn't mean much. I think APs are neutral parasites. They don't help many, people with their work. Maybe employees that they tip. As Axel observed, they might help the casino industry as a whole, because people know it is possible to win at sports, poker, BJ, VP, etc. But, certainly, they don't go in the same bucket as teachers, doctors and firemen.

That's not a bad thing. As I said, the claim: "you must make a positive contribution to society, SPECIFICALLY in how you make money, is almost certainly indefensible. Welcome you to try.

Someone sitting on a couch watching TV is contributing little to nothing to society, AP work contributes little to nothing. Doing an activity that contributes little to nothing to society isn't a bad thing. The only thing that arguably might be bad is leading a life that contributes little to nothing.

I don't care how the casino views it. That might be the essence of this. You think that your subjective viewpoint should dictate how the world works. Like, if I buy and sell rare coins, can I just hang up a sign saying that nobody who is better at identifying coin values than I am is allowed in my store? Or if they are, they must tell me upfront, "you have undervalued this coin and I am going to make a killing off it. Would you still like to sell it to me?" Come on.

Quote: Paigowdan

I'm in the business of designing entertaining products for casino suppliers and their legitimate customers, the casinos and the gambling public, not for AP players. I don't view gamblers as having "cognitive, emotional or psychological defects" as you put it. If you're saying that AP players don't have these cognitive, emotional or psychological defects but gamblers do, then you're saying AP players are really not gamblers, a contention that I was making. If you're saying that AP players are gamblers, then they also must have these same cognitive, emotional or psychological defects.


Most players are perfectly healthy with gambling, outside of the strip, too.


Gambling can be addictive as well as handled well. This is up to the individual, same as with alcohol. You make casinos and gambling halls sound like [heroin] shooting galleries, and this is malarkey.

The majority of people who participate in gambling at least once do so in a more or less healthy way. The majority of people playing a particular game in the US at any given time is another story. The source of the majority of revenue is still another.

It is not a normal or healthy desire to wish to spend thousands of hours playing a repetitive game that costs you amounts of money that are significant to you. If you asked a future gambling addict, before he got hooked, if that was the life he wanted, he would almost certainly say, "no." If video games or board games cost as much as gambling, they'd have few customers.

If you think gambling is closer to restaurants than heroin, you are simply deluding yourself. As I observed, it's worse than alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol really can be fun for most people. And it can taste good. Many of us look back upon even the dangerous binge drinking of our youth as a great time. Almost nobody who lost large sums of money at the tables does that. Nobody enjoys losing a day's pay with their dinner. Tobacco mostly harms only the user, while gambling harms those around the user as well.

Again, I personally, had most of my savings depleted by a problem gambler. I was left on the hook for the full lease on a home when I moved in expecting to pay half. My credit was destroyed. As a worker on an hourly wage, this set me back years. That's not an exaggeration.

Now, I'm not on some vendetta against casinos. I never made the connection until moments before writing it in this thread, or even blamed the casino industry as a whole for what happened. How could I, since the savings I lost came from that industry?

But that's the business you are in and that's where your money comes from. I mean, you really think that a parent losing thousands of dollars a year gambling doesn't have a negative impact on their kids? Or do you really think that the casino industry is built on millions of people spending a few hundred bucks once or twice a year?

Like most moralists, you seem to be the one projecting/deflecting. That' the point. NOT that AP would be immoral in my mind, but it is OK only because gambling is a dirty, exploitative business.

Quote: Paigowdan

I doubt if anyone committed suicide after a session of Heads Up Hold 'em, Three Card Prime or EZ Pai Gow, as awesome and as wonderful as I'd like to think these "killer" games are. I would also think I have some company with Derek Webb, Geoff Hall, and Roger Snow and other members in this games developer group. We're probably get together at Binion's Steakhouse when Geoff is in town in the coming weeks, but it will not be any sort of an Axis of Evil Dinner a la Thank you for Smoking or something...we just make games, and it is not like setting up a Meth Lab like Walter White. For that matter, what if a shift manager commits suicide because he was fired after an AP team cleaned out the joint when he was on duty? Is AP righteous there?
I don't think we're in the same league as the guy who invented crack, or the Japanese chemist who invented Methamphetamine in 1919, or the Scotsman who blends a great single malt, (or Henry Ford or Walter Chrysler for bad driving deaths.) Forget about Perdue Pharma and their product OxyContin. I'm tiddlywinks.
As a matter of fact, a Philippine lady who hit the $250,000 progressive on EZ Pai Gow at the East Side Cannery came to my work when I was dealing and told me she paid off her house. Good for her. (She bought in on Pai Gow there and told me the story.) Ultimately people are responsible for their own gambling habits (as with their own driving habits), we just try to make good products.

Self-deception. Plenty of gamblers kill themselves. When I worked at at Hawaiian Gardens a guy did it in the parking lot. Another person was murdered after hitting a jackpot. Gambling has been seen as a destructive force in pretty much every culture as long as it's been around.

Google "gambling suicide."

Wiki: In the United States, a report by the National Council on Problem Gambling showed approximately one in five pathological gamblers attempt suicide


I don't think that makes you, or the casinos, or me, evil. Though, it is something to think about and come to terms with as it pertains to your own morality, rather than pointing the finger at others.

I think it's just part of life. Maybe a morally perfect person would have nothing to do with gambling. I don't know, maybe advertising gambling should be illegal, or gambling should be constrained more tightly to certain areas. Maybe it should be illegal for casinos to have ATMs or cash paychecks. But neither you nor I make the rules or are morally perfect.

Point is, for someone who profits directly off of that, to morally condemn others for counting cards is insane. Unless you have some stats on shift managers who kill themselves because someone beat a video poker promotion on their watch. In my experience, casino employees are far more likely to have negative outcomes from their own problem gambling.

Quote: Paigowdan

I spend it on family vacations, cars, my wife's business, playing craps, and other good things without getting over my head....Again people are responsible for themselves. Gamble if you want - and can handle it.

Yeah, APs spend their money on stuff too. But it comes at the direct and minor expense of a corporate bottom line, not some kid's Christmas. Open a casino if you want, and can handle it.

Quote: Rig

Point is, for someone who profits directly off of that, to morally condemn others for counting cards is insane.

No it's not. One can just as easily declare Walmart a predatory outfit just to justify their own shoplifting there, that's what's going on here; likewise, by declaring gaming services evil or the cause of suicide, you're again justifying AP "better than, or not as bad as, feeding of off these gaming services." This ignores all aspects of feeding off of others as righteous by claiming the other is the immoral one also. If you're feeding off of someone that you claim is immoral, then arguably you're immoral also, a key in this evil lock. It's like saying "I'm doing something good by feeding off of people I declare as bad to justify it all."

Axle, you are WRONG !

The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you don't actually believe what you preach, it's all just a persona. I'll compare it to the persona of someone like Jimmy Hart the Mouth of the South from pro wrestling.


Dan is just Dan. What you see is what you get. I don't understand it either. We come from similar backgrounds, but have arrived at directly opposed opinions about AP. Yet I have no choice but to respect with his opinion. Agree with it, Never.

But I put Dan on the good guys list, a straight shooter, who to the best of my knowledge has never failed to help any game developer who sought his advice.

Quote: ernestmiddle

Axle, you are WRONG !

.

You have zero proof im wrong, because you can't know what he's actually thinking, unless you have some kind of special abilities.

There's no doubt in my mind Dan likes to overstate his views on AP especially with comparing card counters with cheaters.

There no way he can be so blind as to think casinos are outstanding moral places of entertainment especially compared to going to the movies or a sports event.

I'm certain he loves to purposely rile up the forum with controversial statements. I think he likes playing "the bad guy"

If you can't actually be "the good guy". Yes I'm using the good guy reference for AP's (So sue me) It's better to play the bad guy than not play at all.

Quote: AxelWolf

You have zero proof im wrong, because you can't know what he's actually thinking, unless you have some kind of special abilities.

There's no doubt in my mind Dan likes to overstate his views on AP especially with comparing card counters with cheaters.

Ernie got it right, I say my points very plainly without overstatement: 1. AP maneuvers aren't really gambling, and 2. AP play is feeding off of gambling halls, justified by call them evil.

Quote: AW

There no way he can be so blind as to think casinos are outstanding moral places of entertainment especially compared to going to the movies or a sports event.

Here I am also very plain: Casinos are simply legitimate businesses that have a right to loss prevention actions.

Quote: AW

I'm certain he loves to purposely rile up the forum with controversial statements. I think he likes playing "the bad guy"

There are no bad guys or good guys, there are just differing points of view. You're breaking out into camps, and for a reason.

Dan, if casinos are entitled to the house edge, but a player plays a poor strategy and gives up twice the house edge, does he deserve half his money back for paying too much of a "service fee". Your position seems extremely hypocritical if you say no.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/25770-sports-book-operator-accused-of-shortchanging-bettors/#post531603

Gotta love it.

Cantor gaming basically caught red handed. And people claim gaming companies wouldn't dare risk their reputations and risk getting caught.

Congrats to Axel for 10K MEANINGFUL posts!

Quote: DeMango

Congrats to Axel for 10K MEANINGFUL posts!

Hmm I didn't know I had 10k, I rarely pay attention to that or notice . I knew I had 9k++, but didn't think to pay attention.

I wouldn't even know what to say. I'd probably just say thanks to everyone and I have enjoyed posting and meeting many awesome, helpful and supportive people here.

Quote: mcallister3200

Dan, if casinos are entitled to the house edge, but a player plays a poor strategy and gives up twice the house edge, does he deserve half his money back for paying too much of a "service fee". Your position seems extremely hypocritical if you say no.

Now you're saying players must play a strategy game by a house way here in order to collect on a win, are you?
It would be hypocritical if players were forced to use a house way on strategy games (like you have to hit if you're less than 17), instead of playing as they see fit.

Secondly, if players played poorly and won, could the house say, "You played badly and STILL won - so give it back - you aren't supposed to win playing like that!" Ridiculous. Quite often in Pai Gow Poker I play a hand like KKKKA75 as AK/KKKxx or AJJJJ43 as Ax/JJJJx - using my own strategy instead of the house way splitting face card pairs, and I'd beat a pair of aces with an ace up, or two pairs with an ace up this way. If I had lost I was gambling, the whole point.

Furthermore, the issue of strategy is irrelevant to roulette, craps, and baccarat, and nearly irrelevant to Three Card Poker.

I can see this argument for a few games like Double Draw Poker, where you need a flow chart or schematic to play the game, and such games of tricky strategy die of their own accord.

Quote: AW

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/25770-sports-book-operator-accused-of-shortchanging-bettors/#post531603

Gotta love it.

Cantor gaming basically caught red handed. And people claim gaming companies wouldn't dare risk their reputations and risk getting caught.

Terrible to see anyone - anyone - pulling this crap.

Quote: Paigowdan

It would be hypocritical if players were forced to use a house way on strategy games (like you have to hit if you're less than 17), instead of playing as they see fit.
.

That is all you needed to say to prove my point that your stance on AP is ridiculous. The beginners advantage play, card counting, IS basic strategy (I am not saying all card counters are beginners, just that it is the usual first step, at least for table players)

Quote: mcallister3200

That is all you needed to say to prove my point that your stance on AP is ridiculous. The beginners advantage play, card counting, IS basic strategy (I am not saying all card counters are beginners, just that it is the usual first step, at least for table players)

This doesn't prove your point.
1. Blackjack was offered originally as a safe, un-gaffable game until Thorpe blew its cover. From there, casinos had the option of either removing the game, leaving craps, baccarat and roulette to play, or to allow the game with non-counting play allowed and enforced, which is generally done to this day. (This also means it is not a God-given or constitutional right to feed off the game via card counting. The casino has a say in this, and they have a right to have a say in this.) In other words, card counting isn't basic strategy, and a back off for counting cards is proof of this.
2. If the discovery of counting vulnerabilities were figured out and addressed early with CSMs or 6:5 BJ or both, counting would be a non-ssue on BJ today, which is precisely the direction we are belatedly heading into the future.

Quote: Paigowdan

Here I am also very plain: Casinos are simply legitimate businesses that have a right to loss prevention actions.

You have confused rights with obligations.

Lots of casinos think your ideas of game protection are wrong. We know with near absolute certainty that they disagree with you because Advantage Play is both possible and profitable.

Quote: TomG

You have confused rights with obligations.

Lots of casinos think your ideas of game protection are wrong.

Then play at those casinos until you can retire, good for you. That's true for some.
But a lot agree. I even think the El Cortez backs people off as sport, kind of like an inverse AP acolyte kind of thing. And I've never seen a casino back off a player from 6:5 or a CSM, so it's probably okay there, too.

Quote: TomG

We know with near absolute certainty that they disagree with you because Advantage Play is both possible and profitable.

No....it's when an AP wannabes lose they may let it happen ad infinitum. I Don't agree with action that but what can I tell ya.

Quote: Paigowdan

Then play at those casinos until you can retire, good for you.

That's the plan. And that's exactly what causes you to whine so much about Advantage Players breaking some sort of rules that only exist inside your head.

Quote: Paigowdan

No....it's when an AP wannabes lose they may let it happen ad infinitum. I Don't agree with action that but what can I tell ya.

If that was the only time it happened there would be no possible way to earn profits from Advantage Play. Yet you are forever contradicting yourself by saying that earning profits from Advantage Play destroys some sort of casino mechanism.

Quote: DeMango

Congrats to Axel for 10K MEANINGFUL posts!

Congrats from me too, BUT;
Double posts shouldn't add to the total ;-)
Having a 'team' post in your name is impressive, but gets you another Rascal point ;-)
10K is an impressive number, even if you got half of them on triple point/post Thursdays ;-)

Quote: DeMango

Congrats to Axel for 10K MEANINGFUL posts!

Need to tread carefully past any century marks. Long tradition here.

ROB SINGER 199 3/28/2011
AHIGH 4999 12-18-15

Quote: TomG

That's the plan, [to AP at casinos who tolerate it]. And that's exactly what causes you to whine so much about Advantage Players breaking some sort of rules that only exist inside your head.

If some casinos allow AP, as you say, that shows that it's the casino's call to make, and if they don't allow it, then that also shows that its the casino's call to make on this.

Quote: TomG

If that was the only time it happened there would be no possible way to earn profits from Advantage Play. Yet you are forever contradicting yourself by saying that earning profits from Advantage Play destroys some sort of casino mechanism.

It destroys the game's house edge mechanism, which is what they depend on to pay their bills. Blackjack composes less of the table games pit that it formerly did, so it's less of an issue. Depends on what the casino will allow.

Quote: ernestmiddle

Need to tread carefully past any century marks. Long tradition here.

ROB SINGER 199 3/28/2011
AHIGH 4999 12-18-15

Thanks Buzz!

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Congrats from me too, BUT;
Double posts shouldn't add to the total ;-)
Having a 'team' post in your name is impressive, but gets you another Rascal point ;-)
10K is an impressive number, even if you got half of them on triple point/post Thursdays ;-)

Remember the comedian Paul Lynde? Reincarnated first as Buzz, then you!

Quote: DeMango

Thanks Buzz!

? Confused here. A joke? Buzz doesn't mean Buzzard? Or have mods not officially nuked a dupe account yet?

Quote: Paigowdan

If some casinos allow AP, as you say, that shows that it's the casino's call to make, and if they don't allow it, then that also shows that its the casino's call to make on this.

Exactly. If they do allow Advantage Play, avoiding their service fees completely acceptable and not breaking any rules. If they do not allow Advantage Play, backoffs will ensure that Advantage Players earn almost no profits

Quote: TomG

Exactly. If they do allow Advantage Play, avoiding their service fees completely acceptable and not breaking any rules. If they do not allow Advantage Play, backoffs will ensure that Advantage Players earn almost no profits

So, AP income is dependent on either the casino actually allowing it, or the casino not catching it, basically.

Not at all!!!!!!!!!


Plenty of opportunity that is just sitting there for the taking

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Not at all!!!!!!!!!


Plenty of opportunity that is just sitting there for the taking

It's a delicate balance. To maximize profits, casinos offer games with AP opportunities. The actual cost of eliminating AP exceeds the benefit. Therefore, AP will likely always exist.

Quote: MB

It's a delicate balance. To maximize profits, casinos offer games with AP opportunities. The actual cost of eliminating AP exceeds the benefit. Therefore, AP will likely always exist.

As long as humans are designing and implementing games AP will exist, because their humans, and humans are mistake prone

Quote: Paigowdan

So, AP income is dependent on either the casino actually allowing it, or the casino not catching it, basically.

Now you're getting it. However, all Advantage Play comes on games the casino chooses to offer and the odds they choose to pay out while being recorded on their surveillance. If the casino isn't catching it, it is because they choose to allow it.

Quote: TomG

Now you're getting it. However, all Advantage Play comes on games the casino chooses to offer and the odds they choose to pay out while being recorded on their surveillance. If the casino isn't catching it, it is because they choose to allow it.

How does one not "choose to allow it"? Or, stated more clearly, how does one forbid it?

Quote: mcallister3200

As long as humans are designing and implementing games AP will exist, because their [sic] humans, and humans are mistake prone

This is an interest game design area.

Virtually all new games prior to 2005 or so did not consider game protection; if a game was shoe based or machine-dealt, it had some vulnerabilities. Games like Red Flex, Lucky Ladies, even UTH and other community board games were designed only based on a combination of fun factor and base house edge math. If it had inherent game protection, it was due to design luck.
Red Flex and Lucky ladies were obviously countable. Red Flex is virtually non-existent now and Lucky Ladies adjusted the pay tables ages ago to where a higher HE eclipsed the AP edge.
UTH/MS and other community board games were vulnerable to hole-carding/edge sorting, as the community board was removed from the I-deal machine prior to being played, so an opportunity to glean cards that were needed later in game play was possible. Now UTH is often hand-dealt, and if an issue with packet-dealing machines, the community board can be presented later via reprogramming.

Game protection is now generally done in the game design stage, so as to be included as intrinsic with the game, where:
1. dealing procedures are examined as to when to draw out cards that are needed later in play, and
2. In shoe-dealt games, key card vulnerabilities are examined, and key-cards are neutralized by pay table (not necessarily house edge) adjustment where different win triggers can balance out multiple key cards effects. Also done is making a game single round dealt instead of shoe game dealt.
Among other considerations, such as collusion.

Still, a lot of game designers don't do this, but more do so today. In this case various game protection consultants heed warnings on a per-game basis if getting popular.

Dan , I know of two casinos that have 10000 percent countable side bets which should have been adjusted limit wise to counter but they did not....but they kick you out if you count. But regardless they are offering a bet that they clearly know they are losers on,,,,,why?because most people don't use there brain so in Essenes the casino is just saying .... We are smarter then most and if you are smarter we 86 you

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Dan , I know of two casinos that have 10000 percent countable side bets which should have been adjusted limit wise to counter but they did not....but they kick you out if you count. But regardless they are offering a bet that they clearly know they are losers on,,,,,why?because most people don't use there brain so in Essenes the casino is just saying .... We are smarter then most and if you are smarter we 86 you

Yes. Many casinos will risk it to choose to 86 a few players on a countable side bet in order to offer that bet for non-counting gamblers. Personally I'm against doing this, as there are many good, trouble-free side bets that won't be AP-ed.

So basically if you wanna gamble, you gotta do it the "house way"?

Quote: TomG

Now you're getting it. However, all Advantage Play comes on games the casino chooses to offer and the odds they choose to pay out while being recorded on their surveillance. If the casino isn't catching it, it is because they choose to allow it.

They don't always know they are getting hit, it really depends on the situation.

In order to get rid of AP.....
Casinos would have to offer nothing extra and slash all their percentages to AP unplayable, get rid of progressives,bonus banking machines, close all holes on tables and never run promotions.

It's hard for a casino to entice gamblers to play in if they don't offer good games or something extra like promotions, mail, comps etc etc. If they get rid of all that they will eventually go out of business. Don't forget about all the competition. Some other casino will see they are lacking incentives and steal their old customers by offering good deals.

I highly doubt Dan will ever get his wish of an AP free Ploppy casino Land (3 to 1 BJ's for everyone!!!)

Quote: Paigowdan

Personally I'm against doing this, as there are many good, trouble-free side bets that won't be AP-ed.

Probably not. You're just unaware of it. Either way oftentimes the only way to have something interesting enough to be successful it probably means it's exploitable.

Quote: RS

So basically if you wanna gamble, you gotta do it the "house way"?

There is no house way on a side bet to follow or not. You gotta do it without getting caught counting it. That's different.

Quote: AxelWolf

Probably not. You're just unaware of it. Either way oftentimes the only way to have something interesting enough to be successful it probably means it's exploitable.

I'm aware of it, and I am sometimes surprised by casinos' selections. Interesting and exploitable are two different things. The most exploitable games (Lucky Ladies, Red Flex) are in fact actually very simple. UTH, a very interesting game, is not exploitable if community cards are not dealt until they're needed.

Quote: Paigowdan

There is no house way on a side bet to follow or not. You gotta do it without getting caught counting it. That's different.

I wasn't talking about a side bet. If I play blackjack, a carnival game, or video poker, you make it seem like I have to follow the house way of playing (i.e.: the way they intend you play) so they can make their money. Well, players allowed to play how they like (they can double down on hard 12 if they wish). But if I want to play how I want to play, that's not acceptable to the casino? They don't allow good players to play, but they allow and encourage awful players to play how they wish. To me, it seems like the casino preys on the weak.

The casino offers a game, says, "Come on in, try to beat us", and when they actually do get beaten, they throw out the player, "You're too good for us." Sooooo.....they only want bad players in their casino? I wonder what an ad would look like for this scenario, where they only want bad players...

Quote: RS

I wasn't talking about a side bet. If I play blackjack, a carnival game, or video poker, you make it seem like I have to follow the house way of playing (i.e.: the way they intend you play) so they can make their money.

No I don't. The dealer has to follow the house way, as the house dealer may not play a non-standard arbitrary game way. He has to hit until hard 17 or higher, always, while the player may vary play strategy. However, the player plays his hand as he sees fit; I even described how I use alternate (non-house way) methods of playing the hands KKKKAxx and JJJJAxx when I play.

Quote: RS

Well, players allowed to play how they like (they can double down on hard 12 if they wish). But if I want to play how I want to play, that's not acceptable to the casino? They don't allow good players to play, but they allow and encourage awful players to play how they wish.

Players may vary play strategy as much as they want with: hit and stand and split and double down - as they see fit, sure. But card counting isn't card play strategy, it's varying bet size with the count for profit, and be cause for a back off from the game.

Quote: RS

To me, it seems like the casino preys on the weak

I've seen some buffet and steak house pricing that made me think that.

Quote: RS

The casino offers a game, says, "Come on in, try to beat us", and when they actually do get beaten, they throw out the player, "You're too good for us." Sooooo.....they only want bad players in their casino? I wonder what an ad would look like for this scenario, where they only want bad players...

They say come play, not come and AP. They want players who don't breach their house rules against AP, if they have them and most do. I don't consider basic strategy bad play, I consider playing JJJJAK7 as JJ/JJAK7 instead of AK/JJJJ7 in Pai Gow Poker, and playing the Field bet in craps poorer play.

Part of playing (strategy) for many is the size of their wager. Some people's strategy is to bet more when they're winning, "riding the streak", others bet more when they're losing (martingale / win-it-back), others raise or lower their bets based on intuition or feel. Some are aggressive, others not so much. Some (rare, I think) hardly change the size of their wager at all.

Or are you telling me I have to bet the way the house wants/expects me to bet?

Dan lucky ladies isn't the best - or even close

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Dan lucky ladies isn't the best - or even close

I know, - the HE is banged up high because of game protection reasons, but it is popular.

So Dan, if the HE is the casinos service fee format, how do you feel about someone who comes in, gambles one time, wins a significant amount and then never returns. He has not paid a service fee, correct?

Person A comes in and gambles slots, wins a large amount then leaves with his profits.

Person B comes in, uses his brain at card counting, wins a large amount then leaves with his profits.

Neither person has paid your so-called service fee. Even if you argue that every game results in a loss (the player underpaid due to the HE so that a winning session is still a losing session) that would be true of card counting as well. Using your brain does not change the order of the cards or the inherent mathematics of the game.

Not to back dan up but that player still paid the fee
Just like if you played one hand of bj for 10k and hit bj you still paid the fee in the house edge

Quote: darkoz

So Dan, if the HE is the casinos service fee format, how do you feel about someone who comes in, gambles one time, wins a significant amount and then never returns. He has not paid a service fee, correct?

No, he has indeed paid his fee, that's the thing. He won slightly less than he would have if he had played at true odds or had played with a player advantage, but would have lost his full units IF he had lost. This difference provides the house edge the casino needs to pay its bills so people can come in and play (or even take shots).

He played with the house edge in place with its risk, and still won, not trying to defeat the house edge or playing without a house edge, regardless of whether he won or lost.

Quote: darkoz

Neither person has paid your so-called service fee.

Yes they have; by playing against the house edge, the service fee was in place and was risked by the player, - even if he won, because he won slightly less. If he had lost, he would have lost the same full wagering units. That's how the house edge works: you win less than true odds, (or you pay a commission) when you win, but you lose the same units. The house makes it's money over many hands and players, so even if he left while ahead, he paid his fee by receiving slightly less on his wins.

You see, playing with a house edge present is playing with the service fee present, and you can still win. You can also still lose with a player's edge too. But the issue is playing with a house edge, versus taking AP actions to eliminate the house edge or that service fee.

I play Pai Gow Poker and craps, and I often win, otherwise I'd never play. I win a bit less than at true odds, though.

Quote: Paigowdan

No, he has indeed paid his fee, that's the thing. He won slightly less than he would have if he had played at true odds or had played with a player advantage, but would have lost his full units IF he had lost. This difference provides the house edge the casino needs to pay its bills so people can come in and play (or even take shots).

He played with the house edge in place with its risk, and still won, not trying to defeat the house edge or playing without a house edge, regardless of whether he won or lost.


Yes they have; by playing against the house edge, the service fee was in place and was risked by the player, - even if he won, because he won slightly less. If he had lost, he would have lost the same full wagering units. That's how the house edge works: you win less than true odds, (or you pay a commission) when you win, but you lose the same units. The house makes it's money over many hands and players, so even if he left while ahead, he paid his fee by receiving slightly less on his wins.

You see, playing with a house edge present is playing with the service fee present, and you can still win. You can also still lose with a player's edge too. But the issue is playing with a house edge, versus taking AP actions to eliminate the house edge or that service fee.

I play Pai Gow Poker and craps, and I often win, otherwise I'd never play. I win a bit less than at true odds, though.

Perfect answer. Because I play every game at a HE. I affect neither slots nor roulette nor Craps. I play everything with that service fee. When I win, I am still losing due to that house edge so I pay the same service fee. I simply win more than I lose because I use my brain.