AP move or just cheating?

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyepaintball12 View Post
"2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome."

Wouldn't this apply to, say, every AP technique out there?

Raising your bets in high counts because you have acquired the knowledge? Or is it not because technically that information is available to everyone?

It would definitely seem to prohibit holecarding with assistance, even AT the table, formerly ruled legal in one Vegas court case. What jurisdiction's regulations are being cited?

hmm, i don't think that's a correct interpretation edit:..... erhh, i think Dye has the crux of the matter, availability .......rest of comments deleted

 

[sagefr0g]

Wow!!!
Great stuff here. Especially the timid ,meek Sagefrog. :grin: Not so timid he be anymore.
My, what a few years in the trenches will do for an AP/frog. Sage has seen simple stuff, not so simple stuff, very stressfull "stuff", and easy peasy stuff.
He's seen my handling of other AP's tryin to interrupt my gig. Sometimes nice, and sometimes not so nice. Nothing physical, just a bankroll and mental war.

..........

yup and a way cool bunch of stuff to see. real eye openers, really make yah think kind of stuff.
but out on my own i did see some stressful stuff that almost did get physical, felt like getting physical a few times as well, lol, know better than that though..lol

Heck now I don't know where the hell I was heading with this post.....Oh well, I gotta get back to building my wifes Tackroom for her horses.

Machinist

there yah go! life is good.

 

[HockeXpert]

"2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.

What state is that from?

 

[Machinist]

Nevada is the worst when it comes to gaming laws. 2 reasons I don't go to vegas, their laws protecting the states livelyhood, and way, way to much competition in the AP world

As far as legalities of the techniques presented here, as a pro AP you understand that this is a job and not a party. Knowing the risks of techniques is just part of the job. Money should be set aside for legal issues such as we are discussing.
A real awareness of the inner workings of the store you are working is very important. Everyone is different, you've seen it, some pits are happy go lucky, and some act like everybody is a criminal and need to be watched. (I love screwing them the most)

Sagefrog ??? You sure you aren't confusing your better halfs actions rather than your own???

 

[QFIT]

"2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome."

Wouldn't this apply to, say, every AP technique out there?

Raising your bets in high counts because you have acquired the knowledge? Or is it not because technically that information is available to everyone?

Clearly, counting uses info available to all players.

When it comes to hole-carding, the word pair “all players” is the sticky part. If this means all players in the casino, well, they are sitting at different tables with different info. If it means all players at your table, well, in a face-down game, they see different cards. Even in a face-up game, third-base sees more cards. As I see it, it must simply mean that some players are not specifically provided additional info that they could not obtain by playing the game, such as that gained by dealer collusion, optical or electronic devices, or from non-players.

As for signaling, this is really giving advice, which is legitimate. As long as it is based on info gained according to the above. Obviously signaling info from a non-player with additional info cannot be allowed as this would allow a person standing behind a Poker player to signal hole cards.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Clearly, counting uses info available to all players.

When it comes to hole-carding, the word pair “all players” is the sticky part. If this means all players in the casino, well, they are sitting at different tables with different info. If it means all players at your table, well, in a face-down game, they see different cards. Even in a face-up game, third-base sees more cards. As I see it, it must simply mean that some players are not specifically provided additional info that they could not obtain by playing the game, such as that gained by dealer collusion, optical or electronic devices, or from non-players.

As for signaling, this is really giving advice, which is legitimate. As long as it is based on info gained according to the above. Obviously signaling info from a non-player with additional info cannot be allowed as this would allow a person standing behind a Poker player to signal hole cards.

Well said Norm :toast:
I wanted to add that nowehere in the rules of blackjack does it say that a player cannot get information about remaining deck composition (by card counting) or about the subsequent shoe (shuffle tracking). However a basic and intrinsic rule is that the dealer's hole card is unknown. If you accidently see it, you should use that information, but hiring midgets to get that information is no different than having your children signal for you the hole cards of Poker players (This actually happened to me when i was playing Poker at some guys house, he had trained his 6 year old twin girls to signal for him the other player's cards, isn't this great parenting, oh no wait that is called being an AP these days ).

As far as card marking, it is not even close. The basic premise of any card games is that the cards be visually indistinguishable , marking the cards nullifies this. If card marking becomes "legal". I surely can use elegant scientific to mark the cards instead of spilling my drink all over the table

 

[aslan]

hmm, i don't think that's a correct interpretation edit:..... erhh, i think Dye has the crux of the matter, availability .......rest of comments deleted

Well, if the hole card sighting is only available at first base, is the information available to all the players, or is the criteria that anyone could sit at first base if they so chose so that makes it available to all players? Obviously, all the players could not have the information available if it comes from outside the table, but even there, they could employ a partner to feed them the information. I don't see much difference in that and two players sitting at the same table. but only one can see the hole card and must signal it's value to his partner.

 

[QFIT]

Seats are not equal. In BJ you get to see more cards at third-base. At Roulette, you can more easily make bets in the last moments in some seats. Views and comfort levels differ, which can affect performance. That's life in the big casino.

 

[sagefr0g]

partial quote from QFIT

...Obviously signaling info from a non-player with additional info cannot be allowed as this would allow a person standing behind a Poker player to signal hole cards.

Well said Norm :toast:
I wanted to add that nowehere in the rules of blackjack does it say that a player cannot get information about remaining deck composition (by card counting) or about the subsequent shoe (shuffle tracking). However a basic and intrinsic rule is that the dealer's hole card is unknown. If you accidently see it, you should use that information, but hiring midgets to get that information is no different than having your children signal for you the hole cards of Poker players (This actually happened to me when i was playing Poker at some guys house, he had trained his 6 year old twin girls to signal for him the other player's cards, isn't this great parenting, oh no wait that is called being an AP these days ).

As far as card marking, it is not even close. The basic premise of any card games is that the cards be visually indistinguishable , marking the cards nullifies this. If card marking becomes "legal". I surely can use elegant scientific to mark the cards instead of spilling my drink all over the table

i beg to disagree with the gist of the above from Norm and chemister.
cripes sakes guys we are talking about MONEY here! you wanna play some gamblin game with me for my money? ok, let's get down to it, YOU protect your information and i'll take care of my end of the deal. geesh get real!, forget all that mamby pamby goodie goodie pie in the sky, utopia stuff!
far as legal interpretations, i dunno.

 

[Sucker]

It would definitely seem to prohibit holecarding with assistance, even AT the table, formerly ruled legal in one Vegas court case. What jurisdiction's regulations are being cited?

This was not just a VEGAS court case. It was a Nevada Supreme Court decision. Very significant difference.

Well, if the hole card sighting is only available at first base, is the information available to all the players, or is the criteria that anyone could sit at first base if they so chose so that makes it available to all players? Obviously, all the players could not have the information available if it comes from outside the table, but even there, they could employ a partner to feed them the information. I don't see much difference in that and two players sitting at the same table. but only one can see the hole card and must signal it's value to his partner.

First basing is EXACTLY what Einbinder & Dalben were doing.

 

[sagefr0g]

......
Sagefrog ??? You sure you aren't confusing your better halfs actions rather than your own???

lmao omg, no you didn't, you didn't go there did yah?:laugh:
but yeah, i was busy setting the pigeons up in a nice neat row, nuthin sinister, but i'd of been ready if anything needed to be dealt with. then what happens? all of a sudden, Y comes out swinging with all fours, they never knew what hit them .:laugh::whip:
but yah, once i saw ehhm deal her dirty, that was it for me for them far as i was concerned.

 

[Machinist]

Lmao

How's that saying go.......? Skorned woman,,wrath..yada yada.......well don't mess with the Y's machines either

Mac

 

[aslan]

partial quote from QFIT



i beg to disagree with the gist of the above from Norm and chemister.
cripes sakes guys we are talking about MONEY here! you wanna play some gamblin game with me for my money? ok, let's get down to it, YOU protect your information and i'll take care of my end of the deal. geesh get real!, forget all that mamby pamby goodie goodie pie in the sky, utopia stuff!
far as legal interpretations, i dunno.

Heck, Mr. Greenjeans, I've seen poker tables advertised where some device can see through the table itself and see by xray or something the denomination of the cards. But I guess poker players should know better and wear lead lined gloves at the table. My point is, a device is only a matter of degree that a cheat might go to to cheat you. Peeking over your shoulder is entry level cheating, but if you protect your hand well, then the cheater must step up his game to more advanced techniques, peeps in the ceiling, xrays, shiners, partnerships where the partners know collectively more cards than any lone individual player at the table, etc. You'll never know all the cheats possible, because they are inventing them every day. Cheating is just an unfair advantage. It's simple. I know a guy who was paranoid about being cheated at gin rummy so he sat with his back to a wall. The cheater was able to use the reflection off the picture behind him to see his cards. If you know a person cheats, don't play him no matter how much you think you know; they will try everything until they find a way to beat you.

 

[aslan]

This was not just a VEGAS court case. It was a Nevada Supreme Court decision. Very significant difference.



First basing is EXACTLY what Einbinder & Dalben were doing.

So that would corroborate what Qfit was saying. At least, then, at one table signaling is not construed as cheating. From outside the table, I suppose that remains to be seen, assuming no "devices" are used.

 

[QFIT]

Every player has the ability to sit at the best seat for a given situation, given enough patience. Therefore, the info is available to all players. If you choose to take a seat where the info is not available, that is the player's decision. If you choose to play Texas Hold-em without looking at your own cards, that is also your decision. Signaling from a legitimate seat is passing on info that is available to any player.

Now, tournys are another matter.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Well said Norm :toast:
I wanted to add that nowehere in the rules of blackjack does it say that a player cannot get information about remaining deck composition (by card counting) or about the subsequent shoe (shuffle tracking). However a basic and intrinsic rule is that the dealer's hole card is unknown. If you accidently see it, you should use that information, but hiring midgets to get that information is no different than having your children signal for you the hole cards of Poker players (This actually happened to me when i was playing Poker at some guys house, he had trained his 6 year old twin girls to signal for him the other player's cards, isn't this great parenting, oh no wait that is called being an AP these days ).

All players are responsible for protecting their own hand. I have seen this posted in every poker room I have been in. If you were playing in an illegal game with minors present you have no expectation of it being an ethical game.

And what's the problem with midgets? Eddie Gaedel was fair play. They're fun to throw, and when a dealer is dealing properly his hole card cannot be seen by any person of any height in a place where a player can legally be.

As far as card marking, it is not even close. The basic premise of any card games is that the cards be visually indistinguishable , marking the cards nullifies this. If card marking becomes "legal". I surely can use elegant scientific to mark the cards instead of spilling my drink all over the table

But the card you marked with the drink is not being used in play. It has been removed. If a player does this trick, what element of the game currently being dealt has he altered?

 

[QFIT]

Civilized society has lived in a world based on laws since Hammurabi, 3,700 years back. We play games based upon rules. I look for advantages within those rules. I do not destroy the property of others to gain an advantage. In my simple mind, I call that cheating. If some feel otherwise, I really have nothing more to say and no interest in excuses.

 

[aslan]

Civilized society has lived in a world based on laws since Hammurabi, 3,700 years back. We play games based upon rules. I look for advantages within those rules. I do not destroy the property of others to gain an advantage. In my simple mind, I call that cheating. If some feel otherwise, I really haveI nothing more to say and no interest in excuses.

The drink spiller has placed the house in the position of deciding whether to (1) absorb the cost of replacing six decks of cards, and the cost of not dealing to waiting customers during the slow process of inspecting, washing and shuffling the new cards, or (2) take the chance that someone at the table is scamming them (if this particular pit is even aware of the possibility of this being a scam). In either case, the drink spiller is the one who causes the house to lose money, whether by replacement of six decks of cards or by ace steering success. The drink spiller is a cheat, unsuccessful in the first case, and successful in the second. In both cases, the cheat is responsible for the casino's losses.

 

[Marlin]

Or the 3rd option since the table is now soaked is to close the table completely which happens more often than not. Then what have you gained?

Marlin

 

[Jack_Black]

Or the 3rd option since the table is now soaked is to close the table completely which happens more often than not. Then what have you gained?

Marlin

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

yea, they would NEVER think to use some napkins to clean up a spill. instead, they'll close down a money maker because that would be the smart thing to do.

seriously, I have never seen them close a table a drink gets spilled.