Ethics in a casino. Players counting cards, dealers counting cards

[Ladewig]

I recently came across a gambling comunist who said that he believes that players counting cards in not unethical, but dealers counting cards are.

For those not familiar with the practice, in the game known as 21 (or blackjack) a skillful player can keep track of the cards previously played and determine when the deck favors the players (lots of tens and aces) or when the deck favors the casino (lots of small demonomination cards). Card counters then raise the size of their bets when the deck favors players and can (in some situations) enjoy a positive expectation game. When casinos suspect players are card counting, they stop the game and shuffle the cards - which immediately eliminates any advantage available to the players.


Jurisdictions differ in their laws, but in general, while card counting is not illegal, it is frowned upon by casinos and they have been known to bar card counters from playing.


As for dealers counting cards, if they discover the count favors the player, they can stop the game and reshuffle the cards.

So, who agrees that player card counting is ethical and dealer card counting is unethical?

[CriticalThanking]

As to the direct question, I don't consider it unethical. The pit boss can do it anytime. It it your right to be disappointed and go to another table/casino. There are casinos that use lots of decks, lowering the advantage. Do you consider that unethical?

I admit to not knowing a lot about casino operations, but my understanding is that the dealer has specific things to do and would be hard pressed to be good at counting cards when busy. Does the dealer have any responsibility for the table win/loss amounts? I would think that noticing someone radically changing bets might (ethically) obligate the dealer to tell the pit boss. If the casino instructs them to shuffle if they notice such behavior, so be it. If the casino helps train and/or encourages the dealers to count cards (and shuffle accordingly), again - they are following the orders of the casino and there is nothing unethical about it.

Oh, to be good enough at counting cards to have to worry about such things.

CT

[ravdin]

I don't agree. Card counting is not cheating. It's a skill. Just because most people can't do it accurately doesn't mean that it's unethical for players to do it.

My disagreement with you is that if it's possible for players to gain a statistical edge by counting cards, then I think it's also fine for the casinos to minimize your edge if you're a math whiz. So I don't have a problem with a casino barring you from playing if you're winning too much money, or reshuffling the cards for any reason that they see fit. These tactics are quite mild compared to the way many suspected card counters have been treated when caught.

[Metullus]

Counting cards in Blackjack is no more unethical than is remembering the cards played and tricks taken in a hand of hearts or spades or bridge. The only reason that the casinos frown upon the practice is that it cuts down on their profits.

[GreyICE]

Finkel did it. Good enough for me.

[Ladewig]

CriticalThinking, some card counters hone their skills by becoming dealers. Dealing blackjack can be pretty boring for an experienced dealer. I suspect many of them could count while dealing.

. . . . . . . . .
Counting cards in Blackjack is no more unethical than is remembering the cards played and tricks taken in a hand of hearts or spades or bridge. The only reason that the casinos frown upon the practice is that it cuts down on their profits.

I expected most people to accept players counting cards. I am more interested in the ethics of dealers counting cards.

The columnist considered the dealer counting (and shuffling when the count favored the players) as the casino not offering a fair game.

[Complexity]

Card counting is ethical behavior.

[TsarBomba]

Whether the dealer counts cards or not, it will not have any impact on what happens at the table. Dealers will hit until a 17, regardless of the card count. They (depending on the casino) will offer you insurance when they show an ace, regardless of the card count. Unlike players, dealers cannot increase the bet when there are a lot of face cards remaining. Whether the dealer "counts cards" or not, the play will still be the same.

[mikedenk]

From my (limited) experience, blackjack dealers have more to gain from players being successful than saving the house a few bucks.

Big winners at the table = big tips for the dealer(s).

[Diagoras]

I have to wonder if people who say it is unethical are just jealous because they aren't winning any money off it.
Whether the dealer counts cards or not, it will not have any impact on what happens at the table. Dealers will hit until a 17, regardless of the card count. They (depending on the casino) will offer you insurance when they show an ace, regardless of the card count. Unlike players, dealers cannot increase the bet when there are a lot of face cards remaining. Whether the dealer "counts cards" or not, the play will still be the same.
As for dealers counting cards, if they discover the count favors the player, they can stop the game and reshuffle the cards.

[NobbyNobbs]

The columnist considered the dealer counting (and shuffling when the count favored the players) as the casino not offering a fair game.

Since when do casinos offer fair games? As I recall, every game in a casino is slanted so that the odds favor the casino. In a "fair game", the casino, on average, would come out even. This is obviously not the case.

For a dealer to count cards would just be the casino doing more of what it already does, i.e. fixing the odds in their favor.

[phantomb]

I don't see any problem with dealers counting cards and shuffling when the casino is less likely to win, because the game is supposed to be based around a randomly shuffled deck in the first place. For the same reason, counting cards is not unethical, but it does undermine the idea of the game, which is supposed to be about random chance and the ability of the player to read his opponents and to consider the odds on a single hand, and which was not designed to accommodate card counting.

[Meadmaker]

I remember reading about a case in Windsor, Canada in which a man was actually arrested for counting cards. Apparently, it was literally a crime, considered some variation of fraud. I thought that was totally ridiculous. I see absolutely nothing unethical about counting cards.

I've never played casino Blackjack in my life, but my father was pretty much a gambling addict and talked about it incessantly. For American casinos, as I understand it, in the old days of a decade or two ago, there was some random cue to shuffle cards. I believe there was a yellow card mixed in with the decks? Or maybe it was whenever the dealing shoe had less than a certain number mixed in. When that happened, the cards got shuffled. There was no law against counting cards, but the casinos could disqualify anyone who was doing it, and they were pretty easy to spot. Then, along came groups like the MIT Blackjack Team, who turned it into a team sport, and the casinos had to change tactics. Now, the cards are reshuffled into the deck as soon as the hand is over, which makes it impossible to count cards and turn the tables on the house.

As for the ethics of it, I think a casino complaining about ethics violations is pretty laughable. I would have as much sympathy as I would for a drug pusher who didn't get paid everything he was owed by one of his clients.

[hgc]

Since when do casinos offer fair games? As I recall, every game in a casino is slanted so that the odds favor the casino. In a "fair game", the casino, on average, would come out even. This is obviously not the case.

For a dealer to count cards would just be the casino doing more of what it already does, i.e. fixing the odds in their favor.


Even though the casino has a built-in advantage, the odds of the game are known (to those who have bothered to find out). If the house is reshuffling when the odds are just a little more toward the players but not when the odds are more in their own favor, they are tilting the basic rules of the game, and cheating their customers.

Even though I agree that it's not unethical for the player to count cards, almost all players don't. If all players counted - if it were a normal feature of the game, then I wouldn't have such a problem with the house counting.

[Robin]

I recently came across a gambling comunist who said that he believes that players counting cards in not unethical, but dealers counting cards are.

For those not familiar with the practice, in the game known as 21 (or blackjack) a skillful player can keep track of the cards previously played and determine when the deck favors the players (lots of tens and aces) or when the deck favors the casino (lots of small demonomination cards). Card counters then raise the size of their bets when the deck favors players and can (in some situations) enjoy a positive expectation game. When casinos suspect players are card counting, they stop the game and shuffle the cards - which immediately eliminates any advantage available to the players.


Jurisdictions differ in their laws, but in general, while card counting is not illegal, it is frowned upon by casinos and they have been known to bar card counters from playing.


As for dealers counting cards, if they discover the count favors the player, they can stop the game and reshuffle the cards.

So, who agrees that player card counting is ethical and dealer card counting is unethical?
I can't see how card counting could be unethical - they are not using more information than is available to anyone else, they are just using it more skilfully.

On the other hand a Casino, as a business, has a right to exclude anybody from their place of business.

[Akhenaten]

I can't help but think a lot of people would consider anything done to separate a casino from its money is ethical.

Robin Hood has heaps more fans than the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham.


PS <derail> Per the OP, what the devil is a gambling comunist? :) </derail>

[Ladewig]

Even though the casino has a built-in advantage, the odds of the game are known (to those who have bothered to find out). If the house is reshuffling when the odds are just a little more toward the players but not when the odds are more in their own favor, they are tilting the basic rules of the game, and cheating their customers.

Even though I agree that it's not unethical for the player to count cards, almost all players don't. If all players counted - if it were a normal feature of the game, then I wouldn't have such a problem with the house counting.

For me it's not the number of players counting, it is having all the rules posted and available to players. If dealers counted and all players knew dealers counted, then it would, in my opinion, not be unethical.

[Beerina]

Counting cards in Blackjack is no more unethical than is remembering the cards played and tricks taken in a hand of hearts or spades or bridge. The only reason that the casinos frown upon the practice is that it cuts down on their profits.

Exactly. In all other card games, e.g. Poker, remembering played cards is considered part of the skill. Why should 21 be any different?

And nobody questions the ethics of the casino, which is a business of games rigged statistically and openly in their favor.

[CriticalThanking]

I don't see any problem with dealers counting cards and shuffling when the casino is less likely to win, because the game is supposed to be based around a randomly shuffled deck in the first place. For the same reason, counting cards is not unethical, but it does undermine the idea of the game, which is supposed to be about random chance and the ability of the player to read his opponents and to consider the odds on a single hand, and which was not designed to accommodate card counting.

Welcome, phantomb. Interesting observation, but if put into practice, you would have to shuffle after every hand. I don't know that I would claim it is supposed to be about random cards, but I think some are not happy that a counting/reshuffling dealer is changing the implied rules of the game.

Earwig, my name is CriticalThAnking. :sigh: ;) Ed knows I have little to do with critical thinking.

If you assumed all dealers were counting, would that change how you played?

And again - if the pit boss' job is to limit losses (changing dealers, reshuffling, taking "abnormal frequency" payout slots offline for investigation, kicking out card counters, etc.) and therefore not unethical, why would you assume it unethical for other employees to do it? Are they not ethically obligated to support the goals of the casino and by extension the job function of the pit boss?

I see it as taking away a slight theoretical advantage, not being unethical.

CT

[Ladewig]

Exactly. In all other card games, e.g. Poker, remembering played cards is considered part of the skill. Why should 21 be any different?

And nobody questions the ethics of the casino, which is a business of games rigged statistically and openly in their favor.

You seem to be implying that games with an openly-published house advantage based on openly-available rules is somehow unethical. Dealers in the U.S. are trained to give honest and accurate responses about questions related to the expected value of the game. If players choose to gamble in a game with a house advantage, that is their choice. Nothing unethical is occurring in such a transaction.

[Ladewig]

If you assumed all dealers were counting, would that change how you played?

I know several blackjack players who pay great attention to the variations of the rules that occur in casinos. The refuse to play in casinos that pay 6:5 instead of 3:2. They would most certainly avoid casinos in which dealers were instructed to count cards and shuffle only when the count favored the players.

And again - if the pit boss' job is to limit losses (changing dealers, reshuffling, taking "abnormal frequency" payout slots offline for investigation, kicking out card counters, etc.) and therefore not unethical, why would you assume it unethical for other employees to do it? Are they not ethically obligated to support the goals of the casino and by extension the job function of the pit boss?

I see it as taking away a slight theoretical advantage, not being unethical.

The ethical issue is that the casino has added a rule and not informed the players of the rule change. All U.S. state gaming commissions require that casinos make all rules known to players that inquire. Counting without informing players therefore is unethical.

One could also argue that while counting is an effective counterstrategy for casinos to use against counting players, this activity adversely impacts other players at the table who are not counting; thus "harming" "innocent" players.

[Dragoonster]

Dealers counting cards isn't unethical because we can observe any alterations based on that and react accordingly, and because no game rules are being broken*. If a dealer is frequently reshuffling the entire deck well before the reshuffle card (assuming he uses one), the player can either move to a more advantageous table where the dealer doesn't, or if all of them do, redo the math and decide whether 21 is even still winnable or not with a new rule or industry standard.

The only unethical things in a casino are things that are unobservable, such as magnets at the roulette wheel, loaded dice, marked cards in pai gow poker, nonrandom algorithms on video poker, unfairly balanced slots, etc. But AFAIK there are laws in place to prevent all of these.

Goes for the gambler too, bet alterations in a card-counting system are observable as much as perfect play is. Part of the skill in counting is to lessen the observability when under scrutiny from a pit boss or dealer, pocketing chips when ahead, making bad plays if they're watching, etc. But all are ultimately observable and one only does this because the casino is private and can kick anyone out.

*I'd say past-posting by either player or croupier is certainly unethical/illegal because it's explicitly against the rules, even though it's ideally observable by quick eyes. Counting or deciding when to shuffle isn't against the rules.

[Dragoonster]

One could also argue that while counting is an effective counterstrategy for casinos to use against counting players, this activity adversely impacts other players at the table who are not counting; thus "harming" "innocent" players.

BTW, I was thinking this was only hypothetical, but haven't been to a casino in years. Are dealers really now counting cards themselves and reshuffling the entire deck? I'd think this was extreme overkill and financially bad for the casino, considering the time it takes to reshuffle a whole 6-8 decks.

Of course if it's only a one player table they'll do all kinds of things to irritate an obvious counter, but it's pretty simple to just leave for a more crowded table/other casino to counter that.

[fishbait]

I remember reading about a case in Windsor, Canada in which a man was actually arrested for counting cards. Apparently, it was literally a crime, considered some variation of fraud.
.How could such a charge be proven? What possible evidence could the prosecution present? Card counters keep track of the cards played with their memory, no? Unless the counter was keeping track with some device other than memory, what possible evidence could there be?

[Dragoonster]

How could such a charge be proven? What possible evidence could the prosecution present? Card counters keep track of the cards played with their memory, no? Unless the counter was keeping track with some device other than memory, what possible evidence could there be?

Maybe he admitted it? Or they had witnesses saying he was doing it? Lacking that, maybe if he adhered to a wagering system as in most counting methods. If his bets were altered consistently (and with a very wide min-max range, and abruptly reverting to base bets after reshuffles or back to 0 counts) that might constitute evidence that he was doing so due to a card count.

ETA: Course, the defense would be just that he was observing that the shoe was "hot", and waiting at starts of shoes.

Ridiculous charge or law though, fraud? Good grief.

[Ladewig]

How could such a charge be proven? What possible evidence could the prosecution present? Card counters keep track of the cards played with their memory, no? Unless the counter was keeping track with some device other than memory, what possible evidence could there be?

In order for card counting to be profitable, it is necessary to dramitically increase the size of the bet (often by a factor of ten or more) when the count is postive. Casinos can then review the tape of the entire game and show that as soon as the count turned in the player's favor, he significantly raised his bet.

[CaptainManacles]

lordy, the rationalizations you people come up with are mind-boggling. Card counting is against the rules as set up by the casino, therefore it's cheating. Cheating is unethical. Therefore card counting is unethical. End of story. It's irrelevent if that form of cheating requires skill. Cheating is still cheating. Most forms of cheating require skill. That doesn't make it ethical.

Having the same amount of information as everyone else doesn't make it not cheating either. If I bribed the dealer after hours to deal me better cards then everyone else, is that not cheating? I'm not gaining any new information, besides the fact that I know I'm cheating and no one else does, but the same would then apply to card counting.

The dealer counting cards isn't unethical. There's no rule stating that they can't. The dealer chosing when to reshuffle isn't a rule, it is a behavior within the rules, just like switching dice out in craps. The players know that the dealers reshuffle and there's no assurence that the reshuffling is perfectly random, besides the fact that it is only relevent to players who are already cheating anyway.

It seems as if most people are incapable of any moral sense beyond "this is what is immediately good for me in the short run so this is what is ethical." You empathize more with the player then the casino so you rationalize the ethics you've already decided on. Would you feel the same way if it were a fundraiser for schools or starving baby seals or somesuch thing and someone took all the gains from the night because they were counting cards? Would you feel the same if someone found a way to rig the lottery so that they won?

[Bododio]

Most of the casinos I'm aware of employ card counters who monitor the tables via the "eye in the sky," those ubiquitous black domes in the ceilings. Rather than the dealers knowing how to count, although a few do, the casino's counters look for the "tells" of the players at the tables, then closely monitor that table and the suspected counter. They also take the suspected counter's picture and compare it with database photos to see if he's ever been encountered before.

If the situation becomes worrisome, they will send the pit boss to the table to distract and further evaluate the player. The pit boss will watch for a few minutes, then come over. "Enjoying your stay here? Come here often? Did you get your player's card validated?" That sort of thing. In some situations the pit boss will signal the dealer to shuffle the cards. Usually this is only necessary at tables with 1 or 2 deck games. In the 6+ deck shoe games the counting effects are almost completely offset by the numbers of cards. I've never seen much of an advantage from counting cards in a multi-deck game. And in most 1 and 2 deck games, the decks are often shuffled when there are still half the cards or more unplayed. The best advantages of card counting are realized as fewer of the cards remain unplayed.

While card counting is fairly easy (I could teach anyone the even-count basics in 5 minutes (it's not math intensive at all)), it's difficult to pull off successfully in today's casinos. More difficult to learn is shuffle tracking (I'm not convinced this can be done effectively), a basic playing strategy, and trying to look like you're not a card counter. My familiarity is only with Las Vegas and MS Gulf Coast (pre-Katrina) casinos.

[Meadmaker]

lordy, the rationalizations you people come up with are mind-boggling. Card counting is against the rules as set up by the casino, therefore it's cheating.

No, it's not. Furthermore, gambling is a regulated activity. The casino doesn't actually make the rules. There are rules of the game, and the government demands that all players play by the posted rules. The casino can invent a new game, and post the rules for that game, and the government will step in and either approve or not approve of the rules.

There are no rules against counting cards.
There is a rule that the casino can allow anyone to gamble at their facility, but they are not required to let someone gamble at the facility.
No rules are broken by card counters (in the US). No rules are broken when the casino tells someone they are not allowed to play Blackjack.

As far as the house counting cards, it depends on the posted rules. If their rules say, "Cards will be shuffled when the yellow card appears," then shuffling them at another time would be unethical. However, I'm guessing that the rules don't say that. They probably say, "Cards will be shuffled any time the yellow card appears, or earlier at the discretion of the dealer." No ethics violation.

My other guess is that, in practice, they take that decision out of the hands of the dealers, and make it a purely mechanical practice, with no decision required. If you give the dealer the power to make a decision, the dealer can cheat. He might collude with a patron to not shuffle even though it's in the best interest of the house to do so. Meanwhile, the house doesn't need to cheat. They're going to win by playing honest.

[Metullus]

lordy, the rationalizations you people come up with are mind-boggling. Card counting is against the rules as set up by the casino, therefore it's cheating. Cheating is unethical. Therefore card counting is unethical. End of story. It's irrelevent if that form of cheating requires skill. Cheating is still cheating. Most forms of cheating require skill. That doesn't make it ethical.Interesting. I have never seen anything that says that card counting is against the rules. Never. Given that cheating in casinos is a crime in most jurisdictions and that I have never heard of anybody being arrested for card counting I would be surprised if it is indeed cheating. In fact, I can count cards all day long, hell, I can do it out loud, but as long as I am not winning the casinos won't care. On the other hand, if I am caught bringing my handy-dandy roulette-computer-in-a-shoe into the casino I will be going to jail for a good long while - even if the roulette-computer-in-a-shoe did not work as advertised.

[ponderingturtle]

I remember reading about a case in Windsor, Canada in which a man was actually arrested for counting cards. Apparently, it was literally a crime, considered some variation of fraud. I thought that was totally ridiculous. I see absolutely nothing unethical about counting cards.


Using machines to count cards is illegal in most places.

[Alkatran]

If their rules say, "Cards will be shuffled when the yellow card appears," then shuffling them at another time would be unethical.


That's only true if the rule says "only if". If my dog barks when someone is at the door, my dog is still able to bark at other times.

[Dragoonster]

Card counting is against the rules as set up by the casino

Not in any casino I've ever counted cards in.

[Rasmus]

lordy, the rationalizations you people come up with are mind-boggling. Card counting is against the rules as set up by the casino, therefore it's cheating.

If so, then the rules would be unethical and we'd need to debate if breaking them would be permissible.

Such a rule would be insane in any case, though. Can you imagine a game of chess where the rules forbid you to think about the moves the other player might make?

[Bododio]

If you want to learn more about card counting, how it works, the different techniques, the history, and a little bit about legalities, this web site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting) is a pretty good reference.

[Ladewig]

The dealer counting cards isn't unethical. There's no rule stating that they can't. The dealer chosing when to reshuffle isn't a rule, it is a behavior within the rules, just like switching dice out in craps. The players know that the dealers reshuffle and there's no assurence that the reshuffling is perfectly random, besides the fact that it is only relevent to players who are already cheating anyway.

Your analogy is invalid: switching dice in a craps game does not change the probability that the dice player will win the next bet. Tracking the count and reshuffling when the count favors the player does change the probability of the blackjack player winning the next bet regardless of whether or not the player is counting. If dealers count and reshuffle based on the count then all the players at the table face a very different game.

[Vic Vega]

If so, then the rules would be unethical and we'd need to debate if breaking them would be permissible.

Such a rule would be insane in any case, though. Can you imagine a game of chess where the rules forbid you to think about the moves the other player might make?

The reason there is no rule against card counting is because it is impossible to prove without being able to read someones mind.

But there is no need for the casino to be able to prove it. If they suspect you are counting, they will kick you out of the casino and may send your picture to all of the other casinos in town. You might as well then just spend the rest of your vacation at the pool, because you won't be enjoying any more gambling for the rest of your stay.


Your best bet is to play the game strategically correct. You will limit the house advantage to about 1/2 of one percent and that's about all you can do.

[CaptainManacles]

No, it's not. Furthermore, gambling is a regulated activity. The casino doesn't actually make the rules. There are rules of the game, and the government demands that all players play by the posted rules. The casino can invent a new game, and post the rules for that game, and the government will step in and either approve or not approve of the rules.

There are no rules against counting cards.
There is a rule that the casino can allow anyone to gamble at their facility, but they are not required to let someone gamble at the facility.
No rules are broken by card counters (in the US). No rules are broken when the casino tells someone they are not allowed to play Blackjack.

Oh please. You're trying to conflate legality with morality. The casino can have a rule that says there are no purple hats allowed in the facility on a Tuesday. If you do so they won't hall you away in handcuffs but you're still breaking the rules. If they catch you they'll just kick you out, just like with card counting. It's just as unethical as the casino lying about the odds. There is a clear understanding, regardless of the law, that they should not lie to you about the odds. Similarly, there is an understanding that you are not counting cards when you sit down at that table. If you want to tell the dealer you are counting cards before doing so then fine, that's ethical. Otherwise, you are clearly breaking rules.

[CaptainManacles]

Not in any casino I've ever counted cards in.

Have you asked?

[CaptainManacles]

Your analogy is invalid: switching dice in a craps game does not change the probability that the dice player will win the next bet.

Irrelevent to the analogy.

[Dragoonster]

Have you asked?

Not a great plan to discuss one's plan to count cards with casino employees.

I looked it up at the same time I learned how to count 20 years ago. Wasn't against the rules anywhere in AC, still isn't. Everyone else here seems to agree, as do most quick searches on the topic (neither illegal nor against the rules).

If you really think it is, how about some references?

[Monza]

...Similarly, there is an understanding that you are not counting cards when you sit down at that table. If you want to tell the dealer you are counting cards before doing so then fine, that's ethical. Otherwise, you are clearly breaking rules.

Are you sure you know what card counting is? There is absolutely no rule regarding whether or not a player is allowed to remember which cards are sitting in the discard pile. Consider a situation where you are playing a single-deck heads up game with a dealer and all four aces come out on the first hand. When the second hand is dealt, you know for a fact that it is impossible to get a natural blackjack. Would this affect your betting level on this hand or perhaps affect your hit/stand decisions? If you remember that a card dealt on a previous hand cannot be dealt on the next hand (assuming no shuffling), then you are effectively card-counting.

That is all card counting is; having an idea of the cards that are out of play and how that may affect the odds on the following hand. Of course, it takes some work to keep track of the count and then to alter betting and playing decisions accordingly. But it is all completely above board. As someone said earlier, the only reason that casinos don't like it is because it reduces the house edge (at some times during a game, the edge is on the player's side).

To answer the original question, I don't consider it unethical for the dealer to count and shuffle when the count is high in the player's favor. It is generally accepted that the house can shuffle when they want. The drawback for them is that it reduces the number of hands per hour which cuts into their table rate. This is why they do not shuffle after every hand.

I do think there is a grey area whereby the casinos treat players that are playing within the rules as criminals. They have a legal right to refuse a player's business, but I think it is wrong to label them the same as known cheats (such as with the Griffen book). If you don't know the rules of the game, the casino is happy to let you play and will keep the free drinks coming no matter how drunk you are. But if you are sober and skilled, you are asked to leave. It is within their leagal right, but borders on unethical when they are not offering a game of chance, but a game of skill.

[Stone Island]

On the legality:

A couple of years ago I watched a reality show about a casino just outside of Las Vegas. In one episode they had a card counter enter the casino. He was on their list of known counters.

Here's the good part: He checked into the hotel part of the casino under his own name. He did not disguise himself; he did not give a fake name. He then entered the casino attached to the hotel. He sat down at a 21 table and began playing.

At this point security noticed him. They did nothing. Why? Because he had already begun to play. They were angry because they knew that if they had been notified by the hotel staff when he checked in they, as a private business, could have prohibited him from playing. But, because he had already begun his game, they could do nothing.

The funny bit was that he was just playing for fun, not paying much attention to the game, i.e., not counting, and he picked up the "girl" sitting next to him who turned out to be a very well disguised transvestite. Whoops. But that's neither here nor there.

[CaptainManacles]

Not a great plan to discuss one's plan to count cards with casino employees.

I looked it up at the same time I learned how to count 20 years ago. Wasn't against the rules anywhere in AC, still isn't. Everyone else here seems to agree, as do most quick searches on the topic (neither illegal nor against the rules).

If you really think it is, how about some references?

The fact that you understand that it's not a great plan to discuss one' s plan to count cards is pretty indicidive that you know it is against the rules.

[Stone Island]

The fact that you understand that it's not a great plan to discuss one' s plan to count cards is pretty indicidive that you know it is against the rules.
Note:
On March 9, 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled, 3 - 1, that the Monte Carlo Casino in Las Vegas had to give Richard Chen the $40,400 he won by counting cards at blackjack....

From the objective view of the law, if there is such a thing, card counters are merely players who have enough skill to beat casinos at their own game. This does not mean the law is always going to be on the side of the players. Casinos, like most other businesses, in general have the right to exclude anyone, so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race, gender etc.
from, (http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/card.html)#62 ©Copyright 2000, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is a registered trademark of Professor I. Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA. (http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/card.html)

And, from Chen v. State, Gaming Control Board (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo25&invol=2):

Card counting is a mathematical process which enables the player to achieve better odds when playing blackjack...

On the other hand, neither card counting nor the use of a legal subterfuge such as a disguise to gain access to this table game is illegal under Nevada law.

Michael Dalton (http://www.bjrnet.com/faq21_10.htm) writes, In Nevada, the courts have made it clear that card counting is legal. During a cheating case in 1983, which involved a player who was crimping cards to gain an advantage (definitely cheating), the court made an interesting statement: "By way of contrast, a card counter -- one who uses a point system to keep track of the cards that have been played -- does not alter any of the basic features of the game. He merely uses his mental skills to take advantage of the same information that is available to all players." As I. Nelson Rose (http://www.bjrnet.com/board_gatl.htm), author of the book Gambling and the Law*, states -- "The card counter is playing by the rules of the games, as set up by the casino regulators and the casinos themselves."

[Monza]

... and he picked up the "girl" sitting next to him who turned out to be a very well disguised transvestite...


Now that's gambling!

[Meadmaker]

The fact that you understand that it's not a great plan to discuss one' s plan to count cards is pretty indicidive that you know it is against the rules.

Here's a simple thought experiment to determine whether or not counting cards is against the rules. Imagine I sit down at a Blackjack table where the bet limit is 100 dollars. On my first bet, I bet 100 dollars. I inform the dealer that I am intending to count cards. On every bet, I bet 100 dollars. Let us assume that I am the only player in the game. At some point I say, "Cool. The odds have shifted in my favor. Now I might win back some of that money." I continue to bet 100 dollars on every bet.

Do you think I would be thrown out? Absolutely not. However, I am counting cards. I'm doing it in blatant violation of "the rules", if there were a rule against it.

Obviously, the act of counting cards is not what makes the action against the rules. Casinos will allow you to count cards all day long, unless you happen to be good at it. If you are winning money, they will throw you out? Why? Because of an ethical violation on your part? Hardly. They will exercise their legal discretion to choose to not allow you to play in their casino. There are no ethical factors involved.

I suppose one might argue that anything that is inherently deceptive is unethical, and therefore it is unethical to conceal the fact that you are counting cards. However, there is nothing unethical about behaving in a manner that will make you unattractive as a casino customer. The act of counting, and attempting to win based on the count, is not itself unethical.

[CaptainManacles]

Here's a simple thought experiment to determine whether or not counting cards is against the rules. Imagine I sit down at a Blackjack table where the bet limit is 100 dollars. On my first bet, I bet 100 dollars. I inform the dealer that I am intending to count cards. On every bet, I bet 100 dollars. Let us assume that I am the only player in the game. At some point I say, "Cool. The odds have shifted in my favor. Now I might win back some of that money." I continue to bet 100 dollars on every bet.

Do you think I would be thrown out? Absolutely not. However, I am counting cards. I'm doing it in blatant violation of "the rules", if there were a rule against it.

Obviously, the act of counting cards is not what makes the action against the rules. Casinos will allow you to count cards all day long, unless you happen to be good at it. If you are winning money, they will throw you out? Why? Because of an ethical violation on your part? Hardly. They will exercise their legal discretion to choose to not allow you to play in their casino. There are no ethical factors involved.

I suppose one might argue that anything that is inherently deceptive is unethical, and therefore it is unethical to conceal the fact that you are counting cards. However, there is nothing unethical about behaving in a manner that will make you unattractive as a casino customer. The act of counting, and attempting to win based on the count, is not itself unethical.

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out. Other posters who count cards regularly have admited as much already. Even if they didn't, you're just playing a semantics game, we could simply say "counting cards and using that information to inform your gameplay in a game of blackjack for chips redemable for money inside the casino in question." Your arguement is about as asinine as saying "I could sit in my hotel room and count the number of cards that are in a deck I brought from home, I would be COUNTING CARDS, see, it's not against the rules!"

[Dragoonster]

The fact that you understand that it's not a great plan to discuss one' s plan to count cards is pretty indicidive that you know it is against the rules.

Nah, I recognize that casinos as private clubs can kick out anyone for nearly anything, including something that isn't prohibited by their rules. I've only done it casually and not terribly effectively due to a poor memory (can't track aces unless I'm fresh for example). But I've had to alter play when under scrutiny. The meta-game of counting is doing it quietly, but that's not against any rules either.

And what meadmaker said.

[Stone Island]

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out. Other posters who count cards regularly have admited as much already. Even if they didn't, you're just playing a semantics game, we could simply say "counting cards and using that information to inform your gameplay in a game of blackjack for chips redemable for money inside the casino in question." Your arguement is about as asinine as saying "I could sit in my hotel room and count the number of cards that are in a deck I brought from home, I would be COUNTING CARDS, see, it's not against the rules!"

What do we know?

Counting cards isn't illegal.
Counting cards isn't cheating (tautology I suppose: cheating is illegal).
What don't we know?

Whether a Nevada casino's right to throw you out for almost any reason means that counting cards is de facto against the rules.

What are we trying to figure out?

Is counting cards ethical?

[Dragoonster]

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out. Other posters who count cards regularly have admited as much already. Even if they didn't, you're just playing a semantics game, we could simply say "counting cards and using that information to inform your gameplay in a game of blackjack for chips redemable for money inside the casino in question." Your arguement is about as asinine as saying "I could sit in my hotel room and count the number of cards that are in a deck I brought from home, I would be COUNTING CARDS, see, it's not against the rules!"

Do you think it's unethical to win money at a casino?

[Stone Island]

Is handicapping horse races unethical?

[Dragoonster]

Whether a Nevada casino's right to throw you out for almost any reason means that counting cards is [I]de facto against the rules.

Not even de facto, that's merely a right of the type of business the casino is in, a private club (unless one views that as a rule). If this is the only information we have, a person who got lucky and won two $10000 slots spins within an hour being kicked out just to be safe would be equally ethical, or equally unethical, as any other person kicked out merely for winning. Despite them breaking no internal casino rules.

As neither being lucky, nor counting cards is prohibited by internal rules, both seem ethical imo. As is the original question, a dealer counting cards to alter shoe reshuffle.

[CaptainManacles]

Do you think it's unethical to win money at a casino?

no

[Ladewig]

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out.

I am not convinced that would happen. Many pit bosses know that the majority of people who believe that they can count cards are pretty bad at it.

I'm going to Las Vegas this weekend. I'll talk to some dealers and see what they say.

[Ladewig]

Irrelevant to the analogy.

I have no idea what your point here is. Can you explain why the analogy being invalid is irrelevant to the analogy?

[Meadmaker]

I am not convinced that would happen. Many pit bosses know that the majority of people who believe that they can count cards are pretty bad at it.

Especially the ones who tell them in advance.


I'm going to Las Vegas this weekend. I'll talk to some dealers and see what they say.

What? Introduce real facts to the debate? Go to your room!


Seriously, though, I will be very curious what they'll say. Thanks for asking, and please do report.

[Metullus]

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out. Other posters who count cards regularly have admited as much already. Even if they didn't, you're just playing a semantics game, we could simply say "counting cards and using that information to inform your gameplay in a game of blackjack for chips redemable for money inside the casino in question." Your arguement is about as asinine as saying "I could sit in my hotel room and count the number of cards that are in a deck I brought from home, I would be COUNTING CARDS, see, it's not against the rules!"No. I have sat at a table explaining to the lady I was with both the whys and hows of card counting. As long as we were not winning we were left alone. Ask the casino - there are no rules against counting cards. They will say that they are entitled to ban people from the casino for any reason but they will not say that counting cards is illegal.

Likewise it is possible (albeit difficult) to train yourself to control the roll of dice in craps, thus decreasing the casino's edge. This is not illegal, there are no rules regarding how you are allowed to throw the dice except that you must do it with one hand and the dice must hit the other end of the table, but I daresay that if the casino decides that that is what you are doing you may be asked to leave.

They ask card counters to leave not because they are cheating but because they can make the game unprofitable for the casinos.

If players are caught cheating they go to jail.

[ponderingturtle]

I think you'd get about as far as "I intend to count cards" before getting thrown out. Other posters who count cards regularly have admited as much already. Even if they didn't, you're just playing a semantics game, we could simply say "counting cards and using that information to inform your gameplay in a game of blackjack for chips redemable for money inside the casino in question." Your arguement is about as asinine as saying "I could sit in my hotel room and count the number of cards that are in a deck I brought from home, I would be COUNTING CARDS, see, it's not against the rules!"

The thing is that it all depends. Lots of people try to count cards, few are good enough to consistently make money at it.

And this is not limited to blackjack. If you as a player consistently make money at some game, the casino has the same right to refuse play to you on any game.

[ponderingturtle]

Whether a Nevada casino's right to throw you out for almost any reason means that counting cards is de facto against the rules.


No it is winning the cassinoes money that they try to prevent. So that is the rule that is being broken.

[ponderingturtle]

no

So only winning enough money that the casino refuses you play is unethical?

[Furi]

Counting is about as ethical as you can get, Casino Games are all based on a slight house advantage, as long as you are doing it in your head with no mechanical aids and aren't distracting other players, who cares,

The croupier has no option really, most tables or chains will specify along the lines of, dealer must hit on <17 and stand on a hard or soft 17 or 5-6 cards, depending on the house rules normal shoe reshuffle at around 50-66% deck penetration, some now will reshuffle after 25-33%, card counting can assist by moving maybe a couple of % in to the players favour after reasonable penetration,

A card counting croupier, watching for changes in betting habits when a deck is hot, most people sitting at a table will pretty much have your basic table strategies memorised, and so do the croupiers, sudden wild diversions from this, may indicate a counter in you midst, in which case the pit boss or inspector might get interested, the other way would be to reshuffle prior to the anticipated penetration. either way both sides are just playing the odds, the player is moving the %age yield to his side of 0% whilst the house is trying to maintain it.

The house can further control risk from successful counters by limiting stakes between a min max range so that they cant capitalise on the play, and any benefit they get from play with any counting benefit is minimal in comparison to the grind in getting there, limiting double surrender or insurance rules, no card in the hole, removing or reducing the 3:2 payout is another good one, so is dealing a blind hand, or a top card discard per round

The casino really doesn't give a crap they love big winners, and a successful counter at the table, will bring other people to that table, and for every one winner ther are 30 other losers and a counters run only lasts till the next shuffle or the table stake limit has made it neccesary to shift to another table.

when I did tech/customer support for a uk Casino chain we used to give punters sites for counting methods, book reccomendations, betting strategy sites, etc. I would even advise that our online casino software used a full simulated 6 deck shoe with automatic reshuffle at 50% penetration, no time limits between bets and so they could practice counting offline, and then if they want they can play online using whatever strategy they wanted, also if they required I could send there online play session to them if they wished, so they could see if the actual count was the same as their count.

most cheating in a casino comes from chip thieves, or chip cons, or people trying to cheat the cashiers, or if community games are allowed a loaded table of conspirators, who don't really care how much any individual loses, as long as the poor monkeys who decide to play with them do go away with less than they started with.

[Stone Island]

when I did tech/customer support for a uk Casino chain we used to give punters sites for counting methods, book reccomendations, betting strategy sites, etc. I would even advise that our online casino software used a full simulated 6 deck shoe with automatic reshuffle at 50% penetration, no time limits between bets and so they could practice counting offline, and then if they want they can play online using whatever strategy they wanted, also if they required I could send there online play session to them if they wished, so they could see if the actual count was the same as their count.


Excellent post. I suppose that the horse racing industry supports, encourages, and partners with various horse racing newspapers, forms, and tip sheets. The logic is that even if the margin for the elite player gets shaved, or even turns against the casino/track, there are so few elite players that the casino wins in the end.

I know a guy who used to be a dealer for various casinos in Reno. He said that the name of the game was hands per hour. It doesn't matter if someone here or there is winning, it's that at the end of the day the casino is going to make it's small percentage, no matter what.

[Ladewig]

I know a guy who used to be a dealer for various casinos in Reno. He said that the name of the game was hands per hour. It doesn't matter if someone here or there is winning, it's that at the end of the day the casino is going to make it's small percentage, no matter what.

That is a very practical and rational approach to running a blackjack pit. On the other hand, there are pit bosses who are so offended by seeing someone count that they will end up ordering more and more frequent shuffles. In fact, it can get to the point that they end up reducing the house take because it takes so long to shuffle a 4 or 6 deck shoe. All these extra shuffles reduce the number of hands per hour and end up costing the casino more money than a single counter would win.

[porch]

Oh please. You're trying to conflate legality with morality. The casino can have a rule that says there are no purple hats allowed in the facility on a Tuesday. If you do so they won't hall you away in handcuffs but you're still breaking the rules. If they catch you they'll just kick you out, just like with card counting. It's just as unethical as the casino lying about the odds. There is a clear understanding, regardless of the law, that they should not lie to you about the odds. Similarly, there is an understanding that you are not counting cards when you sit down at that table. If you want to tell the dealer you are counting cards before doing so then fine, that's ethical. Otherwise, you are clearly breaking rules.

Wow.

I was trying to come up with a fresh analogy to illustrate how ridiculous your absolutist position is, but you did it better and faster than I could.

Wearing a purple hat to the casino on a Tuesday is unethical because the casino made a rule against it. Gotcha.

[DrBaltar]

Why would counting cards be unethical while doing mental math to figure odds in poker is ok? Either way you are using mental skills to give yourself an advantage in a card game to gain money. If you are more skillful at a game using nothing but your brain, you should get more money. I see nothing wrong with this.

For a casino to ban you from a game based on your mental abilities is discrimination, and therefore unethical.

[Stone Island]

If it's unethical to use your brain to take advantage of superior strategy, even accidentally, perhaps the only solution is to say that it would also unethical not to partake in the casino's proffered alcoholic beverages (as those dim the brain and make it less likely that you will remember the cards that have been played).

[joobz]

Why would counting cards be unethical while doing mental math to figure odds in poker is ok? Either way you are using mental skills to give yourself an advantage in a card game to gain money. If you are more skillful at a game using nothing but your brain, you should get more money. I see nothing wrong with this.

For a casino to ban you from a game based on your mental abilities is discrimination, and therefore unethical.

their house, their rules. Sure it is discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's unethical.

Is it unethical to hire only people who are competent and qualified for a specific job? Is it unethical to hire Dr. Mary Waters, M.D. as a physician over Skippy the 13 year old poolboy?

[DrBaltar]

I'm not talking about the ethics of hiring one person over another. I'm talking about a Casino picking and choosing which people can and cannot play their games.

If the casino banned some minority group because they generally bring little money to the casino, you can bet there would be cries of discrimination, and changes would be made - even though the casino owns the tables and makes the rules. Well kicking someone out because they are more skilled at blackjack is also discrimination.

[Bododio]

Wouldn't it be unethical for the casino to give free drinks to gambling patrons, if the intention were that since alcohol clouds judgment the patrons make more gambling mistakes and loses more money than the drinks cost, thereby increasing the casino's revenue?

[DrBaltar]

Yes alcohol tends to cloud gamblers judgment and the casino will probably end up with more money,. But why would that be unethical? Gamblers do not have to take the free drinks.

[Stone Island]

Is there any reason to think that gambling itself is unethical?

(I'm not talking about a legal prohibition that some localities may enforce. I'm not talking about the prohibition by some religious organizations.)

Aside from any religious or legal prohibition is there any further reason to think that gambling itself might be unethical?

There are some instance, like the lottery, where gambling is fantastically stupid. Of course, playing the lottery is entertaining. Having bought a ticket or two in my time, I can tell you that a few moments spent in sweet reflection considering what I would do if I won, is worth my entertainment dollar. I think it should be noted that I have spent much, much more money in my time being not entertained by many a movie.

[Olowkow]

Any game that can be defeated by simple logic and memorization is a trivial game, like tic-tac-toe or checkers. I never could understand the complaints of the casinos and their treatment of card counters. If one can defeat the game by "thought crimes" it simply means that blackjack is a trivial game, and it should be abandoned.

[joobz]

I'm not talking about the ethics of hiring one person over another. I'm talking about a Casino picking and choosing which people can and cannot play their games.
Hospitals on the whole NEVER have hire a person as a physician who isn't board certified. This discriminates against everyone who isn't board certified and isn't a one to one basis. It's an entire class of people.

Further, this discrimination is institutionalized at the government level. HOW HORRIBLE!

If the casino banned some minority group because they generally bring little money to the casino, you can bet there would be cries of discrimination, and changes would be made - even though the casino owns the tables and makes the rules. Not relevant because there are laws against it and it functions off a group based stereotype.

And casinos do desrcimninate based upon income levels. How many people do you see in the "high rollers" sections? Some casinos even have casinos within casinos which cater only to the affluent and powerful. It's economic descrimination and fully ethical.


Well kicking someone out because they are more skilled at blackjack is also discrimination.
I agree, it is discrimination, and from the casino's perspective, it makes perfect sense. It's not unethical.

Is it disrcimination to prevent a 15 year old kid from playing in a 12 year old, pee-wee football league because he's too big and good? Is that unethical?

[CaptainManacles]

I have no idea what your point here is. Can you explain why the analogy being invalid is irrelevant to the analogy?

You didn't show that the analogy was invalid, you showed that it was different. That's part of what makes it an analogy. You didn't show any relevent differences, so try again.

[CaptainManacles]

No. I have sat at a table explaining to the lady I was with both the whys and hows of card counting. As long as we were not winning we were left alone. Ask the casino - there are no rules against counting cards. They will say that they are entitled to ban people from the casino for any reason but they will not say that counting cards is illegal.

Likewise it is possible (albeit difficult) to train yourself to control the roll of dice in craps, thus decreasing the casino's edge. This is not illegal, there are no rules regarding how you are allowed to throw the dice except that you must do it with one hand and the dice must hit the other end of the table, but I daresay that if the casino decides that that is what you are doing you may be asked to leave.

They ask card counters to leave not because they are cheating but because they can make the game unprofitable for the casinos.

If players are caught cheating they go to jail.

Again, and this has been brought up a number of times before, we're not talking about legality, we're talking about morality.

[CaptainManacles]

Wow.

I was trying to come up with a fresh analogy to illustrate how ridiculous your absolutist position is, but you did it better and faster than I could.

Wearing a purple hat to the casino on a Tuesday is unethical because the casino made a rule against it. Gotcha.

Yes, being on someone else's property when they don't want you there is unethical, your inability to put two and two together aside. It doesn't have to be purple hats. It could be hiding a gun in your coat. It could be whatever. The point is that it isn't the actual nature of the act itself that makes it unethical. Bringing a gun it would be fine if they were fine with people bringing in concealed weapons. But otherwise it is clearly unethical. That the randomness of my example throws you off is your shortcoming not mine.

[CaptainManacles]

If you are more skillful at a game using nothing but your brain, you should get more money.

That doesn't even make enough sense to respond to.

If the casino banned some minority group because they generally bring little money to the casino, you can bet there would be cries of discrimination, and changes would be made - even though the casino owns the tables and makes the rules.

Yes, but that ridiculous definition of "discrimination" is...ridiculous. Discrimation is fundemental to how the brain functions in all of it's activities. The problem is racial discrimination, or other catagories which clearly have no impact on the service or position denied. By your defition of "minority groups" people who fire guns wildly into the air indoors would be "a group in the minority of the population"

[CaptainManacles]

If it's unethical to use your brain to take advantage of superior strategy, even accidentally, perhaps the only solution is to say that it would also unethical not to partake in the casino's proffered alcoholic beverages (as those dim the brain and make it less likely that you will remember the cards that have been played).

I do think it's a fair arguement to say it may be something that some can't help doing, that knowing something isn't a choice and it's silly to expect people not to act on something they know. But for the most part I think counting cards is something that most have to put some effort into doing.

[westprog]

I do think it's a fair arguement to say it may be something that some can't help doing, that knowing something isn't a choice and it's silly to expect people not to act on something they know. But for the most part I think counting cards is something that most have to put some effort into doing.

I think it's also reasonable that if casinos have rules against counting cards, that they should tell people about them. They don't, according to most experience. There are several reasons for this. One is that it's impossible to tell when someone's doing it. The other is that a good way to win a lot of money from a gambler is to have him counting cards and getting it wrong.

An example of something that wouldn't be against the rules, but would be unethical is noting a mark on a particular card and using it to gain an edge. And if it would be unethical in a game with friends, it would be unethical in a casino.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not talking about the ethics of hiring one person over another. I'm talking about a Casino picking and choosing which people can and cannot play their games.


And they do pick who can, if you consistently win too much money the casino will not let you play.

As the casino's rules define ethics, it is unethical to win to much money.

[ponderingturtle]

Is there any reason to think that gambling itself is unethical?

(I'm not talking about a legal prohibition that some localities may enforce. I'm not talking about the prohibition by some religious organizations.)

Aside from any religious or legal prohibition is there any further reason to think that gambling itself might be unethical?

There are some instance, like the lottery, where gambling is fantastically stupid. Of course, playing the lottery is entertaining. Having bought a ticket or two in my time, I can tell you that a few moments spent in sweet reflection considering what I would do if I won, is worth my entertainment dollar. I think it should be noted that I have spent much, much more money in my time being not entertained by many a movie.

It depends. If you facilitate people to get into more financial trouble than they would otherwise. That would be unethical.

Think of it as running a bar, and running a bar that will serve people no matter how drunk they are and that has a drive though window.

[Furi]

It depends. If you facilitate people to get into more financial trouble than they would otherwise. That would be unethical.

Think of it as running a bar, and running a bar that will serve people no matter how drunk they are and that has a drive though window.

I'd say that would be irresponsible, but is a sound business ethic, however socially repugnant people find it

[Ladewig]

And they do pick who can, if you consistently win too much money the casino will not let you play.

As the casino's rules define ethics, it is unethical to win to much money.

You should put smileys in your posts or people will think you are serious.

[Ladewig]

You didn't show that the analogy was invalid, you showed that it was different. That's part of what makes it an analogy. You didn't show any relevent differences, so try again.

My reasoning is thus:

1) in general, lying during a business transaction is unethical.
2) in my experience, casinos are very honest in telling players what the house advantage is one specific bets. When players ask what the house advantage on blackjack is, while following the basic strategy, the dealers will give an accurate answer (which depends on specific house rules, but in general is about one half of one percent)
3) having dealers count cards and automatically reshuffle when the count favors the players changes the house advantage both in the short term and the long term. This change is large enough that if all players knew about it, many would stop playing.

4) therefore, the casinos that follow that practice are being dishonest and unethical.

In craps, changing dice does not change the odds of any future wins, so there is a significant difference between changing dice and shuffling when the count favors the players.

[Suddenly]

In Atlantic City you can't be barred for counting cards. There was a court case about this 25 years ago or so.

Casinos have all sorts of paranoid ways to prevent this. Limit bet spreads, no mid-shoe entry, deal three decks out of an eight deck shoe, 6-5 blackjack, and a shuffle whenever an unusually large bet comes out.

That people try to count is an overall plus for the casino because most people stink at it and lose money trying. They try to obstruct successful counters as a business decision.

A casino would love for you to come in and try counting. Until they figure out you can do it well, this is when they take whatever action they can.

[ponderingturtle]

You should put smileys in your posts or people will think you are serious.

And if people do, it is their fault.

But really is it nessacary to put smilies in a reducto ad absurdum?

[Stone Island]

Any game that can be defeated by simple logic and memorization is a trivial game, like tic-tac-toe or checkers. I never could understand the complaints of the casinos and their treatment of card counters. If one can defeat the game by "thought crimes" it simply means that blackjack is a trivial game, and it should be abandoned.

Forgive me if I get this wrong (math isn't really my thing) but I've always had the impression that card counters don't defeat the game, i.e., solve it, they merely even the odds. There's still a fair bit of random variability left.

[ponderingturtle]

Forgive me if I get this wrong (math isn't really my thing) but I've always had the impression that card counters don't defeat the game, i.e., solve it, they merely even the odds. There's still a fair bit of random variability left.

Defeating the game or solving it are not well defined terms.

What they really do is keep track of the relative advantage in the game, and bet more when it favors the players.

Some games, even some slots with inteligent play you can get an advantage for the player.

[Metullus]

Again, and this has been brought up a number of times before, we're not talking about legality, we're talking about morality.Actually I thought we were speaking of the ethics of card counting...

So, if card counting does not violate the stated rules of the game how can it be cheating?

[joobz]

Actually I thought we were speaking of the ethics of card counting...

So, if card counting does not violate the stated rules of the game how can it be cheating?
Do we legislate all morals?

It isn't against the law to cheat on your wife. Does that mean it's ethical?

[Furi]

Tired of getting ground down by the house odds, tried various systems counting strategies etc, forget you martingales or your covered neighbour and probability systems, I can shave the house advantage by 2.72% on french roulette and 5.26% on 00 Roulette!!!!!!! and your card games will be maximum 0% house advantage the rest is up to you.

Intersted of course you are, you're an intelligent person you KNOW how to play the odds.

My expected yield from roulette, slots, BJ, Carribean Stud, Baccarat, is currently riding at 0% expected loss.. now that is a system boys and girls, send me your credit card details and a small donation to my bank account and I will tell you how to achieve this amazing feat, AND it is TOTALLY Legal in all states and countries, and the Casinos CANNOT touch you.

This system is 100% Guaranteed to be more effective than any other method or system or strategy. I promise you will never lose in the casino again, Just purchase the Furi Method now.

[Metullus]

Do we legislate all morals?

It isn't against the law to cheat on your wife. Does that mean it's ethical?I am not arguing that ethics or morality need be legislated. Far from it. What I am saying is that when rules are established for a game and those rules are not broken and when the player has no advantage over his opponent other than skill then there is no unethical behavior.

When I got married I made the commitment to my wife that I would not cheat on her - it is one of the "rules" of a conventional marriage. Thus breaking that rule would be unethical.

There are no rules against counting cards. Period. Casinos do not like good card counters because they can win a lot of money. Casinos in Nevada can and do exclude known card counters because they are entitled to refuse entrance to just about any one for almost any reason. They could also exclude someone who demonstrated real skill with the dice at a craps table (and there is no rule in craps that says that a player cannot throw the dice with skill).

[bokonon]

The Furi method sounds a lot like the bokonon "just stay home" method.

[Suddenly]

Forgive me if I get this wrong (math isn't really my thing) but I've always had the impression that card counters don't defeat the game, i.e., solve it, they merely even the odds. There's still a fair bit of random variability left.

A crapload of variance.

As applied to one hundred hands the difference between the counter and non-counter is very small. It takes a ton of hands to get to the long run, which is why counters tend to put together teams.

Card counting is trying to bet enough money on hands with a positive edge to offset the smaller bets made with a negative edge while waiting for hands with a positive edge to bet large on. Sometimes the deck stays poor, sometimes you lose most of your bets when the deck is strong.

So on top of keeping straight the number of big cards vs. little cards in the deck, the number of decks left in the shoe, proper betting amounts, and possible strategy variations, a counter needs the discipline to wait for the edge and not lose the head after waiting hours for a strong deck and then losing several huge bets anyway.

[DrBaltar]

Hospitals on the whole NEVER have hire a person as a physician who isn't board certified. This discriminates against everyone who isn't board certified and isn't a one to one basis. It's an entire class of people.

Further, this discrimination is institutionalized at the government level. HOW HORRIBLE!I'll let you continue to rant about the ethics of discrimination with respect to hiring. Just do not do so in response to me when I have stated I am not talking about hiring issues.

And casinos do desrcimninate based upon income levels. How many people do you see in the "high rollers" sections? Some casinos even have casinos within casinos which cater only to the affluent and powerful. It's economic descrimination and fully ethical.They do not discriminate based on income levels. If someone makes $15,000/year and they want to sell their house and their car and everything else of value that they own and put it all down on #15 in high roller roulette, the casino will be happy to take their money. And no, that wouldn't be unethical. They do not know gamblers backgrounds and they don't need to know.

Well kicking someone out because they are more skilled at blackjack is also discrimination.
I agree, it is discrimination, and from the casino's perspective, it makes perfect sense. It's not unethical.Counting cards also makes perfect sense, so it is not unethical.

I also agree the casinos have the right to kick people out of a game if they are losing too much money to them. It's a bit cowardly though since they are aware that people who are skilled enough at blackjack have an advantage over the house yet they offered the game anyway. Also they can counteract that tactic by shuffling more often.

[DrBaltar]

But for the most part I think counting cards is something that most have to put some effort into doing.

It also takes some effort to learn enough statistics to help you be a better poker player. Is that unethical too?

[Ladewig]

Some games, even some slots with inteligent play you can get an advantage for the player.

Would you elaborate?

[Hokulele]

Would you elaborate?


Ponderingturtle may have something else in mind, but in many casinos, when they install a new bank of slot machines, they tend to pay out better for the first 20 or so tries. A friend of mine used to work for a company that made and programmed the boards that went inside reel action slot machines, and it has something to do with having enough information to start making their payout calculations. Each machine is programmed to have a set payoff percentage, and needs a large enough set of data to determine whether or not it is meeting its programmed requirements.

I have confirmed this through experimentation.

ETA: Would my experimentation be considered unethical?

[ponderingturtle]

Would you elaborate?

I have heard that claim made about video poker. So not strictly a slot machine.

I have not done the math do determine if it is credible or not.

I might well have been wrong to phrase video poker as a slot machine.

[ponderingturtle]

Ponderingturtle may have something else in mind, but in many casinos, when they install a new bank of slot machines, they tend to pay out better for the first 20 or so tries. A friend of mine used to work for a company that made and programmed the boards that went inside reel action slot machines, and it has something to do with having enough information to start making their payout calculations. Each machine is programmed to have a set payoff percentage, and needs a large enough set of data to determine whether or not it is meeting its programmed requirements.

I have confirmed this through experimentation.

ETA: Would my experimentation be considered unethical?

I would not have thought that, as I would have expected their statistics to be wired to their random number generators, and so being able to totaly control the expected pay out.

Is it that statistical payout is not enough that there is regulation on actual payout?

[Hokulele]

I would not have thought that, as I would have expected their statistics to be wired to their random number generators, and so being able to totaly control the expected pay out.

Is it that statistical payout is not enough that there is regulation on actual payout?


In many jurisdictions, payout is regulated by law, not statistics. Here is an example from Arizona.

http://www.gm.state.az.us/machines.htm

ETA: Maybe this is not the best example, as they use the word "theoretically", but I have seen it written as fact elsewhere, but am too damn lazy to do further googling.

ETA2: This only applies to average payouts, not jackpots. I doubt anyone could get rich trolling casinos for brand new slot machines.

[CaptainManacles]

My reasoning is thus:

1) in general, lying during a business transaction is unethical.
2) in my experience, casinos are very honest in telling players what the house advantage is one specific bets. When players ask what the house advantage on blackjack is, while following the basic strategy, the dealers will give an accurate answer (which depends on specific house rules, but in general is about one half of one percent)
3) having dealers count cards and automatically reshuffle when the count favors the players changes the house advantage both in the short term and the long term. This change is large enough that if all players knew about it, many would stop playing.

4) therefore, the casinos that follow that practice are being dishonest and unethical.

In craps, changing dice does not change the odds of any future wins, so there is a significant difference between changing dice and shuffling when the count favors the players.

Except that shuffling puts the odds to exactly where they would tell you the odds are, so it's not lying at all.

[CaptainManacles]

It also takes some effort to learn enough statistics to help you be a better poker player. Is that unethical too?

I never said or implied that effort is sufficient to make something unethical. I don't debate with people who are intellectually dishonest.

[Irony]

Except that shuffling puts the odds to exactly where they would tell you the odds are, so it's not lying at all.

By reseting the odds only when they become slightly favorable to the player they skew them further in favor of the house in the long term. It is effectively equivalent to cherry picking in statistics. If this isn't taken into consideration when they tell you the house advantage, then they are being dishonest.

[joobz]

I'll let you continue to rant about the ethics of discrimination with respect to hiring. Just do not do so in response to me when I have stated I am not talking about hiring issues.
So you admit then that your discrimnation argument was nonsense? That's a funny way of saying it.


They do not discriminate based on income levels. If someone makes $15,000/year and they want to sell their house and their car and everything else of value that they own and put it all down on #15 in high roller roulette, the casino will be happy to take their money. And no, that wouldn't be unethical. They do not know gamblers backgrounds and they don't need to know.
Yup and the moment they loose and have no more money to bet, they are escorted out of that area. It's a discriminating practice. So yes, they do discriminate.

Counting cards also makes perfect sense, so it is not unethical.
I do not believe it is unethical. I simply believe that casinos kicking out card counters isn't unethical either.

I also agree the casinos have the right to kick people out of a game if they are losing too much money to them. It's a bit cowardly though since they are aware that people who are skilled enough at blackjack have an advantage over the house yet they offered the game anyway. Also they can counteract that tactic by shuffling more often.
I agree. It is fully cowardly. And I'm sure they feel really bad about it while they count their insane piles of cash. :D

[DrBaltar]

It also takes some effort to learn enough statistics to help you be a better poker player. Is that unethical too?I never said or implied that effort is sufficient to make something unethical. I don't debate with people who are intellectually dishonest.


Oh please. Who's being intellectually dishonest? I didn't say anything as vague as 'effort is sufficient to make something unethical' as in any kind of effort applied to anything. I am talking specifically about one casino game (black jack) vs. another casino game (poker), and the effort in learning the strategy of counting cards vs. the effort of learning statistics to win the game.

And I was replying to this:
I do think it's a fair arguement to say it may be something that some can't help doing, that knowing something isn't a choice and it's silly to expect people not to act on something they know. But for the most part I think counting cards is something that most have to put some effort into doing.

In your last sentence, why point out that counting cards is something that most people have to put some effort into other than to make the case that you've been trying to make on here which is that counting cards is unethical?

You've been doing nothing but evading in response to my posts.

[ponderingturtle]

In many jurisdictions, payout is regulated by law, not statistics. Here is an example from Arizona.

http://www.gm.state.az.us/machines.htm

ETA: Maybe this is not the best example, as they use the word "theoretically", but I have seen it written as fact elsewhere, but am too damn lazy to do further googling.

ETA2: This only applies to average payouts, not jackpots. I doubt anyone could get rich trolling casinos for brand new slot machines.

The thing is that my understanding was that they tested the random number generators, though millions of simulated plays to test what the expected payout percentage would be. Those are also minimums, you can have slot machines that pay out a higher percentage say instead of the minimum 80% pay out 90%, and use it to draw more customers.

I just don't see why it would need to vary the percentage of various payouts depending on the history of the machine. This would mean that the machines would become less random and that a specific machine could get into the range of a positive payout if it was sufficiently over due.

[DrBaltar]

So you admit then that your discrimnation argument was nonsense? That's a funny way of saying it. It's a funny way of saying it in the same way as black is a funny way of saying white. Where do you come up with this stuff? Please quote where I admitted that your hiring discrimination analogies show that my player discrimination analogies are nonsense.

Yup and the moment they loose and have no more money to bet, they are escorted out of that area. It's a discriminating practice. So yes, they do discriminate.Well yeah, if you have no more money, obviously you can't place a bet and you're in the way of other players lol.

[Hokulele]

The thing is that my understanding was that they tested the random number generators, though millions of simulated plays to test what the expected payout percentage would be. Those are also minimums, you can have slot machines that pay out a higher percentage say instead of the minimum 80% pay out 90%, and use it to draw more customers.

I just don't see why it would need to vary the percentage of various payouts depending on the history of the machine. This would mean that the machines would become less random and that a specific machine could get into the range of a positive payout if it was sufficiently over due.


To be honest, I would agree with you on a common sense level, but that is what I was told by someone in the industry working on the chips, and I did try it out on two separate occasions and made $400 which is pretty good for nickel slot machines. Granted, small sample size and all that, but it seemed to confirm what I was told.

I doubt I could find convicing evidence from the manufacturers themselves, so I guess we will have to leave this in the "anecdotal" column. Maybe if there are others in the industry, they can confirm or deny this as I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

ETA: Thinking on this further, I do disagree. If the machines must pay out a certain percentage, they would have to be "fixed". Statistically, a machine should theoretically pay out a certain amount in a certain time period, but it does not have to. Statistical outliers are fairly common. If the law requires that all machines pay out a certain amount in that time period, then they will have to be rigged to ensure compliance. I don't really care whether I am right or wrong enough to find out if the law is a fixed minimum or a theoretical minimum. Although I do agree that if there were several casinos competing for clients, it would be in their best interest to go beyond the legal minimum requirement.

[ponderingturtle]

To be honest, I would agree with you on a common sense level, but that is what I was told by someone in the industry working on the chips, and I did try it out on two separate occasions and made $400 which is pretty good for nickel slot machines. Granted, small sample size and all that, but it seemed to confirm what I was told.

I doubt I could find convicing evidence from the manufacturers themselves, so I guess we will have to leave this in the "anecdotal" column. Maybe if there are others in the industry, they can confirm or deny this as I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Given that my evidence is from TV documentaries, I would say you have the more authoritative source. But the whole thing seems to be entirely unnessacary, and runs counter to the typical statements about slot machines not haveing a history so that saying that X machine is due is nonsense.

[Hokulele]

Given that my evidence is from TV documentaries, I would say you have the more authoritative source. But the whole thing seems to be entirely unnessacary, and runs counter to the typical statements about slot machines not haveing a history so that saying that X machine is due is nonsense.


Sorry about that, see my ETA above. And regarding the history and "due to pay", according to my source, the bobble only applies to the first 20 or so attempts, and then settles down.

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry about that, see my ETA above. And regarding the history and "due to pay", according to my source, the bobble only applies to the first 20 or so attempts, and then settles down.

Might have been something about their specific random number generator.

[Hokulele]

Might have been something about their specific random number generator.


Makes sense to me. I still wonder if the other posters on this thread consider my playing of the new machines to be ethical or not, considering I had inside information.

[Stone Island]

Makes sense to me. I still wonder if the other posters on this thread consider my playing of the new machines to be ethical or not, considering I had inside information.

I think the "inside information" aspect makes it unethical. If, however, someone could figure this anomaly out on their own, like applying general mathematical tools to the game of blackjack, or if the odd behavior of these machines was well known to those who weren't intimate with their construction, then that wouldn't be unethical.

Kind of like the difference between insider trading and just being generally smart, reading the "tea leaves", and figuring it out.

[Suddenly]

The whole ethical idea is silly. Casinos offer a game that can be beat. They could correct this and make it unbeatable, but they don't because.... they make more money this way. No noble reason.

Meanwhile, they try to on the sly convince people that taking advantage of their wish to maximize profit by playing their game by their rules is somehow unethical.... and some people buy it. If the casino doesn't like it, they can change the rules of the game or quit offering it altogether.

[DrBaltar]

What Suddenly said :)

[Ladewig]

I have heard that claim made about video poker. So not strictly a slot machine.

I have not done the math do determine if it is credible or not.

I might well have been wrong to phrase video poker as a slot machine.

Given that explanation, I agree with you. I have read some books and subscribe to an industry magazine. These days those positive expection games are very rare and are dependent either on special promotions (e.g. triple points day,) or on progressive jackpots that have rolled over to a high number.

[Ladewig]

Sorry about that, see my ETA above. And regarding the history and "due to pay", according to my source, the bobble only applies to the first 20 or so attempts, and then settles down.


After everything I have read, I find that claim rather hard to believe. It may be very true, but I would like to see a second source before I put credence in it.

[Ladewig]

By reseting the odds only when they become slightly favorable to the player they skew them further in favor of the house in the long term. It is effectively equivalent to cherry picking in statistics. If this isn't taken into consideration when they tell you the house advantage, then they are being dishonest.

I agree.

[Herzblut]

It also takes some effort to learn enough statistics to help you be a better poker player. Is that unethical too?
No, but it's totally uneffective and beaten far and away by methods such as female intuition, which is demonstrated quite impressively in the below video.

H.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wAHTWeEA

[joobz]

It's a funny way of saying it in the same way as black is a funny way of saying white. Where do you come up with this stuff? Please quote where I admitted that your hiring discrimination analogies show that my player discrimination analogies are nonsense.
You've only asserted that the comparison doesn't count and then went so far as to say that I was being "ranting" regarding the example. I could only assume that your desire to block the subject was becuase you realized you had no counter to the point.

Discrimination in of itself isn't wrong. Especially if it regards ability. Is it wrong to discriminate against Pro-bowlers by preventing them from playing in an amatuer league?

Well yeah, if you have no more money, obviously you can't place a bet and you're in the way of other players lol.
Yup. Discrimination.

[DrBaltar]

You've only asserted that the comparison doesn't count and then went so far as to say that I was being "ranting" regarding the example. I could only assume that your desire to block the subject was becuase you realized you had no counter to the point.No, there's just not really any point in commenting on bad analogies other than to point out that they do not apply to this situation.

Discrimination in of itself isn't wrong. Especially if it regards ability. Is it wrong to discriminate against Pro-bowlers by preventing them from playing in an amatuer league?I agree that discrimination in general isn't necessarily bad. That is why I differentiated between your analogy of discrimination with respect to hiring, and discrimination against people counting cards in a blackjack game. Since the only parallel between the two situations is discrimination, I might draw the conclusion that you believe any kind of discrimination is good since you used an example showing that discrimination in hiring can be a good thing to try and show that discrimination against people counting cards in blackjack is also a good thing.

In general, blackjack tables are open to anyone. When Joe Blow comes in knowing only the basic rules of blackjack and loses his money the casino is taking advantage of him. Joe Blow is expected to take his lumps and move on. But then when someone comes in who knows what they're doing and starts winning money from the casino, the casino wants to put a stop to it.

Again, I'm not saying the casino has no right to kick them out, I just don't think it's fair.

[joobz]

No, there's just not really any point in commenting on bad analogies other than to point out that they do not apply to this situation. From my vantage point, you had failed to explain why you think the analogy is poor. Below you provide a bit more information.

I agree that discrimination in general isn't necessarily bad. That is why I differentiated between your analogy of discrimination with respect to hiring, and discrimination against people counting cards in a blackjack game. Since the only parallel between the two situations is discrimination, I might draw the conclusion that you believe any kind of discrimination is good since you used an example showing that discrimination in hiring can be a good thing to try and show that discrimination against people counting cards in blackjack is also a good thing.
Well, the parallel isn't only discrimination. The true parallel is in both cases is discrimination based upon ability. If I had made a race discrimination argument (like you had done earlier) that would be a poor analogy, since racial dsicrimination is a group stereotype/prejudice and is used as a substitute for a proper evaluation of the indvidual.

And my second example of amateur leagues further demonstrates that discrimination on ability is common and not unethical.

Now, you ask if I think that it is a "good thing" that casinos discriminate against good players. Well, good is relative and it is "good" for the casino and bad for the good player.

In general, blackjack tables are open to anyone. When Joe Blow comes in knowing only the basic rules of blackjack and loses his money the casino is taking advantage of him. Joe Blow is expected to take his lumps and move on. But then when someone comes in who knows what they're doing and starts winning money from the casino, the casino wants to put a stop to it.
Yup.

Again, I'm not saying the casino has no right to kick them out, I just don't think it's fair.
Well, no. It isn't really fair. But the casino has no obligation to be
fair. They aren't a charity.

Realize, I am not at all a fan of gambling or casinos. I think it's a self-imposed idiot tax. But regardless of that fact, people have a right to participate if they want. Freedom means that you are free to make good and bad choices.

[Ladewig]

When Joe Blow comes in knowing only the basic rules of blackjack and loses his money the casino is taking advantage of him. .

Why does an adult who knowingly and willingly participates in a game of chance with clearly-defined rules fall into the category of the casino is taking advantage of someone?

[Herzblut]

A crapload of variance.

As applied to one hundred hands the difference between the counter and non-counter is very small. It takes a ton of hands to get to the long run, which is why counters tend to put together teams.

Card counting is trying to bet enough money on hands with a positive edge to offset the smaller bets made with a negative edge while waiting for hands with a positive edge to bet large on. Sometimes the deck stays poor, sometimes you lose most of your bets when the deck is strong.

So on top of keeping straight the number of big cards vs. little cards in the deck, the number of decks left in the shoe, proper betting amounts, and possible strategy variations, a counter needs the discipline to wait for the edge and not lose the head after waiting hours for a strong deck and then losing several huge bets anyway.
I really enjoy your qualified postings here, they demonstrate that you know pretty well what you're talking about.

I agree fully. Blackjack is, in any case, a series of coinflip events, card counting raises your chances just minimally above 50% and thus the statistical variance is converging to zero pretty slowly.

You need a looooong run to benefit from the law of large numbers, together with a substantial capital invest to avoid ruin in the middle of the run. Phenomenons around the "arcsine law" will probably kick you in the a$$.

I personally think that running Blackjack basic strategy will grant you enjoyable casino nights with minimal losses. That's what I'm loooking for, actually. It's fun.

BTW, I think in German casinos cards are re-shuffled after each game which invalidates counting methods alltogether.

H.

[pgwenthold]

Comparisons to horse racing and (depending on the case) poker are not really relevant here (assuming you are talking about something like player-on-player poker, like Texas Hold'em). These are paramutual games, which means you are not betting against the house but are betting against other players, with the house just taking a cut of the action. For every event, there is a winner and a loser, and the house gets its money regardless of who wins and loses. As such, they don't care how good or bad you are, they still get their money.

[Suddenly]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is if and how a casino comps it's players. In the US, casinos will give things to players based on their level of play. To do this, the casino estimates a player's expected loss. If you can play blackjack with a perfect basic strategy, you can lose less than the expected loss. Toss in a few small bet and strategy changes based on a very basic count, and in the end you can get more from them than they get from you. Nice dinners, shows, rounds of golf, free rooms and airfare on future trips, limos, and so on.

This is also possible with some video poker machines based on their payout structure. Perfect play can result in a profit plus some smaller comps.

Nothing unethical about being a smart consumer.

Although I would allow it is probably unethical if you play in a way to try to fool the pit into thinking you are a $50/hand player when in reality you are betting less when the pit bosses are not looking and really going about $30/hand, while playing slowly and taking long breaks to be dealt less hands than normal. This strikes me as being affirmitively dishonest while the perfect strategy at blackjack is the house simply underestimating the ability of a player.

[DrBaltar]

Well, no. It isn't really fair. But the casino has no obligation to be
fair. They aren't a charity.Which is fine.

Realize, I am not at all a fan of gambling or casinos. I think it's a self-imposed idiot tax. But regardless of that fact, people have a right to participate if they want. Freedom means that you are free to make good and bad choices.

Some gambling is idiot tax, and the odds in some games are better than others. There are other games that require some skill, like poker. And, if you are skilled enough, blackjack. So what do you think? Is card counting ethical?

[DrBaltar]

Why does an adult who knowingly and willingly participates in a game of chance with clearly-defined rules fall into the category of the casino is taking advantage of someone?

I don't mean they are pulling the wool over his eyes. I just mean the odds work in the casino's favor.

[joobz]

Some gambling is idiot tax, and the odds in some games are better than others. There are other games that require some skill, like poker. And, if you are skilled enough, blackjack. So what do you think? Is card counting ethical?
I never said it wasn't.
Card Counting is ethical.
Removing card counters from games is ethical.

[Suddenly]

Comparisons to horse racing and (depending on the case) poker are not really relevant here (assuming you are talking about something like player-on-player poker, like Texas Hold'em). These are paramutual games, which means you are not betting against the house but are betting against other players, with the house just taking a cut of the action. For every event, there is a winner and a loser, and the house gets its money regardless of who wins and loses. As such, they don't care how good or bad you are, they still get their money.

True, but in poker they also have some interest in both the bad players not losing to fast so they quit coming and having a core group of regulars that can win so they can provide traffic so there are games for the recreational players. A delicate balance.

Which is why they would never spread no-limit poker if they could get away with it. The bad players lose too fast and never return. Limit poker regulates itself, limit holdem just happens to balance these concerns perfectly. The overall losers don't lose beyond their ability to keep coming back, but the winners can still make a decent profit.

However, no limit holdem is the flavor of the month, the game the recreational players want, so if one casino offers it the others are more or less forced. A casino would profit from kicking the very best no limit players out of the room to slow down the bleeding, and leave the marginally profitable regulars and the recreational losers. The money will take longer to flow from bad to good players, so the player base degrades much slower, which means more games and more rake.

I know of no cardroom that does this, but it seems sound.

[Ladewig]

. A casino would profit from kicking the very best no limit players out of the room to slow down the bleeding, and leave the marginally profitable regulars and the recreational losers.

Perhaps. On the other hand, some down-home amateur pokers players want to play at a table that has a Doyle Brunson or a Phil Ivey or even a Phil Hellmuth. Sure they'll lose their money quickly, but they can walk away with a story. And there'll be a line of small timers just waiting to take the vacated seat.

[Metullus]

I never said it wasn't.
Card Counting is ethical.
Removing card counters from games is ethical.I must admit that I interpreted your post #91 as suggesting that you considered card counting to be unethical. I see now that you were merely questioning whether I was equating legality with morality.

[Suddenly]

Perhaps. On the other hand, some down-home amateur pokers players want to play at a table that has a Doyle Brunson or a Phil Ivey or even a Phil Hellmuth. Sure they'll lose their money quickly, but they can walk away with a story. And there'll be a line of small timers just waiting to take the vacated seat.

The only way Joe Blow is sitting with them is in a tournament, and my point is applying to cash games. The house has no interest in making a tournament last longer, in fact quite the opposite as their cut is on a per tournament basis.

If those guys are playing cash games in your room they are more of a tourist attraction than part of the poker economy. The odd millionare may take a spin at a $3000/$6000 limit stud game, but that is about it...

I'm talking more realistic sized games where those grinding out a living are hardly famous. Getting rid of a player or five that has a massive winrate could be a good idea, depending on how any PR fallout goes.

[Herzblut]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is if and how a casino comps it's players. In the US, casinos will give things to players based on their level of play. To do this, the casino estimates a player's expected loss. If you can play blackjack with a perfect basic strategy, you can lose less than the expected loss. Toss in a few small bet and strategy changes based on a very basic count, and in the end you can get more from them than they get from you. Nice dinners, shows, rounds of golf, free rooms and airfare on future trips, limos, and so on.

Interesting insider information.

I admit I never played in US casinos. Instead, I enjoy casino nights while being on vacation in the carribean, mostly the Dominican Republic. All those posh hotels in the capital have casinos. I like the Jaragua.

For me it's spending a luscious night in a glittering atmosphere, with cool drinks, hot chicks and the like. I think, that's very ethical. :D

Playing basic strategy is not difficult. All it takes is a little prepwork and some self-control over your consumption of whiskey cola, with which the casino tries to fill you up, of course.

Cheers
H.

[ponderingturtle]

I really enjoy your qualified postings here, they demonstrate that you know pretty well what you're talking about.

I agree fully. Blackjack is, in any case, a series of coinflip events, card counting raises your chances just minimally above 50% and thus the statistical variance is converging to zero pretty slowly.

Not quite, counting lets the player know when the odds are in their favor, and thus shifting betting can result in an expected precent return, but it does not broadly increase the odds to greater than 50%

[Vic Vega]

Perhaps. On the other hand, some down-home amateur pokers players want to play at a table that has a Doyle Brunson or a Phil Ivey or even a Phil Hellmuth. Sure they'll lose their money quickly, but they can walk away with a story. And there'll be a line of small timers just waiting to take the vacated seat.

Amateur poker players can beat pros in the short run. It happens all the time in tournaments because all card games, including poker, carry some element of chance. In the long run, skill becomes much more important with poker so when chance balances out over time, the pro will almost certainly be ahead. In a single game, your statement is nowhere near a sure thing.

Maybe you've watched "Rounders" one too many times. :D

[Herzblut]

Not quite, counting lets the player know when the odds are in their favor, and thus shifting betting can result in an expected precent return, but it does not broadly increase the odds to greater than 50%
Yep, you're right.

What I like is the pretty good odds in blackjack, when you play reasonably well without counting at all. It's much better than roulette or so, isn't blackjack even the casino game with the best odds at all?

H.

[Vic Vega]

When the player plays perfect Blackjack, I believe that the house advantage is about one-half of one percent.

[Suddenly]

The blackjack edge depends upon the rules in place and number of decks. Such differences also change the proper basic strategy.

Betting the line in craps and taking odds is often better than even perfect basic strategy blackjack, and impossible to screw up unless you can't keep yourself from betting the prop bets (hard 8, etc.). Depends on the odds available, usually between 4X and 10X. Binions used to offer 100X odds, which makes the house edge nearly insignificant. In the last ten years I've not seen better than 10X, ever.

Of course I don't look so hard, as I virtually never play anything but poker. Promotions that made these games beatable used to be somewhat common, but don't come up that much these days.

[Furi]

When the player plays perfect Blackjack, I believe that the house advantage is about one-half of one percent.


Our house advantage used to be 2.1 - 2.6% depending on how you modified your PBS to take into account the restricted splits, or if opted for an insurance or no insurance table (3/2 or 2x payout on BJ)

[Herzblut]

Our house advantage used to be 2.1 - 2.6% depending on how you modified your PBS to take into account the restricted splits, or if opted for an insurance or no insurance table (3/2 or 2x payout on BJ)
Ever accepted surrender? The dominican casinos actually do.

H.

[Furi]

We did have surrender option available online, few played it as we massaged the payouts that basically rendered it worse for the player, I dont think the bricks and morter casinos accepted surrender.