I remember in another thread somewhere on this board, there was discussion of suing casinos that backroomed card counters, and I had said something the effect of "It would be more fitting if a casino had to allow counting and not be allowed to take any measures against it for a year, on every table." as a proper punishment instead of just a six-figure settlement.
I got to thinking - what if that was an actual blackjack variant? Basically, I'm trying to figure out how much **** would be acceptable in this situation:
Assume that the blackjack game in question has those barcodes on each card that determine what each card is and every card is tracked. The running and true counts are shown on a screen at all times, visible to all players. Penetration is dictated at 80%, not a single card less. The casino is not allowed to do a preferential shuffle, so if the count stays at +10 and everyone's table-maxing, the casino can do nothing about it.
How bad of a ruleset would you accept to play a game like this?
I got to thinking - what if that was an actual blackjack variant? Basically, I'm trying to figure out how much **** would be acceptable in this situation:
Assume that the blackjack game in question has those barcodes on each card that determine what each card is and every card is tracked. The running and true counts are shown on a screen at all times, visible to all players. Penetration is dictated at 80%, not a single card less. The casino is not allowed to do a preferential shuffle, so if the count stays at +10 and everyone's table-maxing, the casino can do nothing about it.
How bad of a ruleset would you accept to play a game like this?
