One does not need to play any sort of blackjack. A person can be aware that whatever game you play in a casino the odds are with the house. It is plain stupid to gamble when the odds are against you. By allowing the casinos government is making money from people's greed and stupidity. Even though my taxes might be higher if casinos were banned I favour their banning. Conmen make money from people's greed and stupidity. I don't think it is legitimate for the government to be the conman. I don't think the social problems caused by the increase in bankruptcies, prostition and general corruption resulting from the casinos is compensated for by the money government receives from them.

I would suggest theynhave not changed then rules, rather, they have introduced a new game, with new rules and, if anyone does notmlike the new rules of this game, simply walk past and play the table with old rules.

Govt; always play on peoples stupidity, that's where speed cams come in.

It is probably churlish of me to point out, but the suggestion the government has any role at all to play in regulating the amount of money stupid people lose in Casinos seems to me a little out of place. Freedom to be stupid is one of our most precious freedoms - without it, we would just be one big nanny state, and Brave New World will have finally arrived.

"Everyone works for everyone else. We can’t do without anyone. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn’t do without Epsilons"

Soma, anybody?

Actually there is a role for a Gaming Commission to rule on % a gambling operator wins at the expense of the punter, in the name of fairness.

That is what they are set up for.

With respect, Chris Lewis...

>>Actually there is a role for a Gaming Commission to rule on % a gambling operator wins at the expense of the punter, in the name of fairness.<<

The amount a casino wins at the expense of a punter is precisely, inevitably, inescapably... 100%.

Which is why gamblers are told only to bet what they are prepared to lose. Because that is exactly what they will do.

Lose.

The only variable is time, not the mathematical certainty of the outcome. Making rules that prolong this period is pure cosmetics, nothing more.

In fact, if the government is serious about "containing" gambling (which of course it is not) it would allow - nay, insist - that casinos gradually increase their retention percentage. That would a) provide the casinos with extra profit in the short term, but b) ensure that they eventually had no clientele at all.

Complaining about a change to the odds in favour of the house, is to miss the point entirely.

Gee thanks Periles, i missed the point again. Oh well, will keep on trying

Fortunately The Age and Derryn Hinch disagreed with you. with readers, you win some, you lose some.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/crown-can-bust-and-still-not-lose-20120321-1vkdk.html

That's an interesting conclusion to draw from the article you posted, Chris Lewis.

>>Fortunately The Age and Derryn Hinch disagreed with you<<

Where is the disagreement? In quoting your and Tim Costello's position, alongside that of the Gaming Commission and the Casino, the Age takes no editorial position at all.

The Age article also points out that there has been no change at all in the principles involved:

"Gamblers lost more than $1.3 billion at Crown casino last financial year."

Sadly, I couldn't track down Derryn Hinch's views on the subject. Even a search on his HumanHeadline web site yielded only the message "Your search for 'blackjack' returned 0 results"

But since you are described by the Age as "gambler, Chris Lewis", let me ask you this: what it is about losing money in a Casino that is so attractive, that you are able to discriminate between the different methods they use to extract it from you?

Nice of you to assume i have lost more than I have won at Crown. You are some know-all.

In any case, if you think it is fine that Crown can further stack the odds in its favour, then i have nothing to discuss with you.

Like I said, the vast majority will agree that Crown's behaviour is wrong. As Derryn Hnich said, Blackjack Plus is Crown's worst move ever. Most of the people that rung up and voted on the Age poll were apppalled by Crown (97%).

My article was not about banning Crown, it was about how a govt lets Crown get its own way on many occastions for the sake of profits and more tax revenue

Chris,

The whole reason for Crown's existence "is" for the sake of profit and more tax revenue.

I think Pericles nailed it.

Poirot,

I realise that too.

But if people did not raise what Crown does every now and then, then just imagine what it would do. Why not increase the take to 20% per $100.

My point was to argue that the rule changes clearly discriminate against smaller punters.

If punters are guaranteed to lose, and most will, then why does Crown need to have different rules for smaller players (a bigger take). It is just greed.

I am certainly glad i raised the issue. It forced Crown to go on radio and cop some truthful criticism from Hinch.

Sure govts are in bed with casinos and so on, but that does not mean we have to accept it based on comments that "stupid" people are going to lose anyway.

i suppose if we are to accept that gamblers are stupid, which i do not, then maybe we should also have little sympathy for people paying too much for housing because govts now depend more on stamp duty and so on.

I think, that because govt is just one player in a democracy capable of reason and stupidity, that most issues deserve attention, especially when billions of dollars are involved.

I could have written an even more agressive attack on the govt's role with casinos, but i was a bit careful not to be a hypocrtite since i have been to Crown probably on 30 occastions over the years. I have also won on about 75% of occastions, but that does not mean I should not have some sympathy for those who lose and only face an even tougher battle to get ahead.

Gambling is promoted by govt. Hence, it has some duty to promote fairness, even if it maybe a false illusion.

It was a generic "you", Chris Lewis.

>>Nice of you to assume i have lost more than I have won at Crown. You are some know-all.<<

I asked you as a representative of the gambling class, as I thought I had made clear with the preamble...

"...since you are described by the Age as "gambler, Chris Lewis", let me ask you this: what it is about losing money in a Casino that is so attractive, that you are able to discriminate between the different methods they use to extract it from you?"

I doubt that your reasons would be much different from that of your neighbour at the card table.

Any thoughts?

>>As Derryn Hnich said, Blackjack Plus is Crown's worst move ever. Most of the people that rung up and voted on the Age poll were apppalled by Crown (97%)<<

Yep. 97% of Age readers who gamble at the Casino. Good sample.

But the idea that it is "Crown's worst move ever" is worth exploring.

Where, in the spectrum of Casino/gambler relationship does Harry Kavakas fit? Was Crown's habit of of dropping him a cardboard box with "up to $50,000" in it as "lucky money" as he boarded their private jet that ferried him to and from the Gold Coast, a more acceptable business practice than introducing a new gambling game for penny-ante players?

http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-paul-barry-biggest-loser-harry-kakavas-and-problem-gamblers-2249

And stop stealing my ideas...

>>But if people did not raise what Crown does every now and then, then just imagine what it would do. Why not increase the take to 20% per $100.<<

I think that would be a very constructive move in addressing the issue of problem gamblers. They would run out of cash more quickly, and come to the realization that losing is a factor of time, not luck.

This regime would only apply to the little folk, of course, high rollers would still get the red carpet treatment, and "better" odds. Because - here's the thing - lower margins on high volumes are just as good as high margins they can squeeze out of the weenies.