El Cortez Suspected ASM Cheating

[KewlJ]

As far as the recent allegations against EC and how they use two ASMs, they don’t pass what I call the sniff test. There are so many inconsistencies in this story, it’s hard to believe any of it.

Then don't believe it bjo32. I don't care. I am not selling anything. I am not pursuing any lawsuit. Making this claim is not enhancing my financial bottom line or benefitting me in any way. I simply issued a warning and asked, almost begged other players to check it out for themselves. And prior to issuing that warning I did some extensive research to satisfy myself before I said anything.

It's funny, I know of quite a number of AP's that either live in in Las Vegas or visit and play here regularly. From the time I made my first post, warning players and suggesting other players to check it out for themselves, not a single player on any of the 4 forums where this was discussed, reported back "hey I checked it out and found nothing out of the ordinary". EVEN after the discussion spread to 4 forums! Instead I heard directly from more than half dozen AP's pissed that I had mentioned this situation that they already knew of.

Sadly, yesterday Mike Shackleford decided he was going to check it out. Almost a month after the fact and more than a week after I had posted that conditions had changed and the ASM's in question removed. I mean Shackleford was exactly the type of person I was hoping would look into the situation. It was suggested he might even be interested in being the face of whatever kind of challenge. It is sad that he was late to the game. The discussion had spread to his own forum weeks ago, but it is summertime, perhaps he was busy with other things going on. I know Mike travels a lot. Sadly my guess, it won't be long before he has another chance.

So whether it passes your "sniff test" is irrelevant to me. But I will ask this, did you bother to personally take a look, as I suggested, even begged people to do? Or did you just blindly pass judgement without checking anything out? As for that sniffer of yours, you might want to get that checked out.

What about you, moses? Tell us how many shoes you played at this game in the 3 week window that this situation was out there, before you blindly, without any first hand knowledge started attacking me? (obviously for reasons that have nothing to do with this)

 

[JJP]

I think the wise thing to do is err on the side of paranoia. I mean, if you have any suspicion a place is not on the up and up, just stay away. After reading this full thread, I'm convinced one Indian casino in California is doing something similar. It could just be me overreacting to a relatively small sample size but I felt what I saw was a game not on the level. I just won't go back there. Once it's in your head they are cheating you, you are distracted.

On VSIN, they just said Nevada casinos had a hold of $100 million for blackjack alone in July (over $200 million for slots). Apparently they don't feel its enough. They've f-kd with the rules at numerous places. Would anyone truly be shocked if they tried to use clumping as a way to stomp out APs?

 

[Tater]

KJ. You are the shoe expert. We only wear them or laugh at the dealers standing alone at the shoe table. Like she drew the shortest straw.

But my understanding, when you get deep into a deck, you are able to capitalize by playing many hands at a high TC. Therefore, the law of averages balances in your favor. Thus wonging in or out and counting two tables greatly tips the scale in your favor. Correct?

We prefer ASMs because a hand shuffle takes the cards out of a potential mechanics hands. Now in pitch, you only get a few shots because the best TCs come later in the deck. Quite often, we face watching our TC shuffled away. THIS is why you've heard from several pissed off APs. And out of all those forums, not one person checked it out. They've already figured out a long time ago what you can't see today.

I will admit I've witnessed some ASM shuffles that make me say Hmmm. An expert dealer once said that, in essence, you are shuffling the cards, as you play, in a pitch hand shuffled game. Considering he'd been dealing card 8/40/50 for 40 years, it made me think.

What people don't realize it that with a conventional count you can get bad deck compositions with no time to recover. Because of the shuffle. This doesn't mean you can't beat the game. It just means you have to exercise more patience which is not your nature. Passing on High +TC with a bad deck composition actually works in your favor.

The average AP plays 1500 quality hands per week. Game selection is vital. So I guess to answer your question to Moses. The answer is 4500 quality hands in 3 weeks.

It's not the attack on you. It's the attack on attitude. You like to attack ZenKing. Just one example of where you put yourself on a pedestal above others. But his attitude is far better than yours. At least he accepts his losses. But you have to whine constantly.

 

[Dummy]

Dummy, I’m going to try one last time and then we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

You keep writing things that you think is news to me. I knew these things more accurately than you are reporting them when this went down, in real time. Whether anyone besides El Dorado used it as a cheating device is immaterial. It is the public perception that mattered. A casino can tell me they have something they can use as a cheating device but they promise they won't doesn't fly with most gamblers. They are suspicious even when there is nothing to be suspicious about. I talked to other gamblers at the time. Most didn't play it because they didn't think they could trust the casinos not to use it as a cheating devise. They were uncomfortable with that and chose not to take the chance. The history written by those that weren't involved or didn't ask anyone why they didn't play it can say whatever the author's agenda wants it to say. That doesn't change what those that lived through it said or thought.

Your research is weak. Twice in a few minutes of searching I find what you miss:

http://ir.eldoradoresorts.com/Cache/1001193529.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001193529&iid=4512023

In part I, Item (1) it explains the ownership of the ElDorado to be :

"Item 1. Business. Introduction

Eldorado Resorts LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Resorts”), was formed on July 1, 1996 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eldorado HoldCo, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“HoldCo”). HoldCo was formed on April 1, 2009 to be the holding company for Resorts, and the members of Resorts contributed all their respective membership interests in Resorts to HoldCo in return for proportionate membership interests in HoldCo. Other than the membership interests in Resorts, HoldCo has no assets or liabilities and conducts no operations. Eldorado Capital Corp., a Nevada corporation wholly owned by Resorts (“Capital”), was incorporated for the sole purpose of serving as co-issuer of certain debt co-issued by Resorts and Capital. Capital holds no significant assets and conducts no business activity."


On page 31 part (6) it says that:

1. "Effective July 1, 2000, Resorts and Avereon Research LTD. entered into an agreement to form MindPlay, LLC for the purpose of developing, owning and marketing a sophisticated system to permit the tracking and surveillance of pit gaming operations. "
   
   So I have to think you are not a strong researcher after finding the proof that El Dorado both founded and funded MindPlay's development in a matter of minutes, and finding that the lawsuit called MindPlay a cheating devise in a matter of minutes after you said your extensive research showed no evidence of either of these things. I bet everything you say you researched are easily shown wrong by someone that knows how to do effective online research.

 

[Dummy]

We prefer ASMs because a hand shuffle takes the cards out of a potential mechanics hands. Now in pitch, you only get a few shots because the best TCs come later in the deck. Quite often, we face watching our TC shuffled away. THIS is why you've heard from several pissed off APs. And out of all those forums, not one person checked it out. They've already figured out a long time ago what you can't see today.

The games in this thread are ASM pitch games, 75% pen DD games.

 

[KewlJ]

Tater/moses, almost everything in your last post is false. I am not even going to quote the post, because I don't want such complete nonsense reprinted.

1.) This isn't about what count a player plays, although you want to make everything into a count discussion. Ever since you stole Tarzan's column count, which I am sure you don't play successful, if at all, you have been on a mission to make everyone believe you are in Tarzan's league. News flash moses: Not a single person in this community, on any forum, that has read your garbage believe that. I am guessing everyone, and I mean everyone has reached the same conclusion, that you are a retiree, who spends time in the Reno sportsbooks gambling away his days and occasionally playing the $5 low limit blackjack games....if I had to guess probably playing a break even game at best.

2.) you claiming I lack patience is absolutely ridiculous. I am a grinder type player, probably more so than any other professional card counter blackjack player, most who play higher stakes and far fewer rounds. I play 60,000 to 80,000 rounds per year. I know and endure variance as much if not more than most players. I have gone through and posted about (shared my experience) of 4 different 6 month losing periods. Not once did I suggest I was being cheated, because I completely understand variance.

3.) What I encountered at the named casino has nothing to do with patience, variance or negative results. My results at that casino for the year are right at expectation. I am not losing, nor making claims because of negative variance.

4.) I also am not a conspiracy type. I all my posting throughout this community over a decade now, I have never talked about being cheated and frequently argue those that do.

So moses, or tater, who posts the same exact crap that moses posts on other sites....word for word, just go back to zenzone, the perfect forum for you, where you make posts after post, answering your own posts (talking to yourself). In two threads you made the initial post of the thread starting the thread and then made each and every of the responses (5-7) in those threads. You are talking to yourself, both there and here. And I too am done talking to you.

 

[Tater]

The games in this thread are ASM pitch games, 75% pen DD games.

That's a good game. Dummy would chew it up, no? Imagine a guy that has 500 bins of strong deck compositions. Since you seem to be playing it on the downlow, do you want me to provide the example?

 

[KewlJ]

The games in this thread are ASM pitch games, 75% pen DD games.

Actually, that is incorrect. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are talking about, El Cortez, the game being talked about in this thread, deals their DD game from a shoe. Occasionally, but rarely does penetration hit 75%. God I wish it did.

That 75% is a number that Don S came up with when comparing the frequency of seeing +4/-4 counts. I think Don picked a high penetration so as to say, best case, you would see this occurrence 25% of the time, when I saw it over 90% of the time...thus one of the red flags.

 

[Tater]

KJ you really are a crybaby. Since you like to boast about your numbers for the newbies to worship, let's take a look at your stats on these cheating threads.
You went back to Norm's sight with an open arms expectations after all you'd written about him other many, many sights. There are more threads and posts than a person could count. Now, you attack three other owners of sites as being crazy and/or not up to your standard. What makes you think you are better than any other poster - let alone moderators? Moses is right. You are full of yourself and need to be knocked own a notch or two. I'm fairly certain he could do it too.
Socks should be worn and not heard from? I suppose now you "think" you are more than just a poster on this forum too. You signed up with the name Spiderman without Norm's approval but will not admit to deception. The thread was closed and sent to the DisAdvantage Forum . But your too damn stupid or stubborn to get the message. So you start another thread and it was closed, sent to the DA Forum and you got banned. Of course, this was all Norm's fault. There doesn't seem to be anyone missing your absence. Guess they're used to it?
Not only have you put down the owner at GF and WOV. But you leave another forum because Moses ran you off. No one agreed with you in the cheating thread you started on that forum either. So you gave a touching farewell goodbye in which you placed yourself on a pedestal above the other members, put the owner down, and have the nerve to say you hoped his sight could survive without YOU. KJ the great. Every single post was a member making fun of you. Not one person stuck up for you. All you did was fight with nearly every member for nearly a year. But again, it was all THEIR fault. Not YOURS.
Now you accuse the Tater of being Moses and vice versa. Whatever "Spidey!"Again, in this thread, you put down or get emotional with anyone who doesn't agree with your nonsense. But you can't let go because YOU have to be the ultimate Savior...now for all APs.
What is wrong with you? Are you like 8? Maybe Well Butrin will balance you out a little.

 

[KewlJ]

Ok, I gotta squeeze this in as quickly as possible because it is moving day and the moving guys are due shortly.

Update: Norm made the following post at WoV today:

Note: Referring back to the OP in this thread, the poster that made the post at BJTF about cheating was banned as a sock. The data supplied was analyzed, and the results do not suggest cheating as they are well within expectations.

Interesting that it was Norm's first post at WoV in over 6 months. Similarly to when he began posting there after a 5 year absence, he ONLY posts when he is trying to discredit me. But that's ok. Norm's agenda aside, I want to discuss his post.

I would like to see this recent analysis. As everyone knows Norm moved the discussion of this topic to the private area, specifically so I and most of the community couldn't see it.

So I am interested in just what was analyzed that would contradict the original analysis of Don Schlesinger.

And then after I am shown this analysis, I would like to invite Norm to my home where I will provide a personal demonstration of the machine in question and its capabilities. I think this is a pretty generous offer considering the circumstances. Let's just see if Norm has an ounce of objectivity or is just about attempting to discredit me, no matter what?

 

[Tater]

There are 32 cards with a tag value of 10 in a double deck. HiLO only accounts for 77% of the cards played. The 10s represent 31% of the total cards played and 40% in HiLO. It stands to reason you are going to see them come in groups at times througout a deck. Question is how much is too much?

So these 10s come out in clusters of 4? 8? 16? or all 32 either at the top, middle, or bottom depending on who cuts. Now the Aces are strategically scattered with the low cards? or just so only the dealer can get a blackjack? Are you side counting the Aces? Are they 1 in every 13 cards?
How many 10s are played by the end of the deck? Do you know? Point is, you would know with a column count. But you are either guessing or side counting 10s, no? Plus since you are only tracking 77% of the cards played, you have no idea of the ratio between 10s vs cards played at the end or throughout the deck. Only the beginning which I just told you.
You are deck estimating so you wouldn't know exactly what is played and what still remains. So how do you intend to prove an imbalance of tens? The 4+ and 4- theory does not hold water. The rebuttal is simply, we don't allow card counters. So all you really have is this alleged magic chip. Sort of like the magic bullett conspiracy with JFK. Create confusion to confound your understanding. I know, I know you bought a shuffle machine, but obviously, don't know how to set it up. The owner of another site offered to come by and you reneged, put him down and left the site.

A 4+ and 4- for a column count in a pitch is a dream come true. However, obviously a nightmare for a HiLO counter.

 

[bjo32]

You keep writing things that you think is news to me. I knew these things more accurately than you are reporting them when this went down, in real time. Whether anyone besides El Dorado used it as a cheating device is immaterial. It is the public perception that mattered. A casino can tell me they have something they can use as a cheating device but they promise they won't doesn't fly with most gamblers. They are suspicious even when there is nothing to be suspicious about. I talked to other gamblers at the time. Most didn't play it because they didn't think they could trust the casinos not to use it as a cheating devise. They were uncomfortable with that and chose not to take the chance. The history written by those that weren't involved or didn't ask anyone why they didn't play it can say whatever the author's agenda wants it to say. That doesn't change what those that lived through it said or thought.

Your research is weak. Twice in a few minutes of searching I find what you miss:

http://ir.eldoradoresorts.com/Cache/1001193529.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001193529&iid=4512023

In part I, Item (1) it explains the ownership of the ElDorado to be :

"Item 1. Business. Introduction

Eldorado Resorts LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Resorts”), was formed on July 1, 1996 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eldorado HoldCo, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“HoldCo”). HoldCo was formed on April 1, 2009 to be the holding company for Resorts, and the members of Resorts contributed all their respective membership interests in Resorts to HoldCo in return for proportionate membership interests in HoldCo. Other than the membership interests in Resorts, HoldCo has no assets or liabilities and conducts no operations. Eldorado Capital Corp., a Nevada corporation wholly owned by Resorts (“Capital”), was incorporated for the sole purpose of serving as co-issuer of certain debt co-issued by Resorts and Capital. Capital holds no significant assets and conducts no business activity."


On page 31 part (6) it says that:

1. "Effective July 1, 2000, Resorts and Avereon Research LTD. entered into an agreement to form MindPlay, LLC for the purpose of developing, owning and marketing a sophisticated system to permit the tracking and surveillance of pit gaming operations. "
   
   So I have to think you are not a strong researcher after finding the proof that El Dorado both founded and funded MindPlay's development in a matter of minutes, and finding that the lawsuit called MindPlay a cheating devise in a matter of minutes after you said your extensive research showed no evidence of either of these things. I bet everything you say you researched are easily shown wrong by someone that knows how to do effective online research.

Dummy, I said I wasn’t going to reply to another one of your posts but I couldn’t resist. I thought what you found on Eldorado helping to finance MindPlay was interesting but I don’t know what relavance it had to our debate.

You have a Nevada gambling perspective on MindPlay. In my area, MindPlay might not have been a big deal. Note that MindPlay was in many other areas of the US and the world and it still failed.

Like you said, I didn’t even know about it and I’m now finding out I played at casinos that used it during this time. I’ve never claimed to be a big time AP. During the time MindPlay was around, I was not on any forums. I got all my info from bj books. The fact that I didn’t even know it was at casinos I played at shows how insignificant it was in my area. Who knows, I might have played on a MindPlay table and not have known it. Don’t worry, I’m prepared for your insults on this one. I can handle it.

Why won’t you acknowledge that there were other things that caused its downfall? My guess is casinos in my area saw its high costs, saw that is didn’t do what MindPlay claimed, saw that it didn’t reduce headcount, saw that it was costly to keep up, saw that it slowed down the game (this is a fact), and saw that fewer ploppies played on MindPlay tables so they got rid of it. It’s that simple. You’re trying to make this much more complicated than it is.

Btw, did your research turn up anything about the Shuffle Master lawsuit? Don’t you think that might have hurt MindPlay too?

If it makes you feel better to keep believing MindPlay was developed as a cheating device that’s fine with me. I never said I was an expert researcher. I’ve just done enough research to satisfy myself on why MindPlay failed. You need to think whatever you’re going to think to get you through life. Lol

 

[KewlJ]

There are 32 cards with a tag value of 10 in a double deck. HiLO only accounts for 77% of the cards played. The 10s represent 31% of the total cards played and 40% in HiLO. It stands to reason you are going to see them come in groups at times througout a deck. Question is how much is too much?

So these 10s come out in clusters of 4? 8? 16? or all 32 either at the top, middle, or bottom depending on who cuts. Now the Aces are strategically scattered with the low cards? or just so only the dealer can get a blackjack? Are you side counting the Aces? Are they 1 in every 13 cards?
How many 10s are played by the end of the deck? Do you know? Point is, you would know with a column count. But you are either guessing or side counting 10s, no? Plus since you are only tracking 77% of the cards played, you have no idea of the ratio between 10s vs cards played at the end or throughout the deck. Only the beginning which I just told you.
You are deck estimating so you wouldn't know exactly what is played and what still remains. So how do you intend to prove an imbalance of tens? The 4+ and 4- theory does not hold water.

Yeah, I read the exact same post, word for word, posted by moses on another website.

Simply repeating faulty logic doesn't make it any more true or accurate.

 

[gronbog]

So I am interested in just what was analyzed that would contradict the original analysis of Don Schlesinger.

I can't show you the posts (copyright), but I can say that independent simulations were performed, both showing that a randomly shuffled DD game will reach a HiLo true count of +/-4 about 93% of the time with 75% penetration. After review, Don has accepted the results.

 

[bjo32]

Then don't believe it bjo32. I don't care. I am not selling anything. I am not pursuing any lawsuit. Making this claim is not enhancing my financial bottom line or benefitting me in any way. I simply issued a warning and asked, almost begged other players to check it out for themselves. And prior to issuing that warning I did some extensive research to satisfy myself before I said anything.

It's funny, I know of quite a number of AP's that either live in in Las Vegas or visit and play here regularly. From the time I made my first post, warning players and suggesting other players to check it out for themselves, not a single player on any of the 4 forums where this was discussed, reported back "hey I checked it out and found nothing out of the ordinary". EVEN after the discussion spread to 4 forums! Instead I heard directly from more than half dozen AP's pissed that I had mentioned this situation that they already knew of.

Sadly, yesterday Mike Shackleford decided he was going to check it out. Almost a month after the fact and more than a week after I had posted that conditions had changed and the ASM's in question removed. I mean Shackleford was exactly the type of person I was hoping would look into the situation. It was suggested he might even be interested in being the face of whatever kind of challenge. It is sad that he was late to the game. The discussion had spread to his own forum weeks ago, but it is summertime, perhaps he was busy with other things going on. I know Mike travels a lot. Sadly my guess, it won't be long before he has another chance.

So whether it passes your "sniff test" is irrelevant to me. But I will ask this, did you bother to personally take a look, as I suggested, even begged people to do? Or did you just blindly pass judgement without checking anything out? As for that sniffer of yours, you might want to get that checked out.

What about you, moses? Tell us how many shoes you played at this game in the 3 week window that this situation was out there, before you blindly, without any first hand knowledge started attacking me? (obviously for reasons that have nothing to do with this)

I know you’re moving KJ, but here’s what you’re missing on all this. It’s called common sense. So many people have to be involved in a conspiracy that using some basic logic it’s easy to see why the probabilities of it happening are slim to none.

Eliot Jacobson makes this point in his video. It was the best point he made. When you start thinking about a casino cheating with an ASM, so many things have to happen that common sense tells you this isn’t happening. If clumping is happening, there is probably a simpler explanation, like the ASM is broken.

People are basically lazy. Why would so many people get involved in a conspiracy like this at a casino? What do they have to gain? A slight added advantage? Why would they risk so much for so little return? All you need to do is think about it a while and see why it would make no sense for them to do this.

The reason EC probably changed out these two ASMs is because they heard the buzz about these two ASMs and they knew the AP conspiracy nuts would be descending on their casino. I’d have done the same thing.

Now I’m wondering if you’re involved in a conspiracy with EC to help their business. Did you drum this up so you could drive all the hoards of AP conspiracy nuts over to EC. This puzzle is staring to all come together. It’s almost like Mission Impossible episode, with a twist on the end. I think I figured it out. Lol.

 

[Dummy]

Now I’m wondering if you’re involved in a conspiracy with EC to help their business. Did you drum this up so you could drive all the hoards of AP conspiracy nuts over to EC.

Only a conspiracy nut could post this.

 

[Tater]

Only a conspiracy nut could post this.

You're mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.

 

[bjo32]

Only a conspiracy nut could post this.

Nah, just a person who watched the Mission Impossible movie last night. That movie had a lot of twist and turns, some I didn’t see coming.

As I was typing my post, I was thinking maybe this is a conspiracy after all, but it’s a different one than we’ve been led to believe. I don’t believe this but it actually makes more sense the original ASM clumping conspiracy. It would take less people to pull off and it’d be less risky.

 

[KewlJ]

I can't show you the posts (copyright), but I can say that independent simulations were performed, both showing that a randomly shuffled DD game will reach a HiLo true count of +/-4 about 93% of the time with 75% penetration. After review, Don has accepted the results.

Did Don accept the results? Well I don't.

First of all, there is NO DD game at EC dealt to 75%!
There is NO DD game at EC dealt to 70%!
There is NO DD game at EC dealt to 65%!

The DD games are dealt to 60-62%! And that is a constant. They use a notch and cut card. So it is not even dealer dependent. Nowhere did I or anyone that plays at this location say 75%. Don came up with that number. You'll have to ask him why?

So what we have here is an analysis that was done completely ass backwards. Who(m)ever did this "independent" simulation, started with the result they wanted to achieve and worked backwards, manufacturing conditions to achieve that result. And in this case they manufactured conditions that don't exist. I KNOW they didn't exist because I play this game regularly. I probably am doing myself harm buy saying that but it is true.

So I max bet at TC +4 and exit at TC -2, so based on the results of this "independent analysis" I would be exiting every shoe one way or the other. I don't! Not even close.

Looking at Table 10.89 (page 260) of BJA3, which is all I have to go on at the moment until I get moved, Table 10.89 is a DD game dealt 62/104 which is roughly 60% penetration, the same as EC game. Table 10.89 says a TC of +4 occurs roughly 9.71% of the time and a TC of -4 roughly the same frequency.

So, if these true counts +4 and -4 occur roughly 20% of the time combined, then every shoe (or 93%) should NOT see one of the other of these TC's.

So who(m)ever did this independent analysis, you did it wrong....you did it backwards, trying to manufactured conditions to meet the desired result. And Norm who was so eager to try to discredit me....because it is me, that he immediately ran to another site and posted these erroneous results. This has to stop. You can't make up the math!

 

[KewlJ]

I play that game and have for years. Numerous times a week for years, since long before these new ASM arrived. And I can assure you I do not see TC of +4 or -4 in 93% of shoes. My initial estimate was 30%. I stand by that. Somewhere between 25-33%.

Whoever did this analysis is flat out wrong. They used the wrong parameter, starting with 75% penetration.

DO it again, with the correct numbers.