Print Story Beaten to the Punch
Diary
By Christopher Robin was Murdered (Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:28:35 PM EST) (all tags)
The inner nanny. Luck be an over-produced folk singer tonight. Reading list of the minor criminal. Consumption criteria. Style of substance. Freedom; minimum bet $25.


Atlantic City: Part 2

Smoking

    Casinos are, it seems, the last indoor public structures in Jersey where you can smoke. Every pit floor is divided up into a grid of smoking and non-smoking sections centered around clusters of slots or specific gaming tables. Despite the clear placards and the total indifference of the staff, I still felt bizarre about smoking indoors. Until I lit up, I hadn't realized how completely I assimilated the concept that one just doesn't smoke indoors. I'm reminded of Burroughs comments about being unable to dodge the narc within. This is, I guess, the nanny within.

    A pack of smokes purchased inside Caesar's will run you $12.

    Later, at a dimly lit lounge in Trump's Plaza, Sean would produce from his jacket pocket five Nat Sherman cigars. We'd smoke under a series of television screens showing videos synchronized with the music they were piping into their casino. Apparently, the folks at Trump think Sarah McLachlan's atmospheric brand of chick folk-pop is the proper soundtrack for gambling away one's hard earned cash. No Sinatra, no Dino.

Graffiti

    While walking along the boardwalk, from the Tropicana to the Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum, I saw a curious bit of graffiti on one of the more rundown piers. Some literate painter threw up Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the Road, and The Stranger, in five-foot tall, all black caps.

Eating and Drinking

    Al orders alcohol by unit price. Sure, he's got drinking preferences, but these are secondary considerations in the light of quantity versus cash. Sitting in a bar in the Wild West Casino, Al ordered mug after mug of this third string swill.
    "If you hate it, why'd you order it?"
    "It comes in the mug."
    He held up the mug, glass made to look like a small barrel.
    "It holds more," he added, clarifying.
    "It holds more beer you don't like."
    "You're looking at it the wrong way."
    We'd never noticed this quirk of his before.
    He does it with food too. He'll scan the menu and figure out what he can order that will also score him the best number of sides and the like.
    We all ate dinner at this joint called Buddakan. If the giant restaurant fight scene in Kill Bill had been shot by Batman Forever-era Joel Schumacher instead of Tarantino, the set would have looked something like Buddakan. Made to look like the courtyard in a temple, the roof is painted dark blue and has pin-point twinkling lights to simulate stars. The interior is dominated by a giant golden Buddha statue.
    At the table, on learning what I ordered, Al informed me that I could have had my main dish along with this other dish, as my selection is actually incorporated into the latter.

Casino: Waitress

    The waitress at that bar was woman in her late forties, not unattractive, but you could see that, in her youth, she'd been a knock out. She was thin, naturally rather than athletically so. She had dark curly hair pulled into a bun. Stay curls escaped the overall do, but the effect was more haggard than pleasingly disheveled. She looked tired. Her black stockings had a hole in them, a gap about the size of a poker chip on the side of her thigh, right above her knee.
    I noticed that when she counted out change, she would count out the money the same way a dealer would. She would gather up all the money into a stack, then lay down the bills in ascending order, slightly overlapping, forming a long line in which the denomination of each bill could be seen.
    I asked her if she'd been a dealer.
    She said she had. She had started at one of the nicer casinos, then worked her way down the food chain, then was taken off gambling tables and put on serving lounge tables.

    The casinos in Atlantic City clearly have a sort of un-official pecking order. This was what the waitress was describing when she mentioned the casino food chain. And, spending only a few hours in each of the casinos, it becomes clear to even the novice what she means. At the top of chain are the posh joints like the Borgata and Trump's Plaza. At the bottom are the more wildly goofy casinos, like the Wild West.
    What makes this ranking unusual is that it is almost entire a matter of style. Not only do the casinos basically offer the same games. They offer them at the same minimum bid. You can't find a game of blackjack cheaper than $15. You'll find $15 games in all of the major casinos, but never anything less in even the tackiest joint. Presumably this prevents warring over the minimum bid, which would hit all the casinos in the wallet as they raced to the bottom. Other services seem similarly calibrated. Within a buck or two, nearly all the other products and services available to customers are priced the same across the casinos. There is some high-end variation. If you want a $300 dollar bottle of Grgich Hills Chardonnay, you'll have to hang out in the classier joints, but your beer by the pint selections are going to be pretty much the same, and comparably priced, wherever you go. When you get to the bottom of it all, there are no pricy or cheap casinos in Atlantic City. They are, from a financial perspective, pretty much the same.
    Ultimately, the status and distinction of a casino is simply a matter of décor. Each one is constructed not to so much compete with the other casinos as it is meant to serve the demographic self-image of a customer group. If you're hanging around the Wild West, it isn't because it is cheaper. It is because you find the upper crust surroundings of the more chic joints uncomfortable. Trump's customers aren't playing for pots any larger than the ones at the more crass casinos, they just feel like they are.

Casino: Gambling

    I'm not much of a gambler. I understand most of your major table games (except, maybe, pai gow, which is now huge and somehow passed completely under my radar). Still, I'm not very good at any of them. I mention this simply by way of putting the following in context. What I feel about gambling, I feel knowing that pretty much any time I put my hand to it, I will lose.

    I'll confine myself to blackjack (for the historical record, I hit the $25 minimum tables), the game I best understand and play most often. To understand the allure of blackjack one must first look at the game head on. From a standpoint of profit and loss, blackjack is a sinkhole. Skill is, for the most part, irrelevant. Certainly, there's a whole body of knowledge out there meant to help player reign in the overwhelming odds, but even the most complicated strategies (assuming one doesn't cheat) cannot actually tilt the odds in your favor. Over an extended period of play, money loss is pretty much inevitable. Even luck, if one believes in such a thing, can only hold out for so long. I can't recall how many times I'd have left the table richer than arrived had I only walked away. The moment one decides to gamble, whether you're admitting it or not, you are committed to throwing money away. And that is, I think, the key draw: Gambling is an illogical waste of money and that is the primary source of its unique pleasures.

    Money, to butcher Wordsworth's line, is too much with us. But not, and here the poet and I differ, because getting and spending we lay waste our powers. In fact, in getting and spending, we engage in nearly everything American society tells us is worthwhile. The logic of capitalism, the balance of profit and loss, is the primary moral framework of the modern world. Who we are, what we do, is most often reduced to matters of exchange. From the mantra that "free markets equal free minds" to those who self-ascribe as "fiscal conservatives, social liberals," what we're all dangerously close to admitting is near universal abrogation of all value in favor of the calculations of the market place. There are precious few moments when we aren't engaged in this mad hustle. Even the two great absolutist dreams of the modern era – religion and science – fight one another while pretending that they, at best, are little more than squabbling handmaidens of the one truly significant intellectual tyrant of our days: profit.

    This is not to say that I'm against free markets or cash. I think those battles have been fought and definitively lost. The brilliance of market-morality was that it was functional and adaptive. It worked, so it won.

    Which brings us to back to gambling. Gambling is the great American potlatch. Its pleasures come from luxuriating in the financial irresponsibility of the act. Like a gift given in a generous and selfless moment, it is one of the few things one can do to, if only for a night, slip out from under the constant relentlessness of cash and its tireless demands.

    Take the chips, for example. Chips are an obviously functional adaptation to the casino table environment. Playing with greenbacks – uniform in shape and color across denominations – would be a boon for cheaters. However, many people have pointed that chips serve a psychological function. They maintain that forcing players to convert their cash to chips allows the players to distance themselves from the actual loss by forgetting that the chips represent money. These critics are half right. I suspect no gambler ever forgets that chips equal money. In fact, at any given moment, I suspect every player at a blackjack table could tell you exactly how much they've got. Instead, the psychological effect is to put money in its place. The dollar bill is more recognized world-wide than the US flag and, in many ways, is a more potent symbol. Stripping it of that symbolic weight gives us a better sense of money as this odd counterfeit, the symbol of an imagined unit of theoretical value. The casino chip puts money in its proper place and, in that, the chip is more real than the dollar.

    The trick, of course, is that you must always come back down. You win or lose. You go back to work. You pay your bills. You be a good citizen now and buy and sell and save and invest. But for a few liberating moments, you're free of that. There are many reasons people gamble. That little thrill is my reason.

< Observations on one of the twins. | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Beaten to the Punch | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Grgich by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:07:44 PM EST
$300!? It's like a tenth that out here.

...well...maybe a fifth.

It sounds like Atlantic City has higher minimums than Las Vegas. I'm a bit surprised by that. (Vegas also has minimums that vary by casino.)
----
ウセーバラケダ


Wine cost. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:57:44 PM EST
It was the Grgich Hills Anniversary Chard, a limited edition dealie that retails for something like $80 (prior to the more than 300% restaurant mark-up). Not the standard Chard which is about half the retail of the limited edition.

I'm suspecting that there are too many casinos, large and small, in Vegas to pull off the minimum-setting gentlemen's agreement. All the casinos on the strip are about the same size and there are only a few of them. In Vegas, if you were a tiny casino, why wouldn't you lower away in an effort to steal from the bigger guys? Its the only thing you can offer.

[ Parent ]

When I've been there, by garlic (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:54:26 PM EST
$10 tables seem to be the minimum, with the occasional $5 table, but it seemed pretty similar across casinos. Instead, it seemed like it fluctuated based off of business -- if they were busy there weren't any $5 dollar tables.

[ Parent ]

In Vegas by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:11:15 PM EST
The minimums fluctuate dramatically by time of day. $10 are easy to find at noon, impossible to find at 10 pm.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

I was reminded of a Polynesian restaurant in Lee by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:11:10 PM EST
Mass (or was it Great Barrington?). The interior was painted to resemble a polynesian village, with a volcano, a lagoon, and plenty of grass huts.

It existed back in 1995, as we went there coming back from our honeymoon. It's probably long gone, the ironic hipster element insufficient in the Berkshires t keep it going.




buddakan by yankeehack (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:28:03 PM EST
is a philly restaurant, but I guess they have a AC location, just like the philly restuarant Cuba Libre does.

I've been to the Borgata (which is my fave) and to the Tropicana. I've ridden past Caesars and Bally's (which my elderly aunt likes to populate). I haven't been to the trump properties, thinking that they'd be downtrodden.
****
You know what is funny? I voted for McCain in 2000 and Obama in 2008. (And let's not forget Edwards in 1998.)


Live at the Buddakan! by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:44:45 AM EST
They've got a location in Manhattan as well, though that one's treated like it is a real upper-class, semi-exclusive joint. Context, I guess, makes the place.

The Trump casinos look better on the inside than they do on the outside (for some reason they look really cheap and a bit dumpy from the street – maybe it is the white paint, it gets dirty and spotty so easily).

The Plaza is not as hip and design-conscious as the Borgata, but I think they went a more old-school classy approach.

The Taj is nice too, if you don't find the weird "Man Who Would Be King" vibe off putting.

I don't remember the Marina – as the night dragged on, the details get spotty.

[ Parent ]

I recall smoking in a German movie house. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:32:35 PM EST
Oh, the times we had.

This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur


I vaguely recall smoking on airplanes, as well by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:14:11 PM EST

You know, I was thinking about how it's got to be kind of depressing and weird to have your career actually have a negative path like the waitress's seems to have, and then I remembered how non-smokers keep rubbing up on us, and pushing themselves against the glass counter, and telling us to go outside, and then to go out to the sidewalk, and next, it'll be to go out into the middle of the fucking interstate, and that'll be, like, the only place you can smoke, and I remember one lesson from it all:

People suck ass, and will ruin anything, so fuck 'em.

Ahh, I love cuddly, warm, fuzzy life lessons.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

KLM Trans-Atlantic by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #9 Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:22:11 PM EST
I think that's all that needs to be said.

This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur
[ Parent ]

Chinatown movie theaters. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:48:57 AM EST
Not so long ago, Chinatown was notoriously lax about preventing smoking in movie theaters. Sadly, the last of the smoker-friendly theaters went out of business five years ago. Maybe some are still around, hidden away from Bloomberg's anti-smoking nanny's. If so, I haven't found them.

[ Parent ]

i'd say it's a bit of a stretch by 256 (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:00:41 AM EST
to call card-counting cheating.

furthermore, i think a big part of the appeal of gambling is the thought that (despite all the other clueless schmucks out there) the game can be beaten.

certainly there are people who are glorying in throwing their money away. it's a nice thought. still, i suspect there are just as many people who are convinced that this time they've got it all figured out.
---
I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni


Card counting and the why. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:27:10 AM EST
I think even casinos agree that card counting isn't cheating (they'll tell you it is, but they know it isn't). In Jersey, card counters are euphemistically referred to as "skilled players" and there are actually laws to protect them from the more aggressive things casinos might do to scare them away. When I mentioned cheating, I meant actually cheating. The use of card counting in modern blackjack, despite some recent semi-factual press regarding card counting teams, is mostly a myth and, I think, pretty much useless for the casual player. Card counting give you a 1% advantage over the house and only if the house allows players to join play in the middle of a shoe, does not use a four deck system, and does not shuffle between shoes. If the house does any of those things, which they can and will do even in Atlantic City, the advantage you gain from card counting is pretty much negated. Even if all those conditions are met, you'd still have to play for really long time before any substantial amount of money was made. (Especially if you add in the number of hands you'd need to "throw" in order to not be spotted as a card counter.) For an infrequent gambler like me, it is pretty much irrelevant.

As for the appeal of gambling, I don't suggest that my reasons for gambling are anything but mine. Perhaps that I should have made that more clear. I think there are as many reasons for gambling as there are gamblers, but I can only speak for myself.

[ Parent ]

As I understood it, by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:45:02 AM EST

Blackjack is the only game in the entire place where the odds are very, very slightly in the punter's favour (and even then it's dependent on dealer strategies). That's why they don't like card counters, because counting gives the player a legitimate, if precarious, purchase on the north face of the odds from which that tiny bias can be exploited. I agree with 256, though; counting isn't cheating, it's "being prejudiced-against because you're good".

I have very simple rules with gambling: At the beginning of the year, some figure less than £100 (usually just £50) goes into the kitty and, once it's gone, it's gone. On top of this, I tend to confine myself to things I know about. This started as a system to stop me from gambling too much but, as it turns out, it was overly cautious; I'm still using 2005's stocks (but that's mostly because I did very well on last year's World Cup[1]). Of course, this doesn't cover the spur-of-the-moment "I bet you (a pint | dinner | a book | cinema tickets) over something insignificant" side bets we all make occasionally, and I probably lose more from them, to be honest, just because my gambling isn't that frequent (I even missed the Grand National this year).

Good to have you back, though; great read.

[1] - You're always quids-in if you bet against England for long enough.


----
Done.


Card counting doesn't work by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:50:53 AM EST
In most casinos they use multiple decks and shuffle frequently.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

The odds. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:35:25 AM EST
Except in the rare cases where card counting is possible, the most sound playing strategies still gives the house the advantage. If is a slim one – less than 1% - but it is still an advantage.

As for card counting, that is really more of an interesting mathematical puzzle than a real gambling strategy. I side with wiredog on this one: for that average player, card counting is basically an irrelevant.

More importantly, thanks for the footie tip; though aren't defeatist sentiments like that enough to get you jailed in most European countries?

[ Parent ]

Betting against by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:05:18 AM EST

England is my way of shamelessly emulating Peter Cook. He apparently used to put modest bets against his team (Spurs?) on the basis that it was a negligible and tolerable loss if they won and that he'd be at least somewhat compensated if they lost. I don't bet against my club team, but the biennial trauma of watching England perpetually get close but ultimately fail in major international competitions warrants some recompense, I feel.

In truth, I actually made the vast majority of the money from Italy's final three games, rather than from England, but the principle is sound ;)


----
Done.
[ Parent ]

Beaten to the Punch | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback