TURMEL: #17 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript

JCT: Since the Project Robin Hood raid on Casino Turmel case was
brought up in the Big Five Marijuana appeals at the Ontario 
Court of Appeal recently arguing against judges imposing new 
criminal sanctions, rather than Parliament, I've decided to to 
publish the transcripts of the trial on the biggest gaming house 
raid in Canadian, probably world, history. 28 tables/155 dealers. 
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/gambler.htm 

#93-18193
             ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)               
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                           against
                         JOHN TURMEL
                         **********
                         T R I A L 
         HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. WRIGHT
    on Thursday, February 24th, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario.
           CHARGE:  S. 201(1)
                         **********
THE COURT:   Cross-examination?
MR. SAGLE:   Yes, Your Honour, I just have a few questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SAGLE:  
Q.   Sergeant, you indicated that when you were at the Baxter
premises you were - it was indicated to you that you should deal at
one time; is that correct?
A.   M'hm.
Q.   And you did deal?
A.   M'hm.
Q.   And did you deal at any other time?
A.   At the Baxter location?
Q.   Either location.
A.   The Baxter location, yes.
Q.   Yes, you did?  Is it your understanding that you are able
to deal at any time you chose?
A.   I thought - when I made observations at the Baxter place,
I never observed anybody being the bank, other than the Turmel
employees, against more than one person.
Q.   Mo, I understand.  Against one person, but you understood
you could deal against one person whenever you chose?
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And you never saw anybody refused the opportunity to become
the bank, become the dealer, whenever they chose; is that correct?
A.   There wasn't too much of that, but I didn't see it.
Q.   You also indicated that you've been to Nevada some 50 times
and you've played in numerous casinos.  Have you ever seen a casino
in which the player can actually become the banker?
A.   Yeah, in .... they can become banker.
Q.   No, I mean in blackjack or poker.
A.   In blackjack, no.
Q.   You also indicated that you felt it was difficult to win
this game because the house - I gather you mean the banker...
A.   The bank.
Q.   ...has an edge.
A.   I believe so.
Q.   And of course, when the bank changes, that edge goes with
it.  It's inherent in the bank; is that correct?
A.   A long term bank. 
Q.   Pardon me?
A.   A long term bank.
Q.   You also indicated you bought cigarettes.
A.   Yes.
Q.   Where did you buy those?
A.   I gave the money to one of the runners at the last
location, the location being in the...
Q.   Bought from a machine, you said?
A.   Yes.
Q.   In your investigation, did you find out who ran that
machine, who owned the machine?
A.   I didn't do it.  Someone else did that investigation.
Q.   Do you know who the owner was?
A.   I don't personally, no.
Q.   You indicated you played blackjack and poker?
A.   Yes.
Q.   And at Baxter you lost $1,500, you thought?
A.   M'hm.
Q.   Do you know how much you lost at blackjack and how much at
poker?  Did you distinguish?
A.   I didn't play too much poker.  The reason why I wanted to
play poker was to see if there was a rake.
Q.   Was there?
A.   No.
Q.   Thank you.
THE COURT:   To see if there was a what?
THE WITNESS:   A rake.  A percentage going to the house.
THE COURT:   Yes.
THE WITNESS:   And there was not a rake.  The only observation
I made at the poker table is that everyone gave a tip to the
dealer after the end of each hand.
MR. SAGLE:   Thank you.  I have no other questions.
                         **********
THE COURT:   Re-examination?
MR. MARIN:   Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARIN:
Q.   Just to clarify for the record, a rake, you said, is a
percentage of the bet.  Is that what you mean by...
A.   Percentage of the bet.  That's correct.
Q.   Now, just to follow up on the issue of the bank, if someone
wanted to be the bank, wanted to persist being the bank, what would
be required of that person?
A.   Well, he would have to put up the money to cover all the
bets.
Q.   Okay, and...
A.   The person.  But I believe, in my opinion, that if I'd
persisted that I wanted to be the bank, they would know I was a
police officer at that point.  That's why I didn't persist.
Q.   Okay.  From your observation, do you know if you wanted to
keep being the dealer of the bank - was that being done elsewhere
within the...
MR. SAGLE:   Leading question.  I...
MR. MARIN:   Q.   ...or was that done at the table...
MR. SAGLE:   Objection, Your Honour.  He's leading the witness
into a whole realm the witness hasn't brought up or discussed
before.
THE COURT:   All right, could you repeat the question?
MR. MARIN:   Q.   The location where the
gambling was taking place...
A.   On Baxter, yes?
Q.   No, on St. Laurent.
A.   Yes?
Q.   That's the one I'm interested in.  How many tables were
there?
THE COURT:   Well...
MR. SAGLE:   We haven't done this.
MR. MARIN:   Well, I'm just laying the groundwork for the
question, Your Honour.  I mean, if he's suggesting that I'm
leading, I'm going to lay the groundwork...
THE COURT:   Well, is that a question that arises from cross-
examination?
MR. MARIN:   Yes, it is.  It arises from cross-examination, Your
Honour.
THE COURT:   How?
MR. MARIN:   Well, he questioned specifically on the role of the
bank, if they wanted to be the bank, or what would be the
procedure, and he followed up questions on that.  And so he
asked whether...
THE COURT:   What will your next question be?
MR. MARIN:   What my next question will be?  Supposing he gives
a number of tables, to ask where the normal game was happening,
and if there was any other area within that location where there
was a different game being played as opposed to the mainstream
game.
THE COURT:   Mr. Sagle?
MR. SAGLE:   Your Honour, it sounds like this should all have
been brought up before.  That didn't come from what I asked, the
question about the edge going with the bank.  The process and
where you go and how you play the game.  It didn't seem to be
important during his examination.  I think he's going well
beyond...
THE COURT:   Well, if the purpose is to address simply the issue
of who was being the bank at different points, I'm going to
allow the question, but only for that purpose.
MR. MARIN:   Yes, for that purpose...
THE COURT:   Yes.
MR. MARIN:   ...and the one my friend just indicated, that he's
looking at who had the edge.  It was part of his cross-
examination.  I mean, it goes hand-in-hand with that question.
THE COURT:   Yes.
MR. MARIN:   Q.   All right, so Sergeant
Fotia, within the location of the St. Laurent Avenue area where it
was being played, can you tell us - there's a location where you'd
have to be if you wanted to play the bank.  That's the question.
A.   At the table, there's - for example, at the St. Laurent
location, there was quite a few tables, but in that context, you
have to be the bank at that table.  In other words, if I was a
player, I would turn to the bank and say, "I want to be bank," and
at that point, okay, I could only be bank against that person.  I
did not see, in my observation, a person who was bank, because you
knew the person who was bank, because he had the shoe.
Q.   Yes.
A.   I'd never seen a bank person to play with more than one player.
Q.   Who was that player?
A.   Well, that player was the bank.  When the customer was the
bank, the bank became player.
Q.   Okay.
A.   So, in other words...
Q.   Yes, sir.
A.   ...in my observations - first of all, my observations on
Baxter Road, there was several people being bank one-on-one with
the house.
Q.   M'hm.
A.   Okay.  At the St. Laurent location, I did not observe any
people during my visits there that were bank, because it was very
obvious to me who was bank.  Because the shoe would be on his side
and he would be dealing to that other person.  And usually, when
the player became bank, he only dealt to one player; he didn't deal
against six or seven other players during my observations.  And at
Baxter Road, there was people who were bank.  At the location at
St. Laurent, I did not observe anyone being bank.  The bank was
always a person in the white shirt who was an employee of Mr.
Turmel.
Q.   Okay now, when this happened, what happened to the rest of
the game?  You're at a table...
A.   It would go on normally.  The rest of the games would go on
normally.
Q.   Right.
MR. MARIN:   Thank you.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Mr. Sagle, do you have anything as a result?
MR. SAGLE:   Just one question, Your Honour.
MR. TURMEL:   Just one.  
MR. TURMEL:   Q.   So in a sense, you are
stating that at any time a player could decide to become the
dealer-banker if he so chose, and the player would leave the table,
go to another table where he would take on only Mr. Turmel or one
of his agents?
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And that if the other players were present at the time, the
main table would continue playing with Turmel or they'd go to
another table?
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And that the player could not be the banker-dealer against
any other player?
A.   Come again?
Q.   You couldn't be a banker-dealer against another player;
just me.
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And that if a player chose to be the banker, the house
rules were such that you were entitled to be the bank and deal a
shoe of cards against John Turmel or one of my agents only, and
play a one-on-one game in which no other players were allowed to
play?
A.   For one hand.  But at the last location, where I went three
times, no one from your staff, or yourself, came to me and said,
"You must be the bank."  There was a little article, sign, on the
table saying that you must do this, but no one came to make sure
that I did do that.
Q.   All right.  That's right.  And you did see the big sign on
the walls that said the same thing?
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And you did see the special blackjack table called the "U-
Bank" table?
A.   Yes.
Q.   Okay, so that means all these facts admitted in 1989
basically are the same thing today, correct?
A.   I didn't read that.
MR. MARIN:   He wasn't there in '89, Your Honour.
MR. TURMEL:   Q.   Still, the point is,
everything I've just stated to you is true, correct?
A.   Everything you said to me - I don't know about 1989.  I
wasn't there.
Q.   Everything I've just said to you, you agree with, is
exactly how it was played today.
A.   That's correct.
MR. TURMEL:   Thank you.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Thank you.  Perhaps this would be a good
opportunity to take the lunch recess till two o'clock.

R E C E S S               (12:20 p.m.)

U P O N   R E S U M I N G:      (2:04 p.m.)
CLERK OF THE COURT:   Court is reconvened; please be seated.
MR. MARIN:   Your Honour, right after we recessed for the lunch
period, I had some discussions with Mr. Sagle and Mr. Turmel and
I went through with them the witnesses I intended to recall, and
I believe, Your Honour, that we were able to narrow it down to
one, two, three, four witnesses, and perhaps we'll be able to
close the Crown's case today or tomorrow morning.  The other
witness' testimony are, in substance, not be challenged by the
Defence.  So what I propose to do is - we have some documents
that I was going to tender through those witnesses, or
statements, and what I'd like to do is file them as exhibits
and, subject to that, then call the remaining witnesses.  The
Defence has full disclosure of all the documents that we have.
THE COURT:   That's fine.
MR. MARIN:   Now...
THE COURT:   And that's with the agreement of the Defence?
MR. SAGLE:   That's correct, Your Honour.
MR. MARIN:   I wasn't sure, Your Honour, if the three documents
I submitted earlier on this morning were officially made an
exhibit to the case, were they?
THE COURT:   Two?
CLERK OF THE COURT:   No, they were not.
MR. MARIN:   Okay, they should be.
THE COURT:   We have the rules as Exhibit One, and the summary
from Sergeant Fotia is Exhibit Two.
MR. MARIN:   But Your Honour, the package, the undisputed
facts...
THE COURT:   The agreed statement?
MR. MARIN:   Yes.
THE COURT:   No.
MR. MARIN:   The three documents.  Perhaps they should be
entered now before - they should be Exhibit Three, I suppose.
THE COURT:   All right, if these are agreed, then the undisputed
statement - the undisputed facts as taken from the transcript
dated December 13th, 1993, the undisputed facts between the
parties, and appendix C, will collectively then be Exhibit
Three.
CLERK OF THE COURT:   Exhibit Number Three.

EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE:   Undisputed facts from transcript of
December 13, 1993; undisputed facts between parties; Appendix C.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   Yes, there's one correction, Your Honour.  The
first document, undisputed facts as taken from the transcript...
THE COURT:   Yes?
MR. MARIN:   The third line reads,

"Mr. Turmel admits he had control of all the bank accounts."

The word "all" is to be deleted.  And of course
I made the comment this morning that there was a bank account
dealing with employee tips.
THE COURT:   And that account would be excluded, then, from the
bank accounts...
MR. MARIN:   That's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   All right.
MR. MARIN:   It's referred to in another document, but here the
nuance is not made, so...
THE COURT:   All right, I've noted, then, that the word "all" is
deleted.
MR. MARIN:   Thank you, Your Honour.
CLERK OF THE COURT:   Thank you.
MR. MARIN:   Okay, so Charles Lefebvre.  Do you have a statement
for that?  Or a lease.  This will be Exhibit Four, I believe. 
This, Your Honour, is a copy of the lease between Mr. Turmel and
Charles Lefebvre.  This is a copy of the lease.  It's the Baxter
Road lease; Your Honour's heard there was a casino operating
there.
THE COURT:   All right, then, the lease in respect of Baxter
Road will be Exhibit Four.

EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR:   Lease for Baxter Road location.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   All right, the next document:  Howard Appotive. 
There's a lease - statement - also a lease.....  Your Honour,
this pertains to the St. Laurent location.
THE COURT:   All right, the lease with Appotive, for St.
Laurent, will be Exhibit Five.
MR. MARIN:   There's a statement as well from Appotive that's
been disclosed as well as part of the lease.
THE COURT:   Is the statement to be entered into evidence as
well, then, together with the lease?
MR. MARIN:   Okay, so that would be Exhibit Five.
THE COURT:   And the statement is to be entered with the lease?
MR. MARIN:   Yes, please.

EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE:   Lease for St. Laurent location, and
statement.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   All right, the next Exhibit, I believe, is Exhibit
Six?  Are we at six?
CLERK OF THE COURT:   Yes.
MR. MARIN:   Exhibit Six will be the articles of incorporation
of Appotive Developments.
THE COURT:   Of quota...?
MR. MARIN:   Just have a moment.....
MR. MARIN:   The Appotive Developments articles of
incorporation, Your Honour, a certified copy.
THE COURT:   All right, the articles of incorporation of
Appotive Developments, Exhibit Six.

EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX:   Articles of incorporation of Appotive
Developments.
- produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   Donald Cribbie.  So this would be the Exhibit
Number Seven.  Statement.  Okay, so there are two statements,
Your Honour:  The witness statement by Don Cribbie, and one
given as he's found at the location at the establishment.
THE COURT:   And there are two statements for Mr. Cribbie?
MR. MARIN:   Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   All right, those two statements, then, will be
Exhibit Seven.
MR. MARIN:   Thank you.

EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN:   Two statements of Donald Cribbie.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   And Kanaan.  It's one witness statement.
THE COURT:   That'll be Exhibit Number Eight.

EXHIBIT NUMBER EIGHT:   Witness statement of Kanaan.
- produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   The next witness statement, Scott A. Jordan.
THE COURT:   Exhibit Nine.

EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE:   Witness statement of Scott Jordan.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   Exhibit Ten is a spread sheet prepared by Howard
Greenberg, Your Honour.  It will be subject to further evidence,
Your Honour.
THE COURT:   Exhibit Ten.

EXHIBIT NUMBER TEN:   Spread sheet prepared by Howard Greenberg.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   I believe, Your Honour, as well, if I may just read
this for the record, that I believe that if this witness were
called, he would also indicate that there were up to 100
employees, or so, hired at the St. Laurent establishment. 
That's for the witness, Greenberg, Your Honour.
There are a number of bank documents that I
believe could be entered all as one exhibit.
Okay, the next piece of evidence, Your Honour,
deals with the bank accounts.  The next exhibit is a statement
by Garnet Barber, manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia.
THE COURT:   That'll be Exhibit 11.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 11:   Statement by Garnet Barber, BNS manager.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   The next exhibit, Your Honour, is a binder, and
what's in this binder - perhaps it could be called "bank
documents, Casino Turmel."  It's bank documents from five banks. 
The Capital Community Credit Union Limited, the Bank of
Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Royal Bank Somerset Street, Royal
Bank Centerpoint Drive.
MR. TURMEL:   Excuse me, Your Honour.  Could I object?  Short
objection at this point.  There has been an admission that I've
controlled bank accounts.  There has been an admission that
there was gambling.  There has been an admission that the bank
accounts were controlling monies from the gambling.  And
frankly, with none of this denied, the Court does not need to
know how much money or where it was stored in order to get a
prima facie case of gaming house.  You just need to know that
there was money gambled for, which I've admitted.  So we've
spent the last ten minutes talking about documents which, once
I admit I've gambled and I'm a winner, these become irrelevant
considerations, where the money was stored and how much, and
considering the admissions are in there already, I think the
Crown should be alerted that this is unnecessary evidence in
light of that admission.  You know, why prove where it was kept
and how much, when all you need is money was made or won, in my
case, which I admit.  So in case it's going to take another long
time to continue this, I'd like to point out, in light of the
admission, that these things are really rather extraneous to the
main issues.  So with the admission that I admitted all the bank
accounts, they were holding winnings from the casino, why are we
going to be putting all this - I hope you don't have to look
through this stuff, Your Honour, you know, because frankly it
doesn't add anything to the issue you're going to have to
decide, which is whether the winnings were legal.  They've been
admitted, but how much and where they were stored, frankly, is
an extraneous consideration we could be able to do away with. 
So that's my suggestion or objection, if you can help in any way
to shorten this process.
THE COURT:   Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN:   Your Honour, first of all, I would like to finish
putting - this is the last document I'm going to be putting in,
subject to two other short statements by civilians, but I intend
to call a witness, Your Honour, by the name of Penny Cookson,
who's a chartered accountant who has reviewed these documents
and will be filing a report of findings.  It's a 30-page report
and it's all based on these documents.  Her report, if she's
cross-examined - she'll be testifying as to - I've looked at the
accounts of this bank and I've looked at the accounts at that
bank, and so on.  We won't be requiring them in her testimony,
per se, but these are all the background materials on which she
will file her conclusions.
THE COURT:   What do you anticipate her conclusion will be?
MR. MARIN:   Well, she will be, for example, concluding as to
the average salary expense per week of the accused and operating
the business at St. Laurent.  She'll be giving the status of
various accounts, the money flow and movement in those accounts. 
She'll be giving her conclusions on that, averages and so on,
and all the materials that she'll be referring to are from here,
and I don't expect, the way things are going, that she'll
actually have to pinpoint, document by document, except that if
there's an issue at any one point in time, there's an exhibit
here and she can point to it and explain how she came to her
conclusion.
THE COURT:   All right, is the evidence of the accountant
disputed?
MR. TURMEL:   No.
THE COURT:   Do we need to hear from her?
MR. MARIN:   All right...
THE COURT:   I'm not telling how to run your case, but if
there's an admission as to what her evidence would be...
MR. MARIN:   Yes, sure, Your Honour.  Well, what I was going to
do is simply call her and have her file her report, and I
understood Mr. Turmel had some questions to ask her.  If he has
none, then we'll just file the report.  If that's the situation,
that's fine.
THE COURT:   Mr. Turmel and Mr. Sagle seem to be indicating no.
MR. SAGLE:   No, we've never basically contested that there were
winnings and there was money and it went to the bank and there
were expenses to pay.  We have no problem with any of that,
really.
MR. MARIN:   All right, so perhaps, Your Honour, we can do this: 
Perhaps we can file her report along with these, because if Your
Honour is going to read the report, or if I make reference to it
in the submissions, there'll be the back-up materials there for
the record.
THE COURT:   All right, answer this:  If I read the report, do
I have to read all of the other materials?
MR. MARIN:   No, you don't, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Turmel.
MR. MARIN:   Just want to be very cautious, Your Honour.  So can
we have Penny Cookson's report, please?
THE COURT:   All right, Exhibit 12, then, will be the banking
documents in the binder.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 12:   Binder of banking documents.
- Produced and marked.

THE COURT:   Exhibit 13 will be the report of Miss Cookson.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 13:   Report of Penny Cookson, chartered
accountant.
- Produced and marked.

THE COURT:   And just to be clear, then, the Defence is not
disputing any of the exhibits which have been filed to date by
Mr. Marin, including the report of Miss Cookson?
MR. SAGLE:   Correct, Your Honour.
MR. MARIN:   Your Honour, I believe we're now at Exhibit 14? 
Could this be the Percs' statements?  There's Lily Percs and
Lester Percs.
THE COURT:   Exhibit 14, then, will be the statements of the
Percs.
MR. MARIN:   Yes, Lily and Lester.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 14:   Statements of Lily and Lester Percs.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   Okay, the final exhibit, Your Honour, are the
articles of incorporation of the St. Laurent establishment.
THE COURT:   The name of the corporation?
MR. MARIN:   2869748.
THE COURT:   All right, and this is an Ontario corporation?
MR. MARIN:   Yes.  It's incorporated federally, Your Honour,
under the Canada...
THE COURT:   Exhibit 15, then, will be the articles of
incorporation of 2869748 Canada Ltd.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 15:   Articles of incorporation of 2869748 Canada
Ltd.
- Produced and marked.
MR. MARIN:   If I may just have a word with my investigator for
a moment, Your Honour, because we've got three more witnesses
and then the case will be through.  All right, Your Honour, so
there remains three individuals I intend to call.  The next one,
his name is Ron Sheppard, director-general of the casino in
Montreal.
THE COURT:   Mr. Sheppard.
MR. MARIN:   Yes.  Ron Sheppard.

RONALD SHEPPARD:  SWORN

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. MARIN:   
Q.   Mr. Sheppard, can you tell us where you work, right now?
A.   At Casino de Montreal.
Q.   And what is your position there, please?
A.   I'm director-general.
Q.   I understand, sir, that the Casino de Montreal is an
establishment that has just been recently started; is that correct?
A.   That's correct, yes.
Q.   Okay, can you give us the date it opened?
A.   It opened on October the first, 1993.
Q.   All right, and have you been director-general of that
casino since then?
A.   Yes.
Q.   All right.  Now, I understand, sir, that prior to that, you
were involved in your own corporation; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   And can you tell us about that?
MR. TURMEL:   Excuse me, Your Honour, this questioning has
nothing to do with my case if it's to establish Mr. Sheppard's
credentials as an expert in the field of casinos.  Bank in 1977,
he was an expert in my trial at that time and I see no reason
not to grant him that status here, as long as it doesn't deal
with the mathematics of gambling, for which I don't think he may
have the statistical credentials.  But in all other respects, if
the Crown is asking these questions to accept him as an expert,
we have no problems there, except with respect to the
mathematics of gambling.
THE COURT:   Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN:   That's fine, Your Honour.  I have a copy of his
resume, if that could be filed as the next exhibit.
THE COURT:   Exhibit 16.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 16:   Curriculum vitae of Ronald Sheppard.
- Produced and marked.

MR. MARIN:   Q.   Okay, Mr. Sheppard, just to
assist the Court in establishing what your area of expertise is, I
understand, sir, that you worked for the RCMP prior to that, in the
past; is that correct?
A.   Yes, until 1976.
Q.   Thank you, and what is the specific area of your expertise? 
What area do...
A.   I was involved in the investigation of illegal gambling up
until 1976, following which I was involved in the regulation of
gaming activities for seven years as director of the Gaming Control
Branch in the Province of Alberta.
Q.   Yes?
A.   Following that, I was the director of the casinos in the
Province of Manitoba.
Q.   Okay, and how long were you director of the casinos in the
Province of Manitoba?
A.   Eight years.
Q.   Mr. Sheppard, are you of any assistance in helping us
determine how a casino makes money?  Can you tell us about that?
A.   Well, casinos make a profit in two ways by operating what
can probably be characterized as two types of games:  The first
kind of games would be called games of chance...
Q.   Yes?
A.   ...and the second kind of game would be a game of mixed
chance and skill.  For example, a game which is wholly of chance
would be a game like roulette.  A game of mixed chance and skill
would be one such as blackjack.  In the case of games of wholly
skill, the difference between the true odds and the pay-off odds
gives the house an advantage.  In the case of non-self-weighted
games such as blackjack, the advantage for the house derives itself
from a variety of factors: The rules of the game, the number of
decks in use, the skill of the players, and a substantial advantage
on the average player is that the player must play before the
house.  There are also a number of variables that go to skill.  The
skill of the player can in many cases determine the outcome of the
game, and, as a result, the negative expectation generally
contributing towards the profitability of a casino determines
itself as a result of the lack of skill of players.
Q.   How would you qualify the skill of the average player?
A.   Well, the skill of the average player generally is not
high.  I think it's necessary to qualify that.  There are players
that play with a limited degree of skill.  There are those that
play what is commonly called "basic strategy," which is nothing
more than the exact strategy to hit, stand, split and double. 
Beyond that, there are more sophisticated methods of playing, such
as card counting, which is somewhat more complicated.  There are
fewer people that are successful card counters and still fewer that
go the next generation of shuffle-tracking, and that's only
possible in the case of certain types of multiple game shuffles.
Q.   Now, when you talk about negative expectations, what do you
mean by that?
A.   Well, in order to quantify house advantage in the game of
blackjack, it's necessary to make an assumption, and that
assumption can only be made - and I'm not pretending to be a
mathematician at all, because I'm not that - but you have to make
an assumption, and usually the mathematics of it is done based on
the assumption that all of the players are playing basic strategy. 
That is simply to say that if everyone played the correct strategy
for hitting, standing, splitting and doubling, taking insurance,
and so on, in each case one would be able to attach a percentage
value to each of the rules in the game.  
For example, in Casino de Montreal, everybody playing basic
strategy, the negative expectation of the player is .88.  That is
simply to say that 88/100ths of a cent of every dollar bet, the
house will keep, if every player in the place played basic
strategy.  So that is the theoretical house advantage, if you want
to say there's some theoretical one.  In fact, it's much higher
than that, probably on the magnitude of one and a half or two
percent, because not everyone plays basic strategy.
Q.   Now, speaking in more sort of practical terms, Mr.
Sheppard, in blackjack, you've indicated that there are two reasons
why the house has an advantage.  Number one is that the player must
play before the house, and number two has to do with skills; is
that correct?
A.   Yes.
--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics