The biggest taboo

[flyingwind]

Or if you like to spread more than $5 to $50? :laugh:

The two times it happened to me I was playing $25 table spreading to whatever, I think to $300 back then and I was bet restricted $5 to $50. This really confused the other players. :laugh: One woman kept saying why is he betting $5 at a $25 table? I just said "that's what the man told me? Was pretty funny for a minute, but if you stay more than one shoe then the cut the deck which confuses the other players even more. I don't know what they do next. Didn't stay after that. Should have just to see.

Flyer?

 

[aslan]

Resident genius required to figure this one

If you like to play more than half a shoe.:grin:

Discernible plus counts still occur in half shoes, although much less frequently. I wonder just how much more infrequently they occur in half shoes? Also, usually by the time you have enough information to wong out, the shoe is usually halfway depleted anyway, so you'd probably be there most of the half shoe anyway. The question is, how much more infrequently does the discernible plus count occur in a half shoe than in a 5/6 shoe or a 6.5/8 shoe? What spread would be necessary to play a +EV game, with wong out, to beat such a shoe, if any? 50 to 1? 100 to 1? 200 to 1? Imagine beating the AC half shoe without the need for camo! It would be great for as long as it lasted, that is, before they decided to cut out 4 of 6 decks to beat the newest strategy, or restricted your bet size as with kj. :laugh:

PS-- If they restrict your bet size, then they are treating you differently than all their other customers in a state that does not recognize card counting as something against which punitive action can be taken. It seems one would have a good court case from being denied the same rules as everyone else at the table.

 

[kewljason]

PS-- If they restrict your bet size, then they are treating you differently than all their other customers in a state that does not recognize card counting as something against which punitive action can be taken. It seems one would have a good court case from being denied the same rules as everyone else at the table.

In my (not legal) mind, preferential shuffling should be illegal as well. Alters the outcome of the game. If you shuffle away the good counts and only play negative, neutral counts, the house has a much larger advantage. Altering the outcome of the game is against the rules of almost every jurisdiction. I always thought that would make a good court case.

 

[kewljason]

Flyer?

No. Was the same store. happened a couple months apart with successful play in between. Just random events, as far as I could tell.

 

[aslan]

In my (not legal) mind, preferential shuffling should be illegal as well. Alters the outcome of the game. If you shuffle away the good counts and only play negative, neutral counts, the house has a much larger advantage. Altering the outcome of the game is against the rules of almost every jurisdiction. I always thought that would make a good court case.

Wasn't there a case about Mindplay, I think they called it, where it was deemed cheating for the house to shuffle whenever the electronic shoe indicated it was a plus count? Same difference?