Don't Tell Me It Doesn't Work or It's Illegal

[UK-21]

The iPhone appl' is FAR superior as you can use Level Two counts.

This foot operated computer costs $1,000 and just uses Hi-Lo

In any case, I hold that this SHOULD be illegal everywhere.

I M O, possession of such a device while playing in a casino should be a felony.

Can you spell UNETHICAL ?

I don't agree. I don't think it should be illegal to use these things as I don't believe the law should intervene in the relationship between a casino operator and a patron. If someone gets caught cheating, I don't think they should be prosecuted unless it's a case of collusion with a member of staff in which case it would be "conspiracy to defraud" and is clearly a criminal offence. Being the victim of cheating is just one of the business risks involved with operating a casino, and if you don't want to manage that you shouldn't be in the business. Why should the taxpayer have to pick up the bill for policing what is a private, profit-making, enterprise? If a casino wished to take out a civil case against someone caught cheating for recovery of their losses, that's another matter and should be allowed. But I don't agree this should be a matter under criminal law. Gambling is, after all, a business arrangement between two or more private parties, and does not involve the State.

It's interesting that in the UK, there is no recourse in law to pursue gaming debts as there is in Nevada and contractual obligations involving gaming are unenforcable. This has been upheld by the Courts on a number of occasions in high profile cases (London West End casinos providing credit to the tune of £mns to individuals and then not being paid).

There has been a case in the UK quite recently where two gentleman were sentenced to a gaol term after being prosecuted and convicted. Apparently they were swapping cards at a 3CP table and got caught doing so. I'm not sure what offence they were charged with though. I must find out.

 

[UK-21]

And it is not honorable play. I like the "10 commandments of gambling" on Wizard of Odd's website.

I think we get onto thin ice when we talk about "honourable play" and something being "unethical" - bearing in mind most members of this forum think it's OK not to point out dealer over-payout errors. Smacks of that long word beginning with "H".

 

[irobinson]

I don't agree. I don't think it should be illegal to use these things as I don't believe the law should intervene in the relationship between a casino operator and a patron. If someone gets caught cheating, I don't think they should be prosecuted unless it's a case of collusion with a member of staff in which case it would be "conspiracy to defraud" and is clearly a criminal offence. Being the victim of cheating is just one of the business risks involved with operating a casino, and if you don't want to manage that you shouldn't be in the business. Why should the taxpayer have to pick up the bill for policing what is a private, profit-making, enterprise? If a casino wished to take out a civil case against someone caught cheating for recovery of their losses, that's another matter and should be allowed. But I don't agree this should be a matter under criminal law. Gambling is, after all, a business arrangement between two or more private parties, and does not involve the State.

It's interesting that in the UK, there is no recourse in law to pursue gaming debts as there is in Nevada and contractual obligations involving gaming are unenforcable. This has been upheld by the Courts on a number of occasions in high profile cases (London West End casinos providing credit to the tune of £mns to individuals and then not being paid).

There has been a case in the UK quite recently where two gentleman were sentenced to a gaol term after being prosecuted and convicted. Apparently they were swapping cards at a 3CP table and got caught doing so. I'm not sure what offence they were charged with though. I must find out.

Then a casino should face no sanctions from the gaming authorities if they cheat players, either.

 

[irobinson]

I think we get onto thin ice when we talk about "honourable play" and something being "unethical" - bearing in mind most members of this forum think it's OK not to point out dealer over-payout errors. Smacks of that long word beginning with "H".

I point out dealer payout errors and if they do other stupid things (I had a dealer once try to put all the discards back in the shoe instead of shuffling).

Just like when the cashier gives me too much change I point that out as well.

 

[UK-21]

No, not in criminal law. That would be a licensing issue, and should be dealt with by recourse to the licensing authority (in the UK it's the United Kingdom Gambling Commission). If a complaint was upheld the complaining party would then be free to take out a case in the civil courts for damages. This is already the case in the UK, although I don't know of any case where this has happened - complaints dealt with by the UKGC are unlikely to go any further as most operators will respect the views of the LA and any decisions or rulings they make (although I believe they have no legal power and their decisions are not underpinned in law).

Ultimate sanction would be to revoke an operator's licence. Operating a casino without one is a criminal offence, although has nothing to do with cheating and is far easier to prove or disprove.

 

[UK-21]

I point out dealer payout errors and if they do other stupid things (I had a dealer once try to put all the discards back in the shoe instead of shuffling).

Just like when the cashier gives me too much change I point that out as well.

Good for you. I've done it as well - it's just the way I am and part of my nature. But, alas, most AP's won't on the grounds that errors of this nature are part and parcel of running a casino

 

[RJT]

Good for you. I've done it as well - it's just the way I am and part of my nature. But, alas, most AP's won't on the grounds that errors of this nature are part and parcel of running a casino

No - i wouldn't as i've yet to have a dealer or pit boss correct a mistake they made in their favor. That's always left to me, so catching mistakes in my favor is left to them.

RJT.

 

[QFIT]

Apparently you haven't researched Canada very well. Gambling legislation is provincial, not federal in Canada. While I'm not saying that the unit is illegal, it would have to be approved by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission.

From the AGLC Casino Terms & Conditions and Operating Guidelines...

1.20.1 A casino facility licensee shall not allow computers in any area of a casino facility unless prior approval has been received from the AGLC.
1.20.2 Only equipment and/or gaming apparatus approved in writing by the AGLC may be utilized in a casino facility.

I once called the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to ask a question on legality. Even they weren't clear on the subject.

 

[SystemsTrader]

I once called the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to ask a question on legality. Even they weren't clear on the subject.

Illegal or not most casinos in Ontario will have signs as you enter the premises warning players that electronic or mechanical devices are not permitted for use at the tables or machines so it is against house rules.

 

[UK-21]

There has been a case in the UK quite recently where two gentleman were sentenced to a gaol term after being prosecuted and convicted. Apparently they were swapping cards at a 3CP table and got caught doing so. I'm not sure what offence they were charged with though. I must find out.

It was a conviction under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. Never heard of it. Obviously the establishment takes a different view of cheating in casinos from myself. Here'e the complete section of the Act:


Section 42: Cheating

163. This section creates a criminal offence for cheating at gambling, and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c.109). The word "cheating" is not defined but has its normal, everyday meaning. The offence is committed by both cheating directly or by doing something for the purpose of assisting or enabling another person to cheat. A person who does something inadvertently which enables another person to cheat, will not, therefore, commit an offence.

164. Subsection (2) provides that a person will commit the offence irrespective of whether he actually wins anything as a result of the cheating, or whether the cheating has the effect of improving the cheat's chances of winning. This means that an inept cheat, or one who cheats for another person's benefit, will still commit an offence. Subsection (3) provides that, in particular, cheating may include actions that involve actual or attempted deception or interference with the processes involved in the conduct of gambling, or with any other game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates. Events can be either real or virtual. Subsection (3) does not provide an exhaustive definition of cheating. It is made expressly without prejudice to the general meaning of cheating established in subsection (1).

165. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for penalties that may be imposed upon conviction of the offence. Unlike other offences created under the Act, this offence is capable of being tried either summarily or on indictment. On summary conviction the penalty is a maximum term or imprisonment of 51 weeks (or 6 months in Scotland), and/or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale. On conviction on indictment the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, an unlimited fine, or both.


Ouch! Wonder what the judges view on card counting will be ?

 

[irobinson]

It was a conviction under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. Never heard of it. Obviously the establishment takes a different view of cheating in casinos from myself. Here'e the complete section of the Act:


Section 42: Cheating

163. This section creates a criminal offence for cheating at gambling, and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c.109). The word "cheating" is not defined but has its normal, everyday meaning. The offence is committed by both cheating directly or by doing something for the purpose of assisting or enabling another person to cheat. A person who does something inadvertently which enables another person to cheat, will not, therefore, commit an offence.

164. Subsection (2) provides that a person will commit the offence irrespective of whether he actually wins anything as a result of the cheating, or whether the cheating has the effect of improving the cheat's chances of winning. This means that an inept cheat, or one who cheats for another person's benefit, will still commit an offence. Subsection (3) provides that, in particular, cheating may include actions that involve actual or attempted deception or interference with the processes involved in the conduct of gambling, or with any other game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates. Events can be either real or virtual. Subsection (3) does not provide an exhaustive definition of cheating. It is made expressly without prejudice to the general meaning of cheating established in subsection (1).

165. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for penalties that may be imposed upon conviction of the offence. Unlike other offences created under the Act, this offence is capable of being tried either summarily or on indictment. On summary conviction the penalty is a maximum term or imprisonment of 51 weeks (or 6 months in Scotland), and/or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale. On conviction on indictment the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, an unlimited fine, or both.


Ouch! Wonder what the judges view on card counting will be ?

Counting cards (in your head) is impossible to prove. The casino can claim you were doing it but they have no hard evidence other than you keep taking their money. Which is why they just throw you out.

 

[QFIT]

Counting cards (in your head) is impossible to prove. The casino can claim you were doing it but they have no hard evidence other than you keep taking their money. Which is why they just throw you out.

It's not just that it is hard to prove. It is irrelevant. By no stretch of the imagination is using your brain cheating. A casino can demand that you not use a device, alter cards or dice, or collude with a dealer. A casino cannot demand that you stop thinking -- just because they aren't good at it.

 

[irobinson]

It's not just that it is hard to prove. It is irrelevant. By no stretch of the imagination is using your brain cheating. A casino can demand that you not use a device, alter cards or dice, or collude with a dealer. A casino cannot demand that you stop thinking -- just because they aren't good at it.

Yeah, only a government can do that.

 

[Grisly Dreams]

By no stretch of the imagination is using your brain cheating.

Yet you have the World Chess Federation checking tournament players for meth: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/jan/09/drug_testing_chess_players_rebel

 

[Pro21]

I can't imagine meth helping you to play better chess. I would think it would make you worse.

 

[QFIT]

Yet you have the World Chess Federation checking tournament players for meth: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/jan/09/drug_testing_chess_players_rebel

I think using an illegal drug fits under illegal device. Particularly meth at Chess. If it weren't for the dramatic side effects, we would all take it.

 

[beating vegas]

the ends justify the means

if they came up with a app for a iphone or blackberry and there are no laws on the books in that state then why not ?

 

[QFIT]

I can't imagine meth helping you to play better chess. I would think it would make you worse.

That's an interesting question. Now that I think of it, I have to contradict my answer of ten seconds ago. Amphetamines will certainly make you more alert than in normal circumstances. But, chess players at the master level already generate enough adrenaline to kept them alert. A boostmay just make them impatient and therefore careless.

 

[Pro21]

I remember when cocaine was very popular, and poker players as well as players of other games thought they were playing so well when using cocaine, but to my mind they played much worse.

 

[Grisly Dreams]

A boostmay just make them impatient and therefore careless.

Depends on the SIZE of the boost.

Ritalin, the ADHD drug prescribed all over the damned place, is just a small dose of methamphetamine. Adderall? Dextroamphetamine and Amphetamine. The whole point of these medicines is to focus the mind of those who are distracted.

Small doses of amphetamines are FAR better productivity drugs than, say, caffeine. The problem is that people's dopamine receptors also light up some, and they think "hey, a BIGGER bump might help even MOOOOOOOOORE!"