Shuffle tracking

"Here cheaters play the game with the intent of learning the dealer's hole card by undertaking some act to either learn the hole card where the dealer is properly protecting it or by using hole card techniques that accentuate poor dealing....

An argument can be made that a typical player that learns of the dealer's hole card because of the dealers error is no less a thief than a person who cashes a $100 check and knowingly keeps the extra $900 when the bank clerk mistakes it for $1000."

This kind of drivel is what fuels the ignorance among casino personnel. There is no reasonable, rational argument that can be made that holecarding is cheating. It is a shame that an attorney with Mr. Cabot's credentials would spew such nonsense. The Nevada Supreme Court, not exactly known as player-friendly, has repeatedly ruled that hole card play is NOT cheating. For Mr. Cabot, who is a Nevada attorney, to make such a moronic statement is beyond stupid.

Mr. Cabot is not doing his casino clients any favors. There are many poorly-trained and ignorant pit personnel and security guards out there. To equate legal skilled patrons with cheaters may influence some casino employees to think they are justified in taking unlawful actions against such patrons. The result can and should be large jury awards against casinos and their employees, as we have seen in several recent cases.

> "Here cheaters play the game with the intent of learning the
> dealers hole card by undertaking some act to either learn the hole
> card where the dealer is properly protecting it or by using hole
> card techniques that accentuate poor dealing....

Nevada courts have ruled that such behavior is completely legal. The only exception is if you are using a "device" (such as a camera or mirror) to see the hole card. He is purposely trying to mislead people into thinking that hole card play is cheating.

> An argument can be made that a typical player that learns of the
> dealers hole card because of the dealers error is no less a theif
> than a person who cashes a $100 check and knowingly keeps the extra
> $900 when the bank clerk mistakes it for $1000."

That is a terrible comparison. Just because the player knows the dealer�s hole card doesn�t mean they will win that hand. If the dealer shows and ten and the player sees an ace in the hole, there is no way they can avoid losing money. A similar situation would be if the player holds a 19 and the dealer has two tens.

It is the casino's job to make sure that their employees are trained properly. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of information that the casino provides you with.

-Sonny-

They must be real sploppy if they have to make a policy or law like this.

Let me see, the dealer flashes the hole card and the player looks at it. What a dastardly clever technique that is. I guess the player is supposed to look away.

If the dealer flashes that hole card and you see it, you still need to do a little thinking to apply that information to give you an advantage. This is the main thrust of Mr Cabot's opinion, thinking by players within a casino is a breach of contract. Signs will be posted "NO THINKING ALLOWED" or better yet, "thinking is punishable by ejection and possible arrest".

It certainly will have little effect on the majority of patrons.

'Here cheaters play the game with the intent of using their brains to limit the proper mathmatical house advantage by undertaking some act to either learn the game the house is offering or by using techniques that accentuate the player's chances....

An argument can be made that a typical player that learns to play a game the house is offering is no less a thief than a person who knowingly chooses to succeed in a capitalist society.'

The fact that Cabot passed the Nevada State barr exam is somewhat intriguing.

So remember guys...the next time you catch a hole card be good citizens and play the hand wrong so as to measure up to Cabot's exceptional ethical standards.

> If a player is compromising the randomness of the shuffle, by tracking it, they are in breach of the contract. <

The randomness, or lack of randomness, of the shuffle is not compromised or affected in any way by the mere fact that one or more players may have observed it any more than the sunrise is compromised or affected in any way by the mere fact that one or more people observe that.

I received my copy of the Mississippi Law Journal and carefully read the article. It's surprising that a respected legal publication published this nonsense. It's not worthty of further comment.

the infamous "preferential shuffle"? Ever had it happen to you. Such as when you ramp up your bet in a SD/DD game?

The entire premise is pure B/S, and that does _not_ mean "basic strategy". :)

This was mentioned at some point on Arnold's site. I think someone (LVB or someone) reported that he is just another casino shill...