<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_0118205</id>
	<title>Computer-Based System To Crack Down On Casino Card Counters</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255716780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Yahoo Tech outlining a system currently being researched: <i>"Card counting is perfectly legal &mdash; all a counter does is attempt to keep track of whether the cards remaining in a deck are favorable to his winning a hand (mainly if there are lots of tens and aces remaining in the deck) &mdash; but it's deeply frowned upon by Vegas casinos. Those caught counting cards are regularly expelled from casinos on the spot and are often permanently banned from returning. But given the slim house odds on Blackjack, it's often said that a good card counter can actually tip the odds in his favor by carefully controlling the way he bets his hands. And Vegas really doesn't care for that. The anti-card-counter system uses cameras to watch players and keep track of the actual 'count' of the cards, the same way a player would. It also measures how much each player is betting on each hand, and it <a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/153312/computers-to-crack-down-on-card-counters/">syncs up the two data points to look for patterns in the action</a>. If a player is betting big when the count is indeed favorable, and keeping his chips to himself when it's not, he's fingered by the computer... and, in the real world, he'd probably receive a visit from a burly dude in a bad suit, too. The system reportedly works even if the gambler intentionally attempts to mislead it with high bets at unfavorable times."</i> It's not developed in Vegas, though, according to the brief description (the other projects are also interesting) from the <a href="http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressreleases/2009/prapril09/computingproject.htm">University of Dundee's release</a>, but rather in conjunction with the Dundee Casino.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Yahoo Tech outlining a system currently being researched : " Card counting is perfectly legal    all a counter does is attempt to keep track of whether the cards remaining in a deck are favorable to his winning a hand ( mainly if there are lots of tens and aces remaining in the deck )    but it 's deeply frowned upon by Vegas casinos .
Those caught counting cards are regularly expelled from casinos on the spot and are often permanently banned from returning .
But given the slim house odds on Blackjack , it 's often said that a good card counter can actually tip the odds in his favor by carefully controlling the way he bets his hands .
And Vegas really does n't care for that .
The anti-card-counter system uses cameras to watch players and keep track of the actual 'count ' of the cards , the same way a player would .
It also measures how much each player is betting on each hand , and it syncs up the two data points to look for patterns in the action .
If a player is betting big when the count is indeed favorable , and keeping his chips to himself when it 's not , he 's fingered by the computer... and , in the real world , he 'd probably receive a visit from a burly dude in a bad suit , too .
The system reportedly works even if the gambler intentionally attempts to mislead it with high bets at unfavorable times .
" It 's not developed in Vegas , though , according to the brief description ( the other projects are also interesting ) from the University of Dundee 's release , but rather in conjunction with the Dundee Casino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Yahoo Tech outlining a system currently being researched: "Card counting is perfectly legal — all a counter does is attempt to keep track of whether the cards remaining in a deck are favorable to his winning a hand (mainly if there are lots of tens and aces remaining in the deck) — but it's deeply frowned upon by Vegas casinos.
Those caught counting cards are regularly expelled from casinos on the spot and are often permanently banned from returning.
But given the slim house odds on Blackjack, it's often said that a good card counter can actually tip the odds in his favor by carefully controlling the way he bets his hands.
And Vegas really doesn't care for that.
The anti-card-counter system uses cameras to watch players and keep track of the actual 'count' of the cards, the same way a player would.
It also measures how much each player is betting on each hand, and it syncs up the two data points to look for patterns in the action.
If a player is betting big when the count is indeed favorable, and keeping his chips to himself when it's not, he's fingered by the computer... and, in the real world, he'd probably receive a visit from a burly dude in a bad suit, too.
The system reportedly works even if the gambler intentionally attempts to mislead it with high bets at unfavorable times.
" It's not developed in Vegas, though, according to the brief description (the other projects are also interesting) from the University of Dundee's release, but rather in conjunction with the Dundee Casino.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766483</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>Hidalgo1990</author>
	<datestamp>1255684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Card counting is illegal?  That's totally stupid.  If someone's going to get thrown out of a casino for doing well and winning money and knowing how to play the game well, what's the point of even playing the game in the first place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Card counting is illegal ?
That 's totally stupid .
If someone 's going to get thrown out of a casino for doing well and winning money and knowing how to play the game well , what 's the point of even playing the game in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Card counting is illegal?
That's totally stupid.
If someone's going to get thrown out of a casino for doing well and winning money and knowing how to play the game well, what's the point of even playing the game in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29789009</id>
	<title>Re:It's the numb3rs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255879620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure that the payout is not 6:5? instead of 5:4? 6:5 is more common, although depending on if you are counting keeping the original bet or not, the two could be equivalent.</p><p>For exact data on the impact of variations on player's expected outcomes, I'd visit Michael Shackleford's site, http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack<br>I'll note the site has changed themes since I last saw it, and looks less professional now, but the guy is a certified actuary, and casino and Game Makers have been known to hire him to calculate the house advantage on games. (although the last I checked, he was not willing to do this for in-us costumers, since he was concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest between being a consumer advocate and working to the casinos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure that the payout is not 6 : 5 ?
instead of 5 : 4 ?
6 : 5 is more common , although depending on if you are counting keeping the original bet or not , the two could be equivalent.For exact data on the impact of variations on player 's expected outcomes , I 'd visit Michael Shackleford 's site , http : //wizardofodds.com/blackjackI 'll note the site has changed themes since I last saw it , and looks less professional now , but the guy is a certified actuary , and casino and Game Makers have been known to hire him to calculate the house advantage on games .
( although the last I checked , he was not willing to do this for in-us costumers , since he was concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest between being a consumer advocate and working to the casinos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure that the payout is not 6:5?
instead of 5:4?
6:5 is more common, although depending on if you are counting keeping the original bet or not, the two could be equivalent.For exact data on the impact of variations on player's expected outcomes, I'd visit Michael Shackleford's site, http://wizardofodds.com/blackjackI'll note the site has changed themes since I last saw it, and looks less professional now, but the guy is a certified actuary, and casino and Game Makers have been known to hire him to calculate the house advantage on games.
(although the last I checked, he was not willing to do this for in-us costumers, since he was concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest between being a consumer advocate and working to the casinos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29771435</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone "counts" cards, or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be cool to hear about a great flash mob of casino farmers that went to game that system. Have them all bet to lose at the beginning of a measuring cycle in a sparkly new casino and then and play normally at the end when the payout rates were adjusted upwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be cool to hear about a great flash mob of casino farmers that went to game that system .
Have them all bet to lose at the beginning of a measuring cycle in a sparkly new casino and then and play normally at the end when the payout rates were adjusted upwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be cool to hear about a great flash mob of casino farmers that went to game that system.
Have them all bet to lose at the beginning of a measuring cycle in a sparkly new casino and then and play normally at the end when the payout rates were adjusted upwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770301</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1255716120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, another misguided "Libertarian" chimes in.</p><p>These games are heavily regulated.  There doesn't even need to be a law - the gaming commission can just say "if you kick out players who count cards using only their minds and no other device, we will shut you down".  And this is the way it should be.  Without regulation, this becomes a crazy thing called "fraud".</p><p>We, the people, prevent large bands of armed thugs from robbing casinos by our "police".  In return, they, the casinos agree to abide by our rules.  If they don't like it they can, as you would say, choose not to do business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , another misguided " Libertarian " chimes in.These games are heavily regulated .
There does n't even need to be a law - the gaming commission can just say " if you kick out players who count cards using only their minds and no other device , we will shut you down " .
And this is the way it should be .
Without regulation , this becomes a crazy thing called " fraud " .We , the people , prevent large bands of armed thugs from robbing casinos by our " police " .
In return , they , the casinos agree to abide by our rules .
If they do n't like it they can , as you would say , choose not to do business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, another misguided "Libertarian" chimes in.These games are heavily regulated.
There doesn't even need to be a law - the gaming commission can just say "if you kick out players who count cards using only their minds and no other device, we will shut you down".
And this is the way it should be.
Without regulation, this becomes a crazy thing called "fraud".We, the people, prevent large bands of armed thugs from robbing casinos by our "police".
In return, they, the casinos agree to abide by our rules.
If they don't like it they can, as you would say, choose not to do business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770839</id>
	<title>Re:A system guaranteed to beat the odds</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1255718880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comment overheard on a flight to Las Vegas:
</p><p>"I hope I break even on this trip. I could really use the money."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comment overheard on a flight to Las Vegas : " I hope I break even on this trip .
I could really use the money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comment overheard on a flight to Las Vegas:
"I hope I break even on this trip.
I could really use the money.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767287</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone "counts" cards, or not?</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1255698240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, in Las Vegas particularly, it's actually a legal requirement that casinos try to identify and prevent card counting. Why? Because by law, all casinos have to have the exact same payout rate. For things like video slot machines, that's trivially easy to enforce through software alone. The problem is, if a casino "off the strip" openly allowed card counting to boost its popularity with tourists (imposing a max bet, and counting on the fact that most people who claim to know how to count cards really can't), the state of Nevada would have its agents promptly there to shut down the casino.</p><p>The requirement itself is a blatant anticompetitive strategy used by the mega-casinos. It ensures that the big, new, shiny casinos on the strip have the exact same payout rate as the old, small casinos downtown and elsewhere, so the others can't compete with them by offering better odds to players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , in Las Vegas particularly , it 's actually a legal requirement that casinos try to identify and prevent card counting .
Why ? Because by law , all casinos have to have the exact same payout rate .
For things like video slot machines , that 's trivially easy to enforce through software alone .
The problem is , if a casino " off the strip " openly allowed card counting to boost its popularity with tourists ( imposing a max bet , and counting on the fact that most people who claim to know how to count cards really ca n't ) , the state of Nevada would have its agents promptly there to shut down the casino.The requirement itself is a blatant anticompetitive strategy used by the mega-casinos .
It ensures that the big , new , shiny casinos on the strip have the exact same payout rate as the old , small casinos downtown and elsewhere , so the others ca n't compete with them by offering better odds to players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, in Las Vegas particularly, it's actually a legal requirement that casinos try to identify and prevent card counting.
Why? Because by law, all casinos have to have the exact same payout rate.
For things like video slot machines, that's trivially easy to enforce through software alone.
The problem is, if a casino "off the strip" openly allowed card counting to boost its popularity with tourists (imposing a max bet, and counting on the fact that most people who claim to know how to count cards really can't), the state of Nevada would have its agents promptly there to shut down the casino.The requirement itself is a blatant anticompetitive strategy used by the mega-casinos.
It ensures that the big, new, shiny casinos on the strip have the exact same payout rate as the old, small casinos downtown and elsewhere, so the others can't compete with them by offering better odds to players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767429</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in the 70's they were willing to accept players who could win. Seems like they are discriminating against smart people. I used to like blackjack. The casinos liked cute, popular girls with spender friends. I'd make my hairdresser money and have fun, all dolled up and even wearing purple hot pants. But now casinos are boring and their decor and entertainment is geared to the lowest common denominator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in the 70 's they were willing to accept players who could win .
Seems like they are discriminating against smart people .
I used to like blackjack .
The casinos liked cute , popular girls with spender friends .
I 'd make my hairdresser money and have fun , all dolled up and even wearing purple hot pants .
But now casinos are boring and their decor and entertainment is geared to the lowest common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in the 70's they were willing to accept players who could win.
Seems like they are discriminating against smart people.
I used to like blackjack.
The casinos liked cute, popular girls with spender friends.
I'd make my hairdresser money and have fun, all dolled up and even wearing purple hot pants.
But now casinos are boring and their decor and entertainment is geared to the lowest common denominator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766257</id>
	<title>I'm calling "Bull" on the whole thing...</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1255723200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "By comparing the cards and gambling patterns, the computer can identify a card counter inside 20 hands - even if the gambler starts off with a run of high bets to confuse the system."</p><p>Yeah, right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " By comparing the cards and gambling patterns , the computer can identify a card counter inside 20 hands - even if the gambler starts off with a run of high bets to confuse the system .
" Yeah , right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "By comparing the cards and gambling patterns, the computer can identify a card counter inside 20 hands - even if the gambler starts off with a run of high bets to confuse the system.
"Yeah, right...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770619</id>
	<title>Best interest?</title>
	<author>DerWulf</author>
	<datestamp>1255717740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if it's in the casinos best interest to demonstrate that if you, in fact, "manage to beat the odds" the odd (guys in suits) will beat you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it 's in the casinos best interest to demonstrate that if you , in fact , " manage to beat the odds " the odd ( guys in suits ) will beat you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it's in the casinos best interest to demonstrate that if you, in fact, "manage to beat the odds" the odd (guys in suits) will beat you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29788229</id>
	<title>Re:It's the numb3rs</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255871460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino (*gag*) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something, and there was Paris Hilton in a shop</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, you may think about it that way, but maybe that's part of the reason some people go? My friend went to Vegas a couple weeks ago on honeymoon and quite literally bumped into Carrot Top in some museum. I'm no fan, he's no fan, but he got an autograph out of it anyway and it sure must have been interesting to actually run into someone with a household name.</p><p>My friend said he really enjoyed it there, but he said the key was to stay away from the strip. Rent a car and drive around, basically do anything but gamble. I plan on visiting Vegas some day, but I for one have no intention of handing my money over to someone simply for the sake of handing it over, the most faithful and accurate definition of gambling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino ( * gag * ) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something , and there was Paris Hilton in a shopWell , you may think about it that way , but maybe that 's part of the reason some people go ?
My friend went to Vegas a couple weeks ago on honeymoon and quite literally bumped into Carrot Top in some museum .
I 'm no fan , he 's no fan , but he got an autograph out of it anyway and it sure must have been interesting to actually run into someone with a household name.My friend said he really enjoyed it there , but he said the key was to stay away from the strip .
Rent a car and drive around , basically do anything but gamble .
I plan on visiting Vegas some day , but I for one have no intention of handing my money over to someone simply for the sake of handing it over , the most faithful and accurate definition of gambling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino (*gag*) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something, and there was Paris Hilton in a shopWell, you may think about it that way, but maybe that's part of the reason some people go?
My friend went to Vegas a couple weeks ago on honeymoon and quite literally bumped into Carrot Top in some museum.
I'm no fan, he's no fan, but he got an autograph out of it anyway and it sure must have been interesting to actually run into someone with a household name.My friend said he really enjoyed it there, but he said the key was to stay away from the strip.
Rent a car and drive around, basically do anything but gamble.
I plan on visiting Vegas some day, but I for one have no intention of handing my money over to someone simply for the sake of handing it over, the most faithful and accurate definition of gambling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767895</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>dnahelicase</author>
	<datestamp>1255703820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find the odds at casinos to be overwhelmingly generous actually.  I rarely participate, but I recently made $3.50 after an hour or so of playing with 20 bucks.  I thought it was fantastic.  It's small money, but I walked away with more than I started and had some fun doing it.  The casino provided a fun atmosphere for me and my friends to have some fun in, and the drinks were relatively cheap and the rooms were cheaper than the standalone hotel close by.  If you like going to a casino, you only have the chance to lose what you bet, and that is the fee you pay for having an evening out.  If you are at the casino to make money, then you'd be better off randomly guessing penny stocks to play.  Heck, play the lottery.  In any case, your chance of winning a life-changing sum of money is only slightly greater by playing than if you don't participate.  For the rest of us, you simply help pay taxes that we don't have to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the odds at casinos to be overwhelmingly generous actually .
I rarely participate , but I recently made $ 3.50 after an hour or so of playing with 20 bucks .
I thought it was fantastic .
It 's small money , but I walked away with more than I started and had some fun doing it .
The casino provided a fun atmosphere for me and my friends to have some fun in , and the drinks were relatively cheap and the rooms were cheaper than the standalone hotel close by .
If you like going to a casino , you only have the chance to lose what you bet , and that is the fee you pay for having an evening out .
If you are at the casino to make money , then you 'd be better off randomly guessing penny stocks to play .
Heck , play the lottery .
In any case , your chance of winning a life-changing sum of money is only slightly greater by playing than if you do n't participate .
For the rest of us , you simply help pay taxes that we do n't have to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the odds at casinos to be overwhelmingly generous actually.
I rarely participate, but I recently made $3.50 after an hour or so of playing with 20 bucks.
I thought it was fantastic.
It's small money, but I walked away with more than I started and had some fun doing it.
The casino provided a fun atmosphere for me and my friends to have some fun in, and the drinks were relatively cheap and the rooms were cheaper than the standalone hotel close by.
If you like going to a casino, you only have the chance to lose what you bet, and that is the fee you pay for having an evening out.
If you are at the casino to make money, then you'd be better off randomly guessing penny stocks to play.
Heck, play the lottery.
In any case, your chance of winning a life-changing sum of money is only slightly greater by playing than if you don't participate.
For the rest of us, you simply help pay taxes that we don't have to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766663</id>
	<title>So, don't be stupid, don't bet in casinos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was between 10 and 12 when my mother explained me how the state lottery worked. Even at that point, it seemed terribly unjust, because it's not a null sum game. The state/the casinos always win because of the outrageous rules they enforce. Since then, I have never played, and I try to educate everybody around me. Organized gambling is really a tax on the stupidity of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was between 10 and 12 when my mother explained me how the state lottery worked .
Even at that point , it seemed terribly unjust , because it 's not a null sum game .
The state/the casinos always win because of the outrageous rules they enforce .
Since then , I have never played , and I try to educate everybody around me .
Organized gambling is really a tax on the stupidity of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was between 10 and 12 when my mother explained me how the state lottery worked.
Even at that point, it seemed terribly unjust, because it's not a null sum game.
The state/the casinos always win because of the outrageous rules they enforce.
Since then, I have never played, and I try to educate everybody around me.
Organized gambling is really a tax on the stupidity of people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29774881</id>
	<title>Buck Rogers Episode</title>
	<author>Lime Green Bowler</author>
	<datestamp>1255702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was an episode of the old Buck Rogers in the 25th Century serial (back in 1979. Erin Gray::hotness!) where Buck went to a 'casino' and started to gamble. They threw him out for winning, saying that he must have a hidden calculator or something on him. Buck said that, no, he was just using his brain to play the game, and said something alluding to people not being able to think or do something basic like figure out odds or something like that.
<br> <br>
Point is: casinos don't want people using their brains to play either. They want sheeple to throw their money away. By trying to weed out 'counters', they're admitting the targeting of stupid punters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an episode of the old Buck Rogers in the 25th Century serial ( back in 1979 .
Erin Gray : : hotness !
) where Buck went to a 'casino ' and started to gamble .
They threw him out for winning , saying that he must have a hidden calculator or something on him .
Buck said that , no , he was just using his brain to play the game , and said something alluding to people not being able to think or do something basic like figure out odds or something like that .
Point is : casinos do n't want people using their brains to play either .
They want sheeple to throw their money away .
By trying to weed out 'counters ' , they 're admitting the targeting of stupid punters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an episode of the old Buck Rogers in the 25th Century serial (back in 1979.
Erin Gray::hotness!
) where Buck went to a 'casino' and started to gamble.
They threw him out for winning, saying that he must have a hidden calculator or something on him.
Buck said that, no, he was just using his brain to play the game, and said something alluding to people not being able to think or do something basic like figure out odds or something like that.
Point is: casinos don't want people using their brains to play either.
They want sheeple to throw their money away.
By trying to weed out 'counters', they're admitting the targeting of stupid punters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772539</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>greengearbox</author>
	<datestamp>1255684980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is only half the story.  In the same way that you have no "right" to play the game the way you want, the casino has no "right" to even operate in the first place.  Witness the number of states (fewer now, of course) where gambling is entirely illegal.
</p><p>The fact is that casinos operate in a highly regulated environment.  They cannot even offer games to customers without getting approval from a government body.  The government could, if it wanted to, prevent the casino from booting card counters.
</p><p>So why don't they?  Because, as someone mentioned above, this is all a make-believe "problem".  Far <b>far</b> more people think they can count cards than actually can, and it's just not worth it for the casino to trouble with the few who may, possibly, be getting a slight advantage over them.  Better for them to let that one guy win a bit, tell all his buddies about his success, and then take their money, and probably his too!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only half the story .
In the same way that you have no " right " to play the game the way you want , the casino has no " right " to even operate in the first place .
Witness the number of states ( fewer now , of course ) where gambling is entirely illegal .
The fact is that casinos operate in a highly regulated environment .
They can not even offer games to customers without getting approval from a government body .
The government could , if it wanted to , prevent the casino from booting card counters .
So why do n't they ?
Because , as someone mentioned above , this is all a make-believe " problem " .
Far far more people think they can count cards than actually can , and it 's just not worth it for the casino to trouble with the few who may , possibly , be getting a slight advantage over them .
Better for them to let that one guy win a bit , tell all his buddies about his success , and then take their money , and probably his too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is only half the story.
In the same way that you have no "right" to play the game the way you want, the casino has no "right" to even operate in the first place.
Witness the number of states (fewer now, of course) where gambling is entirely illegal.
The fact is that casinos operate in a highly regulated environment.
They cannot even offer games to customers without getting approval from a government body.
The government could, if it wanted to, prevent the casino from booting card counters.
So why don't they?
Because, as someone mentioned above, this is all a make-believe "problem".
Far far more people think they can count cards than actually can, and it's just not worth it for the casino to trouble with the few who may, possibly, be getting a slight advantage over them.
Better for them to let that one guy win a bit, tell all his buddies about his success, and then take their money, and probably his too!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769033</id>
	<title>Why Do They Call It Gambling?</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1255709820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they called it losing, nobody would play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they called it losing , nobody would play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they called it losing, nobody would play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163</id>
	<title>False positives</title>
	<author>razvan784</author>
	<datestamp>1255634580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they say something about the reliability of the method? Percentage of false positives? Those can mean angry customers and lost business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they say something about the reliability of the method ?
Percentage of false positives ?
Those can mean angry customers and lost business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they say something about the reliability of the method?
Percentage of false positives?
Those can mean angry customers and lost business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766515</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255684860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After all, if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable, the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are not counting cards.</i></p><p>Or, just shut down the table - send the dealer on a coffee break.</p><p><i>Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).</i></p><p>Well, the insurance industry does have its own abuses, but insurance companies do often turn down applications. The <a href="http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-insurance-fatbabies011209,0,5331423.story" title="kdvr.com" rel="nofollow">fat kid</a> [kdvr.com] in Denver was turned down until the media made a fuss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable , the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are not counting cards.Or , just shut down the table - send the dealer on a coffee break.Sounds like the insurance industry to me ( who never deny an insurance application , but always investigate the application when you make a claim ) .Well , the insurance industry does have its own abuses , but insurance companies do often turn down applications .
The fat kid [ kdvr.com ] in Denver was turned down until the media made a fuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable, the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are not counting cards.Or, just shut down the table - send the dealer on a coffee break.Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).Well, the insurance industry does have its own abuses, but insurance companies do often turn down applications.
The fat kid [kdvr.com] in Denver was turned down until the media made a fuss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770725</id>
	<title>Privacy laws?</title>
	<author>findoutmoretoday</author>
	<datestamp>1255718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Card counting is legal, so the system is allowed to count my cards.&nbsp; But is it legal to link those cards to my person?<br>My guess is that the system is less subtle than claimed and just totals the gains.&nbsp; Only long run losers are allowed to the table.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Card counting is legal , so the system is allowed to count my cards.   But is it legal to link those cards to my person ? My guess is that the system is less subtle than claimed and just totals the gains.   Only long run losers are allowed to the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Card counting is legal, so the system is allowed to count my cards.  But is it legal to link those cards to my person?My guess is that the system is less subtle than claimed and just totals the gains.  Only long run losers are allowed to the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766383</id>
	<title>An even better system...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255725360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got an even better system; It uses a complex algorithm based on bet amount won and bet amount lost. If the value returned is greater than or equal to 1, the player is identified as a "winner" and promptly taken care of. The great thing about it is that it can be applied to any game of chance! Vegas will love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an even better system ; It uses a complex algorithm based on bet amount won and bet amount lost .
If the value returned is greater than or equal to 1 , the player is identified as a " winner " and promptly taken care of .
The great thing about it is that it can be applied to any game of chance !
Vegas will love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an even better system; It uses a complex algorithm based on bet amount won and bet amount lost.
If the value returned is greater than or equal to 1, the player is identified as a "winner" and promptly taken care of.
The great thing about it is that it can be applied to any game of chance!
Vegas will love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1255724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden rule.</p></div><p>After all, if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable, the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are <i>not</i> counting cards.

</p><p>Thus there is no more element of chance in the game. The casino will accept all bets that lose, and eject any winners.

</p><p>Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You are not permitted to win " is not a fair rule , especially when it 's a hidden rule.After all , if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable , the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are not counting cards .
Thus there is no more element of chance in the game .
The casino will accept all bets that lose , and eject any winners .
Sounds like the insurance industry to me ( who never deny an insurance application , but always investigate the application when you make a claim ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden rule.After all, if the computer is keeping a count of when conditions are favourable, the casino could quickly expel any winners even if they are not counting cards.
Thus there is no more element of chance in the game.
The casino will accept all bets that lose, and eject any winners.
Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768851</id>
	<title>This is not new, nor is it a threat.</title>
	<author>HEbGb</author>
	<datestamp>1255708920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Systems like this have been around for many years, and have been used commercially in various casinos.  There really is nothing new or unique about it.  I also see no evidence at all that it's reliable enough to use in a real casino environment, or to be of any help at all.</p><p>Remember, this is just some kid's college project.  I'm sure he's enjoying the attention, but this is not an innovation.</p><p>The commercial units combine video tracking with RFID for measuring chips and betting.  These systems are very expensive, and don't work all that well.  They're also easily defeated by skilled card counters using various techniques.  This system is too.</p><p>As for card counting itself, there is really a lot of misinformation on here, but here's the gist:</p><p>- It's totally legal, and it's totally legal for the casino to ask you to leave if they don't want your business.<br>- They don't do this often, because most people are losers, even if they're trying to count cards.<br>- They don't care if you win a ton, if you're just lucky.<br>- It only gives you about a 1-2\% advantage overall.  That's really not a lot.<br>- The MIT team didn't invent any of it, including team play.  Nor were they all that successful or profitable overall.  Disregard the movie, guys.<br>- It's not that hard to learn, but it does take practice, a strong stomach, and a huge bankroll to ride out the inevitable swings.<br>- Expected earning is around 1-2 units per hour.  So if you're playing $25 units, you'll make $25-$50/hr in the long run.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Not bad, but not great either.  And you should have at least $25,000 (1000 units) as a disposable bankroll to do this, or you risk going broke fairly easily.<br>- Lots of people think they can do it, but few really can.  The ones who think they know what they're doing are subject to lose a lot of money in short order, so the card counting hype is of benefit to the casinos.  They've known this since Thorpe's day.<br>- Casino rules vary wildly from location to location, even with a casino.  Same thing for card counting conditions.</p><p>Yes, I've studied this quite a lot.  Anyone have any questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Systems like this have been around for many years , and have been used commercially in various casinos .
There really is nothing new or unique about it .
I also see no evidence at all that it 's reliable enough to use in a real casino environment , or to be of any help at all.Remember , this is just some kid 's college project .
I 'm sure he 's enjoying the attention , but this is not an innovation.The commercial units combine video tracking with RFID for measuring chips and betting .
These systems are very expensive , and do n't work all that well .
They 're also easily defeated by skilled card counters using various techniques .
This system is too.As for card counting itself , there is really a lot of misinformation on here , but here 's the gist : - It 's totally legal , and it 's totally legal for the casino to ask you to leave if they do n't want your business.- They do n't do this often , because most people are losers , even if they 're trying to count cards.- They do n't care if you win a ton , if you 're just lucky.- It only gives you about a 1-2 \ % advantage overall .
That 's really not a lot.- The MIT team did n't invent any of it , including team play .
Nor were they all that successful or profitable overall .
Disregard the movie , guys.- It 's not that hard to learn , but it does take practice , a strong stomach , and a huge bankroll to ride out the inevitable swings.- Expected earning is around 1-2 units per hour .
So if you 're playing $ 25 units , you 'll make $ 25- $ 50/hr in the long run .
    Not bad , but not great either .
And you should have at least $ 25,000 ( 1000 units ) as a disposable bankroll to do this , or you risk going broke fairly easily.- Lots of people think they can do it , but few really can .
The ones who think they know what they 're doing are subject to lose a lot of money in short order , so the card counting hype is of benefit to the casinos .
They 've known this since Thorpe 's day.- Casino rules vary wildly from location to location , even with a casino .
Same thing for card counting conditions.Yes , I 've studied this quite a lot .
Anyone have any questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Systems like this have been around for many years, and have been used commercially in various casinos.
There really is nothing new or unique about it.
I also see no evidence at all that it's reliable enough to use in a real casino environment, or to be of any help at all.Remember, this is just some kid's college project.
I'm sure he's enjoying the attention, but this is not an innovation.The commercial units combine video tracking with RFID for measuring chips and betting.
These systems are very expensive, and don't work all that well.
They're also easily defeated by skilled card counters using various techniques.
This system is too.As for card counting itself, there is really a lot of misinformation on here, but here's the gist:- It's totally legal, and it's totally legal for the casino to ask you to leave if they don't want your business.- They don't do this often, because most people are losers, even if they're trying to count cards.- They don't care if you win a ton, if you're just lucky.- It only gives you about a 1-2\% advantage overall.
That's really not a lot.- The MIT team didn't invent any of it, including team play.
Nor were they all that successful or profitable overall.
Disregard the movie, guys.- It's not that hard to learn, but it does take practice, a strong stomach, and a huge bankroll to ride out the inevitable swings.- Expected earning is around 1-2 units per hour.
So if you're playing $25 units, you'll make $25-$50/hr in the long run.
    Not bad, but not great either.
And you should have at least $25,000 (1000 units) as a disposable bankroll to do this, or you risk going broke fairly easily.- Lots of people think they can do it, but few really can.
The ones who think they know what they're doing are subject to lose a lot of money in short order, so the card counting hype is of benefit to the casinos.
They've known this since Thorpe's day.- Casino rules vary wildly from location to location, even with a casino.
Same thing for card counting conditions.Yes, I've studied this quite a lot.
Anyone have any questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770673</id>
	<title>Re:This is not new, nor is it a threat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well put.  I've studied this quite a bit as well, and I play blackjack tournaments regularly.  Not much to see in this article.  It would be trivial to write software to detect counters assuming you can see cards and bets.  The difficult part is optical/RFID recognition of cards and chips.</p><p>Then once you detect an undesirable player, how do you implement facial recognition to keep them from sitting down at the table at a later date, even in disguise?  That's an even tougher proposition, so of course these systems are beatable.</p><p>Beating them takes a great deal of patience, discipline, and mathematical aptitude.  The math is not important for the counting itself.  That just requires focus and basic aritmetic.  You need math to determine which games are favorable, and to separate the accurate factual strategy from the BS that has the potential to lose you a great deal of money.  Blackjack is math.Period.  Anyone who talks about beating Blackjack and isn&rsquo;t talking math is setting themself up for a massive failure.  Superstition ain&rsquo;t the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well put .
I 've studied this quite a bit as well , and I play blackjack tournaments regularly .
Not much to see in this article .
It would be trivial to write software to detect counters assuming you can see cards and bets .
The difficult part is optical/RFID recognition of cards and chips.Then once you detect an undesirable player , how do you implement facial recognition to keep them from sitting down at the table at a later date , even in disguise ?
That 's an even tougher proposition , so of course these systems are beatable.Beating them takes a great deal of patience , discipline , and mathematical aptitude .
The math is not important for the counting itself .
That just requires focus and basic aritmetic .
You need math to determine which games are favorable , and to separate the accurate factual strategy from the BS that has the potential to lose you a great deal of money .
Blackjack is math.Period .
Anyone who talks about beating Blackjack and isn    t talking math is setting themself up for a massive failure .
Superstition ain    t the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well put.
I've studied this quite a bit as well, and I play blackjack tournaments regularly.
Not much to see in this article.
It would be trivial to write software to detect counters assuming you can see cards and bets.
The difficult part is optical/RFID recognition of cards and chips.Then once you detect an undesirable player, how do you implement facial recognition to keep them from sitting down at the table at a later date, even in disguise?
That's an even tougher proposition, so of course these systems are beatable.Beating them takes a great deal of patience, discipline, and mathematical aptitude.
The math is not important for the counting itself.
That just requires focus and basic aritmetic.
You need math to determine which games are favorable, and to separate the accurate factual strategy from the BS that has the potential to lose you a great deal of money.
Blackjack is math.Period.
Anyone who talks about beating Blackjack and isn’t talking math is setting themself up for a massive failure.
Superstition ain’t the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29776705</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1255784160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would consider it a form of fraud. They set the rules of the game, tell you you can win, but throw you out when you play properly. Playing with a strategy requires investing time and money, so throwing out someone who's on their way to making money is unfair and extremely exploitative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would consider it a form of fraud .
They set the rules of the game , tell you you can win , but throw you out when you play properly .
Playing with a strategy requires investing time and money , so throwing out someone who 's on their way to making money is unfair and extremely exploitative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would consider it a form of fraud.
They set the rules of the game, tell you you can win, but throw you out when you play properly.
Playing with a strategy requires investing time and money, so throwing out someone who's on their way to making money is unfair and extremely exploitative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772347</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255683780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--You don't play against the house, you play against other players (so its purely skill vs skill.) --</p><p>The size of your bank roll can also be counted with no limit games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--You do n't play against the house , you play against other players ( so its purely skill vs skill .
) --The size of your bank roll can also be counted with no limit games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--You don't play against the house, you play against other players (so its purely skill vs skill.
) --The size of your bank roll can also be counted with no limit games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766617</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>phision</author>
	<datestamp>1255686600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, someone told me recently, blackjack IS dropped in many of the casinos. The ones that still offer the game do it as a favor to their clients. The casino managers know they may lose in blackjack, so there is a limit on the bets. Thus the loss is miserable compared to the win of the other games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , someone told me recently , blackjack IS dropped in many of the casinos .
The ones that still offer the game do it as a favor to their clients .
The casino managers know they may lose in blackjack , so there is a limit on the bets .
Thus the loss is miserable compared to the win of the other games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, someone told me recently, blackjack IS dropped in many of the casinos.
The ones that still offer the game do it as a favor to their clients.
The casino managers know they may lose in blackjack, so there is a limit on the bets.
Thus the loss is miserable compared to the win of the other games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769079</id>
	<title>Fashion Affliction t-shirt long man Free   Shippi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255710120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; we are a prefession online store, you can see more</p><p>photos and price in our website which is show in the</p><p>photos<br>if you are interested in our product, please email me</p><p>by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,hellow pls see our website in the photos attached</p><p>attached is our store's website, we are a online</p><p>shopping store, we are selling large brand new</p><p>shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, our</p><p>products are all  best quality with the cheapest price.</p><p>You will see the more pictures and the price for our</p><p>product in our website, we are selling all brand new</p><p>handbag, please see below some price list of the</p><p>product. We accept paypal as payment, and give free</p><p>shipping. Jeans : A&amp;f Armani artful dodger jeans Bape</p><p>BBC christian audigier TP://www.tntshoes.comCOOGI D&amp;G diesel ED</p><p>HARDY lrg etc $33-50 free shipping. Jersey NBA</p><p>Jersey MLB NLBM nike puma adidas $12-30 free</p><p>shiping.</p><p>
&nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:</p><p>YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; HTTP://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  we are a prefession online store , you can see morephotos and price in our website which is show in thephotosif you are interested in our product , please email meby ,hellow pls see our website in the photos attachedattached is our store 's website , we are a onlineshopping store , we are selling large brand newshoes,clothing , handbag,sunglasses,hats etc , ourproducts are all best quality with the cheapest price.You will see the more pictures and the price for ourproduct in our website , we are selling all brand newhandbag , please see below some price list of theproduct .
We accept paypal as payment , and give freeshipping .
Jeans : A&amp;f Armani artful dodger jeans BapeBBC christian audigier TP : //www.tntshoes.comCOOGI D&amp;G diesel EDHARDY lrg etc $ 33-50 free shipping .
Jersey NBAJersey MLB NLBM nike puma adidas $ 12-30 freeshiping .
  OUR WEBSITE : YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                         MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                               HTTP : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  we are a prefession online store, you can see morephotos and price in our website which is show in thephotosif you are interested in our product, please email meby ,hellow pls see our website in the photos attachedattached is our store's website, we are a onlineshopping store, we are selling large brand newshoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, ourproducts are all  best quality with the cheapest price.You will see the more pictures and the price for ourproduct in our website, we are selling all brand newhandbag, please see below some price list of theproduct.
We accept paypal as payment, and give freeshipping.
Jeans : A&amp;f Armani artful dodger jeans BapeBBC christian audigier TP://www.tntshoes.comCOOGI D&amp;G diesel EDHARDY lrg etc $33-50 free shipping.
Jersey NBAJersey MLB NLBM nike puma adidas $12-30 freeshiping.
  OUR WEBSITE:YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                        MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                              HTTP://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766461</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1255726680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The very premise of a casino is that it's a business that plays games for money.</p></div><p>If that was the case, then you'd pay a few $ to enter the premise, receive a handful of chips (same for all), play, then leave, leaving all the chips in (no conversion to cash). Of course that'd never work as people would figure out that the games are stupid if they don't have their power rush "<i>I'm sure I'm gonna win this time</i>".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very premise of a casino is that it 's a business that plays games for money.If that was the case , then you 'd pay a few $ to enter the premise , receive a handful of chips ( same for all ) , play , then leave , leaving all the chips in ( no conversion to cash ) .
Of course that 'd never work as people would figure out that the games are stupid if they do n't have their power rush " I 'm sure I 'm gon na win this time " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very premise of a casino is that it's a business that plays games for money.If that was the case, then you'd pay a few $ to enter the premise, receive a handful of chips (same for all), play, then leave, leaving all the chips in (no conversion to cash).
Of course that'd never work as people would figure out that the games are stupid if they don't have their power rush "I'm sure I'm gonna win this time".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768469</id>
	<title>screw casinos</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1255707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw casinos. If they don't want people counting cards, they shouldn't be offering games such as blackjack. Period.<br>There is NOTHING ethically or morally wrong with counting cards; after all, the odds are known to both the "house" and the gambler Their problem is that when the offer blackjack, the cards dealt to everyone are known, so a careful observer would be able to know if there are more low or more high cards left in the deck.  Since these are known factors and simply looking at what is dealt is not cheating, casinos have no business kicking people out for doing nothing beyond being attentive.</p><p>Don't want people counting cards? Stop offering blackjack or any other games where everything that is dealt is revealed to all.</p><p>I've thought about trying my hand at counting cards (I've never played blackjack btw) because the theory is simple enough; it's nothing more than keeping track of high and low cards - as I said the premise is easy enough but actually doing it under pressure in a fast-moving game while surrounded by distractions is entirely different. To see how simple the theory is check out the wikipedia article at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card\_counting" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card\_counting</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw casinos .
If they do n't want people counting cards , they should n't be offering games such as blackjack .
Period.There is NOTHING ethically or morally wrong with counting cards ; after all , the odds are known to both the " house " and the gambler Their problem is that when the offer blackjack , the cards dealt to everyone are known , so a careful observer would be able to know if there are more low or more high cards left in the deck .
Since these are known factors and simply looking at what is dealt is not cheating , casinos have no business kicking people out for doing nothing beyond being attentive.Do n't want people counting cards ?
Stop offering blackjack or any other games where everything that is dealt is revealed to all.I 've thought about trying my hand at counting cards ( I 've never played blackjack btw ) because the theory is simple enough ; it 's nothing more than keeping track of high and low cards - as I said the premise is easy enough but actually doing it under pressure in a fast-moving game while surrounded by distractions is entirely different .
To see how simple the theory is check out the wikipedia article at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card \ _counting [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw casinos.
If they don't want people counting cards, they shouldn't be offering games such as blackjack.
Period.There is NOTHING ethically or morally wrong with counting cards; after all, the odds are known to both the "house" and the gambler Their problem is that when the offer blackjack, the cards dealt to everyone are known, so a careful observer would be able to know if there are more low or more high cards left in the deck.
Since these are known factors and simply looking at what is dealt is not cheating, casinos have no business kicking people out for doing nothing beyond being attentive.Don't want people counting cards?
Stop offering blackjack or any other games where everything that is dealt is revealed to all.I've thought about trying my hand at counting cards (I've never played blackjack btw) because the theory is simple enough; it's nothing more than keeping track of high and low cards - as I said the premise is easy enough but actually doing it under pressure in a fast-moving game while surrounded by distractions is entirely different.
To see how simple the theory is check out the wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card\_counting [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766111</id>
	<title>And things like this are why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255633980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will never play Blackjack in a casino environment, unless it's for negligible amounts of money.</p><p>"How dare you attempt to win one of our games!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will never play Blackjack in a casino environment , unless it 's for negligible amounts of money .
" How dare you attempt to win one of our games !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will never play Blackjack in a casino environment, unless it's for negligible amounts of money.
"How dare you attempt to win one of our games!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766929</id>
	<title>Here's what happened when I tried counting cards:</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1255691820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't take any real skill to "count cards". There are easy-to-learn systems that only require incrementing or decrementing a running total in your head. They're by no means perfect, but given a favourable shuffle they can give you an edge. The strategy is to sit there making minimum bets until a favourable shuffle occurs.</p><p>In practice, here's what happens: Casinos deal from a multi-deck "shoe", which has a "cut card" inserted toward the bottom of the stack after shuffling. The cut card is there to ensure they never deal to the bottom of the stack. (If they did, there could be times that a player could bet with absolute certainty). However, <strong>they are under no obligation to keep dealing until they reach the cut card</strong>. A competent dealer can recognize a shuffle that would play out in your favour, just as well as you can. So whenever the count starts to swing in your favour, there's no need to "send over a burly dude in a bad suit". They simply shuffle the cards!</p><p>This is what a couple of friends and me learned when we tried to play a card-counting system in Reno back in the 80's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't take any real skill to " count cards " .
There are easy-to-learn systems that only require incrementing or decrementing a running total in your head .
They 're by no means perfect , but given a favourable shuffle they can give you an edge .
The strategy is to sit there making minimum bets until a favourable shuffle occurs.In practice , here 's what happens : Casinos deal from a multi-deck " shoe " , which has a " cut card " inserted toward the bottom of the stack after shuffling .
The cut card is there to ensure they never deal to the bottom of the stack .
( If they did , there could be times that a player could bet with absolute certainty ) .
However , they are under no obligation to keep dealing until they reach the cut card .
A competent dealer can recognize a shuffle that would play out in your favour , just as well as you can .
So whenever the count starts to swing in your favour , there 's no need to " send over a burly dude in a bad suit " .
They simply shuffle the cards ! This is what a couple of friends and me learned when we tried to play a card-counting system in Reno back in the 80 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't take any real skill to "count cards".
There are easy-to-learn systems that only require incrementing or decrementing a running total in your head.
They're by no means perfect, but given a favourable shuffle they can give you an edge.
The strategy is to sit there making minimum bets until a favourable shuffle occurs.In practice, here's what happens: Casinos deal from a multi-deck "shoe", which has a "cut card" inserted toward the bottom of the stack after shuffling.
The cut card is there to ensure they never deal to the bottom of the stack.
(If they did, there could be times that a player could bet with absolute certainty).
However, they are under no obligation to keep dealing until they reach the cut card.
A competent dealer can recognize a shuffle that would play out in your favour, just as well as you can.
So whenever the count starts to swing in your favour, there's no need to "send over a burly dude in a bad suit".
They simply shuffle the cards!This is what a couple of friends and me learned when we tried to play a card-counting system in Reno back in the 80's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767009</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless in Vegas</title>
	<author>jaffray</author>
	<datestamp>1255693440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>even a player keeping a perfect count cannot create a significant edge.</p></div><p>Funny how much time they spend scrutinizing players who "cannot create a significant edge", isn't it?  You kinda wonder why they even bother barring them.  Except, of course, if your hypothesis is completely bogus...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even a player keeping a perfect count can not create a significant edge.Funny how much time they spend scrutinizing players who " can not create a significant edge " , is n't it ?
You kinda wonder why they even bother barring them .
Except , of course , if your hypothesis is completely bogus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even a player keeping a perfect count cannot create a significant edge.Funny how much time they spend scrutinizing players who "cannot create a significant edge", isn't it?
You kinda wonder why they even bother barring them.
Except, of course, if your hypothesis is completely bogus...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767121</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1255695660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just say that you don't think casinos should be allowed to offer blackjack?</p><p>No one would bother running a blackjack table if they had to face ridiculous shit like that. I mean, you didn't even put anything in there for people that are being disruptive (say they are ripping drunk or whatever); I imagine you would be fine with such a provision, but once you split the hair, it is a matter of where you stop, not whether you are going to split the hair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just say that you do n't think casinos should be allowed to offer blackjack ? No one would bother running a blackjack table if they had to face ridiculous shit like that .
I mean , you did n't even put anything in there for people that are being disruptive ( say they are ripping drunk or whatever ) ; I imagine you would be fine with such a provision , but once you split the hair , it is a matter of where you stop , not whether you are going to split the hair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just say that you don't think casinos should be allowed to offer blackjack?No one would bother running a blackjack table if they had to face ridiculous shit like that.
I mean, you didn't even put anything in there for people that are being disruptive (say they are ripping drunk or whatever); I imagine you would be fine with such a provision, but once you split the hair, it is a matter of where you stop, not whether you are going to split the hair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770531</id>
	<title>My Experience at Vegas, long ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to Vegas for my second or third time, long ago. I thoroughly memorized the 'Basic Strategy' of 21(Revere) and I also kept track of tens. I arrived on a Friday night, along with my friends and played I must as I could( strip &amp; downtown). Left Sunday evening with about the same amount of money I brought; my friends had been to the ATMs a few times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to Vegas for my second or third time , long ago .
I thoroughly memorized the 'Basic Strategy ' of 21 ( Revere ) and I also kept track of tens .
I arrived on a Friday night , along with my friends and played I must as I could ( strip &amp; downtown ) .
Left Sunday evening with about the same amount of money I brought ; my friends had been to the ATMs a few times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to Vegas for my second or third time, long ago.
I thoroughly memorized the 'Basic Strategy' of 21(Revere) and I also kept track of tens.
I arrived on a Friday night, along with my friends and played I must as I could( strip &amp; downtown).
Left Sunday evening with about the same amount of money I brought; my friends had been to the ATMs a few times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768007</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1255704660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you are trespassing and they call the cops who take you away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you are trespassing and they call the cops who take you away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you are trespassing and they call the cops who take you away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770981</id>
	<title>Re:It's the numb3rs</title>
	<author>bitmason</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the 5:4 vs. 3:2 is especially bad for the player because the blackjack payout is a "freebie"--i.e. the player doesn't need to make the correct move in order to get it. (Unlike surrender, for example, which is also pretty scarce in Vegas these days.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the 5 : 4 vs. 3 : 2 is especially bad for the player because the blackjack payout is a " freebie " --i.e .
the player does n't need to make the correct move in order to get it .
( Unlike surrender , for example , which is also pretty scarce in Vegas these days .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the 5:4 vs. 3:2 is especially bad for the player because the blackjack payout is a "freebie"--i.e.
the player doesn't need to make the correct move in order to get it.
(Unlike surrender, for example, which is also pretty scarce in Vegas these days.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766871</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>badass fish</author>
	<datestamp>1255690740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe there would be a constitutional rights violation challenge against the casino of they actually implimented such a plan.
The casino produces a "deck" for play it should be finished as is, When they discriminate based on actual cards that have been played and reshuffle in their favor the odds tip heavily to the house. Also what happens to"luck" at this point some people are just lucky if you have ever sat down next to someone who has no clue what card counting even is and breaks the house by chance that person if ejected would have been discriminated against. Electronic foreknowledge of the deck tips the odds to much and i believe the government would step in on the side of all players versus the few players who can count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there would be a constitutional rights violation challenge against the casino of they actually implimented such a plan .
The casino produces a " deck " for play it should be finished as is , When they discriminate based on actual cards that have been played and reshuffle in their favor the odds tip heavily to the house .
Also what happens to " luck " at this point some people are just lucky if you have ever sat down next to someone who has no clue what card counting even is and breaks the house by chance that person if ejected would have been discriminated against .
Electronic foreknowledge of the deck tips the odds to much and i believe the government would step in on the side of all players versus the few players who can count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there would be a constitutional rights violation challenge against the casino of they actually implimented such a plan.
The casino produces a "deck" for play it should be finished as is, When they discriminate based on actual cards that have been played and reshuffle in their favor the odds tip heavily to the house.
Also what happens to"luck" at this point some people are just lucky if you have ever sat down next to someone who has no clue what card counting even is and breaks the house by chance that person if ejected would have been discriminated against.
Electronic foreknowledge of the deck tips the odds to much and i believe the government would step in on the side of all players versus the few players who can count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229</id>
	<title>A system guaranteed to beat the odds</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1255705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is to not gamble at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is to not gamble at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is to not gamble at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769817</id>
	<title>License to steal</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1255713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Casinos offer players the chance to win money under particular conditions dictated by the mechanics of the game. Card counters aren't altering those conditions but instead are playing intelligently according to the rules of the game. To kick players out for seeking an advantage within the rules of the game is actually form of fraud: the casino offers players potential winnings and then reneges on its offer once it decides it's against its best interests to allow the player to continue. The casino is cheating.</p><p>Whether or not a player has a legal right to be there is irrelevant. Once the casino allows a player into its premises it shouldn't be able to renege on its promise (express or implied) of potential winnings. Property rights are not supposed to enable fraud, but that's exactly the way casinos are using the law.</p><p>Unfortunately, the fact is that casinos are allowed to practice what is ultimately a form of legalized theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Casinos offer players the chance to win money under particular conditions dictated by the mechanics of the game .
Card counters are n't altering those conditions but instead are playing intelligently according to the rules of the game .
To kick players out for seeking an advantage within the rules of the game is actually form of fraud : the casino offers players potential winnings and then reneges on its offer once it decides it 's against its best interests to allow the player to continue .
The casino is cheating.Whether or not a player has a legal right to be there is irrelevant .
Once the casino allows a player into its premises it should n't be able to renege on its promise ( express or implied ) of potential winnings .
Property rights are not supposed to enable fraud , but that 's exactly the way casinos are using the law.Unfortunately , the fact is that casinos are allowed to practice what is ultimately a form of legalized theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casinos offer players the chance to win money under particular conditions dictated by the mechanics of the game.
Card counters aren't altering those conditions but instead are playing intelligently according to the rules of the game.
To kick players out for seeking an advantage within the rules of the game is actually form of fraud: the casino offers players potential winnings and then reneges on its offer once it decides it's against its best interests to allow the player to continue.
The casino is cheating.Whether or not a player has a legal right to be there is irrelevant.
Once the casino allows a player into its premises it shouldn't be able to renege on its promise (express or implied) of potential winnings.
Property rights are not supposed to enable fraud, but that's exactly the way casinos are using the law.Unfortunately, the fact is that casinos are allowed to practice what is ultimately a form of legalized theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767551</id>
	<title>Re:False positives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Do they say something about the reliability of the method? Percentage of false positives?</p></div></blockquote><p>False positives don't matter -- this will indicate people placing large bets when the odds are in their favor, and smaller bets when the odds are not.  Whether they are counting cards or betting at the right times by dumb luck, they would beat the house, and the casinos don't want that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they say something about the reliability of the method ?
Percentage of false positives ? False positives do n't matter -- this will indicate people placing large bets when the odds are in their favor , and smaller bets when the odds are not .
Whether they are counting cards or betting at the right times by dumb luck , they would beat the house , and the casinos do n't want that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Do they say something about the reliability of the method?
Percentage of false positives?False positives don't matter -- this will indicate people placing large bets when the odds are in their favor, and smaller bets when the odds are not.
Whether they are counting cards or betting at the right times by dumb luck, they would beat the house, and the casinos don't want that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766179</id>
	<title>Punk*** Casinos</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1255635000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They really don't give God a chance to prove its existence, do they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really do n't give God a chance to prove its existence , do they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really don't give God a chance to prove its existence, do they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766673</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>tomtomtom</author>
	<datestamp>1255687500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dealer can just stop dealing to you though, no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dealer can just stop dealing to you though , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dealer can just stop dealing to you though, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770193</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Paul Pierce</author>
	<datestamp>1255715580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot\_machine#Payout\_percentage" title="wikipedia.org">there are laws against that</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div><p>Which is exactly why I count cards on the video blackjack machines.<br> <br>I've never been caught.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines , and there are laws against that [ wikipedia.org ] .Which is exactly why I count cards on the video blackjack machines .
I 've never been caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines, and there are laws against that [wikipedia.org].Which is exactly why I count cards on the video blackjack machines.
I've never been caught.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768621</id>
	<title>Jim Crowe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since you have no legal "right" to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering, your proposal of a law makes no sense. You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you, not a right granted by the constitution or other laws.</p></div><p>As is your right to use the same facilities as the 'white folk' use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you have no legal " right " to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering , your proposal of a law makes no sense .
You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you , not a right granted by the constitution or other laws.As is your right to use the same facilities as the 'white folk ' use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you have no legal "right" to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering, your proposal of a law makes no sense.
You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you, not a right granted by the constitution or other laws.As is your right to use the same facilities as the 'white folk' use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377</id>
	<title>crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>dltaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1255725300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since card counting not cheating, by simply intelligent play, I think there should be a national law (so the bought-and-paid for Nevada Legislature isn't a factor) that anyone asked not to play a game or escorted from a casino, no matter how politely, gets a $10,000,000 payment from the casino, and the casino is fined an additional $10,000,000 to defray enforcement costs.</p><p>Anyone who attempts to block card counting is a cheating thief and deserves serious financial pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since card counting not cheating , by simply intelligent play , I think there should be a national law ( so the bought-and-paid for Nevada Legislature is n't a factor ) that anyone asked not to play a game or escorted from a casino , no matter how politely , gets a $ 10,000,000 payment from the casino , and the casino is fined an additional $ 10,000,000 to defray enforcement costs.Anyone who attempts to block card counting is a cheating thief and deserves serious financial pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since card counting not cheating, by simply intelligent play, I think there should be a national law (so the bought-and-paid for Nevada Legislature isn't a factor) that anyone asked not to play a game or escorted from a casino, no matter how politely, gets a $10,000,000 payment from the casino, and the casino is fined an additional $10,000,000 to defray enforcement costs.Anyone who attempts to block card counting is a cheating thief and deserves serious financial pain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770797</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Molochi</author>
	<datestamp>1255718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Dave and Busters. Are they still in business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Dave and Busters .
Are they still in business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Dave and Busters.
Are they still in business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769947</id>
	<title>Re:Here's what happened when I tried counting card</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need to count cards to do ok at blackjack.  In fact, counting cards is counterproductive because the number of cards in the shoe means you won't be able to predict anything with any reliability. Counting cards lets you fool yourself into THINKING you can predict what's going to happen, which leads you to losing too much money.</p><p>Try my approach, which is based on one factually true premise about any number of decks of cards: if you average all the values, the average will be approximately seven. So you just assume that the next card is always a seven, and over time, in aggregate, it'll average out to be true.</p><p>So that's rule 1: "The next card is a 7". Look at what you've got, look at what the dealer's got, and if (you + 7) &gt; (dealer + 7), and ((you + 7)  21, or (dealer + 7)  you, you stay, and hope the dealer busts.  Over time, in average, your assumptions will prove to be reliable and you'll gradually gain money.</p><p>I won 500 bucks the last time I tried this at a 10 dollar table. I have two other rules:</p><p>Rule 2: If you lose 3 hands in a row, or there's a dealer change, go have lunch and come back in a half hour, picking a different table.</p><p>Rule 3: Start with 100 bucks in your pocket.  Keep that hundred bucks on the table, putting everything you win over a hundred bucks in your pocket. As you lose chips, don't put any back on the table; when your chips go down to 0, stop playing and go do something else.</p><p>Rule 4: Never play at anything more than a 10 dollar table.</p><p>RESULT:</p><p>You'll generally never lose more than 100 bucks (and that'll take a couple of hours).  Also, you'll frequently gradually accumulate money, maybe a couple hundred or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to count cards to do ok at blackjack .
In fact , counting cards is counterproductive because the number of cards in the shoe means you wo n't be able to predict anything with any reliability .
Counting cards lets you fool yourself into THINKING you can predict what 's going to happen , which leads you to losing too much money.Try my approach , which is based on one factually true premise about any number of decks of cards : if you average all the values , the average will be approximately seven .
So you just assume that the next card is always a seven , and over time , in aggregate , it 'll average out to be true.So that 's rule 1 : " The next card is a 7 " .
Look at what you 've got , look at what the dealer 's got , and if ( you + 7 ) &gt; ( dealer + 7 ) , and ( ( you + 7 ) 21 , or ( dealer + 7 ) you , you stay , and hope the dealer busts .
Over time , in average , your assumptions will prove to be reliable and you 'll gradually gain money.I won 500 bucks the last time I tried this at a 10 dollar table .
I have two other rules : Rule 2 : If you lose 3 hands in a row , or there 's a dealer change , go have lunch and come back in a half hour , picking a different table.Rule 3 : Start with 100 bucks in your pocket .
Keep that hundred bucks on the table , putting everything you win over a hundred bucks in your pocket .
As you lose chips , do n't put any back on the table ; when your chips go down to 0 , stop playing and go do something else.Rule 4 : Never play at anything more than a 10 dollar table.RESULT : You 'll generally never lose more than 100 bucks ( and that 'll take a couple of hours ) .
Also , you 'll frequently gradually accumulate money , maybe a couple hundred or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to count cards to do ok at blackjack.
In fact, counting cards is counterproductive because the number of cards in the shoe means you won't be able to predict anything with any reliability.
Counting cards lets you fool yourself into THINKING you can predict what's going to happen, which leads you to losing too much money.Try my approach, which is based on one factually true premise about any number of decks of cards: if you average all the values, the average will be approximately seven.
So you just assume that the next card is always a seven, and over time, in aggregate, it'll average out to be true.So that's rule 1: "The next card is a 7".
Look at what you've got, look at what the dealer's got, and if (you + 7) &gt; (dealer + 7), and ((you + 7)  21, or (dealer + 7)  you, you stay, and hope the dealer busts.
Over time, in average, your assumptions will prove to be reliable and you'll gradually gain money.I won 500 bucks the last time I tried this at a 10 dollar table.
I have two other rules:Rule 2: If you lose 3 hands in a row, or there's a dealer change, go have lunch and come back in a half hour, picking a different table.Rule 3: Start with 100 bucks in your pocket.
Keep that hundred bucks on the table, putting everything you win over a hundred bucks in your pocket.
As you lose chips, don't put any back on the table; when your chips go down to 0, stop playing and go do something else.Rule 4: Never play at anything more than a 10 dollar table.RESULT:You'll generally never lose more than 100 bucks (and that'll take a couple of hours).
Also, you'll frequently gradually accumulate money, maybe a couple hundred or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766557</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1255685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like most other businesses, they have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its a legal reason. End of story. Each hand is a separate transaction, hence they can cut you off at anytime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like most other businesses , they have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its a legal reason .
End of story .
Each hand is a separate transaction , hence they can cut you off at anytime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like most other businesses, they have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its a legal reason.
End of story.
Each hand is a separate transaction, hence they can cut you off at anytime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29774929</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1255702860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK. Fine. Then let's also take away the privilege of the casinos of wielding the force of government against customers who use that same technology in these private establishments to gain an edge of the house.</p><p>Why should government force favor the one party over the other?</p><p>Simple. It shouldn't. Except that it's been bought and sold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. Fine. Then let 's also take away the privilege of the casinos of wielding the force of government against customers who use that same technology in these private establishments to gain an edge of the house.Why should government force favor the one party over the other ? Simple .
It should n't .
Except that it 's been bought and sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK. Fine. Then let's also take away the privilege of the casinos of wielding the force of government against customers who use that same technology in these private establishments to gain an edge of the house.Why should government force favor the one party over the other?Simple.
It shouldn't.
Except that it's been bought and sold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768719</id>
	<title>Reminds me of</title>
	<author>DoctorNathaniel</author>
	<datestamp>1255708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Home version of the lottery!" Take a five dollar bill out of your pocket. Wad it up and throw it away.  Ta-dah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Home version of the lottery !
" Take a five dollar bill out of your pocket .
Wad it up and throw it away .
Ta-dah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Home version of the lottery!
" Take a five dollar bill out of your pocket.
Wad it up and throw it away.
Ta-dah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766637</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone "counts" cards, or not?</title>
	<author>tachyonflow</author>
	<datestamp>1255687080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>I'm actually offended by the notion that a mental process could be considered cheating in a game that is supposed to have at least some element of skill.  It seems that most of the engineer-centric Slashdot crowd agrees.  However, I have had people try to tell me that counting cards in your head is indeed cheating.  I suspect that to much of the world outside of Slashdot, such mental exercises seem like mystical voodoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.I 'm actually offended by the notion that a mental process could be considered cheating in a game that is supposed to have at least some element of skill .
It seems that most of the engineer-centric Slashdot crowd agrees .
However , I have had people try to tell me that counting cards in your head is indeed cheating .
I suspect that to much of the world outside of Slashdot , such mental exercises seem like mystical voodoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.I'm actually offended by the notion that a mental process could be considered cheating in a game that is supposed to have at least some element of skill.
It seems that most of the engineer-centric Slashdot crowd agrees.
However, I have had people try to tell me that counting cards in your head is indeed cheating.
I suspect that to much of the world outside of Slashdot, such mental exercises seem like mystical voodoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766819</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255689900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm Vinny the Casino's boss' son.  The boys tell me that you were... "dismayed" to learn that we have a hidden rule about, "Yous not winning."  Tell you what?  Let's go out back and talk about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm Vinny the Casino 's boss ' son .
The boys tell me that you were... " dismayed " to learn that we have a hidden rule about , " Yous not winning .
" Tell you what ?
Let 's go out back and talk about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm Vinny the Casino's boss' son.
The boys tell me that you were... "dismayed" to learn that we have a hidden rule about, "Yous not winning.
"  Tell you what?
Let's go out back and talk about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767821</id>
	<title>Wynn keeps 20 cents on every dollar bet</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255703280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During a CNBC interview, Steve Wynn stated his casino keeps 20 cents of every dollar bet.</p><p>The performance of his casino is strictly determined by the number of bets placed - not by the games played.</p><p>That tells me that EVERY game favors the house - as does blackjack including the card counters.  If the games did not favor the house, they would eliminate them from the casino floor.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During a CNBC interview , Steve Wynn stated his casino keeps 20 cents of every dollar bet.The performance of his casino is strictly determined by the number of bets placed - not by the games played.That tells me that EVERY game favors the house - as does blackjack including the card counters .
If the games did not favor the house , they would eliminate them from the casino floor.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During a CNBC interview, Steve Wynn stated his casino keeps 20 cents of every dollar bet.The performance of his casino is strictly determined by the number of bets placed - not by the games played.That tells me that EVERY game favors the house - as does blackjack including the card counters.
If the games did not favor the house, they would eliminate them from the casino floor.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769367</id>
	<title>Re:It's the numb3rs</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1255711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the system they used at the casino I went to in Vegas a month ago. The dealer was scantily dressed, and there was another scantily dressed girl dancing on a small stage behind her. Made it very difficult to concentrate on counting cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the system they used at the casino I went to in Vegas a month ago .
The dealer was scantily dressed , and there was another scantily dressed girl dancing on a small stage behind her .
Made it very difficult to concentrate on counting cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the system they used at the casino I went to in Vegas a month ago.
The dealer was scantily dressed, and there was another scantily dressed girl dancing on a small stage behind her.
Made it very difficult to concentrate on counting cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766399</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>Kotoku</author>
	<datestamp>1255725600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure they don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they don't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768433</id>
	<title>Disease and fraud</title>
	<author>Sqreater</author>
	<datestamp>1255707060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legal gambling entities make money off the mentally ill in my opinion. And as for this "card counting fraud" technology, anyone on a winning streak will look like he is card counting. With this computer technology in place they will have an excuse to end any hot streak. "The computer says you are card counting!" Who questions a computer result today? Who can? And when did using your own mind and abilities come to constitute theft and fraud?? It is just bizarre and points out that the whole casino thing is government sanctioned, logically bankrupt, legalized theft from people with problems.
Sqreater</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal gambling entities make money off the mentally ill in my opinion .
And as for this " card counting fraud " technology , anyone on a winning streak will look like he is card counting .
With this computer technology in place they will have an excuse to end any hot streak .
" The computer says you are card counting !
" Who questions a computer result today ?
Who can ?
And when did using your own mind and abilities come to constitute theft and fraud ? ?
It is just bizarre and points out that the whole casino thing is government sanctioned , logically bankrupt , legalized theft from people with problems .
Sqreater</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal gambling entities make money off the mentally ill in my opinion.
And as for this "card counting fraud" technology, anyone on a winning streak will look like he is card counting.
With this computer technology in place they will have an excuse to end any hot streak.
"The computer says you are card counting!
" Who questions a computer result today?
Who can?
And when did using your own mind and abilities come to constitute theft and fraud??
It is just bizarre and points out that the whole casino thing is government sanctioned, logically bankrupt, legalized theft from people with problems.
Sqreater</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243</id>
	<title>Burly Dude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255636320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, casinos don't send burly dudes anymore.  This isn't the 70's.  In fact, if they suspect you of counting they simply politely ask you to stop playing.  If you are caught playing again, then they may ask you to cash out your chips and walk you out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , casinos do n't send burly dudes anymore .
This is n't the 70 's .
In fact , if they suspect you of counting they simply politely ask you to stop playing .
If you are caught playing again , then they may ask you to cash out your chips and walk you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, casinos don't send burly dudes anymore.
This isn't the 70's.
In fact, if they suspect you of counting they simply politely ask you to stop playing.
If you are caught playing again, then they may ask you to cash out your chips and walk you out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767451</id>
	<title>"Hot player" detection</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1255700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once worked for a gaming company. The video poker/keno/whatever machine would throw a "hot player" flag to alert the staff when a player was winning too much or too often - not that there was anything actually wrong with what the player was doing, but just alert the house that things weren't going the house's way and maybe someone should look into it, distract the player, or throw 'em out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once worked for a gaming company .
The video poker/keno/whatever machine would throw a " hot player " flag to alert the staff when a player was winning too much or too often - not that there was anything actually wrong with what the player was doing , but just alert the house that things were n't going the house 's way and maybe someone should look into it , distract the player , or throw 'em out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once worked for a gaming company.
The video poker/keno/whatever machine would throw a "hot player" flag to alert the staff when a player was winning too much or too often - not that there was anything actually wrong with what the player was doing, but just alert the house that things weren't going the house's way and maybe someone should look into it, distract the player, or throw 'em out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149</id>
	<title>Pointless in Vegas</title>
	<author>evel aka matt</author>
	<datestamp>1255634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Las Vegas has made card-counting a non-factor. Between high deck-count shoes, variant games with unfavorable rules ("Super Fun 21"), and early shuffle thresholds, even a player keeping a perfect count cannot create a significant edge. And the million people who show up to try their hand at it and fail far make up for the cost of the few who can eek something out anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Las Vegas has made card-counting a non-factor .
Between high deck-count shoes , variant games with unfavorable rules ( " Super Fun 21 " ) , and early shuffle thresholds , even a player keeping a perfect count can not create a significant edge .
And the million people who show up to try their hand at it and fail far make up for the cost of the few who can eek something out anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Las Vegas has made card-counting a non-factor.
Between high deck-count shoes, variant games with unfavorable rules ("Super Fun 21"), and early shuffle thresholds, even a player keeping a perfect count cannot create a significant edge.
And the million people who show up to try their hand at it and fail far make up for the cost of the few who can eek something out anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766451</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1255726560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden rule</p></div></blockquote><p>True, but why worry about small-time scams like casino gambling?  There are larger issues at stake; this is a matter of principle.</p><p>I say we take on the thermodynamics lobby.  Who's with me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You are not permitted to win " is not a fair rule , especially when it 's a hidden ruleTrue , but why worry about small-time scams like casino gambling ?
There are larger issues at stake ; this is a matter of principle.I say we take on the thermodynamics lobby .
Who 's with me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden ruleTrue, but why worry about small-time scams like casino gambling?
There are larger issues at stake; this is a matter of principle.I say we take on the thermodynamics lobby.
Who's with me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769271</id>
	<title>Re:False positives</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1255711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about this thought:  It's an offense with a large amount of jail time to use an electronic device to assist you with gambling.  That's why you go to jail when you use fancy lasers to predict roulette wheels, etc.  If casinos are using electronic devices to know when to kick out people who are likely to win big, that should be illegal, and everybody involved should be in prison.  But of course, they can kick the shit out of card counters and break their fingers, and nobody cares, so good luck with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this thought : It 's an offense with a large amount of jail time to use an electronic device to assist you with gambling .
That 's why you go to jail when you use fancy lasers to predict roulette wheels , etc .
If casinos are using electronic devices to know when to kick out people who are likely to win big , that should be illegal , and everybody involved should be in prison .
But of course , they can kick the shit out of card counters and break their fingers , and nobody cares , so good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this thought:  It's an offense with a large amount of jail time to use an electronic device to assist you with gambling.
That's why you go to jail when you use fancy lasers to predict roulette wheels, etc.
If casinos are using electronic devices to know when to kick out people who are likely to win big, that should be illegal, and everybody involved should be in prison.
But of course, they can kick the shit out of card counters and break their fingers, and nobody cares, so good luck with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768881</id>
	<title>What the really look for</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a pattern in raising and lowering bets.</p><p>Card counting is not that hard, it just tells you when to raise your bet. If you car counted but never changed your bet they would give a rats ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a pattern in raising and lowering bets.Card counting is not that hard , it just tells you when to raise your bet .
If you car counted but never changed your bet they would give a rats ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a pattern in raising and lowering bets.Card counting is not that hard, it just tells you when to raise your bet.
If you car counted but never changed your bet they would give a rats ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766645</id>
	<title>People are not thinking out the box</title>
	<author>garompeta</author>
	<datestamp>1255687140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People think that the odds are against the player, which is true. The key is teamwork and discipline. Like in all aspects of life, games, battles, cons and sports, competent teamwork overrules single talents. A single player is easy to get detected, a group of 80 people playing the house is really hard if not impossible. And 80 is not just a number that came to my head, it is the actual number of people that it is known to have existed to work in group. This type of splinter teams still exist, and they are still making money today. The members of these teams are constantly replaced as they get blacklisted by the casinos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People think that the odds are against the player , which is true .
The key is teamwork and discipline .
Like in all aspects of life , games , battles , cons and sports , competent teamwork overrules single talents .
A single player is easy to get detected , a group of 80 people playing the house is really hard if not impossible .
And 80 is not just a number that came to my head , it is the actual number of people that it is known to have existed to work in group .
This type of splinter teams still exist , and they are still making money today .
The members of these teams are constantly replaced as they get blacklisted by the casinos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People think that the odds are against the player, which is true.
The key is teamwork and discipline.
Like in all aspects of life, games, battles, cons and sports, competent teamwork overrules single talents.
A single player is easy to get detected, a group of 80 people playing the house is really hard if not impossible.
And 80 is not just a number that came to my head, it is the actual number of people that it is known to have existed to work in group.
This type of splinter teams still exist, and they are still making money today.
The members of these teams are constantly replaced as they get blacklisted by the casinos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768123</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1255705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vegas is an illusion of wealth.. except for top casino execs (and possible shareholders). As a player, if you actually manage to win, you're banned from playing. Cheaters have used tech to steal from casinos. Now the casinos are using tech to stop "cheating". Card counting is viewed as cheating b/c it has the potential, if done properly, to give the player the advantage. Thus, taking money from the casino.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vegas is an illusion of wealth.. except for top casino execs ( and possible shareholders ) .
As a player , if you actually manage to win , you 're banned from playing .
Cheaters have used tech to steal from casinos .
Now the casinos are using tech to stop " cheating " .
Card counting is viewed as cheating b/c it has the potential , if done properly , to give the player the advantage .
Thus , taking money from the casino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vegas is an illusion of wealth.. except for top casino execs (and possible shareholders).
As a player, if you actually manage to win, you're banned from playing.
Cheaters have used tech to steal from casinos.
Now the casinos are using tech to stop "cheating".
Card counting is viewed as cheating b/c it has the potential, if done properly, to give the player the advantage.
Thus, taking money from the casino.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766855</id>
	<title>Baring during a game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255690380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While baring a player from the start of the game is fine, baring a player during the course of a game is akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game.<br>Blackjack has better odds for the house at the beginning of the game and worst odds for the house at the end. Letting someone play for the first half of the game and then forcibly removing him for the second half completely change his odds of winning.</p><p>I think casinos should only be allowed to bar someone after the end (or before the beginning) of a blackjack game. Removing him in the middle changes the odds and is therefore (at least morally) cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While baring a player from the start of the game is fine , baring a player during the course of a game is akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game.Blackjack has better odds for the house at the beginning of the game and worst odds for the house at the end .
Letting someone play for the first half of the game and then forcibly removing him for the second half completely change his odds of winning.I think casinos should only be allowed to bar someone after the end ( or before the beginning ) of a blackjack game .
Removing him in the middle changes the odds and is therefore ( at least morally ) cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While baring a player from the start of the game is fine, baring a player during the course of a game is akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game.Blackjack has better odds for the house at the beginning of the game and worst odds for the house at the end.
Letting someone play for the first half of the game and then forcibly removing him for the second half completely change his odds of winning.I think casinos should only be allowed to bar someone after the end (or before the beginning) of a blackjack game.
Removing him in the middle changes the odds and is therefore (at least morally) cheating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770669</id>
	<title>Casinos mostly don't care about card counters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255717980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, in some cases they do, but really most "card counters" are still losers.  The ones that count and stay at a table make it appear "hot" and the rubes roll up and lose way more than the winner is winning.  The only counters I've ever seen even given the evil eye from the pit boss was players rolling up to the 1 or 3 dollar table for 3-5 bets on a weak dealer (the kind in training that fucks up deals and has to redo them occasionally).  Those counters usually swoop in and bail really fast cause they don't want to get banned.</p><p>The other thing to remember is blackjack is the dealers will have winning rations against players, since they all play by the same rules it's all about what their personality can make you do.  Half of card counting is to ignore anything the dealer does to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in some cases they do , but really most " card counters " are still losers .
The ones that count and stay at a table make it appear " hot " and the rubes roll up and lose way more than the winner is winning .
The only counters I 've ever seen even given the evil eye from the pit boss was players rolling up to the 1 or 3 dollar table for 3-5 bets on a weak dealer ( the kind in training that fucks up deals and has to redo them occasionally ) .
Those counters usually swoop in and bail really fast cause they do n't want to get banned.The other thing to remember is blackjack is the dealers will have winning rations against players , since they all play by the same rules it 's all about what their personality can make you do .
Half of card counting is to ignore anything the dealer does to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in some cases they do, but really most "card counters" are still losers.
The ones that count and stay at a table make it appear "hot" and the rubes roll up and lose way more than the winner is winning.
The only counters I've ever seen even given the evil eye from the pit boss was players rolling up to the 1 or 3 dollar table for 3-5 bets on a weak dealer (the kind in training that fucks up deals and has to redo them occasionally).
Those counters usually swoop in and bail really fast cause they don't want to get banned.The other thing to remember is blackjack is the dealers will have winning rations against players, since they all play by the same rules it's all about what their personality can make you do.
Half of card counting is to ignore anything the dealer does to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768077</id>
	<title>PT Barnum:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is a sucker born every minute"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is a sucker born every minute "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is a sucker born every minute"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767785</id>
	<title>day trading / swing trading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255702980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is like gambling in some ways (high risk, potentially high reward), but with a better chance of success if you learn to read the charts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is like gambling in some ways ( high risk , potentially high reward ) , but with a better chance of success if you learn to read the charts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is like gambling in some ways (high risk, potentially high reward), but with a better chance of success if you learn to read the charts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767033</id>
	<title>The casino's call it GAMING.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255693800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If any Casino catches you counting cards you will get Banned for life from the property.</p><p>Why would I sign up to a Mickeysoft loving site like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If any Casino catches you counting cards you will get Banned for life from the property.Why would I sign up to a Mickeysoft loving site like / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any Casino catches you counting cards you will get Banned for life from the property.Why would I sign up to a Mickeysoft loving site like /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>chrisG23</author>
	<datestamp>1255694520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you have no legal "right" to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering, your proposal of a law makes no sense. You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you, not a right granted by the constitution or other laws.
<br> <br>
If you are upset that the casino offers no games where they do not have an advantage and thus lose money, then don't go to the casino. If you want to make money gambling, play poker. You don't play against the house, you play against other players (so its purely skill vs skill.) You pay the casino a relatively small percentage of each pot (called the rake) for basicly "renting" the table you play on and the safety (try coming up a few tens of thousands of dollars in a game at Bob's house downtown and not getting robbed on your way home.) Also casinos attract people who want to play, so you are paying for the ability to always have people to play against, many of which have huge bankrolls for you to win (or to lose to. Depends on your level of skill at the game).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you have no legal " right " to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering , your proposal of a law makes no sense .
You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you , not a right granted by the constitution or other laws .
If you are upset that the casino offers no games where they do not have an advantage and thus lose money , then do n't go to the casino .
If you want to make money gambling , play poker .
You do n't play against the house , you play against other players ( so its purely skill vs skill .
) You pay the casino a relatively small percentage of each pot ( called the rake ) for basicly " renting " the table you play on and the safety ( try coming up a few tens of thousands of dollars in a game at Bob 's house downtown and not getting robbed on your way home .
) Also casinos attract people who want to play , so you are paying for the ability to always have people to play against , many of which have huge bankrolls for you to win ( or to lose to .
Depends on your level of skill at the game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you have no legal "right" to be allowed to play a gambling game that a privately owned company is legally offering, your proposal of a law makes no sense.
You being allowed to gamble in a casino is a privilege the casino confers on you, not a right granted by the constitution or other laws.
If you are upset that the casino offers no games where they do not have an advantage and thus lose money, then don't go to the casino.
If you want to make money gambling, play poker.
You don't play against the house, you play against other players (so its purely skill vs skill.
) You pay the casino a relatively small percentage of each pot (called the rake) for basicly "renting" the table you play on and the safety (try coming up a few tens of thousands of dollars in a game at Bob's house downtown and not getting robbed on your way home.
) Also casinos attract people who want to play, so you are paying for the ability to always have people to play against, many of which have huge bankrolls for you to win (or to lose to.
Depends on your level of skill at the game).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770041</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1255714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work as a dealer, and often they won't even ask suspected card-counters to leave. The floorperson can simply instruct the dealer to put the cut-card a quarter or halfway through the shoe, rather than two decks from the end. Since that means far more manual shuffles, I figure we try to bore the player into leaving on their own volition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as a dealer , and often they wo n't even ask suspected card-counters to leave .
The floorperson can simply instruct the dealer to put the cut-card a quarter or halfway through the shoe , rather than two decks from the end .
Since that means far more manual shuffles , I figure we try to bore the player into leaving on their own volition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as a dealer, and often they won't even ask suspected card-counters to leave.
The floorperson can simply instruct the dealer to put the cut-card a quarter or halfway through the shoe, rather than two decks from the end.
Since that means far more manual shuffles, I figure we try to bore the player into leaving on their own volition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768679</id>
	<title>I've never seen cards shuffled in a casino</title>
	<author>skeptictank</author>
	<datestamp>1255708260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The decks, shoes or whatever always come "pre-shuffled" from some back room.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decks , shoes or whatever always come " pre-shuffled " from some back room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decks, shoes or whatever always come "pre-shuffled" from some back room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772991</id>
	<title>Within 20 Hands Sounds Like Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They mention that the software will sniff out a card counter within 20 hands.  I find this very hard to believe since card counting still requires you to wait for the deck to turn hot, I've done whole nights of counting cards at the casinos and not found one hot deck, on which I would stray from my normal betting tactics or basic strategy.  Maybe it can spot the big spender on a blackjack counting team within 20 by keeping a running count of all the tables.  It also didn't say anything about how a really good blackjack player would also be shuffle tracking and cutting to aces at will, these strategies would help his betting look more random too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They mention that the software will sniff out a card counter within 20 hands .
I find this very hard to believe since card counting still requires you to wait for the deck to turn hot , I 've done whole nights of counting cards at the casinos and not found one hot deck , on which I would stray from my normal betting tactics or basic strategy .
Maybe it can spot the big spender on a blackjack counting team within 20 by keeping a running count of all the tables .
It also did n't say anything about how a really good blackjack player would also be shuffle tracking and cutting to aces at will , these strategies would help his betting look more random too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They mention that the software will sniff out a card counter within 20 hands.
I find this very hard to believe since card counting still requires you to wait for the deck to turn hot, I've done whole nights of counting cards at the casinos and not found one hot deck, on which I would stray from my normal betting tactics or basic strategy.
Maybe it can spot the big spender on a blackjack counting team within 20 by keeping a running count of all the tables.
It also didn't say anything about how a really good blackjack player would also be shuffle tracking and cutting to aces at will, these strategies would help his betting look more random too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767973</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless in Vegas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255704360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Vegas might be the only place that offers card-countable games.  And by Vegas I don't mean the 10 casinos on the Strip that most people limit themselves to.  You have to go downtown and then you still have to look.  If you walk into a casino and think, 'My chain smoking, grandfather, who died 20 years ago would feel right at home in this place', then you might be close to a good blackjack game.</p><p>95\% of the all tables in Vegas are crap--6 to 5 blackjack, multi-deck/continous shoes, horrible splitting and double down rules--with no good games on the Strip. You need good rules and a dealer who cuts the cards deep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Vegas might be the only place that offers card-countable games .
And by Vegas I do n't mean the 10 casinos on the Strip that most people limit themselves to .
You have to go downtown and then you still have to look .
If you walk into a casino and think , 'My chain smoking , grandfather , who died 20 years ago would feel right at home in this place ' , then you might be close to a good blackjack game.95 \ % of the all tables in Vegas are crap--6 to 5 blackjack , multi-deck/continous shoes , horrible splitting and double down rules--with no good games on the Strip .
You need good rules and a dealer who cuts the cards deep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Vegas might be the only place that offers card-countable games.
And by Vegas I don't mean the 10 casinos on the Strip that most people limit themselves to.
You have to go downtown and then you still have to look.
If you walk into a casino and think, 'My chain smoking, grandfather, who died 20 years ago would feel right at home in this place', then you might be close to a good blackjack game.95\% of the all tables in Vegas are crap--6 to 5 blackjack, multi-deck/continous shoes, horrible splitting and double down rules--with no good games on the Strip.
You need good rules and a dealer who cuts the cards deep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387</id>
	<title>Everyone "counts" cards, or not?</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1255725480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw once a report about that in TV, as it was english I was not sure if I understood it correctly.</p><p>So: if you "track" the hands played out in your mind and are "counting" the remaining cards, you are cheating? I can't believe/understand that. Every child plying with cards is taught to keep the remaining stock in mind. Most german card games like "Skat" and similar games require you to have a good idea which cards already got played and which are still on hands or in the stock.</p><p>How is a person supposed to play black jack if he is not "allowed" to track the cards in his mind?</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw once a report about that in TV , as it was english I was not sure if I understood it correctly.So : if you " track " the hands played out in your mind and are " counting " the remaining cards , you are cheating ?
I ca n't believe/understand that .
Every child plying with cards is taught to keep the remaining stock in mind .
Most german card games like " Skat " and similar games require you to have a good idea which cards already got played and which are still on hands or in the stock.How is a person supposed to play black jack if he is not " allowed " to track the cards in his mind ? angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw once a report about that in TV, as it was english I was not sure if I understood it correctly.So: if you "track" the hands played out in your mind and are "counting" the remaining cards, you are cheating?
I can't believe/understand that.
Every child plying with cards is taught to keep the remaining stock in mind.
Most german card games like "Skat" and similar games require you to have a good idea which cards already got played and which are still on hands or in the stock.How is a person supposed to play black jack if he is not "allowed" to track the cards in his mind?angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323</id>
	<title>Re:Burly Dude</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1255724400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what if you refuse to go? Do they just keep asking politely whilst you just sit there and ignore them? Because as far as I know, you can play blackjack with earplugs in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what if you refuse to go ?
Do they just keep asking politely whilst you just sit there and ignore them ?
Because as far as I know , you can play blackjack with earplugs in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what if you refuse to go?
Do they just keep asking politely whilst you just sit there and ignore them?
Because as far as I know, you can play blackjack with earplugs in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767289</id>
	<title>Re:crooks tag obviously applies to the casinos</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1255698300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to pass a similar law with regards to people who quit online games when they start to lose. We must financially cripple those who would be unsporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to pass a similar law with regards to people who quit online games when they start to lose .
We must financially cripple those who would be unsporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to pass a similar law with regards to people who quit online games when they start to lose.
We must financially cripple those who would be unsporting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767251</id>
	<title>The Numbers</title>
	<author>magusxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1255697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it funny how playing the Numbers was made illegal. Unlike, of course, the 'state' run lotteries where you have to wait forever and a day for a large winner. When Iowa started their lottery they were having winners 'too soon'. People were winning around 2-4 Million and the jackpot wasn't getting as high as other states' jackpots. So, they added more numbers. Bigger wins but a smaller number of winners.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P One news report stated that people 'prefer' casino type odds when gambling.  Riiight It didn't have to do with the fact they were getting the interest off of all that money. And that the higher the jackpot the more tickets an individual would buy.

So, I'll stick with Bingo. There's always a winner, there can be multiple winners, and at least the money is going to someone local.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it funny how playing the Numbers was made illegal .
Unlike , of course , the 'state ' run lotteries where you have to wait forever and a day for a large winner .
When Iowa started their lottery they were having winners 'too soon' .
People were winning around 2-4 Million and the jackpot was n't getting as high as other states ' jackpots .
So , they added more numbers .
Bigger wins but a smaller number of winners .
: P One news report stated that people 'prefer ' casino type odds when gambling .
Riiight It did n't have to do with the fact they were getting the interest off of all that money .
And that the higher the jackpot the more tickets an individual would buy .
So , I 'll stick with Bingo .
There 's always a winner , there can be multiple winners , and at least the money is going to someone local .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it funny how playing the Numbers was made illegal.
Unlike, of course, the 'state' run lotteries where you have to wait forever and a day for a large winner.
When Iowa started their lottery they were having winners 'too soon'.
People were winning around 2-4 Million and the jackpot wasn't getting as high as other states' jackpots.
So, they added more numbers.
Bigger wins but a smaller number of winners.
:P One news report stated that people 'prefer' casino type odds when gambling.
Riiight It didn't have to do with the fact they were getting the interest off of all that money.
And that the higher the jackpot the more tickets an individual would buy.
So, I'll stick with Bingo.
There's always a winner, there can be multiple winners, and at least the money is going to someone local.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768121</id>
	<title>Cole Williams will have to go into retirement</title>
	<author>EmperorKagato</author>
	<datestamp>1255705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like Cole's(Laurence Fishbourne) worse nightmare has come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Cole 's ( Laurence Fishbourne ) worse nightmare has come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Cole's(Laurence Fishbourne) worse nightmare has come true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767547</id>
	<title>Re:This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>Acer500</author>
	<datestamp>1255701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).</p></div><p>Erm... I'd say that statement is not accurate, because I happen to work for the insurance industry (which, of course is not uniform across the world, and I'm specifically excluding the US invention of health insurance which IMO shouldn't be considered insurance at all).<br> <br>As far as I know, the company I work for has always paid claims, provided they followed the above guidelines.<br> <br> The purpose of an insurance is to share risk amongst the insured, thus promoting investments by minimizing the risk for any one individual involved (and of course, make some money for the insurance company in the process<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the insurance industry to me ( who never deny an insurance application , but always investigate the application when you make a claim ) .Erm... I 'd say that statement is not accurate , because I happen to work for the insurance industry ( which , of course is not uniform across the world , and I 'm specifically excluding the US invention of health insurance which IMO should n't be considered insurance at all ) .
As far as I know , the company I work for has always paid claims , provided they followed the above guidelines .
The purpose of an insurance is to share risk amongst the insured , thus promoting investments by minimizing the risk for any one individual involved ( and of course , make some money for the insurance company in the process : ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the insurance industry to me (who never deny an insurance application, but always investigate the application when you make a claim).Erm... I'd say that statement is not accurate, because I happen to work for the insurance industry (which, of course is not uniform across the world, and I'm specifically excluding the US invention of health insurance which IMO shouldn't be considered insurance at all).
As far as I know, the company I work for has always paid claims, provided they followed the above guidelines.
The purpose of an insurance is to share risk amongst the insured, thus promoting investments by minimizing the risk for any one individual involved (and of course, make some money for the insurance company in the process :) ).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29774837</id>
	<title>Probably old news</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1255701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about a similar machine about a year ago.  I don't know about anywhere else, but the Atlantic City gaming regulators disallowed it because it counts cards, and using a machine to count cards is illegal in Atlantic City -- that goes for the casinos too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about a similar machine about a year ago .
I do n't know about anywhere else , but the Atlantic City gaming regulators disallowed it because it counts cards , and using a machine to count cards is illegal in Atlantic City -- that goes for the casinos too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about a similar machine about a year ago.
I don't know about anywhere else, but the Atlantic City gaming regulators disallowed it because it counts cards, and using a machine to count cards is illegal in Atlantic City -- that goes for the casinos too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768313</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone "counts" cards, or not?</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1255706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not cheating to count cards, but a casino is private property and can ask anyone to leave at any time.  If you don't leave when they ask you to, you're trespassing and will get arrested.  So, while counting cards isn't against the rules, a casino will kick you out if you're making money from them based on your skill.  They love the one random grandma that comes in and wins a million bucks on her first pull of the slot machine because she'll never win again and they can advertise her success to bring in a million suckers that will lose.  If a person is winning based on skill, they can continue to win.  That's not profitable for the casino, so they kick you out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not cheating to count cards , but a casino is private property and can ask anyone to leave at any time .
If you do n't leave when they ask you to , you 're trespassing and will get arrested .
So , while counting cards is n't against the rules , a casino will kick you out if you 're making money from them based on your skill .
They love the one random grandma that comes in and wins a million bucks on her first pull of the slot machine because she 'll never win again and they can advertise her success to bring in a million suckers that will lose .
If a person is winning based on skill , they can continue to win .
That 's not profitable for the casino , so they kick you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not cheating to count cards, but a casino is private property and can ask anyone to leave at any time.
If you don't leave when they ask you to, you're trespassing and will get arrested.
So, while counting cards isn't against the rules, a casino will kick you out if you're making money from them based on your skill.
They love the one random grandma that comes in and wins a million bucks on her first pull of the slot machine because she'll never win again and they can advertise her success to bring in a million suckers that will lose.
If a person is winning based on skill, they can continue to win.
That's not profitable for the casino, so they kick you out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959</id>
	<title>It's the numb3rs</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1255704240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They brought back a lot of single deck last time I was there years ago, but in single deck a blackjack now pays 5:4 instead of 3:2. Sounds subtle to the amateur, but it's a huge hit to the player. A lot of the player's side of the math is that occasional 3:2 payoff. I can still do well with double deck with a modified single deck system, but Blackjack is pretty dead now. Cripes, they used to have prime time promotional hours where they'd pay 2:1 for blackjacks.</p><p>The whole place has lost its identity anyway. First they tried catering to families for a while, and then they went after the "high end" market- whatever. I make nearly $200K a year and the place feels ridiculous now. Vegas used to be a place where Joe Average could feel like a champ. In my dad's day they'd comp you stuff if you just stood still long enough. He once got a coupon for a free buffet at a casino he walked into just to use the rest room. True story.</p><p>Now I would not be surprised if you told me they started charging for the air in the rooms. I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino (*gag*) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something, and there was Paris Hilton in a shop (excuse me, a Shoppe- no, wait, a Boutique) trying on hats. Also true story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They brought back a lot of single deck last time I was there years ago , but in single deck a blackjack now pays 5 : 4 instead of 3 : 2 .
Sounds subtle to the amateur , but it 's a huge hit to the player .
A lot of the player 's side of the math is that occasional 3 : 2 payoff .
I can still do well with double deck with a modified single deck system , but Blackjack is pretty dead now .
Cripes , they used to have prime time promotional hours where they 'd pay 2 : 1 for blackjacks.The whole place has lost its identity anyway .
First they tried catering to families for a while , and then they went after the " high end " market- whatever .
I make nearly $ 200K a year and the place feels ridiculous now .
Vegas used to be a place where Joe Average could feel like a champ .
In my dad 's day they 'd comp you stuff if you just stood still long enough .
He once got a coupon for a free buffet at a casino he walked into just to use the rest room .
True story.Now I would not be surprised if you told me they started charging for the air in the rooms .
I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino ( * gag * ) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something , and there was Paris Hilton in a shop ( excuse me , a Shoppe- no , wait , a Boutique ) trying on hats .
Also true story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They brought back a lot of single deck last time I was there years ago, but in single deck a blackjack now pays 5:4 instead of 3:2.
Sounds subtle to the amateur, but it's a huge hit to the player.
A lot of the player's side of the math is that occasional 3:2 payoff.
I can still do well with double deck with a modified single deck system, but Blackjack is pretty dead now.
Cripes, they used to have prime time promotional hours where they'd pay 2:1 for blackjacks.The whole place has lost its identity anyway.
First they tried catering to families for a while, and then they went after the "high end" market- whatever.
I make nearly $200K a year and the place feels ridiculous now.
Vegas used to be a place where Joe Average could feel like a champ.
In my dad's day they'd comp you stuff if you just stood still long enough.
He once got a coupon for a free buffet at a casino he walked into just to use the rest room.
True story.Now I would not be surprised if you told me they started charging for the air in the rooms.
I knew it was really over when I was walking through the Hard Rock Casino (*gag*) and saw a big crowd of people looking at something, and there was Paris Hilton in a shop (excuse me, a Shoppe- no, wait, a Boutique) trying on hats.
Also true story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766395</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless in Vegas</title>
	<author>misnohmer</author>
	<datestamp>1255725540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Vegas and other Nevada casinos deal with it mathematically by adjusting the rules - single deck blackjack has both early shuffle AND only 2X (some 2.2X) payout on blackjack (vs. 2.5 on 6 or 8 deck) - this basically makes sure that if you count cards well, you're back to your average loss of 1\% to the casino. Of course if you make a mistake counting, the house actually enjoys higher odds than regular blackjack - so they love it (and provide you drinks to help you count). Last time I visited South Lake Tahoe (Nevada) every casino had a couple of single deck blackjack tables and books on card counting on news stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Vegas and other Nevada casinos deal with it mathematically by adjusting the rules - single deck blackjack has both early shuffle AND only 2X ( some 2.2X ) payout on blackjack ( vs. 2.5 on 6 or 8 deck ) - this basically makes sure that if you count cards well , you 're back to your average loss of 1 \ % to the casino .
Of course if you make a mistake counting , the house actually enjoys higher odds than regular blackjack - so they love it ( and provide you drinks to help you count ) .
Last time I visited South Lake Tahoe ( Nevada ) every casino had a couple of single deck blackjack tables and books on card counting on news stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Vegas and other Nevada casinos deal with it mathematically by adjusting the rules - single deck blackjack has both early shuffle AND only 2X (some 2.2X) payout on blackjack (vs. 2.5 on 6 or 8 deck) - this basically makes sure that if you count cards well, you're back to your average loss of 1\% to the casino.
Of course if you make a mistake counting, the house actually enjoys higher odds than regular blackjack - so they love it (and provide you drinks to help you count).
Last time I visited South Lake Tahoe (Nevada) every casino had a couple of single deck blackjack tables and books on card counting on news stands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173</id>
	<title>This is not what gaming should be</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1255634760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The very premise of a casino is that it's a business that plays games for money. These games are conducted fairly and have public rules set out in advance. The profit comes from structuring these games such that the casino has a slight edge. Everyone knows that.</p><p>The problem comes when the casino breaks its own rules. It's a fundamentally deceptive business practice in <i>any</i> field to tell public that one set of rules applies, then to actually enforce another. If Blackjack is not profitable, the game should be modified or dropped. "You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden rule. It's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot\_machine#Payout\_percentage" title="wikipedia.org">there are laws against that</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The very premise of a casino is that it 's a business that plays games for money .
These games are conducted fairly and have public rules set out in advance .
The profit comes from structuring these games such that the casino has a slight edge .
Everyone knows that.The problem comes when the casino breaks its own rules .
It 's a fundamentally deceptive business practice in any field to tell public that one set of rules applies , then to actually enforce another .
If Blackjack is not profitable , the game should be modified or dropped .
" You are not permitted to win " is not a fair rule , especially when it 's a hidden rule .
It 's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines , and there are laws against that [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very premise of a casino is that it's a business that plays games for money.
These games are conducted fairly and have public rules set out in advance.
The profit comes from structuring these games such that the casino has a slight edge.
Everyone knows that.The problem comes when the casino breaks its own rules.
It's a fundamentally deceptive business practice in any field to tell public that one set of rules applies, then to actually enforce another.
If Blackjack is not profitable, the game should be modified or dropped.
"You are not permitted to win" is not a fair rule, especially when it's a hidden rule.
It's no different from rigging the odds of slot machines, and there are laws against that [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29773843</id>
	<title>Re:A system guaranteed to beat the odds</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1255693080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, right.. the only way to win is not to play.</p><p>I tried to collect the Powerball jackpot based on that principle, but for some reason they just laughed at me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , right.. the only way to win is not to play.I tried to collect the Powerball jackpot based on that principle , but for some reason they just laughed at me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, right.. the only way to win is not to play.I tried to collect the Powerball jackpot based on that principle, but for some reason they just laughed at me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766517</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1255684860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is illegal only if you use an outside device or group.<br>
Casinos in Nevada can kick you out if they think you are card counting, in other states and countries they cannot kick you out but they can make it harder for you and harass you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is illegal only if you use an outside device or group .
Casinos in Nevada can kick you out if they think you are card counting , in other states and countries they can not kick you out but they can make it harder for you and harass you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is illegal only if you use an outside device or group.
Casinos in Nevada can kick you out if they think you are card counting, in other states and countries they cannot kick you out but they can make it harder for you and harass you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766331</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless in Vegas</title>
	<author>AstrumPreliator</author>
	<datestamp>1255724520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I was at the Luxor in Las Vegas I played a few hands of Blackjack. They were using continuous auto-shufflers and the cards were shuffled after every single hand. I believe they only used a couple of decks, though it's been about a year since I saw this. I haven't seen it in any other casino after that, although I rarely gamble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I was at the Luxor in Las Vegas I played a few hands of Blackjack .
They were using continuous auto-shufflers and the cards were shuffled after every single hand .
I believe they only used a couple of decks , though it 's been about a year since I saw this .
I have n't seen it in any other casino after that , although I rarely gamble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I was at the Luxor in Las Vegas I played a few hands of Blackjack.
They were using continuous auto-shufflers and the cards were shuffled after every single hand.
I believe they only used a couple of decks, though it's been about a year since I saw this.
I haven't seen it in any other casino after that, although I rarely gamble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29774929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29773843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29771435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29789009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29788229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29776705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_0118205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29789009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29788229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29774929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29772347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29776705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29770839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29773843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29769271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_0118205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29766637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29767287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29771435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_0118205.29768313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
