edge sorting in bj double deck

[Three]

By the same reasoning, the house should incorporate a turn in their shuffle. If they don't and I happen to notice something about the backs of the cards, I see no reason not to play more optimally.

Everywhere I play the players can't touch the cards and the house turns the cards during each shuffle anyway.

[Dieter]

By that reasoning a car left with the keys in the ignition is simply inviting you to steal it, and you are justified in doing so.

Equating playing cards with grand theft auto?

That's a long stretch, and I think you know it.

[NotEnoughHeat]

This is really blowing up. Perhaps we need a separate ethics thread. I'll make it and link it here in an edit so as not to clog this thread.

EDIT: Please direct any ethics related conversation here: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...064#post166064

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Equating playing cards with grand theft auto?

That's a long stretch, and I think you know it.

I know that it is NOT a stretch when considering that a high

stakes player can bet more in an hour than a Ferrari is worth.

I have bet five figures on a single hand of BJ.

My highest wager ever was 3 X $10,000 and I lost them all.

That's ancient history. Nowadays my bets are all under $1,000

[Dieter]

I know that it is NOT a stretch when considering that a high stakes player can bet more in an hour than a Ferrari is worth.

And as I pointed out in the other thread, the casino knowingly chose to gamble, but the guy parking the Buick maybe didn't, and the guy leaving his keys in the car doesn't stand to win another car.

The concern about a card getting rotated 180 degrees - not sanded, crimped, daubed, nicked, torn, or otherwise fundamentally altered, but rotated - something that ordinarily happens many times during a game, is shocking to me.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Rotating the cards with a specific purpose - that of the player being able to "read" card values, is obviously cheating.

Motivation is what matters. Rotating all of the cards 180 degrees or doing so randomly or ostentatiously is not cheating;

although it would be a violation of casino policy in any properly run casino, as would be using two hands or lifting the cards

high enough to be "sharing" information.

[Three]

And as I pointed out in the other thread, the casino knowingly chose to gamble, but the guy parking the Buick maybe didn't, and the guy leaving his keys in the car doesn't stand to win another car.

The guy gambled that he would save time parking in front of the store with his car running versus the car being stolen or the cops giving him a ticket for leaving a car running and unattended.

[Dieter]

Rotating the cards with a specific purpose - that of the player being able to "read" card values, is obviously cheating.

Motivation is what matters.

Then, conversely, if the house rotates some of the cards during the shuffle, with the motivation of changing if a player can read them or not, this too is cheating.


Edit:
I hit the button too fast. My real question here is why is that obviously cheating?

[Dieter]

The guy gambled that he would save time parking in front of the store with his car running

You're changing the terms. The original premise was that the keys were in the ignition, not that the car was running.

[Three]

why is that obviously cheating?

Usually written into the cheating statutes is motivation. The thought police has to work overtime in today's world.

[ilghan]

cancelled

[Stealth]

Classic M.I.T. Style Team Play with spotters and Guerrilla Big Players is cheating.

Hole-Carding is not.

When you play blackjack you enter a "social contract" wherein you will invest money

and the casino will provide you with an honest game with set rules and betting limits.

ZMF, While I have high regard for many of your thoughts, this one I must oppose.


If I entered into a social contract with the casino as you suppose, then I should have the ability to hold them accountable for allowing me to play within those rules. In both opposition to your premise and with specific intent to circumvent the "honest game with set rules and betting limits" they shuffle up, change the penetration, flat bet and the myriad of other actions that are blatant violations of those rules.

And lest we forget, the most egregious of transgressions is to offer a game to the public and then tell people they can not play because they are too good at the game they devised and offer. It may not be cheating but it exceeds all bound of ethical fair play.

In regards, to MIT style play, for which I am both guilty and an advocate, nothing is done to circumvent any of the games rules and there are certainly no laws that suggest it is cheating, to the contrary.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"If I entered into a social contract with the casino as you suppose, then I should have the ability to hold them accountable for allowing me to play within those rules. In both opposition to your premise and with specific intent to circumvent the "honest game with set rules and betting limits" they shuffle up, change the penetration, flat bet and the myriad of other actions that are blatant violations of those rules.

In regards, to MIT style play, for which I am both guilty and an advocate, nothing is
done to circumvent any of the games rules and there are certainly no laws that
suggest it is cheating, to the contrary."

The cheating by the casinos is best illustrated by "Preferential Shuffling."

We will need to "agree to disagree" on the issue of classic MIT style play.

I have engaged in other types of BJ mini-team play, that are less egregious.

I will not engage any further in debate over this ethical issue.