ultimate edge
- Thread starter daniel27
- Start date
gaming ethics
I thought I'd comment on the subject matter as far ethics is concerned. It is of my oppinion that any infomation gathered that can be used to gain an advantage providing that it is obtain legally is fair. Legally is the key word so the state gaming laws fall into play. A professional card player should not be considered anything else unless he is using something other then his natural abilities to gain that advantage. Since I'm not even near a professional this is a just a humble oppinion.
I thought I'd comment on the subject matter as far ethics is concerned. It is of my oppinion that any infomation gathered that can be used to gain an advantage providing that it is obtain legally is fair. Legally is the key word so the state gaming laws fall into play. A professional card player should not be considered anything else unless he is using something other then his natural abilities to gain that advantage. Since I'm not even near a professional this is a just a humble oppinion.
Devices used legally by the casinos, huh? This might be called the Rich Get Richer Law. THEY can use devices. For players, it's Russian-roulette-illegal, and slammer time. (Put this in the NOT FAIR category.)
The law is, traditionally, an ass; for it seems to protect casino corporations from a 'cheating, lying, stealing, profiteering-illegally-if-the-bastards-can-get-away-with-it public'. In this case, on the face of it, casinos are allowed many devices, (some of which could well be classified as "cheating"), but (theoretically) woe be upon any poor fool with a notebook and a pencil, (like anyone and his roulette 'system.')
Unfortunately for the casinos, they have not yet been able to ban the most dangerous device of them all... the human mind. Perhaps they have a battalion of lawyers working on that?
The law is, traditionally, an ass; for it seems to protect casino corporations from a 'cheating, lying, stealing, profiteering-illegally-if-the-bastards-can-get-away-with-it public'. In this case, on the face of it, casinos are allowed many devices, (some of which could well be classified as "cheating"), but (theoretically) woe be upon any poor fool with a notebook and a pencil, (like anyone and his roulette 'system.')
Unfortunately for the casinos, they have not yet been able to ban the most dangerous device of them all... the human mind. Perhaps they have a battalion of lawyers working on that?
Aren't most charity games just a matter of receiving a certain amount of chips and cashing them in for a donated prize at the end of the night? I suppose having a big edge on a game would entitle you to an unfair share of prizes, but I don't think that would cause the charity to lose any money whatsoever (the money being profit from admission fees, whereas the prizes were donated). Am I wrong? Either way, I couldn't think of any reason to do this, unless you just really needed the practice and couldn't afford it (money or heat-wise) in the field.
I once used to play a novelty blackjack game at a local bar when I was practicing counting. The game was absurdly simple to beat: 4.5/5D S17 DAS RSA, and you could easily see the burn card and back card. I eventually stopped playing it because the dealer refused to let me buy in for low denominations (you could re-buy on a later date with credits that you accumulated on the previous sessions), as he could tell that I would soon be in possession of the entire rack. Hey, at least I always tipped him well!
I once used to play a novelty blackjack game at a local bar when I was practicing counting. The game was absurdly simple to beat: 4.5/5D S17 DAS RSA, and you could easily see the burn card and back card. I eventually stopped playing it because the dealer refused to let me buy in for low denominations (you could re-buy on a later date with credits that you accumulated on the previous sessions), as he could tell that I would soon be in possession of the entire rack. Hey, at least I always tipped him well!
I have made 1,751 posts on this site alone, and have been posting on BJ since before the web existed on Usenet, AOL and Compuserve. I have also had "conversations" via e-mail, phone, letter and face-to-face with an enormous number of APs over the last 35 years. If you have a question about a specific post, tell me where it is so I can see the context. If you start a question with an accusatory-sounding "Did you or did you not," you need to define the question with more than a vague allusion to an undefined conversation made somewhere with someone at some time in the past decades.
And I repeat, claiming that I believe "anything other than straight counting would classify as cheating" and "QFIT has problems with any other AP than counting" is completely at odds with my book, software and hundreds of posts. These statements are blatantly false.
And I repeat, claiming that I believe "anything other than straight counting would classify as cheating" and "QFIT has problems with any other AP than counting" is completely at odds with my book, software and hundreds of posts. These statements are blatantly false.
I have always felt that hole-carding is unethical. I don't want to say cheating, but definately something I would not be comfortable with. It is one thing if you take advantage of occasional dealer sloppiness but to go out of your way to obtain information that you are not suppossed to have, to me crosses the line. This of course is a very personal opinion.
I take great pride in beating the game playing by the rules and using only the information that a player playing the game is 'suppossed' to have access to. Card counting falls into that catagory as does shuffle tracking, but again, for me personally hole-carding does not. Nor does the practice placing rainbow bets of odd amounts, trying to entice dealer payout errors. I have know players that do this and of course correct payouts that short the player but remain silent on payouts that overpay. To me this is fine when it happens naturally, but when you start placing bets of $32.50, $43, $28.50 specifically to encourage this, it crosses the line.
I take great pride in beating the game playing by the rules and using only the information that a player playing the game is 'suppossed' to have access to. Card counting falls into that catagory as does shuffle tracking, but again, for me personally hole-carding does not. Nor does the practice placing rainbow bets of odd amounts, trying to entice dealer payout errors. I have know players that do this and of course correct payouts that short the player but remain silent on payouts that overpay. To me this is fine when it happens naturally, but when you start placing bets of $32.50, $43, $28.50 specifically to encourage this, it crosses the line.
hmmm, ok every one is entitled to a very personal opinion even when it's openly stated on a public forum, lol.
now that it's out in the open it begs some questions.
do you understand the nature of your discomfort over the matter? if so how is it that you find hole carding discomforting?
how is it one thing to take advantage of occasional dealer sloppiness and yet not ok to primarily use such knowledge?
if this is too personal to discuss fine, but you did bring it up so inquiring minds would like to know.
edit: this is a serious question. imho ethics is the most important question for an AP.
now that it's out in the open it begs some questions.
do you understand the nature of your discomfort over the matter? if so how is it that you find hole carding discomforting?
how is it one thing to take advantage of occasional dealer sloppiness and yet not ok to primarily use such knowledge?
if this is too personal to discuss fine, but you did bring it up so inquiring minds would like to know.
edit: this is a serious question. imho ethics is the most important question for an AP.
Alright since you decided to air your personal opinion, making it public, I will do the same. This reasoning sounds much like biblical cherry picking to me in the sense that you can choose what fits your situation, but deny that what does not. Even if it is basically the same premise. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just seems like a biased illogical judgement in my opinion.
Yes it is true the casino does not want you to see the dealers HC, thats how they try to deal it. But it is also just as true the casino does not want you to count cards. If you do not alter the dealers movements while dealing, do not use any devices, and only use your (excuse the expression), god given gifts of vision and concentration, well then you are using no more in HCing than a counter using a little brain power. It is hard for me to agree with counters who need to post anonymous, hide their craft, and sneek behind the casinos back to eek out their living. If this sounds like an honorable alternative to hole carding, I may be missing something. I'm not saying a HC'er won't have to operate similar to that of a counter, but thats the point. I can be just as proud in knowing that I have the tenacity, skill, and brains it takes to actually play a strong HC game. Just like as you say you take pride in beating the casino with counting. But when it comes down to it, you are morally no better than someone also secretly beating the casino using a different method that is also not illegal but takes great skill.
As what you claim a player is "supposed" to know, I'm quite sure a player is not supposed to know how to get an advntage over the house, no matter the method. Probably a reason casinos will gladly hand out BS cards but not card counting books or indice charts or software that will guide you to playing a game designed for the house to have the edge, not the player. So basically I will say card counters will have a valid point here against HCing, when the casino allows and welcomes counters to play their games. Until then they are just as sneaky and morally corrupt in the eyes of those in charge of the "rules" of the game in which you think you adhere to.
Yes it is true the casino does not want you to see the dealers HC, thats how they try to deal it. But it is also just as true the casino does not want you to count cards. If you do not alter the dealers movements while dealing, do not use any devices, and only use your (excuse the expression), god given gifts of vision and concentration, well then you are using no more in HCing than a counter using a little brain power. It is hard for me to agree with counters who need to post anonymous, hide their craft, and sneek behind the casinos back to eek out their living. If this sounds like an honorable alternative to hole carding, I may be missing something. I'm not saying a HC'er won't have to operate similar to that of a counter, but thats the point. I can be just as proud in knowing that I have the tenacity, skill, and brains it takes to actually play a strong HC game. Just like as you say you take pride in beating the casino with counting. But when it comes down to it, you are morally no better than someone also secretly beating the casino using a different method that is also not illegal but takes great skill.
As what you claim a player is "supposed" to know, I'm quite sure a player is not supposed to know how to get an advntage over the house, no matter the method. Probably a reason casinos will gladly hand out BS cards but not card counting books or indice charts or software that will guide you to playing a game designed for the house to have the edge, not the player. So basically I will say card counters will have a valid point here against HCing, when the casino allows and welcomes counters to play their games. Until then they are just as sneaky and morally corrupt in the eyes of those in charge of the "rules" of the game in which you think you adhere to.
Of course a casino would veiw the too methods similarly. Because the casino's real objection isn't to those that are playing with an advantage, it is to those that are winning, and in that regard they would lump some smuck who is not playing with an advantage but rather just on an extended lucky streak. He would soon find himself just as unwelcome. So let's not go by what the casino thinks.
You make some good points about the similarities and the players using their minds, eyes, and skills. But the difference is that the counter is using information that is readily available in the natural application of the game. The hole carder is not. If he was, that second card would be dealt face up.
To me it would be similar to if a poker player sees other players cards. (I am not a poker player, but this probably occurs fairly regularly) But if this was a poker players sole strategy prior to sitting down, well it's not illegal and as I stated in my previous post, I won't even use the cheat word, but it is not a strategy that I would be comfortable with.
You make some good points about the similarities and the players using their minds, eyes, and skills. But the difference is that the counter is using information that is readily available in the natural application of the game. The hole carder is not. If he was, that second card would be dealt face up.
To me it would be similar to if a poker player sees other players cards. (I am not a poker player, but this probably occurs fairly regularly) But if this was a poker players sole strategy prior to sitting down, well it's not illegal and as I stated in my previous post, I won't even use the cheat word, but it is not a strategy that I would be comfortable with.
Well we kind of have to, its their place, and they make the rules. What they think is paramount in how me must act.
I understand your point, but in the same vein, just as a good HC'r will only sit with a flashing dealer, a good counter should be just as selective of what table he sits at as well. The readily available info of a counter is not part of every table, thus tables, as well as certain games are avoided and chosen. Not every table can be randomnly sat at and practically be beaten with straight card counting. So it is essentially not true that a counter is using info available in the natural application of the game. In a sense you are, or at least should be, searching out, and playing games YOU select, thus not natural at all. In my opinion your theory only holds up slightly if you play the game by plopping down at the first bj table you see and plug away at it with counting. As an educated counter you know that it is not possible to do that, pen, rules, heat, etc, will factor in where you play your game. So you are also in effect looking for weakness to secretly exploit for personal gain. It may be apples and oranges to you, but its all just fruit to me.
I understand your point, but in the same vein, just as a good HC'r will only sit with a flashing dealer, a good counter should be just as selective of what table he sits at as well. The readily available info of a counter is not part of every table, thus tables, as well as certain games are avoided and chosen. Not every table can be randomnly sat at and practically be beaten with straight card counting. So it is essentially not true that a counter is using info available in the natural application of the game. In a sense you are, or at least should be, searching out, and playing games YOU select, thus not natural at all. In my opinion your theory only holds up slightly if you play the game by plopping down at the first bj table you see and plug away at it with counting. As an educated counter you know that it is not possible to do that, pen, rules, heat, etc, will factor in where you play your game. So you are also in effect looking for weakness to secretly exploit for personal gain. It may be apples and oranges to you, but its all just fruit to me.
As I've said on more than one occasion, I believe that everyone's entitled to his own opinions on ethical standards. I respect those opinions, and in particular respect the fact that a person thinks about ethical issues and has the character to form and abide by conclusions, even when I disagree with his opinions. If it happens that another player pursues a play that I don't personally consider ethical, I probably won't get all exercised about it, although I probably wouldn't associate with that player. I tend to have a live and let live attitude on such matters. Everyone has to make a living. But if you make your bed, you should expect you'll have to lie in it.
What is legal and what is illegal is only weakly related to questions of what is ethical. One should never make the mistake of concluding that because one finds that something is unethical, it must be illegal, or the more dangerous mistake of thinking that it can't be illegal because it's so obviously not unethical. Those who make the laws have their own opinions of such matters, and are frequently influenced more by financial considerations than by their notions of morality. While there are many aspects of advantage play as to which the law is pretty well established, there are unfortunately many points on which the conclusions the courts will reach as to their lawfulness remain hard to predict.
I would just point out that the casino's usual attitude is that the player isn't "supposed" to have information from counting, either. Let alone information from shuffle tracking. The casinos believe that all of their customers are "supposed" to be clueless gamblers, who do nothing to get an advantage or even minimize the house edge. They think that the "natural" odds of a game are according to the way that they would like everyone else to play, and that it's against the spirit or nature of the game to try to win by any means other than blind luck. They think that only they, and not the customers on the other side of the table, are entitled to make calculations, and to arrange the play of a game in such a way as to gain an advantage.
From what I've seen, the stronger the play, the stronger the negative reaction the player is likely to receive from the casino when identified. A counter might get no worse than a polite backoff or a half-shoe. BP-spotter teams and shuffle trackers are likely to incur an angrier and more spiteful response. It can go up from there. Solo counters are pretty easy to spot, and aren't a huge threat. Stronger plays are much more difficult for the casinos to recognize, and when they finally do recognize them, it's as if they take offense for having been shown up for their own stupidity.
What is legal and what is illegal is only weakly related to questions of what is ethical. One should never make the mistake of concluding that because one finds that something is unethical, it must be illegal, or the more dangerous mistake of thinking that it can't be illegal because it's so obviously not unethical. Those who make the laws have their own opinions of such matters, and are frequently influenced more by financial considerations than by their notions of morality. While there are many aspects of advantage play as to which the law is pretty well established, there are unfortunately many points on which the conclusions the courts will reach as to their lawfulness remain hard to predict.
I would just point out that the casino's usual attitude is that the player isn't "supposed" to have information from counting, either. Let alone information from shuffle tracking. The casinos believe that all of their customers are "supposed" to be clueless gamblers, who do nothing to get an advantage or even minimize the house edge. They think that the "natural" odds of a game are according to the way that they would like everyone else to play, and that it's against the spirit or nature of the game to try to win by any means other than blind luck. They think that only they, and not the customers on the other side of the table, are entitled to make calculations, and to arrange the play of a game in such a way as to gain an advantage.
From what I've seen, the stronger the play, the stronger the negative reaction the player is likely to receive from the casino when identified. A counter might get no worse than a polite backoff or a half-shoe. BP-spotter teams and shuffle trackers are likely to incur an angrier and more spiteful response. It can go up from there. Solo counters are pretty easy to spot, and aren't a huge threat. Stronger plays are much more difficult for the casinos to recognize, and when they finally do recognize them, it's as if they take offense for having been shown up for their own stupidity.
Thank you, WRX for that very professional post, which sheds light on these issues that can be confusing. I bold-highlighted a paragraph above, about which I want to make a point: the modus operandi of the casino is highly unethical! What hypocrites! (I hope their legal devices all come down with multiple, ongoing... gremlins.)
Katweezel said:
Thank you, WRX for that very professional post, which sheds light on these issues that can be confusing. I bold-highlighted a paragraph above, about which I want to make a point: the modus operandi of the casino is highly unethical! What hypocrites! (I hope their legal devices all come down with multiple, ongoing... gremlins.)
what ever from my perspective i don't see casino's as being all that unethical. what ever, now that we are supposedly past the mob control days for casino's they seem to be law abiding entities. so but law and ethics aren't the same thing anyway.
thing is casino's ethical or not, we as AP's pretty much do the same thing as the casino's. our profits come out of the casino's pockets, but we all know where the casino got those profits. and how does an AP get a portion of the casino profits? essentially the AP becomes a casino in and of his own self by in essence turning the tables on the casino.
casino's in essence look us in the eye and say come play a contest with us. they have studied long and hard, they have the knowledge to for the most part put themselves on the winning side of the contests, in other words they know they have the advantage. most casino patrons don't study long and hard, they just enter the contests for fun while hoping for luck. AP's on the other hand, do study long and hard. we enter the contests with knowledge and skill. we look the casino in the eye and accept the challenge of the contest.
so i dunno, if one wants to see casino's as unethical i guess that's just fine and dandy, lol. i for one like living in a world where luck is a part of the equation, what ever, just me maybe but uncertainty is a kind of fun thing to fool around with, can be profitable as well.
For quite some time, I shared kewljason's opinion of HCing. With counting, it seems like you're merely playing a fair game against the casino; with HCing (specifically referring to flashing, not sequencing/steering), you're specifically looking for a game that is "broken" and trying to exploit the error. In the latter case, you're actually spending a lot of time scouting for these opportunities and only playing the games where you can get more information than you're normally entitled to.
When you actually sit down and think about it, the distinction between what counters do and what HCers do begins to break down quite a bit. As a counter, you're playing with information that the casino would prefer that you not be entitled to (remaining pack composition). You scout for game conditions that are advantageous (how many of you count at O'Sheas?) while completely ignoring games that you don't have an edge in (CSM, 6:5). Any counter that's played in Vegas for a reasonable amount of time has walked all over the strip and downtown monitoring current conditions—literally scouting like a HC player does. If you know of a casino where a certain dealer deals more cards than the house procedure dictates, you'll gladly adjust your schedule to play with that dealer.
Like kewljason said, I think it's simply a matter of personal ethics. I'd never mock or argue with someone that doesn't feel comfortable with HCing, but I also wouldn't condemn players that try every legal method to make the money. Personally, I tend to draw the line at attempting to induce dealer errors (rainbow bets, vague hand motions, etc.), but if I find a dealer that isn't very careful with their cards, I don't lose a lot of sleep over playing with them.
When you actually sit down and think about it, the distinction between what counters do and what HCers do begins to break down quite a bit. As a counter, you're playing with information that the casino would prefer that you not be entitled to (remaining pack composition). You scout for game conditions that are advantageous (how many of you count at O'Sheas?) while completely ignoring games that you don't have an edge in (CSM, 6:5). Any counter that's played in Vegas for a reasonable amount of time has walked all over the strip and downtown monitoring current conditions—literally scouting like a HC player does. If you know of a casino where a certain dealer deals more cards than the house procedure dictates, you'll gladly adjust your schedule to play with that dealer.
Like kewljason said, I think it's simply a matter of personal ethics. I'd never mock or argue with someone that doesn't feel comfortable with HCing, but I also wouldn't condemn players that try every legal method to make the money. Personally, I tend to draw the line at attempting to induce dealer errors (rainbow bets, vague hand motions, etc.), but if I find a dealer that isn't very careful with their cards, I don't lose a lot of sleep over playing with them.