By Bill Zender and Andrew Uyal

There is an old saying that goes, “You cannot see the forest from the trees”.  Some references suggest this quote goes all the way back to the early 1600s.  It means loosely that if you focus on the individual trees, you don’t see the forest surrounding them.  When discussing a casino person’s view of table game activities, it roughly means the observer is focusing on the hands outcome and is not taking in the whole picture or what is actually happening on the table.  Many of us are guilty of this situation.  We get so focused on the win/loss of the player’s individual hands we fail to see the underlying pattern in which these results occur.

For instance, just recently a husband-and-wife team beat a casino in Australia for a about $1.2 million AUD.  The couple did this over an approximate 6-week period.  It is rumored that they had been playing a couple of different game types, but primarily the money was won on Mississippi Stud Poker or a close variation.  This information was taken from somewhat vague news articles and incomplete information floating around social media.  One source mentioned that the couple had “accumulated an unusually large profit at table games before staff intervened” Kazakh Pair Accused Of AU$1.17m Cheating At Crown Sydney – SCCG Management.

Not to criticize the casino’s floor staff and surveillance personnel, but I would imagine they all fell under the “forest from the trees” situation.   They all watched the couple’s play but did not really “watch the play”.

What does the casino industry think?

Since this news has been released to the rest of the gaming industry, I have noticed quite a few responses and comments about the large hit the casino took.  Several comments mention that when they were apprehended by casino staff, the couple was found to have a hidden camera networked to a smart phone, and it has been assumed that they utilized this system for making their wagering decisions while playing the table game(s).  And based on these vague news articles, it is still unknown how the camera and smart phone were used in the scam.  Did they use the camera to gain community card information when the cards were removed from the shuffler?  Or did they use the camera fitted with a special lens to read markings on the back of the community cards as they sat face down on the layout?

In the past several weeks I have noticed an increased level of paranoia about the use of this equipment, primarily on how it could be detected by casino staff.  Questions like, “Were they using a special lens on the camera to see the cards”.  Another question posted, “is there a way casinos can intercept the transmission between the camera, the smart phone, and the person making the wagering decisions”.  One source stated that they had previous information and pictures of the couple and if the casino had subscribed to their database, they would have known they were casino bad actors.  It seems like casino people are focus more towards learning about the technical side of the play and/or the “face-chasing” aspect to protect against this scam. What they are totally missing out on is the “true” detection process which is to “watch the play” on the table.

Playing Mississippi Stud Poker

Let’s assume that the couple did in fact attack a Mississippi Stud Poker (MSP) table game.  MSP is a three-betting round wagering game.  Each player receives two cards on the initial deal with the dealer delivering three community cards face down on the layout.  There is no dealer’s hand to play against.  The player is attempting to make a winning 5-card hand from their initial two-card hand and the three community cards on the table.  Like video poker, the player wins or loses based on the five cards he or she receives.

On the first betting round, the player uses the knowledge of his or her two-card hand to make the decision to wager 3 times (3X) their ante, 1 time (1X) their ante, or to fold their hand and lose all chips wagered.  After all individual player hands are acted upon, the dealer exposes one of the community cards (furthest on the dealer’s left).

On the second betting round, using the information from their two-card hand and the one exposed community card, the players that did not previously fold, make the decision to wager 3X, 1X or fold.  After all hands are acted upon, the dealer exposes one more of the community cards (middle card). The third and final betting round requires the player to stay in the hand by betting 3X or 1X again, or fold the hand. Note: at this time the players still in action should place their cards in a designated area such as above the betting circles, where they should not be touched again. Finally, after all hands are acted upon, the dealer exposes the last community cards, and the remaining player hands arrive at outcome settlement.

If the player holds a pair of 6s through 10s the hand is declared a “push”.  If the player holds a pair of Jacks or higher, the hand is declared a “winner’ and the total hand wager is paid even money.  Any other outcome is a loser.  The way the game is structured, the player has the opportunity raise 3X the ante on all three betting rounds and could have a total of 10 units wagered at completion.

Now the “forest for the trees question”.  Are you “really” watching the game or “just” watching the game.  To be able to “really” watch the game you need to be able to spot a player who is using additional/unknown information when making their wagering decisions.  To do that, the observer must know the basic strategy of the game, meaning, what two-card hands would you raise 3X or 1X, and which would you fold?  Can you answer this question?  Remember, a three-betting round game will be subject to three separate strategies. However, to classify your observations of MSP as “really” watching, you only need to know the basic strategy for the first round.  Do you know it?

The Strategy

During the first betting round, computer “basic” strategy instructs the player to wager 3X the ante (raise) when holding any Pair or better.  The player will wager 1X the ante when holding at least one high card (Jack through Ace).  The player will also wager 1X when holding two medium cards (6 through 10), and when holding a two-card hand of 6/5 Suited.  Note: Some players may use their “gut feelings” better known as common strategy and may raise 3X with two suited high cards.

The two subsequent betting rounds are based on community card information.  Their strategies are slightly more complicated and it is best to refer to The Wizard of Odds webpage which included a strategy chart of all three rounds Mississippi Stud – Rules, Strategy, Odds & Online Casinos – Wizard of Odds.

For game protection, you will only need to know the first betting round strategy.  Whether the player is seeing only one community card, or has knowledge of all three community cards, the player is gaining information he would not have under normal conditions, and the first betting round decision will reflect that.

Something to remember about Alternative games like MSP.  Unless the player holds their two original cards where you can see the card values, as an observer, you usually will not see the hands value the player folds. Standard procedure has the dealer immediately place the folded cards into the discard well of the shuffler.  The only time you will be able to see the player’s initial two cards is when the player raises and stays in the hand until hand settlement.

Important: Focus on the two-cards they hold when making their first betting round wager.  If the player wagered 3X, standard strategy dictates he should hold a two-card hand of a Pair (even a low pair) or better.  However, if the observer sees a player wagering 3X but is not holding at least a Pair, the player could be gaining additional card information through seeing a community card during their delivery or could be taking advantage of cards that have been marked.

The observer needs to watch more hands before making an educated decision on the possibility of advantage play or cheating.  If after a period of approximately 20 to 30 hands, the observer identifies a pattern of wagering 3X with sub-pair hands, the observer may have discovered a problem.  Other indicators which are not play related are (1) players wagering near or at maximum ante limits, (2) a newer customer to the casino betting near table maximum, (3) a player sitting across from the shuffling machine and low on the table (indications of seeing exposed cards), or (4) playing small ante wagers and then jumping to maximum ante wagers after playing on the table for one to two hours (possible marked cards).

Conclusion

Any additional card information gained from the community cards prior to their exposure during normal game play will allow the knowledgeable player to gain a significant edge over the casino.

Watch for aggressive first betting round wagering that is not warranted by the player’s two-card hand.

Check to see if the player(s) are new to your casino.  Cheaters or advantage players are not regular customers or gamblers and are in your casino for one thing and that is to beat the chosen game.

If you discover a wagering pattern that suggests the player(s) is gaining additional card information, try and determine how that is being accomplished.  Is the player seeing one of the community cards upon delivery?  Is the player using card information on community high cards only (high cards marked)? Or is the player using information on all the community cards (high and medium cards marked)?

If a wagering pattern based on future card knowledge is discovered, but you cannot determine how the suspected player(s) is receiving the information, it is better to discontinue letting the customer(s) play and prevent further losses.

Remember, just because a player is winning does not mean they are an advantage player or cheater.  The only “true” method for determining a “problem” is to know the game’s basic strategy and to “watch the play” for unusual or aggressive wagering patterns.  This thinking will apply to other Alternative games as well.

-30-