Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
The good player can extract a steady income from the unlimited supply of players and money offered by public club and casino poker. But the house cut, the stiffer competition (resulting from the higher percentages of superior and professional players in public poker), and the rigid rules and betting limitations of public poker all serve to reduce the good player's edge odds, flexibility, and income. As a result, private poker is generally more profitable than public poker.
Unlike casino poker, in club poker there are no house dealers to protect, help, or guide new players. Also, club poker moves faster and is higher pressured than casino poker. The newcomer to Gardena poker often encounters harassment, intimidation, and pressure from other players. The nonprofessional regular players in the lower stake games especially try to press for advantages by intimidating newcomers into losing money through confusion and errors. Superior players and professionals in higher-stake games, on the other hand, usually do not harass new players because they want to hold them in the game for longer-term money extraction Thus, the newcomer can learn public poker more comfortably in the higher-stake games, but he will pay more for his lessons because he will be up against superior competition.
After twenty to forty hours of Gardena poker, the good player begins integrating the unique characteristics of club poker into his own poker experience and skills. The good player will then start to detect patterns among different games and players. As he continues to play club poker, those patterns will become increasingly familiar. After a dozen or so games, the good player will start to recognize a sameness for each kind of club game (e.g., low-stake, high-stake, highball, lowball) and for each class of player (e.g., losers, winners, sporadic players, regular amateurs, regular professionals). Because of the rigid customs and rules in club poker, the playing and betting actions of club players fall into more predictable patterns than do similar actions by private-game players. Once familiar with club poker and its patrons, the good player can enter any club and after a few hands be able to read and predict most actions of both amateur and professional players with good accuracy.
The good player can reduce or even eliminate the cost of learning Gardena poker by rattling his opponents by switching the pressures and intimidation from him to them. The good player's normal technique for rattling and intimidating opponents requires a confidently bold and aggressive style. But, for the newcomer, such a style would be unconvincing and ineffective because of his weak, defensive position during his first few ventures into public poker.
Ironically, that temporary weakness places the good player in an ideal position to use unorthodox behavior or bizarre actions to confuse and frighten his opponents. By such actions, he can often nullify the disadvantage of his own initial confusion by throwing his opponents into even greater confusion. Being a stranger, he can effectively induce bewilderment and fear in others through the unknown. For example, feigning insanity can induce paralyzing fear in others. Who would not fear a deranged stranger? Few players would dare to pressure or intimidate a psychotic at their table. Indeed, most players would be rattled into making errors. Feigning a physical disorder such as a severe tic or emitting strange guttural sounds will also rattle opponents into errors. Feigning deafness, muteness, or severe handicaps usually eliminates harassment and provides peace.
John Finn first experienced public poker in the Gardena, California, card clubs. He promptly canceled the disadvantages of being a newcomer by rattling his opponents into errors. He learned public poker at their expense.
After arriving in Gardena, John Finn parked his rented car in the self-park area behind the Eldorado Card Club. He entered the club through the automatic glass doors. He walked past the darkened lobby partly illuminated by a large gas-fed fireplace and abruptly stopped and stared into the brightly lit pitlike playing area filled with rising layers of white smoke. A low rumble of voices came from the cloudy pit. For an instant, John felt he was witnessing several hundred vagabonds huddling around tables in a cavernous Salvation Army hall. He moved to the observation rail that partly circled the poker pit and studied the scene. Some people were poorly dressed, which gave the entire crowd a tacky appearance. Everyone seemed to homogenize into a blend of middle-aged and elderly men and women. A few looked younger, but most looked pallid and wan . . . some looked cadaverous. About 25 percent of the players were women--some seemed slack and bored, others were tense and desperate. John observed more closely. Contrary to his first impression, many faces reflected an intelligence and a strength ... or at least a faded intelligence and perhaps a surrendered strength, especially in the older people. He estimated that 70 percent of the players were addicted smokers ... John Finn knew he could extract money from this crowd.
After watching from the rail for thirty minutes and reading through a house-rule booklet obtained in the lobby, John Finn went to the large chalkboard that listed the poker games in progress and the waiting list for each game. The lowest-stake game was $1-$2 high draw, jacks or better to open. John gave the boardman the false initials "J.R." to be listed for that low-stake game. In ten minutes, "J.R." was announced over the speaker system. Moments later, John was sitting in his first public poker game. ...His opening ploy was to rapidly cross himself several times in view of everyone.
After an hour, John was still winless and had forfeited two pots because of technical errors: On his first forfeited pot, he had turned up his pair of queens to show openers after no one called his final bet. When he tossed his other three cards face-down on the discards, a collective shout from the other players informed John that his hand was dead. (According to Gardena house rules, all five cards--not just openers--of the opening hand must be spread face-up before any of those cards touch the discards.) John forfeited the pot. Several hands later, he held three kings. His only opponent held two pair and stayed pat. John was the dealer. He drew one card, but forgot to burn a card (deal a card into the discards) before drawing. Again a collective shout informed John that his hand was dead. The player with two pair promptly spread his cards face-up, grinned, and yanked the pot into his pile of chips.
John decided he had learned enough from that game and wanted to establish a stronger psychological position in a higher-stake game. Looking at the game board, he noticed that a $3-$6 draw game had no waiting list. John played one more hand. He opened with three tens. Everyone folded. He promptly spread his hand face-up and pulled in the 40-cent ante--his first pot in public poker. As he stood up to leave, a wizened old woman sitting across from him looked up, stretched her skinny neck, and cackled. "Hey, buster, don't tell 'em where ya won all that money."
As he moved to the $3-$6 game, John already knew his strategy. He would nullify the disadvantages of his inexperience by rattling his opponents into yielding advantages to him.
After silently slipping into the empty seat, he put his chips on the table, anted for the next pot, touched his fingertips together in a praying position, bowed his head, and waited for the cards to be dealt. Someone asked him a question. John did not look up or even acknowledge the question. He looked at no one, said nothing, and moved with squared, mechanical-like motions. Between movements he sat with fingertips joined and stared silently at the "action spot" on the table. The conversation at the table diminished as the players began casting glances at him and then at one another. John knew they were worried about his behavior.
His total withdrawal gave John Finn a two-way advantage: First, it allowed him to shut out interference and distractions from the other players so that he could concentrate, learn, think, and plan strategy. Second, since the other players were reluctant to pressure or intimidate him because they were nervous about his behavior, John had the solitude and time to think and act deliberately, thereby decreasing his confusion and errors.
But this technique, being a short-range tool, needed constant reinforcement as new players entered the game and as other players became tired of John's behavior and began challenging it with intimidation. For example, after a profitable hour of this silent playing, John bowed his head as a portly player entered the game and sat beside him. The stout man began chatting with other players. After two hands, he noticed John's silent, mechanical-man behavior and jabbed John's shoulder several times while blurting, "Hey, man, you alive? You some kind of a robot? Say something so I know I'm not playing against a computer."
Without moving or looking at the man, John kept staring at the table while answering in low monotones, "Doctors at state hospital make me like this ... to control myself. They keep accusing me of being paranoid . . . they keep lying about me. They keep accusing me of being violent. This way I stay controlled and peaceful."
Several players shuddered. But the portly neighbor pressed on, "Hey, man, what hospital? Who's your shrink? I need someone to make me stay controlled and peaceful. I need someone to make me quit gambling and eating. Man, how do I get committed to that hospital?" He punched John's shoulder again.
John Finn jumped up, pointed a stiff finger at the man's face, and shouted, "Don't bug me! Don't bug me or I'll lose control!"
The stout man picked up his chips. "No ... no offense, sir," he said. "I'm leaving. See, I'm leaving." He stood up and left.
Everyone became silent. Another player abruptly stood up and left. John played two more hours in peace while winning $100. As other players left, new players entered the game. Gradually the players became hostile toward John because of his mechanical behavior. So he decided to reinforce his act again at their expense.
The opportunity came several hands later. Before the draw, John had the last bet and raised the maximum on his two pair--jacks and fours. He drew one card and caught the third jack for a full house. He knew his three opponents held weak hands; they would check and probably fold on any betting strength from him. After catching his full house, John had to change his strategy in order to build a larger pot for himself. So he used his abnormal behavior to elicit bluffing and betting action from his opponents: With a jerk, John rose from his seat and faced the player on his left. Lifting his upper lip to expose his teeth, he bowed and whispered, "Thank you, sir, for my straight flush." Turning clockwise, John bowed and uttered his thanks to every player. With each bow, he flashed the jack of hearts and the four of clubs in his carefully arranged hand that concealed his other three cards. He then slumped into his seat, closed his eyes, lowered his head to the table, and continued muttering words of thanks.
The first player snorted and bet the maximum. The second player raised. And the third player called. Without lifting his face from the table, John shoved all his chips toward the pot and said in a muffled voice. "Reraise the maximum." After long pauses, each player called. Still pressing his forehead against the table, John spread his full house face-up against the table. All three players threw down their cards and promptly left the table. Another player stood up and left. The game had been broken. John grabbed the $110 pot, picked up his chips, and left.
Perhaps John Finn overacted in that last hand, causing the players to flee. But so what? Unlike private games, each public game is a one-shot combination of opponents. What they think, feel, or experience has little bearing on future games. So by acting abnormally, John rattled his opponents and won an extra-large pot on top of the $100 he had won earlier--all while learning to play club poker in Gardena. If John had not rattled his opponents, he probably would have lost money in that game--$100 or more. A little planned acting made at least a $300 difference. John exchanged his initial weakness for a bizarre aggressiveness that intimidated and confused his experienced opponents into making multiple errors. With careful planning and unorthodox action, he beat his opponents while learning their game.
Casino poker is easier to learn (especially in the major casinos) than club poker because the nonplaying casino dealer controls the game and protects the new player by guiding him through unfamiliar rules and customs. That help from the dealer reduces the new player's technical errors and allows him more thinking room to analyze the game and execute strategy. The good player makes a wise investment by toking (tipping) dealers who provide him with pressure-relieving protection and helpful information. With the dealer's protection and help, the new player can win pots that he might otherwise have lost or forfeited because of his inexperience. But, in the faster-moving higher-stake games, dealers are more reluctant to help or protect the newcomer. Yet even here, the inexperienced good player can beat experienced professionals by rattling them with unorthodox actions.
When he first moved up to higher-scale casino poker, John Finn twice assumed the role of a mute in order to play in peace and to gain the thinking time necessary to turn certain high-pressure situations into winning hands. On another occasion, he faked a severe tic to successfully bluff a professional player out of a $240 lowball pot.
Once John Finn had control of casino and club poker, he dropped most of his short-term ploys for the more profitable long-range strategy of tough, sound poker based on the Advanced Concepts of Poker.
When to use unorthodox or bizarre acts and which act to use depend on the game and its players. Such acts benefit the good player when he is first adjusting to or learning a new game situation--such as casino or club poker. Once he has the new situation and its players under control, the good player will find his straight poker skills are more effective than unorthodox or bizarre behavior.
In six days, John Finn put both public club and casino poker under his profitable control--at least for the lower-stake and medium-stake games. For the higher-stake games, John had an additional major problem to deal with--the problem of professional cheating.
Professional poker players generally fall into two classes: (1) those who extract money from private games, and (2) those who extract money from public games.
Successful private-game professionals explicitly or implicitly understand and use many of the Advanced Concepts of Poker. Private-game professionals are usually quiet, ostensibly self-effacing, independent loners who never need to join an establishment[ 32 ] or cheat to extract maximum money from their opponents. (Cheating would actually decrease both their investment odds and their long-range edge odds.) Private-game professionals generally prosper more and spend fewer hours playing poker than do public-game professionals.
While all public-game professionals explicitly or implicitly must understand and use enough of the Advanced Concepts of Poker to generate a regular income, many public-game professionals misunderstand or violate various key concepts. For example, many public-game professionals not only openly boast about their poker abilities, but compromise their independence by joining a tacit professional establishment. Because of their compromised independence, most of those public-game professionals limit both their potential winnings and their future. And more and more of those professionals are depending on cheating (at the expense of playing good poker) to extract money for their livelihood.
But some public professionals have considerable financial incentives for maintaining a braggadocio, flamboyant style. Those professionals are supreme hustlers who use their visibility to attract victims. By becoming famous and highly visible, they not only attract gamblers to back them to high-stake games, but they also attract wealthy challengers who want action against a big-name player. The better-known big-name players have won up to $1 million in a single session against such wealthy but foolish challengers. But some big-name professionals have also set themselves up for being cleaned out by shrewd, unknown Advanced-Concept players posing as foolish challengers.
Perhaps the most profound difference between private poker and public poker (club or casino) is the collusion cheating practiced by many professional players in public poker. Few outsiders or victims detect or even suspect professional cheating in public poker because such cheating is visually undetectable. Public-game professionals execute their collusion so naturally and casually that upper management of major casinos and card clubs generally remain unaware of their cheating, even when it routinely occurs in their casinos and clubs. Many public-game professionals accept and practice collusion cheating without qualms. They consider their cheating a natural and legitimate trade tool that enables them to offset the draining effect of the house rake or collection.
The most important classical and modern professional cheating methods and devices are listed in Table 35.
| Card Manipulations | Card Treatments | Other Devices |
|---|---|---|
| * blind shuffling | * daubing (Golden Glow, nicotine stains, soiling) | check copping |
| * crimping | corner flash | cold deck |
| * culling | denting and rounders | * collusion |
| dealing seconds, | luminous readers | partners |
| dealing bottoms, | marking | * card flashing |
| dealing middles | nailing (indexing) | * crossfiring |
| * false cutting | punching | * signals |
| * false riffling | sanding | * spread |
| foiling the cut | slicked-aced deck | holdouts |
| palming | stripping | shiners |
| * peeking | waving | |
| * pull through | | |
| * stacking * Las Vegas riffle * overhand stack * riffle cull and stack * undercut stack | | |
[See the Glossary in Appendix C for definitions of these terms.]
* Professional cheating methods most commonly used today in public poker.
To win consistently at high-stake casino or club poker, the good player has two choices: (1) join the professional establishment and become part of their collusion-cheating system,[ 33 ] or (2) develop and use techniques to profit from the cheating of others. But in certain games such as high-stake lowball, collusion cheating by professionals can prevent even a good player from winning. As identified in Chapter XXXI, professional collusion cheating in lowball poker can diminish the good player's investment odds so greatly that he cannot win, even with his superior alertness, poker skills, and strategy.
Table 36 summarizes some of the important cheating techniques that professional poker players use in public clubs and casinos. That table also includes the classical but crude cheating techniques occasionally used by amateurs.[ 34 ] Contrary to popular belief, almost any player can master effective, invisible cheating methods with only a few hours of practice. A book, Neocheating -- The Unbeatable Weapon in Poker, Blackjack, Bridge and Gin, by Frank R. Wallace, Mark Hamilton, and William S., identifies and describes in detail those new and easy cheating techniques that professional players are using today in poker clubs and casinos.
| Manipulation Techniques--more common in private poker | Uses | Methods |
|---|---|---|
| Classical and amateur manipulations (solo) | Least effective, most detectable. Shunned by today's professional establishment. Crudely used by amateurs in private games. Effectively used only by the rare, classic card-sharp who is highly skilled, dexterous, and experienced. | Classical deck stacking, holding out cards, palming, second and bottom dealing, shaved decks, shiners, marked cards, and various mechanical devices used to cheat opponents. |
| Full flashing of draw and hole cards (dealer to partner) | More effective for stud and hold 'em games. | With smooth, imperceptible motions, the dealer lifts or tilts cards just enough for his partner to see. Done only when others are not looking or are unaware. The dealer may also allow his partner to see cards during the riffle. |
| Modern and professional manipulations (solo) | Most effective, easiest to learn, usually undetectable. Used by professional players in both private and public poker. Neocheating. | Easy techniques of culling cards, blind shuffling, false riffling, false cutting, foiling cuts--especially the new and easy Neocheating techniques. |
| Collusion Techniques--more common in club poker | Uses | Methods |
| Partial flashing of draw and hole cards (dealer to partner) | Most effective for high-stake, lowball draw. | Player sits low enough to see shades of darkness, blur intensities, or the actual values of cards being dealt face-down--with or without the dealer's help.* |
| Collusion betting (partner to partner) | Most common in high-stake lowball and in bluff-dependent games. | Requires system of "strength of hand" and "when to bet, raise, or fold" signals between colluding partners. |
| Combined Techniques--more common in casino poker | Uses | Methods |
| Collusion and manipulation (house dealer to partner) | Most effective and common in casinos with house dealers who manipulate cards and work in collusion with professional players. | The dealer culls or manipulates memorized cards to top of deck. He then knows everyone's hole cards and signals his partner when to bet, raise, or drop. |
* Good players train themselves to evaluate the shades of darkness or blur intensities of partially flashed cards (e.g., darker shades or more intense blurs indicate higher-value cards--valuable information for lowball). If a player sees flashed cards without dealer collusion, he is not cheating since the same advantage is available to all players who choose to be equally alert. Alert players also watch for flashed cards as the dealer riffles, shuffles, and cuts.
In club poker, the alert player detects professional cheating most often in the highest-stake lowball games in which signaling systems and card-flashing collusion are devastatingly effective. In casino poker, the alert player detects collusion cheating most often in the highest-stake stud and hold 'em games.
Not all public-game professionals are cheaters or part of the professional establishment.[ 35 ] Not all high stake public games have cheaters, or even professionals, present. But any high-stake public game free of cheaters and professionals is ripe for exploitation and quickly attracts professionals and cheaters. Still, out of justice and fairness, the good player never considers anyone to be a cheater until he has adequate proof of cheating. Moreover, the good player strives to be just and fair in order to know more accurately what is going on and thus avoid costly errors. Being just and fair boosts his profits.
The good player resists the temptation to blame tough or painful losses on being cheated (rather than on coincidence or on his own errors). Because of the extra quick folds and the extra-aggressive bets used to beat cheaters, the good player can make an expensive error by misreading an opponent as a cheater.
Since cheating harms the long-range business interests of all public card clubs and casinos, management of the major clubs and casinos seriously oppose any form of cheating. They have always taken firm measures to eliminate and prevent cheating in their operations. For them, cheating means only bad publicity, lost business, lower profits, and potential legal problems. Without cheating, clubs and casinos can eventually extract all the money gamblers have to offer. With cheating, clubs and casinos could eventually go out of business.
Using tight controls and effective surveillance systems, the management of major casinos keeps all gaming operations (except poker) free of major, organized, or chronic cheating. All casino games, except poker, function between casino and player, allowing management to closely monitor and tightly control the action. But in poker, the game functions between player and player (not between casino and player), leaving the management unable to monitor and control the action. That uniquely uncontrollable situation combined with the undetectability of professional collusion cheating makes poker the only casino game in which management has no practical way to detect or eliminate such cheating. Also, casino management and its employees are less motivated to ferret out poker cheating because in poker, the players (not the casino) lose money to cheaters. But in other games, the casino (not the players) loses money to cheaters.
The public view of casino cheating differs markedly from the actual situation. Several years ago, for example, a major poker-cheating conspiracy was publicly exposed in the Las Vegas MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, the world's largest gambling establishment. The police arrested the cardroom manager, the floorman, two dealers, and five outside partners--all were charged with illegal conspiracy and felony swindling. That publicized incident coincides with the public view of professional cheating in casino poker. But the authorities caught those alleged "professional cheaters" only because they were amateurish and crude in their techniques of culling, stacking, and peeking. Allegedly, they even resorted to copping chips from pots. But the MGM cheating scandal did not involve or even touch on the real professional cheating that flourishes with casual finesse in higher-stake poker games, unchecked by casino management and unnoticed by the public.
Even if professional cheaters were eliminated from a high-stake game, a wave of new professionals and cheaters would fill the vacuum in order to exploit the "easy pickings" inherent in any new or clean public poker game. The financial incentive is too great to prevent professionals and cheaters from quickly moving into high-stake poker games filled with tourists, losers, and other easy amateurs.
What will happen when management and the public become increasingly aware of this uncontrollable professional cheating? Most casinos could simply drop poker from their operations (or at least eliminate cheater-prone high-stake poker) with little lasting effect on their profits. But how will commercial poker clubs handle undetectable professional cheating? Nearly their entire business depends on poker, which, in turn, depends on the trust and confidence of their most important customers--the losers. Unless management can stop the spread of professional cheating (especially Neocheating), the commercial poker clubs could encounter business difficulties if the majority of their customers (the losers) began discovering and understanding the extent of professional cheating in their games.[ 36 ]
Since many professional poker players depend on collusion for a living and since their cheating is generally undetectable, management currently has no practical way to eliminate their cheating. One long-range solution might be tamper-proof mechanical or electronic shuffling and dealing devices that would not only eliminate undetectable dealer-player collusion, card flashing, and most card manipulations, but could also reduce operating costs by eliminating dealers, accelerating the action, and automating house collections. In turn, lower operating costs could result in lower-percentage house cuts. Also, elimination of competition from professional cheaters would further increase the profits of good players and independent professionals who win through their own skills rather than through cheating.
Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
[ 32 ] Professionals who get involved with establishments or cliques usually limit their potentials and acquire rigid, stereo-typed characteristics that the good player can identify. Once he has identified the stereotyped characteristics of those professionals, the good player can predict their actions and consistently beat them--even when they cheat. The good player or superior professional, on the other hand, usually remains independent and avoids stereotyped characteristics. And often his opponents never realize that he is a good player who is winning all of their money.
[ 33 ] Most public-game professionals admire and respect the good poker player and readily accept him into their establishment (especially in Gardena and Las Vegas). Their ready acceptance of the good player seems contradictory to their best interests since such acceptance increases competition for the losers' money. But those professionals both respect and fear the independent good player. He is a threat to their system. They eliminate that threat by making him a part of their system. By contrast, the private or non establishment good player tries to get rid of any competing player who is good enough to drain money from the game.
[ 34 ] Classical cheating (e.g., stacking specific hands, second dealing, holding out cards) seldom occurs in club or casino poker. Occasionally amateurs, strangers, or newcomers attempt classical cheating in public poker. But since their techniques are almost always crude, they are usually caught and banished from the game. Few professional cheaters today approve of or practice that kind of obsolete mechanical cheating. New cheating methods (called Neocheating) are so much easier, more effective, and essentially undetectable.
[ 35 ] Likewise, not all private-game professionals are independent loners or above cheating.
[ 36 ] Chronic or heavy losers might even sue those card clubs and casinos in which they had systematically lost money to professional cheaters. But those losers would probably need corroboration from several professional cheaters to support any serious litigation.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com