Gambler caught marking cards

[Rain Man]

I'm not a gambler, but I know some people around here are into poker, so I'm curious how you think he might have been marking cards. It seems like such a thing would be very difficult to do in modern casinos. And could he have been cheating at the poker as well?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/29/justic...t=hp_inthenews

Legendary gambler Archie Karas accused of marking cards in San Diego casino

By Emma Lacey-Bordeaux, CNN
updated 11:03 PM EDT, Sun September 29, 2013

(CNN) -- His was a rags-to-riches tale. A Greek immigrant who came to the United States and made it big. A waiter who gambled in his spare time. A poker prodigy who turned $50 into $40 million in just three years.

Archie Karas has described himself the "king of the gamblers," but authorities in San Diego are now calling him a cheater.

On Friday, police arrested the 62-year-old Karas, whose legal name is Anargyros Karabourniotis, at his home in Las Vegas, on allegations he marked cards during a blackjack game in San Diego in July. The alleged cheating was also caught on camera, according to authorities.

The alleged incident occurred at San Diego's Barona Casino. Karas won $8,000 playing blackjack, but San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says video shows the gambler cheated with a technique known as marking cards.

Marking cards allows a player to identify the value of cards. If done correctly, neither the dealer nor other players notice the marks -- only the player who is in on the scheme.

"This defendant's luck ran out thanks to extraordinary cooperation between several different law enforcement agencies who worked together to investigate and prosecute this case," Dumanis said.

Karas is being held in Las Vegas without bail. He faces charges of burglary, winning by fraudulent means and cheating. He is expected to appear in court Monday for an extradition hearing.

It was not immediately clear if Karas has legal representation.

Karas' exploits are legendary in the poker world.

In 1992, he went to Las Vegas with just $50. He got a $10,000 loan from a poker buddy at Binion's Horseshoe, according to Poker.org. Karas tripled the loan in one game.

From there he went on to bet and win at pool, then poker.

"I was the best," Karas told ESPN in an interview broadcast in 2008. "Anybody who'd come to town I'd play them, I didn't care who they were and I'd win, too."

But he had a problem, he recounted to ESPN. No one would play him anymore; he had simply won too much.

He didn't quit. Instead, he changed the game.

"I had to play dice," he told ESPN. He said lines of people used to show up to watch him bet $1 million on each roll. "I ran it up to $40 million," he recalled. "It was a lot of money."

But as quickly as it came, the money left Karas. He said he lost $20 million in 10 days. Soon, it was all gone.

It took him three years to win the $40 million and only three weeks to lose it.

If the loss hurt Karas, he didn't show it in his 2008 interview.

"I consider myself the king of gamblers," he said, chuckling. "I made it, I lost it and like Frank Sinatra says, I stood tall and I took the punches and I did it my way."

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I've never figured out the fun of poker. It seems like it's reasonably easy to assess one's odds and draw cards accordingly, but if you get a terrible hand there's not much you can do. And the luck in drawing a hand is about 100 times more powerful than your skill in assessing the odds and drawing cards (which themselves will be luck).

So it seems like a really good player can occasionally know the odds and get lucky to turn a bad hand into a good hand, but luck still is the predominant factor by a large margin.

The fun part is learning how to read the other players and make your decisions based upon the cues they provide. If you get good enough at doing that, you can be competitive without ever looking at your own cards.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

How often does the best hand not win? I presume you're talking about someone bluffing and getting a good hand to fold, which seems like it would be exceedingly rare. If I have a good hand, I'm playing it to the end.

Note that I don't play poker, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not just a straight-out bluff and the end of the hand. There are several betting rounds, with cards dealt after each round. You might have a decent but not great hand, and you bet with the intention of getting others to fold so they don't improve their hand and beat you. Most poker hands don't even make it to the end. They are folded in the middle betting rounds.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

And yes, I've seen Rounders many times. I've seen Matt Damon make the claim that poker is a game of skill and that luck has no bearing on it. I've seen him talk about the World Series of Poker, make the claim that the same guys are at the final table every year, and ask "are they the luckiest guys in the world?".

The problem with that argument is that the same guys DON'T make it to the final table every year. It's rare for anyone to make it to the final table two years in a row.

Especially now that entries are in the thousands. Used to be in the hundreds, and in the early days even less.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

The fun part is learning how to read the other players and make your decisions based upon the cues they provide. If you get good enough at doing that, you can be competitive without ever looking at your own cards.

Spoken like someone who reads the books and never plays. Reading people is a tiny part of poker. Nobody can ever be competitive without looking at his cards...except Matt Damon in Rounders. You can pick up tendencies, betting patterns, etc., but even that is only a very small piece of things. Want to be better at poker? Fold before the flop more often.

[Sorce]

Poker is more about luck the closer you get to a single card draw. The further you pull away to a career it gets more about skill.

If you need a single card to give you the winning hand, that is all luck. The skill comes over the long run by maximizing your wins and limiting your losses. I consider myself a fairly good player but I won't win every hand or every tourney or even be up after a session but if you look at the big picture I've won more money than I lost.

Tournaments are an even bigger crap shoot since the increasing blinds force action. If you can just sit there forever waiting for a good start hand you can greatly increase your odds.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I've never figured out the fun of poker. It seems like it's reasonably easy to assess one's odds and draw cards accordingly, but if you get a terrible hand there's not much you can do. And the luck in drawing a hand is about 100 times more powerful than your skill in assessing the odds and drawing cards (which themselves will be luck).

So it seems like a really good player can occasionally know the odds and get lucky to turn a bad hand into a good hand, but luck still is the predominant factor by a large margin.

Given what I've picked up from you over the years, this sentiment really surprises me. I think it would be right up your alley.

You hit on two points above: profitability and fun.

As far as profitability goes, keep this in mind: there is a really wide gap in the skill level and intelligence of any given player at the table. As you pointed out, probability dictates a lot of what happens. Well, a lot of people don't understand probability, at all. That can be exploited. Think of it in terms of financial management. Based on the pot and the relative size of the bets one can overvalue and undervalue their hand. Your goal then is simply to maximize value. Now this is just a basic part of the overall strategy, but it's essential to understand and is key to consistently beating bad players. Hell, in the day a number of people made a lot of money just being math players and you can still be fairly successful at lower levels.

Since the poker boom of a decade ago, there are a lot more people that understand the math of it, at least fundamentally, and this is where the fun comes in for me. There used to be, and this is a simple generalization, math players and feel players. These days you have to be both to be consistently successful at higher levels. If you play strictly by the rules of probability then other players are going to recognize nice that and adjust their play to manipulate that. So sometimes you have to make decisions that are incorrect according to the math. Once you start getting deeper and deeper into the meta game, it becomes really fun. It is really quite deep.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

That is silly. There are plenty of good sports bettors.

I really should edit that original post I guess. Sports books are skill based, it isn't gambling if you understand value.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

I really should edit that original post I guess. Sports books are skill based, it isn't gambling if you understand value.

So in your opinion the only activites that count as gambling are those that are purely based on luck? And it ceases to become gambling when you can utilize a skill to win?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

Given what I've picked up from you over the years, this sentiment really surprises me. I think it would be right up your alley.

You hit on two points above: profitability and fun.

As far as profitability goes, keep this in mind: there is a really wide gap in the skill level and intelligence of any given player at the table. As you pointed out, probability dictates a lot of what happens. Well, a lot of people don't understand probability, at all. That can be exploited. Think of it in terms of financial management. Based on the pot and the relative size of the bets one can overvalue and undervalue their hand. Your goal then is simply to maximize value. Now this is just a basic part of the overall strategy, but it's essential to understand and is key to consistently beating bad players. Hell, in the day a number of people made a lot of money just being math players and you can still be fairly successful at lower levels.

Since the poker boom of a decade ago, there are a lot more people that understand the math of it, at least fundamentally, and this is where the fun comes in for me. There used to be, and this is a simple generalization, math players and feel players. These days you have to be both to be consistently successful at higher levels. If you play strictly by the rules of probability then other players are going to recognize nice that and adjust their play to manipulate that. So sometimes you have to make decisions that are incorrect according to the math. Once you start getting deeper and deeper into the meta game, it becomes really fun. It is really quite deep.

I feel like it should interest me, but it doesn't. I don't see the justification to invest time so I can influence the 1% of the equation that I can influence.

With blackjack I lost interest as soon as I learned the "double your bet" trick. If you do that and you have an iron gut, you win every time. But big deal, you win a small amount. It's not worth the effort.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So in your opinion the only activites that count as gambling are those that are purely based on luck? And it ceases to become gambling when you can utilize a skill to win?

Well, I don't really like the word luck. If you were to say gambling is playing any game where your expected winnings are negative, then I would say yes.

[GloryDayz]

If you're not cheating you're not trying... And "the house" better hope I never end up on they jury. I think it's pussy as all get out to not having to play the game within the game... LOL, THAT group looking for the law to protect them is kinda funny.

Anyway, I'm on the card-counter's side! Scroo the "house"!!!

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

I really should edit that original post I guess. Sports books are skill based, it isn't gambling if you understand value.

Actual skill games are still a gamble. If you want to argue that perfectly played blackjack (minus cheating, card counting, etc.) isn't gambling, I'll listen. In that case, you're talking about an opponent (the dealer) that plays by a fixed set of rules. Over the long run, you will hit an exact level of (slightly negative) return.

Playing poker is always gambling, as opponents aren't forced to abide by if/then actions.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Actual skill games are still a gamble. If you want to argue that perfectly played blackjack (minus cheating, card counting, etc.) isn't gambling, I'll listen. In that case, you're talking about an opponent (the dealer) that plays by a fixed set of rules. Over the long run, you will hit an exact level of (slightly negative) return.

Playing poker is always gambling, as opponents aren't forced to abide by if/then actions.

An individual hand may be a gamble, but consistently getting your money in with >50% isn't.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

An individual hand may be a gamble, but consistently getting your money in with >50% isn't.

Unfortunately, you don't know when you're >50%...at least not consistently. I mean, you can have the nuts every once in a while, but that's the exception.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Spoken like someone who reads the books and never plays. Reading people is a tiny part of poker. Nobody can ever be competitive without looking at his cards...except Matt Damon in Rounders. You can pick up tendencies, betting patterns, etc., but even that is only a very small piece of things. Want to be better at poker? Fold before the flop more often.

I've read a couple of books and played in hundreds of tournaments, so you would be wrong about that.

"Nobody can ever be competitive without looking at his cards"? Are you sure about that?

http://www.pokerlistings.com/poker-p...nette-obrestad

Annette Obrestad is a nice, quiet, unassuming girl - until you meet her at the poker table.

Known as Annette_15 online, Obrestad has played thousands upon thousands of hands online. While doing so she developed a highly effective poker game that is reminiscent of that of other famously aggressive Scandinavians. In 2007 Obrestad shook the poker world by winning the inaugural World Series of Poker Europe Main Event. By doing so, Obrestad broke several records, including youngest player ever to win a bracelet and largest single-event payout to a female.

Obrestad grew up in the small Norwegian town of Sandness. She was only 15 years old when a friend shipped her some money on an online poker site. The idea of a 15-year-old playing poker online created controversy and is exactly why many governments have attempted to ban online poker. It's worth noting that Obrestad never actually deposited any of her own money.

After winning a few freerolls and slowly moving up the online poker ranks Obrestad got good. Really good. She was so good, in fact, that she didn't even need to see hole cards. During one legendary online tournament Obrestad put tape over her computer monitor so she couldn't see her own hand. By using superior bluffing techniques and reading her opponents perfectly she outlasted 180 opponents and went on to win the tournament.

By 2006 Obrestad had elevated her online game so high that she was dominating the online world. She won countless $100 buy-in tournaments on both Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, garnering around $10,000 to $20,000 for every victory. Annette_15 had built her bankroll to such a size that she could afford to compete at the highest levels.