Morality of card counting

[tdn]

As I understand it, while card counting in casinos (at the blackjack table) is not illegal, casinos frown on it to the point where a counter can be banned and perhaps even roughed up for it. What's your take on the morality of this?

One argument for: Casinos are businesses, not charities. They have the right to refuse service to anyone, and they are under no obligation to pay cheaters.

One argument against: Card counting is a skill, and is not a criminal act, nor an act of theft. Casinos are just punishing the better players. This is discriminatory.

[rjung]

Count me in the discriminatory camp -- if a player is smart enough to use his wits to determine the best times to bet high, why shouldn't he? He isn't interfering with the mechanics of the game, or preventing other players from using similar techniques.

It's as silly as an amateur basketball tournament disallowing all applicants over 6' tall because they might have an unfair advantage over the other players.

[Bricker]

As I understand it, while card counting in casinos (at the blackjack table) is not illegal, casinos frown on it to the point where a counter can be banned and perhaps even roughed up for it. What's your take on the morality of this?

One argument for: Casinos are businesses, not charities. They have the right to refuse service to anyone, and they are under no obligation to pay cheaters.

One argument against: Card counting is a skill, and is not a criminal act, nor an act of theft. Casinos are just punishing the better players. This is discriminatory.

And casinos have every right to be discriminatory. Counting is not illegal, it's not cheating, and if a casino "roughs up" someone, then they are liable; that is a criminal act. But they have no obligation to open their doors to someone that can beat them. Unfair? In some sense, sure.

[Bricker]

It's equally discriminatory that casinos do not comp me to a penthouse suite and give me free tickets to the Celine Dion show. But they provide this service to other people, merely because they ganble more money than I do. Unfair!

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Is it possible that it could be to the benefit of the house to give card counters a pass? The house stays in business by the fact that gamblers, collectively, lose more than they win over time. To have a few people win by counting cards, in my opinion, actually might increase profits because it encourages many others to gamble who will likely lose.

But hey, I don't run a casino so I don't get to make the rules.

[tdn]

To have a few people win by counting cards, in my opinion, actually might increase profits because it encourages many others to gamble who will likely lose.
I've heard this argument made. Card counting is difficult, and casinos can make a fortune on yahoos that think they can do it like pros. Thing is, though, Atlantic City did this for a while and I think they found it to be a bad idea.

[La Llorona]

Eh. I don't think card-counting is technically cheating, as you use no resources outside your own brain (although I suppose you could make the argument that "cheating consists of flouting the house rules", and as card-counting is uniformly outlawed at most casinos, then...).

But by the same token, businesses have a perfect right not to serve you if they choose not to, as long as we don't get into the whole "we will not discriminate against race-color-creed" hoopla.

I would also imagine that if you have the mental capacity to count cards, you'd also realize that too much of a good thing looks suspicious to a casino; have a "lucky" game or two, and then split before anybody gets wise to what's going on.

So basically: card-count if you want to, I won't narc on you. But don't do it enough so that people get suspicious, and don't be surprised if the casinos catch on and throw you out.

[tdn]

Eh. I don't think card-counting is technically cheating, as you use no resources outside your own brain
The backrooms of casinos are littered with mechanical devices. They come down really hard on that sort of thing.

[drachillix]

I would also imagine that if you have the mental capacity to count cards, you'd also realize that too much of a good thing looks suspicious to a casino; have a "lucky" game or two, and then split before anybody gets wise to what's going on.

I had an ex-gf who was a blackjack dealer at a local indian casino. She told me there were a handful of regulars who she was sure did this as a living, but most of them would win $100-$200 and walk away, usually on low limit tables. Few hours work a day, comped meal now and then, and make $500-$1000 a week. Plenty of us would kill for such a job.

[tdn]

Would it solve things it the rules were changed slightly so that even if cards were counted the house would have a slight advantage? Or would that just drive gamblers away?

Can a casino just go ahead and do that, or does the state gaming commission have to make it official?

[tdn]

I had an ex-gf who was a blackjack dealer at a local indian casino. She told me there were a handful of regulars who she was sure did this as a living, but most of them would win $100-$200 and walk away, usually on low limit tables.
Can I assume that the casino's position on this was that it was hardly worth their time to stop it? An amount like that seems so trivial.

[jimpatro]

la Llorona! Aieeeeee!!!!!, la Llorona !!!!!!!!

[Cheesesteak]

Card counting is not a skill, hiding the fact that you are counting is a skill. Any fool with a pencil and slip of paper can keep perfect count. If you allow counting, then the slips of paper will all come out and everybody's bet will be bouncing up and down with the count.

With everyone counting, blackjack becomes unprofitable and either goes away entirely, or the rules change so that counting isn't a benefit anymore, which means you will HAVE to count in order to get as good a payout as you already get.

As long as counting stays "illegal" only the truly dedicated players who really study and put out the effort can tip the scales in their favor. They can't affect the overall profitability of the game, since if they win too much, they get kicked out. The rest of us get to play the game as it was intended.

When it comes to the morality of card counting I have this to say. Widespread counting will destroy the game, so in that sense it is immoral and should be disallowed.

[treis]

Immoral. The terms of the bet explictly prohibit card counting (I am assuming they do somewhere) when you place that bet you are agreeing to the provisions of that bet. Doing something that is specifically against the rules of the bet is immoral and cheating the Casino.

[I don't care about your cat]

And casinos have every right to be discriminatory. Counting is not illegal, it's not cheating, and if a casino "roughs up" someone, then they are liable; that is a criminal act. But they have no obligation to open their doors to someone that can beat them. Unfair? In some sense, sure.
It's most definitely unfair. Whether a person is card-counting is sort of a red herring; the real issue is whether it's fair for casinos to forcibly remove a person once he starts winning. When you think about it, it's not only immoral, but ought to be illegal (although apparently it's not). After all, when one goes to a casino, one has the expectation that one may lose money or may win money. If casinos allow you to stay only so long as you lose, and kick you out as soon as you start winning, they're not really holding up their end of the bargain. If you knew that you would only be allowed to lose money, and never to win, you'd never set foot in a casino. The idea of forcibly removing people because they are winning seems contrary to the whole idea of gambling.

The casino has no way to actually know that a person is counting cards, since the tally exists only in the counter's mind. They can only guess that you are counting by the way you vary your bet. However, variations in bet size are not prohibited; casinos will gladly let you vary your bet as much as you want, so long as you are losing money. Card-counters aren't really ejected for counting, they are ejected for winning.

[I don't care about your cat]

Immoral. The terms of the bet explictly prohibit card counting (I am assuming they do somewhere)
No, I don't believe card-counting is expressly forbidden in writing at any casino.

[brickbacon]

Don't most big casinos use enough decks (which are switched often) to make card counting worthless? My friend just got back from Vegas and he mentioned they insert the cards into an auto shuffler and discard them after a few hands. Doesn't that make it hard to count cards effectively?

[I don't care about your cat]

Would it solve things it the rules were changed slightly so that even if cards were counted the house would have a slight advantage? Or would that just drive gamblers away?

Can a casino just go ahead and do that, or does the state gaming commission have to make it official?
I read an interesting book on card-counting. Apparently, casinos used to deal the deck all the way to the last card. When counting was first invented, some players were really cleaning up. The casinos tried altering the rules to counter this, but apparently their business fell off so much that they gave in and changed the rules back to the way they were before. (I don't believe they have to get approval as to how they set the rules; after all, there are slight variations in rules between different casinos, so I'm sure it's not standardized.) I'm thinking this was in the 1960s, but I might be remembering wrong. The casinos do have counter-measures now, but they are a little more subtle. They always re-shuffle before the end of the deck, and usually use multiple-deck shoes*. This makes card-counting extremely difficult for anyone who is not an expert. From what I understand, even an expert can only expect an advantage of a couple percentage points.


*If I'm not mistaken, the tables that offer single or 2-deck blackjack tweak the rules a little bit to compensate for counters. For example, double-down on 10 or 11 only, or split aces only once. The multi-deck tables will have slightly more liberal rules.

[rjung]

Yes, the casinos use lots of decks, and reshuffle them before the shoe gets too low, that effectively reduces the advantages of card-counting. That's perfectly fine, IMO, since that's a parameter of the game they wish to tweak.

Accusing someone of card-counting and/or "suggesting" a suspected counter of leaving a casino, on the other hand, is discriminatory.

[Sam Stone]

The casinos are free to change the rules of the game such that card counting won't work. They don't do this because they LIKE to advertise that blackjack is a game of skill - they just don't want anyone with skill playing the game.

Therefore, a grey market has evolved, in which casinos offer games that counters can beat, but which they then police well enough that the really good, high limit counters cannot take them for large amounts of money.

They could post rules against counting, but they never do, because this would break the fiction that blackjack is a game that 'anyone can win'.

Card counting is not illegal, nor is it against the rules. Card counters follow the rules of the game scrupulously. Some types of counting exploits, such as mid-show entry, have been disallowed by the rules in some casinos.

The fact is, casinos like card counters. Most of them, anyway. Almost no casino will bar a counter who is betting $5 chips. They make very little profit (a few bucks an hour at most), and they're great advertising. What the casinos fear are teams. A team with a big bankroll can beat a casino for hundreds of thousands of dollars. So the casinos focus on stopping counters in the big money games, and ignore the little guys.

There is absolutely, categorically nothing morally wrong with counting cards, so long as you stay within the posted rules of the game. In my opinion there IS something morally wrong with a casino advertising a game of skill, and then barring people who show that they actually have some. The casinos know this, and know that if they make too much noise they could suffer the same fate as casinos in Atlantic city which had their anti-counter politicies challenged in court. The casinos lost, and now it is illegal to bar counters in New Jersey. This was also bad for counters, because the casinos had to resort to the onl weapon they had left, which was to change the rules of the game to make counting much less profitable.

[Steve MB]

However, variations in bet size are not prohibited
In fact, variations in bet size are generally limited in order to curtail the use of betting systems (some of which would, in theory, work if an unlimited range of bets were possible and permitted).

[La Llorona]

la Llorona! Aieeeeee!!!!!, la Llorona !!!!!!!!

Wait, what? Is that a song?

[/confused and extremely OT]

[jimpatro]

A bit reminiscent of the Knack huh?

Thought you might be familiar with the folk tale. How did you acquire that handle?

[La Llorona]

A bit reminiscent of the Knack huh?
Eh? This is the sound of your reference whooshing over my head. Do explain.

Thought you might be familiar with the folk tale. How did you acquire that handle?

Oh, yes. I'm terrible at picking SNs, and I've been lurking here for ages and ages, and I resolved that as soon as I thought of a semi-decent username, I'd register here. This one popped into my head, and here I am! But unlike our anti-heroine, I have no children, nor any homicidal tendencies, and I've no desire to be a ghost--fear not!

:)

[Sam Stone]

In fact, variations in bet size are generally limited in order to curtail the use of betting systems (some of which would, in theory, work if an unlimited range of bets were possible and permitted).

If you're talking about Martingale progressions and other 'systems', you are wrong. If not, what do you mean?

[jimpatro]

Sorry, tdn, I'll be brief.

La L, I was expressing fear that you were lurking so closely.
Although you're eloquence is a whole new side of you I was not aware of.

And the allusion was to My Sharona by the Knack.

[Cheesesteak]

There is absolutely, categorically nothing morally wrong with counting cards, so long as you stay within the posted rules of the game. In my opinion there IS something morally wrong with a casino advertising a game of skill, and then barring people who show that they actually have some. The casinos know this, and know that if they make too much noise they could suffer the same fate as casinos in Atlantic city which had their anti-counter politicies challenged in court. The casinos lost, and now it is illegal to bar counters in New Jersey. This was also bad for counters, because the casinos had to resort to the onl weapon they had left, which was to change the rules of the game to make counting much less profitable.This is the part of the "counting is moral" argument that I don't understand. As long as casinos are allowed to boot counters, they can have less restrictive rules for the game and offer excellent odds. Once the casinos are made unable to bar counters, they have to screw with the rules of the game to even be able to offer it anymore.

Before you go off and blame the casino, it is a business. They can't offer a game where the edge is to the player, and card counting puts the edge to the player. Blackjack already offers the best odds in the casino when you don't count and just play proper strategy. It is somehow moral for card counters to swoop in and force the casino to change the rules, making the game worse for every other player?

If you don't mind, I'd also like to reiterate that counting is not a skill. My 5 year old nephew can count cards. Not getting caught at it is a skill. Your definition of a skillful card player is "doesn't get caught doing X". That's a good definition for a person who cheats at cards, but is not really a good definition of a person who is just skilled at playing the game.

[BobLibDem]

Why don't they just use a fresh deck for every hand? Or have 3 shoes from which the dealer may randomly choose AFTER the player makes his bet.

[tdn]

Why don't they just use a fresh deck for every hand?
They tried this in New Jersey. The Gaming Commission said no.

Or have 3 shoes from which the dealer may randomly choose AFTER the player makes his bet.
Because the dealer may not be choosing randomly. He may be choosing from the "hot" shoe when his accomplice bets big.

[Sam Stone]

This is the part of the "counting is moral" argument that I don't understand. As long as casinos are allowed to boot counters, they can have less restrictive rules for the game and offer excellent odds. Once the casinos are made unable to bar counters, they have to screw with the rules of the game to even be able to offer it anymore.


The primary way in which they screw with the game to prevent counters doesn't really affect non-counters - and that is to change the rate at which they shuffle the shoe. A six-deck game with only 1/2 of a deck cut off is eminently beatable by a counter - a six-deck game with three decks cut off and no mid-shoe entry is almost impossible to beat. Yet the basic strategy odds do not change one bit. In fact, cutting three decks off saves money for the other players, because it lowers the number of hands per hour the house can deal, and therefore the hourly cost to the losing player goes down.

One area where counters do change the odds for other players is when they are allowed mid-shoe entry. Counters who do this force the other players to play more hands with poor odds and fewer hands with good odds. Again, if it's within the rules to do so, it's moral. If it's not, you shouldn't do it, period.


Before you go off and blame the casino, it is a business. They can't offer a game where the edge is to the player, and card counting puts the edge to the player. Blackjack already offers the best odds in the casino when you don't count and just play proper strategy. It is somehow moral for card counters to swoop in and force the casino to change the rules, making the game worse for every other player?


Sure they can offer a game where the edge goes to a GOOD player, as long as the majority of players aren't so good. There are some video poker machines that will return a small positive expectation with perfect play. The casinos can offer that because 99% of the players do NOT play perfectly.

In fact, there is a general rule in the casino that the games with the best odds are the ones that take an understanding of the game to attain those good odds. The games that are essentially a coin flip (slots, roulette, etc) tend to have the biggest house 'rake'.

If everyone played the skill games with an equal amount of skill, the casinos would be forced to lower the odds for them or stop offering them. For example, the casino can offer pass-line bets and odds bets in craps, which have very low house rakes, because they sprinkle the game with real sucker bets that players routinely take. Likewise in baccarat - the bank/player bet has a very low advantage for the house, but the tie bet will kill you.

The fact that they count on players to be stupid does not mean it's immoral to be smart.


If you don't mind, I'd also like to reiterate that counting is not a skill. My 5 year old nephew can count cards. Not getting caught at it is a skill. Your definition of a skillful card player is "doesn't get caught doing X". That's a good definition for a person who cheats at cards, but is not really a good definition of a person who is just skilled at playing the game.

Of course counting is a skill, and no your 5-year old nephew cannot count cards profitably. Are you under the impression that counting cards is just a matter of adding a one to a running count when a 2-6 comes out, and subtracting one when a face card comes out? If so, you're missing 90% of it. Here's the mechanics of what a counter actually does:

First, he calculates the running count. I agree, a 5-year old can be taught to do this. However, I'd like to see him manage to do it while the dealer is firing out 13 cards in rapid succession. Then he has to estimate the number of decks still in play by looking at the shoe, and dividing the running count by that to get a 'true count', which is the real measure of the player's advantage.

Once the player has the true count, he has to refer to his memorized table of strategy changes to see if the count affects the way he should play his hand. There are 18 different strategy changes that are important to the winning player. Things like hitting a 6 vs a ten on a negative count, while standing on it when the count is positive. Should he hit his 12 against the dealer's five? (yes, when the count is -2 or lower) Etc. Some systems have dozens of strategy changes that must be memorized.

Then you have to know how much to bet. Knowing that requires an understanding of the 'Kelly Criterion', and one of the biggest causes for blackjack players to fail is the lack of understanding of how bet size correlates to bankroll growth. Bet too much, and you'll lose your bankroll no matter what your advantage is. And if you don't spread your bets enough (i.e. betting 1 unit at neutral or negative counts, and 8 units at high counts), you won't beat the game.

Then there's game selection. Knowing how to vary your play based on the various rules at various tables. Knowing what to look for, such as deep penetration.

And finally, there's the huge skill of being able to do all of this in real time, with near perfect accuracy, and all the while maintaniing conversations with people around you, putting up with distractions like the waitress showing up to ask you if you'd like something in the middle of a deal, etc.

Yes, it takes real skill to be a winning blackjack player. Enough of it that for every winning player there are probably a dozen who have learned how to add and subtract one and keep a simple running count, but who don't do enough to break even, let alone win.

[AmbushBug]

Why don't they just use a fresh deck for every hand? Or have 3 shoes from which the dealer may randomly choose AFTER the player makes his bet.

Having the dealer choose from three shoes would enable the players to blame the dealer's choice for their losses, rather than it be the luck of the cards. Plus, a dealer could count the three shoes and select the shoe with the count favoring the bets on the table in order to increase their potential tokes. If a computer picked the shoe for the dealer, the players could suspect that the computer is counting the shoes, and picking the shoe with the worst count for the current bet levels.

[davenportavenger]

From February: Why is counting cards against the rules? How do they know you're doing it? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303201)

[Gangster Octopus]

Blackjack already offers the best odds in the casino when you don't count and just play proper strategy.

Actually, I believe Craps has the best odds apart from card counting Blackjack.

[Bryan Ekers]

Actually, I believe Craps has the best odds apart from card counting Blackjack.
In addition, some casinos will allow a [url="http://www.casinocenter.com/htp/craps/crp2.html"]"free odds" bet[/quote], which can reduce the house's edge.

Though I have to admit, how the house's edge (1.4%) is determined is mathematically escaping me.

[Bryan Ekers]

Preview escapes me often, too.

[I don't care about your cat]

If you don't mind, I'd also like to reiterate that counting is not a skill.
I'll second what Sam Stone said. Not sure what you mean by "a skill", but card-counting is EXTREMELY difficult to do. Even after you have memorized the technique and then spent hours and hours drilling, and feel that you have mastered the rudiments, you will find that actually doing it at a casino is near impossible. At the rate dealers go, you'll be lucky if you manage to even see all the cards, much less keep an accurate count. And let's say by some miracle you manage to do all that, your play still has to 100% perfect. A couple basic strategy mistakes and you can wipe out your entire advantage. I tried to learn card-counting, and believe me, you've got to be a fanatic to want to put in the amount of effort it would take to do it successfully.

[DKW]

It's not cheating. This sounds exactly like the incessant whining about "cheating" I heard during the heyday of Street Fighter 2. Of course, blackjack involves a lot more money, so naturally tensions run a lot higher, but using what works for Guile or Chun Li or Zangief is. Not. Cheating., and neither is counting. And as far as I'm concered, it's only immoral in the sense that any kind of gambling is immoral; it's only a question of who profits.

It does give the player an unfair advantage. However, it's the responsibility of the casnio to find the counters and take them out or find some way of negating this advantage. Thankfully, this is what they do, rather than going to the courts or some other ham-fisted measure.

Personally, I have a very hard time sympathising with a casino that gets taken. It's their choice to have the game, and if it's one where a few smart, dedicated players can make a killing, they gotta be prepared for that. If they use multiple decks or shoes, they have to deal with the gripes (and really, any casino that can't handle gripes doesn't deserve to be in business). If they ban popular high rollers, there's backlash to deal with. These places rake in tons of cash every day; an occasional loss on one lousy game isn't the end of the world.

Otherwise, I'm with the consensus on counting: If you're gonna do it, be as discreet as possible and get the hell out while you're ahead.

Little nagging aside...I can understand giving a harsh lecture to a suspected cheat, maybe even a little intimidation, but is a forced trip to the back room actually, well, legal? (Much less BATTERY, and let's not try to sugarcoat this.) I saw the recent bio of Ken Uston on the History Channel, and what happened to him was downright chilling. I was flabbergasted that nobody even attempted to press charges over that.

[Cheesesteak]

Let me put it this way, basic card counting, which WILL put the edge to the player, is to keep running count / true count that Sam mentions and altering your bet for the hand based on it. Complex variations are complex, I won't claim they are simple. Is this basic card counting strategy really harder than memorizing basic strategy (http://www.countingedge.com/basicstrategy.php)? That's the basic strategy chart, and you need to learn that cold before you even think about counting. There are 160 different possible plays to memorize on this chart, and apparently the chart changes depending on the specific rules of the casino.

The reason playing basic strategy is not a "skill" is that there are no rules against it, no restriction on discussing it with other players, no restriction on keeping a crib sheet with you at the table. If card counting were legal and allowable, I'd put together a little clicker thing like baseball umpires use and just click my way to profits. Or keep a public running count with the other players at the game. Hey guys, we're at +3 for this hand.

That's the inherent difference between something being legal and something being illegal. Card counting is a skill today because you have to do it on the sly. Put it out in the open and it becomes no more a skill than playing basic strategy.

[Malacandra]

Card counting is not immoral, but for casinos to allow it is impractical. Casinos exist to offer you unfair bets; they continue to exist only because you take unfair bets; if they cannot offer you unfair bets, there will be no casinos. If you dislike this, play only among friends (or against enemies you are prepared to watch like a hawk). Personally I do dislike it. YMMV.

[Sam Stone]

Let me put it this way, basic card counting, which WILL put the edge to the player, is to keep running count / true count that Sam mentions and altering your bet for the hand based on it. Complex variations are complex, I won't claim they are simple.


And the 'basic' level of card counting you mention isn't enough to win. Again, unless you understand bankroll management, how to calculate your advantage so you can apply the Kelly criterion, and how to do all this very quickly, you'll still lose money. You'll just lose it more slowly.


Is this basic card counting strategy really harder than memorizing basic strategy (http://www.countingedge.com/basicstrategy.php)? That's the basic strategy chart, and you need to learn that cold before you even think about counting. There are 160 different possible plays to memorize on this chart, and apparently the chart changes depending on the specific rules of the casino.


Basic strategy is also a skill. Why are you trying to define that away?


The reason playing basic strategy is not a "skill" is that there are no rules against it, no restriction on discussing it with other players, no restriction on keeping a crib sheet with you at the table.


That's a ridiculous way to define a 'skill', and by that definition playing chess well is not a skill, and neither is being able to build a bridge. There are no rules against building a bridge, no restrictions on discussing it with other engineers, and engineers use 'crib sheets' and even calculators and computers while using their skill.


If card counting were legal and allowable, I'd put together a little clicker thing like baseball umpires use and just click my way to profits. Or keep a public running count with the other players at the game. Hey guys, we're at +3 for this hand.


Again, card counting IS legal. The only reason it's not 'allowable' is because the CASINO is not acting ethically. You've got it backwards. The casino is offering a game of skill advertised as such, but kicking out players who are A) playing within the rules, and B) exhibiting skill. I have NEVER seen a sign that says, "Card counting not allowed".

As for using a 'little clicker thing', using a mechanical device while gambling is a felony in most states.


That's the inherent difference between something being legal and something being illegal. Card counting is a skill today because you have to do it on the sly. Put it out in the open and it becomes no more a skill than playing basic strategy.

No, the difference between something being legal and something being illegal is whether the rules are being followed, and NOT whether you are good enough at a game to make the casino decide they don't want you playing it any more.

Casinos behave with borderline ethics in many ways. They set up sucker bets to fleece the stupid and ignorant, and bury them within the normal play of games. They ply their customers with free alcohol to screw with their judgement and make them lose more. And they advertise a game of skill, then instruct their pit bosses to sneak around and quietly kick out anyone who shows enough skill to actually win at the game WHILE PLAYING BY THE RULES. If you have any outrage at all, it should be directed at the casino, not the players.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I live in Las Vegas.

Card counting is not illegal, and is not a posted prohibited practice at casinos here.

It IS a discouraged practice, and those who even appear to be making the attempt to count cards are often removed from the premises, sometimes permanently (picture taken, name written, and info IMMEDIATELY sent to all other casinos in town).

Casinos are not businesses. They exist only to make money, not to offer a product or service. Anything you think the hotel is providing you with (that room, the steak dinner, tickets to the show, valet parking, a pool, etc.) are only there because the casino feels that it will somehow help them to seperate you from more of your money, and do so in a more discreet fashion than simply having goons lift your wallet. In the end, there is a lot less legal hassle when someone voluntarily hands over their money.

A word on card counting and why it is not illegal: it cannot be legislated, or within the rules, to delineate that only people with a sufficiently low IQ may gamble. I do not gamble, but I have played blackjack with friends, family, etc. in the past. It would be impossible for me to turn my brain off so that I could not remember that all 4 Kings and Queens had already been seen, but only 1 of the Aces.

Casinos also do not offer gaming without being SURE that the odds favor the house. And I don't mean like the house wins 60% of the time. A quick call with the Nevada Gaming Commission years ago confirmed that most casino table games (which excludes video poker and slots) have an average house win % of something like 80%. The gambler is at a serious disadvantage because of the rules of the game he plays... no casino will even offer a game unless it is already assured of profitability.

Bottom line: card counting is neither illegal, nor even morally wrong. But since casinos are not in the business of offering games of skill to willing players, but rather are there to take as much money as possible away from the people who enter the establishment, they will do everything they can to discourage the practice and prevent those who do possess this skill from entering.

[Sam Stone]

Casinos also do not offer gaming without being SURE that the odds favor the house. And I don't mean like the house wins 60% of the time. A quick call with the Nevada Gaming Commission years ago confirmed that most casino table games (which excludes video poker and slots) have an average house win % of something like 80%. The gambler is at a serious disadvantage because of the rules of the game he plays... no casino will even offer a game unless it is already assured of profitability.


You're confusing the house advantage with the table 'hold'. The hold is the percentage of money the player loses out of his bankroll. If I sit down at the table with 100 bucks, and walk away with 80, the table 'hold' is $20. But the odds may still be only slightly in the house's favor. It's just that I put the same money into action over and over again, until I had lost the $20.

There are no table games in the Casino that have a rake of 20%. Blackjack is somewhere between .3% and .8%, depending on the rules. Roulette is 5.26% with the American double zero wheel. Craps can come close, as some of the sucker bets are in double digits, but the pass-line bet is only about 1.4%, and with odds that can be lowered under 1%. Baccarat has a house rake of just slightly over 1% (if I recall, 1.17% for bank, and 1.3% for player, or something like that).

The real sucker bets in the casino are the side games like the Big 6 or the money wheel. Keno has the worst odds of all for the wost-case bets, but then it has enormous payoffs, too.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Thank you for clarifying, Sam.

Like I said, I made that call years ago when I first moved here; please excuse my error. :smack:

Bo

[Cheesesteak]

Sam, I think we're talking past each other on this, the disagreement is probably about what constitutes "skilled" in general. I'll use cooking as an analogy. A skilled cook, in my book, is a person who can be given a trout, for instance, and whip up a unique gourmet meal around it on the fly based on what's in the pantry. Contrast that with a person given a trout and a set of recipes, and competantly makes the meal from the recipe. They both need to have certain abilities, like frying, chopping, etc., but if all you do is follow a recipe, you're not showing me that you have any special skills, just that you are a competant cook.

I think of Basic Strategy and Card Counting as following a recipe. If X then Y. Count the cards, do a bit of arithmetic, vary your bet or strategy along these rigid rules. Yes, you need the skill of counting the cards, but that doesn't seem to me any more unattainable than the skill of chopping an onion or deboning a chicken. The rest is just following a set of rules. If you had an index card with the counting rules on it, you wouldn't even need to memorize the plays, you just need to make sure you count correctly.

Now, a skilled Poker player is in a very different category. Yes, you need the basics of knowing your odds, following the cards, but you also need that intuitive skill of reading and knowing your opponent. That is not something you can fit on a 3x5 card.

[Sam Stone]

I just think you've picked a very bizarre definition of 'skill'. Doing something difficult with speed and precision is a skill. You're basically saying that a 'skill' requires creativity and judgement, which is absurd. Doing a handstand is a skill, and requires neither.

In any event, there is judgement involved in card counting. Game selection is a skill. So is estimating the remaining size of a shoe with good accuracy.

[Cheesesteak]

It's not calling it a skill that bugs me, really. It's the presumption that the casinos kick counters out because they are better, smarter, more expert than the average player. I don't believe that counters are better players, just that they choose to use a well known strategy that others choose not to use. The choice to not use it isn't based on the strategy being too difficult to master, it's based on the fact that it will get you booted from the casino.

[Steve MB]

If you're talking about Martingale progressions and other 'systems', you are wrong.
Er, no I'm not. In the mathematically ideal case (no limits on bets or bankroll), they are guaranteed to work eventually (e.g. if you keep doubling your bet every time you lose without fail, you will eventually win, and you will be one unit ahead at that point).

Of course, the catch is that the mathematically ideal case does not obtain in reality, for several reasons (one of which, as I said, is that casinos set minimum and maximum bets, with only a few powers of two between them).

[smiling bandit]

I can hardly see how Card COunting could be made illegal. How would this work? Memory and a bit of mathematical ability makes one a criminal? Its certainly not going to become so as long as gambling debts are not legal debts.

[Sam Stone]

It's not calling it a skill that bugs me, really. It's the presumption that the casinos kick counters out because they are better, smarter, more expert than the average player. I don't believe that counters are better players, just that they choose to use a well known strategy that others choose not to use. The choice to not use it isn't based on the strategy being too difficult to master, it's based on the fact that it will get you booted from the casino.

Now you're confusing me even more. Counters aren't better players, simply because 'they've chosen a well known strategy' that others choose not to use? That's ridiculous. Choosing the right strategy in ANY game is what separates the good players from the bad players. And if the goal of the game is to make money, then it's a proven fact that card counting strategies are better than mere basic strategy. So you're wrong, and I have no idea why you are trying to draw this particular line. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Sam Stone]

Er, no I'm not. In the mathematically ideal case (no limits on bets or bankroll), they are guaranteed to work eventually (e.g. if you keep doubling your bet every time you lose without fail, you will eventually win, and you will be one unit ahead at that point).

Of course, the catch is that the mathematically ideal case does not obtain in reality, for several reasons (one of which, as I said, is that casinos set minimum and maximum bets, with only a few powers of two between them).

No. First, if we are talking about an infinite number of trials, then mathematically the result of any combination of negative expectation bets will always converge to that negative expectation. Second, if the table had no limits whatsoever, it wouldn't guarantee your 'bet until you win' strategy, because even in the absence of table limits other limits will come into play rapidly. For example, if you start with a $5 unit and double up after each loss, it would only take ten losses in a row before you'd be forced to bet $5,120 to try and recover your one unit. And after 20 losses in a row you would have to bet $5,242,880. After 30 losses in a row, you would have to bet 5,368,709,120. Better call up Bill Gates, because you probably don't have five billion dollars under the seat cushions. And after 40 losses in a row, you'll have to bet 5,497,558,138,880, or about half of the entire GDP of the United States.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I can hardly see how Card COunting could be made illegal. How would this work? Memory and a bit of mathematical ability makes one a criminal? Its certainly not going to become so as long as gambling debts are not legal debts.

FYI, in the United States gambling debts are, in fact, legal debts.

Bo

[I don't care about your cat]

I think of Basic Strategy and Card Counting as following a recipe. If X then Y. Count the cards, do a bit of arithmetic, vary your bet or strategy along these rigid rules. Yes, you need the skill of counting the cards, but that doesn't seem to me any more unattainable than the skill of chopping an onion or deboning a chicken. The rest is just following a set of rules. If you had an index card with the counting rules on it, you wouldn't even need to memorize the plays, you just need to make sure you count correctly.

Now, a skilled Poker player is in a very different category. Yes, you need the basics of knowing your odds, following the cards, but you also need that intuitive skill of reading and knowing your opponent. That is not something you can fit on a 3x5 card.
OF COURSE poker is different than blackjack. In blackjack, no intuition is required. Blackjack follows rigid rules that cannot be violated. There is no unknown element as there is in poker. You're only playing against the house, not against the other players. Memorizing and following the mathematically-correct strategy is the ONLY way to maximize your winnings. I too find your definition of "skill" bizarre. I think the word you're looking for is "creative", as in an artist. A card-counter is not an artist, but certainly is skilled.

[Cheesesteak]

The terms used to describe counters here in this thread were "smart" as if non-counters are dumb, "good" as if non-counters are poor card players, and "skilled" as if non-counters are unskilled. I think that's an unfair characterization. My argument has probably gone way off on a tangent along the way, but that's really it.

People are claiming that these counters are getting kicked out because they're better than other players, when I think it's really just that they've chosen a path to better odds that other players choose to not take because you risk getting tossed out on your ear.

[Snowboarder Bo]

The terms used to describe counters here in this thread were "smart" as if non-counters are dumb, "good" as if non-counters are poor card players, and "skilled" as if non-counters are unskilled. I think that's an unfair characterization.

Ummmm counters ARE better players. They win more often, and the point of any game is to win. Higher win percentage = better player. What is the problem you have with this concept?

Non-counters are unskilled. They have no skill at counting, and thus win less of the time, thus they have less skill at the game (just as someone who can run and catch and throw is a better baseball player than someone who can only throw and run).

You can phutz all you want with ridiculous explanations of your personal semantics, but the fact is that those people who win a game more than others are more skilled. It isn't an unfair characterization. It's a fact based on the meanings of the words and the results of each players participation in this competetive game.

Capiche?

[I don't care about your cat]

People are claiming that these counters are getting kicked out because they're better than other players, when I think it's really just that they've chosen a path to better odds that other players choose to not take because you risk getting tossed out on your ear.
I doubt it. I'd count cards in a second if I were any good at it. I tried to learn it and I sucked at it. I'd be willing to wager that the reason the majority of blackjack players do not count cards is simply that they do not know how, or lack the ability to do it well.

Although I do agree with you that this doesn't necessarily mean that non-counters are "dumb", "bad", or "unskilled". Just playing basic strategy correctly takes a good deal of skill. It's all rote memorization, but that doesn't mean there's no effort involved.

[Steve MB]

No. First, if we are talking about an infinite number of trials, then mathematically the result of any combination of negative expectation bets will always converge to that negative expectation.
Any sufficiently large number of trials selected independently of the individual trial results will converge on the expectation. However, the selection in this case (stop the series after one win) fails to meet that requirement.

It's easy to get tripped up on this point -- even the Master (www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_189.html) had to clarify himself when a similar issue arose in the "Monty Hall" problem (Monty's decision of whether or not to reveal an unselected door is dependent on whether or not the contestant guessed correctly to begin with).

Second, if the table had no limits whatsoever, it wouldn't guarantee your 'bet until you win' strategy, because even in the absence of table limits other limits will come into play rapidly. For example, if you start with a $5 unit and double up after each loss, it would only take ten losses in a row before you'd be forced to bet $5,120 to try and recover your one unit. And after 20 losses in a row you would have to bet $5,242,880....

Er, that's just repeating what I said in the first place (the reason the system doesn't work in the real world is that the assumption of unlimited bet range does not hold).

[Malacandra]

The assertion that "if you have an infinite amount of money, you can guarantee winning by doubling up an infinite number of times" comes under the heading of "true but demonstrably useless", I feel. For anything less than an infinite purse, a doubling-up strategy against a game with worse than even odds is a guaranteed losing strategy in the long term.

[I don't care about your cat]

Second, if the table had no limits whatsoever, it wouldn't guarantee your 'bet until you win' strategy, because even in the absence of table limits other limits will come into play rapidly. For example, if you start with a $5 unit and double up after each loss, it would only take ten losses in a row before you'd be forced to bet $5,120 to try and recover your one unit. And after 20 losses in a row you would have to bet $5,242,880....


Er, that's just repeating what I said in the first place (the reason the system doesn't work in the real world is that the assumption of unlimited bet range does not hold).
Just to nitpick, no, he's not repeating what you said. You said:

In fact, variations in bet size are generally limited in order to curtail the use of betting systems (some of which would, in theory, work if an unlimited range of bets were possible and permitted).

Which isn't really true. The range of betting is limited as a counter-measure against card-counting, not against progressive-betting schemes. As Sam correctly points out, progressive-betting wouldn't work even if casinos didn't have limits. Such systems would fail with or without the table limits. The limiting factor is reality itself, not what the casinos permit, which is not what you said.

[The Asbestos Mango]

OK, first to clear up the misconception.

In no casino game does the odds favor the house. At the end of the day, the house will win or lose an equal number of dice rolls, blackjack hands, whatever. The reason casinos make money is because they don't pay the bets at true odds (sole exception, the "free odds" bet on a craps table, but they make it back off the prop box). So, for example, if you're really into sucker betting, you can bet twelve or aces (I know, thread's about blackjack, but I dealt craps for about five years, and have maybe six months of dealing blackjack, which I did very badly and never studied the subtleties of the game, so...). True odds are thirty-five to one. The bet at most Las Vegas casinos will pay thirty to one leaving your bet up for the next roll (the layout says thirty-one for one, but this includes the amount of the original bet, which the floorman will happily have the dealer return to you if you bitch loudly enough). So, out of thirty-six rolls, the house wins thirty-five, you win once, and you're down five bucks.

But back on topic. I really don't think there's anything unethical or immoral about card-counting. As long as you aren't doing anything to influence the outcome of the hand, you aren't doing anything wrong. You're just using your brain power to decide how much to bet and when. And the casinos do a lot of things to foil card counters- using multi-deck shoes and not dealing the last deck's worth of cards, stuff like that (and hand shuffling a six deck shoe is a real bitch. I speak from experience.) I say, if you can do it, more power to ya', especially if you're making lots of bets for the dealer. The worst the casino can legally do is to ask you to leave and never return.

[I don't care about your cat]

OK, first to clear up the misconception.

In no casino game does the odds favor the house.

Of course the odds favor the house. The casinos exist to make money. They aren't going to give out more money than they take in.

At the end of the day, the house will win or lose an equal number of dice rolls, blackjack hands, whatever.

Not true. The house will actually win more blackjack hands than the players. That's because as soon as a player busts, he has lost that hand. But the dealer always hits last. So if you and the dealer both bust, the dealer still wins.