LV casino backoff video

**Halbruno** · 03-21-2018, 06:32 PM

I just discovered this on Youtube posted in February 2018.

https://youtu.be/0RtTvK8pl98

**Stealth** · 03-21-2018, 08:51 PM

The date on the video is 2003. I don't believe that type of event is likely to happen on the strip today. Other places in the county, not so sure.

I suspect more details about this event can be found in court records and the files of Bob Nersesian.

Stealth

**JamesonDetroit** · 03-21-2018, 10:14 PM

One very interesting bit toward the end (at 15m), the lawyer mentions one of the things that _is_ cheating and illegal: "using a confederate that is not at the game". The common example is a spotter across the pit. His example, though, is the casino using a confederate that is not at the game, but rather in surveillance, keeping a running count. An interesting argument to make, to be sure. Does anyone know if he, or anyone else, has made that argument in court yet?

**Frank Galvin** · 03-21-2018, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by JamesonDetroit

One very interesting bit toward the end (at 15m), the lawyer mentions one of the things that _is_ cheating and illegal: "using a confederate that is not at the game". The common example is a spotter across the pit. His example, though, is the casino using a confederate that is not at the game, but rather in surveillance, keeping a running count. An interesting argument to make, to be sure. Does anyone know if he, or anyone else, has made that argument in court yet?

But the casino’s “counter-tracker” is not counting cards to beat the game and win bets, but rather to strictly monitor players, and determine whether any players are anti-scarecrows (they have a brain), and might not lose as much or as quickly as the casino beancounters project for their suckers, oops meant good, decent folks (meaning your average ploppies).

As for a “spotter” on the other side of the room distributing information, his/her primary function is to share information to aid a player win bets at a game where he/she is not playing. I cannot fathom how a lawyer could argue (don’t take the bait, as it is not intended as a softball, but rather an intellectually honest opinion) that those two individuals are mirror images of each other. The spotter is acting in a manner designed to aid players, or the casino, to win bets in a specific game, the counter-tracker is not.

**JamesonDetroit** · 03-21-2018, 11:09 PM

Yeah, for sure, that is my initial impression as well.

However, if the casino's confederate (the away-from-table counter) is signaling his teammate (the pit/dealer) that the shoe is putting them at a negative EV scenario (a nice positive count), and so they decide to shuffle because of it... the argument starts to hold water (in my mind). Of course, that isn't generally the situation—like you say, it is about detecting counters. But IF they detected a counter and then also used the count, monitored by surveillance, to deploy countermeasures that disadvantage the players, that seems like a reasonable analogue to a spotter deploying information that gives the players an advantage.

Honestly, I'm not suggesting this is a form of casino cheating, or how it would end up and pan out in court... I just think it is an interesting question to think about.

**Frank Galvin** · 03-22-2018, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by JamesonDetroit

Yeah, for sure, that is my initial impression as well.

However, if the casino's confederate (the away-from-table counter) is signaling his teammate (the pit/dealer) that the shoe is putting them at a negative EV scenario (a nice positive count), and so they decide to shuffle because of it... the argument starts to hold water (in my mind). Of course, that isn't generally the situation—like you say, it is about detecting counters. But IF they detected a counter and then also used the count, monitored by surveillance, to deploy countermeasures that disadvantage the players, that seems like a reasonable analogue to a spotter deploying information that gives the players an advantage.

Honestly, I'm not suggesting this is a form of casino cheating, or how it would end up and pan out in court... I just think it is an interesting question to think about.

Well, you are in good company, as many have posted here from time to time their philosophical agreement with your sentiment that preferential shuffling and other casino countermeasures deployed against persons perceived to be APs, should be construed as cheating (changing the odds of a “random” game, based upon their use of superior knowledge and possibly computer enhanced card counting/tracking knowledge), myself included.

However, most doubt that courts (a strong arm of government) in states partially funded by casino revenue, would even entertain that argument. Until someone tests that, who knows what the jurisprudential response will be to that position.

**JamesonDetroit** · 03-22-2018, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Galvin

Well, you are in good company, as many have posted here from time to time their philosophical agreement with your sentiment that preferential shuffling and other casino countermeasures deployed against persons perceived to be APs, should be construed as cheating (changing the odds of a “random” game, based upon their use of superior knowledge and possibly computer enhanced card counting/tracking knowledge), myself included.

However, most doubt that courts (a strong arm of government) in states partially funded by casino revenue, would even entertain that argument. Until someone tests that, who knows what the jurisprudential response will be to that position.

Yeah, makes sense.

Thanks for your insight!

**Freightman** · 03-22-2018, 07:31 AM

Just as an aside, the guy did EVERYTHING wrong. He admitted he was counting, he argued with ctpritters, he cashed his chips etc.

Rank amateur.

**SpikeBJ** · 03-22-2018, 02:06 PM

Moses, you should be a screenwriter. Good action flick.

**Three** · 03-23-2018, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Galvin

But the casino’s “counter-tracker” is not counting cards to beat the game and win bets, but rather to strictly monitor players, and determine whether any players are anti-scarecrows (they have a brain), and might not lose as much or as quickly as the casino beancounters project for their suckers, oops meant good, decent folks (meaning your average ploppies).

But isn't using software to do this using a device to alter the odds of the game? The HE is not static when it comes to players. Most players will play at a higher HE and some will play to a decreased HE. If the casinos allow players to play poorly because they like that change in HE shouldn't they be legally required to also allow good play? Isn't banning good players altering the odds of the game?

By using a device to stop good players from playing aren't they changing the odds of the game by using a device? Isn't a camera that sends information to another location to be analyzed in an attempt to change the odds of the game also using a device? When a player does it they say it is using a device. Why isn't the law applied equally?

Clearly prematurely shuffling the cards because the players have an increased likelihood of winning is altering the odds of the game. If their choice to do so was via a confederate manning the EITS monitoring a camera feed or involved a phone call they are using a device to alter the odds of the game besides just altering the odds of the game.

**Three** · 03-23-2018, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by moses

I'm not sure that early shuffle is gaining the casino all that much anyway. A player has to get deep into this in order gain an edge. Most will shoot themselves in the foot anyway, by losing count, not a proper count, chasing etc, etc. Plus if they're shuffling away negative decks, then the casino shuts of their profit swing.

We are talking about changing the odds of the game. That is independent of casino earnings.

**Freightman** · 03-23-2018, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by moses

I'm not sure that early shuffle is gaining the casino all that much anyway. A player has to get deep into this game in order gain an edge, as T3 can testify. Most will shoot themselves in the foot anyway, by losing count, not a proper count, chasing etc, etc. Plus if they're shuffling away negative decks, then the casino shuts of their profit swing.

Everyone just needs to take a pill Bill.

The true count, is the true count. If you have an advantage, take advantage of it. As Don said in a post the other day, the advantage per true count increases further into the deck, therefore, fir example, true 3 is profitable anywhere, but more so in the back end.