Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 24

Thread: Cheating or perfectly acceptable?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    803


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Cheating or perfectly acceptable?

    Let me set up the scene for you. Person A and person B know each other. Person A colludes with person B to cause a mix up in who controls a particular BJ box. They are dealt a 5,2 v a dealer 8. Four cards are drawn, a 3,2,A and 9, making them bust with a 22. Knowing that those same 4 cards would bust the dealer, person A pipes up and declares that they were in control and made no signals whatsoever for a card(s). Person B apologises and the 3,2,A and 9 are placed at the front of the shoe to be redrawn in that exact order. Person A waves off his 7 and watches the dealer bust. My friend seems to think that because the casino does not burn cards that are misplayed and that in the event of a player mistake they are to be redrawn in that order then it is nothing more than an AP move that coule be capitalised upon from time to time. I suggested it was outright cheating and tantamount to obtaining financial advantage via deception and that a casino could take action if they knew you colluded to make such a "mistake". Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    748


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'd think player A lost his chance after the first card was dealt. If he doesn't speak up then, I'd say he has no case.
    At best, they might call it a no hand. Once. Not worth even thinking about.
    Let me die in my sleep like my Grandfather.
    Not screaming in agony like his passengers.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    From my experience at your casino, they will usually burn the misplayed cards, they are in fact legally obligated to under the VGCR rules of Blackjack, if your friend has seen otherwise, I would suggest it was a mistake. Dealers should also only act on signals from whoever is controlling the hand in the first place, in some jurisdictions I've heard that that will be the player with the most money in the box, however, in Aus it should always be the person with their bet closest to the dealer, regardless of how much is being bet by either party, again, if you've seen otherwise, this is wrong.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    803


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Aussie, the casino you're referring to have never burnt cards. Any card that is drawn that should not have been is placed back on the felt near the shoe. This is even the case if a number of cards have been dealt. And because of the rule which stipulates that closest to the box controls, they're entitled to have the hand replayed in any manner they like, allowing such a move to be made. This is where the question of legality comes in. The rule is probably there for genuine mistakes, not collusion, but then again, it is there and can be capitalised upon.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I imagine it would only work once per dealer, and if attempted multiple times it would surely draw attention from other parties as well. Unless the conspirators are really good at playing dumb, it also exposes them as being people who have read and understood the rules published on the casino's website, which already puts them a step ahead of most of the other players.

    The collusion part, however, could be difficult to prove - couldn't one player make the misleading hand motion, and then couldn't that same player point out his own 'mistake', apologise, and demand that the other guy be given the right to play his own hand in accordance with the rules? There needn't be any evidence that they know one another at all (unless they do the same thing over and over on multiple tables together, haha). In fact, I wonder if a lone operator could pull this off with a genuine stranger, whose box he happened to be back betting (which makes his false hand signal a believable 'mistake'), and could end up with a profit for them both.

    By the way, the published rules as I read them (for the casino in question) confirm Koz's story - the cards dealt after the false signal would all be "treated as undisclosed".

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    In the US we would call this "taking a cheap shot". You might get away with it once, and it would turn the dealer and the pit against you.

    But if that is the casino's procedure there are much better ways to take advantage of it than that.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by RWM View Post
    In the US we would call this "taking a cheap shot". You might get away with it once, and it would turn the dealer and the pit against you.
    It depends - as long as it looks like an honest mistake, and the supervisor is the type to follow the rules to the letter, it might not require any hostility on either side. Of course, if the dealer doesn't call the supervisor over, or the supervisor doesn't know the details of the rule, then the player is forced to either give up or start quoting excerpts from the game rules and things could get a little messier.
    Quote Originally Posted by RWM View Post
    But if that is the casino's procedure there are much better ways to take advantage of it than that.
    It is indeed procedure for the casino in question, and in fact I believe it is state law. I would be curious to hear your thoughts about how one might exploit such a rule.

  8. #8
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,815


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    In my mind, the events as described by the OP is cheating. If the same events happened by honest mistake, it would be ok, but the pre-planning to create deception is what pushes it across the line for me. I certainly would not be comfortable employing such a play although my feelings have evolved over the years. lol Not too many years ago, I used to employ a move that when the dealer hit a 5 card 21 I would excitedly exclaim, "yes 22!" Likewise, if I broke with a 5 or 6 card 22, I would exclaim "21!" You would be surprised how often this maneuver works and when it doesn't, you just play dumb. It didn't take too long before I didn't like the way it felt winning that way. I really like being able to beat the casinos at their own game in what I consider an honest way that I can and do feel good about. I will accept honest mistakes and keep my mouth shut when there is a payoff in my favor, but I don't feel good about going further than that. I don't begrudge players that do though. The casino's haven't played fair for a long time by changing the rules to the game, so they really deserve whatever they get.
    Last edited by KJ; 01-18-2012 at 10:17 AM.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Where did you get this idea that 2 players colluding is cheating? If you collude with the dealer - that is cheating. Two players colluding is NOT. For example, one player signaling information to another player is colluding, and clearly not cheating according to the NV Supreme Court. Calling a Big Player into a hot shoe is colluding - clearly not cheating.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    803


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    This is where the water gets murky. I agree with Richard in that collusion in the form of calling in a BP is not cheating. You are using the casino's own rules to play the game in a certain fashion. In the example I described you are doing the same thing. The casino I play at has a rule that all cards must be played out in the order they were meant to and are simply returned to the start of the shoe to be replayed. There is also a rule present that states the player betting the front box must make the hand signals. I feel in a way that collusion of this type is simply another AP move, exploiting two rules this casino employs and capitalising on sloppy dealers who don't remember who is in control. But then again, there is more deception involved in the latter.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Why do you need this one-time cheap shot move? Wouldn't you be far better off just scouting for dealers that try to deal too quickly and are sloppy enough to make an occasional mistake? Gee, maybe you could "scout" for those dealers and once found be exploited for a long time.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    803


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I don't feel the need to at all. My friend proposed this and I thought it over and considered it to be within the rules, but then after we executed it I felt a bit uneasy. It just doesn't sit well with me even though I think it wasn't entirely illegal. He was also stopped from getting comped drinks two days later and after asking a waiter as to the reason, he replied, "The supervisor said something about a box during a BJ hand." Looks like they have long memories!

    Richard, not that I'd ever do this manoeuvre again, but do you think there is a great deal of difference between capitalising on a dealer who mistakenly exposes a card they shouldn't have and inducing them to show more cards than required?

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Koz,

    I think you were thinking like an AP, which is good. You saw a way to exploit a situation, and tried to capitalize on it. I just think you chose the wrong approach, and learned a valuable lesson. The pit realized what you were trying to do and labeled you as a shot-taker. Hopefully you are not completely burned in this place and can maybe go back and try another approach. Now I will add that in UK where this is also their policy they don't take it kindly when a dealer exposes an ace, and you now bet table max on the next hand, but there isn't much they can do about it since it was their mistake.

    As to the moral question - I have no interest in that. Everyone has their own set of ethics and makes decisions based on what they are comfortable with. It's better argued out in the Shul than here.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.