|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
20th September 2009, 09:25 AM | #81 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
20th September 2009, 02:42 PM | #82 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
|
Clearly, since house margins can be of the order of 3-4% for many games, a single 1% method is insufficient. But most analyses use a package of methods combined - some of which create just a small advantage - to build a complete system.
This wouldn't be terribly practical for a simple game like coin flipping, but the more complex the game, the greater the scope for building these types of systems. |
21st September 2009, 01:50 AM | #83 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Remembering, of course, that such "systems", so far as casino operators are concerned, breach the fundamental concept of "gambling", i.e. winning/losing based on chance, and are, hence, quite rightly (possibly arguable), deemed to constitute cheating. Indeed, simple card counting is taboo, even with measures in place to dilute its effectiveness to close to zero.
|
21st September 2009, 05:25 AM | #84 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
"...quite rightly deemed to constitute cheating"?
In over 30 years of studying and playing casino blackjack, I don't think I've ever encountered such a twisted view of card counting. Since it's a purely mental process, your view is equivalent to Orwell's concept of thoughtcrime. Even the casino industry doesn't try to sell the idea that card counting is cheating; they only claim that they have the right to decline to play against individual customers at their discretion. |
21st September 2009, 06:07 AM | #85 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
21st September 2009, 07:44 AM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Don't be silly now. You're talking "strategy" here, which is perfectly normal and acceptable. "System" gambling is different (although it does include strategy as a legitimate part of it), in that it isn't tolerated by casinos, and is counteracted by them one way or another.
|
21st September 2009, 07:51 AM | #87 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It sounds to me like no casino has ever had to invoke such right against you, which probably says a lot about your card counting ability, and places you firmly in the "benign" category of gambler, i.e. not worthy of a "cheater" banner. Casino bosses don't tend to waste much time and resource monitoring your type - leaving you well alone and free to frequent their establishments, perpetually contributing to their coffers and redistributing your gambling fund to the real players.
|
21st September 2009, 08:03 AM | #88 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
21st September 2009, 08:25 AM | #89 |
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,149
|
Uh, it's not cheating, and no one has ever ruled it such. For a small example of the difference, if the Casino accuses someone of cheating, they legally can get the money back from them.
This is NOT POSSIBLE with card counting. Now Casinos do have a right to refuse to allow people to gamble with them, but legally, this is significantly different. |
21st September 2009, 10:01 AM | #90 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
That's got to be the most outrageous and transparent combination ad hominem/straw man argument I've ever heard. You don't even pretend to address my assertions; you only imply a claim that I didn't even make and then attack that nonexistent claim with a personal insult. That was a post I'll definitely have to keep in mind the next time I run into you on this forum so that I'll know what to expect from you.
I never claimed in that post to be a card counter, just someone who has studied and played blackjack, and even though I actually was quite successful at the game and learned a lot from it, my own degree of success has absolutely nothing to do with the statements I made in that post. The point I was making is that I've discussed the subject of card counting with many others, both in person and in discussions on the Internet, and have never encountered anyone other than you who believed that card counting was cheating. But more importantly, I pointed out that counting cards is purely a mental process, making your view equivalent to George Orwell's concept of thoughtcrime. Perhaps you'd like to actually address that argument by explaining how the content of one's private thoughts could possibly constitute cheating. |
21st September 2009, 10:59 AM | #91 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
More misstatements, although I'm assuming here that when you use the word "system" you mean the same thing everyone else means when they mention a gambling system. Such systems are as distinct from cheating as they are from legitimate advantage play. Players with gambling systems are very common in casinos and competent casino managers welcome them with open arms.
The prevalent gambling system for even-money games is called the Martingale. It's commonly re-invented by new gamblers because it seems so simple and yet foolproof. It consists of simply starting with a unit bet, doubling that bet every time you lose, and returning to the unit bet when you win. A friend once told me that he had come up with a new system for craps that he couldn't wait to try, and when I described the Martingale to him, his eyes got huge and he screamed "HOW DID YOU KNOW?" After he calmed down, he argued "It has to work! How could it fail?" If you ever decide to try the Martingale, or any other gambling system, most of which are derived from the Martingale, in a game such as craps, roulette, or blackjack, don't hesitate to let the game supervisor know what you're doing. It might improve your chances of receiving a nice comp. I've even used a rational betting system based on my advantage that was tailored to look like a variation of the Martingale in order to help disguise my card counting. Another example of a gambling system is the recording of roulette outcomes in order to search for patterns. This is very popular among the French. Many casinos now feature electronic display boards at their roulette tables that record and show past outcomes to accommodate those players. No, it's not true that system gambling isn't tolerated by casinos. In fact such play is welcomed, and the casinos don't counteract it because there's no rational motivation to do so. |
21st September 2009, 02:02 PM | #92 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
You're being very naive now. Everybody with a modicum of gambling insight knows that both the martingale strategy (if it can be called a strategy!) and the seeking of roulette patterns are destined to fail, which is exactly why casinos welcome such converts. You failed to mention, though, the the martingale strategy is partly the reason why casinos have limit bets. Are you sure you've really been in a casino?!?
|
21st September 2009, 02:05 PM | #93 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
21st September 2009, 03:08 PM | #94 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
sol invictus made a good point. Too bad you didn't understand what he was asking.
I never called it a strategy, I called it a system. You called it a strategy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll try to keep this civil by not taking your bait, but please try to address my arguments and stay away from your personal attacks. |
22nd September 2009, 12:08 AM | #95 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
I elected to call it a "strategy" because, at best, that's all it is. I'm using the word "system" to differentiate from pure strategy (such as when to hold or hit in blackjack based purely on the player/dealer hands), and going beyond that by introducing "external" factors, such as card counting. The difference might be subtle, I confess, but the difference between what we might call "internal" and "external" play can make the difference between whether you're welcome in a casino or not.
You cited two "systems" to justify your assertion that casinos are not averse to them, but the two that you cited have no basis in reality favouring the player, so it's not surprising the casinos aren't averse to them. I was alluding to systems that have the potential of affording the player a guaranteed edge. |
22nd September 2009, 07:32 AM | #96 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
22nd September 2009, 09:21 AM | #97 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
He doesn't retract, he only ignores.
|
23rd September 2009, 04:00 AM | #98 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Let me spell this out for you. Casinos don't welcome punters who win long term. Why would they? Simple "strategy" (see before) will not give a punter an edge. "System" play can, and as such is no longer considered "gambling" by casinos, where pure chance determines the outcome (completely ignoring, of course, that the casino itself has a built-in edge (but then it does have a cost to cover to allow punters the priviledge of having some fun!)).
Given the above, and putting aside semantics of strategy vs. system, yes, pretty much, for all intents and purposes, although I'm not sure many casinos would use such word, preferring to politely invoke their right not to take bets and refuse future admission. You're a quick learner. Ever hit the tables?!? |
23rd September 2009, 04:09 AM | #99 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Please do.
Quote:
Quote:
The only thing that separates those is a very slight (but potentially important) change in the relative edge. You even agreed with that! It's no more and no less than playing the game better; it's not "cheating" in any way, shape, or form. |
23rd September 2009, 04:52 AM | #100 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It is if you're proficient at it, such as basic blackjack strategy. In fact, it can become almost automatic.
Ignoring the casino's edge (which, of course, will yield the casino a guaranteed return in the long run), it is pure chance as to whether you walk out of a casino with more money than you went in with on any one occasion. Obviously, applying a strategy will usually improve your chances on any one occasion (or rather reduce your losses), but if you only strategize as opposed to systematize the casino won't be too bothered. They'll still take your money from you in time. Just the hand before won't cut it - that's hardly a "system". A system that turns the odds in your favour is what's critical. "Relative edge" is poor terminology. You've either got the edge or you haven't (or it's even). The difference between a strategy and a system usually amounts to having the edge or not having it. The strength of the strategy determines the edge, within limits. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. Go learn a winning system, though, and try to make money with it, and see how you get on, and then, when you've been banned from all of the casinos in town, as you're rueing the time you "invested" in perfecting the system while you eat your shwarma on your way home, ask yourself this: But for 10 fully-functioning knuckles would I be in a different spot had I got caught "cheating"? |
23rd September 2009, 05:33 AM | #101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Same with counting.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since that's a patently absurd criterion for defining "cheating", I'm waiting for something else. |
23rd September 2009, 06:59 AM | #102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
Yes, that can become almost automatic too, when practiced enough. So what?
Wrong. Counting can turn the odds in the player's favour. I haven't redefined it. My definition has always had a negative expectation value, because of the residual house edge, which a strategy cannot fully eliminate. I haven't redefined that either. To be clear my definition is a strategy with external factors applied, like it or not, and, as such, always had a positive expectation value, by providing an overall advantage over the house. You got it buddy. I think you're viewing my use of the word "cheating" in too strict a sense, as though I'm inferring something illegal almost. Personally, I'd be all for allowing card counting to pass, but then I'm not a shareholder in a casino! Anything that "cheats" (read "deprives", if you like) the casino out of an otherwise guaranteed return, and indeed negates the return, will not be tolerated. Casinos are free to define it however they see fit. Tomato - tomato; potato - potato. If your definition differs, so be it, but as I said, go try beating the house with a system. You claim not to entertain debating over semantics Sol, but all you seem to be doing here is contesting my definitions of "cheating", "strategy" and "system", even after I've clearly explained what I mean. If you don't like my definitions, so be it, apply your own, conclude what you will and move along now. |
23rd September 2009, 07:42 AM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
So that's not a difference between counting and playing well "normally".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Remembering, of course, that such "systems", so far as casino operators are concerned, breach the fundamental concept of "gambling", i.e. winning/losing based on chance, and are, hence, quite rightly (possibly arguable), deemed to constitute cheating. Indeed, simple card counting is taboo, even with measures in place to dilute its effectiveness to close to zero." Subbing in your definitions: "Remembering, of course, that such winning strategies for the player, so far as casino operators are concerned, breach the fundamental concept of "casino profit", i.e. winning/losing based on games of chance biased towards the house, and are, hence, quite rightly (possibly arguable), deemed to constitute a losing proposition for the casino. Indeed, simple card counting is taboo, even with measures in place to dilute its effectiveness to close to zero." I can't imagine anyone would disagree with the second version, which is written using English words that take their usual meaning. Had you said that instead, this whole useless conversation could have been avoided. Now do you see why it's important to define things the way others do? |
23rd September 2009, 07:48 AM | #104 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
|
23rd September 2009, 11:12 AM | #105 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
|
Cheating, to my mind, is breaking the rules.
Card counting using computational aids is cheating because it is explicitly against the rules. Card counting using only the power of your own grey cells is not cheating as it is not explicitly against the rules. If you are caught doing the former, not only will you be banned from the casino, the casino may take action to recover their losses. If proven to be cheating, the casino may warn other casinos of your identity. If the latter, you may be barred, but the casino will not attempt to recover your winnings, and may not share your identity with other casinos (although there has been attempts by casinos to do this, the law is on the side of the gamblers - see Griffin Investigations) |
23rd September 2009, 11:24 AM | #106 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
|
23rd September 2009, 10:56 PM | #107 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It is so far as the casino's concerned - a point I've previously made. Please try to understand the (important) subleties here. BTW, there's no such thing as "playing normally". What would you consider to be "normal play"?
Yes, I realize that, and you're wrong. Whether ignoring the casino's edge or not, counting can turn the odds in the player's favour, meaning that the prospect of walking out of the casino better off than when walking in is not purely down to chance. "Everyone else on the planet"! This debate's essentially between you and me. We don't need to take account of the general populace view, even if you were correct. So long as you know what I'm saying the rest of the planet is irrelevant. And I think you do, but you're just choosing to be both awkward and pedantic (affording you the benefit of the doubt as to ignorance, for the time being). Correct, and I would actually be one of those "most", in a general environment. But we're not in a general environment, and I've defined "system" in such a way for the purpose of the debate so as to differentiate it from "system" (which I've also defined, for the purpose of the debate). If you refuse to recognize such distinction and the definitions necessary to make it so be it. Say so and move on. No, that's an "internal factor" (I can't help feeling you're just being pig-headed now). It's a basic tenet of the rules governing how blackjack, for example, is played in casinos, and is pertinent to determining the house edge in the context of "basic strategy", which, of course, requires that the two hands are compared in order to determine the best play (but, importantly, ignores any favourable point-count position) . Of course, the basic strategy always gives the casino an edge, which is why the game is played the way it is in casinos, namely showing the dealer's top card. Well if that isn't the most blatant contradiction I've ever seen I can't remember what is! But regardless, that IS the distinction - the edge it gives the player, which casinos consider as tantamount to cheating, and look on it accordingly. Why can you not accept that? Do you have proof that I'm wrong? I don't disagree with your version in principle! There is always more than one way to express the same meaning, hence the term "in other words", which I'm sure you're familiar with, and probably use now and then. Both versions above are equally valid, in a general context - each suiting different readers to differing degrees. I see why it's important to be very particular with an academic pedant like you, who falsely claims not be turned on by semantics. I'll bear that in mind in future to try to keep you from getting confused again. |
23rd September 2009, 11:01 PM | #108 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
23rd September 2009, 11:03 PM | #109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
23rd September 2009, 11:17 PM | #110 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
|
I have no educational background in statistics but I can offer some thoughts.
I don't see how you can make ANY statement about the likely results of a coin toss without referencing HOW the coin is tossed. I can "flip" a coin a half-turn and have it come up tails pretty much every time. So you shouldn't say that. Secondly, the HTHTHTHTHT thing seems to not take into account that the coin will flip at least once, so the first H is not a possible result and doesn't count for anything. Those are just layman observations though. |
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer |
|
23rd September 2009, 11:40 PM | #111 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
The key point, though, is that given the sequence above, throughout the entire coin toss "process" heads is undeniably face up for longer than tails is. The key question, which you've already alluded to, is: Can the first flip (at least) be disregarded (if you only disregard the first flip then the toss can be considered to have started "tails up" instead, in which case you face the same problem)? In other words, is the process randomized to the extent that there can be considered to be no "starting position"? Personally, I'd be inclined to believe so, assuming a human toss with all of the variables that that entails. However, if you created a coin-tossing machine that consistently performed a perfectly fair toss, i.e. un-biased coin, perfectly horizontal axis of rotation, perfect "catch" but varying rotation speed and/or toss height, it's hard to see how the starting position, say heads, won't show a very slightly greater frequency in the long run.
|
23rd September 2009, 11:59 PM | #112 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
|
I don't know if the minimum of one flip means that the other side would then come up more frequently. If I had statistics knowledge I'd probably handle this much better...it just seems as though you can't say there are more heads than tails in the results list because the first heads doesn't count.
Anyway...what about also that this example assumes the coin will be stopped in mid-air and not bounce off the ground or off someone's hand? If the coin bounces then doesn't that change everything? |
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer |
|
24th September 2009, 12:20 AM | #113 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It has nothing to do with statistics, just simple logic. But that's the point - on what basis can you claim that the first heads simply "doesn't count"? How does the first heads differ from all the other heads? And if the first heads doesn't count then which heads is the "first" heads and which tails is the "first" tails? Whichever occurs first is going to have a long term bias of the most frequent outcome as it is face up for longer than the other. Get it?
It doesn't assume the coin stops in mid air, but I think it assumes a "clean" catch. Of course, allowing the coin to bounce upon landing changes the entire dynamics, and has been discussed at length in this thread, if you'd care to read back. |
24th September 2009, 01:41 AM | #114 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
|
I think you're highlighting my definition of cheating. To be fair, the English language causes no end of problems in scientific discussion because it is not accurate and unambiguous enough, and if our disagreement essentially boils down to a definition of the word "cheating" then we will probably have to agree to disagree!
There are a couple of approaches I am familiar with, although Towlie may know others. The first does not require a computer (although it helps) but does require a badly run casino. Well run casinos regularly rebalance and level their wheels to within the spec required to maintain an unbiased spin (and hence the house advantage). If a casino does not do this, the wheel can become biased; if you can spot this, which requires observing the wheel for a long period and tracking the results, you can exploit it. Some people have developed systems to detect a biased wheel, but it is difficult to do - a computer makes it much simpler. A more advanced tactic (which is definitely cheating by my definition!) was used in a UK casino about four years back or so. A group used a hidden camera in some large framed spectacles. When the croupier span the wheel and released the ball, two fast snapshots were taken. From these pictures, the ball location and double zero were extracted, the relative angular position of the ball and wheel computed, and their angular velocities. This is used to predict the quadrant that the ball is most likely to end up in, and bets are then placed on numbers in that quadrant. Although such a trick could be performed algorithmically, it would probably be difficult to make reliable in all conditions. They actually implemented it by wirelessly transmitting the two pictures to a nearby computer, which was marked by a user to indicate the positions of the ball and double zero (and presumably sufficient points on the wheel to determine the perspective and position of the camera frame). The computer then predicted the quadrant and relayed this back to the person at the table. I don't know how the algorithm worked, but I would presume it would be trained initially on sample runs for that specific table (as different tables may have different responses). In principle, the hazards are supposed to make this kind of technique impossible, but in practice the prediction (although statistical and imperfect) was sufficient to overturn the house advantage. Ultimately, I suspect it worked, because they got caught and busted. |
24th September 2009, 04:39 AM | #115 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
It was the fact that you seemed to define cheating based on your personal view, or opinion ("to my mind"), but then seemingly contradicted yourself by referring to "rules", and claiming that certain actions are "explicity" in breach of such rules, and that those actions, consequently, constitute cheating. But I'm pleased you appreciate that the English language has room for multiple meanings depending on words chosen, which is more than certain other posters in this thread recognize.
You suspect it worked. So you don't how much, if anything, such cheaters fleeced the casinos of before they got rumbled? |
24th September 2009, 04:54 AM | #116 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
|
|
24th September 2009, 07:32 AM | #117 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
|
By my lack of knowledge of statistics, I mean the common understanding and set of mental or mathematical tools for evaluating random results (when I was in school, probability and statistics were one course). Just like economists know the usual objections that come up to the free market's existence and how to handle them, I assume statisticians are quite good at answering questions about coin flipping and things like that.
Anyway, to answer your question, the argument given seems to be that assuming heads starts face-up, it's more likely that heads will be the result because the coin will flip between HTHTHTHTHTHT and so on while in mid-air, and once you stop the coin it will be one of those results...with tails always having X number of potential stopping points and heads always having X or X+1. From what I see...since you flip the coin at least once, the first H is not a potential stopping point...so you can't say that there are X+1 scenarios where it comes up heads because one of those scenarios will basically never occur. Hopefully that makes my objection more clear. I'm not sure if that means that logically tails should then show up more often though.
Quote:
|
__________________
"So if a tard came up to me and offered to sell me 10 bitcoins for $100, not only would I not do it, I think I'd punch him in the head, just for being stupid." -The Central Scrutinizer |
|
24th September 2009, 02:20 PM | #118 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
I don't understand what the big deal is here. Since when did knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em become cheating?
Card counting just gives a better idea of when to do that. It doesn't alter the probability with which one is dealt the cards and it doesn't give one any knowledge that one is not supposed to have according the rules of the game. So where is the cheating? Don't tell me it's in knowing how to play the game. |
24th September 2009, 02:36 PM | #119 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
|
|
24th September 2009, 02:52 PM | #120 |
ancillary character
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
|
Card counting is legal anywhere in the USA, and in Atlantic City it's even illegal for casinos to bar card counters. They have to let you play even if they know what you're doing.
The 1982 New Jersey court decision that denied casinos the right to ban card counters was the work of the late Ken Uston. I remember that at the time, there was a lot of controversy within the card counting community about Uston's decision to take up the legal battle. On the one hand, we all felt, like Uston did, that it just wasn't fair that casinos virtually always marketed their games in such a way as to encourage the belief that players are likely to win, yet they'd refuse to let anyone play in cases where that actually turned out to be true. On the other hand, we knew that if the casinos couldn't ban card counters, they'd change the table conditions to neutralize the advantage of card counting to the point where their games would become what we consider unplayable. At the time there were many card counters actually playing blackjack in Atlantic City and winning, and they preferred the status quo where skilled players with convincing acts could play with an edge without being detected. Nevada law is heavily corrupted in favor of their casinos, apparently because gambling constitutes such a large portion of the Nevada economy. But since that's not so much the case in New Jersey, their courts leaned more toward fairness and justice on this issue. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|