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.'"

3rd page

[Telvin_3d]

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 [computerworld.com.au]

Non /.'ed copy

[unformed]

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/030708-vegas-insider.html?fsrc=rss-security [networkworld.com]

Link

[bcong]

Here's a another link to the same story. http://security.itworld.com/4357/casino-security-080310/page_1.html [itworld.com]

Re:3rd page

[ElizabethGreene]

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

Link [networkworld.com]

Re:Untrue

[MobileMrX]

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 [wizardofodds.com]

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.

minimal risk, really...

[damn_registrars]

Do you really want to be the one to test that with your own $100 bills? :D

Actually, if you RTFA, you'll see that the "infinite $100 bill trick" works by hitting a sequence, and then asking for your $100 bill back. So presuming one of the buttons in the sequence isn't the "play this bet" button, you're not really risking anything. You either get your $100 back and have zero credit on the machine, or you get your $100 bill back and have $100 credit on the machine.

Though I certainly don't have the patience to run around a casino with a $100 bill and try different sequences to try to trip that feature...

Re:Untrue

[Monkeyman334]

I know the odds and I still love to gamble. I like craps. It's fun. However, you don't know anything about casino odds if you think there is any game where the player has an edge. Blackjack only has an edge if you're a good counting player. As far as strategy goes, the calculated house edge is based on you playing perfect basic strategy. Basic strategy meaning memorizing the *entire* basic strategy card. Btw, the best bet in the casino is the "dealer" or "banker" bet in baccarat.

Re:Untrue

[EastCoastSurfer]

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 [wizardofodds.com].

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 [wizardofodds.com] shows I'm at the right place :)

Re:waiting for the MIT movie

[halcyon1234]

Quite the opposite.

There is a romantic view of card counting. People assume it's a magical skill you pick up, then can just roll into a casino and use it as a personal ATM overnight.

The truth is, it gives you about a 1% edge over the house. That means that for every $10 you bet, you'll "earn" $0.10. You can get, maybe, 100 hands of Blackjack per hour on a good day.

And the "margin of error" (standard deviation) means that your long-term swings won't balance out until after about 12,000 hands. 120 hours of Blackjack, just to statistically be guaranteed to at least break even.

And all that is assuming you count perfectly, and play perfectly.

So after card counting gets hyped, you'll get a whole ton of people who want the quick win. They'll learn a quick hi/lo system. They won't practice. They won't learn basic strategy perfectly (quick, what's the proper move when you have 44 vs. a dealer's upcard of 5?). And they'll go into the casino. Maybe they'll double up quickly and walk away. More likely they'll just keep playing, have a few drinks, and either make a bit of money, or get frustrated and lose everything, or just play for a while and have fun. But in every case, they'll be playing with a disadvantage. Making a couple mistakes or missing a couple counts, maybe they're playing an even money game, or just 0.5% house edge. If they start steaming and making the big errors, they'll be giving the house 4-5% of their money on every hand.

And for the one in a thousand counter who does a good job and earns 1-2% on her money, they'll be 999 players who give it all back.

If card counting had the ability to destroy the casinos, they'd have been out of business a long time ago. Blackjack is profitable for the casino.

Re:3rd page

[Anonymous Coward]

Print version of non-/.'ed article: http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2008/030708-vegas-insider.html&pagename=/news/2008/030708-vegas-insider.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/030708-vegas-insider.html&site=software [networkworld.com]

One page.

[antdude]

Print copy [networkworld.com].

Re:waiting for the MIT movie

[Carnivore]

Not really. The postscript in the book indicates that casinos no longer let you change tables as is required for the heavy better to make money.

Re:Untrue

[mythosaz]

I'm not entirely certain if you can see 100x odds any more, but they HAVE been available, and may still be. I don't have full surfing of gambling websites from work.

http://www.google.com/search?q=100x+odds [google.com]

That said, most odds are moving to what they call 3-4-5x odds, which allow you to place 3x odds on the 4 and 10, 4x odds on the 5 and 9, and only 3x odds on the 6 and 8. This (a) allows the players to place reasonable odds bets, (b) minimizes the casinos exposure, and (c) most importantly, makes the game easier for the dealers as a full odds bet will always pay 6 times the pass bet. The easier for the dealers, the FASTER the game plays, and the more the casino makes.

If you're not seeing 3-4-5x odds at your favorite casino, it may be coming.

http://www.google.com/search?q=3-4-5x+odd [google.com]

Re:Video example of a few of the scams.

[MtlDty]

(Must remember to preview before posting. Please mod parent down) There is an excellent BBC series called The Real Hustle that details the inner workings of a lot of scams. They've recently been showing the Vegas scams, here's a few links

Hollowed out chip scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dDOMyzmkaA [youtube.com]
Blackjack scams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phnkp4R0iJI [youtube.com]
Brass balls blackjack scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9uAaQs-LQ [youtube.com]

There are hundreds more on youtube if you search

Re:waiting for the MIT movie

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I read the book. It's awesome. I've seen the trailers for the movie, it seems they've already taken liberties, sucks, because the book didn't seem liked it needed them.

The MIT scam was not card counting. Card counting tracks probabilities of cards based on what's been dealt. The technique in the book was knowing exactly what a card in a shuffle would be. If the dealer lets you see the tail card and you get to cut the cards alone and you are skilled enough to cut the cards to count to card you saw and you can track the card count through all the cards and deals and the card is a 'big' card (face or ace) that can affect a hand wildly for better or worse, then you can adjust your bet for that one hand based on you knowing that one card. Most advantageous is when you have tracked a face card and you know you will bust the dealer. It also works better with a team, at least where you can control all nodes at the table. You and the other person can then use the count to force the card to either one of the hands, or the dealer.

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.

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. You're taking massive amounts of money from casinos - they don't like that. They seemed totally unaware of the dangers they faced, physically.

Re:Untrue

[afabbro]

I'd say that's far less than the cost of equivalent entertainment at the movies which would have cost me something like $350 (for me and someone else) just in ticket costs.

That is the right way to look at it.

It's the people who say they made $200 "in profit" that drive me nuts. Spending 20 hours to make $200 (which is really $120 after taxes) means you're making less than minimum wage. I guess they don't teach about "opportunity cost" in high school economics any more.

Re:Casino security is neat.

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:waiting for the MIT movie

[DoubleMike]

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.