I have played at a $5 - $300 table, counting cards very obviously.
never had a problem. Same casino, $100 minimum table, and I was asked to leave the table.
No specific rule - just their ability to refuse service to anyone. It’s not illegal, in contrast to the way that using a Palm Pilot to keep track is specifically illegal. It’s not cheating. It’s just the casino deciding not to play you anymore, in the same way that me playing Horse against Charles Barkley would get me into the mood to stop playing pretty quickly. Barkley wouldn’t be cheating; he’d just be winning so much that I’d decide I didn’t want to play.
I think what a lot of people have a lot of trouble with is, how is it cheating to vary your strategy, with respect to a decision you otherwise are freely able to make on your own, (how much to be on the hand,) in accordance to a piece of information that is not being kept secret from you (what cards have already been dealt out from the pack.)
In order to avoid from counting cards, therefore, you have to either discard this public information, (not mentally count up the cards in your hand,) or to keep that information from affecting at least the one specific strategy decision. (Is it considered ‘card counting’ if you don’t change your starting bet in connection with the card count, but only have it affect the play of the hand - whether to double down on a nine, whether to hit on a hard 12, etcetera.)
In most other card games, the only things that are cheating are when you’re attempting to gain information that you aren’t supposed to have, (marking cards to know what cards are in someone else’s hand,) or secretly manipulate the parameters of the game so as to circumvent clear rules… (switching with a palmed card, second-dealing or dealing from the bottom of the deck, slipping in a cold deck, etcetera.) Similarly, with most other recreational games, it seems pretty clear that there are the things you can and can’t do, the information you are and aren’t supposed to have, and no really tricky clauses within them. Saying “oh, you can do this, and I suppose you can see that, but you can’t do this because you saw that” definitely stinks in my opinion.
Again, hypothetically speaking, lets assume its against the rules. The casino made it a rule. You ignore the rule and use a method to count cards. By knowingly breaking a rule to a game you are cheating.
The question is, what are the rules of blackjack? The casinos do not write the rules of the game. They write the rules of the environment, but not of the game. The rules of blackjack are best expressed in Hoyle. Hoyle does not list card counting as against the rules of the game. Thus, it is not immoral to count cards. The administrative rules of the casino may or may not outlaw card counting. The problem with this is that these ‘house rules’ are of comparatively little concern, on the level of ‘no shirt, no shoes.’ If the casino could, they would make a rule that you would empty your entire bank account into their coffers on entrance, then leave. You are, to a certain level, in an adversarial relationship with them. As there is one known winning strategy in this game, blackjack, they have decided that it is unavailable to you, if they can catch you at it.
Yes they do. Lots of casinos play by different rules and most casinos have seperate blackjack tables with different rules. Casinos are allowed to make up lots of different rules and still call the game blackjack.
In Atlantic City, the rules of each game are a matter of state regulation. That is, a casino cannot simply make up a game; any game they offer must be defined by state regulation. There are no rules against card counting in New Jersey. Period.
Hogwash. The question is, is it cheating? Counting cards is a strategy, not inserting or removing something from the game. Cheating is violating the rules of the game. The rules of the game involve betting and manipulating a deck of cards. Counting cards interfaces in the game where betting is concerned. It becomes apparent when someone varies their bet, according to the rules of the game, in a pattern the casino calls ‘counting cards’. If you can show me a specific rule against varying your bet, then counting cards would be against the rules of the game. Until then, it is a strategy acting on information available to all players (Unlike, say, catching a reflection of another player’s hand), following all rules of the game, on how to manipulate your bet to maximize your output. It may be powergaming, but it ain’t cheating.
At Sydney’s Star City casino you used to be kicked out for card counting. Now I think the shoe automatically reshuffles previous discards back in and makes the practice impossible(!?) A discussion started at work about the “illegality” of card counting so I checked the Casino Control Act 1992 and found Section 87(2):
A person must not, in a casino, use any device for the purpose of enabling the person or some other person to count or otherwise record cards dealt in the course of gaming in the casino unless the casino operator approves of its use.
I rang the head of security at the casino and asked him how I could be banned if I was not recording anything or using any device. He informed me that they would simply say I was cheating and bar me. But the Act doesn’t say it is cheating I said. Well I say it is he said. And Section 79(1) makes it plain who the casino can exclude :
The Authority or the casino operator or the person for the time being in charge of the casino may, by order given to a person verbally or in writing, prohibit the person from entering or remaining in a casino.
You may be right, but are you sure? There are no laws against it (as long as you aren’t using a device) but are you sure there are no casino rules against card counting? As blowero stated: “I mean, if a casino has a policy of not allowing card-counters to play, then I suppose you could call that a rule.”
There are no laws in N.J. that state you have to wear a tie in fancy restaurants but restaurants are still allowed to make tie wearing a rule.
LOL… I love how you started with hypothetically speaking and didn’t really address what that hypothesis got us to.
My question is, can the casino make any rule, or does a rule have to make some kind of sense? Why do they get to make the rules, and not us anyway??
As a comparison, hypothetically speaking, let’s consider a casino making the following rules to see if they make sense:
A player cannot get dealt a blackjack. To me, that makes about as much sense. Given, it’s something that the player has arguably less control over, but it has the corresponding advantage of being very clear. (Do you get thrown out if you break the rule??)
A rule that you cannot double down when the dealer is showing a six… by comparison, this one actually is much better. It’s something that the player has control of, and it’s a clear correlation. The choice that you have removed in comparison to a clearly available fact is nicely spelt out… players can take this sort of ‘house rule’ into consideration and see how it affects their odds.
A rule that you cannot stop playing or decrease your bet… I’m sure that the casinos would love this one, but if anyone considered the ramifications of it they’d never play in the first place. Ooh, how about a rule that you MUST play?
I’m being tongue in cheek here, but that second thought experiment is actually seeming more relevant. The problem is that the definition of ‘counting cards’ in the rule is vague, and the playing conditions under which it applies are being kept secret from the player, so a player might by chance go through a pattern of rising and lowering their bet that falls under the definition of counting cards without even being aware of the count. (Either that, or the definition includes being aware of the count, which is impossible to prove.)
If the table clearly counted the cards for you, and notified “Okay, the count is high, you now cannot decrease your bets”, “Okay, the count is low, you now cannot decrease your bets” then I’d think it was fair… though there would have to be a way of keeping people from abusing the system by leaving the table when the count was low, or whatever.
Either side in a game can stipulate whatever rules they like, so long as the rules are clear, and fairly enforced. The other player can either agree to the stipulation, or refuse to play.
The problem with a ‘no counting cards’ rule is that I have yet to see a definition of it that is clear and objective, and it seems to clearly not be fairly enforced. If someone is obviously counting cards, though not well, and losing a bunch of money, the casino would let them continue to play.
When a rule is interpreted and enforced at the discretion of one side, it isn’t a good rule, or a ‘fair’ rule in the moral sense. Of course, the house can decide not to gamble with anyone at their choice, as has been said. But invoking a ‘rule’ about it that doesn’t meet the sensible criteria of a rule at cards… I repeat my conclusion that it smells badly.
That’s an interesting comparison… 79(1) is basically just a ‘we reserve the right to refuse service’ rule… which I don’t think anyone here has a real beef with. It’s more the notion of if they have a right to simply declare that someone is cheating without proof.
I hope that you realise that rules and laws have absolutely nothing to do with the morality of our actions. Without wishing to commit a Godwin I think a little reflection on the rules employed by the Nazis should convince you of that.
What I’ve never understood is why casinos even allow counting to be possible. Use a six deck shoe and only deal 2 decks into it before reshuffling, and no card counter is going to gain any significant advantage. Voila, end of problem. No need to watch for who’s counting, no need to kick people out. It’s so simple and so obvious, there must be something I’m not thinking of or they’d do it.
Here is an interesting report on a review by The Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority of the rules of blackjack. They never mention the C word. They simply note:
*(a) Card counting strategies, and other strategies collectively known as Advantage Play, unless countered by the casino operator, threaten the financial viability of the game of Blackjack.
(b) The Authority has approved rules for the game of Blackjack that allow the casino operator to take counter measures that diminish the effect of card counting strategies.*
Well, the time it takes to shuffle six decks of cards that often may have something to do with it. Whenever the cards are being shuffled, nobody’s losing money (unless you pay a second person to shuffle the cards while the dealer deals from a six-set that’s already been shuffled.)
In other words, I suspect it comes down to money. When they can throw out the few people they really suspect are counting cards, it doesn’t pay to lose money or time on prevention.
Well, you did commit a Godwin. A big one. If you participate in a game and you cheat, you are being unethical by most peoples standards. If you hide Anne Frank in your house and break the rules of the Nazis, you aren’t unethical by most standards. Now that you know where I stand on this… :rolleyes:
Of course you’re right. I was responding to the comment about how a casino could create rules for the game. I distinguish rules “for the game” from rules “for the casino floor.” The casino may exclude anyone they wish for violating floor rules, but the sanction extends only to banning from the casino – actually, most of the time, card counters are welcome to stay and play craps, roulette, or the slots. If a person violates state gaming regulations, they are subject to arrest.
Maybe they want to make people think they can count cards, because they’ll get more money out of them that way? I’m under the impression that, unless you have Rain Man-like natural skills, counting cards is really hard to learn to do well and consistently, and most of the experts spend a lot of money and time learning these skills. So maybe they want people to bet under the delusion that they have the ability to count cards, and then rake in their money while they’re “learning.”
Man, casino owners must be among the most opportunistic people on the planet.
That is a double standard. You state that counting cards is immoral because it is against the rules, yet breaking the rules of the nazis is cool. A reason must apply in all cases or it’s not much of a reason at all. As for breaking the rules of the nazis being ethical by most people’s standards, I believe the purpose of this thread is to determine if a rule against counting cards is ethical by most people’s standards. If the rule is immoral, according to you, it’s not immoral to break it.
As Liberal might assert, in order for it to be unethical a person must have consented to the rules beforehand. ( Or he might not, I dunno. ) But I think most of us would say that if you agreed to a set of rules it would be unethical to violate them afterwards. The thing here is, the card counters haven’t agreed to any rules banning the practice. Now if the casino were to have people sign contracts before gambling…
