4 ms·

> But part of me worried that I wasn’t seen as enough of a threat to warrant intervention from casino management. Maybe it meant that I wasn’t as good at this a

by umvi 7y ago

> But part of me worried that I wasn’t seen as enough of a threat to warrant intervention from casino management. Maybe it meant that I wasn’t as good at this as I thought. Maybe I didn’t belong with the team after all. She felt like because she never got caught, she "wasn't good enough"? How does that make any sense? I get self confidence issues are often irrational but, c'mon... That's like a criminal lamenting that they weren't a very good criminal because the police could never catch them; everyone knows real criminals get caught and arrested.

learnstats2 7y ago
There's a layer that you're missing, I think. If you cheat, and cheat badly, it's often the case that the casino has noticed and is choosing to let you continue. Almost everyone who sits at a high stakes blackjack table thinks they have a system for beating the casino (perhaps by breaking the rules), but in most cases their system doesn't work or they don't execute it well enough to make a consistent profit. If it's profitable for the casino to allow this type of cheating, they will absolutely let it continue. I once sat at a table with someone blatantly marking every card that passed through his hand, but not in a way that gave him a hope of profit. The dealer was clearly aware of him doing it, and play continued. (I was quick to leave that table)
- nathanlied 7y ago
  Adding to this as someone who has mingled with people that worked at some casinos: if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. On the other hand, if you're winning a lot, you will get A LOT of scrutiny and extra measures, and if you're cheating, you'll probably get caught. This is likely why she had that level of nagging doubt. "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny? Certainly if I was that good they'd have figured out what I'm doing and busted me?"
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    >if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. That's a really good point. Casinos aren't a windfall business. They're there to rake the 1% advantage on blackjack. It's important to have people at the tables moving money, not to have 1 person lose their $100k nest egg in 12 hours.
    - rlucas 7y ago
      I disagree. Although I'm not in the business, my understanding from wide reading in the topic is quite the opposite. Casinos make money from "whales," who may or may not end up ruined to a man, but who are certainly losing enough money to ruin an average bettor. The guy losing $500 at BJ once in a while (and once in a blue moon winning some back) is the "economy coach class super saver" flyer. Yes, enough of those small fry help defray the fixed costs of the flight. But it's the last minute business class flyer that brings the margin. Similarly, the real money for the casino is in some mix of 1. problem gamblers, almost by definition, and 2. money laundering.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny?" I didn't really understand this bit from her, though. Her position in the team was not to win a lot, but to bet consistently, probably overall slowly bleed money, and signal the Big Player to come over when the count was favorable. "Not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny" is literally her role in the team.
- lisper 7y ago
  > I once sat at a table with someone blatantly marking every card that passed through his hand, I find this hard to believe. I've been to a lot of casinos and I've never seen a blackjack table where the players were allowed to touch the cards.
  - bdavis__ 7y ago
    single deck allows it.
    - lisper 7y ago
      Heh, whaddya know. I didn't realize single-deck was so radically different. No shoe, cards dealt face-down. Is there a point to the face-down deal? Is there a change in the game rules that makes the secrecy of your hand relevant?
      - kelnos 7y ago
        If you play face-up with a single deck, and have a bunch of other people at the table, you can see more of what cards are already dealt, and can get a better idea of the chances of getting particular cards if you hit.
        lisper 7y ago
        Ah. (Duh!)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  But this doesn't explain much, because in the case of counting cards for blackjack at a casino, there's a very simple and straightforward metric for whether you're doing it well. Are you making money or losing money?
  - learnstats2 7y ago
    Of course it's true that you can measure your success by your bank balance. However, it's worth noting that gambling intentionally has a very high variance - it's part of the addiction mechanism that losing players often win a little and occasionally win large amounts. Successful card counters will also have their bank punctuated by winning and losing streaks. It's only in the long-term that you will be able to tell if you're making money.
CalChris 7y ago
Nobody goes to jail unless they want to, unless they make themselves get caught. Henry Hill, Goodfellas

by umvi 7y ago

learnstats2 7y ago

There's a layer that you're missing, I think. If you cheat, and cheat badly, it's often the case that the casino has noticed and is choosing to let you continue. Almost everyone who sits at a high stakes blackjack table thinks they have a system for beating the casino (perhaps by breaking the rules), but in most cases their system doesn't work or they don't execute it well enough to make a consistent profit. If it's profitable for the casino to allow this type of cheating, they will absolutely let it continue. I once sat at a table with someone blatantly marking every card that passed through his hand, but not in a way that gave him a hope of profit. The dealer was clearly aware of him doing it, and play continued. (I was quick to leave that table)

nathanlied 7y ago
Adding to this as someone who has mingled with people that worked at some casinos: if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. On the other hand, if you're winning a lot, you will get A LOT of scrutiny and extra measures, and if you're cheating, you'll probably get caught. This is likely why she had that level of nagging doubt. "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny? Certainly if I was that good they'd have figured out what I'm doing and busted me?"
- bluntfang 7y ago
  >if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. That's a really good point. Casinos aren't a windfall business. They're there to rake the 1% advantage on blackjack. It's important to have people at the tables moving money, not to have 1 person lose their $100k nest egg in 12 hours.
  - rlucas 7y ago
    I disagree. Although I'm not in the business, my understanding from wide reading in the topic is quite the opposite. Casinos make money from "whales," who may or may not end up ruined to a man, but who are certainly losing enough money to ruin an average bettor. The guy losing $500 at BJ once in a while (and once in a blue moon winning some back) is the "economy coach class super saver" flyer. Yes, enough of those small fry help defray the fixed costs of the flight. But it's the last minute business class flyer that brings the margin. Similarly, the real money for the casino is in some mix of 1. problem gamblers, almost by definition, and 2. money laundering.
- kelnos 7y ago
  > "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny?" I didn't really understand this bit from her, though. Her position in the team was not to win a lot, but to bet consistently, probably overall slowly bleed money, and signal the Big Player to come over when the count was favorable. "Not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny" is literally her role in the team.
lisper 7y ago
> I once sat at a table with someone blatantly marking every card that passed through his hand, I find this hard to believe. I've been to a lot of casinos and I've never seen a blackjack table where the players were allowed to touch the cards.
- bdavis__ 7y ago
  single deck allows it.
  - lisper 7y ago
    Heh, whaddya know. I didn't realize single-deck was so radically different. No shoe, cards dealt face-down. Is there a point to the face-down deal? Is there a change in the game rules that makes the secrecy of your hand relevant?
    - kelnos 7y ago
      If you play face-up with a single deck, and have a bunch of other people at the table, you can see more of what cards are already dealt, and can get a better idea of the chances of getting particular cards if you hit.
      - lisper 7y ago
        Ah. (Duh!)
thaumasiotes 7y ago
But this doesn't explain much, because in the case of counting cards for blackjack at a casino, there's a very simple and straightforward metric for whether you're doing it well. Are you making money or losing money?
- learnstats2 7y ago
  Of course it's true that you can measure your success by your bank balance. However, it's worth noting that gambling intentionally has a very high variance - it's part of the addiction mechanism that losing players often win a little and occasionally win large amounts. Successful card counters will also have their bank punctuated by winning and losing streaks. It's only in the long-term that you will be able to tell if you're making money.

CalChris 7y ago

Nobody goes to jail unless they want to, unless they make themselves get caught. Henry Hill, Goodfellas