Hedonist said:Very interesting story, quite amusing, but just for discussion, if one is playing a fair and square game, how dare someone tell you, if you're winning u cant play?...which means u only have "our permission to lose???" This is a legal issue, and since the bucks involved are huge, what if you hired a couple of lawyers took them along, and along with them legals, co-ordinated with the cops, prevail on the casino, that you cant ban anyone just cuz it suits the house's convenience?? As it is them casinos are making billions! ...apparently wanna use their muscle power to eat their cake and have it too!!!
ihate17 said:I can imagine that scene. You just continue walking around with no aim of playing, just seeing how large a following you can accumulate.
Actually it makes sense. They need 6-8 suits to watch a winner, because they do not need anyone else watching the rest of their players and those suits must justify their existance.
ihate17
ihate17 said:SSR
What you need to be able to do is take this one little step further. Get your escorts to follow you out of the casino, down the road and somehow find a way where they can not get back into the casino. That might make it more fun for the rest of us.
Yes, casino paranoia is huge. I have posted several times that the key for gaming manufacturers is not that their product has to work (Mindplay does not deliver) but all it has to do to sell is appeal to the two most basic instincts of casino management. Greed and Paranoia.
ihate17
stainless steel rat said:I let my wife read your post. She responded "Do you _really_ want a pack of pissed-off indians following you out the casino doors to a dark parking lot?"
After thinking about it, she does have a point. :)
(images of Custer flashing thru mind)...
ihate17 said:Forget Custer or Indians. Having had some up close personal contact with casino goons in an area with no cameras, your wife has more than a point.
Which also means that you probably should have just left when you first realized what was happening and not let it build.
ihate17
Andee said:Or thought up a better story to make up before telling it. Let me ask you SSR, are you so notorious that a whole goon squad must be assembled to throw out a red chipper? I don't even think I remember the mit teams getting that much attention. Are you sure this is not another Alex story?
ihate17 said:Off subject of this thread, but one of the funniest things, in an ironic way, I can remember seeing was on that history channel or whatever show about the MIT team.
Here is this Griffin investigator, walking and talking like he is the reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes, bragging about how he took down the MIT team and all I can think about is, "hey Andy Anderson, it only took you 4, yes just FOUR, years to figure out that this was a financed team that was beating your casino members butt". What a moron!
ihate17
stainless steel rat said:I'm certain it is no kind of "story" in the context you are using. I just reported what happened. I thought it was funny, and thought it would be an interesting read. If you didn't like it, or don't believe it, doesn't matter to me. I've not had too many run-ins with casinos, and plan on keeping it that way. It was not a multi-hour exhibition, it lasted for maybe 10-15 minutes.
As far as the "red-chipper" comment, if you think about the math _just_ a little, perhaps you might guess that to win almost $1000 in an hour would be a bit difficult. And most DD games I encounter today are generally $25. The shoe game was definitely $5 although I was not making min bets but just jumping in on + counts and generally betting $100 a pop as that would be a 20-1 spread had I been playing all. So I was not a high-roller, but certainly produced enough "cheques play" calls to attract attention that I was not really worrying about.
Also, I believe the MIT teams got _far_ more attention that that, if you have any idea of what you are talking about. They had multiple groups that spent more time figuring out who they were and what they were doing than a single indian casino has employees...
Andee said:I'm sorry this story just doesn't seem legit. Okay if you're not a red chipper you are a small time green chipper. I seriously doubt they would chase around a guy with a gang of suits because he happened to win a grand. Was this a tiny 3 table sweatshop? Because that would probably be the only way they would even care about you, but with all the manpower they were using on you it had to be a larger place. You are telling me you were at a $25 table and getting cheques play called out on you for max bets of $250? Even if you were how many times in that short period of time would you be throwing out max bets. I am skeptical for a few reasons. First if they thought you were that big a threat I think your tossed before they do their version of the keystone cops following you around. Secondly, you are just not a big enough fish to warrant that type of attention. If you get the tap its one thing, after that who cares about a guy who's biggest bet is not even minimum for a lot of players. The level of ones importance to the casino seems to grow faster then their bankroll.
Shame on you ihate17 for buying into this stuff. Its bad for people to believe that casinos will resort to such levels for what amounts to nothing as far as a bottomline to them. I personally have bet similar amounts, occasionally slightly more with no cover at all. Its been almost 3 years now and I have never been backed off, and have won much more than $1000 a few times. Am i just lucky, or am I just honest?
stainless steel rat said:It was not a "small 3-table sweatshop". It was, as I said, an indian casino that is not known as a high-roller shop.
As I mentioned, my first night saw a nice win on a DD game due to a dealer issue. The second night saw a nice win due to a ton of wonging. Since I had no real intention of going back there (I had been once before, found the playing conditions/rules not very good, and had not been back until I had this meeting close by) I didn't pay much attention to session length or any sort of cover.
This is a place where you can bet $5, and if you increase your bet to $25 you get a "cheques play" call and someone generally walks over and stares for a bit. So yes, if you bet $25 and run your bet to $200 you get a "cheques play". It wasn't in Vegas at Caesar's. They do care about such, apparently. If you haven't seen such a place, you just haven't played enough, particularly at Indian casinos. There seems to be a bit more paranoia at some of these than I have seen at more usual settings like the MS coast or Vegas.
Whether you buy it or not just doesn't matter. Some places are just more paranoid. I was booted from the Barbary 3-4 years ago for flat-betting $25 and winning almost every hand due to luck, for 20-30 minutes. I only have three properties I can not play on, one probably having forgotten since it was blown away by Katrina. What caused the extra attention is unknown. Maybe they were bored (it was reasonably busy but far from packed). Maybe they had some higher-up they wanted to impress. Absolutely no idea, and I don't care to boot...
I have a good friend that posts a lot on ap.com/bj21.com, who got booted spreading $5-$40 on a SD game on the MS coast. So it happens. Not nearly as often as used to be reported, but it still happens.
If you don't think the casinos are paranoid, even at $5 tables, you need to look around. Why do you suppose they go to the expense of renting CSMs? mindplay? RFID? Enough cameras to start a major movie production company? Just because they like the high-tech equipment? I don't think so.
I'm done, you can have the last word. I simply relayed what was to me a silly happening. Not interested in a protracted argument about whether it is fact or fiction... It was simply funny at the time.
BTW, apparently you didn't read the whole thing. I _had_ been backed off from playing 21 after the second winning night. This happened on the 3rd night as I simply walked around the pit area watching the 21 tables scattered around. They were apparently concerned I might try to play after being told not to I would guess. And it seemed to be an issue with my walking around the pits and watching 21 tables after being told to play anything else but no more 21...
The final conversation was short and quick:
"You have to leave. We told you no more 21 last night..."
"I am not playing 21, I haven't sat down at a 21 table since..."
"yes, but you are walking around and standing behind 21 tables, why would you do that if you are not going to play?"
"fine, I'm leaving"
and that was it.
and that is the end of the story for me...
Andee said:Oh I see, now there was a final conversation you happened to leave out of the original story. Thats a textbook backpedal as we like to say in the investigation business. No matter, its your story I'll leave it at that.
But just for your information, CSM's are for speeding up games for higher profits. They were not made for the sole purpose of thwarting counters although they can do just that. Mindplay and RIFD were put into place to automate and moniter comps more efficiently removing human error and bias. Its failing and will not become as widespread as originally thought. And all those cameras in the casino aren't there just for you. The biggest job is to watch employees to make sure they do their job and don't rip off the patrons or more importantly the casino. And to moniter day to day operations because there is millions of dollars moving around the casino at any given time,day or night. If they happen to catch a counter every now and then thats a bonus, but that is not even close to the main focus of their jobs. Just look at a bank, lots of money, lots of cameras.
There are 2 reasons I don't see casinos act like you describe neither is because I don't play enough. First is, your story really isn't true and we both know that. Second, although I haven't been playing as long as some, I don't play places that would treat counters as you describe. I try to play the best games I can. Nice story though.
stainless steel rat said:First, can you read? If so, look at the very _end_ of what I wrote in my _first_ post. I reported that they said "you are going to have to leave..." Does that contradict what I said in my previous post you responded to? Do you know what "..." means on the end of a statement? (it means there was more said). The rest of the conversation was not important, didn't have anything to do with the actions I was describing, and so I left it out. If I go back to post 1, and add the rest of that very short conversation, does it change a single thing, or change the meaning, or change the event itself?
So exactly how is that "back-pedaling?"
I also believe I was quite specific when I said "I had no intention of returning there, except that the meeting I went to took me to that area..." So yes, it was a lousy place to play. No I do not normally go to Indian casinos whatsoever. And Yes, I also try to find the best games available. But when I happened to find an advantageous situation with a dealer offering exceptional penetration, yes, I chose to play. And when I saw the problem on the 3CP game, I chose to play that as well. That _is_ what "AP" means, IMHO.
Sometimes you find a diamond in a sh**hole if you look hard enough and long enough.
stainless steel rat said:methinks one has nothing worthwhile to say, and posts a worthless one-liner as a last resort???
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!