In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards is a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the government forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta maroon!!!
"INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino had no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to gain a competitive advantage.
Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was banned from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional money."
> In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards is > a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the government > forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will > definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. > Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, > this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and > all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta > maroon!!!
> "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino had > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to gain > a competitive advantage.
> Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was banned > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional money."
You are absolutely correct, Paul. The casino has always had ways to make counting unprofitable and, with automatic shuffling machines, has an easy and non-confrontational way to do it today. Several ways to do it come to mind, and I'm sure a sophisticated casino person could think of more:
Shuffle every time (bringing in a replacement shoe so as not to slow the game down) every time a player significantly increases the size of his or her bet. This makes the counter a "scout" for the casino, killing every hot (for the players) deck and disadvantaging all the players. The false positives, when a player just felt like increasing the size of the bet, won't cost the casino anything. Someone doubling his bet to _induce_ a shuffle might be able to kill a cold deck but that, counting cards to do that, would be a lot of work just to get back to a small minus position.
To combat the counters calling in their colleague to make the big bets when the deck is hot, a "courtesy shuffle" whenever someone new comes to the table. These shuffling tactics would have been a PitA before shuffling machines but they won't slow the game up now.
> "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a > casino had > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards > to gain > a competitive advantage.
> Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he > was banned > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a > practice in > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during > the > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional > money."
I was going to say he must be going for substantial damages, maybe punitive damages, so he doesn't care. But taking a quick look at the actual decision, it appears that he only sought, and got, a declaratory judgment (i.e. "they can't stop you from playing"). You're right...he's a maroon! This is the US of A we're talking about! He should have gotten at least $154 million in punitive damages!
> In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards is > a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the government > forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will > definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. > Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, > this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and > all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta > maroon!!!
> "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino had > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to gain > a competitive advantage.
> Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was banned > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional money."
> -Paul Popinjay
Won't be long till all casinos use constant shuffle machines. The Indian casinos in Oklahoma already do. I don't play blackjack there anyway due to the stupid ante you have to pay just to get dealt each hand. It goes directly to the state. But every hand dealt gets put into the shuffle machine immediately and there is zero chance of counting cards.
> On Nov 4, 11:05 am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards is > > a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the government > > forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will > > definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. > > Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, > > this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and > > all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta > > maroon!!!
> > "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino had > > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to gain > > a competitive advantage.
> > Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was banned > > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> > Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in > > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the > > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional money."
> > -Paul Popinjay
> Won't be long till all casinos use constant shuffle machines. The > Indian casinos in Oklahoma already do. I don't play blackjack there > anyway due to the stupid ante you have to pay just to get dealt each > hand. It goes directly to the state. But every hand dealt gets put > into the shuffle machine immediately and there is zero chance of > counting cards.
I doubt it. You could say the same thing about 6:5 blackjack as continuous shufflers. There's always idiots who will play it, but by-and-large and amount of 6:5 blackjack seems to be holding steady, and only the notorious bad spots outside of the strip really offer 6:5 bj (read: Harrah's).
I've yet to see a CSM in Nevada. I've seen them in AZ, but only at the lowest limits. And those are the tables that are absolutely packed, so I think it has more to do with maximizing hands per hour (and therefore maximizing win by the casino) than deterring card counters).
-- Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational since 1972
_______________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards is > a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the government > forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will > definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. > Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, > this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and > all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta > maroon!!!
> "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino had > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to gain > a competitive advantage.
> Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was banned > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional money."
> -Paul Popinjay
like you are making millions at bj ?
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
________________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> I doubt it. You could say the same thing about 6:5 blackjack as > continuous > shufflers. There's always idiots who will play it, but by-and-large > and > amount of 6:5 blackjack seems to be holding steady, and only the > notorious > bad spots outside of the strip really offer 6:5 bj (read: Harrah's).
Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
>> In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards >> is >> a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the >> government >> forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will >> definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for >> everyone. >> Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, >> this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself >> and >> all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta >> maroon!!!
>> "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino >> had >> no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to >> gain >> a competitive advantage.
>> Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was >> banned >> from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
>> Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in >> which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the >> game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional >> money."
No, of course not. But I've got a little notebook with the location of over 30 favorable video blackjack machine situations that I've pulled $50 grand out of over the last two calendar years. Flat-betting $10 and enjoying rather low variance, thank you! And how's life been treating you lately, Rail Doggy? Well, I hope.
> Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
Speaking of which, many non-idiots found that the casinos' introduction of handheld 6-5 games re-opened the opportunity to "hole card". And without the heat!
>> Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
> Speaking of which, many non-idiots found that the casinos' > introduction of handheld 6-5 games re-opened the opportunity to > "hole card". And without the heat!
That too, but I'm thinking even more basic than that..
When I'm playing poker, my wife is usually sitting at 6:5 table.
1) Lowest limits in the house, and I have her well trained to play mostly minimum bets (once in a while she's allowed to double her bet...lol) If she gets stuck she'll throw down the odd green chip, but that is exceedingly rare. 2) Single or double deck pitch game. That's all she wants to play. She wants to *touch* her cards. She hates playing from a shoe. 3)Far fewer hands per hour than auto-shuffle or shoe = less house ev all things being equal. 4) Games tend to stay full longer, further reducing the total hands dealt 5)More favorable rules aside from the 6:5. No, it doesn't make up the odds, but it makes the game more fun when you can resplit and double on any two. 6) If she's betting $5, at 3:2 blackjack the dealer invariably gets the 50 cent chip tipped on a blackjack, further reducing the difference. At 6:5, the dealer usually gets stiffed lol.
The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which she more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets loaded for less than the price of going bowling. I didn't raise her to be an idiot.
> The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which she > more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets loaded > for less than the price of going bowling.
That's probably less than what Jason loses while getting schnockered at the bar while playing 7-5 Bonus Poker.
>>> Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
>> Speaking of which, many non-idiots found that the casinos' introduction >> of handheld 6-5 games re-opened the opportunity to "hole card". And >> without the heat!
> That too, but I'm thinking even more basic than that..
> When I'm playing poker, my wife is usually sitting at 6:5 table.
> 1) Lowest limits in the house, and I have her well trained to play mostly > minimum bets (once in a while she's allowed to double her bet...lol) If > she gets stuck she'll throw down the odd green chip, but that is > exceedingly rare. > 2) Single or double deck pitch game. That's all she wants to play. She > wants to *touch* her cards. She hates playing from a shoe. > 3)Far fewer hands per hour than auto-shuffle or shoe = less house ev all > things being equal. > 4) Games tend to stay full longer, further reducing the total hands dealt > 5)More favorable rules aside from the 6:5. No, it doesn't make up the > odds, but it makes the game more fun when you can resplit and double on > any two. > 6) If she's betting $5, at 3:2 blackjack the dealer invariably gets the 50 > cent chip tipped on a blackjack, further reducing the difference. At 6:5, > the dealer usually gets stiffed lol.
> The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which she > more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets loaded > for less than the price of going bowling. > I didn't raise her to be an idiot.
> > The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which she > > more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets loaded > > for less than the price of going bowling.
> That's probably less than what Jason loses while getting schnockered at the > bar while playing 7-5 Bonus Poker.
So it turns out that bar gives about 1%-1.5% cash back (true cash back) of coin in. And it has one of those wheels that spins on the "card of the day" (which is always 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s, 10s). Even if you assume I always get $10 from the wheel, which I believe is the worst slice, that puts the overall payback at about 99.5%. Plus the free drinks.
SNAP BITCH! WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER!
-- Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational since 1972
____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
> >> Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
> > Speaking of which, many non-idiots found that the casinos' > > introduction of handheld 6-5 games re-opened the opportunity to > > "hole card". And without the heat!
> That too, but I'm thinking even more basic than that..
> When I'm playing poker, my wife is usually sitting at 6:5 table.
> 1) Lowest limits in the house, and I have her well trained to play > mostly minimum bets (once in a while she's allowed to double her > bet...lol) If she gets stuck she'll throw down the odd green chip, but > that is exceedingly rare. > 2) Single or double deck pitch game. That's all she wants to play. She > wants to *touch* her cards. She hates playing from a shoe. > 3)Far fewer hands per hour than auto-shuffle or shoe = less house ev > all things being equal. > 4) Games tend to stay full longer, further reducing the total hands > dealt > 5)More favorable rules aside from the 6:5. No, it doesn't make up the > odds, but it makes the game more fun when you can resplit and double > on any two. > 6) If she's betting $5, at 3:2 blackjack the dealer invariably gets > the 50 cent chip tipped on a blackjack, further reducing the > difference. At 6:5, the dealer usually gets stiffed lol.
> The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which > she more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets > loaded for less than the price of going bowling. > I didn't raise her to be an idiot.
You know what's funny is I used nearly this *exact* same argument against Paul Popinjay on 1:1 blackjack bartops vs 3:2 table games, which caused him to ridicule me. LOL -- Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational since 1972
________________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 3 2009 11:32 PM, BillB wrote: > You know what's funny is I used nearly this *exact* same argument > against > Paul Popinjay on 1:1 blackjack bartops vs 3:2 table games, which > caused > him to ridicule me. LOL
Bottom line is you just have to know roughly what the house ev is and be able to say objectively that
1)it's worth it to you in entertainment value/hr, and 2) there's no better entertainment value for you readily available.
If you do that, roulette could be the best game in the casino for *you*. Nobody else can make that call.
They brought in 6:5 because there's lots of blackjack players like my wife who are happy to sit there all night drinking and socializing making small bets, and the casino was losing money feeding them drinks and paying someone to deal to them. Even at 6:5 I think they are still losing money overall on the min. bet players.
> You know what's funny is I used nearly this *exact* same argument against > Paul Popinjay on 1:1 blackjack bartops vs 3:2 table games, which caused > him to ridicule me. LOL
You know what's funny? I don't remember that. That's what. ha ha
> So it turns out that bar gives about 1%-1.5% cash back (true cash back) of > coin in. And it has one of those wheels that spins on the "card of the > day" (which is always 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s, 10s). Even if you assume I always > get $10 from the wheel, which I believe is the worst slice, that puts the > overall payback at about 99.5%. Plus the free drinks.
> SNAP BITCH! WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER!
At the risk of sounding Beldinesque, seems like that would be closer to 99.7 if there were 1.5% cb, at the worst slice, numbnuts.
> > On Nov 4, 11:05 am, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote: > > > In my opinion whoever sued the casino after getting banned counting cards > is > > > a dumb ass and has just made it harder for card counters. If the > government > > > forces the casinos to allow a player to count cards, the casinos will > > > definitely take countermeasures that will essentially ruin it for everyone. > > > Although I understand the game dealt in Indiana was not that good anyway, > > > this will make it even worse. The player in question just shot himself and > > > all other advantage players in the foot. Very short-sighted. Whatta > > > maroon!!!
> > > "INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a casino > had > > > no legal right to ban a blackjack player who admitted counting cards to > gain > > > a competitive advantage.
> > > Thomas Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino and Resort after he was > banned > > > from the facility in Rising Sun in August 2006.
> > > Donovan admitted to casino officials that he counted cards, a practice in > > > which a player keeps mental track of the cards already played during the > > > game to adjust his wagers and improve his odds of winning additional > money."
> > > -Paul Popinjay
> > Won't be long till all casinos use constant shuffle machines. The > > Indian casinos in Oklahoma already do. I don't play blackjack there > > anyway due to the stupid ante you have to pay just to get dealt each > > hand. It goes directly to the state. But every hand dealt gets put > > into the shuffle machine immediately and there is zero chance of > > counting cards.
> I doubt it. You could say the same thing about 6:5 blackjack as continuous > shufflers. There's always idiots who will play it, but by-and-large and > amount of 6:5 blackjack seems to be holding steady, and only the notorious > bad spots outside of the strip really offer 6:5 bj (read: Harrah's).
> I've yet to see a CSM in Nevada. I've seen them in AZ, but only at the > lowest limits. And those are the tables that are absolutely packed, so I > think it has more to do with maximizing hands per hour (and therefore > maximizing win by the casino) than deterring card counters).
> -- > Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
> "BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming > in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational > since 1972
> _______________________________________________________________________ > : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You have a point. I wanted to have a t-shirt made up last time I was in Vegas that said 6 to 5 AINT BLACKJACK. But like you say the tables are packed. Just like the 5 buck tables at Winstar in OK are packed even though the idiots there are GIVING AWAY 10% before the cards are even dealt due to the ridiculous ante.
I guess under the other slogan my T-shirt could say, THERE AINT NO ANTE IN BLACKJACK. But most people wouldn't understand.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:18:05 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >To combat the counters calling in their colleague to make the big bets >when the deck is hot, a "courtesy shuffle" whenever someone new comes >to the table. These shuffling tactics would have been a PitA before >shuffling machines but they won't slow the game up now.
Harrah's here in Kansas City has a policy in their high limit games of "no mid-shoe entry". A new player has to wait for a new shoe. Also, in their single-deck game, blackjack pays 6:5 rather than the normal 3:2.
On Nov 4, 1:47 pm, Peg Smith <pegsmith...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:18:05 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >To combat the counters calling in their colleague to make the big bets > >when the deck is hot, a "courtesy shuffle" whenever someone new comes > >to the table. These shuffling tactics would have been a PitA before > >shuffling machines but they won't slow the game up now.
> Harrah's here in Kansas City has a policy in their high limit games of > "no mid-shoe entry". A new player has to wait for a new shoe. Also, in > their single-deck game, blackjack pays 6:5 rather than the normal 3:2.
For decades, casinos used confrontational and frankly unpleasant methods to deal with people who were only trying to play the game as well as possible. With the shuffling machines we won't see much of that anymore. Frankly, I don't know how anyone could play and not have a very good idea of the state of the deck. With no elaborate system or aides, you would simply _notice_ the cards as they come out. Anyone who has played a lot of bridge or gin or even stud poker would have to know enough to adjust his or her betting. I guess you could just refrain from looking at the cards that fell for the other players.
> >> Not everyone who plays 6:5 blackjack is an idiot. Do the math.
> > Speaking of which, many non-idiots found that the casinos' > > introduction of handheld 6-5 games re-opened the opportunity to > > "hole card". And without the heat!
> That too, but I'm thinking even more basic than that..
> When I'm playing poker, my wife is usually sitting at 6:5 table.
> 1) Lowest limits in the house, and I have her well trained to play > mostly minimum bets (once in a while she's allowed to double her > bet...lol) If she gets stuck she'll throw down the odd green chip, but > that is exceedingly rare. > 2) Single or double deck pitch game. That's all she wants to play. She > wants to *touch* her cards. She hates playing from a shoe. > 3)Far fewer hands per hour than auto-shuffle or shoe = less house ev > all things being equal. > 4) Games tend to stay full longer, further reducing the total hands > dealt > 5)More favorable rules aside from the 6:5. No, it doesn't make up the > odds, but it makes the game more fun when you can resplit and double > on any two. > 6) If she's betting $5, at 3:2 blackjack the dealer invariably gets > the 50 cent chip tipped on a blackjack, further reducing the > difference. At 6:5, the dealer usually gets stiffed lol.
> The house ev works out to something like $5/hr or less for her, which > she more than gets back in free drinks. She has a great time and gets > loaded for less than the price of going bowling. > I didn't raise her to be an idiot.
it just worked out that way ?
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
> Harrah's here in Kansas City has a policy in their high > limit games of "no mid-shoe entry". A new player has to > wait for a new shoe. Also, in their single-deck game, blackjack > pays 6:5 rather than the normal 3:2.
For the unwary players on the Strip, there are other things to watch for such as pushes and whether Dealer hits soft 17. The locals know where the best odds are.
Jerry (a local) 'n Vegas
- We must believe in free will. We have no choice...
>> Harrah's here in Kansas City has a policy in their high >> limit games of "no mid-shoe entry". A new player has to >> wait for a new shoe. Also, in their single-deck game, blackjack >> pays 6:5 rather than the normal 3:2.
> For the unwary players on the Strip, there are other things to watch for > such as pushes and whether Dealer hits soft 17. The locals know where the > best odds are.
Can you still get hand-dealt two-deck 3:2 downtown (Lady Luck, Horseshoe...)?
|
