Ruthless Casino

[Seaclusion]

If I have ever had a doubt that casinos will ruthlessly and coldheartedly take anyones money, today would have dispelled that notion. I never have had that doubt, but if I did.

I sat at a low limit table with three ploppys. One of them was playing even more strangely than the rest. Standing on 13 against a ten, trying to take his bet back on a losing hand, taking his bet back on a winning hand before getting paid, frequently not putting out enough chips for the minimum, etc. He was very difficult to understand and was mumbling and slurring. At first I though he was drunk, but after a few hands I realized this guy had some sort of mental impairment. He even looked a little downs syndrome like.

As the game went on his play became even more strange. Standing on an ace-five even with the dealer repeating to him "You have six, sir". The last straw for me was when he doubled down on a hard seventeen against an eight----for the second time. I left the table.

Did anyone at the casino bar him from play? NO. Did they even question the erratic but losing play? NO. The dealers were nice enough about it by telling him what his cards were and trying to steer him in the right direction, but they happily put his frequent buy-ins in the money box. I watched him go through $180 in the short time I was there.

 

[psyduck]

It is sad, but I don't think this player is any worse than a "normal" ploppy.

 

[Seaclusion]

You mean because both have no concept of what they are doing.

 

[shadroch]

The casino should bar him because he looks like he possibly has Downs?
Yeah, thats not a lawsuit about to happen.
I can just see it. A suit approching the man, bcked up by two security guards and telling the man his play is not wanted there, since it's too weak for them.

 

[21forme]

Several years ago, I saw a very drunk woman betting purple at Borgata, and they just kept letting her play. That's one of the reasons I enjoy playing so much - knowing that I'm taking back some of their ill-gotten gains.

 

[Seaclusion]

Several years ago, I saw a very drunk woman betting purple at Borgata, and they just kept letting her play. That's one of the reasons I enjoy playing so much - knowing that I'm taking back some of their ill-gotten gains.

The Robin Hood effect

 

[Seaclusion]

The casino should bar him because he looks like he possibly has Downs?
Yeah, thats not a lawsuit about to happen.
I can just see it. A suit approching the man, bcked up by two security guards and telling the man his play is not wanted there, since it's too weak for them.

Of course that's not going to happen.

There's been a discussion on the morality of hole-carding in another thread. This situation shows that any advantage is fair game in BJ. The casino already has their advantage (ploppys and ploppy-like play). Hole-carding, shuffle tracking, steering, etc for us on the other side of the felt is our advantage.

 

[Krak3d]

If they can make easy money of ploppy's, they wouldn't care, would they?

 

[JohnGalt1]

If I have ever had a doubt that casinos will ruthlessly and coldheartedly take anyones money, today would have dispelled that notion. I never have had that doubt, but if I did.

I sat at a low limit table with three ploppys. One of them was playing even more strangely than the rest. Standing on 13 against a ten, trying to take his bet back on a losing hand, taking his bet back on a winning hand before getting paid, frequently not putting out enough chips for the minimum, etc. He was very difficult to understand and was mumbling and slurring. At first I though he was drunk, but after a few hands I realized this guy had some sort of mental impairment. He even looked a little downs syndrome like.

As the game went on his play became even more strange. Standing on an ace-five even with the dealer repeating to him "You have six, sir". The last straw for me was when he doubled down on a hard seventeen against an eight----for the second time. I left the table.

Did anyone at the casino bar him from play? NO. Did they even question the erratic but losing play? NO. The dealers were nice enough about it by telling him what his cards were and trying to steer him in the right direction, but they happily put his frequent buy-ins in the money box. I watched him go through $180 in the short time I was there.

It's not up to the casino to not let him play.

Isn't the caretaker--if there is one--responsible?

 

[FLASH1296]

This discussion actually has its roots in the basic LEFT vs. RIGHT political divide (at least in the U S A) wherein Left Wingers feel that the public is too stupid to protect itself from its own self-destructive tendencies; while Right Wingers take the position that we are each responsible for our own choices, actions, etc. and whatever consequences may result.

A simple example is this:

Lotteries:

Right Wingers love it because it is a revenue-generating mechanism for the government that they can ignore.

Left Wingers hate it because they see it as a "repressive tax" measure that disproportionately harm those who can least afford it.

 

[daddybo]

This discussion actually has its roots in the basic LEFT vs. RIGHT political divide (at least in the U S A) wherein Left Wingers feel that the public is too stupid to protect itself from its own self-destructive tendencies; while Right Wingers take the position that we are each responsible for our own choices, actions, etc. and whatever consequences may result.

A simple example is this:

Lotteries:

Right Wingers love it because it is a revenue-generating mechanism for the government that they can ignore.

Left Wingers hate it because they see it as a "repressive tax" measure that disproportionately harm those who can least afford it.

I think that is a false assumption Flash.. I consider myself a conservative.. but probably not a right winger... more a centrist. I once wrote a paper in college on lotteries.. and my main conclusion was that it was indeed a tax on the poor and less educated. In my state.. the "right wingers" fight tooth and nail against lotteries as well as most other forms of gambling.

 

[Seaclusion]

This discussion actually has its roots in the basic LEFT vs. RIGHT political divide (at least in the U S A) wherein Left Wingers feel that the public is too stupid to protect itself from its own self-destructive tendencies; while Right Wingers take the position that we are each responsible for our own choices, actions, etc. and whatever consequences may result.

A simple example is this:

Lotteries:

Right Wingers love it because it is a revenue-generating mechanism for the government that they can ignore.

Left Wingers hate it because they see it as a "repressive tax" measure that disproportionately harm those who can least afford it.

Actually, this discussion is about casino advantage with weak players and putting it into political terms just derails the thread.

 

[Homeschool]

At first I though he was drunk, but after a few hands I realized this guy had some sort of mental impairment. He even looked a little downs syndrome like.

Well then you tell that to Rainman cause he practically bankrupted a casino, and he was a ra-tard :laugh:

 

[Diver]

inaccurate characterization

This discussion actually has its roots in the basic LEFT vs. RIGHT political divide (at least in the U S A) wherein Left Wingers feel that the public is too stupid to protect itself from its own self-destructive tendencies; while Right Wingers take the position that we are each responsible for our own choices, actions, etc. and whatever consequences may result.

I believe the fundamental divide between left and right in this country is that left wingers believe corporations, business interests, have to regulated in the interests of society and right wingers do not. Taking your example of individual stupidity, there have been limited regulations in place supposedly to protect the unsophisitcated investor from unscrupulous traders. However, those regulation have proven wholly inadequate, resulting recently in even presumably knowledgeable investors as well as traders being scammed. So now there is a contest between liberals and conservtives concerning regulation of the financial system where the natural more regulation and less regulation points of view are in evidence. I believe history as clearly demonstrated that the individual is generally at a disadvantage (and not due to stupidity) in contending with the power of the corporations. But where personal conduct is concerned the differences are less clear: take gun regulation and abortion regulation for example.

 

[Meistro]

True right wingers view anything that generates revenue for the state with disdain. The harm of taxation is massive, to be sure, but the harm of spending is equally dangerous to the free society, not simply because the money that is spent must be recouped (either through taxation, borrowing or simply printing it). War is an obvious example of the terror that is government spending, but subsidies, regulation - in fact any intervention in the free market - have terrible consequences.

Diver : But if we are all stupid and helpless, needing to be saved, who is to regulate the most powerful and most invasive of all organizations in society? I am speaking of course of the state. What regulations can we put in place to prevent us from being scammed by the government? If you suspect a corporation of wrong doing there is a very easy way out for you - just don't do business with them. For those who speak of the evils of corporations, I can only question what exactly are you afraid of, that they will give you a job or sell you a good or product? Always when government fails the market is blamed; the current financial crises is hardly an exception to this true and fast rule. The real culprit is not the fat cats on wall street, but rather the fat cats in control of the banking system; Greenspan and Bernanke, though Congress and Bush / Obama have their share of blame as well.

 

[Katweezel]

True right wingers view anything that generates revenue for the state with disdain. The harm of taxation is massive, to be sure, but the harm of spending is equally dangerous to the free society, not simply because the money that is spent must be recouped (either through taxation, borrowing or simply printing it). War is an obvious example of the terror that is government spending, but subsidies, regulation - in fact any intervention in the free market - have terrible consequences.

Diver : But if we are all stupid and helpless, needing to be saved, who is to regulate the most powerful and most invasive of all organizations in society? I am speaking of course of the state. What regulations can we put in place to prevent us from being scammed by the government? If you suspect a corporation of wrong doing there is a very easy way out for you - just don't do business with them. For those who speak of the evils of corporations, I can only question what exactly are you afraid of, that they will give you a job or sell you a good or product? Always when government fails the market is blamed; the current financial crises is hardly an exception to this true and fast rule. The real culprit is not the fat cats on wall street, but rather the fat cats in control of the banking system; Greenspan and Bernanke, though Congress and Bush / Obama have their share of blame as well.

Spoken like a Maestro. This type of post is very much at home on the Zen Zone. Come on down.

 

[Meistro]

Thanks for the invite, and for not lambasting me with a fail pic :laugh:

 

[politcat]

... In fact any intervention in the free market - have terrible consequences.

if you believe there is anything free about markets I know a few traders and some brokers who would love to take your action. a long line of "entrepreneurs" is right behind them

 

[Meistro]

All markets - even the ones that existed in the Soviet Union, or that exist today in Castro's (Raul) Cuba are to some degree free. Likewise, all markets today - and I know of no exception here, but there could be one - are to some degree (usually a large degree) unfree.

Alas.

 

[Diver]

Time to wake up

in fact any intervention in the free market - have terrible consequences.

A sentiment expressed by John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, Jay Gould, John D. Rockerfeller, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, and countless others. It appears you simply don't understand the resources brought to bear by corporations seeking to influence governmental regulations and why that constitutes an advantage over the power of the individual. While you are uttering old cliches, the fact is that market fundamentalism was proven to be an unreliable guiding principle by the end of 2008. Alan Greespan performed the last rites on October 23, saying before Congress "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,”.