takinfromindians97 said:
you guys always find the stupidest **** to argue about
Maybe instead of interpreting everything as a personal insult, you should read between the lines.
(1) Your attitude towards surveillance has a direct impact on how you approach cover. The bottom line is that most people grossly overestimate surveillance interest in their play - a direct result of the attitude that all the pigs do is sit there and watch you. It's not true, and it leads to far more cover than is actually required.
(2) Your attitude towards surveillance also has a direct impact on how badly you will get backed off when you inevitably get backed off. If you have a profound lack of respect for what people do, you're more likely to turn a mild backoff into a physical brawl that ends your session in Clark County Jail.
(3) Your attitude towards surveillance also can help you appreciate what it is that pigs are really concerned about. You want to know what's really bad about holecarding? It's that from a surveillance standpoint, they can't tell whether the dealer is sloppy (a mild problem and one that the casino's fault as a corporation) or whether you and the dealer are colluding to steal from the casino (a serious problem and one that is your fault and the individual dealer's fault). If a casino could determine with 100% certainty that the former was the case, holecarding would be treated with a stern finger-wagging and a "shoo, shoo" the way low-limit card counting is treated.
People tend to live up to expectations - in a confrontation with security, if you think of them as ignorant goons who don't understand the law, they will act like ignorant goons who don't understand the law. They may very well BE ignorant goons who don't understand the law, but in every unjustified backroom story I've ever read, the main problem is that the protagonists always set themselves up in a situation where security has little reason to let them go and a lot of reason to probe further.