Slashdot Mirror


Casino Insider Tells (Almost) All About Security

An anonymous reader writes "ComputerWorld has up a story on casino security technology, exploring the world of facial recognition technology and various other systems in casinos such as the Bellagio, Treasure Island, and Beau Rivage. Industry veteran Jeff Jonas reveals some of the secret scams he learned from the casino industry such as the infinite hundred dollar bill, the hollowed out chip cup, the palm (trading cards), the specialty code (inserted by rogue programmer into video poker machine) and the cameraman, as well as detailing how casinos strike back against fraudsters and cheats.'"

16 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. 3rd page by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Informative

    For some odd reason, the submitter has linked to the third page of a three page article. To no one's surprise, the editors did not catch this. Here is the link to page 1
    http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;270726757;pp;1;fp;4194304;fpid;1

    1. Re:3rd page by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Informative

      Network World has the article as well, since the poor .au site has just developed emotional issues from the stampede of slashdotters.

      Link

  2. Biggest Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget about the biggest scam of all, known as "The Casino"

  3. Re:Not just to get the venue safe by kd5ujz · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was the use of twenty sided dice at the craps table that gave them away.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  4. Skip to Infinite hundred dollar bill by Statecraftsman · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/030708-vegas-insider.html?page=3

    /getting sick of paging through 5 pages of a single page article. If I ever start an online mag, I'm going present one sentence per page just for fun.

  5. Untrue by hellfire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The point is that people who gamble rarely understand the odds. Those that do understand the odds and the house percentage don't unusually gamble. Or if they gamble then they count cards as well.

    Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I don't find this statement to be true.

    There are plenty of people who understand the odds, but still love to gamble. To them it's about the thrill of possibly hitting it big. Those who do understand the odds tend to either play games like blackjack which is the only game in the casino which has positive odds, and those who simply walk in with $500 and intends to make it last as long as they can, but know that the chances of them walking out with more than they went in are not in their favor.

    I'm not one of them, but then again I get it why others are like this.

    The ones that count cards are simply trying to shift the odds in their favor for bigger payouts, and of course really only applies to blackjack (again, the only game with odds not in favor of the casino, but you have to know how to play to get your money).

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Untrue by MobileMrX · · Score: 5, Informative
      Blackjack's odds are almost never (if ever) in the favor of the player, unless the player is counting cards.

      For reference: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html

      That calculates the house's odds. Even if you give every advantage to the player, the house still has the advantage if they are using more than one deck (which is almost always). So even in perfect player conditions, the house still has to be using only one deck for the player to have any advantage.

    2. Re:Untrue by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those who do understand the odds tend to either play games like blackjack which is the only game in the casino which has positive odds


      Positive odds is only true if you are counting cards and are good at it. Even if you play blackjack perfectly the casino still has the odds favor. See here.

      People who understand odds aren't playing blackjack, but craps. Properly played craps has the lowest house advantage than any other game in the casino. Plus it's actually fun! Every time I go to LV I play craps at Casino Royale. It's a crappy casino, but they have the lowest house advantage that I've found. In fact this chart shows I'm at the right place :)
    3. Re:Untrue by jayspec462 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've heard that it also relies on a) knowing when to walk away, and b) knowing when to run.

      Counting your money when you're sitting at the table is also frowned upon.

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    4. Re:Untrue by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Funny

      If your day at the movies cost you as much as a day at the casino, then you aren't doing one of those correctly.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    5. Re:Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you and I just dated ourselves. This is slashdot, we all date ourselves.

  6. Casino security is neat. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got approached by Casino security at the MGM Grand one night and was asked why I was looking at the cameras. I told the guy what business I was in and then proceeded to tell him about the 35 cameras that were around our general location. he was impressed and we talked a bit over a beer he bought me and even let me see one of the security offices.

    Note: I spotted that the texas Holdem tables had wide angle cameras just under the lip where you sit. Not low enough to get up-skirt shots, but where they can spot cards being handed. I started looking for it when a friend of mine was told by the pitboss to stop handing $5 chips to his friend. that's when I decided to drop my chips and bend over to pick them up and spot the lenses.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Casino security is neat. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      This curious dork got a contract to install 12 Panasonic 42" plasmas for signage out of the whole thing. They called me because I left a card with him and he passed it on as a "this guy is trustworthy" gesture, it also helped that I got to meet the Operations manager that night as well and talked for a while.

      So I made some nice coin on the deal of being a "dork". I need to be a "dork" more often :)

      BTW: notice how casinos only really use Panasonic Commercial Plasmas? it's because the digital signage module plugs into the set's backplane. It's a all in one solution without any additional "crap" run a cat5, plug the set into the network, and it's all done... I can even do a video wall with 12-16 sets without buying a controller as the set's will do it all for me.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Re:waiting for the MIT movie Counting Cards.. by davidsyes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, since you bring up card counting, I now have an angle to bring up something and hopefully avoid the dreaded, eviscerating "Off-Topic"-wand-wielding maestro...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_(2008_film)

    I just a few weeks ago read in a copy of Asian Week how these smart AMERICAN Asians figured out a card counting method and raked in the coin from one or more casinos. Now, we've got hollyweird picking up on this and whitewashing the cast. Amazing the shit hollyweird does to calculate to obtain the best studio ticket intake.

    From Wikipedia, from Asian Week and Ben Mezrich (author of the book):

    "Casting of Caucasian/Asian

    Although the four main characters in Bringing Down the House were Asian-Americans in real life, studio executives have cast mostly white actors to portray them in the film. Ben Mezrich, author of Bringing Down the House, has noted a "stereotypical" casting process on the part of Hollywood.[1] In the book, Mezrich explicitly states that a young Caucasian betting large amounts of money stands out, while a young Asian or other minority would be less conspicuous. Asian Week called the casting a "whitewash," pointing out that if it were African Americans replaced by Caucasians, there would be more vocal protest."

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  8. Re:waiting for the MIT movie by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you bet the same every hand, you get that advantage.

    No. If you vary your bet according to the count, you get the advantage. You need to be proportionally more as the count goes up, to make up for the small bets you made when the count was down.

    If you work with a team and the next guy bets BIG, then its hugely in your advantage.

    Again, close. If you work with a team, then the next guy will not be playing at all during a low count. If you are counting, they you don't vary your bet at all. But when the count goes up, you signal the Big Player to come in. They place a large bet-- something that would seem suspicious if YOU put it down, but is normal for him. He only bets that amount and doesn't vary.

    In that case, your advantage is EXACTLY THE SAME (~0.5% per count)-- but the EV will be greater. The more you bet, the more you'll earn, but the rate will be the same. If you have a 1.5% advantage, it doesn't matter if you bet $100 or $10,000. You will only "earn" 1.5% of that.

    Your numbers are WAY off how multi-person counting works. Not really. And it depends on the type of team you are working with. If you have small player/big player (as above), then you will still need ~12,000 hands to overcome one standard deviation. If you are sharing a bankroll amongst many counters, then, well, you still need 12,000 hands, but you will be able to pool your hands. (Assuming you are all playing at separate tables). You reach the longterm much quicker, and lower your risk of ruin.

    Interestingly, I've had dealers help me count before

    Uhhhg. Never rely on the dealer. They don't know what they're doing. They're just a flawed gaming machine made of flesh.

    Doing simple "count the tens" helps your odds on a non-continuous-dealt game

    No. No it doesn't. It's useless to count the tens unless you are also counting the low cards that balance it. It's useless to know that five 10s have left the deck, unless you know how many low cards have also left the deck. The whole point about counting is to know the estimated composition of the remaining deck.

    Example: You are counting the tens. 6 tens come out of the deck. You assume a count of -6, and lower your bet. I am hi/lo. I see those 6 tens come out, and then 12 low cards. I KNOW a count of +6, and raise my bet to take advantage of it. Guess who is coming out on top

    I had a dealer, who was watching me pull back as the tens had largely made their appearances actually told me "you don't want to take this next hit".She was right.

    And she could just have easily have been wrong. She doesn't know what the next card is. Neither does a counter. A counter just knows the estimated composition of the deck, and can vary their bet or use an "index play". IE: Basic Strategy says 12 vs. 2 is a hit, because that move is the best possible play statistically. But at a count > 0, it becomes stand, because now that move is the bes possible play statistically. That doesn't mean the next card is a 10. It just means that you'll lose less by standing than by hitting.

    You cannot point to a single hand and use that as proof for anything. Remember, 12,000 hands is where "long term" begins. Everything else is indistinguishable from luck. If anything, the dealer was taking a blind shot hoping for a tip.

  9. Re:waiting for the MIT movie by DoubleMike · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read the book.
    I read the book, and I'm pretty sure you didn't, or at least you didn't get past chapter two. The MIT team DID use card counting most of the time, and only used the super-hard tricky stuff when they just wanted to have a little fun.

    This is harder to track than card counting, because you play normally most hands, just bet big (and somewhat out of character, which helped lead to their downfall) every once in a while and win big.
    Again, completely wrong. That was exactly what the team was trying to avoid. A big bet after a bunch of small ones really stands out and makes you look suspicious. What they did was have one player bet small and count cards until the odds shifted to favor the player, then they signaled the "big player" to come in and bet big to take advantage of the better odds.

    The one thing that struck me most in reading the book is that they really never understood human nature, specifically humans working for the casino. They kept on saying "well, we're not cheating" and expected there to be no problems. ... They seemed totally unaware of the dangers they faced, physically.
    I'm not sure which book you read, but it wasn't the right one. The MIT team understood human nature extremely well, and exploited it to make their scheme undetectable. They knew what kind of players bet big, so they imitated those characters. Their card counters were usually some hot blonde that no-one would ever suspect, and no-one did. They also knew the law, and they weren't "cheating". They knew the dangers, and always, always had a plan B. They were literally taught the people who discovered the dangers firsthand when they were interrogated forcefully by casino security (back in the 70's-80's). They had scouts and knew the quickest way out of the building, in case casino management decided they weren't welcome. The only reason they were ever caught is because someone ratted them out, and then everything changed because they were no longer allowed in any casino (by the casinos, not the law). Once they were forcefully retired, they did the smart thing and published their story, making even more money.