The ethics of Wonging

[aslan]

i applaud the OP for considering the question.
such consideration imho indicates a grounding of respect and honor that is laudable. with such a grounding one may have a better vantage point for judging the wisdom of other kinds of situations, actions that may or may not have hidden 'pitfalls' with respect to morality hence possibly illegality.
law is a complex subject, something it can take years of academia to master and even then such masters can be corrupt or if not, burdened by moral riddles.
just me maybe, but i believe being sensitive to moral issues can afford one an efficient protection against the 'vagaries' and complexities of the law of the land.
far as the morality of wonging, uhmm, with me the jury is still out.
far as tax fairness, i'll go with rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Well, in actuality, legality has nothing at all to do with morality per se, except that if you don't obey the law you might wind up in the hoosegow. Thankfully, we applaud civil disobedience in this country, because it gives us an opportunity to voice our disapproval of laws that are in themselves immoral. Thank God that brave Americans broke the law in the 1950's and early 1960's years of forced segregation in this country. I hope I never live to see people forced to move to the rear of a public bus again simply on the basis of their skin color. Such customs were a disgusting practice and America had a lot to be ashamed of in those days.

PS--But please don't let the bad things that Americans do or have done, turn your attention away from all the great things we have done and stand for. No one is born a saint and that goes for countries, as well. Someday I hope to see a country that stands tall and proud of all it professes in its songs and mottoes, but until then I'll still remain proud of all it has done and stood up for in the past just like a father is proud of his daughter or son with all their imperfections.

PSS--I hope I hit all the rocks on that crossing! Sometimes a simple thought gets more and more convoluted the further you take it. :laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

Well, in actuality, legality has nothing at all to do with morality per se, except that if you don't obey the law you might wind up in the hoosegow. Thankfully, we applaud civil disobedience in this country, because it gives us an opportunity to voice our disapproval of laws that are in themselves immoral. Thank God that brave Americans broke the law in the 1950's and early 1960's years of forced segregation in this country. I hope I never live to see people forced to move to the rear of a public bus again simply on the basis of their skin color. Such customs were a disgusting practice and America had a lot to be ashamed of in those days.

errhh yeah about the hoosegow thing, exactly my point, i mean questions of morality may be a 'red flag' sorta thing, at least maybe providing an impulse for one to think and perhaps study long and hard (perhaps even look into the law) over certain matters before deciding to either take action or not.
the civil disobedience slant is another interesting side of the coin.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

Nope. In a fair world people making less than 30K wouldn't pay anything at all. But seriously, even if you're screwing over ploppies by wonging, they're better off there than at slots.

 

[aslan]

Nope. In a fair world people making less than 30K wouldn't pay anything at all. But seriously, even if you're screwing over ploppies by wonging, they're better off there than at slots.

That's a matter of opinion. Even if a person paid only $5, at least they would have some level of participation in the system. In a moral sense, their $5 might be equivalent to a billionaire's multimillion dollar tax contribution, or a middle class person's $20,000 (+-) contribution. I agree that at some level even $1 might be too much, but I believe you've set the threshold entirely too high. But also, in a fair world, the super rich are not required to pay their income down to a poverty level.

Here are some statistics (2007) (Dead link: http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/09/05/the-richest-10-pay-71-of-federal-income-taxes/

• The top-earning 50 percent of taxpayers ...paid 97.1 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 10 percent of taxpayers ...paid 71.2 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers ...paid 60.6 percent of total income taxes.
• The top-earning 1 percent of taxpayers ...paid 40.4 percent of total income taxes.

At the bottom of the income scale, the ...lowest-earning 50 percent of taxpayers ...paid 2.89 percent of total income taxes.
​

So many people want the rich to pay for everything, but not get a say in anything. They're d*mn near paying for everything now, so I don't begrudge them a big say in how the country is run. And like the fellow below, Jon Huntsman, you don't have to be born rich in this country to get rich.



I hope some of you saw the Glenn Beck show (I'm not advocating for Glenn Beck, but this was a good show I happened to tune in to) featuring Jon Huntsman, the "egg carton and plastic fork" billionaire (Dead link: http://www.theplancollection.com/house-plan-related-articles/jon-huntsman-on-glenn-beck

...Jon Hunstman is sort of a local legend in Utah. He is a man that started out poor as a child and became a billionaire. You know those egg cartons your eggs come in, or the disposable plastic forks, knifes and spoons that you use all the time? Apparently his company invented products like that years ago. I've included the link so that you can read the entire article for yourself. This is a man that basically lost 200 million dollars on a business deal because he had given his word by handshake 6 months earlier and felt it was wrong to re-negotiate when he had already committed to a price. The buyer even wanted to renegotiate. I'm sure there are a lot of people that think he is crazy, but it's very admirable to me that he was so adamant about keeping his word and upholding his integrity that he would not re-negotiate. Later when the buyer passed on he had asked that Jon Hunstman speak at his funeral because he was so impressed with his integrity.
These days, Jon Huntsman is spending the fortune that he has built over the years to research and find a cure for cancer. We've been to the Hunstman Center for treatments and it is trueley [sic] a state of the art facility. We all need to support a guy like Mr. Hunstman that stands up for integrity and doing the right thing. But even more, I think it would be wise to support his foundation or other cancer research foundations. Here is a man that lived the American dream going from rags to riches - but now he's giving it all back. Researching cancer is expensive, and even a billionaire can't fund it forever. I think if everyone knew what it felt like to have cancer, or be the parent or loved one who has cancer, we'd all be a lot more interested in finding a cure.

This guy, like Andrew Carnegie, feels it a shame if he dies with a penny to his name. He is well on his way toward giving it all to charity.
​

I had to bring this story up because of the current demonization of rich people. Not every rich man is motivated by greed. The current feeding of the flames of class warfare (I won't mention names) is dishonest and unwarranted. The focus should be more on how we spend all the money we collect (mostly from the rich) responsibly and not on trying to squeeze even more out of them.

Lastly, you are not screwing over ploppies by wonging in, you are doing what every ploppy believes you should do, that is, play your best game strategy and hope to win. They do what they believe will make them win (except studying the game), and they would not begrudge you for doing what you believe is best. Many of my friends know that I am a consistent winner and that I count cards, yet not one has ever asked me to help them with their game (and I have offered). They are lazy and comfortable with the prospect of trying to get lucky against a house advantage. If a person is not willing to help himself, he deserves what he gets.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

The rich used to pay a lot more in tax and people of lower middle incomes didn't pay any. This worked great because business owners would withdraw less money for themselves and prefer to invest in their business (and create jobs) further rather than subject themselves to extremely high tax rates.

But you give the rich tax cuts, and they will just squirrel away more money that benefits nobody except themselves.

Also you get rid of taxes for poorer people and you'd also have more rich people in all likelihood. You give a lower middle class person a lower tax rate and he spends it, stimulating the economy and creating jobs. You give a rich man a lower tax rate he squirrels it away; he can already buy whatever he wants anyway.

Furthermore, you don't have to be born rich to be rich, but it sure helps. A child of poor parents faces an immense amount of barriers to being rich people who are born into privilege do not.

I am not trying to incite class warfare here, just saying that in this country the very top controls such an insane proportion of the wealth and it is becoming harder and harder to eke out a middle class living for the average joe, it just makes sense.

This thread is derailed :whip:

 

[21gunsalute]

The rich used to pay a lot more in tax and people of lower middle incomes didn't pay any. This worked great because business owners would withdraw less money for themselves and prefer to invest in their business (and create jobs) further rather than subject themselves to extremely high tax rates.

But you give the rich tax cuts, and they will just squirrel away more money that benefits nobody except themselves.

Also you get rid of taxes for poorer people and you'd also have more rich people in all likelihood. You give a lower middle class person a lower tax rate and he spends it, stimulating the economy and creating jobs. You give a rich man a lower tax rate he squirrels it away; he can already buy whatever he wants anyway.

Furthermore, you don't have to be born rich to be rich, but it sure helps. A child of poor parents faces an immense amount of barriers to being rich people who are born into privilege do not.

I am not trying to incite class warfare here, just saying that in this country the very top controls such an insane proportion of the wealth and it is becoming harder and harder to eke out a middle class living for the average joe, it just makes sense.

This thread is derailed :whip:

This is so far from reality I don't even know where to begin. You give a rich person a tax break and he buys things like houses, cars, boats, etc., stuff that really boosts the economy. And it's the rich people who own the businesses. Give them tax breaks and they can hire more people and start more businesses. Tax them more and they lay off people and/or go out of business.

Give poor people a tax break and they may buy an extra box of maccaroni and cheese or waste it on cigarets and booze. These purchases may help the economy somewhat, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the rich people can contribute to the economy.

And no, I'm not a rich man. Far, far from it in fact.

 

[aslan]

The tendency in business is to make fewer persons do more and more work when things get tough, or look like they may get tough, in the future. This means fewer jobs and less business expansion. When it looks like tax burdens will ease or remain eased, businesses are more likely to hire and to expand their products and services, if there is a market for them. If no one is buying, businesses have no reason to expand, and with no new hires, the demand for products is not likely to increase. It becomes a vicious cycle. Also, the President's extension of unemployment benefits tends to reduce the number of people seriously seeking to go back to work.

 

[zengrifter]

We Wong in during good counts, or sometimes play two hands. We Wong out during bad counts. We do this because it gives us an advantage. We play more hands when the deck is in our favor, and less when it is against us.

I don't think it's too far of a jump to say that this effects the players around us. When we play two hands instead of one, or one instead of zero we are using more of a good deck. When we wong out we are counting on the rest of the players to "eat" the bad cards so we can come back to a fresh shoe. They end up playing more hands in bad decks, and less in good ones.

I started thinking about this when I was getting chewed out by a player for entering and leaving the shoe. His arguement was that I was hurting the table by altering the flow of cards, which I know is bunk. I now believe he was right that I was hurting the table, but for the wrong reason. I think Wonging slightly lowers the rest of the table's expected value. Do you agree? Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

Absolutely -
Wonging does actually hurt the civilian players, as does systematically increasing #hands in +counts. zg

 

[Thunder]

It becomes a vicious cycle. Also, the President's extension of unemployment benefits tends to reduce the number of people seriously seeking to go back to work.

Aslan, most people in our area can not live off unemployment. They give a ridiculously low amount. I know MD only gives a maximum of $1500/month and that's before taxes. Yes, they tax unemployment lol or at least they used to lol. Also you can only get unemployment if you were laid off from a job. If you quit or were fired, you're not elgible.

 

[aslan]

Aslan, most people in our area can not live off unemployment. They give a ridiculously low amount. I know MD only gives a maximum of $1500/month and that's before taxes. Yes, they tax unemployment lol or at least they used to lol. Also you can only get unemployment if you were laid off from a job. If you quit or were fired, you're not elgible.

Correct. Those who are higher income brackets can hardly be expected to survive on $18,000 a year, but the large number of people who normally live on low income amounts can.

In 2009, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,161; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,756. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_level
​

There are many people who work at the minimum wage or not far above it. When faced with going back to work as a security guard, on McDonald's worker, or house cleaner, or whatever at $8, $9 and $10 an hour, a person thinks twice about it. Collecting unemployment, they do not have to worry about work-related expenses, and they have ALL their time free to enjoy or to work under-the-radar jobs to supplement their unemployment checks.

Those who dependent on higher levels of income are more likely to work hard at becoming re-employed. The $18,000 a year only supplements their living off savings. But these same people will often refuse a job making $15,000 to $30,000 because it doesn't make a big difference and because it ties up their time. If they have plenty saved, it ties up their free time and if they don't, it keeps them from pursuing the level job they once had. And those close to retirement anyway will ride it out on unemployment as long as they can. Whether they can collect both Social Security and Unemployment, I don't know.

Anyway, bottom line, all I am saying is that extension of unemployment for a third year puts a downward pressure on the employment rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_level#cite_note-Poverty_Thresholds_2009-4​

 

[prankster]

I'm thinking this thread should come to a screaming halt right about here. Bottom line as I see it: if wonging makes you feel guilty or immoral or whatever,dont wong! If you're o.k. with wonging,wong. :joker:

 

[prankster]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

Good point! I used to think about fair/unfair alot-then I read about a guy who was on his couch watching television and got hit by an airplane!:joker::joker:

 

[apex]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

Think what you want about taxes, but there is nothing we can do about it. Id say this is way different than income taxes because in this case we are making a choice that is directly benefiting us, and hurting others.

I guess for me, I will not concern myself when wonging out of tables where many people are flat betting the min. On the other hand, if I wind up at a $10 table with just one other person, who is betting $50-$100 and is pleasant to be around, I will at least feel slightly bad if I do decide to Wong out. I will probably try to calculate the extra expected loss I have burdoned him with as I kill time. Many good points have been made arguing that we shouldn't worry about it at all, but I think it is something to at least fleetingly consider.

 

[sagefr0g]

such is life

Absolutely -
Wonging does actually hurt the civilian players, as does systematically increasing #hands in +counts. zg

yup:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/othereffects1.htm
& this:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/othereffects2.htm
whatever, this sorta situation is rife in the world, lol.
as i remember it, first came micky D's, then burger king and wendy's, the US was making cars, seems Japan reverse engineered and re-engineered, and oh yeah cow birds lay their eggs in sparrows nests and crocodiles do well when watering holes shrink during the dry season, lol.

 

[alwayssplitaces]

There's nothing wrong with wonging out during - counts or spreading to 2 hands in + counts. The ploppies came to the casino expecting to lose and have fun doing so (which is the whole point of casinos -- entertainment).

 

[prankster]

Hi apex-
I guess you could feel guilty about counting cards-benefits you "hurts" others? Basic strategy? In a single deck game you're playing even with the house-you've intentionally taken away the house edge. Is that fair to the casino? They have bills to pay,salaries, etc. It can be easy to feel guilty-some institutions thrive on it! Good cards!:joker:

 

[blackchipjim]

Feelings?

I've seen table hoppers before in force before but they were not hopping for any reason other than changing thier luck. They would jump in at low counts or out at high counts because they weren't catching any hands not because of the count. It did piss alot of people off at alot of the tables but I don't think it helped the hopper's bottome line. I would only do it under certain conditions and at joints where I'm visiting and not in my regular haunts for obvious reasons. There is no such thing as ethics when you are playing to win.

 

[aslan]

I've seen table hoppers before in force before but they were not hopping for any reason other than changing thier luck. They would jump in at low counts or out at high counts because they weren't catching any hands not because of the count. It did piss alot of people off at alot of the tables but I don't think it helped the hopper's bottome line. I would only do it under certain conditions and at joints where I'm visiting and not in my regular haunts for obvious reasons. There is no such thing as ethics when you are playing to win.

Hey, BCJ, there is always ethics, but wonging in and out is not an ethical question. If ploppies went to the trouble of getting a blackjack education, we could all wong in and out in unison! (Wouldn't that be the greatest "tell" of all time!) But as it is, they are getting the bang (or lack of bang) for their buck they deserve.

It's the same at the workplace. All those people who bothered to get the education that best fit their chosen career are moving up the ladder faster than their ignorant fellow employees who didn't bother to do the school time. Are the educated employees being unethical because they can do the job better? No. True, the educated workers do have an advantage, but it isn't an unfair advantage--they worked for it. It is not unethical to make the best of your talents even if it means leaving others in the dust.

In the field of blackjack, there is no excuse for not having the proper education. Anyone can Google blackjack on the Internet and discover what it takes to become an advantage player. It is not a carefully guarded secret. A couple of books and the requisite hours of practice would make them competitive at the tables.

So don't even give it a second thought when you do whatever is legal and in your best interest to gain an advantage at the tables. You aim is not to hurt anyone, even though some do get hurt incidental to your strategy against the house. Your aim is first, to protect yourself from the predatory casino, and second, to turn the tables and make the casino the prey instead of yourself. Blackjack is not a team sport (in the usual sense). It's every man* for himself.

*In this context, a BP/spotter team is like a corporation and constitutes a "man" (i.e., a corporate person). :grin:

 

[apex]

Well said. I guess I am finally sold.