Streaks? Am I thinking like a ploppy?

[Renzey]

The game rule allows the cut card to be placed at differrent depth. However, the rule disallows the hole card to be shown.

I have to go along with psyduck on this one. The rules of the game of regular blackjack state that you see the dealer's up-card, but not the down-card. You accept those rules when you sit down to play. The rules say nothing about how far down they deal, how much you can spread your bets, whether you can use your brain to keep track of the cards, etc.

Think about this in another light -- the game of poker.

1) If you're drawing to a diamond flush, would it be cheating to notice how many diamonds have been dealt thus far to better assess your odds? The played cards have been exposed for everyone to see. Would it be cheating to choose to play the pokerform in which the most cards are exposed, such as 7 Card Stud, so that you can assess your chances the most accurately?

2) If however, the player on your left does a shabby job of concealing his hole cards and you can see them with some effort, would it be cheating to keep silent and play against him with that unnatural advantage? If that's okay, would it be moral to slouch down in your seat to see his hole cards as often as possible. And if that's okay, would it be moral to try to only sit next to players who habitually flash their hole cards? And if that's okay, would it be moral to not play poker at all unless your opponent/s flash their hole cards, ala 3-Card Poker?? How should the other players view you if that's how you play?

I feel sure that somewhere along the way there, we have crossed over the line.

 

[Katweezel]

I have to go along with psyduck on this one. The rules of the game of regular blackjack state that you see the dealer's up-card, but not the down-card. You accept those rules when you sit down to play. The rules say nothing about how far down they deal, how much you can spread your bets, whether you can use your brain to keep track of the cards, etc.

Think about this in another light -- the game of poker.

1) If you're drawing to a diamond flush, would it be cheating to notice how many diamonds have been dealt thus far to better assess your odds? The played cards have been exposed for everyone to see. Would it be cheating to choose to play the pokerform in which the most cards are exposed, such as 7 Card Stud, so that you can assess your chances the most accurately?

2) If however, the player on your left does a shabby job of concealing his hole cards and you can see them with some effort, would it be cheating to keep silent and play against him with that unnatural advantage? If that's okay, would it be moral to slouch down in your seat to see his hole cards as often as possible. And if that's okay, would it be moral to try to only sit next to players who habitually flash their hole cards? And if that's okay, would it be moral to not play poker at all unless your opponent/s flash their hole cards, ala 3-Card Poker?? How should the other players view you if that's how you play?

I feel sure that somewhere along the way there, we have crossed over the line.

I have no interest in poker myself, and therefore cannot comment on poker morality. Once, two suits arrived at my BJ table and stood behind me. One said to me: "Sir; we noticed you made an error recently and the dealer did not pick it up." The dealer was then instructed to hand over $200 in chips to me. I almost fell off the chair in surprise. Gee, some casinos used to have morals, ethics, integrity, honesty, openness, accountabiliy and responsibility. I remember... I think.

 

[daddybo]

I have to go along with psyduck on this one. The rules of the game of regular blackjack state that you see the dealer's up-card, but not the down-card. You accept those rules when you sit down to play. The rules say nothing about how far down they deal, how much you can spread your bets, whether you can use your brain to keep track of the cards, etc.
.

Since we're splitting hairs... The rules are not intended for the dealer to shuffle preferentially either... The game was intended to have a hole card... what about games that don't offer a hole card and take your bet on a dealer blackjack.... What about only paying 6:5 on a BJ. If it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander. Besides, if they don't want you to see the hole card... they can be more careful... just like a poker player and his cards.

To me.. as long as you are not forcing the information in some way.... it's fair game.

 

[psyduck]

To me.. as long as you are not forcing the information in some way.... it's fair game.

Do hole card players use extra effort to see the hole card? If so, do you call that forcing information in some way?

 

[politcat]

c'mon y'all, if a player facemasks in a football game just because he can get away with it he's still cheating

if, even by accident, a trader sees next week's crude oil inventory numbers ahead of time and he trades accordingly he's breaking the law

we have a free choice to play or not. if we do, we should play by the rules.

if we think the dealer/casino cheats we can choose not to play there.

but nothing ever gives us the moral right to cheat in any game

 

[Renzey]

To me.. as long as you are not forcing the information in some way.... it's fair game.

As long as we're on blackjack morals, I'd like to run an older column past everyone here.

A question of blackjack ethics
15 June 2007

By Fred Renzey

Some time ago in a past column, I asked your opinion of whether it was morally right to keep a mistaken payoff from the blackjack dealer on a hand you actually lost. Many of you e-mailed back, saying it was the casino's responsibility to collect all losing bets, and you felt justified in keeping any errant payoffs.

Personally, I oppose that point of view and always point out any mistake I notice on my hand, whether it went for me or against me. But that's not what this article is about.

There's another entire facet of the game that I'm also not too sure about the ethics of – and it's worth more money than just keeping a mistaken payoff every once in a great while. Yet, I willfully take part in this strategic, though morally debatable, practice on a regular basis. What is it?

Here's an example. A good blackjack player should know that whenever he's dealt a pair of 2s, 3s, 6s or 7s against a dealer's 2 or 3 up, he's an underdog whether he hits, stands or splits. Basic blackjack strategy says to split all those hands simply because that happens to be the play that loses the least. Nevertheless, those hands are statistical losers no matter how you play them.

So when I'm dealt one of those hands, I usually ask the table what they think I ought to do with it. Somebody practically always knows you should split, and is usually eager to offer that sage advice. That same somebody, however, never seems to realize that even the correct move is still a "moneyloser" rather than a "moneymaker". Then I'll ask that very person if he wants to go partners on my split.

After flaunting his blackjack prowess about a hand that looks pretty decent on the surface, he usually can't resist taking me up on my offer. Now, what I've done is relieve myself of half my financial liability on an overall losing hand.

I normally experience no guilt over "snookering" somebody this way, win or lose. It's well within the rules of the game and usually saves me money – albeit at another player's expense. After all, I rationalize, he would've never taken me up on my offer if he didn't think he was about to make money on my hand. Besides, these players are often the belligerent types who are constantly pointing out how they would've won their hand if I'd played mine according to their standards.

But the other night was different. I was playing with a well-dressed, businesslike woman who seemed to know her basic strategy cold. It didn't bother her one bit when I hit my 12 against a 3 – because she did too. She also hit her soft 18 against a 9 – both textbook plays. When I stood with 4/5/7 against a 10 and the dealer made 20 out of his 15 to beat us both, she didn't say boo. She was a real lady.

Soon, I was dealt 6/6 against the dealer's 3. "Are you supposed to split these?" I asked her quizzically. Without hesitation she nodded in the affirmative, murmuring, "Split against 2 through 6". So I popped the standard question, "You wanna' go partners on them?" She amiably slid me the chips and we did just that. One of the 6s turned into a double down and we proceeded to lose all three bets.

I was initially gratified that I'd saved myself one-and-a-half units on the hand, but this time I left the table feeling a little guilty. This nice lady wasn't criticizing people, she wasn't "quarterbacking" my hands after we saw how they turned out and I just didn't feel she should've been taken advantage of like that.

Since that "moral epiphany", I've toned down the "pawning off" of my losing pairs somewhat. Now, I'll usually just say to somebody, "Geez, I hate this hand. Would you split these?" After they reply in the affirmative, I'll pause and say something like, "Naw, I dunno. I usually lose my butt with these".

It's surprising how often this person will grab some chips and say, "Here, I'll split them with you." At that point, I'll assume he's trying to take advantage of my blackjack ignorance, and I'll share my underdog pair with him.

What's your take on the ethics of this play? E-mail me at Blackjack Ethics. I'll post some of your responses next month.

 

[Leaveawinner]

It must be a Holiday Special.

The point to the entire trip to the casino is to win money. Maybe pick up the wife.

As for ethics, I've broken the rules. I had A2 vs 3 and instead of doubling down, I hit and stayed. The guy next to me instead said that's a 4. I said "I understand" and places the matching chips in front of my stack. The dealer was pat, I lost my hand, and everyone but me and the 1st baseman won. I saved 30 bucks. The 1st baseman was pretty much chum anyway. I was only there for 1/2 a shoe.

When I was colored up I made the point that one of the stacks had an extra chip shorting me 5 backs. After what happened in a different post, am I being ploppy? Or am I being ploppy by broadcasting my successes and failure.

Happy New Year!

 

[Katweezel]

I have to go along with psyduck on this one. The rules of the game of regular blackjack state that you see the dealer's up-card, but not the down-card. You accept those rules when you sit down to play. The rules say nothing about how far down they deal, how much you can spread your bets, whether you can use your brain to keep track of the cards, etc.

Think about this in another light -- the game of poker.

1) If you're drawing to a diamond flush, would it be cheating to notice how many diamonds have been dealt thus far to better assess your odds? The played cards have been exposed for everyone to see. Would it be cheating to choose to play the pokerform in which the most cards are exposed, such as 7 Card Stud, so that you can assess your chances the most accurately?

2) If however, the player on your left does a shabby job of concealing his hole cards and you can see them with some effort, would it be cheating to keep silent and play against him with that unnatural advantage? If that's okay, would it be moral to slouch down in your seat to see his hole cards as often as possible. And if that's okay, would it be moral to try to only sit next to players who habitually flash their hole cards? And if that's okay, would it be moral to not play poker at all unless your opponent/s flash their hole cards, ala 3-Card Poker?? How should the other players view you if that's how you play?

I feel sure that somewhere along the way there, we have crossed over the line.

If the Casino industry in the United States was concerned at all about sloppy dealers (or other dealer 'errors' revealing hole cards,) I'd imagine they would have changed the rules long ago and adapted the Euro and Australian style where only one dealer card face up is dealt. I mean, that would seem to be a simple solution for them. But it seems they have no problem at all with the current practice. So perhaps I'm right in assuming they don't really mind a tiny minority of uh, adepts getting the odd free peek or two?

 

[Leaveawinner]

"STREAKS", like "LUCK", are purely chimerical.

They only exist AFTER the FACT, that is to say in the (unknown) future.
The future does not (YET) exist; so as such "STREAKS" and "LUCK" do not exist.

"STREAKS" and "LUCK" are merely convenient <?> misleading LABELS that we apply to observations that impress us,
but lure us away from empirical discoveries of mathematical foundations.

If I win a lottery I am lucky. If I am then killed (a moment or a year later) while trying to cash it, I am unlucky.

I cannot be both now, can I ?

Before the winning numbers were drawn I was not lucky, and before I was killed I was lucky !

A streak exists. Taking notes on the days play allows you to get a better idea of what just happened. And lets you add more labels to things. Dealer errors, men in suits, money saved. I keep a log. I don't go hand by hand details unless a situation came up. I even take notes on players actions and reactions. We are so ploppy and some of us jump on bad play every single time. Sorry.

I'm not here to make sure you win.

 

[StandardDeviant]

Streaks are for freaks...

A streak exists.

"Streaks" only exist in the past and have no predictive properties in BJ or other fair games involving chance.

I'm always amused by the people playing baccarat who so carefully track the streaks to make their next move. What a waste.

 

[Mr. T]

A question of blackjack ethics
15 June 2007
By Fred Renzey

Fred, if I can call you that. Here is my take. You are a well known Professional in BJ. There are certain trust and expectations expected of Professional, whether licensed or unlicensed..

For the Real Estate Professional and Attorney i.e. licenced Professionals, and non license Pro like you the difference is clear. If the RE Pro undersell his/her clent's property to his nominee and resell it at a higher price he would lose his license and go to jail.

For you the ethics is purely only a moral one, no legal case. You don't have a client per say. Only fellow players. You don't have an obligation to your fellow players. So it is just up to your conscience. With your superior knowledge should you take advantage of your fellow players.

My short answer is it all depends on your moral standard. I myself would not be inclined to take advantage of my less informed fellow players. But it is also mostly because I don't interact frequently with my follow players. And I am only a recreational player.

For the card counters the standard should be higher. For you Fred a BJ Pro the standard or bar is generally higher. Hope you are not disturbed by my views here.

 

[creeping panther]

Mr. Renzey

I have to go along with psyduck on this one. The rules of the game of regular blackjack state that you see the dealer's up-card, but not the down-card. You accept those rules when you sit down to play. The rules say nothing about how far down they deal, how much you can spread your bets, whether you can use your brain to keep track of the cards, etc.

Think about this in another light -- the game of poker.

1) If you're drawing to a diamond flush, would it be cheating to notice how many diamonds have been dealt thus far to better assess your odds? The played cards have been exposed for everyone to see. Would it be cheating to choose to play the pokerform in which the most cards are exposed, such as 7 Card Stud, so that you can assess your chances the most accurately?

2) If however, the player on your left does a shabby job of concealing his hole cards and you can see them with some effort, would it be cheating to keep silent and play against him with that unnatural advantage? If that's okay, would it be moral to slouch down in your seat to see his hole cards as often as possible. And if that's okay, would it be moral to try to only sit next to players who habitually flash their hole cards? And if that's okay, would it be moral to not play poker at all unless your opponent/s flash their hole cards, ala 3-Card Poker?? How should the other players view you if that's how you play?

I feel sure that somewhere along the way there, we have crossed over the line.

I am surprised that you even became involved in this thread.. on HC, if I were you I would have stayed out.

Now that you are in, I can understand your stance, it is a positive EV play.

I appreciate your postings and writting,, and your story of reverse scavenger plays was very interesting.

I also get a chuckle out of the "Midwest Player" articles and how you cloak your wording to never cross a certain line, or advocate a certain AP activity, I always appreciate that!

CP

 

[Bojack1]

I think with no question hole carding is neither cheating nor unethical. I will agree that blackjack is supposed to be played a certain way with the rules given. But if someone playing on either side of the game and does not fulfill there duty as to playing the game correctly or at a level of competence, it does not make it wrong to capitalize on it. If the rule is the dealer has an unseen holecard, yet in dealing flashes the card for a player to see, has a rule been broken by the player? I know for a fact the answer is no, so the question of cheating is answered. But is it ethical? I feel that it is absolutely correct to use any legal skill, which has already been established it is, to help the cause of any who are skilled enough to practically apply it.

I competed many years as a fighter. If another fighter came into the ring undertrained and out of shape and performed at a weak level, was I to lay down, take it easy, make it more of a level playing field? No I would beat this man without mercy and do the job to the best of my ability with the skills I trained for. It is nothing personal, I have no hate or even dislike toward the weaker opponent, its just being ethical about performing my own job. I cannot be concerned about weakening myself down to the level of others that are not as competent as they should be. It would be unethical to throw a fight, or even carry an opponent even if they are weaker. I feel the same way about hole carding. I will not dumb down my game because someone is not as competent at there job as they should be. I see how others opinions may differ, but I cannot agree that it is wrong to take advantage of weakness. It is what rules any competition, taking advantage of an opportunity is key in business and sports, and just about anything where others strive to beat one another in one form or another.

I believe it to be ethical as well as legal to glimpse a holecard of a dealer that is less than competent at their job. I find it just the opposite of pushing off losing hands on to weaker players through psychological entrapment. Entrapment is illegal, conning a player due to your disdain for them, is at the very least an unethical practice. If playing in such a way makes you feel guilty when you do it, especially when you feel a nice person doesn't deserve it, you should know for you its morally wrong. We are not judges or jurors at the table, its not for us to decide who deserves to be scammed into taking our losing hands and who does not. Like I said if you make your playing decisions based on the personalities of the other players at the table, and it brings you guilt at times, there is no need to ask whether if its right or wrong, you damn well know the answer.

 

[Renzey]

If you make your playing decisions based on the personalities of the other players at the table, and it brings you guilt at times, there is no need to ask whether its right or wrong, you damn well know the answer.

Bojack,
Thank you for your view. It will be considered in the heart. I also welcome all others.

Mr. T,
Actually, I am not a true professional player, but a scientifically fanatical amateur who plays a couple of times a week -- the way some people play golf.

P.S. -- What about observing a player who is flirting with the idea of perhaps doubling down with say, 10 vs. 9? Would it be immoral to encourage him to do it by offering to go halves with him?

By his doubling for only half, he will now actually net a smaller EV than by just hitting -- but you will pick up a +7% EV that you never would've had. These things can creep into a grayish ethical area, unless you resolve stay out of others' hands.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

The game rule allows the cut card to be placed at differrent depth. However, the rule disallows the hole card to be shown.

Not so. That's why I pointed out that this hypothetical casino has specifically trained their dealers to cut by notch and not use a dealer-dependent cut. This is the case in many casinos, in fact, and is even regulated across the board in some areas (AC). If you were in one of these casinos and knew a dealer gave better penetration than the casino had determined to be the rule, would you intentionally seek out this dealer, knowing that it's for the purpose of receiving more information than you're entitled to during correct operation of the game?

There are no "rules" in blackjack. Casinos will change these "rules" to take more money from their patrons in ways that the patrons may not even notice. Changing payouts from 3:2 to 6:5 or 7:5 (or 1:1!), no RSA, no LS, no DAS, D9, H17, no insurance, CSMs, ASMs to increase the rate at which players lose, and even.... no hole card! Now if the casinos can change virtually any aspect of the game, short of receiving two cards and playing up to 21, then why would the concept of playing by the "rules" be of such importance?

p.s. Sorry for derailing the thread!

 

[psyduck]

Not so. That's why I pointed out that this hypothetical casino has specifically trained their dealers to cut by notch and not use a dealer-dependent cut. This is the case in many casinos, in fact, and is even regulated across the board in some areas (AC). If you were in one of these casinos and knew a dealer gave better penetration than the casino had determined to be the rule, would you intentionally seek out this dealer, knowing that it's for the purpose of receiving more information than you're entitled to during correct operation of the game?

There are no "rules" in blackjack. Casinos will change these "rules" to take more money from their patrons in ways that the patrons may not even notice. Changing payouts from 3:2 to 6:5 or 7:5 (or 1:1!), no RSA, no LS, no DAS, D9, H17, no insurance, CSMs, ASMs to increase the rate at which players lose, and even.... no hole card! Now if the casinos can change virtually any aspect of the game, short of receiving two cards and playing up to 21, then why would the concept of playing by the "rules" be of such importance?

p.s. Sorry for derailing the thread!

Unless the casino puts a sign on the table stating the requirement for cut depth, I would have no idea what their requirement is and I would not ask either.

There ARE rules in BJ games. They are posted on the table and on big signs in the game area. As long as the rules are predetermined, as players we have the right to decide if we play or not. However, putting extra effort to break a predetermined rule to gain advantage is cheating in theory. Of course it is a different story if a player sits in a normal position and the dealer accidentally showed the hole card.

I understand casinos make unfavorable rules such as H17 or BJ pays 6 to 5. But as long as they are predetermined and made clear to the players, it is not cheating.

Again, I have nothing against hole card players. I am talking the theoretical aspect.

 

[kewljason]

Not so. That's why I pointed out that this hypothetical casino has specifically trained their dealers to cut by notch and not use a dealer-dependent cut. This is the case in many casinos, in fact, and is even regulated across the board in some areas (AC). If you were in one of these casinos and knew a dealer gave better penetration than the casino had determined to be the rule, would you intentionally seek out this dealer, knowing that it's for the purpose of receiving more information than you're entitled to during correct operation of the game?

The cut is regulated across the borad in AC?? Since when?? AC is very dealer dependent!

 

[daddybo]

Unless the casino puts a sign on the table stating the requirement for cut depth, I would have no idea what their requirement is and I would not ask either.

There ARE rules in BJ games. They are posted on the table and on big signs in the game area. As long as the rules are predetermined, as players we have the right to decide if we play or not. However, putting extra effort to break a predetermined rule to gain advantage is cheating in theory. Of course it is a different story if a player sits in a normal position and the dealer accidentally showed the hole card.

I understand casinos make unfavorable rules such as H17 or BJ pays 6 to 5. But as long as they are predetermined and made clear to the players, it is not cheating.

Again, I have nothing against hole card players. I am talking the theoretical aspect.

Along that Vein... I have yet to see a sign that says you can't look at the Hole Card if the dealer is showing it. As a mattter of a fact I have seen the dealer accidentally expose the whole card before servicing the players hands after the initial deal... The pit always instructs the dealer to continue play even though the hole card is known. So, by precedent it is ok.

And chiming in on Renzy's delimma of selling a poor hand to a player without the knowledge to know better... I don't do that... I personally consider that an unfair advantage by virtue of the fact the player has no legal or professional obligation to know better. (not judging.. just me) Now.. going in on a hand where they are about to screw up and help them salvage some EV... That's a different story. Also I nearly always point out payout errors by dealers... if nothing else it's positive EV..

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

The cut is regulated across the borad in AC?? Since when?? AC is very dealer dependent!

Sorry, that was poorly worded. Pen in AC used to be universal, along with the rules, number of decks, etc. back in the 70s, if I'm not mistaken. That part of my post definitely didn't make sense!

 

[psyduck]

Along that Vein... I have yet to see a sign that says you can't look at the Hole Card if the dealer is showing it.

Did I ever say one cannot look at the hole card if the dealer shows it to you?