Printable View
When the Devil comes knocking, offering me $5 million for my soul, I will tell him no and send him packing. But I will be sure to give him all your names and tell him there is a whole crew on this site that seem willing to make that deal for a few hundred grand (which is what Kane and Nestor made). :D
I will bet you $1000 at 1:1 that Bob's answer will fall closer to "clearly legal" than "clearly illegal", although I don't think he will put it that unambiguously.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Oh good grief mickey. House policy!?! You are sounding like that Dan Character From Wizard's site that passed away a year or so ago that used to work at Fiesta Henderson. He was always babbling on about "house policy". :D You know what the house policy is? They don't want anyone to win. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSo the line has been set. It is morally correct to violate house policy by counting and hole carding at blackjack. But it is not morally correct to take advantage of a malfunctioning machine which is also against house policy. But somehow I don't get the logic of one being correct and the other being incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Look card counting is definitely settled law. It has been ruled on numerous times and has never been found to be illegal or cheating. I want to say Hole-carding has also been ruled on at least a few times and is similarly settled law, but I really can't recall by name any cases. We could ask Bob N.
But this specific play has not really been ruled on. The case we are talking about didn't get to a ruling. I am telling you the feds screwed up by attempting to make it a case about hacking. Nothing was hacked, so the Judge ruled correctly in pre-trial. It should have been a theft case. We don't know what the outcome of that would have been.
What we need is a second case. It would have been nice if Rob had stepped up and taken this on, instead of cowering in his RV, hiding out for 10 years. ;) That's a joke, but seriously, Rob being concerned about the statute of limitations speaks volumes. He can say he don't feel he did anything "wrong" but his concerns about the statute of limitations really tells the story. Actions always speak louder than words.
Speaking of Bob N. We both have a lot of respect for Bob no? Most here? Rob? How about we just pose the question to Bob N? I mean we can ask him your card counting and hole-carding question as well, but he has already voiced his opinion. But I haven't heard him mention an opinion on the Double up case. Let's ask? He has always leaned towards the players in his legal opinion, but I'll bet you aren't going to like his answer as to whether that is illegal and I bet you know it. ;)
Dan Druff can arbitrate. I will post up with him too.
And no I have never heard Bob or any other lawyer opine on this topic.
And for what is hopefully the last time, do you or do you not understand that the federal government charging a person with something does not preclude a state government charging them with a different crime based on the same facts?
KJ. When you back count and jump in when the count gets good and then jump out when the count gets bad, isn't that theft from the other players EV?
Great deflection, KJ. I didn't say anything about whether counting/hole carding is legal or not. And you know Nersesian will say it's legal. But will he say it is morally correct to violate house policy? It is against house policy and they actively pursue counters to get rid of them. You know that but you violate their policy anyway. And as axel pointed out aren't you stealing EV from other players when you jump in after back counting? I don't have any objection to what you do for a living. I'm just pointing out that you are living in a glass house when it comes to pointing fingers at others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOh good grief mickey. House policy!?! You are sounding like that Dan Character From Wizard's site that passed away a year or so ago that used to work at Fiesta Henderson. He was always babbling on about "house policy". :D You know what the house policy is? They don't want anyone to win. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSo the line has been set. It is morally correct to violate house policy by counting and hole carding at blackjack. But it is not morally correct to take advantage of a malfunctioning machine which is also against house policy. But somehow I don't get the logic of one being correct and the other being incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Look card counting is definitely settled law. It has been ruled on numerous times and has never been found to be illegal or cheating. I want to say Hole-carding has also been ruled on at least a few times and is similarly settled law, but I really can't recall by name any cases. We could ask Bob N.
But this specific play has not really been ruled on. The case we are talking about didn't get to a ruling. I am telling you the feds screwed up by attempting to make it a case about hacking. Nothing was hacked, so the Judge ruled correctly in pre-trial. It should have been a theft case. We don't know what the outcome of that would have been.
What we need is a second case. It would have been nice if Rob had stepped up and taken this on, instead of cowering in his RV, hiding out for 10 years. ;) That's a joke, but seriously, Rob being concerned about the statute of limitations speaks volumes. He can say he don't feel he did anything "wrong" but his concerns about the statute of limitations really tells the story. Actions always speak louder than words.
Speaking of Bob N. We both have a lot of respect for Bob no? Most here? Rob? How about we just pose the question to Bob N? I mean we can ask him your card counting and hole-carding question as well, but he has already voiced his opinion. But I haven't heard him mention an opinion on the Double up case. Let's ask? He has always leaned towards the players in his legal opinion, but I'll bet you aren't going to like his answer as to whether that is illegal and I bet you know it. ;)
Any quotes in this post are from KewlJ:
I don't have an, "Intense dislike for the casino industry," I tend to like the casino industry in general. If I get paid to write about gambling and I do AP, I don't see how that happens without the casino industry. I've never understood any AP who says that he hates the casino industry, in general. There are policies that I might hate and individual companies that I can't stand, but the industry as a whole, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Anyway, at least for some of us, you want it to be because it is casinos. I'm not going to lie, for me it's not just because it's casinos.
Suppose I go into the grocery store and I see the bigger bag of relatively decent coffee for $1.99, at least, that's what the tag says. Being a coffee drinker, I know damn well that the bag of coffee is supposed to be $11.99, they must have ripped the sales tag off and when they printed out a new tag for the shelf, they hit one too few, '1's' due to inattention.
I take it up to the counter and sure enough it scans $11.99, I look at the cashier and say, "I'm sorry, ma'am, but that scanned wrong. The tag says $1.99." She sends someone to look at the tag and, naturally, I'm correct.
The store I'm talking about is actually supposed to give the first mis-scanned item free, (that's their actual policy) but at this point, I say something like, "Just ring it in at $1.99, please. I don't want it for free, I just want it at the price the store told me it would be."
Anyway, I do really like grocery stores. They make it easy for me to eat. I also really like Kroger, in particular.
The machine malfunction is no different, it's only much bigger. The machine malfunction was not an intended event in the casino, but it was an event that the casino was freely offering to anyone who walked in the door and happened to discover it. Any customer in the grocery store could look at the screwed up tag and take a free coffee or ask for it to be $1.99. Maybe a few people of extreme moral turpitude would contact the manager of the store (or customer service desk) and say, "I'm sorry, I think one of your tags is wrong. I don't believe this coffee should be $1.99." Maybe a few people would take the coffee to the register, have it scan in at $11.99 and say nothing just paying it. Some people might load up their entire cart and demand all the coffee be $1.99, excepting the first one which should be free (doesn't work like that, after the free one, the correct price goes into effect if you want more of them if underpriced). Myself, I was just happy to get the one coffee I intended to buy for $1.99. Good enough for me.
KewlJ, let me start off by saying I like you and I enjoy reading your posts, but you don't understand how the court system works very well at all.Quote:
Look card counting is definitely settled law. It has been ruled on numerous times and has never been found to be illegal or cheating. I want to say Hole-carding has also been ruled on at least a few times and is similarly settled law, but I really can't recall by name any cases. We could ask Bob N.
But this specific play has not really been ruled on. The case we are talking about didn't get to a ruling. I am telling you the feds screwed up by attempting to make it a case about hacking. Nothing was hacked, so the Judge ruled correctly in pre-trial. It should have been a theft case. We don't know what the outcome of that would have been.
You say the case we are talking about, "Didn't get to a ruling," like that means something. It does mean something, but not what you think. It means that there is even less of a case there than if it HAD gone to a full trial and Nestor and Kane were acquitted by a jury. Ultimately, before any trial or jury selection ever took place, the PROSECUTION moved to dismiss all of its own claims. Another Federal Magistrate Judge wrote a recommendation that a couple of those claims simply be dismissed. That's, like, 1000x stronger than the jury acquitting them. If the jury acquits, the prosecutors at least likely still believe they had a case. This was the prosecutors saying they had no case.
Anyway, should anything along these lines and pertinent to the same charges in the future come up in this country, any attorney for the defense could site this case and the fact that it was the prosecutors who ultimately decided that they did not have a case. Just because it didn't go to jury does not mean that it cannot be cited and the events (as well as the recommendation filed by the one judge) used in an argument.
I know what the outcome of a theft case would have been because I know what, "Criminal theft," means. Criminal theft did not take place whatsoever (or anything even close) or they would have been charged with that. You cannot commit theft on that which you are freely given and that which the entity giving it to you, at least at the time, freely admits that you are entitled to.
You just said the prosecutors screwed up trying to make the case about hacking, so why are you comparing anything to hacking?Quote:
Tableplay, some of you guys are just not being honest about this situation. If you were to get an account hacked and your identity stolen, have charged run up on your credit card and new accounts opened in your name, would you show up at the trial of the guy who hacked you and tell the judge he did nothing wrong, that all he did was push a few buttons on his computer and there is nothing illegal about that?
He breaks in, he's not freely given access to the house by the owner of the house. Awful comparison.Quote:
How about this? A guy picks a lock and breaks into a house. His defense is that it is not his fault. It is the fault of the lock company for not having a more secure lock. Do you think that is going to fly? Do you think he did nothing wrong?
Atheist-leaning Agnostic, I'll PM you my number to give him if you ever meet some guy offering six figures for souls. Eternity is a long fucking time...but I seriously doubt it. Tell him I'll go $100,000.Quote:
When the Devil comes knocking, offering me $5 million for my soul, I will tell him no and send him packing. But I will be sure to give him all your names and tell him there is a whole crew on this site that seem willing to make that deal for a few hundred grand (which is what Kane and Nestor made).
I can see why the prosecutors didn’t move forward with this case, but nobody should compare what these two guys did with card counting. They aren’t in the same ballpark. I see what they did more like what Phil Ivey did with edge sorting. The court ruled what Phil did was legal but he still had to give the money back to the casinos, because he had scammed them and was playing the game the way it was not intended to be played. Basically, Phil was playing with an unfair advantage.
Counting is playing the game the way it is intended to be played, but betting more when you have an advantage. All casinos know there are times during bj where the advantage swings to the players. APs just bet more during these times.
Again, this isn’t close to what these two jokers did. It should be pointed out that they couldn’t even keep their word to each other. I get that that has nothing to do with this case, but it shows what these two guys are made of.
The casinos probably didn’t move forward and try to get their money back from them since they didn’t win that much from each casino. Phil took individual casinos for huge amounts so it made sense the casinos would sue to get it back.
Phil Ivey negotiated what the casino was offering him and successfully...I don't want to say, "Tricked," but basically tricked the casino into handing him an advantage on a silver platter. Kane and Nestor didn't trick the casino into doing anything, they didn't negotiate anything; (other than the ones that they asked for one simple request-turn on the double-up function) they mostly played the game as the casino was already presenting it.
Had Phil Ivey encountered the same advantage under substantially the same circumstances, except without having negotiated it for himself, he probably would have won the case.
Kane and Nestor arguably played the Game King the way it was designed (though not intended) to be played. It was approved by the Nevada Gaming Control Commission, it was designed by IGT, the casinos had the units installed. You're telling me these guys stumble on the huge windfall that they discover and nothing is the fault of the manufacturer, NGC or the casinos themselves? It's not like Kane called up an IGT programmer and said, "Hey, man, can you put a bug into the source code that will cause jackpots of a higher denomination to pay out when a specific series of events is conducted?"
As far as keeping their word to each other, just from reading the article, I think it would have been equitable for them to have come up with a different arrangement than the one originally agreed to.
-Between taxes and paying Kane half, Nestor would be making less than 25% of the total amounts that he was signing for at the end of the day. Nestor probably had long-term future in mind (in terms of saving money) and both Kane and Nestor had to believe that this play had a limited lifespan.
-If the article is true, Kane discovered it by accident, but Nestor was positively necessary in figuring out how to work it. Someone called Nestor stupid, well, he can't be much stupider than Kane if Kane needed him.
-50% of Nestor's take is ridiculously greedy by Kane. Nestor helped figure out how to work it reliably and what stops Kane from just hitting his own jackpots?
-Nestor does have a (shady) point that he can just take jackpots down himself, so what does he need Kane for?
-----Just my opinion, but I think both were stupid greedy on that one. I do think 50% is a completely unfair arrangement, though.
LAWSUIT: The casinos probably didn't move forward because, in my opinion, any jury would have decided against the casinos in a civil. The games were approved, as they were, by Gaming and Kane/Nestor did nothing to alter the actual units themselves. It wasn't even a matter of a machine, "Malfunction," the machines were technically doing what they were programmed to do.
Also, it would be the casinos suing individual players. I would like to think a jury is automatically going to be leaning towards the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I believe the Mission and other comments make very good sense about this issue. Kew, I'm sorry. I think you mean well, but you just haven't experienced enuf of life as yet to properly put this together in your mind. Hopefully you'll eventually understand the REAL difference between right and wrong. Just because somebody extracts something that wasn't expected or advertised from an entity, it's not automatically black & white right or wrong. That is why humans are an advanced form of life here--we're equipped for and capable of rationalizing situations after careful considerations. I've certainly been around and I'm a walking library for younger people in many cases. The wise listen.
But I do like your "turn a $500 winner into a $20,000 jackpot!" example. That's why I loved playing TDBP on the 25c thru $10, 6-level uprights at Casino Monte Lago....
99% Bob N. would not call what I've done illegal. Not after Fed. prosecutors dropped a similar case, and not after the State of Nevada refused to pursue charges.
You ask why I was concerned about the statute of limitations then? Because over a lifetime you learn that it's prudent to be very careful when there's even the possibility of a grey area, especially if you have the responsibility of a family.
Personally, I have no issues with the overpays. Not sure how my bank would respond if they overpay me and I cash it, but evidently that falls into a different category of event.
What I have major issues with is, assuming the story is legit, "Singer" used his Gaming Today column to send thousands of people into negative EV shoals for no good reason. Even worse -- either he cynically abused and manipulated his relationship with Alan Mendelson, completely torpedoing any Mendelson credibility (not that Mr. Mendelson required much assistance there). Or Mendelson was in on the heist, which makes him look even worse.
I’ve now read this article several times since I find it interesting. Here’s my take on these two goofballs. Since Nestor was the one giving the interview, I take his version with a grain of salt. He is trying to make himself look good since he doesn’t want to be seen taking advantage of both the casinos and the person who cut him in on this play. This has nothing to do with the legality of what they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
Nestor wants some credit for coming up with this play, so he claims he was the one who understood that it was activated by the double up function. If this article is close to accurate on the sequence of events, it’s hard for me to see how Kane didn’t figure this out on his own. He hit the jackpot when the double up was activated and he didn’t when it wasn’t. He didn’t need to call Nestor to have him figure it out. Anybody with half a brain would have drawn the conclusion that the double up activated it.
Regardless if you think it’s a fair agreement or not, Nestor agreed to giving half his winning to Kane up front. And then immediate renegade on the deal. Where Kane made the mistake is bringing an idoit like Nestor into the play. Once Nestor understood the play, he saw he no longer needed Kane. Nestor claims in the article he wanted to pay Kane the portion he promised him but doesn’t have the money. I question the part in the story about his roommate giving it away. Since Kane got to keep his winnings, I expect Nestor kept his too, and was never going to pay Kane. Nestor probably gave some to his roommate to validate his story.
They both are shady and not too smart, but Nestor is by far the more shady one of the two. IMO.
As far as the Phil Ivey case, courts in two countries (England and United States) ruled against him and said he was NOT entitled to the money he won through his scam. I’ve looked at this case too and agree with the courts ruling.
Oh come on Axel. That's a reach. Answer: NOQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Can someone send me the King James Version for Homosexual Card Counting Black Jack Players??
I would really like to read it so that my soul can eventually go to heaven before it is too late... Thanks!!
I just can't get over it.
Homosexual, Republican, Black Jack Players who do the Lords Work and think they are absolved!!
Not only absolved but above all others in the AP/Casino Lifestyle!
Can't Make This Shit Up!!
Rob I think you are wrong about Nersesian. His opinion of something doesn't necessarily co-inside with the way courts have ruled on a particulate matter. For instance, One of Bob's pet peeves is preferential shuffling. You bring that topic up to him and he will go on for an hour. He believes as I do that this is illegal. It has to be as the law is written. Preferential shuffling allows the casino/dealer to shuffle at will, meaning any time the count swings towards the players they can shuffle it away. THAT is clearly changing the natural odds of the game. Clearly illegal. Yet the courts have specifically rules that it is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Thank you Rob for your Statute of limitation comment. While you aren't admitting that deep down you knew it was wrong as I suspect is the case, you are admitting you had some concerns. That is a step in the right direction. Baby steps. LOL.
I don't want to continue to debate this. It is what it is. Rob if you indeed found this play, executed it to the tune that you say and are comfortable with it.....congratulations to you....sincerely. And I do want to say, if you really did it the way you say, probably the aspect of your story that I most admire would be your discipline. Not over-playing. I have received private messages from a bunch of people on this. Two of then, both AP's who I like a lot, wondered if your story was true because you should have made much, much more than you did. I don't feel that way. Greed always kills. Pushing too far on any play, will end that play. That is actually the exact principal I base my whole blackjack play (after I re-loctated to Vegas) on. Playing what is tolerated and draws minimum attention. I have the bankroll to play much higher stakes than I do. But if I did so, I would wear out my welcome pretty quickly and be another of these former blackjack players running around, selling, books, videos or running bootcamps. So I really do admire your restraint and disciple. Discipline is the top trail/skill necessary for any AP to be successful.
I will admit that I am both surprised and disappointed that so many AP's don't think this crosses a line, legally or morally. I have long since known that many AP's adopt an 'anything goes' attitude. I am just really surprised and as I say disappointed it is such a majority. I am not judging anyone, including you Rob. It is just past my comfort level.
You know what, I want to address this as well. While we are making all nicy-nice of late, I still have a major problem with Rob's claims of his now $375k profit from his Singer progressive wagering/stop limit plan. THAT is really the whole issue that I began challenging with Rob. This continues to be impossible as explained and while Axel has suggested possible just positive variance, that too doesn't hold water at this amount of money and time. Rob has indicated some of that was a deflect, but also continues to double down on this claim. It's still impossible. And I still have a problem with intentionally misleading gullible players, which is what I believe Rob did....emphasis on intentionally. And while slingshot has become the face (so to speak) of the gullible players (and even seems somewhat forgiving), there surely are many more...lurker types that got hurt. So this issue lives on. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Since Redeitz, mentioned Alan, I want to ask Rob, and again, I am trusting him to be honest, Did Alan know of any of this? I am suspecting he didn't because I don't think he would have approved. But on the other hand, I am shocked so many others do, maybe I would be wrong about Alan. Walking trough those casino doors and spending any amount of time in casinos really seems to change people. :rolleyes:
Incorrect answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOh come on Axel. That's a reach. Answer: NOQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
If you hit a 100k royal and the machine suddenly 20 seconds after the fact your screen goes blank and your Royal disappears. Do you think the casino would pay you? They would say malfunctions void all plays and pays.
Whatever Mickeycrimm. ;) I don't want to continue to fight about any of this. It is what it is. We all do what we are comfortable with. And I am not pure either, if that is your point. Ok? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIncorrect answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOh come on Axel. That's a reach. Answer: NOQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Bottom line for me is “were Kane and Nestor legally entitled to push the buttons they pushed?” To me the answer is yes.
Very first thing you should do is take a picture. And while you have your phone out, you dial Bob N. He should be on speed dial. Well, I guess the speed dial thing is more about us blackjack player and the back-roomings and illegal detentions. That occurred more with us, than you machine players it seems. Happening a lot less (at least in Vegas) and let's give credit where credit is due, that is in large part thanks to Bob. I mean don't get me wrong, he gets paid, but where would we be without him.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf