Surveillance Question: Skills Check

[Finn Dog]

Greetings all,

The late surveillance expert DV Cellini revealed in his tell-all book that the minimum number of rounds required by Survey Voice to make an educated guess is about 75, or around one hour of play. He said it only works "if you count continuously for an hour or so".

He added that every casino he ever worked for required that surveillance rundown a suspected counter for at least three shoes before making a decision on whether the suspect is counting or not--along with the player making the correct moves--BS and index plays--75% of the time before he is deemed a threat.

This left me with a little ambiguity: do the required 75 hands (or three shoes) have to be consecutive--or can they string three individual shoes that are separated by breaks together? (I'm guessing yes on that.)

Regards,

FD

 

[creeping panther]

Finn

Greetings all,

The late surveillance expert DV Cellini revealed in his tell-all book that the minimum number of rounds required by Survey Voice to make an educated guess is about 75, or around one hour of play. He said it only works "if you count continuously for an hour or so".

He added that every casino he ever worked for required that surveillance rundown a suspected counter for at least three shoes before making a decision on whether the suspect is counting or not--along with the player making the correct moves--BS and index plays--75% of the time before he is deemed a threat.

This left me with a little ambiguity: do the required 75 hands (or three shoes) have to be consecutive--or can they string three individual shoes that are separated by breaks together? (I'm guessing yes on that.)

Regards,

FD

Finn,

I respect the "eye",,I also knew Mr. Cellini, who I also respected.

But the truth is 99% of surveillance will never know or understand what an AP with skillz is doing. I have played with these surveillance types, as well as their supreme masters, they understand very little and they easily buy into voodoo. It takes an AP with skillz to spot another AP, 99% of the time. But sometimes you may run into a 1%er

CP

 

[Finn Dog]

I have played with these surveillance types...and they easily buy into voodoo.

CP

Ah yes, I know what you mean: nothing like the old curve ball--or hittin' 'em where they aint--to throw them off the scent! :grin:

Regards,

FD

 

[SystemsTrader]

He added that every casino he ever worked for required that surveillance rundown a suspected counter for at least three shoes before making a decision on whether the suspect is counting or not--along with the player making the correct moves--BS and index plays--75% of the time before he is deemed a threat.

This left me with a little ambiguity: do the required 75 hands (or three shoes) have to be consecutive--or can they string three individual shoes that are separated by breaks together? (I'm guessing yes on that.)

Regards,

FD

The first time I was ever tossed from a casino was after just one shoe of play. So depending on how sweaty the place is don't ever take any casino for granted. Before I got tossed I could see the suits stirring around their podium and looking over. Because of my inexperience at the time instead of heading for the door I went to cash out first. That's when security showed up and walked me off the property.

Now a smart casino would have watched me for a few more shoes to make sure I just wasn't some lucky ploppy.

 

[Finn Dog]

The first time I was ever tossed from a casino was after just one shoe of play.

ST:

Thanks for the account of your back off; I forgot to mention that Cellini mentions in his book that small stores can and do not follow conventional wisdom or procedures--they'll do whatever they darned well want.

Obviously, they didn't have enough statistical data to determine you were playing with an advantage--they went with their hunch (most likely not caring if they tossed a non-AP or not).

May I ask you: was this occurrence in fact at a small property?

Best regards,

FD

 

[SystemsTrader]

Since the place no longer exists I guess I can mention it by name. It was the Frontier and since I was up low 4 figures, maybe that was too much money for them.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The first time I was ever tossed from a casino was after just one shoe of play. So depending on how sweaty the place is don't ever take any casino for granted. Before I got tossed I could see the suits stirring around their podium and looking over. Because of my inexperience at the time instead of heading for the door I went to cash out first. That's when security showed up and walked me off the property.

Now a smart casino would have watched me for a few more shoes to make sure I just wasn't some lucky ploppy.

The last time I got kicked out of a casino, it was walking up to the table. They could have been using information obtained somewhere else in your case.

Another time there was a case of mistaken identity where they believed I was a previously trespassed player. You never know, with the clowns they hire in casinos.

 

[Finn Dog]

Since the place no longer exists I guess I can mention it by name. It was the Frontier and since I was up low 4 figures, maybe that was too much money for them.

The old Frontier in Vegas?

I don't remember how big it was in terms of tables (guessing average to slightly below), but IIRC I believe they were privately owned (another license to do whatever they please).

Regards,

FD

 

[aslan]

Greetings all,

The late surveillance expert DV Cellini revealed in his tell-all book that the minimum number of rounds required by Survey Voice to make an educated guess is about 75, or around one hour of play. He said it only works "if you count continuously for an hour or so".

He added that every casino he ever worked for required that surveillance rundown a suspected counter for at least three shoes before making a decision on whether the suspect is counting or not--along with the player making the correct moves--BS and index plays--75% of the time before he is deemed a threat.

This left me with a little ambiguity: do the required 75 hands (or three shoes) have to be consecutive--or can they string three individual shoes that are separated by breaks together? (I'm guessing yes on that.)

Regards,

FD

I know eyes at major houses. One would ID you on the basis of counting with you for one shoe in which you increased you bet coinciding with recommended count levels. Another eye I know said he would need at least two shoes in which the counting behavior took place to conclude they were dealing with a card counter. I am not trying to be contrary, nor make out that I know better than the experts, but what I am saying is what I know first hand from real eyes at real major houses.

If you are counting naked, that is, without any masking, you should not be hanging around after a good positive run in which you were betting max anyway. It doesn't matter how quick or slow they are to ID you, you should be on your way to your next spot by the time they do.

BTW, they have software, too, but they don't need it to ID you, since they can count Hi-Lo as good as the next guy. I would guess software might come into use especially for high limit games where they don't want to make a mistake with a very big player, but I'm just guessing. If you were an eye, would you want to be responsible for incorrectly ID'ing a very big player, who might potentially lose tens of thousands? I know I wouldn't.

 

[daddybo]

not always backed off because of counting.

The Really good ones will take the time to see if you are a threat. They know there are a ton of people that can count at some level... and they know that most aren't really a threat. IF they determine your not going to hurt them, they will usually leave you alone... if they are good enough to figure it out.

 

[aslan]

The Really good ones will take the time to see if you are a threat. They know there are a ton of people that can count at some level... and they know that most aren't really a threat. IF they determine your not going to hurt them, they will usually leave you alone... if they are good enough to figure it out.

One told me they have a high limit player who counts, but not well. They are many tens of thousands ahead of him. If he ever gets his act together, they'll back him off, but until then, they just watch. But in a case where the counter does nothing to mask his play and he ramps up at the right times, they don't mess around--that is a threat and they push him off.

 

[daddybo]

One told me they have a high limit player who counts, but not well. They are many tens of thousands ahead of him. If he ever gets his act together, they'll back him off, but until then, they just watch. But in a case where the counter does nothing to mask his play and he ramps up at the right times, they don't mess around--that is a threat and they push him off.

I think I've met him. :whip::eyepatch:

 

[Finn Dog]

I know eyes at major houses. One would ID you on the basis of counting with you for one shoe in which you increased you bet coinciding with recommended count levels.

BTW, they have software, too, but they don't need it to ID you, since they can count Hi-Lo as good as the next guy. I would guess software might come into use especially for high limit games where they don't want to make a mistake with a very big player, but I'm just guessing. If you were an eye, would you want to be responsible for incorrectly ID'ing a very big player, who might potentially lose tens of thousands? I know I wouldn't.

Aslan:

First off, thank you very much for the information the Surveillance personnel shared with you.

Regarding backing someone off based on one shoe: I must say I find this a little odd (based on the fact this would represent only about 15 hands on a 6D shoe with a total of 5 players at the table); however, I also concede casinos are private clubs and can ultimately do whatever they want.

But 15 hands?

That number just seems like it would invariably back off some non-APs as well. IIRC from the infamous Mr. M (who used to post here), he said at MGM they required 2 shoes: one positive and one negative.

He added, management required the Survey Voice paperwork so there was in fact a paper trail. Here's the old link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=13454

The only thing I might point out is this information came from "active" surveillance personnel vs. retired--that is, there is an inherent potential conflict based on who pays their salary vs. a tell-all book after one's career is over. Vis-a-vis: they might be deliberately trying to foster an environment of fear (that they can catch anyone in no time flat--especially in their store).

I don't know--just food for thought. (Look at how Biometrics is really just a big scarecrow.)

But in the end, again, who really knows I suppose?

Mr. M are you out there?

Best regards,

FD

 

[aslan]

I think I've met him. :whip::eyepatch:

He knows YOU.:grin::laugh::whip::whip:

 

[StandardDeviant]

...If you are counting naked...

Now there's an idea. I guess that puts a whole new meaning on the word "cover" or, in this case, the lack thereof.

 

[aslan]

Now there's an idea. I guess that puts a whole new meaning on the word "cover" or, in this case, the lack thereof.

It attracts a lot of heat, but they'll never think to see whether or not you're counting! Trust me! :laugh::laugh:

 

[craazyman]

It attracts a lot of heat, but they'll never think to see whether or not you're counting! Trust me! :laugh::laugh:

May attract heat from more than just the pitbosses :laugh:

 

[WRX]

The old Frontier in Vegas?

I don't remember how big it was in terms of tables (guessing average to slightly below), but IIRC I believe they were privately owned (another license to do whatever they please).

It was owned by Phil Ruff-em-up, who sold the place, turned around and bought the Treasure Island from MGM, and had a few hundred mil left in change. Quite a coup. The buyers of the Frontier now have an empty lot.

 

[aslan]

May attract heat from more than just the pitbosses :laugh:

Please don't taze me bro!!!:laugh:

 

[21gunsalute]

Now there's an idea. I guess that puts a whole new meaning on the word "cover" or, in this case, the lack thereof.

That's where we males have an advantage when counting. If we run out of fingers and toes we still have another digit left to count with.