As far as I can see, a card counter is still subject to the same mechanic as any other players, but they are able to perform better then most people within these confines. So why is card counting a justification for casinos to kick people out? Obviously, a card counter will cost them money, but if that is the only justification, then it's like the casino is cheating- they only allow sucky players to play. If you are too good you get thrown out. Is that all there is to it, or is there a valid gameplay justification for this?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Just a little addition to the previous answer: Imagine you have the opportunity to play blackjack against a thousand people. You have a few advantages, but also have to play by strict and predictable conventions, but the thousand can play in any manner they choose.
You also know that one of those thousand is capable of card-counting. You wouldn't risk your money betting against someone with such an advantage would you? You'd stick with the odds, and play only the other 999. A perfectly sensible and logical position, which is, in essence, the same position the casino takes.
Card counting isn't considered illegal. Casinos have the right to deny service to anyone, and of makes sense to deny players from playing a game in which they have an advantage versus the house. This isn't cheating in any sense of the word. 994 P.2d 1151 (2000) CHEN v. NEVADA STATE GAMING CONTROL BOARD and Monte Carlo Resort & Casino:
cheat transitive verb
Card counting ISN'T illegal. (Unless you use a "device" such as a computer to do so in Nevada, which is a felony under Nevada law.)
Card counting is frowned upon because it violates the UNWRITTEN "law" (that the casino is supposed to have the edge). From the CASINO's point of view, it is a case of "if this isn't illegal, it ought to be." Hence they take measures such as barring, or harassing card counters, which go to the border (and sometimes beyond) the law. But Nevada courts do tend to side with the casinos for economic reasons.
If a player played "Basic" (optimal) strategy, and "flat bet," (bet the same on every hand), the casino would have an edge of about 1%. What card counters do is to watch for a handful of situations that come up occasionally, where the player is favored. Then they "jump" their bets by five or ten times to take advantage of these situations, and bet a "basic" unit at other times, shifting the odds in their favor.
A variation of this is "team" play, whereby a team of counters will "spread" among the tables, watching for favorable situations, and making a minimum bet of say, $10 a hand. This is a form of "trolling." When the cards get "good," they will signal a well dressed team mate called a "big player" to come to "their" table, and make "outsized" bets of $50 or $100, or even $500-$1000 (these situations are rare enough that you will seldom have two "good" tables at a time). This strategy calls for the big player to "table hop" in a seemingly random fashion (but actually based on signals from his teammates).
Needless to say, "trolling" and "table hopping," whether or not for the purpose of making money, while not illegal, are socially gauche. So casinos will eject players for that kind of behavior alone, whether or not connected with card counting. (And the assumption is that most people would not engage in that kind of behavior unless they are card counting.)
Card counter Kenny Uston won a court case in New Jersey that prohibits Atlantic City casinos from barring or harassing card counters. They are allowed to take "defensive" measures such as shuffling up after every deal.
Card counters exploit a flaw in the game implementation which is not actually part of the rules of the game. The rules of blackjack say nothing about dealing multiple hands from the same pre-shuffled stack - but that's exactly what makes card counting possible.
This flaw (and thus card counting) can actually be neutralized in two ways:
protected by Alex P Jan 6 '15 at 18:30
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?