Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Hollywood: You know what I hate.

  1. #1
    Hollywood
    Guest

    Hollywood: You know what I hate.

    When a dealer is beating you up pretty bad, but you hang in there because the conditions are excellent.

    And that dealer is winning so many hands that on a couple that YOU win, he/she reaches for your money as though they can't believe you won.

    And they pull there hand back quick as though they didn't do it.

    That pisses me off.

    I also hate dealers that like to talk to much when i'm trying to count.

    I really want to say, "YO ASSHOLE, YOU'RE MAKING ME LOSE COUNT"

    I would love to know what my fellow counters hate most about this life we have chosen.

    Hollywood

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: One thing above all

    > And that dealer is winning so many hands
    > that on a couple that YOU win, he/she
    > reaches for your money as though they can't
    > believe you won.

    Yes, very annoying. I never fail to say, "You just couldn't believe it, right? I'm sure you'll correct your mistake on the next hand."

    > I also hate dealers that like to talk too
    > much when i'm trying to count.

    Used to be mandatory in A.C.; they called out every total of every hand. I hated it! Wanted to say, "I KNOW what I have. Shut the f**k up!"

    > I would love to know what my fellow counters
    > hate most about this life we have chosen.

    One thing FAR above everything else, and I've written about it many times: Having to feel like a criminal for what we're doing, concealing our talents, and playing the never-ending cat-and-mouse game with the pit and the eye. Some people say they enjoy the cloak-and-dagger stuff. For me, the "excitement" wore off 25 years ago.

    I resent the fact that, in all other walks of life, if you are a master at what you do, you can take pride in that, advertise it, flaunt it, and bask in your celebrity. In blackjack, you have to skulk around and deny that you have any ability whatsoever. What the hell fun is that?

    Don

  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Oh, one more thing ...

    I hate the smoke with a passion!

    Don

  4. #4
    ES
    Guest

    ES: Text of a letter I just had published

    in the Newark, New Jersey Star Ledger in response to a state senate committee's passing of a bill to ban smoking in places of public accommodation, including casinos:

    The legislature should ban smoking in casinos. Second-hand smoke is an irritant and health hazard to nonsmokers. One?s heart, lungs and nose are no more immune to the effects of cigarette smoke in casinos than in other places of public accommodation. The tendency to lump smoking drinking and gambling together is not a valid reason to fail to ban smoking in casinos. People enter casinos to risk their money, not their health.

    Casinos are places of employment for thousands of people in Atlantic City. Some jobs like coal mining are inherently dangerous and may not be able to be made appreciably less unhealthy by enacting laws. Dealing cards is not inherently detrimental to one?s health, whereas second-hand smoke is. Legislation can and must eliminate this known health hazard that casinos fail to remove.

    Casinos maintain that a smoking ban will hurt profits. The regulatory regime has bent over backwards to accommodate casinos by removing rules that required casinos to maintain set percentages of $2 and $5 tables, dropping surrender in blackjack and increasing the portion of slot machine floor space. Given the choice between protecting the health and comfort of casino patrons and employees, and, protecting casinos? bottom lines, the legislature must do the former, not the latter.

  5. #5
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Text of a letter I just had published

    Respectfully, and I mean respectfully, I disagree.

    I hope this does not turn into a political string as it will surely get busted, but I'm really tired of the continueing effort on the part of some (please don't personalize this ES) to enlist the power of state and federal government to protect us from ourselves.

    To think you should have a 'right' to gamble with a casino just because they open their doors to the public, or further, a 'right' to gamble in an environment you decide is proper continues to ask for more government intervention and will continue to ruin an already fading opportunity.

    Smell the money you are taking out of that place. It smells like nicotine. Were it not for the three pack a day Camel guys, that casino you frequent may not stay afloat.

    Alcohol offends me; the drunks they let play really offend me. So, what's next -an alcohol free environment?

    You really want Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum to start intervening in your personal life?

    I better stop now.

  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Your reasoning is faulty

    > I hope this does not turn into a political
    > string as it will surely get busted,

    It won't get busted, but we won't let it drag on -- especially since you're wrong! :-)

    > Alcohol offends me; the drunks they let play
    > really offend me. So, what's next -- an
    > alcohol-free environment?

    Here's the difference. Except for being "offended" by drunks and perhaps the smell of alcohol, there is no threat to YOUR health from people next to you drinking. Second-hand smoke is an entirely different matter. Every medical study on earth has shown conclusively that breathing second-hand smoke is seriously dangerous to the non-smoker's health. So, the logic is simple: You have a right to smoke and eventually kill yourself or shorten your life, but you not only have no such right, but it should be against the law, to impose that health hazard on ME!

    The logic is so transparent that I am continually amazed that anyone could possibly argue against it. It is far less important that we will lose some casino players who will not gamble if they can't smoke than it is for us to lose our lives.

    Don

  7. #7
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: I hate disagreeing with you.

    I don't smoke; never have; never will.

    When I return home from the casino I usually strip off my clothes and put them straight into the washing machine.

    Going to the casino, smelling the smoke, knowing all you recounted about second hand smoke and knowing it is true ALMOST makes me want to stay home. Almost.

    And for me, there is the simple logic.

    Nobody made me go. I went there voluntarily.

    There are public places where I must go and therefore I should be 'protected.' I would included in that some semi-public places as well, such as office buildings.

    But a private establishment, an entertainment facility (please, full-timers, don't begin with 'this is my office') where participation is voluntary, I'm sorry, we disagree.

    (No more from me, I promise.)

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: "Private establishment"

    I?ve never liked that term in reference to casinos.

    Let me ignore legal definitions and the specific question for a moment. When a casino is surrounded by wide open doors, a 15 story sign enticing people to enter, moving walkways shepherding people into the casino, millions of advertising dollars spent to convince people from thousands of miles distance to enter and play ? and then claims they are a ?private establishment,? I have little sympathy. A typical Strip casino is larger than the average US city. Yes it is private property. But hardly a private club with a lock on the front door. In some rural areas large shopping malls have become such an integral part of the communities that they lose some private property rights. They become the ?town square.? In my urban area, there are new buildings that contain apartments, offices, hotel rooms, restaurants and shopping all in the same building. Is it a private building or a city? I think some of the lines have been blurred.

  9. #9
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: I'm going to get a drink of water. :) *NM*


  10. #10
    ES
    Guest

    ES: Respectfully disagree.

    If the state is not going to protect us from harmful and offensive conduct such as smoking, then who will? Should the issue be resolved in favor of who between the smokers and nonsmokers can intimidate the other?

    I am amused that you ask "You really want Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum to start intervening in your personal life?" Usually restriction of smoking is seen as a liberal and Democratic cause cause because it is viewed as expansion of government. I am a Republican, but limiting the size or power of the state is not what draws me to the party. Banning smoking in privately owned businesses that are open to the public is an issue of good government vs. bad government and bad business, not limited government vs. big governmnet.

    Respectfully, and I mean respectfully, I disagree.

  11. #11
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: OK, enough

    Opinions have been well-stated and enunciated. I'd say we're done!

    Thanks.

    Don

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.