I am an LDS Card Counter.


LugiaLvl138
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, pam said:

Did you want to hear that it's okay to gamble? 

Quote

They went to Ascot and of course
For once they backed the winning horse
Thereafter, every single day
The Mirror made the bookies pay
Each Dwarf and Snow-White got a share
And each was soon a millionaire
Which shows that gambling’s not a sin
Provided that you always win

You've gotta like Roald Dahl (who was quite the gambler himself!) The whole poem is online here: https://www.monologues.co.uk/Childrens_Favourites/Snow_White.htm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don’t consider card counting as cheating at all. All good card players use memory skills to get an edge on their opponents, no matter what the game. That being said, it IS against the casino rules, and a player can be ejected from play by using the technique. Therefore, I would avoid doing it. 

On another note, the idea that playing a game where one has an edge of even one percent and calling it gambling, is incorrect. If there is an edge, the person with that advantage will eventually win all.  This is how casinos make their money. The casino edge at a craps table is as low as <1%.  Still, the casino always wins.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LugiaLvl138

Gambling is not a sin because face cards are evil, or because risking your money for a gain is evil (otherwise investing would be sinful too), or even because that particular pattern of letters is evil.

Gambling is a sin because the concept of “something for nothing” is evil.

”Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior’s teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gambling?lang=eng)

counting or no counting. You are still getting something for nothing. Even if you were guaranteed to win every single time, it is still a sin.

If you want to argue this then you can. Just know you will be going against the church you claim to be a member of.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 11:06 AM, Vort said:

The very fact that card-counting is "cheating" and "illegal" is strong evidence for the corruption of the whole gambling culture. But then, why involve yourself in that culture at all? Why swim in the sewer?

I worked for a casino for about six years and it was a great day when I got to quit and leave that industry.  My jobs at a casino were a security officer and a warehouse worker.  I knew my employer was engaged in deceit and attempted manipulation to get money out of people.  At the same time, nobody was forcing anyone to go to the casino to gamble.  People did it and still do it today.

In my opinion I would refrain from spending time gambling at casinos as they lead to paths a saint should wish to stay away from.

Edited by Still_Small_Voice
Grammar error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

...maybe not. James and the Giant Peach weirded me out when my teacher read it to us in fourth grade. Now that I'm a middle-aged man, it's no better.

I was OK with the book.  Then I saw the movie and was like “holy crap, this is creepy”.  And I tried to parse out why I was OK with the one but not the other, and ultimately realized that the book is just as bad; and now I can’t stand the book.  Weird how that works sometimes . . .

4 hours ago, Fether said:

@LugiaLvl138

Gambling is not a sin because face cards are evil, or because risking your money for a gain is evil (otherwise investing would be sinful too), or even because that particular pattern of letters is evil.

Gambling is a sin because the concept of “something for nothing” is evil.

”Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior’s teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gambling?lang=eng)

counting or no counting. You are still getting something for nothing. Even if you were guaranteed to win every single time, it is still a sin.

If you want to argue this then you can. Just know you will be going against the church you claim to be a member of.

How do we distinguish this problematic concept of getting “something for nothing” from investment, or money-lending, or service, or charity, or grace?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

...maybe not. James and the Giant Peach weirded me out when my teacher read it to us in fourth grade. Now that I'm a middle-aged man, it's no better.

Oddly enough encountered Dahl exactly the same way, with the teacher reading us James and the Giant Peach. I was 8 or 9 at the time so I guess that's forth grade too. The difference was I loved it - though I don't suppose I'd have been quite so keen on giant spiders and centipedes if I'd encountered them in real life. I always loved dialogue between the centipede and the earth worm - and the earth worm's laconic remarks. I hated the 1990s movie though - they totally murdered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grunt said:

I believe that just because something isn't a commandment doesn't mean it isn't against the gospel.  In the gospel we find many lessons that are key to our salvation.  

This is absolutely true.  I would add that some of the things that are commandments in the gospel, are not ENFORCED commandments in the Church.  They are taught as the higher law of the gospel by the Lord in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.  Some of the most important aspects of the gospel are not enforced as such in the Church, but are essential to salvation.  Sometimes we ignore them greatly. 

Charity is probably one of the greatest commandments for us to have and yet we see that this perhaps is the most ignored commandment of all, and perhaps at times the hardest for some of us (I know I at times have trouble with it) to keep.  We are to love all men (meaning humanity) and love our neighbors as ourselves.  When one thinks of how much we love ourselves (we buy ourselves houses, food, clothes...etc) the commandment actually is REALLY hard to keep in some instances. 

There are many instructions given (for example, the sermon on the mount is one of the most famous where we are given a more Celestial or higher law) in regards to living the higher law rather than the lower law.  In my experience it seems that we are still tested to see if we are at least living the lower law in the church, but we are expected to live the higher law to be perfect.

Luckily, we have the atonement and the grace of the Lord for salvation.  I know I am not perfect and probably will never match up to the higher law while in this life.  I may try my best, but hope truly only lies in the Savior.  That does not mean we should not strive for perfection and to live the higher law, but if we fall short we have someone to reach out and save us in the end (the Lord and Savior of us all).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

How do we distinguish this problematic concept of getting “something for nothing” from investment, or money-lending, or service, or charity, or grace?

Fantastic question! I don’t know that I have a thought out answer, but here are some places to start.

Gambling: Willingly risking money in an attempt to take someone else’s money. One winner and one loser

Investing: willingly giving money to a company to help it grow and expand and repay you that money in the future with additional cash based on that growth. Ideally All parties benefit or fail together. 

Money-lending: this one all depends, but assuming all is well, you aren’t getting something for nothing. Your trading money later for money now.

Service/Charity: willingly giving to others with no expectation of return. All are winners unless the giver has impure motives.

Receiving Charity: can be as destructive as gambling if done regularly and it becomes something you are accustomed to and it leads you to idleness. But if coupled with humility, can lead to more humility and a growth in work ethic and other positive attributes. The only loser here is the one that gives or receives in an impure manner.

Grace: God given. No losers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 12:55 PM, anatess2 said:

Card counting is cheating.

I disagree that card counting is cheating.  I acknowledge that it may be against casino rules of play (In NJ it is illegal for a casino to ban players for card counting), but it most certainly isn't cheating.  It does not involve any fraudulent method of play, nor is it dishonest; it only involves memorization and statistics.  That said, gambling is gambling and should be avoided regardless.

Anecdote:  In regards to gambling, I have taught my children that I never make a bet unless I am 100% certain I am right.  Recently my oldest son said, "I bet you $100 that . . ."  I responded by saying, "Okay, I bet you $100 that . . . [the opposite]".  My son initially responded saying, "okay", but then immediately retracted and said, "Never mind, you only bet when you know you are right!"  😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, person0 said:

I disagree that card counting is cheating.. it may be against casino rules ...but it most certainly isn't cheating.

🤔🧐🤨

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 10:02 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Nice dodge.  You’re throwing mud all over other Church members and institutions and traditions—including bishops—to distract from your own shortcomings.  But since you (now claim you) are talking about “bishops” generically rather than any one named bishop, that makes it OK?  (If I said something unkind about autistic people and then tried to excuse myself by saying I meant autistic people generally, not you specifically—you wouldn’t let me get away with that; nor should you.) 

Look, we’ve all got stuff in our lives we need to improve.  I doubt any of us considers ourselves “better than” you—I certainly don’t.  The trouble is when we start using the real or imagined foibles of others (investing!  affinity fraud! kiddie porn!) to convince ourselves that WE don’t need to change.  

he has a point in terms of affinity fraud- we (Mormons) have earned the suspicion
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/beware-of-affinity-fraud

https://universe.byu.edu/2014/06/16/affinity-fraud-continues-to-plague-utahns-and-mormons/

https://www.mormonnewsroompg.org/official-statement/affinity-fraud

I'll add Primerica and Transamerica reps selling annuities and excessively high commission mutual funds. Biggest ripoff ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mrmarket said:

he has a point in terms of affinity fraud- we (Mormons) have earned the suspicion
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/beware-of-affinity-fraud

https://universe.byu.edu/2014/06/16/affinity-fraud-continues-to-plague-utahns-and-mormons/

https://www.mormonnewsroompg.org/official-statement/affinity-fraud

I'll add Primerica and Transamerica reps selling annuities and excessively high commission mutual funds. Biggest ripoff ever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 9:31 AM, LugiaLvl138 said:

.....

Also, I have a running joke about how "You can trust the Bishop's investing company right?" Referring to the fact that affinity fraud is rampant in Utah and that sadly, anyone scammed by it would have been better off going to Vegas and putting it all on red in Roulette. Or even better, used it as a Card Counting bankroll.

I think you have a misunderstanding as to a possible difference between LDS (meaning a Latter-day Saint of G-d) and someone who has initiated their journey to become a Saint of G-d through baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The goal of mortality is not to earn or obtain money but to love G-d with all one's heart, might, mind and strength.   Then to love your neighbor as yourself.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/25/2019 at 8:42 PM, Vort said:

...maybe not. James and the Giant Peach weirded me out when my teacher read it to us in fourth grade. Now that I'm a middle-aged man, it's no better.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 8:51 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I was OK with the book.  Then I saw the movie and was like “holy crap, this is creepy”.  And I tried to parse out why I was OK with the one but not the other, and ultimately realized that the book is just as bad; and now I can’t stand the book.  Weird how that works sometimes . . .

Having thought about it a bit more, I think what I first liked about the story was the way James initially thinks he is alone in his sufferings, but suddenly finds he is one of a community who have suffered the same way. Discovering you are not alone can have a transforming effect: it's like the kid who is tormented by a maladjusted "bigger-boy", finding that he is only one several victims of the same bully. "Me lost and alone" becomes "we few", or even "we happy few".

James and all his companions have all in one way or another been mistreated by the two horrible aunts. And they are all so different: we have the cultured, musical grasshopper, the motherly ladybird, the kind spinsterish spider, the flamboyant devil-may-care centipede and the straight-laced, sardonic earthworm. They have found all not only each other, but also (and beyond hope) a means to escape...

I agree though that arthropods on such a scale would be creepy beyond measure. This was one reason I think why it didn't translate well into a movie. I do remember seeing a TV play of it as a kid (Bernard Cribbins played the centipede and Pat Coombs the spider) which I did enjoy - but I think because the characters were obviously really people in pantomime getup. But the 1996  movie was completely horrible, I agree! (Robotic sharks? And Miss Spider as a sexy Parisian? I mean, I ask you!) 

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2019 at 11:14 PM, person0 said:

I acknowledge that it may be against casino rules of play (In NJ it is illegal for a casino to ban players for card counting), but it most certainly isn't cheating. 

This is an oxymoron. 

Cheating is using a tool/skill that is against the rules of play to gain an advantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Cheating is using a tool/skill that is against the rules of play to gain an advantage.

Card counting is not against the rules of blackjack, it is against the rules of the casino.  The rule exists for the sole purpose of impeding legitimate mechanics of play.  That is why in some states it is illegal for casinos to prohibit people from card counting, or to ban them from play for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

Card counting is not against the rules of blackjack, it is against the rules of the casino.  The rule exists for the sole purpose of impeding legitimate mechanics of play.  That is why in some states it is illegal for casinos to prohibit people from card counting, or to ban them from play for it.

The rules of play is set by the house.  There's no "rules of blackjack" outside what is set by the house, or in non-casino venues - agreed upon with the people you're playing against.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There's no "rules of blackjack" outside what is set by the house, or in non-casino venues - agreed upon with the people you're playing against.

In a functional sense, you might have a point. But I disagree with the plain meaning of the statement. Of course there are recognized and settled rules for playing blackjack. It's not a game invented by a specific casino. The injunction against card-counting has nothing to do with the play of blackjack, and everything to do with the house maximizing its profits by prohibiting PRIVATE MENTAL ACTIVITY. Essentially, some houses will refuse to allow customers to utilize their services if those customers succeed in exactly the service the house advertises for offer.

This is beyond the pale, and would not be acceptable behavior for any other business enterprise I can think of besides gambling. Insurance, maybe, though in that case the customers aren't "winning" by having their house burn down or whatever. I guess we should just accept that gambling, being a legalized vice and Satanic by nature, has different rules and expectations, and those states that support gambling have to abide by those expectations. In other words, when you sell  your soul to the devil, sometimes that means your soul gets ripped apart, and you better be okay with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

In a functional sense, you might have a point. But I disagree with the plain meaning of the statement. Of course there are recognized and settled rules for playing blackjack. It's not a game invented by a specific casino. The injunction against card-counting has nothing to do with the play of blackjack, and everything to do with the house maximizing its profits by prohibiting PRIVATE MENTAL ACTIVITY. Essentially, some houses will refuse to allow customers to utilize their services if those customers succeed in exactly the service the house advertises for offer.

This is beyond the pale, and would not be acceptable behavior for any other business enterprise I can think of besides gambling. Insurance, maybe, though in that case the customers aren't "winning" by having their house burn down or whatever. I guess we should just accept that gambling, being a legalized vice and Satanic by nature, has different rules and expectations, and those states that support gambling have to abide by those expectations. In other words, when you sell  your soul to the devil, sometimes that means your soul gets ripped apart, and you better be okay with that.

This doesn't make sense to me.  Yes, there are recognized and settled "What makes this card game Blackjack and not Baccarat" rules of play.  In addition to that, there are Game Rules.  Same way you have different rules in your house when you play Monopoly versus playing in my house beyond what's printed on the Monopoly box.  Your house might ban 2 players banding together to wipe out a 3rd player, my house don't.  Such that, in your house cooperative play is cheating, in my house it isn't.  The fact that the OP was kicked out of the casinos twice points to card counting as against the rules, and therefore, cheating.

"Maximizing profits by prohibiting private mental activity" is one way to put it.  Another way to put it is "Preventing a casino from going under by banning Math Geniuses".  Same way Carnival Fairs prevent wiping out of prizes in the Hoops game by limiting NBA players - or in your parlance, "Maximizing profits by prohibiting innate physical prowess".

When you sell your soul to the devil, you play by the devil's rules and not think it's not cheating because it's the devil you're playing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

When you sell your soul to the devil, you play by the devil's rules and not think it's not cheating because it's the devil you're playing.

I don't disagree. The point is that the whole gaming system is corrupt, and you taint yourself when you associate with it. Yes, card-counting is "cheating". But card-PLAYING is cheating in a very deep sense. The whole gambling impulse is the idea that you might hit a big winner. it goes well beyond rationality and hits at something deep within the human psyche.

I would guess that most gamblers realize that the house always wins in the long run, and that most gamblers are financial losers. But they think that maybe THEY can beat the odds. This is the very nature of sinful man. This is why we sin, why we betray ourselves, why we ignore our own better selves to follow our impulses with the idea, "I can always repent later." Somehow, we're going to find the shortcut to happiness by indulging ourselves now and still cleaning up in time for the Big Face-to-face.

This is what is so objectionable about gambling: It caters to this built-in flaw in the human psyche that craves the shortcut. Card-counting is banned exactly because it defeats the effects of this flaw. Do you see the problem? It's like complaining about a topical medication that gets rid of ticks. "This medicine keeps the ticks from breathing! That's not FAIR!" Well, duh. Of course it's "not fair". The ticks are parasites, and we're taking away their parasitic advantage. That's what card-counting does. Is it "cheating"? Sure. Does such "cheating" constitute sin and destroy the souls of the card-counters? I don't know. Maybe not. But gambling certainly does destroy the souls of men, and that always constitutes sin.

In a spiritual sense, there is no shortcut to salvation. We can't eat, drink, and be merry, smoking and boozing and shooting up and fornicating our way forward, and then at the last minute say, "Okay, I repent", get baptized, and voilà! everything's magically all right! That's not how it works. But that is precisely the mentality that gambling fosters. That is the basic, deep, inherently soul-destorying evil of gambling, not counting cards—regardless of whether card-counting is "cheating".

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in high school, I had a Sunday School teacher, the branch president's wife, who told our class that fornication was wrong because it might result in a pregnancy. Being the thoughtful, respectful, tasteful, well-mannered youth that I was, I replied, "So as long as we use contraception, then it's okay to fornicate." Twenty minutes later, I found myself sitting with my parents in the branch president's office.

The point is that fornication is wrong, not because it might result in a pregnancy, or in diseases, or even in unwanted emotional entanglements, but because, by its nature, it weakens and destroys the souls of the fornicators and tears down the social cohesiveness of all around. In the same manner, the gambling impulse is wrong, not because you might lose your shirt, but because that impulse itself leads us away from the Spirit of God. So the card-counters have not actually beaten the system, except in the sense that they probably will make money (as long as the organized-crime-owned casinos don't find them out). The system still enslaves their souls by turning their desires to filthy lucre. We have been called to a higher way of living. We should heed that call.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Vort said:

the gambling impulse is wrong, not because you might lose your shirt, but because that impulse itself leads us away from the Spirit of God. 

First off, I want to be clear that I agree with you 100% that gambling is wrong. I don't even buy lottery tickets because, well, like I said I think gambling is wrong. So we agree on that. I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking you if you think the impulse to gamble is specific? Is it different than greed, other addictions, etc? 

Again, just to be clear-I'm with you 100%. I think gambling is very wrong. Even playing poker for money, in my view, is sinful. I would go a step further and make it a temple recommend question. See? See? I can be prudish too! Aren't you proud of me? 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm asking you if you think the impulse to gamble is specific? Is it different than greed, other addictions, etc? 

I do think it's different, yes. That is, it's a part of the whole facet of covetousness in human nature, which encompasses greed and addictions (to some point). But I do think the gambling impulse is identifiable and distinguishable from many other facets of covetousness. I can't really explain it well, because it's not something I've done a close study on or have a whole lot of experience with. That is, I have as much experience as the next guy with wanting something for nothing and with looking for the shortcut to where I want to go, but not so much when it comes specifically to the desire to gamble. To some degree, I don't really "get it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Vort said:

I do think it's different, yes. That is, it's a part of the whole facet of covetousness in human nature, which encompasses greed and addictions (to some point). But I do think the gambling impulse is identifiable and distinguishable from many other facets of covetousness. I can't really explain it well, because it's not something I've done a close study on or have a whole lot of experience with. That is, I have as much experience as the next guy with wanting something for nothing and with looking for the shortcut to where I want to go, but not so much when it comes specifically to the desire to gamble

I understand. Interesting points. Again, just to be clear, like I said I think gambling is gravely sinful. Addiction to it of course, does diminish accountability, and adults should be free to do what they wish. Even if @MormonGator doesn't approve of it. 

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

To some degree, I don't really "get it".

I'm ambivalent on it. To some degree, I do understand the rush people get from gambling-it's like the rush people get from smoking a joint or snorting a line of cocaine. At first, they feel good and get a little buzz doing it. Now, I don't understand how throwing your money down the drain gives you the buzz, but some people don't understand why people do drugs either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share