(Close Window)
Topic: AI program beats pros in six-player poker -- a first
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 14, 2019 10:24AM)
From MSN News.com:

AI program beats pros in six-player poker -- a first

Artificial intelligence programs have bested humans in checkers, chess, Go and two-player poker, but multi-player poker was always believed to be a bigger ask. Mission: accomplished.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, working with Facebook's AI initiative, announced Thursday that their program defeated a group of top pros in six-player no-limit Texas hold 'em.

The program, Pluribus, and its big wins were described in the US journal Science.

"Pluribus achieved superhuman performance at multi-player poker, which is a recognized milestone in artificial intelligence and in game theory," said Tuomas Sandholm, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon.

Sandholm worked with Noam Brown, who is working at Facebook AI while completing his doctorate at the Pittsburgh-based university.

"Thus far, superhuman AI milestones in strategic reasoning have been limited to two-party competition," Sandholm said in a statement released by the school.

According to the creators of Pluribus, the technology could be used to solve a "wide variety of real-world problems" that, like in poker, involve actors who bluff, or hide key information.

The program first defeated two major poker champions, Darren Elias and Chris Ferguson, who each played 5,000 hands against it.

Pluribus then took on 13 pros in a separate experiment, five at a time. In a total of 10,000 hands, the program "emerged victorious," researchers said.

First, the program practiced against itself, learning little by little how to use poker moves to best advantage. Surprises cropped up.

"Its major strength is its ability to use mixed strategies," said Elias.

"That's the same thing that humans try to do. It's a matter of execution for humans -- to do this in a perfectly random way and to do so consistently. Most people just can't."

One surprise was that Pluribus used "donk betting" -- ending one round with a call and starting the next with a bet -- far more than would the pros, who traditionally see the move as a weak one.

Brown even ventured so far as to say that some of the program's strategies "might even change the way pros play the game."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 14, 2019 01:47PM)
Thank you kindly Cag that is very interesting.
Message: Posted by: byronblaq1 (Jul 14, 2019 08:21PM)
Very interesting read Cag. Iíd love to read the full study.

B.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 15, 2019 04:35PM)
If they can clean up in all the online poker games in the world with this super bot then why have they revealed it?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 15, 2019 06:28PM)
[quote]On Jul 15, 2019, tommy wrote:

If they can clean up in all the online poker games in the world with this super bot then why have they revealed it? [/quote]

Possibly because they cannot use the bot in online games, or in most online games.

In the US, we can only play on the WSOP site and that site is only available in three states. We cannot play in offshore poker games in the US.

The WSOP software is very sensitive to any extraneous programs attached to their site and you will get shut down if they detect any outside electronic interference.

I am not knowledgeable enough with the type technology that may be use to attach to the WSOP software undetected, or to any other site, but I think they make such attachment almost impossible.

But then again, I am not big on this type technology.
Message: Posted by: byronblaq1 (Jul 15, 2019 09:41PM)
Iíd find it difficult to utilise this effectively outside of this experiment for now.

Interestingly, it shows the possibilities of future systems/security though and itís approach may be studied to better improve gameplay though.

B.
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Jul 19, 2019 12:11AM)
The researchers at Carnegie Mellon have taken pains to keep the bot out of the hands of anyone who would abuse it.

Also, while most online poker sites have some degree of bot security, they are still rampant.

And it's not exactly true that you US players can't play on offshore sites. There are a number of sites that do accept US players, at least from most states. It's a legal gray area but it definitely happens. Much of it uses crypto currency to get money on and off the sites as it's banking part that's illegal.

Certainly none of the larger international sites accept US players (Pokerstars, etc).
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 19, 2019 11:18AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2019, Last Laugh wrote:

And it's not exactly true that you US players can't play on offshore sites. There are a number of sites that do accept US players, at least from most states. It's a legal gray area but it definitely happens. Much of it uses crypto currency to get money on and off the sites as it's [the] banking part that's illegal.

Certainly none of the larger international sites accept US players (Pokerstars, etc). [/quote]

Well, let's put it this way. To the best of my knowledge it is illegal for US players to gamble on offshore poker sites, which is probably why the larger international sites do not accept them. Poker gambling sites are regulated in the US, and poker site gambling is [i]only[/i] legal in three states using the WSOP platform.

I would also think that using crypto currencies for deposits and withdrawals (in light of the bankruptcies and machinations that have occurred with some of those currencies), coupled with dealing with a small offshore poker site that is trying to get around US law might be a little perilous in and of itself. Winning at poker is hard enough without creating additional ways to lose one's money.

The same situation exists with trading the Forex market. It is illegal for US citizens to trade with a non-US based Forex broker. When a small non-US based Forex broker starts accepting US customers, they shortly stop doing so after the US government takes steps to stop them from doing so.

Why do business and deposit money with people who are breaking US law. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 19, 2019 04:55PM)
I did a little further research regarding off-shore poker sites that deal with US players.

On a Google search, I came up with 12 sites that accept US residents, all off-shore. Inasmuch as I don't play serious poker online, while these sites are regulated in off-shore jurisdictions (for what that is worth), it appears the individual states in the US actually have jurisdiction over gambling engaged in by their residents, even online gambling.

The only 100% legal regulated site in the US is the WSOP site which is available only to US residents of New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada. That of course excludes the majority of players in the US.

I would think there are possible problems with depositing funds in some of these sites, and more importantly, withdrawing funds. They are apparently operating in a grey area, and the use of bitcoins for deposits and withdrawals, and the possible delay in receiving deposited US funds...if one receives them at all, is something each player will have to determine for himself.

Fortunately, I don't have to play online and if I did, the WSOP site seems to satisfy with the least potential problems.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject of off-shore online gambling sites for US residents to comment definitively. Perhaps someone who knows more about this, or has experience playing on these sites, will offer some feedback.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 21, 2019 09:53AM)
What is illegal in one place may be perfectly legal in another place. However, I know of no casino in any place where using a computer to beat poker games is legal. Somebody in a London casino though not long ago used a computer to beat roulette and the courts said it was legal as I recall. So who knows? Is it small enough to fit in a shoe like a blackjack computer?
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 21, 2019 02:53PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, tommy wrote:
What is illegal in one place may be perfectly legal in another place. However, I know of no casino in any place where using a computer to beat poker games is legal. Somebody in a London casino though not long ago used a computer to beat roulette and the courts said it was legal as I recall. So who knows? Is it small enough to fit in a shoe like a blackjack computer? [/quote]

If you're referring to the Ritz team that beat the game of roulette, they were not using a computer.

Jason
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2019 04:27AM)
Right, yes the Ritz. I thought that they were accused of using a laser, phone and a computer but had argued that they had not interfered with a game and therefore it was lawful. Much like card counting does not interfere with the game. Punters in the racing game anyhow commonly use computers to try and beat the bookies and it is perfectly lawful.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 22, 2019 07:37AM)
Http://roulettedoc.com/article-ritz-casino-attacked-by-a-roulette-scam.htm
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 22, 2019 12:03PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:

If you're referring to the Ritz team that beat the game of roulette, they were not using a computer.
Jason [/quote]

According to the article quoted by landmark @ Http://roulettedoc.com/article-ritz-casino-attacked-by-a-roulette-scam.htm

[quote]The technique used by the gang used the principle of "sector targeting". The [i]player/computer[/i] determines the moment and place where the ball is released and the point when is passes after a couple of spins. These figures are used to calculate the "decaying orbit" of the ball and to predict where the ball is likely to land. No player can calculate this without a help of an electronical device. True, in the early eighties, a book by Scott Lang revealed how to predict the slot at a roulette table with a help of a digital stopwatch, after that stopwatches are banned in all the casinos. [/quote]

While I am no longer on the cutting edge of gaffs used to beat casinos, and have no direct or detailed knowledge regarding the play in question, it seems from a cursory point of view this would qualify as using a computer, [i]directly or indirectly[/i], to beat roulette. At minimum, it would at least be akin to using a stop watch which evidently has been banned from casinos in England.

It is interesting to note however, that smart phones can now do much of what desktop and laptop computers can do and in some respects are much more versatile.

But once again, my statement is not definitive as I no longer keep up on the details of casino advantage plays as I once did, so I am sure Jason knows much more about this particular ploy than I at this point in time. Perhaps he has additional information which enabled him to make his statement as quoted above.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 22, 2019 01:35PM)
Every newspaper article states that they used "laser scanners" and software on their cell phones. They are all wrong.

First of all, I don't know about you, but even 15 years later, my cell phone doesn't have a laser scanner (and it certainly didn't in 2004!). In 2004 you had to push a button 3 times just to text the letter "C" to someone.

Police arrested them a few hours after one of the big plays. A search of their phones found...nothing. Nothing there, nothing deleted (forensics can tell you if something was deleted a few hours ago) and nothing resembling a laser "anything." Video surveillance doesn't indicate anyone using any sort of hidden device either. I've worn a roulette computer in a casino - I know what it looks like when someone is using one. They weren't.

Michael Barnett was the gaming security consultant FOR THE RITZ in this case and he went on record and said that there was no indication that the crew used ANY electronics of any kind.

They beat that wheel with visual prediction, not electronics. Perfectly legal.

And that's why they were released without charge and paid.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 22, 2019 04:48PM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:

They beat that wheel with visual prediction, not electronics. Perfectly legal.

Jason [/quote]

Your are probably correct. Newspapers can be notoriously wrong on their reporting and it can be done visually but an assist can be helpful. How about the stop watch on the phone. Most smartphones have one?

Just a thought.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 22, 2019 05:08PM)
Thanks for the info, Jason.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 22, 2019 05:46PM)
It does not matter how they did it. What matters is that they were accused of using a computer to help them beat the game and that the case was dropped because that was not illegal under the gaming act. That is what is relevant to the issue of whether or not one can use a computer to beat games legally in that way.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 23, 2019 02:09AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, tommy wrote:
... the case was dropped because that was not illegal under the gaming act. [/quote]

Also not true.

Here are Michael Barnett's words on the subject:

"I examined all the evidence, including several mobile phones, held at Scotland Yard by the Specialist & Economic Crime Directorate.

I spoke with the arresting officers, members of the Club Squad.

I spoke with gaming staff that were present on the nights in question.

I spoke with the surveillance team who monitored and analyzed the action.

I watched surveillance video tape footage of the action.

I listened to recorded audio of the action.

I examined the running sheets of all bets made.

There was no evidence whatsoever of device use.

The Ritz Club is small and exclusive; any suggestion that players could get away with filming a roulette wheel are not only ludicrous, it is also an insult to the professionalism of the Ritz Club staff.

Claims that no charges were pursued because device use is not an illegal act are totally without foundation.

I am not claiming that device use IS an illegal act; I am stating that, in this case, it was not an issue.

There is strong evidence that conditions on the nights in question were conducive to prediction techniques.

The betting patterns, execution and timing of wagers was professional and in line with known prediction techniques."


Jason
Message: Posted by: disgruntledpuffin (Jul 25, 2019 09:44AM)
FYI all, these days, under the 2005 Gambling Act and the 2006 Fraud Act,it is indeed illegal to use a prediction device in a UK casino, but prohibition of such devices has to be in the rules of the casino in question. Use of covert cameras to gain an advantage over a game is also illegal.

Jack
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 26, 2019 08:19AM)
3. London Ritz Clubó2004

ďBy far the most successful documented predictive device, at least in terms of money won, was a roulette computer used in March 2004 at the Ritz Club in London. Vlad Markov and two companions used a combination computer and laser tracker built into a cellular phone to predict in which octant the roulette ball would fall. Markovís first choice was apparently to play in Las Vegas, but he selected London instead, because the United Kingdom, unlike Nevada, still did not have any laws making predictive devices illegal. In two days of heavy betting, the trio won 1.2 million pounds (2 million U.S. dollars). When the computer was discovered, all three were arrested and both the money and the computer were confiscated. However, when Scotland Yard figured out what Vladís computer did, they realized it was not a cheating device and released the trio, giving back the computer and all the cash they had won.Ē

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

High-Tech Casino Advantage Play: Legislative Approaches to the Threat of Predictive Devices

David W. Schnell-Davis

2012

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/glj/vol3/iss2/7/
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 27, 2019 07:47PM)
I find it hilarious that you posted a link to an article that clearly got all of its information from (and even provides citations to) Richard Marcus' [i]World's Greatest Gambling Scams[/i] book. That book is one of the worst books on gambling/cheating that I've ever read.

I'll say it again: everything in the news articles is wrong. Marcus got his information from the news articles (so he's wrong - typical of him) and Schnell-Davis got all of his information from Marcus (and cited his article thusly).


Once again, from Michael Barnett, someone who was THERE and examined the evidence on behalf of the Ritz:

"A review of all the available evidence, hard and soft, along with eye witness reports does not demonstrate or indicate device use. There are other quasi-legal techniques that can be employed to make roulette prediction viable; there is no evidence of this either. It beggars belief that some of the most experienced and highly trained staff in the country would stand by and allow anything like this to happen if there was any hard evidence or even a strong indication that anything untoward was going on. I am not surprised that a gullible public would swallow the "laser" story but I am somewhat disappointed that people within the industry don't give their Ritz colleagues any credit for doing their job. It is important to understand that the Ritz players did not get AWAY with anything, we know what they did and it didn't involve lasers. At the risk of repeating myself; device use in a British casino will almost certainly buy you a trip to the Big House."

Also from Barnett:

"I have just returned from a month at the Ritz. I should point out that my recent UK visit was as a consultant not an AP. Do not believe everything (anything) you read in the papers; device use will not be tolerated in British casinos. The reports in the world press bore no relation to the facts; if there had been evidence of device use the protagonists would not be walking away with their loot. Whilst there my not be specific laws governing device use under the Act, there are sufficient other legal mechanisms that could be applied. Do not take the outcome of the Ritz case to assume that carte blanche has been given to device equipped players...the Gaming Act is only a small part of the British legal system, whilst there is nothing in the act to cover this situation, I am informed by the police that there are other sections of the criminal code under which device use could fall."

I'll translate for Tommy: There were no devices. The players know this, the Ritz knows this, the police know this. The press, apparently, doesn't.

But if there had been devices, the Ritz could have almost certainly at least attempted to prosecute - just not under the Gaming Act. (There are other, older fraud statutes that could have been leveraged.)

J
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 27, 2019 10:00PM)
I would not trust Michael Barnett with my cat.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 27, 2019 10:28PM)
I'll take that as your concession that you've been outmaneuvered in this thread. I accept your surrender.

Jason
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 27, 2019 11:37PM)
I will take that has you having nothing to corroborate the story of your card marking kit salesman who you claim is a gaming security consultant FOR THE RITZi
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 28, 2019 10:58AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:

Every newspaper article states that they used "laser scanners" and software on their cell phones. They are all wrong.

First of all, I don't know about you, but even 15 years later, my cell phone doesn't have a laser scanner (and it certainly didn't in 2004!).

Jason [/quote]

It doesn't? How come? What sort of phone do you have? I though even flip-top phones had scanners.

Hmmm...Let me check my flip-top.

Oh my mistake. It seems like I mistook the calculator for a laser scanner.

Sorry about that. :dizzy:
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 28, 2019 11:15AM)
Richard Marcus?

Did someone write, "Richard Marcus?"

Is he still around?

I have not read his two books or the material on his website in many years but from what I recall, he is an blatant hustler and scammer and loves to exaggerate and sensationalize that which he writes about. However, as I recall, not everything Marcus wrote was incorrect or highly exaggerated although a great deal of it was.

Let's face it, some people will go to any extreme to sell a book or their gambling/scamming expertise in their quest to obtain the highly coveted title of ......

[b]"GAMBLING EXPERT." [/b] :dancing:

Got to admire his unconcealed chutzpah though. :hmm:
Message: Posted by: disgruntledpuffin (Jul 30, 2019 10:10AM)
He is indeed still around. I recently was at a seminar he conducted. To say I was unimpressed was an understatement. He won't get booked in London again, I'd guarantee that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 5, 2019 11:56AM)
[quote]On Jul 22, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:
Every newspaper article states that they used "laser scanners" and software on their cell phones. They are all wrong.

First of all, I don't know about you, but even 15 years later, my cell phone doesn't have a laser scanner (and it certainly didn't in 2004!). In 2004 you had to push a button 3 times just to text the letter "C" to someone.

Police arrested them a few hours after one of the big plays. A search of their phones found...nothing. Nothing there, nothing deleted (forensics can tell you if something was deleted a few hours ago) and nothing resembling a laser "anything." Video surveillance doesn't indicate anyone using any sort of hidden device either. I've worn a roulette computer in a casino - I know what it looks like when someone is using one. They weren't.

Michael Barnett was the gaming security consultant FOR THE RITZ in this case and he went on record and said that there was no indication that the crew used ANY electronics of any kind.

They beat that wheel with visual prediction, not electronics. Perfectly legal.

And that's why they were released without charge and paid.

Jason [/quote]

Well Jason I had no idea you were going to use facts and proof and then common sense in this discussion. Tommy is not used to that.

I have a question. Isn't visual prediction not too accurate? I mean in all the years of the roulette wheel nobody has beaten it in a significant enough way to make them try to stop this with the exception of when they stop bets.

Please do not think an argumentative tone exists in my post , I am genuinely asking as it is interesting.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 5, 2019 04:36PM)
True but then I am used to you.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Aug 9, 2019 12:53PM)
Visual prediction (or visual ballistics if you prefer) works a lot better with older wheels that have a steep inner cone and steep walls. It also benefits from deep pockets. The ball "splashes down" and since it takes more energy to climb out of deep pockets and up a steep cone/walls, it tends to not scatter (bounce around) as much.

Modern wheels have shallow bowls and very shallow center cones. The pockets are also much shallower these days. The ball may indeed hit where you predict, but the smallest bit of energy from that initial impact can send it up onto the cone where it can drift around and meander until the original impact point has moved away from it. The amount of scatter is tremendous these days.

So, your "accuracy" with regard to point of impact may be the same with old wheels and new ones. But your ability to make a profit will NOT be the same. Newer wheels are tougher to beat (in general).

Jason
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Aug 9, 2019 02:33PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:

Modern wheels have shallow bowls and very shallow center cones...The amount of scatter is tremendous these days...

So, your "accuracy" with regard to point of impact may be the same with old wheels and new ones. But your ability to make a profit will NOT be the same. Newer wheels are tougher to beat (in general). [/quote]

These joints, (the casinos that is), have been beaten so many times, for so long, for so much money, in so many different ways, that over time, little by little, they of necessity make "improvements" or "adjustments" in their procedures and equipment in order to thwart the hustlers or at least ameliorate their impact.

Jason's comment is one example of the change in equipment they have made to protect themselves or at least "reduce the pain."

It is like being hit over the head repeatedly. Eventually you figure out, "Hey, maybe I should move my head out of the way." :goof:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2019 04:18PM)
It all depends on the circumstances: if you happen to be a top casino in London and entrust your security to the wizard of Oz, who happens to run a gamblers supply house, has been banned from casinos and is an arms dealer on the side, then you might also be a masochist looking forward to being hit.
Message: Posted by: disgruntledpuffin (Aug 10, 2019 09:01AM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, JasonEngland wrote:
Visual prediction (or visual ballistics if you prefer) works a lot better with older wheels that have a steep inner cone and steep walls. It also benefits from deep pockets. The ball "splashes down" and since it takes more energy to climb out of deep pockets and up a steep cone/walls, it tends to not scatter (bounce around) as much.

Modern wheels have shallow bowls and very shallow center cones. The pockets are also much shallower these days. The ball may indeed hit where you predict, but the smallest bit of energy from that initial impact can send it up onto the cone where it can drift around and meander until the original impact point has moved away from it. The amount of scatter is tremendous these days.

So, your "accuracy" with regard to point of impact may be the same with old wheels and new ones. But your ability to make a profit will NOT be the same. Newer wheels are tougher to beat (in general).

Jason [/quote]

Jason is, as usual, totally correct. Just in case it's of interest I will add that the material and size of the roulette balls is a variable. Casinos usually keep a stock of more that one type of ball (ivorine and teflon for example) and have a couple of different diameters to hand. Usually, switching these around is more to do with game pace issues but the material and size affects the ballistics of the ball also. Some of them bounce like crazy.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2019 09:35AM)
It also used to be standard practice for casinos to switch the inner wheels on their tables occasionally, especially if they suspected something. Most casinos here use Cammegh wheels and the modern ones are linked to a computer. Now, these computers are interesting. They give out all sorts of info: game logs stored within the wheel's secure memory and things like rotor integrity, wheel level, erroneous ball and rotor speeds, game interruptions and unexpected ball drops. Those with access, it seems to me, may be able to clock the wheel and they might just possibly collude with a player or three. Perhaps, it might be possible to hack the wheel's secure memory etcetera and use the wheel manager as a prediction device.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 11, 2019 11:25AM)
So essentially visual prediction has been neutralized?
Message: Posted by: disgruntledpuffin (Aug 11, 2019 01:39PM)
[quote]On Aug 11, 2019, tommy wrote:
It also used to be standard practice for casinos to switch the inner wheels on their tables occasionally, especially if they suspected something. Most casinos here use Cammegh wheels and the modern ones are linked to a computer. Now, these computers are interesting. They give out all sorts of info: game logs stored within the wheel's secure memory and things like rotor integrity, wheel level, erroneous ball and rotor speeds, game interruptions and unexpected ball drops. Those with access, it seems to me, may be able to clock the wheel and they might just possibly collude with a player or three. Perhaps, it might be possible to hack the wheel's secure memory etcetera and use the wheel manager as a prediction device. [/quote]

That sounds unusual! The serial numbers inside the bowl and turret usually have to match under most procedures. Wheel swaps happen all the time, but the whole unit gets moved. I've never seen or heard of an inner wheel being moved separately to the bowl. Is that an old procedure Tommy? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious. A lot was different before my time in the business - I've only been in 7 years.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 12, 2019 01:27PM)
I donít think they switch the inner wheel these days because it would mess up their computer programs. Judah Binstock ran the Vic in London in the 60s and early 70s and he wrote a book in 69 called Casino Administration: The House and the Player and the practice of switching the inner wheel is, I think, mentioned in that book.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Aug 13, 2019 01:02PM)
[quote]On Aug 9, 2019, tommy wrote:
...if you happen to be a top casino in London and entrust your security to the wizard of Oz, who happens to run a gamblers supply house, has been banned from casinos and is an arms dealer on the side, then you might also be a masochist looking forward to being hit. [/quote]

Of course, there is a viable alternative to hiring someone like this, while not commenting on the veracity of the statement quoted.

Actually, there is a much simpler alternative. The online yellow pages in Vegas has 24 pages dedicated to ads, full page write-ups, testimonials, pictures and various credentials for numerous gambling and casino protection experts for hire.

The more credible casino and gambling experts have a college degree...some even have a masters or doctorate on gambling protection and can supply videos of themselves dealing seconds and bottoms on their Facebook page for added credibility.

Surprisingly, some of these experts have even been in a casino and gambled "on the square" at roulette, poker, BJ and the like. The thinking being that if one professes to be a gambling expert, one should at least have some idea as to how the games are dealt and played.

In fact, it is getting hard to find someone who is NOT a gambling expert in this day and age in Vegas.

So tommy, as you can see, one's options for casino and game protection are wide open at this point in time.

Whoa. Did my wife hide my bottle of scotch again? ***! :goof:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2019 03:22PM)
[quote]On Aug 13, 2019, Cagliostro wrote:

In fact, it is getting hard to find someone who is NOT a gambling expert in this day and age in Vegas.

/quote]

Or on the Internet.