Team play

[FLASH1296]

I shared my post with a (genius) buddy of mine. At the age of 15 he was the youngest person to ever represent an Ivy League College (Princeton) on a debating team, and simultaneously be the youngest professional bridge player ever.

He emailed me the following:

My quick reaction is that the morality of the casinos has only a little to do with the morality of tactics used against them. To take a more extreme example, I don’t believe that it’s justified to rob someone just because his profession is robbing others, but I do think that it’s justified to rob him to regain ones possessions after being robbed if the law is on his side (e.g. in a 3rd world dictatorship where he can’t be convicted in court).
On that line of thinking, if team play isn’t right against a blameless casino, it also isn’t right against a casino which defrauds others.
Some forms of team play like assisted hole card play (e.g. with a spotter behind the table) seem clearly wrong to me, since they involve people that the casino didn’t invite into the game. Other forms of more passive team play like a shared bankroll by multiple players where no two of them are even in the same casino seem clearly acceptable.
The in between case is big player team play where no single action is illegitimate (giving advice openly is generally allowed by casinos), but the casinos would not allow open advice in the quantity it’s being provided (even if it were not based on the count). I think that makes it light grey on the morality scale, but not all that bad.

 

[sagefr0g]

Callipygian's post is really excellent.

You may want to read "Blackjack Blueprint" re: Team Play

Personally, I believe that Advantage Play becomes unethical when it morphs into Team Play.

I understand that the "Robin Hood" defense usually comes into play here,
i.e. taking from the evil rich ones is perfectly justifiable
inasmuch as we perceive them as the enemy;
but it is still unethical as the game is designed
to be played individually.

Have I ever engaged in this unethical conduct. Yes I have.

I have also seen the insides of Jail Cells, but that does not make me a bad person.

I take the money from dealer mistakes, but I am not a cheater.

just curious Flash and of course you need not say.
you say you find that team play is unethical.
i just wonder how so?

 

[sagefr0g]

By morphing, I meant that the moving of strategic mode from individual to tactical team play, I meant that it is "seamless" - The move is made with no "vetting" of the process of removing from the casinos some of their money.

That is because our collective mindset holds that the casinos treat us ruthlessly; consequently they "deserve" the same in return.

As Clint Eastwood said, so well, as it was apropos to a discussion of whether or not a victim who had been killed had deserved his fate.

Clint gritted his septuagenarian teeth, and with a cynical gaze, hissed:

"Deserves got nothin' to do with it."

In the case of the casinos and our "war" with them:

A. "The Ends Do Not Justify the Means."

Simple stuff for theologians, philosophers, and sociologists.

B. The games were never given rules and procedures that permitted more than one person must make betting and playing decisions. If you and I play Backgammon, Heads_Up_Poker or Ro-Sham-Bo I assume that it is my combination of luck and skill that will face off against yours. I do not put my funds at risk by playing you(and others who somehow are surreptitiously) aiding and abetting you in your sincere efforts to take my money from me.

We call that cheating when we are on the "wrong-end" of the action.
Cheating, by definition, is a signature event defining a "moral bankrupt."

C. As my semi-literate forebears told me: "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right."

The realities or beliefs about an a priori event or observation can have NO impact upon one's moral ethical quotient as expressed by actions in real time, not in empty words.

oh, ok. well i think i agree with Clint. lol
thing is most joints i've been in save for one make no clear statement regarding team play. one place i was in did have a sign stating no team play permitted.
point being how knowledgeable is one required to be with respect to the casino rules. often we rely on them to tell us when we are wrong.
then too, what's a team? is anyone who has read a book or talked about how the best way to play blackjack a team? or is the line drawn for a group of individuals working together in a casino to be a team. whats the ethical distinction? maybe the hopes and dreams of the casino management? do we need to guess about this or is it we could'a, should'a known, lol. should we care? is a patron in a casino differant than gentlemen playing a game of cards or is it the same?
just shooting the breeze. i'm out to lunch on the issue. lol

 

[callipygian]

individuals working together in a casino to be a team. whats the ethical distinction?

This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading.

What's the difference between two people individually counting (which he apparently has no problem with) and two people individually counting and then splitting their profits/losses afterwards?

What's the difference between one person backcounting, jumping in when the count is high (which he apparently has no problem with) and one person backcounting to signal another to jump in when the count is high?

If he wants to declare all card counting morally wrong, that's one thing. But declaring that there's a distinction between individuals and team play is ridiculous.

 

[sagefr0g]

This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading.

What's the difference between two people individually counting (which he apparently has no problem with) and two people individually counting and then splitting their profits/losses afterwards?

What's the difference between one person backcounting, jumping in when the count is high (which he apparently has no problem with) and one person backcounting to signal another to jump in when the count is high?

If he wants to declare all card counting morally wrong, that's one thing. But declaring that there's a distinction between individuals and team play is ridiculous.

lol, well maybe you didn't mean ridiculous, but yeah i fail to see the differance. i mean heck it ain't like a team is a bully beating up some poor little guy. and too don't groups of people frequent casino's all the time and don't casino's full well know that. maybe they should set a curfew where no more than one person can band together after a certain time, lol.

 

[Bojack1]

I shared my post with a (genius) buddy of mine. At the age of 15 he was the youngest person to ever represent an Ivy League College (Princeton) on a debating team, and simultaneously be the youngest professional bridge player ever.

He emailed me the following:

My quick reaction is that the morality of the casinos has only a little to do with the morality of tactics used against them. To take a more extreme example, I don’t believe that it’s justified to rob someone just because his profession is robbing others, but I do think that it’s justified to rob him to regain ones possessions after being robbed if the law is on his side (e.g. in a 3rd world dictatorship where he can’t be convicted in court).
On that line of thinking, if team play isn’t right against a blameless casino, it also isn’t right against a casino which defrauds others.
Some forms of team play like assisted hole card play (e.g. with a spotter behind the table) seem clearly wrong to me, since they involve people that the casino didn’t invite into the game. Other forms of more passive team play like a shared bankroll by multiple players where no two of them are even in the same casino seem clearly acceptable.
The in between case is big player team play where no single action is illegitimate (giving advice openly is generally allowed by casinos), but the casinos would not allow open advice in the quantity it’s being provided (even if it were not based on the count). I think that makes it light grey on the morality scale, but not all that bad.

If this is an example of what an Ivy league genius debater comes up with for an argument against team play being unethical, my biased thoughts against Princeton are proven. I also am an Ivy league alum and find this point of view rather weak and more of a waffle then a debate point. This weak response seems to substantiate team play as much as condemn it, not a good tactic for any debate really. Not something I would expect from even a Princeton grad, but then again I would tend to question the reliability of the source to begin with based on the misinformation in so many previous posts.

 

[FLASH1296]

"This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading."

If team play is defined as 2 or more players working off of a joint or communal bankroll,
I have no problem with that. I see that as syndicated play.
NO clear ethical violation that I can see.

If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al
with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.

Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

Posit if you will, as a thought experiment, a casino with 30 + patrons at 15 tables, only all of the players are team members,
including 15 "Big Players" with deep pockets and 15 skillful spotters using Hi-Opt II with 120 indices. The casino would run in the red !

If the casino does something to make the hands non-random they are obviously in violation of Casino Control Commision regulations.

Such basic principles of fairness must apply equally to them and to us.

 

[Bojack1]

"This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading."

If team play is defined as 2 or more players working off of a joint or communal bankroll,
I have no problem with that. I see that as syndicated play.
NO clear ethical violation that I can see.

If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al
with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.

Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

Posit if you will, as a thought experiment, a casino with 30 + patrons at 15 tables, only all of the players are team members,
including 15 "Big Players" with deep pockets and 15 skillful spotters using Hi-Opt II with 120 indices. The casino would run in the red !

If the casino does something to make the hands non-random they are obviously in violation of Casino Control Commision regulations.

Such basic principles of fairness must apply equally to them and to us.

This is nonsense. First off there is no sharing of information that is not open to every player at the table. Secondly there are no bets being made in a disproportionate manner. All bets are made in direct proportion of the advantage and bankroll. Team play offers no larger advantage at any given table then if you were to play there solo. Same cards, same advantage if you can realize it. BP team play offers cover, which every player wishes to accomplish while playing. If one cover technique is better than another it is certainly not unethical. Again, you as a solo counter, are trying to mask your playing as you are secretly trying to gain an advantage over the casino. As a team you are doing the same with the same information allowed to you as a solo counter. Playing solo you should be raising your bets in proportion to your advantage as well as your bankroll, the same as a BP team. Anything other than that and it is playing ineffeciently not unethically. Put it this way, a solo counter is doing the same work as a team as he sits at a table. The argument about worrying about the casino is weak. If you truly worried about the casinos well being you should not be counting in the first place. Not that it would ever realistically hurt their bottomline, but for your example's sake you shouldn't be playing if you feel what you do is unfair to others. And if you think its okay for you to do it, but not others because it makes it unfair to the casino, then my question to you is, Who the hell do you think you are? You have a right to your opinion, no matter how weak it appears to me. Again I will repeat myself, if you are a pro like you say, which I am sorry to say I really doubt you are, you would be the only one I've ever heard of that thinks like you do.

 

[sagefr0g]

"This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading."

If team play is defined as 2 or more players working off of a joint or communal bankroll,
I have no problem with that. I see that as syndicated play.
NO clear ethical violation that I can see.

If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al
with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.

Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

Posit if you will, as a thought experiment, a casino with 30 + patrons at 15 tables, only all of the players are team members,
including 15 "Big Players" with deep pockets and 15 skillful spotters using Hi-Opt II with 120 indices. The casino would run in the red !

If the casino does something to make the hands non-random they are obviously in violation of Casino Control Commision regulations.

Such basic principles of fairness must apply equally to them and to us.

no, no and no lol.
your basing ethics on the Casino Control Commision regulations.
only way that's gonna hold water is if the same commision has in it's regulations that teams aren't allowed.

 

[callipygian]

If team play is defined as 2 or more players working off of a joint or communal bankroll,
I have no problem with that. I see that as syndicated play.
NO clear ethical violation that I can see.

Okay.

If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al
with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.

Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

(1) That disproportionately large bets occur on non-random hands is invariant with respect to how one counts cards; a card counter also places disproportionally large bets on non-random hands as well, yet you accept that as okay.

(2) The morality of sharing information is also invariant with how it is passed. Let's say one person counts out loud and broadcasts the information to everyone within hearing range, while another meets a teammate in a bathroom to whisper to him what the count is. Unless you think one of those is morally acceptable while the other one isn't, then whether the information is shared publicly or surreptitiously is irrelevant.

(3) Your issue then is with simply "shared information" - not with team play at all. And while this is an argument worthy of consideration, let me point out two dichotomous examples.

- Let's say a spotter simply sits there and min bets at an empty table just to run the cards; the BP backcounts himself and then jumps in when the count is favorable with no signals exchanged. Then they go home and split the profits. You would agree this is fine?

- On the contrary, let's say that I discover a game where early surrender is allowed but not advertised (and BS yields a house advantage). By your reasoning, I could not morally post it on this board, as then I would be surreptitiously sharing information so that other players can place good bets.

This whole issue of sharing information revolves around the question of disclosure: whether the casino has voluntarily disclosed the information or not. And when it comes to card counting, the casino has knowingly and deliberately disclosed that information. At that point, whether it gets shared is irrelevant - it's been voluntarily disclosed by the casino.

Posit if you will, as a thought experiment, a casino with 30 + patrons at 15 tables, only all of the players are team members,
including 15 "Big Players" with deep pockets and 15 skillful spotters using Hi-Opt II with 120 indices. The casino would run in the red !

This is irrelevant for the exact reason you posted before: the ends do not justify the means. Whether the casino ultimately succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the issue of morality. That is, you cannot justify an immoral behavior just because a casino will still succeed, nor can you morally prohibit a behavior just because a casino will fall. The morality of the action is considered separately from the consequences.

 

[FLASH1296]

"Who the hell do you think you are? You have a right to your opinion, no matter how weak it appears to me. Again I will repeat myself, if you are a pro like you say, which I am sorry to say I really doubt you are, you would be the only one I've ever heard of that thinks like you do."

I do not want to stoop to defending myself; but a character flaw compels me to do so; even though that can be viewed as dignifying mean-spirited attempts at character assassination.

When I first expressed my opinion I was dead certain that i would be branded a heretic or worse for expressing my opinion.

I have been on various gambling and BJ forums for years and I am accepting of your statement that I am the only person that you have heard express this minority opinion. I know what the prevailing opinion was, is, and always shall be, especially in light of the recently romanticized nonsense seen in cinematic drivel drivel like "21"

Often it is the rebel, the maverick, the free-thinker who voices an unpopular opinion and is vilified or ostracized for it.

Your statement about the rarity of my (expressed) opinion is definitively not meaningful. Ordinarily, in complex issues and controversial matters of importance, the majority is generally wrong, hence a pure democracy is one of the worst idea ever promulgated; which is one of the reasons why dictators are frequently preferred over so-called "Democratic" leaders.

This issue is not one that can be decided by a vote, any more than you can decide "God" exists because most people say so. I will cast my vote as i see fit - as I am not afraid to be outspoken, even if I stand alone.

There are clearly a lot of people in this world (and on this forum) who think that Freedom of Speech is essential - just as long as it does not ruffle their feathers. That is why we, in the U.S.A., live in a Republic and not in a democracy. A Pure democracy is no different from "mob rule". Protecting freedom of speech is the primary mission of the ("watchdog" organization) A.C.L.U.

There are people on this board who know me personally and are quite certain of my professionalism.
I have been, as recently as this week, recruited for Team Play.
If the proposals are unethical in my view, I politely refuse.
Playing off of a shared bank I do not deem to be unethical.

I presented this ethical dilemma to seven friends and relatives who do not play serious BJ; but whom I respect for their sound and thoughtful judgement. One of them is a seated Judge, trained to examine evidence. None of them "had an axe to grind". They were unanimous in their consensus that ordinary Card Counting and other forms of Advantage Play such as Shuffle tracking, Ace Location, etc. are ethical endeavors; but they rejected the notion of a team utilizing "spotters" and "Gorilla Big Players" as engaging in an unethical enterprise. Their judgement revolved about the fact that blackjack is not a team sport. It was not designed or designated as a group activity, but as a game between the house and individuals, acting individually, not in concert.

 

[Bojack1]

"Who the hell do you think you are? You have a right to your opinion, no matter how weak it appears to me. Again I will repeat myself, if you are a pro like you say, which I am sorry to say I really doubt you are, you would be the only one I've ever heard of that thinks like you do."

I do not want to stoop to defending myself; but a character flaw compels me to do so; even though that can be viewed as dignifying mean-spirited attempts at character assassination.

When I first expressed my opinion I was dead certain that i would be branded a heretic or worse for expressing my opinion.

I have been on various gambling and BJ forums for years and I am accepting of your statement that I am the only person that you have heard express this minority opinion. I know what the prevailing opinion was, is, and always shall be, especially in light of the recently romanticized nonsense seen in cinematic drivel drivel like "21"

Often it is the rebel, the maverick, the free-thinker who voices an unpopular opinion and is vilified or ostracized for it.

Your statement about the rarity of my (expressed) opinion is definitively not meaningful. Ordinarily, in complex issues and controversial matters of importance, the majority is generally wrong, hence a pure democracy is one of the worst idea ever promulgated; which is one of the reasons why dictators are frequently preferred over so-called "Democratic" leaders.

This issue is not one that can be decided by a vote, any more than you can decide "God" exists because most people say so. I will cast my vote as i see fit - as I am not afraid to be outspoken, even if I stand alone.

There are clearly a lot of people in this world (and on this forum) who think that Freedom of Speech is essential - just as long as it does not ruffle their feathers. That is why we, in the U.S.A., live in a Republic and not in a democracy. A Pure democracy is no different from "mob rule". Protecting freedom of speech is the primary mission of the ("watchdog" organization) A.C.L.U.

There are people on this board who know me personally and are quite certain of my professionalism.
I have been, as recently as this week, recruited for Team Play.
If the proposals are unethical in my view, I politely refuse.
Playing off of a shared bank I do not deem to be unethical.

I presented this ethical dilemma to seven friends and relatives who do not play serious BJ; but whom I respect for their sound and thoughtful judgement. One of them is a seated Judge, trained to examine evidence. None of them "had an axe to grind". They were unanimous in their consensus that ordinary Card Counting and other forms of Advantage Play such as Shuffle tracking, Ace Location, etc. are ethical endeavors; but they rejected the notion of a team utilizing "spotters" and "Gorilla Big Players" as engaging in an unethical enterprise. Their judgement revolved about the fact that blackjack is not a team sport. It was not designed or designated as a group activity, but as a game between the house and individuals, acting individually, not in concert.

After using my quote to start your post there should have been no reason to continue. I stated and agree you have a right to your opinion. Even though the first sentence of my quote used here is used out of context as it was attched to another thought originally and not about your right of an opinion. I also stated that I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion, which is my right. So what your post tells me is you don't care whether I respect your right to express yourself, you just want to prove yourself in some way. Whatever, I have drawn my conclusions based on this thread and some others that you have posted on what I believe your playing status to be. Either way I will no longer continue tangent discussions off the topic of team play. If you feel the need to dicuss civil liberties, or why I think you are no professional as far as blackjack goes, please do it in a PM as i do not wish to derail this thread any longer.

 

[jaredmt]

blackjack is not a team sport. It was not designed or designated as a group activity, but as a game between the house and individuals, acting individually, not in concert.

but the casino also works togeather. thats why they have the "eye in the sky" and the pit bosses and everybody else there to try to catch you. it is a blackjack team trying to legally take their money, without cheating, against the casino staff team trying to catch them.

but then you're going to say "too wrongs dont make a right". i dont think either team is morally wrong. the blackjack team just wants to make their money just like any ohter solo counter and the casino staff team is just doing their jobs.

the origins of the game may have been for solo play but that doesnt make it unethical to work as a team. the casinos are well aware of this and do not post any signs saying "no team work". and i dont understand how gorrila BP teams differ from any other kind of team play as far as ethics. No matter what tactics you're team is using, they all have hte same purpose. as long as you arent breaking rules or doing anything illegal i dont see how 1 tactic is any more or less ethical than the other.

it seems like your arguement on gorilla BP tactics is based on the fact that, that tactic is more effective and thats what makes it unethical. im sure thats not your intention but thats what it seems like, and i think anybody would disagree with it

p.s.
im just having trouble seeing your logic on gorilla BP vs any other team play. they both can potentially have the same impact and both have the same intentions. and as i said before, casinos are aware of gorilla BPs and do not post any signs about it

 

[callipygian]

I presented this ethical dilemma to seven friends and relatives who do not play serious BJ; but whom I respect for their sound and thoughtful judgement. One of them is a seated Judge, trained to examine evidence.

This is the second time you have attempted to evade the question by appealing to a fictitious group of "smart" outsiders.

Nobody bought your Princeton debate team story in the first place; anyone who didn't directly challenge the story was just being polite. Now, for some reason, you decide to try the ruse again, with 7 people instead of 1, as if that's somehow less transparent than your first attempt.

 

[FLASH1296]

A response to being "flamed"

My postings have been entirely true and factual.
Your accusations do not alter that.

There has been no evasion on my part.
I have made it clear that I only have problems with teams using "spotters" and "Gorilla B.P.'s"

I have no idea why you need to be so overtly hostile to those who do not share your viewpoint, but we all have some character flaws.
Some more destructive than others.
Do you somehow not know that browbeating others only serves to diminish your online stature?

 

[sagefr0g]

My postings have been entirely true and factual.
Your accusations do not alter that.

There has been no evasion on my part.
I have made it clear that I only have problems with teams using "spotters" and "Gorilla B.P.'s"

I have no idea why you need to be so overtly hostile to those who do not share your viewpoint, but we all have some character flaws.
Some more destructive than others.
Do you somehow not know that browbeating others only serves to diminish your online stature?

probably just the heat of the debate sort of thing Flash
ethics or what ever everyone is entitled to their slant on it i guess.
probably casino owners and managers wouldn't argue with you.:devil::whip:

 

[moo321]

"This is the entire point that FLASH1296 is evading."

If team play is defined as 2 or more players working off of a joint or communal bankroll,
I have no problem with that. I see that as syndicated play.
NO clear ethical violation that I can see.

If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al
with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.

Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

Posit if you will, as a thought experiment, a casino with 30 + patrons at 15 tables, only all of the players are team members,
including 15 "Big Players" with deep pockets and 15 skillful spotters using Hi-Opt II with 120 indices. The casino would run in the red !

If the casino does something to make the hands non-random they are obviously in violation of Casino Control Commision regulations.

Such basic principles of fairness must apply equally to them and to us.

I'm going to defend Flash for a bit. I don't agree with him, but I think he has a reasonable argument. The law says that anything that alters the odds of a game of chance is cheating. And Flash is arguing that team play alters to odds of blackjack.

I don't agree, because I think that you are merely discovering the odds of the game by counting. But it's not a ridiculous argument by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Kasi]

[If team play is defined in the classic sense, a la Al Francesco, Kenny Uston, et al with "Gorilla B.P.'s" and "Spotters" -- that I see as clearly unethical.
Such a team is using surreptitiously shared information to place disproportionately large bets on non-random BJ hands,
while the rest of the clientele do not have such an advantage.

No big deal - you can have any opinion you want as far as I'm concerned.

Just was wondering how taking advantage of a "ploppy", as you discussed previously with paying him to not play bad hands, perhaps with the idea of getting him to play his hands the way you want them to be played, fits into your ethical scheme of things?

Could you view him as a second team member acting stupid so you could take extra adavantage?

Even if he is an actual idiot, whether or not one may think he's the fox or the chicken, is taking advantage of an idiot to increase your adv vs the house somehow less ethical than using a knowledgable player to increase your adv and/or EV?

So, if you are alone and back-counting, if you enter at +2 etc without a team member to signal you, and have an increased EV because a team member doesn't even have to waste his time playing min until the count happens, are you not only richer but also more ethical?

You ever back-bet a guy?