Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

**Freightman** · 01-01-2019, 12:50 PM

Only 25 more posts to get to 300.

**Norm** · 01-01-2019, 12:50 PM

IANAL, but I find it difficult to imagine that any court would consider chips, supplied by the casino, to be cheating devices. They are not designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage.

**Three** · 01-01-2019, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

I have to disagree. The statute clearly states “device”. A chip is not a device - nor can it be construed as a device. For obvious purposes, it is a form of (monetary) measurement.

You are entitled to your opinion. I can see a chip as not being a device even though I don't agree. But a chip stack used to perform memory and math functions like addition is a device. An abacus is a primitive computer when operated correctly. It just uses what is essentially a bunch of chips moved around. I think you would agree that is a device. But there is a good chance you would not be convicted after being changed.

**lij45o6** · 01-01-2019, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Three

You are entitled to your opinion. I can see a chip as not being a device even though I don't agree. But a chip stack used to perform memory and math functions like addition is a device.

What is the legal definition of "device" in the given jurisdiction?

An abacus is a primitive computer when operated correctly. It just uses what is essentially a bunch of chips moved around. I think you would agree that is a device. But there is a good chance you would not be convicted after being changed.

Under the assumed definition of "device", any thing that is able to "compute" something to determine the outcome of any round of a game of chance constitutes a "cheating device". Your brain could very well fall under this definition, considering it is a "device" that performs the necessary actions to compute the outcome (albeit an approximation) for any given round.

**Norm** · 01-01-2019, 02:14 PM

An abacus is clearly a device "constructed" to calculate. Chips are independent objects, and not constructed at all by the player.

**BJGenius007** · 01-01-2019, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

An abacus is clearly a device "constructed" to calculate. Chips are independent objects, and not constructed at all by the player.

But you can organize rows of chips to simulate an abacus. Isn't it a device similar to an abacus?

**Norm** · 01-01-2019, 02:26 PM

I can keep my hand in my pocket and move coins around. I challenge anyone to prove in court I have a device.

In physics, simple machines include wedges and inclines. But, I just don't see chips as devices constructed to keep a count.

**Stealth** · 01-01-2019, 02:32 PM

Wow, this thread has now moved to questioning if chips are a device?

Far fetched. Lawyers might suggest it is but the players lawyers will counter that the casino provided them among other things. I like the players side of the argument but ask Nersesian.

Is my Apple watch a device. It will do an EKG and it track my heartrate. It can tell if I have fallen so simply moving my arm might be suitable to keep a count and it vibrates when certain events occur..........now this is more suspect.

**Freightman** · 01-01-2019, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

I can keep my hand in my pocket and move coins around

It’s not all you can do with your hands in your pocket. For improved results, with non threatning legal repercussions , consider the FBM ASC.

**Three** · 01-01-2019, 02:40 PM

Well a lawyer or better yet a judge would decide these issues. I fall under none of that. But you all express valid points that they may embrace. I would just err on the side of caution. I want to avoid being charged even if I know I can beat it in court. That said I don't think anyone has been charged this way yet. I have a vague memory of what might have been a rumor of this happening, or an actual incidence, or faulty memory. I could find anything with a search. I have to say it never happened without anything more than a fuzzy memory that might have been a rumor to start with.

**Freightman** · 01-01-2019, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Three

Well a lawyer or better yet a judge would decide these issues. I fall under none of that. But you all express valid points that they may embrace. I would just err on the side of caution. I want to avoid being charged even if I know I can beat it in court. That said I don't think anyone has been charged this way yet. I have a vague memory of what might have been a rumor of this happening, or an actual incidence, or faulty memory. I could find anything with a search. I have to say it never happened without anything more than a fuzzy memory that might have been a rumor to start with.

Don’t see how utilization of the FBM ASC could be construed as using a device. Should one be charged, utilization of models showing practical application of the method would show no usage of a mechanical device. Further, in those instances where hydraulics played a role, amended utilization on the fly should be legally permissible.

Only 15 more posts to go to hit 300, and no contributions from bjanalyst since 8.48 am today.

**bjanalyst** · 01-01-2019, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by BJGenius007

Is this a honest answer? Does it imply that you got zero royalty check from Amazon book sales?

Attached is top portion of Miscellaneos Income 1099-Misc for 2017 from Xlibris with Xlibris payer ID number. This was the entire amount I was paid from Xlibris in 2017,

It was $2.00 with 0.56 tax withheld for all of 2017. I have received zero royalties in 2018. So apparently only one book was sold in 2017 and 2018.

Xlibris put my books on all of the other websites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and other sites. All royalties are paid to Xlibris which is then suppose to mail me 10% (I believe) of the royalties they collect

I have received no royalty check in 2018. And I have read online comments that Xlibris does not pay royalties.

But I told you I wrote the book as a hobby. I did not bother to follow on royalties. I probably should at least ask Xlibris what happened with the royalties sometime.

I am showing you this to reply to your request and also to reply to others accusing me of trying to pedal my book on this site to make money. That was never my intention and I mentioned my books only after others asked about them.

And I accept constructive criticism and requests the my analysis be proven such as through simulations.

But I do not want to be insulted and attacked and accused of trying to push a phony systems and trolling and on and on.

Royalties.jpg

**BJGenius007** · 01-01-2019, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by bjanalyst

Attached is top portion of Miscellaneos Income 1099-Misc for 2017 from Xlibris with Xlibris payer ID number. This was the entire amount I was paid from Xlibris in 2017,

It was $2.00 with 0.56 tax withheld for all of 2017. I have received zero royalties in 2018. So apparently only one book was sold in 2017 and 2018.

Xlibris put my books on all of the other websites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and other sites. All royalties are paid to Xlibris which is then suppose to mail me 10% (I believe) of the royalties they collect

I have received no royalty check in 2018. And I have read online comments that Xlibris does not pay royalties.

But I told you I wrote the book as a hobby. I did not bother to follow on royalties. I probably should at least ask Xlibris what happened with the royalties sometime.

I am showing you this to reply to your request and also to reply to others accusing me of trying to pedal my book on this site to make money. That was never my intention and I mentioned my books only after others asked about them.

And I accept constructive criticism and requests the my analysis be proven such as through simulations.

But I do not want to be insulted and attacked and accused of trying to push a phony systems and trolling and on and on.

Royalties.jpg

I don't like you because you almost always gave misleading answers. Partial truth and not satisfiing answers.