If a player is winning (due to advantage play) but is not a card counter, will he be less likely to be backed off (or worse) because casino personnel can ascertain he is not raising his bet with the count? I'm wondering if I can stay longer than the oft-recommended limit of about one hour (or longer than winning, say, 30 units - a figure put forth by Ian Andersen) especially with other cover than just not being a card counter.
Assume double deck, low stakes ($25-$100).
One hour is a good idea if you're scoping a place out and you don't know if they're stupid or not. If they're stupid, or at least stupid enough to have very rigid game protections that can be worked around, you can play a lot longer.
It sounds like you're getting a hole card. You absolutely better not back yourself off after 1 hour on a hole card game where you're not sensing heat.
And if you're getting a hole card, you better not be moving your bets around. That's a great way to get incorrectly backed off for counting by a surveillance department that you already know is too stupid to protect their hole cards.
The Cash Cow.
Forms of advantage play are not equal when it comes to being backed off. There are certain forms of advanced shuffle tracking which almost or literally no casino would be capable of detecting. In that case you can more or less do what you like except in very paranoid casinos that ban losing players because they have so many false positives (these do exist unfortunately it is difficult to use cover effectively with people that stupid).Originally Posted by Overkill
If you are using a method based on knowing the hole-card or the nth card with a high degree of certainty it is a very different story. Those methods are very old and their is literature and an awareness of them. They are also highly correlated with cheating methods - casinos look for players betting into information they don't have yet. Whether it is cynical or accidental legitimate AP methods are often confused with cheating methods by casinos. Then you have the potential to get thrown in a dungeon, bankroll confiscation, blacklisting etc and potentially career-terminating threats. Note the probability of a career terminating threat can be quite low in absolute terms individually and still unacceptably high globally.
Andersen's number is based on his card counting in games from many years ago. It is anecdotal, empirical and approximate. Casinos even then tended to base their actual decisions on players on multiple criteria. In short it won't have much relevance for what you are doing.
Getting backroomed or wrongfully arrested for legal advantage play is a great way to get a 6 figure judgment against the casinos and police. Bob Nersesian has won many cases like this.
And where the hell are you getting the idea that any of this is "career-terminating"? People like James Grosjean and Tommy Hyland are still gambling for a living.
The Cash Cow.
If you want to go around suing people and think you can make money from that, have fun, knock yourself out.
I'm an AP, getting arrested and spending time in court is something I try to avoid.
Literally both of the people I cited have been involved in litigation against casinos.
Tommy Hyland was wrongly prosecuted for using a "device" when he was just counting aces.
James Grosjean was involved in a major lawsuit against the Imperial Palace a number of years ago. There was an unlawful detention by security that was escalated to an unlawful arrest by the police due to slanderous accusations by the casino. He ended up getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the incident.
If you don't know about the subject, then don't offer an opinion in this authoritative tone as if you're certain it's correct, like you did above. People read this stuff and get confused.
The Cash Cow.
Your response is designed to make the casual reader think that I said something I did not. I have noticed you doing this a lot in response to myself and others-too frequently for it to be anything other than cynical and disingenuous.
You want to create the impression I implied advantage players had not taken action against casinos. I did not. Of course I am aware of this. The Hyland/Grosjean cases happened decades ago. Every advantage player has heard this stuff a dozen times.
You do not possess some special, secret or interesting knowledge. On the contrary your continuous name-dropping of people that were cutting-edge decades ago suggests an inability to move on or research current gambling/advantage play. Sequencing and hole-card play, the techniques that formed the subject of the cases in question, have been discussed in print for over half a century. Everything you have ever written on this forum is very old hat.
Any one can read multiple articles about a public court proceeding with a simple google search. There have been dozens of significant precedent-setting cases since that time. Not all of them are favorable to advantage players. There is always going to be a risk even when the advantage player is not doing something unethical that something goes wrong: as should be blindingly obvious no judicial system is perfect. Most of us wish to avoid the courts for that reason even if we are honest.
Generally speaking it is a question of settling out of court. Of the last 35 major cases involving advantage play of some kind the majority were settlements. The casinos don't want a unfavorable precedent set as that could result in unlimited liabilities.
Btw verbal abuse isn't something that makes much difference. Abuse is just opinion/freedom of speech unless it is slanderous.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks