AP move or just cheating?

[Thunder]

The casino does practice great deception in its advertising. I have said many times that thousands lose their life savings in Vegas each year. It is very sad. The government and therefore the law are complicit in all this. Casinos are not required to spell out the chances people really have to beat them. In that respect, it is a disgrace. More onus is put on people to understand the complexities of casino play than they have the wherewithal to figure out. People are by nature trusting. Many assume the government would not allow a complete ripoff to be legal. They figure the games must be fair, or they'd be shut down. They should be shut down, or at least, the odds of winning posted prominently on each game.

I'd disagree with the premise that most people are trusting in nature. Maybe 20 years ago yes but now with all of the scandals that have gone on, I'm not so sure that's true. Perfect example... I tried to sell a gift card that I didn't really want in that very store to people who were making purchases. I even got a receipt for that gift card. Not a single person was willing to buy it off me!! Since the Bernie Madoff scandal, getting people to even subscribe to my stock market predictions some of which I have posted on here has proven quite challenging despite my track record.

Anyone who thinks the government wouldn't allow a complete ripoff to be legal hasn't been paying attention to the news or this thing called the lotto... People either gamble because they just want entertainment or because the dream of winning big is far bigger to them than some statistic that they will lose say 10% of their money wagered on every spin.

 

[HockeXpert]

what??? proving INTENT is the hard part. that's been the focus of the discussion for the latter half of this thread. first off, the floor would have to figure out how I knew an ace was coming. I might just get backed off. let's say they don't back me off. let's say they look at the cards while they backroom me(already good stuff for a lawsuit) so suddenly the peabrain power figure out that the one ace was a new ace, and looked different from the rest of the shoe. and they figured a drink that I had spilled ACCIDENTALLY gave the reason for getting a new ace out. did you miss the posts by machinist? I suggest you start watching some CSI: vegas to understand what we're talking about. lol.

The state does not need to prove intent on your part to get a conviction. They only need to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. A store that could produce two videos of you doing this could prove intent and even with one video, you'd be relying on a jury to determine intent on your part.

Take shoplifting as an example. A store has you on video trying on shoes. You try several on and end up walking out with a pair still on. Whether you intended to defraud the store or not, it is up to the store if they wish to prosecute and if so, up to a jury to decide whether you intended to defraud the store or not. Either way, you committed a crime whether you intended to or not.

A jury of your "peers" would determine intent. You think ploppies are dumb? Do you remember what it was like the last time you were on jury duty? I've seen homeless people with a better grasp on their faculties than prospective jurors.

 

[Martin Gayle]

Do it once or twice it is grey.

Make a career out of it you will end up in jail.

 

[zengrifter]

Don't know if this should be here or in the "law" section. Mods, feel free to move it. I read this off of Richard Marcus' website. Don't know if this is legal or not:

Blackjack Cheat Scam #1

Spill, Cut and Steer

A cheat receives an Ace on the deal. He then casually spills his drink on it. The casino will immediately remove the wet Ace from the game and replace it with another brand-new Ace from an identical deck. How does this replacement work for the blackjack cheat?

Well, assuming he spotted when the new decks of cards were loaded into the blackjack card shoe, all he'd have to do is wait after two shoes were dealt to spill his drink on the Ace. Then when the replacement Ace is inserted into the pack of six or eight decks, he would be able to distinguish it by the brighter white edge the new card would have over the rest of the cards when the dealer presents the pack for him to cut. In other words, the new Ace would stick out like a sore thumb. So then he will just cut the cards a specific number of cards in front of the Ace, depending on his position at the blackjack table. Believe it or not, most casinos are still not hip to this relatively rank blackjack scam, and when the cheat gets it down, he makes money by betting heavily knowing the bright white ace is coming his way!

I like it! zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The state does not need to prove intent on your part to get a conviction. They only need to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. A store that could produce two videos of you doing this could prove intent and even with one video, you'd be relying on a jury to determine intent on your part.

Take shoplifting as an example. A store has you on video trying on shoes. You try several on and end up walking out with a pair still on. Whether you intended to defraud the store or not, it is up to the store if they wish to prosecute and if so, up to a jury to decide whether you intended to defraud the store or not. Either way, you committed a crime whether you intended to or not.

A jury of your "peers" would determine intent. You think ploppies are dumb? Do you remember what it was like the last time you were on jury duty? I've seen homeless people with a better grasp on their faculties than prospective jurors.

Prove intent of what, I believe is the relevant question.

Yes, I believe they can prove you intended to spill a drink on the felt and the cards, and the penalty would be a fine for messing up their felt and their cards.

But to prove that you knew they were going to replace the card(s) with defective equipment (defective, because a player would be able to tell the card before it was dealt by looking at it, just as if it was a marked card) and that you, not the casino, are responsible for introducing the defective cards to the game even though the pit boss did it, is a stretch that I don't think would fly with an intelligent jury. It was the casino's decision to replace just the card and not the whole shoe, and you cannot be guilty as a result of a money-saving decision by a casino.

I'd put it in the same category as holecarding. It might make the casino really angry, but if they dealt their game properly it wouldn't be possible so they have no one to blame but themselves. "Banger play" has been around for a long time and isn't cheating, and with this gambit you are just tricking the casino into turning their own cards into bangers. But being it involves an illegal act of intentionally spilling a drink, disorderly conduct at the least, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Jack_Black]

You have derivatives trading in there but not stock trading???? Stocks are manipulated far far more than derivatives. I also resent being told essentially that what I do is on the same level as predatory lending and ARM loans. I in no way deceive people when trading or aspire to take advantage of them.

Very true thunder. I was just sprouting things off the top of my head. Didn't think about enron, MCI, pump and dumps, etc. And I was actually referring to CDS and CDOs. The really exotic stuff with facades of "good credit" mixed in with tons of bad to dupe buyers. Not the stuff that you're doing at all, please don't take offense.

 

[Jack_Black]

The state does not need to prove intent on your part to get a conviction. They only need to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. A store that could produce two videos of you doing this could prove intent and even with one video, you'd be relying on a jury to determine intent on your part.

Take shoplifting as an example. A store has you on video trying on shoes. You try several on and end up walking out with a pair still on. Whether you intended to defraud the store or not, it is up to the store if they wish to prosecute and if so, up to a jury to decide whether you intended to defraud the store or not. Either way, you committed a crime whether you intended to or not.

A jury of your "peers" would determine intent. You think ploppies are dumb? Do you remember what it was like the last time you were on jury duty? I've seen homeless people with a better grasp on their faculties than prospective jurors.

shoplifting is a bad example. once you conceal a store's item and/or walk out the door with it, you are by definition, shoplifting. besides, it's also a petty crime, not even a misdemeanor. they're not gonna pull out a jury for a $50-$100 theft. you'll get a ticket, a summons, and that's that. the murder comparison was a better example because murder and cheating a LAS VEGAS casino are both felonies.

proving intent and proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt are one in the same. I fully agree with AM's post that there are too many circumstances that need to be proven for a charge to stick, let alone proving beyond a reasonable doubt. especially if this is done only once or twice at a store.

 

[tthree]

I am glad that some people got the idea that just because they may have a hard time convicting you doesn't make something legal. A crime is a crime no matter if you get away with it or who the victim is.

I am not sure how some on here think they cheat a cheater by cheating in a casino. The casino has an edge. It is there to make a profit after all. You are free to patronize the establishment or not. Now I know some casinos have resorted to cheating but all they need is deep pockets. THEY ARE the APs. They don't need to cheat so if they do it is reprehensible.

 

[HockeXpert]

Prove intent of what, I believe is the relevant question.

With all due respect, intent to mark a card and affect the outcome of a wager. I realize it is a big stretch that someone would be arrested for this and an even bigger stretch that this would ever go to court and I realize that you could never get a conviction but the original question was regarding cheating. I'm on the fence whether this falls in the cheating category or the holecarding category.

Does Bob Nersesian ever check in here? I wonder what his take is on this? Can Richard get him back on the radio to ask him the question?:laugh:

 

[HockeXpert]

shoplifting is a bad example. once you conceal a store's item and/or walk out the door with it, you are by definition, shoplifting. besides, it's also a petty crime, not even a misdemeanor. they're not gonna pull out a jury for a $50-$100 theft. you'll get a ticket, a summons, and that's that. the murder comparison was a better example because murder and cheating a LAS VEGAS casino are both felonies.

Whether shoplifting is a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the value of the goods stolen. As for the murder example given by Qfit, motive was not taken into consideration. If you shoot someone while "cleaning your gun" and you cash in a million dollar life insurance on the victim or recently found they were cheating on you, you may have a problem.

proving intent and proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt are one in the same.

My point was that you can still be convicted of a felony even if some amount of doubt exists about guilt or innocence and that the prosecution does not necessarily need a smoking gun for a conviction.

I fully agree with AM's post that there are too many circumstances that need to be proven for a charge to stick, let alone proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree with AM as well as long as you don't repeat this performance nightly for an extended engagement like Cats on Broadway.

especially if this is done only once or twice at a store.

Completely agree.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

With all due respect, intent to mark a card and affect the outcome of a wager...

But that's my point, you didn't mark a card used in a wager. They did. Dealers mark up cards all the time, and if they do you can play those marks all you want. It's the casino's responsibility to change the cards if their identities can be deduced from their backs.

 

[Jack_Black]

I am glad that some people got the idea that just because they may have a hard time convicting you doesn't make something legal. A crime is a crime no matter if you get away with it or who the victim is.

I am not sure how some on here think they cheat a cheater by cheating in a casino. The casino has an edge. It is there to make a profit after all. You are free to patronize the establishment or not.

Casinos are licensed thieves. like the example I gave earlier about 3 card monty hustlers or predatory lenders. you are free to get scammed by a 3 card hustler, but his operation is illegal. This is for your protection. likewise you are free to get scammed by a casino, but a casino operation is legal??? what happened to my protection???

I care less about the law. the only reason I don't break certain laws is because of the consequences. Laws are only written to appease those with power or other ulterior motives. Cocaine, heroin, ecxtasy, and LSD were legally prescribed once. Bayer sold heroin OTC!!!

I'm not planning to do this grey move btw. only because the consequences are too risky. but I do find it odd that this tiny move on a store has the potential to land me in serious trouble. and yet Russ Hamilton, the poker player behind the absolutepoker.com holecard scandal, can walk away scott free for scamming $20 million from players.

 

[HockeXpert]

But that's my point, you didn't mark a card used in a wager. They did. Dealers mark up cards all the time, and if they do you can play those marks all you want. It's the casino's responsibility to change the cards if their identities can be deduced from their backs.

That is the defense's point of view. From the prosecution's view you did originally attempt to mark a card by spilling a drink on it. It is irrelevant what the casino decides to do. This would need to be litigated for us to know the outcome.

 

[aslan]

But that's my point, you didn't mark a card used in a wager. They did. Dealers mark up cards all the time, and if they do you can play those marks all you want. It's the casino's responsibility to change the cards if their identities can be deduced from their backs.

So then even if you tear off the corner of a card it's the casino's fault for replacing it with a fresh card? Same difference if you deliberately spill or cause something to be spilled on a card, or have someone else spill something. It's a rationalization. But I went for years inured to the fact that cheating cheaters or hustling hustlers was anything to be avoided. It is something the more you do the more comfortable it becomes.

What if a casino had two color chips that were close to the same when stacked as occurred when AC first opened, at Resorts, I believe. Stacking $5 dollar chips to mimic $500 chips would be okay, I suppose, since it is the dealer's fault to distinguish between the two, and repeatedly accepting the larger payoffs would be okay as well? It was only a small step to get the dealer to participate in this crime after he was discovered. To his credit, the chip faker did not rationalize either action, alone or with dealer complicity. He just accepted the fact that he was a cheat, although he may also have felt that casinos deserve to be cheated. And he realized, too, that it could be pawned off as an honest mistake. "Why the h3ll do you make two chips the same color! It's not my fault. It's yours that I made this mistake!" What do you call a guy like this-- a shot taker?

 

[QFIT]

An overt act designed to destroy property for the purpose of changing the odds of a game is cheating. Whether or not it can be proved or the casino could have prevented the marking is irrelevant.

 

[Jack_Black]

Whether shoplifting is a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the value of the goods stolen. As for the murder example given by Qfit, motive was not taken into consideration. If you shoot someone while "cleaning your gun" and you cash in a million dollar life insurance on the victim or recently found they were cheating on you, you may have a problem.

In this "great" country of ours, you can buy your way to freedom. OJ simpson, casey anthony. Proving intent can be manipulated. holes can be found in the language of the law.

here's a case of a bet capper found innocent.

 

[tthree]

In this "great" country of ours, you can buy your way to freedom. OJ simpson, casey anthony. Proving intent can be manipulated. holes can be found in the language of the law.

here's a case of a bet capper found innocent.

Being found innocent is different from being innocent! Don't you have a soul or even a conscience? Being able to rationalize these things without making yourself miserable is a sign of a psychopath.

 

[aslan]

Being found innocent is different from being innocent! Don't you have a soul or even a conscience? Being able to rationalize these things without making yourself miserable is a sign of a psychopath.

Psychoapth.

 

[tthree]

To know a psychopath

Psychoapth.

Psychopaths can't put themselves in someone else's shoes, no empathy or remorse. It is the empathy and remorse that will catch up with a normal person and either make them hate themselves for doing the action or make them stop doing it. When neither happens you have a lot of the signs of a psychopath. They tend to be great at deception and often fool people into seeing sympathy and empathy in them in order to function in society. They can't form normal human attachments but may fake through them to appear normal.

As you can see the lack of conscience or empathy is not the total of a psychopath but it is the foundation on which the rest of the psychological makeup sits.

Don't worry Aslan you aren't a psychopath. You felt your conscience and stopped the rationalizations that made you see yourself as no better than the cheaters and the hustlers that you cheated and hustled. You realized how important your self image is to your happiness. It is the ones that can't (not don't) do this that show the foundation of a psychopath.:devil::whip:

 

[aslan]

Psychopaths can't put themselves in someone else's shoes, no empathy or remorse. It is the empathy and remorse that will catch up with a normal person and either make them hate themselves for doing the action or make them stop doing it. When neither happens you have a lot of the signs of a psychopath. They tend to be great at deception and often fool people into seeing sympathy and empathy in them in order to function in society. They can't form normal human attachments but may fake through them to appear normal.

As you can see the lack of conscience or empathy is not the total of a psychopath but it is the foundation on which the rest of the psychological makeup sits.

Don't worry Aslan you aren't a psychopath. You felt your conscience and stopped the rationalizations that made you see yourself as no better than the cheaters and the hustlers that you cheated and hustled. You realized how important your self image is to your happiness. It is the ones that can't (not don't) do this that show the foundation of a psychopath.:devil::whip:

It was a joke, tthree! :laugh: PsychoAPth. The dyslexic misspelling was deliberate. :laugh: