PEEKERS are CHEATERS

This is a legitimate topic for this page, and the discussion can be an interesting one. Would it be possible to confine the discussion to the issue and refrain from making personal comments about the poster, such as allegations of drug use? Then, posts that have good points would not have to be busted when they diverge into the personal.

The same could be said of Trump. You can allege a practice is cheating without calling any specific poster a cheater.

Thanks for your consideration. :-)

Hole-card readers are simply folks who have learned how to take advantage of a dealer's mistakes. The dealer offers them the information and they use it. Unless they are in collusion with the dealer, this isn't cheating.

Consider other contests. Look at baseball. The catcher signals the pitcher as to what pitch he should make. The opposing team has a guy on second base who can read the catcher's signals. He then signals the batter what pitch he should expect to see. Is this cheating? No one in professional baseball would say that it is. The same thing applies when someone in the dugout has figured out the signals the other team's third base coach makes to the baserunners or to the batters.

Football is another example. There are myriad ways in which a team can expose its strategy to its rival. Should the rival team simply ignore these inadvertant tips and play as if it knew nothing about what was about to happen? That would be a stupid thing to do and no coach who failed to act on this information would last very long.

Now lets come back to the blackjack table. Basic strategy says I should hit my 16 against a dealer's ten. But, the dealer has just flashed his hole card and I know it is a five. Do I blindly hit the 16 just because BS says to do it or do I stand on my 16, knowing I have the advantage over the dealer? Would you stand or hit?

First of all, it's obvious you have the definitions of peeking and spotting mixed up. Since you obviously never play and just read books, go back to your books and read through those sections again. Secondly, who is the cheater if the dealer is inadvertently flashing the hole card and a player is seeing it? Finally, if you're in a seat and the dealer if flashing the card in your direction should you just look away every time the card is dealt to avoid cheating? I'm pretty sure you know how ridiculous your whole line of argument is, but I figured I'd make this post, just in case you really are this far out in left field.

I stated that I don't believe it is right that someone could get arrested (falsely or not) but that the player who uses these methods should know what could be in store for them should they be caught.

There are plenty of other ways to get arrested in a casino without doing anything illegal. They're poor sports when it comes to losing their money.

But since these authors can no longer play (and not even fake IDs can help them) they have to harass anyone who speaks the truth and threatens their book sales.

LVHCM wrote a book? Where can I get a copy of this? It's disconcerting to hear that these people can't go into casinos anymore. It must mean I'm hallucinating when I go into a casino and see them.

Or they harass other authors like John May.

He deserves it.

Las Vegas Hole Card Mafia... and MAFIA is a perfect description.

Yes, we know. We've never denied that.

"This is a legitimate topic for this page, and the discussion can be an interesting one."

I tried to debate this issue in a civil manner, but some people do not want the issue debated. This forum has turned into a joke as far as debating legitimate topics, because certain "connected" trolls are allowed to START flame wars by engaging in personal attacks, while others who are not as "connected" have posts busted for relatively minor infractions. This is the reason I don't join Green Chip nor recommend that others do so, because I'm not going to pay money and end up being baited into a flame war by this type of poster, and end up losing the money I paid for "forum disruption" that was not even started by me.

"You can allege a practice is cheating without calling any specific poster a cheater."

I have tried to do so (and I never called anyone a cheater until personally attacked), but a certain CHEATER decided to turn the debate into a personal attack. That is what trolls do when they realize they are losing. I made VERY clear in my early posts that I make NO judgement on those who cheat, and that if they can get away with it then more power to them. But some people have an agenda here and resort to personal attacks in order to deflect the debate away from the issues and facts.

"Would it be possible to confine the discussion to the issue and refrain from making personal comments about the poster, such as allegations of drug use?"

Judging from the answer that the Mafioso gave you, it looks like his attacks will continue (which of course are ignored by post-busters who would bust posts by others not in the "blackjack mafia" that are not nearly as abraisive). So it looks like the smears will continue, although through no choice of my own, because when I'm attacked I will attack back to show that personal attacks will not be rewarded, and that those who personally attack me will have their motives exposed.

If the dealer by his own mistake flashes you his down card its his fault and believe me you cannot get in trouble for using the information at hand. It is not cheating moraly or legaly. I f you feel bothered or guilty by this information then dont use it.

If it is shown then it is part of the game! If a dealer shows the card then it is his error not ours! The rules that THEY (CASINOS) impose versus the rules that the game was originally based on have changed so much. Any time someone finds out away to get an advantage, THEY change the rules!

So keep playing your red or is it the dollar tables and everything in your pathetic moral world will be OK. Just tell yourself "I'm a nice person and everyone likes me" and you will be OK. At least you'll think that.

Choose one,

Hammer, Malet

This is not cheating.The best way to force a dealer to make mistakes
is to play fast and very mechanical and be very boring, then when you have 2 options with close probabilities sign the dealer both decisions (ex:you have stiff hand and you would like to surrender when you should hit - say "surrender" and with the hand ask a card).
But this attracts atention to you and is recomended when you play on more then one spot.

I'm tickled that another shill crawled out of the toilet to toss insults (like you can't think of an original insult and has to steal LVHCM's reference to red chips)...

"If a dealer shows the card then it is his error not ours!"

By definition it does not matter if it's the dealer's error or not. The player is using information that according to the rules of the game he is not supposed to possess.

From dictionary.com :

cheat: v. intr. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

Peekers look for dealers that are prone to flash their cards. Thus there is premeditation on that player's part to "violate the rules deliberately" through the act of searching for such exploitable dealers. I made clear from the start that I only stated such actions were cheating merely by definition of what cheating means. Meanwhile the shills have made every effort to put words in my mouth and to otherwise confuse people on exactly what it was that I was saying, along with dragging personal insults into the debate.

"Hole-card readers are simply folks who have learned how to take advantage of a dealer's mistakes. The dealer offers them the information and they use it."

But don't forget, hole card readers search for weak dealers. Thus there is INTENT to violate the rules of the game (as per the definition of the word "cheat" offered at dictionary.com)

Cheat v. intr. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.

"Look at baseball. The catcher signals the pitcher as to what pitch he should make. The opposing team has a guy on second base who can read the catcher's signals. He then signals the batter what pitch he should expect to see. Is this cheating? No one in professional baseball would say that it is."

Oh REALLY??? A lot of players WOULD call it cheating, at least to a reporter who asks about it. And, a player who is suspected of stealing signs is liable to be on the recieving end of some "chin music" when he comes to bat.

"Basic strategy says I should hit my 16 against a dealer's ten. But, the dealer has just flashed his hole card and I know it is a five. Do I blindly hit the 16 just because BS says to do it or do I stand on my 16, knowing I have the advantage over the dealer? Would you stand or hit?"

I would stand of course. The difference here is that I don't deliberately search for a dealer who would flash that card.

Thank you for engaging in a civil debate on this issue. While we can agree to disagree, and may not swing the other to the other side, at least we were able to discuss our views without resorting to personal attacks. You have made a solid argument and have made the best case for your side.

It is not cheating to pick your spots. Many players search out specific dealers for a variety of reasons. It may be that they believe they get lucky with a certain dealer. They might like the dealer's personality or patter. They might like the way the dealer looks. A card counter might look for a fast dealer, or an empty table. Picking your spot is part of being a successful player. A hole-carder has refined that part of the game to picking weak dealers.

Let's carry the baseball analogy one further. Suppose you are the manager of a team. Right now, you are ahead by a single run, but the other team has a runner on second base with one out. You have a right-handed pitcher on the mound. The next batter is fearsome against right-handers, but has a lousy record against lefties. You have a left-hander warming up in the bullpen. It is the eighth inning.

Do you exploit the weakness of your opponent? If you do, are you cheating? I would suggest that exploiting the weakness of your opponent in blackjack by finding a dealer who exposes his hole-card is no different than putting in a left-handed pitcher in the scenario described above, nor is it any different than a card-counter using a specific criteria for sitting down at a table and putting his money in the betting square. It is no different than raising your bet with the count, which is another way to take advantage of the game.

One key to victory in any contest is to find and exploit the weaknesses of your opponent. Why should blackjack be any different than any other contest?

"It is not cheating to pick your spots. Many players search out specific dealers for a variety of reasons. It may be that they believe they get lucky with a certain dealer. They might like the dealer's personality or patter. They might like the way the dealer looks. A card counter might look for a fast dealer, or an empty table. Picking your spot is part of being a successful player. A hole-carder has refined that part of the game to picking weak dealers."

Searching for a "weak" dealer is the only example listed above where the player is choosing a dealer for that dealer's ability to allow the player to break the rules of the game.

"Let's carry the baseball analogy one further. Suppose you are the manager of a team. Right now, you are ahead by a single run, but the other team has a runner on second base with one out. You have a right-handed pitcher on the mound. The next batter is fearsome against right-handers, but has a lousy record against lefties. You have a left-hander warming up in the bullpen. It is the eighth inning.

Do you exploit the weakness of your opponent? If you do, are you cheating?"

It is not against the rules of baseball to replace a right handed pitcher with a left handed one. It IS against the rules of blackjack to have knowledge of hole cards.

"One key to victory in any contest is to find and exploit the weaknesses of your opponent. Why should blackjack be any different than any other contest?"

I never said there was anything wrong with using illegal information. I merely called it cheating, by definition.

The casinos have information with my image, my real and assumed names, my play history, etc that was illegally given to them via fax or email through a network with other casinos. They use this information to decide things like cut card placement, whether they are going to shuffle, or perhaps whether they are going to let me play at all. This is cheating. They are not entitled to use my personal information. They even sell it to credit card companies. My aliases get pre-approved platinimum card offers in the mail nearly every day.

When it comes to casinos, you are dealing with a bunch of criminals and cheats. Normal rules of good behavior don't apply. If a cashier at a grocery store or gas station over pays me I'll point it out and give back the money. Not so at the casino. I've already gotten ripped off by them enough, like getting charged for things that were promised to be comped after they decided I was too good at bj. I'll do anything that is not clearly illegal to take their money. Go right to the edge, the same as they'll do with you, or else you are giving the enemy too big of an advantage.

We have to assume that you are from the other side. Why else would you use Trump for a handle?

cheat: v. intr. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards

I see you are attempting to hide behind definitions and semantics. So, I defy you to find a copy of the "official rules of blackjack" and then find within those rules where it says it is a violation of the rules if a player sees the dealer's hole card. You won't find that information, because it's not discussed in the rules. That is a matter of procedure; all that is covered in the rules of the game is player and dealer drawing rules, optional rules like split and double, and rules for comparing hands to conclude a round of play and settle payments. So, flashing a hole card is a procedural violation on the part of the dealer, not a violation of the rules on the part of the player. Thus, neither one is cheating. Your reliance on semantics to attempt to make a point is weak and subject to the same semantical counterpoints.

Also, please get your terminology straight. Peekers are not people who go around searching for exploitable dealers.

do their best to welcome the most stupid players who dump the most money. They give better comps to people with lower skill ratings. It seems they are shopping potential customers to find those where they have the biggest edge.

The casino often has nearly identicle machines, the only difference being the payout structure. One machine has an 8% vig, another may have a 3% vig, another may payback over 99%. They are hoping that most of the people will be stupid enough to not read the pay tables and play at the more ubiquitous, lower paying machines.

Casinos have fake handheld games. They put 8 decks into a shuffler and pretend to be dealing single or double deck. Deliberate deception to catch the unsophisticated.

If it is okay for the casino to shop for people with poor skills against whom they have a bigger edge, why is it not okay for players to shop dealers the same way?

The courts have ruled that even your constitutional rights (4th amendment) do not protect you if what you do or possess is in plain view of a person who is were they are legally allowed to be. Simularly, if you are where you are suppose to be in a casino and view the cards than the casino is exposing itself freely.

To "cheat" implies breaking the rules and laws. I recall no law or rule that says that if the dealers cards are exposed in any way that you are not allowed to look.

I agree with your thoughts DD.

"This is the reason I don't join Green Chip nor recommend that others do so, because I'm not going to pay money and end up being baited into a flame war by this type of poster."

The amount of flames in Green Chip is vitually nil, at least compared with what goes on in the the free pages of thie website. If the prossibility of flames and insults are what's keeping you out of GC, you are making a big mistake.

"[I don't want to] end up losing the money I paid for "forum disruption" that was not even started by me."

I understand that Stanford Wong follows a money-back guarantee policy at all times. If someone creates problems by being excessively obnoxious, then, no matter who started the fight, the miscreant is kicked out of GC and the unused portion of his subscription is returned. (That's what I've seen happen in the past, although I happen to believe that miscreants are forfeiting their subscription through violating the agreed-upon subscription rules and thus should not be eligible for any refund! But that's just me.)

--Cyrus