Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:16 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,708
Blackjack at the casino: "He/she took the dealer's bust card!"

I've been playing blackjack at the casino recently, and I hear this all of the time. An inexperienced player hits on a hand that he/she should not have hit on and busts, taking a high card (a 10,J,Q,K,A) and then the dealer does not bust on his/her low hand.

Then a player complains that the inexperienced player "took" the dealer's bust card.

My thoughts: First, blackjack is not a game against other players, but against the dealer/house.

Second, any card has an equal chance of coming out of the deck. So, the inexperienced player could just as easily have taken a lower card and then left the dealer's bust card to come up next.

My question: Is there any validity at all to the suggestion that an inexperienced player can hurt another player by making a foolish hit/stand choice at a casino blackjack table? I say no, none, not at all.

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-20-2019 at 08:20 PM.
  #2  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:32 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,243
You are correct. One player cannot damage another player's chances.

People just like having someone else to blame if they lose.
  #3  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:41 PM
D_Odds D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,512
No validity at all. It's been proven over and over again. Those complaining are dumb players thinking they are smart players, or simply miserable losers. Truly smart players know better.
  #4  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:53 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,243
From The Wizard Of Odds, an expert in the mathematics of games of chance:

Quote:
Question: Every time I go to the Blackjack games there is a grumpy simple individual, who wants to stone some poor soul for "messing up the shoe.Ē Is there any truth to this?

Jim from Las Vegas

Answer: In ten years of running this site I steadfastly denied the myth that bad players cause other players to lose in blackjack. However, you are the lucky 1000th person to ask, so I took the trouble to prove it by random simulation. The rules I put in are the standard liberal Vegas Strip rules as follows.

6 decks
Dealer stands on soft 17
Double on any first two cards allowed
Double after split allowed
Late surrender allowed
Player may re-split to four hands, including aces
Cut card used

First, I had both players follow correct total-dependent basic strategy. Over almost 1.6 billion rounds, the loss of the first player to act was 0.289%, and the second player to act of 0.288%.

Second, I had the first player follow the same correct strategy, and the second player follow the same correct strategy except:

Always hit 12 to 16
Always double 9 to 11
Split any pair
Never surrender
Never soft double

In a simulation of 1.05 billion hands the loss of the first player was 0.282%, and the second player was 11.260%. So the house edge of the basic strategy playing first player was almost the same, regardless of whether the second player played correctly or wildly incorrectly. I hope this puts and end the third baseman myth, but I doubt it. As I have said many times, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
  #5  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:20 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,357
I have had sort of the opposite happen to me - I hit a hard 16 with the dealer showing a 10 (which, in a game with 3 or more decks, is the correct move), got a 2, and the dealer turned over a 5 and drew a 3, which pushed not only my 18 but the 18 of the person next to me, who then commented to the woman he was with that my "mistake" had just cost him.
  #6  
Old 01-20-2019, 11:11 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,821
If anyone bitched to me about that, I’d ask (not quietly) how they “knew” what the next card was going to be.
  #7  
Old 01-20-2019, 11:45 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,030
Along the same lines are poker players who want to hold the dealer responsible for the cards that appear. Phil Hellmuth (among the most experienced and successful players ever) is notable for this.
  #8  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:02 AM
DKW DKW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 2,877
Think of it this way: Casino gambling is an activity where considerable to tremendous sums of money are continually at sake, the players don't know each other personally, there's a big luck element, and every move has the potential to alter the course of the game. OF COURSE people are going to get irrational. It happened with Island flippin' Fruit, for crying out loud. (I'll remember that epic "Last call for drinking beer, last call for Follow Me!" rant for the rest of my days.) Heck, why do you think baseball has so many superstitions?

I've never personally witnessed anyone gripe about "taking the dealer's bust card", but it's completely plausible. I imagine any experienced dealer could tell you more than a few stories.
  #9  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:45 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKW View Post
Think of it this way: Casino gambling is an activity where considerable to tremendous sums of money are continually at sake, the players don't know each other personally, there's a big luck element, and every move has the potential to alter the course of the game. OF COURSE people are going to get irrational.
Add another huge factor: You're playing a game where the odds are against you.

The normal outcome of any casino game is that you lose. Obviously, the people who are playing in casinos don't accept this; they imagine they're going to win. So when they lose they don't want to accept the reality that the reason they lost at Blackjack was because they chose to play Blackjack. They want something or someone they can blame besides themselves.
  #10  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:56 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,935
After the fact it is certain that a players actions can have an impact on other players. Over a great many trials, no. But for a specific given hand, yes. To a casual gambler the odds over time are less important than the hand they just won or lost.
  #11  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:09 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
After the fact it is certain that a players actions can have an impact on other players. Over a great many trials, no. But for a specific given hand, yes. .
That is incorrect.
  #12  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:26 AM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Odds View Post
Truly smart players know better.

Oh, the irony. 'Truly Smart' players don't play.
  #13  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:39 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
Oh, the irony. 'Truly Smart' players don't play.
That is also incorrect. A truly smart player can play perfect strategy an lose only a little bit, while taking advantage of the casino bonuses and freebies, and thus come out ahead of the game.
  #14  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:40 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
That is incorrect.
Wouldn't one person's choice (I'm feelin' lucky so I hit on 19) effect the other 'downstream players', but whether positively or negatively is not forseeable unless you are the best ever card counter?
  #15  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:44 AM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 4,305
yes I heard whining and bitching when I was in Laughlin a couple of years ago …… I told the dealer I played for me and screw anyone else who didn't like it because I was 500 a ahead before the other asses showed up


I didn't stay that was cause I didn't quit when I knew the cards were going to go the other way …….but I was smashed and it was fun …...
  #16  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,426
In the long run 3rd baseman's play will normally* help as often it hurts, but it may be human nature to look at actual results. Even I, playing backgammon may see the opponent roll 6-6 and think "Drat! If I'd hit him he'd have fanned!" Since it can be annoying to be criticized by the other players, I recommend not sitting at 3rd base at a Twenty-One table.

* - I write "normally" because, believe it or don't, many Vegas dealers know whether or not the top card is a ten, and are quite capable of dealing the second card instead of the top card. If 3rd baseman takes a hit, the dealer gets his choice of three cards instead of two. (IIRC some cheating dealers will have a confederate at 3rd base just for this reason.) Obviously you should avoid tables where the dealer appears to be "expert."
  #17  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:13 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My question: Is there any validity at all to the suggestion that an inexperienced player can hurt another player by making a foolish hit/stand choice at a casino blackjack table? I say no, none, not at all.
It's flatly stupid is what it is. Of course it's all random. A weird play is as likely to hurt the house as help it.

I find this behaviour immensely irritating; I play perfect strategy but even then I get shit for some things (e.g. hitting a 12 against a 2, which is correct in most games) and hate it when other players are given flak no matter how they play. My standard reply is "My cards, my chips."
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 01-21-2019 at 09:17 AM.
  #18  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:27 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
That is incorrect.
It is NOT incorrect, and can be demonstrated by the simple fact that there are times when the decisions of the downstream players results in a loss for upstream players.

What would be incorrect is an assertion that, before a downstream player acts, his choice of actions will be guaranteed to have a negative impact on the upstream players if he/she doesn't play "perfectly". After all, you rarely hear the upstream players congratulate the downstream player for hitting when he shouldn't have, taking a small card, and then the dealer busts, when the dealer would have won with the small card taken by the "bad" play. Yet that happens at least as often in the case of downstream players utilizing less-than-optimal strategy, as noted upthread.
  #19  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:35 AM
asterion asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,665
If you really want to annoy other players at a blackjack table, find one that has the "push" side bet (where a push pays 10:1) and play with the proper strategy for it, which works to maximize your chance of pushing. Be prepared for a torrent of abuse the first time you hit a 16 against a 4, or any other "wrong" play. The house edge is actually decent for a side bet (something like 0.24%) if you play it correctly, but boy does it anger other players.
  #20  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:43 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 27,713
Exactly as many times as someone "takes the dealer's bust card", they would also take a card that ultimately hurts the dealer and benefits the players. But no one notices when that happens, but they always notice when the opposite happens.

Additionally, no one gets angry at a player for hitting on 9, getting 19, and "taking the dealer's bust card" - they only get angry when a player makes a borderline or incorrect decision, which doesn't make any sense itself. How does the player playing well or badly affect whether you can blame them for taking the dealer's bust card? It makes just as much sense to blame the player for taking a bust card when he hits on a 9.

It's purely superstitious and unfounded.

One time I was on a long waiting list for a poker game and decided to sit down at a $5-500 blackjack table to kill time. I just bet $5 each hand, but I was playing in the last seat. The guy next to me was betting $200-500 a hand, and was being an asshole. I noticed once that I made a marginal decision (maybe hitting a 16 against a 7 or something), then I "took the dealer's bust card" and the guy went nuts about it. I then proceeded to make moderately wrong plays on purpose - and every time the guy ranted to the rest of the table about how I lost him $300 over my $5 bet.

I wasn't actually harming him, so the only harm he was going through was self-inflicted based on his irrational view of the situation, which amused me. He was basically beating himself up. And since he was an asshole, it was worth the $30 or 40 I lost making him go nuts.
  #21  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:19 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
One time I was on a long waiting list for a poker game and decided to sit down at a $5-500 blackjack table to kill time. I just bet $5 each hand, but I was playing in the last seat. The guy next to me was betting $200-500 a hand, and was being an asshole.
*snip. And it is almost always THAT guy who is drunkest and loudest and bitching about it. He is probably gambling his paycheck away at $300/hand and wants to blame someone else for his own gambling addiction.

I thought I was right about this (the OP) and made this point to one of the other players (a friendlier one) and he looked at me like a father looks at his son when he just wet the bed and told me that once I start playing more, I will realize that that poor play hurts the other players because there are more "10" value cards in the deck (10, J, Q, K, A) than the lower value cards. Therefore, there is a higher chance of taking the dealer's bust card than not.

That sort of threw me and I did not have an answer for it on the spot. But I think the correct way of looking at it is that it doesn't matter if there are 51/52 or 11/52 or 1/52 "bust" cards in the deck. My choice of taking a card, on a good play or on a poor play, does not affect the dealer's next card. If the next two cards in the deck are K, 3, then it just as easily could have been 3, K.

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-21-2019 at 10:20 AM.
  #22  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:55 AM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* - I write "normally" because, believe it or don't, many Vegas dealers know whether or not the top card is a ten, and are quite capable of dealing the second card instead of the top card. If 3rd baseman takes a hit, the dealer gets his choice of three cards instead of two. (IIRC some cheating dealers will have a confederate at 3rd base just for this reason.) Obviously you should avoid tables where the dealer appears to be "expert."
Yeah, I'm not going to let this go by unchallenged. Unless you are playing in a private game with cheaters, it's bullshit. Try dealing seconds from a shoe sometime. And if it was ever even suspected that a dealer had introduced a marked deck into a game at a casino, the State would land on them like you wouldn't believe. Gaming permits would vanish, massive prison terms would ensue.

Casinos don't need to cheat. The odds are in their favor to begin with.
  #23  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,377
It's also possible for a rational person to play casino games even without house perks like free drinks or whatever, if they actually enjoy the game, and find the enjoyment to be worth more than the amount of money they expect to lose. It's not for everyone, of course (to me, it'd be more like work than like play), but then, nobody says that all rational people need to play.
  #24  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:36 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It's also possible for a rational person to play casino games even without house perks like free drinks or whatever, if they actually enjoy the game, and find the enjoyment to be worth more than the amount of money they expect to lose. It's not for everyone, of course (to me, it'd be more like work than like play), but then, nobody says that all rational people need to play.
I know some people say that. But I have a hard time believing they really mean it.

Suppose some casino offered people a chance to play Blackjack and charged them fifty dollars an hour to play. But after the initial payment, there was no further money exchanged; there were no bets. People were playing to see whether they won or lost with no money at stake.

If a person is just playing for the enjoyment of playing Blackjack, this would be an ideal situation. But how many people would actually want to play under those conditions? They want to play for the chance of winning real money even if it means they end up losing more than fifty dollars.
  #25  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:11 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I know some people say that. But I have a hard time believing they really mean it.

Suppose some casino offered people a chance to play Blackjack and charged them fifty dollars an hour to play. But after the initial payment, there was no further money exchanged; there were no bets. People were playing to see whether they won or lost with no money at stake.

If a person is just playing for the enjoyment of playing Blackjack, this would be an ideal situation. But how many people would actually want to play under those conditions? They want to play for the chance of winning real money even if it means they end up losing more than fifty dollars.
Pretty much.
  #26  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:18 AM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,916
When a boob makes a stupid play that costs other players money he is noticed. When the same boob makes an idiotic play that wins the other players money, people don't make the connection. Thus math impaired people come to the conclusiuon "bad play by player x loses money for player y"
  #27  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
Yeah, I'm not going to let this go by unchallenged. Unless you are playing in a private game with cheaters, it's bullshit. Try dealing seconds from a shoe sometime. And if it was ever even suspected that a dealer had introduced a marked deck into a game at a casino, the State would land on them like you wouldn't believe. Gaming permits would vanish, massive prison terms would ensue.

Casinos don't need to cheat. The odds are in their favor to begin with.
Here's a discussion of shoes rigged for cheating. It was almost four decades ago that I played often in Las Vegas ó conditions now may be very different (and things like high-tech concealable cameras may have led to changes) ó but I witnessed considerable cheating circa 1980, both from single decks and from shoes. (No, I won't detail a wide variety of evidence since it all may be "impugnable.")

The argument that "Casinos don't need to cheat" is silly. Is that why Jamie Dimond returns his payroll checks? Because he doesn't need the money? Even if you make the (very wrong) assumption that a given gambler will lose exactly $X whether cheated or not, a pit boss may prefer that he lose the $X in his pit, rather than that of a competitor across the street.
  #28  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:58 AM
Shalmanese Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Shenzhen, China
Posts: 7,255
Isn’t this at least slightly true? A dealer is more likely to bust when the deck is rich with high cards and less likely when the deck is poor. A person taking cards at random is more likely to take a high card during the instances when the deck is rich, thus, more likely to deprive the dealer of a bust card. The edge is very slight but sill non-zero.
  #29  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:16 AM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,916
At any given count all remaining cards have an equal probabilty of being high. So at the time the guy makes a bad decision, the card he gets is exactly as likely to be a high one as the card the dealer gets.
  #30  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:24 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,377
But part of the enjoyment of blackjack, as a game, is the gambling itself. Some people enjoy the uncertainty, even if the amounts are small enough to not matter. Such a person can walk out of an afternoon in the casino a few hundred dollars lighter, and still say that it was a good day, because they enjoyed themselves.

I'm probably not the best person to explain this, because I'm not one of those people who enjoys gambling. But they do exist.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:46 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But part of the enjoyment of blackjack, as a game, is the gambling itself. Some people enjoy the uncertainty, even if the amounts are small enough to not matter. Such a person can walk out of an afternoon in the casino a few hundred dollars lighter, and still say that it was a good day, because they enjoyed themselves.

I'm probably not the best person to explain this, because I'm not one of those people who enjoys gambling. But they do exist.
My wife is like that. She goes in expecting to lose, and determines how much ahead of time. If she comes out ahead itís a pleasant surprise, but otherwise she considers it the cost of entertainment.

She also plays casino games on her phone that donít give any chance to win money because itís just a game with only virtual in-game money at stake.

Yes, there are people who gamble because itís fun. Itís the game that matters, not the result. Such people would play a game that has an initial buy-in and nothing at stake.

I donít find gambling fun at all so I donít get it, but my wife sure does. I guess itís the same as when I was a kid and would go to an arcade, and Iíd blow through a pocket of quarters in an evening.
  #32  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:19 AM
Shalmanese Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Shenzhen, China
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shine View Post
At any given count all remaining cards have an equal probabilty of being high. So at the time the guy makes a bad decision, the card he gets is exactly as likely to be a high one as the card the dealer gets.
This is true if we have an infinite shoe but finite shoes are what allow for card counting which is what makes blackjack a beatable game. Take this to the extreme, assume you have a control table where the other player never takes a card and variant A table where the other player always takes one card. Taking exactly one card will always tend to reduce the variance of the deck due to regression to the mean (you're more likely to take a high card from a deck rich in high cards & vice versa). If you're a card counter, you always prefer to play on the control table vs the Table A because variance is how you make your money. It shouldn't make a difference to non-card counters.

The more interesting intellectual puzzle is variant B where the other player always takes cards until they bust. Since high cards are more likely to bust you than low cards, the chances are higher the other player will end on a high card. OTOH, the chances are also higher that they will draw more low cards before the high card. Depending on what the distribution is, taking cards until you bust will alter the rest of the shoe in predictable ways.
  #33  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:43 AM
Shalmanese Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Shenzhen, China
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
The more interesting intellectual puzzle is variant B where the other player always takes cards until they bust. Since high cards are more likely to bust you than low cards, the chances are higher the other player will end on a high card. OTOH, the chances are also higher that they will draw more low cards before the high card. Depending on what the distribution is, taking cards until you bust will alter the rest of the shoe in predictable ways.
Oops, turns out I was wrong. I whipped up a quick software simulation of this and, no matter how I manipulated the variables, I couldn't get the decisions of the other player to long term bias the deck. Ended up realizing I fell for a variant of this famous mathematical fallacy. The linked answer reframes the question in terms of cards to make it more directly applicable.
  #34  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:56 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
Oops, turns out I was wrong. I whipped up a quick software simulation of this and, no matter how I manipulated the variables, I couldn't get the decisions of the other player to long term bias the deck. Ended up realizing I fell for a variant of this famous mathematical fallacy. The linked answer reframes the question in terms of cards to make it more directly applicable.
I'm glad you did this, because I was going to, because I was thinking that Ultravires' friendly player could have been right - the higher proportion of "10s" in the shoe could be affected by a player taking too few or too many cards - poor play. But I didn't think it does, and I'm glad you did the computer sim to prove it.
  #35  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:49 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Here's a discussion of shoes rigged for cheating. It was almost four decades ago that I played often in Las Vegas — conditions now may be very different (and things like high-tech concealable cameras may have led to changes) — but I witnessed considerable cheating circa 1980, both from single decks and from shoes. (No, I won't detail a wide variety of evidence since it all may be "impugnable.")

The argument that "Casinos don't need to cheat" is silly. Is that why Jamie Dimond returns his payroll checks? Because he doesn't need the money? Even if you make the (very wrong) assumption that a given gambler will lose exactly $X whether cheated or not, a pit boss may prefer that he lose the $X in his pit, rather than that of a competitor across the street.
I find this hard to believe. I'm not saying that casinos wouldn't ideally like to cheat their customers out of some extra money; I'm sure that's true of all businesses. But unlike most businesses, casinos have government agencies watching them.

The scenario you've described involves bringing their low-level employees in on the cheating and having physical evidence like rigged equipment lying around - two huge vulnerabilities in a crime. And according to you, the cheating is blatant enough that average customers can spot it. How would any casino manage to this for even a week without being caught?

After being caught, the casino is in huge trouble. Even if it manages to avoid being closed down, the accusation of cheating will be enough to cause all its potential customers to move to the competitor across the street which you mentioned.

So why would any casino cheat when it's collecting huge profits legally, stands to make only a small additional amount of money by cheating, is almost certain to get caught if it cheats, and looks to face huge penalties if it's caught?

Last edited by Little Nemo; 01-22-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #36  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:21 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
Oops, turns out I was wrong. I whipped up a quick software simulation of this ...
I think you could have saved that trip to Monte Carlo! Just imagine that the two cards next to come out are swapped — treat that swapping as part of the shuffle. If one of those cards, based on counting, has a 32.8% chance of being a Ten then the other card has a 32.8% chance also.

Actually there are two ways this could fail and the 3rd-base hit would affect the dealer bust-chance:
(a) If that hit reduces the stock below some threshold and dealer needs to shuffle before dealing to himself. But in practice the stock isn't allowed to get so low — in hundreds of hours of Blackjack play I don't think I've ever seen shuffle in the middle of a hand.
(b) some counters will know not only the average ten-ness of the remaining stock, but will have a rough idea of how those tens are distributed!! (This arises at casinos with an imperfect shuffling regime — I saw such a regime with my own eyes in a casino outside Barcelona.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The scenario you've described involves bringing their low-level employees in on the cheating and having physical evidence like rigged equipment lying around - two huge vulnerabilities in a crime. And according to you, the cheating is blatant enough that average customers can spot it. How would any casino manage to this for even a week without being caught?
First: My experience was circa 1980. I speak only to what I observed during that era. And, to move the discussion forward, is there general stipulation that some single-deck dealers in Nevada, presumably in business for themselves, can mark, peek, and second-card deal from their decks, and do so with little risk of detection? (Even experts agree that it is hard to spot expert cheating directly; one relies on inferences.)

When supervisors are also involved in cheating, how far up the ladder does it go? If a pit boss is running a crooked pit does he try to conceal it from his shift manager? Or offer that manager a cut of the action? How easy is it to bribe the relevant regulatory honcho? How many employees does that agency have anyway? I don't know the answers to these questions.

One of the simplest ways to cheat from a shoe — and easy for counters to detect! — is the 'short shoe,' a deck with extra 4's, 5's and 6's and/or ten's removed. It would be trivial for the regulatory honcho to detect a short shoe: just stop a game and sort the cards. In hundreds of hours of play, I never saw such an inspection.

Only once did I strongly think a short shoe was in operation; IIRC it was at the Tropicana or some place at the far end of the Las Vegas strip. I reduced my bets to a minimum (or stopped playing altogether) and counted 4's, 5's and 6's. I kept getting counts of 14, 15 or 16 from the 4-deck shoe even though more than a quarter of the deck was unshown. Coincidence? If I'd counted up to 17 would you accept that or say I'd miscounted?

This barely scratches the surface of occasions when I felt or strongly felt that I was witness to cheating. Much of the cheating I witnessed was in direct response to a competent card counter sitting at the table. (You wouldn't see that except by chance unless you or your friend is himself a competent card counter.) It's a myth that barring is the routine response to card counting at all casinos; some casinos would rather get comeuppance with a profit.

In any event, please start another thread if you want to discuss this or other interesting casino gambling stories.

Last edited by septimus; 01-23-2019 at 03:26 AM.
  #37  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:44 AM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 4,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Exactly as many times as someone "takes the dealer's bust card", they would also take a card that ultimately hurts the dealer and benefits the players. But no one notices when that happens, but they always notice when the opposite happens.

Additionally, no one gets angry at a player for hitting on 9, getting 19, and "taking the dealer's bust card" - they only get angry when a player makes a borderline or incorrect decision, which doesn't make any sense itself. How does the player playing well or badly affect whether you can blame them for taking the dealer's bust card? It makes just as much sense to blame the player for taking a bust card when he hits on a 9.

It's purely superstitious and unfounded.

One time I was on a long waiting list for a poker game and decided to sit down at a $5-500 blackjack table to kill time. I just bet $5 each hand, but I was playing in the last seat. The guy next to me was betting $200-500 a hand, and was being an asshole. I noticed once that I made a marginal decision (maybe hitting a 16 against a 7 or something), then I "took the dealer's bust card" and the guy went nuts about it. I then proceeded to make moderately wrong plays on purpose - and every time the guy ranted to the rest of the table about how I lost him $300 over my $5 bet.

I wasn't actually harming him, so the only harm he was going through was self-inflicted based on his irrational view of the situation, which amused me. He was basically beating himself up. And since he was an asshole, it was worth the $30 or 40 I lost making him go nuts.
they used to do things like that to cool down tables ÖÖ

See when a vegas casino used to cheat it was mainly to cool down "hot" tables and when they used things like shills to warm up cold/empty tables
  #38  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:55 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 27,713
Yeah, no, that's not a thing.
  #39  
Old 01-23-2019, 09:00 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
they used to do things like that to cool down tables ÖÖ
Why the hell would they want to do that?

If I run a casino, I absolutely do not want a table cooled down. I want it jumping hot. I would love, love a short run of player luck where they're all convinced it's the best blackjack table ever. They're going to start increasing their bets, and every hand they play, the house is likely to win.

No need to cool the table by cheating. ALL tables, in the long run, are cool.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #40  
Old 01-23-2019, 10:38 AM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
If I run a casino, I absolutely do not want a table cooled down. I want it jumping hot. I would love, love a short run of player luck where they're all convinced it's the best blackjack table ever. They're going to start increasing their bets, and every hand they play, the house is likely to win.
Not to mention getting a bunch of onlookers excited about the action, and believing that this must eventually happen to them if they just keep playing in this lucky casino.

A casino's long-term interests would be much better served by "heating up" a table now and then, rather than cooling down one that was hot. Players believe in luck, streaks, "hot", "cold" and all sorts of imaginary silliness. Casinos know that all that matters long-term is the amount bet multiplied by their statistical edge in each game.
  #41  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:07 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Odds View Post
No validity at all. It's been proven over and over again. Those complaining are dumb players thinking they are smart players, or simply miserable losers. Truly smart players know better.
Eh, I dislike this blanket statement. The math of course holds up, so it's invariably true that there's no change in the odds. But that doesn't mean the people complaining are necessarily stupid. Blackjack is fun for many people because it's a great social game. Requires low focus and encourages a lot of conversation because everyone can watch every hand being played. As tribal animals, we almost invariably snap into an us vs. them mentality and people enjoy aligning against the dealer as a "team". This is of course entirely artificial, but since when does that matter? It affects their enjoyment and that's enough. Watching your "teammate" lose his money as a result of bad bets sucks.

So, if you're being an asshole and "blaming" him for costing you money in a serious tone, you're a dick. But if you dislike playing a table with bad players, that's perfectly natural.
  #42  
Old 01-24-2019, 07:40 PM
asterion asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,665
The thing is, blackjack is--in my opinion--a poor social game. If you want to be social, go to a craps table and bet the light side. Or even better, hit a pai gow poker table. Pretty much anything where results are independent from the actions of other players is going to be better, though that's mostly going to be poker variants of various types.
  #43  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:54 AM
russian heel russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,658
Anyone that complains is a low IQ asshole and should be asked to be removed from the table. They never bitch when the card goes their way, do they?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #44  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:56 AM
russian heel russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
The thing is, blackjack is--in my opinion--a poor social game. If you want to be social, go to a craps table and bet the light side. Or even better, hit a pai gow poker table. Pretty much anything where results are independent from the actions of other players is going to be better, though that's mostly going to be poker variants of various types.

Pai Gow is a GREAT game if you want to get away from asswipes. Even the dealer wants to help!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #45  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:43 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
The thing is, blackjack is--in my opinion--a poor social game. If you want to be social, go to a craps table and bet the light side. Or even better, hit a pai gow poker table. Pretty much anything where results are independent from the actions of other players is going to be better, though that's mostly going to be poker variants of various types.
I don't know, I have a lot of fun at a blackjack table. And talk with many cool people. Maybe the $25 minimum only attracts cool, fun people who know basic strategy?
  #46  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:57 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,557
If you want a social game, play the lowest stakes poker game the house has. It is far, far more fun than any other table game.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #47  
Old 01-29-2019, 12:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,377
On thinking about it some more, I'm not 100% convinced that the last player has no effect at all on the dealer's odds, because even if the last player isn't playing optimally, their play is still influenced to some degree by what cards they get.

Suppose that, instead of blackjack, we were playing a different game, where instead of busting when you hit 22 or higher, you bust when you get a ten or face card, no matter what your total is. And further suppose that the shoe is so depleted that there's only one bust card left in it. In this case, if the last player stupidly just keeps on hitting until he busts, he's completely removing the possibility of the dealer busting.

Now, this is a different game than blackjack, and it's an extreme case. But even in standard blackjack, a ten-value card is more likely to be a bust card than a lower card is, so there should be some effect. The effect may well be so small that it isn't visible even in thousands of games, but I'd think it'd still in principle be there.
  #48  
Old 01-29-2019, 12:44 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,557
Technically of course that is true; if you are smart enough to count cards, and there is an unusual bend in the count, then the chances of the dealer hitting a bust card may change a little.

A LOT of things have to come together, though, for this effect to be measurable. You cannot be playing with an autoshuffler; you have to be playing with a single deck or shoe. The dealer's up card must be weak for any of this to matter,. and the real count must strongly indicate a likelihood (or unlikelihood) of face cards.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #49  
Old 01-29-2019, 04:12 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,557
Actually, what I wrote makes no sense at all.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #50  
Old 01-29-2019, 05:31 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,631
And this would be different from all your other posts how?



I keed, I keed. Put down the pointy stick.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017