IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags probability

Reply
Old 20th September 2009, 09:25 AM   #81
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
There's a lot of misunderstanding about positive expectation gambling here. Maybe we should get a thread going about the subject.
Go for it - I'm in, whatever "positive expectation gambling" might be. Certainly sounds like something a casino's shareholders might believe in!

Post here when you've started it.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2009, 02:42 PM   #82
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Yes, exactly.

With only a 1% edge it's generally more work than it's worth, unless you have a very large bankroll.
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.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 01:50 AM   #83
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
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.
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 05:25 AM   #84
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
"...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.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 06:07 AM   #85
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
Clearly, since house margins can be of the order of 3-4% for many games, a single 1% method is insufficient.
My comment referred to the player's net edge.

Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
So in blackjack you should hit or stand randomly no matter what cards you and the dealer have showing, since making the best play would be cheating?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 07:44 AM   #86
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So in blackjack you should hit or stand randomly no matter what cards you and the dealer have showing, since making the best play would be cheating?
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 07:51 AM   #87
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
"...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.
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 08:03 AM   #88
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
What's the difference between basing your "strategic" decisions only on the cards you and the dealer have showing, versus also taking note of the cards other players have showing and your memory of previous hands?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 08:25 AM   #89
GreyICE
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,149
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
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.
GreyICE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 10:01 AM   #90
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
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.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 10:59 AM   #91
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
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.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 02:02 PM   #92
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
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.
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?!?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 02:05 PM   #93
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
What's the difference between basing your "strategic" decisions only on the cards you and the dealer have showing, versus also taking note of the cards other players have showing and your memory of previous hands?
Simple - the house margin!
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2009, 03:08 PM   #94
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
sol invictus made a good point. Too bad you didn't understand what he was asking.
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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!)
I never called it a strategy, I called it a system. You called it a strategy.
Quote:
... and the seeking of roulette patterns are destined to fail, which is exactly why casinos welcome such converts.
Yes, that's what I said. You're echoing back what I've already told you, yet you tell me I'm being "very naive now" as if I had said something different. You're trying to misrepresent my position. It's just another transparent straw man argument, and everyone else who reads this exchange knows that as well as we both do.

Quote:
You failed to mention, though, the the martingale strategy is partly the reason why casinos have limit bets.
No, casino bet limits have absolutely nothing to do with the Martingale or any other betting system. To a rationally managed casino, every bet stands alone. It makes no difference to the casino who places any particular bet or what their win-loss pattern or betting pattern was before they made that bet, nor does it matter whether the player is winning or losing. The casino places limits on bet sizes to control variance in their income, and those limits are based on the casino's bankroll plus the variance and house advantage of the game.
Quote:
Are you sure you've really been in a casino?!?
Yes, I'm sure. I've played in Las Vegas, Laughlin, Atlantic City, Freeport, Nassau, Atlantis, here in Indian casinos, and on several different cruise ships.

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.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 12:08 AM   #95
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
I never called it a strategy, I called it a system. You called it a strategy.
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.

Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
Yes, that's what I said. You're echoing back what I've already told you, yet you tell me I'm being "very naive now" as if I had said something different.
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 07:32 AM   #96
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Simple - the house margin!
So you retract your assertion that it is "...quite rightly deemed to constitute cheating"?

Or is "cheating" also defined as "any strategy for playing a casino game in which the player has an edge"?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 09:21 AM   #97
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
He doesn't retract, he only ignores.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:00 AM   #98
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So you retract your assertion that it is "...quite rightly deemed to constitute cheating"?
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!)).

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Or is "cheating" also defined as "any strategy for playing a casino game in which the player has an edge"?
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?!?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:09 AM   #99
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Let me spell this out for you.
Please do.

Quote:
Casinos don't welcome punters who win long term. Why would they?
Obviously.

Quote:
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!)).
Sorry, I still don't get it. Playing the best possible hand given my cards and the dealer's is certainly not "simple", nor does "pure chance" (in the sense I think you mean that phrase) determine the outcome if I do so. And yet, you don't consider that a "system" or "cheating", but you do consider it "cheating" and a "system" to use information I can recall about the cards from the hand before.

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.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:52 AM   #100
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Sorry, I still don't get it. Playing the best possible hand given my cards and the dealer's is certainly not "simple" ...
It is if you're proficient at it, such as basic blackjack strategy. In fact, it can become almost automatic.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
... nor does "pure chance" (in the sense I think you mean that phrase) determine the outcome if I do so.
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
And yet, you don't consider that a "system" or "cheating", but you do consider it "cheating" and a "system" to use information I can recall about the cards from the hand before.
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
The only thing that separates those is a very slight (but potentially important) change in the relative edge. You even agreed with that!
"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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
It's no more and no less than playing the game better; it's not "cheating" in any way, shape, or form.
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"?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 05:33 AM   #101
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
It is if you're proficient at it, such as basic blackjack strategy. In fact, it can become almost automatic.
Same with counting.

Quote:
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.
Same with counting.

Quote:
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.
So now you're also redefined "strategize" (to mean "a strategy with a negative expectation value") and "systematize" (to mean "a strategy with a positive expectation value"). Based on your earlier comments, those appear to be synonyms for "fair play" and "cheating" respectively. Oh, and somehow the first is somehow "gambling" but the second isn't.

Quote:
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"?
We're not arguing about whether or not counting cards is a good idea considering how casinos are run. I'm objecting to your characterization of it as cheating, the only justification for which you've offered is that it gives the advantage to the player and therefore casinos don't like it.

Since that's a patently absurd criterion for defining "cheating", I'm waiting for something else.

Last edited by sol invictus; 23rd September 2009 at 05:36 AM.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 06:59 AM   #102
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Same with counting.
Yes, that can become almost automatic too, when practiced enough. So what?

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Same with counting.
Wrong. Counting can turn the odds in the player's favour.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So now you're also redefined "strategize" (to mean "a strategy with a negative expectation value") ...
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
... and "systematize" (to mean "a strategy with a positive expectation value").
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Based on your earlier comments, those appear to be synonyms for "fair play" and "cheating" respectively. Oh, and somehow the first is somehow "gambling" but the second isn't.
You got it buddy.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
We're not arguing about whether or not counting cards is a good idea considering how casinos are run. I'm objecting to your characterization of it as cheating, the only justification for which you've offered is that it gives the advantage to the player and therefore casinos don't like it.
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Since that's a patently absurd criterion for defining "cheating", I'm waiting for something else.
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 07:42 AM   #103
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Yes, that can become almost automatic too, when practiced enough. So what?
So that's not a difference between counting and playing well "normally".

Quote:
Wrong. Counting can turn the odds in the player's favour.
No, not wrong. The statement I was replying to contained the phrase "ignoring the casino's edge".

Quote:
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.
You've redefined it with respect to what everyone else on the planet means. Most people would call a strategy with a negative expectation value a "losing strategy", thus distinguishing it from a "winning strategy". Most would agree that a "winning strategy" does not necessarily constitute cheating.

Quote:
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.
"External factors" such as looking at the cards you and the dealer have showing? You've repeatedly failed to draw any distinction between counting and playing well without counting other than the edge it grants the player. There's a reason for that: no such distinction exists.

Quote:
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.
Great! You've finally defined "cheating". Let's go back to yourstatement that kicked this all off:

"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?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 07:48 AM   #104
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Now do you see why it's important to define things the way others do?
I wish he did. When he defined a system as a strategy and a strategy as a system, that's when I decided to drop out and let you bang your head against the wall.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:12 AM   #105
CoolSceptic
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)
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:24 AM   #106
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
Card counting using computational aids is cheating because it is explicitly against the rules.
That's true. Hidden computers can also be used to win at roulette, which has led to Nevada's device law, forbidding use of hidden electronic devices in casinos.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 10:56 PM   #107
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So that's not a difference between counting and playing well "normally".
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"?

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
No, not wrong. The statement I was replying to contained the phrase "ignoring the casino's edge".
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
You've redefined it with respect to what everyone else on the planet means.
"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).

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Most people would call a strategy with a negative expectation value a "losing strategy", thus distinguishing it from a "winning strategy". Most would agree that a "winning strategy" does not necessarily constitute cheating.
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
"External factors" such as looking at the cards you and the dealer have showing?
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
You've repeatedly failed to draw any distinction between counting and playing well without counting other than the edge it grants the player. There's a reason for that: no such distinction exists.
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?

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Great! You've finally defined "cheating". Let's go back to yourstatement that kicked this all off:

"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.
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.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Now do you see why it's important to define things the way others do?
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:01 PM   #108
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
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)
Not that I strongly disagree with you, but do you see the problem I have with your assertion?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:03 PM   #109
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
Hidden computers can also be used to win at roulette ...
Interesting. Care to explain how these work (successfully)?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:17 PM   #110
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by Towlie View Post
I just now came upon a reference in the latest issue of Crypto-Gram to this article by a blogger named James Devlin. It's an interesting discussion of a paper titled Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss.

There's one particular point in this article that bothers me and that I'd like to discuss here. I haven't yet looked at the paper itself, but James Devlin says this, parts of which may or may not be supported by the paper:



Does that sound right to you? If there is such a bias, is that a correct explanation for it?

Most people catch a flipped coin and then slap it down on the back of their wrist. In that case, does that mean that there's a 51% chance of the coin landing on the opposite face of the one it was launched from?

When I get time, I'd like to try writing a computer simulation to test what James Devlin says. Meanwhile, what do you folks think about this?
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
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:40 PM   #111
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
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.
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 11:59 PM   #112
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
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
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 12:20 AM   #113
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
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.
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?

Originally Posted by EGarrett View Post
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?
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.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 01:41 AM   #114
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Not that I strongly disagree with you, but do you see the problem I have with your assertion?
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!

Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Interesting. Care to explain how these work (successfully)?
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.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 04:39 AM   #115
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
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!
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.

Originally Posted by CoolSceptic View Post
There are a couple of approaches I am familiar with, although Towlie may know others.

The first ...

A more advanced tactic ...

Ultimately, I suspect it worked, because they got caught and busted.
You suspect it worked. So you don't how much, if anything, such cheaters fleeced the casinos of before they got rumbled?
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 04:54 AM   #116
CoolSceptic
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
You suspect it worked. So you don't how much, if anything, such cheaters fleeced the casinos of before they got rumbled?
I don't recall offhand. It did make the national press, and I gleaned only what the press reports said. (Of course, I am assuming the press reports are reasonably accurate - which is dangerous in itself!) I'll see if there are any articles still floating around.
CoolSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 07:32 AM   #117
EGarrett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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?
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:
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.
Yes, I assume bouncing changes everything because the coin can hit on the edge, and the amount of potential edge strikes is always even. I'll read back. As I said I'm no math or physics expert but it's certainly fun to think about.
__________________
"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

Last edited by EGarrett; 24th September 2009 at 07:39 AM.
EGarrett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 02:20 PM   #118
mijopaalmc
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.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 02:36 PM   #119
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
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.
You're showing your ignorance here. Card counting has absolutely nothing to do with hold 'em/fold 'em, but has everything to do with how much to bet. Stick to what you know.
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2009, 02:52 PM   #120
Towlie
ancillary character
 
Towlie's Avatar
 
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.
Towlie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.