Outlaw – "I Was Beating a Six-Deck Shoe!"

  • brandone

    Outlaw – "I Was Beating a Six-Deck Shoe!"

    Advantage players, we have a new line to laugh at and bring into our vocabulary of classical Hollywood misrepresentation of counting. ‘That’s a six-deck shoe I was beating; No-one beats a six-deck shoe!’. Read on for more.

    There’s a new TV series on NBC called ‘Outlaw’ featuring Jimmy Smits. He plays a Supreme Court justice who decides to leave the court for reasons that were very shallowly explained and pursue a private practice helping those that seemingly have no hope, like ‘RZA’ from the Wu-Tang Clan (up from da 36 chambers! CREAM!)

    Anyway… , I digress. At the beginning of the show, Jimmy Smits is at a casino in Atlantic City playing blackjack. He is apparently playing several hands at once. ‘Bless me father for I need a 4!’ on a 16 and, of course, gets a 4 (although if asking God, one would ask for a 5 against a stiff 16) yelling ‘And they say there’s no justice!’. Also he apparently *double downs on a hard 17* against a dealer 7 and gets, of course, a 4. The dealer then pulls over a soft 18 and Mr. Smits wins all hands and is immediately thrown out. He is an evil counter, after all. He objects, saying that card counting is legal in NJ and that the courts have upheld this in case John Vs Doe and Jane vs Doe and the courts voted X to Y, to which they say ‘NJ casinos just voted 2 to zip, you’re out of here.’

    All of this leads up to my favorite line of the pilot episode — ‘That’s a six-deck shoe I was beating; No-one beats a six-deck shoe!’. Then later in the episode when he explains that he has a sizable gambling debt he says ‘I guess there really is no way to beat a six-deck’. Check out the first 3 minutes of the pilot episode (the rest isn’t worth watching) — http://www.nbc.com/outlaw/video/pilot/1249310/ (<- Archive copy of dead link). After the commercial at the beginning of the video, skip to 1:08 unless you want to be entranced by RZA’s excellent acting skill.

    Apparently most of us disagree about the six-deck shoe. And in AC my experience has always been that they feel it necessary to use 8 decks because, indeed, in court they had their asses handed to them which only made it hard on everyone else. I’d like to hear him say that he was whooping up on an 8-deck shoe so that I get the nerve to start tackling it. What do we have to spread on an 8-deck anyway, 1 to 24?

    He went on to bang a card-carrying member of the ACLU as was escorted from the casino. What ever happened to ‘you’re welcome to play any other games here at the casino besides blackjack, Mr. Supreme Court Justice’?

    As for the rest of the show, it’s mediocre. Not a bad idea, just poorly executed for the most part. Lots of cheesy acting, lack of depth in characters, and even deeper of a lack of drama. Wasn’t exactly biting my nails through the episode hoping that one of the members of Wu-Tang clan got his execution stayed and his sentence over-turned.

    Oh yeah, and there’s a slutty and arousing P.I., a somewhat hot assistant, some other law douche (who played ‘Joey’ in the movie ‘Hackers’ back in 1995), and a bunch of other characters that I’ve seen elsewhere. If it wasn’t for the sex appeal of two of the characters I wouldn’t have watched more than the first 15 minutes, really. Come on Jimmy Smits. Let’s see better.

    OH — I was thinking now, if we ARE beating this infamously difficult to beat six deck shoe and we get that A.C. fuzz on our behinds, we can say ‘everyone knows you can’t beat a six-deck shoe!’.

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.