vpFREE2 Forums

LVRJ - Attorney sues casinos for using blackjack card counting system

#21

The problem that I

have with "Mindplay" is that it is SECRET. The casinos do not
disclose to the players that early shuffling increases the edge on
negative expectation players.

The casino can "loosen" their Blackjack games to shuffle up

when the count is +10 WITHOUT DISCLOSING THIS TO PLAYERS. Then, the
casino can "tighten" their Blackjack games to shuffle up when the
count is +5, again WITHOUT DISCLOSING THIS TO PLAYERS.

IMO, any player who is reasonably familiar with even basic strategy
should "strongly suspect" what is going on. Why else would a dealer
be shuffling with an unusually-high proportion of deck remaining?

And, situation will be obvious to those who actually count.

#22

Hate to do it but unfortunately I think that Harry is
probably correct and that Mindplay will become more
common except for an aspect of it that might effect
it.
Besides it's abilities to alert the casino to negative
expectations on the remaining cards and it's ability
to analyse players alerting the casino of counters,
the ability that the casino says is the real reason
they are using it, properly comping players by
accuratley recording every cent bet, is a reason they
had trouble with Mindplay at the LVH.

Regular players already think they have figured out
how to get the max in comps. They might bet big when
the pit is watching. If the pit was busy and comes to
the table later (perhaps after a dealer change) they
might ask if they had recorded the other buy ins they
made to their players card or something to that
effect. With Mindplay, none of this works so the
regular thinks he is being shorted but this might
effect their hold but the real problem was with the
pit.
The pit, busy watching fills, payouts, buy ins,
dealers, players, filling out comp slips, doing player
evaluations, getting markers etc etc, finds that
Mindplay can watch the payouts, buy ins, evaluate the
players and figure the comps. The result, if Mindplay
works you can fire half your pit staff, or at least
many who work in the pit fear the possibility. There
were many "kinks in the system and mechanical
breakdowns" at the Hilton and perhaps the pit had a
hand in this.

Finally, I have not heard of an instance where in a
shoe game, they shuffled up before the cut card came
out.

Victoria

#23

I feel the commission will rubber stamp just about
anything casinos want.
That said, we are currently in the era of gaming (not
gambling). The corporate beancounters need a way to
extract more profit out of every aspect of their
business and the one game that bothers them the most
is blackjack. Sure, the number of actually
competetant counters who can win is so small that they
are unimportant and the number who can bet big enough
to have any effect on the bottom line is even much
smaller, still they feel they need to close up this
possibility. In reality all they really need to do
(not easy though) is protect themselves against teams
that can hurt their profits. At the same time these
same beancounters feel that they are giving too much
away in comps. Mindplay not only helps solve these
two problems but also will reduce the possibility of a
lucky non counter winning (if they shuffle early) and
can create a game that in all situations has a
negative expectation for the players. (One difference
perhaps not understood by non counters on this board
is that when the shoe goes positive it favors all
players, not just counters. The difference between
the counter and other players is that the counter
knows this and takes advantage of it).
The ultimate goal is to change every game in the house
to a slot machine type game. So you have the new
carnival games, the reduction in good VP, and of
course 6/5 blackjack.
There is one glaring fault that I see in the
beancounter philosopy; people will play Let it Ride,
bad VP, roullette, keno,and slots and might even know
it is a bad odds game. They play it because there is
that possibility of the big jackpot! For your $5 bet
on a dollar VP machine you could get $4,000, a bigger
payout on Let it Ride or you could place $5 on a 6/5
table and get a natural for the whopping jackpot of a
whole $6 or a Mindplay table and cash in a fortune of
$7.50. They would kill regular blackjack (they may
want too anyway) and replace it with somethings
similar to the super fun type with it's jackpots. The
blackjack hold is down in Nevada and I do not think
that these corporate types realize yet that people
play bad games because of the hope of the big payday
and all that Mindplay will do is hasten the
destruction of normal blackjack and not make them any
more money.

#24

I realize that I'm continuing a thread that might be considered off-
topic for a video poker list, but I think the issues here are
important for all casino patrons, and there have been some insightful
posts made in this thread.

While we'll have to await the interpretation of the courts as this
case progresses, there's little doubt in my mind that this particular
use of the MindPlay technology should be prohibited. Preferential
shuffling is exactly the same statistically as removing some of the
face cards and Aces from the deck.

In video poker (or any other game that is "representative of live
gambling games"), the Nevada statutes specify that "the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome
must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or
element occurring in the live gambling game."

Permitting preferential shuffling in the live game of blackjack
certainly goes against the intent of that statement. If this use of
MindPlay is allowed, consider this: Can a shuffle be arbitrarily
discarded because too many face cards and Aces will be dealt? Back
to VP: What if the video poker games check the density of high cards
in the first ten cards on the top of the deck, and discard the deck
and shuffle again if the ratio is too high.

In my mind, it's the same exact thing. And, I can see the argument
made to justify it using the exact statue quoted above, if a MindPlay-
preferential-shuffled game is a legal "live gambling game".

Go get 'em Bob N.
Ken Smith http://www.blackjackinfo.com

#25

...

"'(The dealers) shuffle up whenever the count goes positive over

and

above a certain criteria. It's universal there and the dealers

aren't

all competent card counters, so it's obvious they are getting

outside

information," he said.'"

"'People in the casino, such as shift managers and surveillance,

can

call up what's going on in the game and signal the dealer (to
reshuffle). There are read-outs in the casino," Nersesian said.

Other players who asked not to be named said casinos place a light
under the blackjack table that dealers can see to alert them when

to

reshuffle the deck because the odds are turning against the house."

  If the casinos use this software to prematurely shuffle when the
count would be favorable to player but not otherwise, this would
adversly affect all players not just counters, as other posters have
pointed out.

  Furthermore this would not be much different from a hypothetical
roulette software that evaluated the bet field, and had a strobe
light and computer monitering the wheel's velocity and position. The
program could flash a light as to when the dealer should initiate
his toss (the programs would know the toss velocity for each dealer)
so as to maximize the ball landing in a quaterant of the wheel with
the least action. If that is not cheating, I don't know what is. To
allow it because a casino is not a person would be over legalistic
and eventualy contrary to Nevada's long term gaming interests.

David

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ozymandias77096" <ugwf@h...> wrote:

#26

In the mid 70s Ken Uston and one his teams developed a computer they
called "George". Some how they were able to input info from switches
in their shoes. They operated the switches with their toes and
computer made abd signaled the player how he should play. As I
recall the story, they raised winning sessions from 50-60% to as high
as 80% winning sessions. It was like a money machine for them untill
they got caught with computers. I guess FBI and others studied
computer and decided it wasn't a cheating device; at that time. After
this, laws were passed against the use of computers to help player
play. Computers were ruled cheating devices. Again, if I got the
facts straight.

Here's the deal. If computer assisted play is a cheating device when
player uses, so is computer when house uses it. It doesn't matter if
house is using it to award comps or know when to deal again, I think
it's a cheating device. I think they can use computer to count total
coin in as in vp or average bet as in bj. But not use computer to
evaluate play in order to adjust comps or eject players. But, I'm
just a customer and in most places today customer is always wrong. Of
course they may have the laws amended to read "players can't use
computers but house can".

Just an extra thought....Jeep
.
.

> "'(The dealers) shuffle up whenever the count goes positive over
and
> above a certain criteria. It's universal there and the dealers
aren't
> all competent card counters, so it's obvious they are getting
outside
> information," he said.'"
>
> "'People in the casino, such as shift managers and surveillance,
can
> call up what's going on in the game and signal the dealer (to
> reshuffle). There are read-outs in the casino," Nersesian said.
>
> Other players who asked not to be named said casinos place a

light

> under the blackjack table that dealers can see to alert them when
to
> reshuffle the deck because the odds are turning against the

house."

>
>
>

  If the casinos use this software to prematurely shuffle when the
count would be favorable to player but not otherwise, this would
adversly affect all players not just counters, as other posters

have

pointed out.

  Furthermore this would not be much different from a hypothetical
roulette software that evaluated the bet field, and had a strobe
light and computer monitering the wheel's velocity and position.

The

program could flash a light as to when the dealer should initiate
his toss (the programs would know the toss velocity for each

dealer)

···

so as to maximize the ball landing in a quaterant of the wheel with
the least action. If that is not cheating, I don't know what is. To
allow it because a casino is not a person would be over legalistic
and eventualy contrary to Nevada's long term gaming interests.

David

#27

Link to the complaint:

http://bj21.com/allen_vs_nevada/complaint.html

When I get a link to the actual suit, I'll post.

Here is the link to the NRS:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> hockeystl wrote:
> > NRS 463.0171 "Licensee" means any PERSON to whom a valid gaming
> > license, manufacturer's, seller's or distributor's license or
pari-
> > mutuel wagering license has been issued...
>
> As preface, I'm not trying to nitpick over the language ... just
> trying to better to understand the specifics. And if it should
appear
> I'm nitpicking, or otherwise being annoying, just ignore this

post.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "hockeystl" <vegasstl@c...> wrote:

>
> Was "licensee" specifically used in the regs detailing the
prohibition
> against using a device to determine the outcome of a game in
advance?
>
> - H.

#28

hockeystl wrote:

Link to the complaint:

http://bj21.com/allen_vs_nevada/complaint.html

Making a very unqualified interpretation of this complaint, I find it
very weak. Here's a list of the provisions in the statues which are
deemed violated:

465.075
465.080(2)(b),(3)
465.085(1),(3)
465.088 (activities above are felonies)

···

------

The lynchpin of these is:

NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities. It is
unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or
possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:

      1. In projecting the outcome of the game;
      2. In keeping track of the cards played;
      3. In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event
relating to the game; or
      4. In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used
in the game,

Êxcept as permitted by the Commission.
(Added to NRS by 1985, 970)

------

Now, nowhere in the statute is there a specific definition of "any
person". This leaves room for the interpretation that it was intended
to apply to non-employees -- rather to patrons, etc. only. The
context in which the phrase "any person" is applied elsewhere in the
statute would support this.

However, even if this interpretation is cast aside, the text "Except
as permitted by the Commission" is a glaring loophole. If these
devices were approved by the Commission in some fashion, then this
section of the statute isn't violated.

------

Concerning the other statutes cited in the complaint, I read them as
all resting on the interpreation of 465.075 noted above:

465.080(2)(b), in short, states it's unlawful to use a device the
violates the provision of cp. 465.
-- 465.075 is the only provision I see cited specifically in this
complaint, and from I see, is the only provision that potentially
applies. If the equipment should be deemed compliant with 465.075,
then this section isn't violated.

465.080(3), in short, states that it's unlawful for any person, not
acting in the capacity as a licensee employee, to possess any device
intended to be used to violate cp. 465.
-- This would not appear to be applicable to the complaint.

465.085(1), in short, states that it's unlawful to manufacture, well,
or distribute any device violating any provision of cp. 465.
-- Again, if the equipment is compliant with 465.075, the section
isn't violated.

465.085(3), in short, states that it's unlawful to instruct a person
in the use of a device violating 465.
-- This complaint again rests with the interpretation of 465.075.

465.088 simply defines these acts as felonies.

------

So, take this post for what it's worth -- I'm merely a financial
analyst with a couple of basic business law courses under my belt.

But I see the "Exception" provision of 465.075 as pretty much
invalidating the complaint should it be the case that in some manner
the Gaming Commission approved this equipment for use in Nevada.

- Harry

#29

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth R. Smith" <kensmith@b...>

Ken,

Good post. One of your lines finally crystalized this item for me;

"Preferential shuffling is exactly the same statistically as
removing some of the face cards and Aces from the deck."

#30

What just might happen.
The rubber stamps, oops I mean the Nevada Gaming Commission, the
Nevada Courts, etc, will let Mindplay fly with the express promise
by the casinos that they will not use the machines ability in order
to shuffle up early.
Months down the road there will be a major story where some big name
hotel (think Venitian) had a shift manager or someone who did in
fact use this aspect of the devices ability. The manager will be
fired (to be hired shortly later by some out of Nevada Casino), the
casino will be fined (more money for the coffers of Nevada) and
every single player who was screwed will get absolutely NOTHING!

Victoria

#31

Ever the optimist, eh, Victoria?

carlos

···

Victoria Rosado <ros4144@yahoo.com> wrote:

What just might happen.
The rubber stamps, oops I mean the Nevada Gaming Commission, the
Nevada Courts, etc, will let Mindplay fly with the express promise
by the casinos that they will not use the machines ability in order
to shuffle up early.
Months down the road there will be a major story where some big name
hotel (think Venitian) had a shift manager or someone who did in
fact use this aspect of the devices ability. The manager will be
fired (to be hired shortly later by some out of Nevada Casino), the
casino will be fined (more money for the coffers of Nevada) and
every single player who was screwed will get absolutely NOTHING!

Victoria

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#32

Carlos

Did you spell realist wrong.

Victoria

···

--- Carlos Lebron <calebr0n@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ever the optimist, eh, Victoria?

carlos

Victoria Rosado <ros4144@yahoo.com> wrote:

What just might happen.
The rubber stamps, oops I mean the Nevada Gaming
Commission, the
Nevada Courts, etc, will let Mindplay fly with the
express promise
by the casinos that they will not use the machines
ability in order
to shuffle up early.
Months down the road there will be a major story
where some big name
hotel (think Venitian) had a shift manager or
someone who did in
fact use this aspect of the devices ability. The
manager will be
fired (to be hired shortly later by some out of
Nevada Casino), the
casino will be fined (more money for the coffers of
Nevada) and
every single player who was screwed will get
absolutely NOTHING!

Victoria

vpFREE Links:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]

#33

Here is the last sentence from the company web page describing the
blackjack system. This is a quote...

"Maximize your Comp awards by really knowing your players skill and
advantage to the game."

That part about "really knowing your players...advantage to the
game" sounds a lot like they're trying to monitor the house and/or
player's edge, doesn't it?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001"
<krajewski.sa@p...> wrote:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth R. Smith" <kensmith@b...>

Ken,

Good post. One of your lines finally crystalized this item for me;

"Preferential shuffling is exactly the same statistically as
removing some of the face cards and Aces from the deck."