From: messiah@nevada.edu (mhw)
Subject: Re: roulette system ad from Eugene Shekhtman
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:48:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.062615.5731@redbrick.com> jfr@redbrick.com (Jon Rosen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.144652.9083@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>In an article of July 14, 1992 tooraj@daneel.rdt.monash.edu.au (Tooraj
>>Enayati) writes:

>>I found it!  Here it is:
>>"THE ROMEO PROJECT: A Mechanical Analysis of Casino Roulette, Including a
>>Program for a Popular Pocket Computer That WINS!!".  By: Y. Gambol. 
>>Published by: Exotic Engineering Systems, P.O.Box 582, Paramus, New
>>Jersey 07653, USA.

>  Actually, this is not true.  Several other studies have been done on
>  this subject both with respect to biased wheels and with respect to
>  predicting the drop of the ball.  One major study was done by Ed Thorpe
>  (author of the original Beat the Dealer) and he delivered a paper at
>  an international conference on gaming.

>  The problem is getting
>  the numbers back out and fast enough to useful for betting.  A
>  foot sensor assembly gives you feedback "at your toes" so to
>  speak.  You can then place the 20-25 mots likely numbers and
>  pray.  You should be winning at a good clip with this sceme.
>
>  The final problem is that under LV law, the use of a computer
>  in a gaming roon is illegal (5 yrs in jail).  

This is just another example of poor logical reasoning on behalf of 
Nevada legislators. If one does not alter the odds in any way by using
a device, then it can hardly be considered cheating. It can however be
made illegal inspite of NOT being dishonest.

I see people keeping track of information on paper at baccarat and
roulette tables frequently. No one cares! Its not illegal to use paper to
keep track of information nor would I imagine keeping track of information
on one's fingers. (Note that there are a variety of fairly involved
computational operations possible on one's fingers). Now let's say
that a person brings an abacus to a BJ game to do the exact same thing it 
would have been possible to do on one's fingers (given lotsa practise).
Does this begin to exceed the threshold of what legally constitutes a
"device?" There was a post about a blind guy who was doing that and I
presume he was getting away with this heat free.

Projecting this further, if someone uses their calculator watch to add 
up a total for a BJ hand is that illegal use of a device? Somehow I suspect
that this legislation would only be applicable in cases where the player
actually has a proven edge, and has actually cleaned up with this method.
I doubt that the legal lingo reflects this and think it probably is full of
loop holes. I also think that the Nevada Gaming Commision is not there to
regulate the casinos as much as it there to protect them. Everytime a new
chairman of the NV GBC comes on TV they make totally pro-casino statements
and conspicuously omits promises to the public such as "and we promise to
stamp out casino-skimming."

Consider this. If it is illegal to bet on something on which the outcome
is known, then perhaps doubling and taking insurance at blackjack when there
are ONLY tens and other face cards left in the deck is illegal using this
legal definition? How about when one has the "nut hand" at Hold 'Em and
can not lose or even tie. Here the outcome of a bet is known prior to
making the bet also (unless the guy accidently mucks the hand ;-)... )

The unfairness of tax laws on gamblers has already been discussed, so I won't
go into it here, suffice it to say that I think most rec.gamblers probably
recognize this short-coming as being indicative of yet another example of
poor logical reasoning at the expense of the gambler. 







Newsgroups: rec.gambling