Archives of CardCounter.com message forums

These archives of the CardCounter.com message boards are provided as-is for reference. If you want to discuss anything about the posts, please post a message to the BlackjackInfo.com message forums.

Threads 1201 to 1230

We have to tell the man our name ...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jun-2004 09:56:53 (#8882)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.police.id.ap/index.html

I wonder if this will have any effect on our rights in casinos?

--Mayor

Here is the list.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Jun-2004 10:59:36 (#8883)

Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court:

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Oh, And I hope your quiz asking if you have to show a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL your ID when requested is corrected.

What happened to "Right to remain silent" *NM*
Posted by John on 24-Jun-2004 23:23:49 (#8955)

mebbe not to the private, casino security staff.
Posted by gehrig on 21-Jun-2004 11:25:57 (#8886)

but since nevada gaming regs permit that private force to detain, for a "reasonable" time, a "suspect" until summoning police ("metro" in clark county), likely that i.d. would (now if not previously) have to be furnished. this could be interesting for those who would carry false identity documents. on the face of it, there aren't too many legitimate reasons for maintaining alternative (non legally changed), i.d./paperwork. perhaps the more innocent might be to hide from creditors, process servers, or ex-wives' attornies/gubbmit authorities bent on capturing delinquent child support or alimony.

as to justification, my ken is that the greater good of protecting the u.s. citizens from infiltration by terrorists planning on serious acts, will override the "sovereign citizen" agenda. it's amusing to me that the leftist agenda is seeking mileage from that "9-11 committee" while they have some record of resisting any infringement of citizens' rights insofar as this, i.d. issue pertains. can't have it both ways. of course, that same leftist agenda would have the borders "opened".

could be that the "advantage" player might better carry zero i.d., rather than something false. i'd think that using false i.d. even only to gain a freebie barfet, could constitute some fraud. i'm known under different names in different joints, but never the result of any paper documentation.

It gets worse.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Jun-2004 15:04:35 (#8892)

Post 9/11 false identification is a major no-no. All those terrorists had false IDs, remember? The first person arrested after 9/11 was the guy in Virgina (non-terrorist, just a scum bag) who supplied them with the IDs.

Not having an ID at all is an even bigger no-no. At that point the police can take you and hold you until they can identify you. Who knows? You might be one of the missing hijackers.

Like the song says ...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Jun-2004 13:41:15 (#8889)

... "This is NOT America!" zg

Terrible ruling
Posted by LVBear584 on 21-Jun-2004 14:42:18 (#8890)

I wonder if this will have any effect on our rights in casinos?

Casino managers can now call their corrupt friends in Gaming to come and ID someone under threat of arrest.

A truly horrible decision, with implications far beyond our little corner of the casino world. A sad day for our country.

The problem with casinos...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 22-Jun-2004 13:46:43 (#8904)

...is that it is unlawful to be in them if you are under a certain age and asking for ID is part of making sure you are in compliance with that law. It's not like walking down the street, which is something that anyone has the right to do. This is especially applicable to the younger guys here because if you are seen placing a wager or with a drink in your hand and you fail to show ID when asked, you can (and probably will) be arrested on suspicion of underage drinking or gambling and they will be completely within their rights.

Please continue this thread on the non-BJ page
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Jun-2004 13:44:37 (#9004)

Because many of the posts appearing recently in this thread were not about blackjack or advantage gaming at all, I deleted the posts. Please continue the discussion on the non-BJ page.

Thanks,

--Mayor

Be sure to watch this on Fox Sports Net
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jun-2004 17:23:33 (#8894)

Be sure to watch this on Fox Sports Net...

Friday, June 25, 2004
4:00pm Championship Poker at the Plaza #1 from Las Vegas, NV

If you look closely at the audience towards the very end of the head's up match, you might see me in the audience... sitting in the center. I'm also there for the awards ceremony.

--Mayor

Wow I always wanted to be on TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *NM*
Posted by Learning to count on 21-Jun-2004 20:03:02 (#8896)

Ugly
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jun-2004 20:46:04 (#8897)

I just got lucky.

The guys who sat around me were pretty ugly. I think there was one cute lady in front of me. It was a no talent job, but hey, someone had to do it.

--Mayor

Mayor the movie star!
Posted by Tom on 22-Jun-2004 02:38:34 (#8898)

Hi Mayor, I wont ask the the dumb question if you worry or care about revealing your identity and picture to casino employees,but will ask a question that I'm sure many would find interesting(which is,_ If anyone has actually ever walked up to you at a casino and said "Hey,you like that pro card counter who put a picture of him on the internet!" or something to that effect. If so,how did you react?

Answers
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Jun-2004 12:04:39 (#8903)

>I wont ask the the dumb question if you worry or care about revealing your identity and picture to casino employees,

Isn't that my picture up there to the left?

>but will ask a question that I'm sure many would find interesting(which is,_ If anyone has actually ever walked up to you at a casino and said "Hey,you like that pro card counter who put a picture of him on the internet!"

Actually, this has happened MANY times, many advantage players have recognized me by my posted pictures and media appearances. But it has NEVER happened that a casino employee recognized me by my posted picture or media appearances. That says something about the relative IQs of the two groups.

--Mayor

You are so right !
Posted by John on 24-Jun-2004 23:03:28 (#8952)

About the relative IQ thing. I just got back from my trip. I lost.

Anyway, a ploppy wanted to double down an A, 8 vs 6 and people were telling him "no, you don't want to do that" and all this riff raff. Actually, it was the correct play. He ended up doing it and I ended up losing my big bet. He had $5 out and I had about $150 out. Afterward, the dealer started scolding him for it. He pointed to my bet then to his. He is betting this and you are betting that. I stepped in and said "no no no". I told the guy to play however he wants to. The guy was making some decent plays. He wasn't counting, though because his bet never was bigger than $5.

On my 4 day trip, I saw so many dumb things that I soon became kind of irritated. It wasn't the dumb blackjack plays but the way people were treating each other. One guy made the comment "I was doing alright until these two jumped in" pointing to me and this older fella. I said, "You aren't blaming me are you?" He shook his head. I normally wouldn't have said anything but I was getting fed up. I was also losing.

This other pimp-looking guy in a very bright red suit and bright red hat started pacing behind me saying "I hate it when fools jump-in in the middle of da shoe. I hate it." He repeated that about 4 times hoping I heard it. I stayed and played even when the shoe was negative just to spite him.

Did you see Phil Hellmuth ?
Posted by John on 25-Jun-2004 16:05:17 (#8979)

He is one of my favorite poker players. He is just funny to watch. I saw him laying in one of the booths after being knocked out in 43rd place. I guess I'll have to wait for the next episode to see you, Mayor.

Did that take place in California ?

If I lived out there, I'd probably go to those poker championships, too.

Was it possible to meet Phil Hellmuth or any of the other poker players? Just want to get a feel of what it was like. I'm star-struck what can I say. If Stanford Wong sat at my blackjack table, I wouldn't be able to count.

Totally disappointing
Posted by marathonslim on 25-Jun-2004 18:32:50 (#8986)

Really thought that show left a lot to be desired. They didn't tell us it was opening day and was taped on the 5th (even though they finished at 1:30 am on the 6th)not the 6th like the promo said. The sixth was the final match.

I was looking forward to seeing you guys on there. I missed it ( I was taking a tour of vegas with a buddy of mine). They were supposed to start at noon and we did not want to wait around till they actually did start at 1:30 pm.

Let us know when the finals are on.

thanks

We'll have to wait for the finals...
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Jun-2004 18:58:38 (#8988)

Yes, I thought today was the finals... I read that it is a 4 hour show, so today was the first of the 4. Who knows when they'll get to the final... we'll have to keep watch.

--Mayor

Annoucning: The Cellini Interview
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Jun-2004 13:15:05 (#8908)

It is with great appreciation that I announce the posting of "Voodoo Child (Slight Return): An interview with D.V. Cellini" by Toddler.

Cellini, Toddler, and Molly Bloom have given our community a great gift through this interview, and we are deeply thankful.

http://www.cardcounter.com/Interview_Celini.htm

--Mayor

Very Interesting
Posted by SammyBoy on 23-Jun-2004 15:24:24 (#8909)

Mississippi has some pretty good blackjack as well. I was in California last year near Palm Springs and did not find the games that good. I guess I will have to plan a trip to Barona.

Forget Barona
Posted by LVBear584 on 23-Jun-2004 17:31:43 (#8914)

A bunch of CSM's and otherwise nearly universal poor penetration. A waste of your time.

Still...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 24-Jun-2004 04:43:41 (#8927)

"nearly universal poor penetration" however can be thought of as good penetration available but you have to look for it. I couldn't care less what the pen is on any table but mine. The highly favorable rules and tolerant pit there still make it better than most DD games out there.

Yes, but ...
Posted by LVBear584 on 24-Jun-2004 14:48:51 (#8934)

"nearly universal poor penetration" however can be thought of as good penetration available but you have to look for it.

It sounded to me like Sammy Boy was thinking about a special trip to Barona. It is not worth going out of his way for in the slim hope of finding a good dealer and playable conditions. If he happens to be in the area, it's certainly worth checking out. But that's not how I interpreted his remarks.

You're right
Posted by SammyBoy on 24-Jun-2004 15:51:37 (#8938)

Thanks for the warning. I just continue visiting Mississippi.

LOL
Posted by Pro21 on 24-Jun-2004 20:43:33 (#8949)

This sounds like someone trying to protect their candy store.

No Message!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Jun-2004 14:53:43 (#8935)

Sammy. Please send your comment re my head size to robmcgarvey@rogers.com I'd love to laugh about that with you if you don't mind. ;>

Kudo's to Toddler, and Molly. Cellini is great subject material, so you both had a head start. Don't let your heads get as big as mine is. I'm reading The Donald's new book. Has a lot to say about being confident in it, so we are all in good company.

What Happened to That Post I made?
Posted by SammyBoy on 24-Jun-2004 15:54:55 (#8939)

It was all in fun, no malice intended. Did it get busted?

I busted the whole thread
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Jun-2004 17:06:15 (#8943)

I think Cellini deserves better than a thread about head-size. I had no problem with it otherwise. It was purely an aesthetic decision.

--Mayor

Thanks Bud
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Jun-2004 07:04:40 (#8960)

Now, the LVHCM. You say it ain't real (your IQ test) and Cellini says it's real. Whatsup?!?

Nice job by Toddler *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 23-Jun-2004 17:32:07 (#8915)

And Molly Bloom! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Jun-2004 19:18:36 (#8918)

Whoops, The Mayor is right. Sorry, Molly. *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 23-Jun-2004 23:19:25 (#8924)

Very Nice
Posted by Waldo on 23-Jun-2004 21:24:38 (#8923)

That was a very entertaining article. But if you eve do run for public office, I would suggest dog catcher. You will most likely find the clientele easy to work with.

I think we owe a big 'Thank You' to Toddler and Molly! *NM*
Posted by Radar on 23-Jun-2004 23:56:47 (#8925)

A great read ...
Posted by Syph on 24-Jun-2004 03:23:04 (#8926)

Bjfonline rocked.

It opened the doors, however briefly, to contact with people I`d only heard about in myth and legend.

No kidding.

Thanks to everyone for a great read. And if anyone is in contact with Molly, please give her a virtual hug from Syph.

(And an apology for crashing her table that one time ...)

Best,
Syph

As scobee once said on bjfo...
Posted by toddler on 24-Jun-2004 15:14:37 (#8936)

... "the line forms somewhere behind toddler." I've passed many virtual hugs her way and continue to do so. She's been extremely inspirational and her talent of stringing letters, spaces and punctuation marks together in a professional and coherent manner continues to amaze me. I'm certain I'm not telling you anything new.

Glad you all enjoyed the interview.

She'll read your remarks, Syph. I'll bet my entire bankroll on that roll of the dice. Good to see you still around.

toddler

Molly and Old Times
Posted by Sohrab on 24-Jun-2004 15:35:23 (#8937)

I too would like to hug her, platonically of course. She will understand why I say that.

I am happy to be seeing old friends here. I miss Arnold's forum but this is the next best thing, I think.

Thanks I enjoyed the interview!!! *NM*
Posted by Jackblack21 on 25-Jun-2004 17:41:52 (#8985)

Syph, from Molly
Posted by toddler on 24-Jun-2004 19:15:11 (#8947)

So for Syph, please pass on my regards. Tell him I might double down on his hard ten when he least expects it.

Straight from my email to here.

toddler

:)
Posted by syph on 24-Jun-2004 21:01:00 (#8950)

So for Syph, please pass on my regards. Tell him I might double down on his hard ten when he least expects it.

How can you not love this woman?

Thanks again, Toddler, very nice to see you about. I hope the game has enriched your life.

It`s a fascinating subculture, yes?

Best,
Syph

(p.s. Molly, I assure you ... In your presence, my game is always elevated.)

Bet Spread when count changes in one hand
Posted by Boarding on 23-Jun-2004 15:49:11 (#8910)

Ok,

So, I am still studying and learning after my 600 unit win during my first experience. How I did that - I to this day don't know. Luck had a big part to do with it, combined with some good play, and 'sorta' counting.

Looking back I wasn't able to really stay with the count well through an entire 6 shoe deck. At times I could, at times I couldn't. So, looking back, I think what I was doing was 'clump' counting. i.e. if there were 20 cards on the table and the count would change say 5 pts or so towards player-advantage. I would spread. Seemed to work, some.

Is there a known technique for such a thing? It intuitively makes sense to me that for every 15 cards played, the count should change about 1 pt towards player favor... if it changes more. We have the advantage?

No?

Boarding....

No
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Jun-2004 16:38:55 (#8913)

>It intuitively makes sense to me that for every 15 cards played, the count should change about 1 pt towards player favor...

No. This is not the case. In fact, the True count tends to stay the same (the "True Count Theorem").

>if it changes more. We have the advantage?

You have the advantage when the TC says you do, and at no other time (unless you are using some other advantage technique, like shuffle tracking). If you had la imited experience where you couldn't keep track of the count but you won anyway, be happy and go study/practice some more.

>No?

You are correct. "No"

--Mayor

This is statistics no?
Posted by Boarding on 23-Jun-2004 19:46:13 (#8919)

Mayor,

Thanks for the quick response, and with your knowledge of mathmetics I am almost wondering why I am writing this, but hell... here goes...

When calculating advantage - what sample size is used? If in fact, these advantages are calculated using a number approaching infinity, then we are accepting the mathmatical deviations when applying these figures to say some percentage of a 6 deck shoe. Those unused cards over time, or large enough sample, would behave as the other side of the shoe - i.e a normal progression towards a count of +4 per 52 cards.

If we are tracking counts to bet on the remaining cards in say a 300 deck shoe, we are accepting the known limitations of this.

Why does it not apply equally by simply takeing this sampling method down to two hands of play. I realize that this severly limits the probability of success do to the much great number of cards remaining in the deck. However, we are calulating advantage of 'decks of cards' when we count. Can not the same method be used to calculate 'hands of cards'. With perfect play, it would intuitively appear so. The limitation is here assuming that all remaining cards would average to +4/52 cards as they remain normally distributed in the deck.

However, it does not appear to be mathmatically irrelevant...

I am guessing that it is, but ... hell.. had to type this anyways...

Am I completely in left field?

and by the way, I am still practicing and reading and getting much much better!

Thanks for the site.

Boarding...

response
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Jun-2004 11:54:10 (#8932)

>When calculating advantage - what sample size is used?

There are three methods to determine advantage. One is combinatorically, this does not require a sample size. The second is by simulation, in this case the sample size depends on the "standard error" you are working with. The third way is practically, in a casino environment. In this case, it is based on the cumulative experience of the advantage community.

>If in fact, these advantages are calculated using a number approaching infinity,

The numbers 2 and 10000000 are equally close to infinity.

>- i.e a normal progression towards a count of +4 per 52 cards.

I don't know what count you are using, but the normal Hi-Lo count is balanced, so it tends towards a RC and TC of 0 per 52 cards.

>If we are tracking counts to bet on the remaining cards in say a 300 deck shoe, we are accepting the known limitations of this.

I don't know what you mean by "known limitations"

>Why does it not apply equally by simply takeing this sampling method down to two hands of play.

The theory only applies to the current hand being played, that is the only time you can apply the theory, to the current hand.

>The limitation is here assuming that all remaining cards would average to +4/52 cards as they remain normally distributed in the deck.

Again, I don't know what count you are using, but the game does NOT tend towards a player's advantage over the house. If it did, you can be sure that the rules would be changed.

>Am I completely in left field?

Sorry, but yes, I think you are.

>and by the way, I am still practicing and reading and getting much much better!

That's the thing to do. Best wishes for your success, but be patient.

--Mayor

I think
Posted by Sohrab on 24-Jun-2004 12:17:31 (#8933)

he is using the unbalanced KO count, which rises as the dealer deals average cards.

But you start this count negative and you have advantage if count rises faster than average would be.

You are correct - KO
Posted by Boardingbetter on 24-Jun-2004 19:11:05 (#8946)

You are correct all the way around...

If the count rises faster than 1 pt / 13 cards - do we no have an advantage?

Boarding?

Tough question for Mayor
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 24-Jun-2004 21:51:03 (#8951)

(Well at least it's tough for me)

"Again, I don't know what count you are using, but the game does NOT tend towards a player's advantage over the house. If it did, you can be sure that the rules would be changed."

It's not intuitive though. Let's say you were playing a 6 deck game with liberal Strip rules, and the dealer was dealing down below one deck. And let's say when he gets down to the 1 deck point, the TC is 0.

Now a person who has a basic understanding of BJ math would say "Ah yes. We are now playing a single deck game, and if you were to play a single deck game with all the liberal Strip rules, the player has an advantage." And if that last deck had the normal distribution of a standard 52 card deck, that would be correct.

On the other hand, my common sense tells me this- if at the beginning of the shoe, the dealer were to grab any 52 cards at random out of the shoe, throw the rest away, and say "OK we're going to play single deck.", the advantage of the next hand would be the same as it would be for 6 deck shoe. This is because you don't get the strong removal effect you do in single deck because of the likelihood of there being more than 4 of certain cards in that pack. In reality we don't know what the advantage is because we don't know what the cards are and that pack could very well be played with an advantage for the player. But being the TC of those cards will be centered on 0, we know the average advantage will be the same as TC=0 in 6D and that is an advantage for the house.

However if you have dealt down to the last deck and the TC is 0, you probably have something pretty close to a standard 52 card deck, at least closer than a random handful of 52 cards would be, with a TC ranging from plus to minus anything. So I believe that the advantage will be tending towards the player as cards are dealt, only in this particular situation, because as decks decrease, the slope of advantage as a function of TC increases, but so does the Y-intercept. I'd love to be proven wrong!

Referring tough question to a book...
Posted by Seeker on 25-Jun-2004 07:43:29 (#8961)

Specifically, Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger. He discusses the "floating advantage" -- the phenomenon that the player is better off at a true count of 0 with one deck left in a shoe than at the start of the shoe, even thought the true count is the same in both cases.

The subject is interesting, but of little practical importance. You'll seldom find a shoe game that's dealt to the very deep levels that would make the floating advantage a significant consideration in bet sizing.

Not so tough...
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Jun-2004 10:49:57 (#8971)

>It's not intuitive though. Let's say you were playing a 6 deck game with liberal Strip rules, and the dealer was dealing down below one deck. And let's say when he gets down to the 1 deck point, the TC is 0.

Isn't this known as the floating advantage? Didn't Don Schlesinger prove that as you deal deeper into the deck, your advantage occured at a lower TC? And in a 6 deck shoe, if you have a TC=0 between 5.25 and 5.50 decks dealt, you have the edge!

I knew this subtlety when I replied to the original writer, but it did not seem reasonable to cover the Floating Advantage in reply to his original questions, as he appears to be having a tough time understanding basic KO.

>So I believe that the advantage will be tending towards the player as cards are dealt, only in this particular situation, because as decks decrease, the slope of advantage as a function of TC increases, but so does the Y-intercept. I'd love to be proven wrong!

I don't think you can be proven wrong because you are right. See Chapter 6 of Blackjack Attack (2nd Edition).

--Mayor

Thanks!
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 25-Jun-2004 11:20:58 (#8973)

That explains it... I've never read a blackjack book. It's more fun to figure these things out on my own, and no chance of me reading something and not understanding it that way.

Where in LV to buy BJ tables/chips?
Posted by ladykiller on 24-Jun-2004 15:55:50 (#8940)

Going to LV this weekend. Want to buy a BJ felt or table if cheap enough as well as a discard tray and some chips. Anyone know where the best place to go in LV for this?

Gamblers General Store
Posted by Hal Jordan on 24-Jun-2004 23:15:57 (#8953)

There is a great store near downtown. To get directions check gamblersgeneralstore.com. They have nearly everything you would want. When my friend and I built my table this store was a must for supplies. When we built my table, we built it as we went, with no real plans to follow. Since that time though I found a seller on e-bay who sells blackjack blueprints. The plans look cool. Hope this sources will help.

GGS prices a relatively high...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Jun-2004 17:22:39 (#8984)

... eBay is the way! zg

there was a 21 table for sale a couple of days ago...
Posted by gehrig on 25-Jun-2004 01:27:29 (#8958)

in the lvrj classified. the price was $650 which i think is too high. they break down in a couple of minutes and might even be "fedex"-able [ground service]. a local gaming school was selling surplus 21 table chairs [from the barbary coast], a few months ago, for $20 each. used "felts" [layouts] are around, often at the large outdoor flea market at pecos and lv blvd north. last ones i bought cost 4 for $20. they make interesting table cloths. new layouts *may* not be legally sold, i'm told, though they turn up also. table accessories such as drop boxes, paddles, discard trays, checque racks, lockable covers, and vinyl table covers should be at the aforementioned, gambler's general store. otoh, if/when the next joint's closing has a liquidation of fixtures, no doubt many of these items can be bought most reasonably. when the el rancho was being "parted out", "cage" stuff like drop boxes were a dollar or two each.

local gaming shows are also a source for casino used stuff. i haven't found a single reliable source for a calendar of those events. the trop and the plaza have had shows recently.

Liquidation sales
Posted by Sonny on 25-Jun-2004 17:16:45 (#8981)

> otoh, if/when the next joint's closing has a liquidation of
> fixtures, no doubt many of these items can be bought most reasonably.

Barley's Casino & Brewery in Henderson closed down all of their BJ tables last week. Maybe a resourceful person could track some of them down...

-Sonny-

Online *LINK* *PIC*
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 25-Jun-2004 08:46:40 (#8962)

These guys had some really good deals on hardware a couple years back. maybe they still do.

-Felix

I got my *** whipped
Posted by John on 24-Jun-2004 23:20:32 (#8954)

I finally lost after two months of winning trips. This was my first losing trip as a green chip player. I didn't lose the whole trip bankroll, but I lost 112 units. I actually had lost 140 units and hit one on the way home and made 28 units.

It was awful. Absolutely awful. Whenever I had a big bet out, the dealer had an Ace. It was Dealer hits soft 17 so the dealer flips over a 6 of course then hits again and gets a 4. This is just characteristic of how it went. With a big bet out, I either pushed or lost. Most of my insurance bets lost. It was horrible. It was like I was living in an alternate reality where the negative counts are the counts where you win the big money.

I was playing a lot of 6 deck H17, DAS, DOA, No surrender. I want to know what you guys think of the H17 games?

I am starting to wonder whether 1 -12 spread is really enough these days. I think you need a 1 - 16 spread for those H17 games.

Whenever I lose a lot, I like to stop and think about what I am doing.

I did almost win a blackjack tournament. I made it to the final table. One woman told me that I was "unconscious". Whatever that means.

Also, if you had a choice between 2 deck, 55-60 % pen, H17, DAS, DOA, no surrender, resplit 3 times or a 6 deck H17, DAS, DOA, split 4 times, no surrender with 70 % pen. Which would you choose ?

I had a hard time deciding and I think it is why I lost so much. I could spread 1 - 30 on the double deck and get away with it and on the 6 deck, too. I think I am finished for good on 2 deck unless I see 75 % pen. I lost 68 units on 2 deck.

Automatic, how is the full kelly going ?

Hang on it could be worse!
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 24-Jun-2004 23:58:24 (#8957)

Hey man I've been there. 112 units is not an awful lot to lose, sorry to tell you. It makes you wonder how the cards are dealt, you swear they must be cheating, but that's just perception. Also you like me started out with a long string of wins. That's a good sign, means you've taken to counting like a duck to water, but swings like these and much worse happen to better than us. Read Snyder's bjfonline.com site. He's one of the best ever, and he's had swings that would bankrupt you or I. I have a "virtual" Kelly green chip bankroll (mortgaged my house like an ass) now but haven't had to touch it, also had a couple of nice big winning sessions recently at the Connecticut candystores.

About those games: I don't think I would ever play a H17 shoe game. The only ones I would play are a couple in Reno that allow doubling on any number of cards and that rule more than makes up for the H17. Just about any other venue has a S17 game available so why not play that? Of the two games you described, the DD is the far better game. The other problem with H17 is you have to learn a lot of different index numbers that will have no value in the more desirable S17 games.

Like you, I also notice marginal luck in the DD games and I have a theory why. You and I are used to winning, winning big in shoe games and in shoe your swings are a lot bigger, and your upswings far far above EV and thus memorable. So when we play DD where the counts move around a lot and are not stable, we are actually winning EV but because it's not what we think of as a "great night" (from our shoe experiences) we remember it as a long nasty and minimally profitable drag. Your 1:12 spread should be just fine in shoe. 1:20 is better but try to expand your spread on the low end, not the high, as that is better for your bankroll. It will help a lot if you can Wong out of bad counts, or learn to track a shuffle. It's easier than it seems if the shuffle is trackable.

The one on the way home
Posted by John on 25-Jun-2004 04:17:49 (#8959)

Even though I lost on most of my 4 day trip. I learned something.

I am trading in my $100 Aldo's for my $20 reeboks. I have to tighten my game up.

It was great on the way home, though. I was there maybe 15 minutes ! It was one of those sit down- oh count bad- hey what's on the next table-- sit down -- wow great - make money- leave.

Another thing. I swear that sometimes the pit boss is going up to the dealers and whispering "counter". I swear it has happened a few times. Or maybe I'm losing it.

I got some room comps. Automatic, I know you've gotten some room comps. Do you count cards at the places you are staying, or do you feel bad about it and go elsewhere ?

You know you've played too much blackjack when during your visit to Long John Silver's you start moving the little ketchup cups like they are chips.

Also, when you are paying for it with change, you move the quarters like they are chips, too. It's wierd.

Also, to make it to the final table in that tournament, I doubled down on a 13 v 6 . I had a max bet out of 500. I got an 8 for a 21. The gusts went out of everyone sails after that. On the last round of hands, I was actually second to last place but that hand moved me in to the winner for the table. I ended up with 2000+ for the table and 2nd had 1100+ . It was a great double down. I was so shocked that I didn't even realize what happened.

Hi John
Posted by SammyBoy on 25-Jun-2004 09:19:42 (#8964)

Sorry for the run of bad cards. In your post you said - <i><b>Do you count cards at the places you are staying, or do you feel bad about it and go elsewhere ?<b><i>

If I'm playing blackjack I am counting cards, ESPECIALLY at the places that comp my room. You cannot let yourself feel bad about it, trust me, they don't feel bad when you lose. The only time I've ever stopped counting was when several floor people and bosses were watching my table. But I did not play there very long. Best of luck to you and I promise it will get better (Can't say when though).

Unconscious
Posted by revereman on 25-Jun-2004 09:20:09 (#8965)

I think your last paragraph (doubling 13 vs. 6 and getting an 8) explains why the other player said you were "unconscious."
You have just experienced the roller coaster ride that is BJ. About a month ago we tried to develop an alternative to roller coast ride analogy but we really couldn't. The reason? Roller coaster is a perfect way to describe advantage play in BJ. Some Bible thumpers (ok, we haven't had enough controversy around here lately) say that whatever God gives you that doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Try having 5 (or 10) more sessions like your last trip and see how you feel about playing BJ and how strong you feel.

Unconscious
Posted by SammyBoy on 25-Jun-2004 09:23:07 (#8967)

It means you were "In The Zone", you can do no wrong, everything is going your way.

Staying where I play
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 25-Jun-2004 11:18:26 (#8972)

Sure, at my CT candystores they don't give discretionary comps, but I have so many points on the player's cards I can stay over whenever I want. Yes, I've heard them say "counter" too, but they don't do anything about it, rumor has it they don't care about anything under a $100 BU. Heard them say it once where I had spread to 4 hands (which was against the rules) and the PC got really mad at the dealer. Those places are so big, there could be me and 100 guys like me in there every night and they wouldn't even notice the money was missing. If they say "counter" and you're still playing, either a call from surveillance is imminent and you're on your way out, or you are within their limits of tolerance and you're not going to be thrown out. Just my experience.

I'll stay there, but when I'm on the road I usually don't stay where I play, because I don't want to be thrown out of my room if I am ejected from the premises. Also I don't get a player's card on short trips so there's no comps.

Confused by question
Posted by LVBear584 on 25-Jun-2004 16:55:23 (#8980)

Do you count cards at the places you are staying, or do you feel bad about it and go elsewhere ?

Why would anyone feel bad about it ????

Lifetime ***whips
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Jun-2004 11:54:22 (#8974)

I think a good measure of how much you have played is how many true ***whippings you have had, and survived to play another day.

This is your first. Treasure it!

My last time out, I was playing a R07/R08 single deck game, spreading $10 to 2x$100 (yes, a fantastic game). I was down $3k after the first 2 hours. If I believed in omens, I certainly had one: the second deck played, the dealer dealt herself 4 straight blackjacks ... which is VERY hard to do in single deck.

It's not even an ***whip any more, it's just the game...

--Mayor

Why tell the dealer ?
Posted by John on 25-Jun-2004 16:00:24 (#8978)

Can someone please explain to me why it is important that the dealer know that I am a card counter ?

Is the pit boss trying to flaunt his keen intellect ?

Trying to sabotage my relationship with the dealer in some way?

Good question
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 25-Jun-2004 22:25:10 (#8995)

It could be either of those reasons. More likely it has to do with cut card placement, they may have a procedure in place to reduce pen when they believe there's a counter at the table. This is the kind of thing that will protect the game and not offend or frighten the ploppies like a barring might.

In my opinion, casino is a hospitality business, and the dealer should be doing nothing but dealing and having pleasant interaction with the customers. Dealing with counters is not his job.

Cut card
Posted by Boston_Jaxel on 28-Jun-2004 09:45:17 (#9019)

So true. The last time I was in CT, at a hot shoe, the Pit Boss tapped the dealer on shoulder, and the dealer said "What did I do". The PB then said "It's not what you did, it's what you are going to do". Then after they exchanged whispers for about 5 seconds, dealer came back and was cutting off 2 decks instead of 1 on an 8 deck shoe. I guess it's better than heat...

an inteligent casino response
Posted by Victoria on 28-Jun-2004 10:04:06 (#9020)

to the question of, "what should we do about card counters?"
I have been half or nearly half shoed a few times. The ploppies have no idea that anything is going on, the pit remains as they were (no outward hostility), the house sacrifices the number of hands per hour they can deal and my advantage graciously evaporates with this obvious hint.
I do not see the pit saying anything to the current dealer. It happens when a new dealer comes to the table, more than likely briefed before getting there.

There is no need for them to make a scene and perhaps scare some of their regular loosers.
The counter can continue to play all she wants I think, unless the spread would increase by some huge margin.
If they use an automatic shuffle machine, the amount of hands lost by the casino is not significant.

If I were in casino management this would be my primary action against an advantage player. The other methods used might be employed against teams and the use of a huge spread to offset reduced penetration. So you are welcome to play any game at our casino except blackjack will have a 50% or less penetration in the shoe game.

Victoria

You're Using Way Too Much Common Sense! :-) *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 28-Jun-2004 11:30:15 (#9024)

And that is why I will never be in Casino Management *NM*
Posted by Victoria on 29-Jun-2004 14:01:44 (#9035)

Foxwoods?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 28-Jun-2004 15:45:49 (#9026)

That sounds like something they'd do there. Once in a while you can find a dealer cutting those 8 deck shoes down to a deck. Usually they are down around 1.5 decks, and if they are cutting a full 2 I find another table. Over at Mohegan they will cut anywhere from 0.75 to 2 decks out of a 6 deck shoe. A slight advantage, but the shuffle is not as trackable as the Foxwoods one. It's a wash as to which store has the better game.

What kind of stakes/spread were you playing in CT, to get any kind of attention at all from the pit?

Foxwoods
Posted by Boston_Jaxel on 29-Jun-2004 08:19:25 (#9029)

I don't think it was directed towards me, I was spreading 1-10 ($10) But another guy at the table was was only betting $10 on neg counts, then betting over $500 when the TC was high. He left after that shoe, but the pen stayed the same, so I left too. I don't think they would even look at me, next to a guy throwing around black like that...

-Jax

Phantom - You've Got Mail *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 25-Jun-2004 09:09:56 (#8963)

Black Belt in BJ
Posted by Gordon Gekko on 25-Jun-2004 14:23:02 (#8976)

Anyone know of a source for this out of print classic? Mine blew-up.

Back in print soon...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Jun-2004 17:21:48 (#8983)

... from Cardoza Publishing, or locate a used copy via Amazon. Good to see you! zg (greed is good)

Barnes & Nobles
Posted by Royam on 25-Jun-2004 18:45:20 (#8987)

Barnes & Nobles:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/index.asp?userid=bsq1YVFtFP

Enter your zip code in the shop locator and give them a ring. Order your book under a fake name and tell them you'll pick them up 10 days later. It works great for most books, including Blackbelt.

Books that are out of print (Million Dollar BJ, Beyond Counting, etc.) can only be purchased "used" and this needs be done online. It sucks because you would have to give your real name/payment information.

Royam

Barnes & Nobles
Posted by Gordon Gekko on 25-Jun-2004 20:48:07 (#8993)

Will I be able to order Beyond Counting at face value too? ;) ;)

Currently Out of Print *LINK*
Posted by MrPill on 26-Jun-2004 15:56:08 (#8998)

The BBinBJ they have pictured is actually Blackjack Wisdom. I'm not sure you would actually find any BBinBJ since it is currently out of print.

A new edition is to be released this fall.

Pill

Some of the content is available online
Posted by Seeker on 28-Jun-2004 09:42:14 (#9018)

While you wait for the third edition to published later this year, you can find much (though not all) of the content of the second edition at http://www.bjfonline.com/play.cfm and http://www.bjfonline.com/beat.cfm.

Maybe John Patrick should take lessons...
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Jun-2004 14:39:20 (#8977)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/06/24/poker.pooches.ap/index.html

--Mayor

Take lessons?...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Jun-2004 17:19:53 (#8982)

... thats his class! zg

Zen Newbie Q&A
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Jun-2004 19:04:10 (#8990)

Posted By: zengrifter
Date: 6/25/04 5:02:00 p.m.

Schmedley writes:
**ZG responds -

I was wondering if I could get your Zen indices, as you kindly offered. I am currently practising based on the explanations in Blackbelt, but have a few doubts in 2 regards:

1) The indices in Blackbelt are not the same as those shown in the software I purchased (Ne Plus Ultra). Annoying. If you could confirm that those in Blackbelt are correct, that would be great.

**I'm assuming that you purchased the '98 edition of Blackbelt - the indices are for a 1/4D TC - you may use them as is -or- you may multiply them x2 for 1/2D TC or x4 for 1D TC

**My 'new' Zen indices are the Snyder TE indices x4 w/ minor RA enhancements.

**Does the latest NeUltra allow you to substitute your own indices? If not, the NeUltra indices are fine also.

I'm thinking of purchasing another software (I heard CVBJ is the best and it is not that expensive, $90), do you have any suggestion?

**Stick w/ NeUltra

2) I aslo want to make sure I practise right. Let's say my base bet is $10. When the count is negative, I drop it to $5.

**In a 6-8D game start at $5... in fact its best if you bet 0 (wonging).

Let's say my running count is 30, with 5 decks remaining. I divide 30 by 5*4=20, which gives me a "true edge" (as Snyder calls it) of 1.5. At this stage I raise my bet to $15. I do not raise it to $20 untill my true edge reaches 2, etc...

**TE is calc'd after starting housEdge is deducted

What I mean is that with this true edge conversion, I don't bother calculating the decimals,

**IF decimals are easy for you, calc the TE to the nearest 0.5

Is this technically correct? I know I won't do this in casinos or I will be
labelled "counter" in no time, but I'm just trying to have this game
(count/convert/adjust bet and strategy) as a second nature. Then I'll work on cover.

**You do not need cover with small stakes.

I'm asking because I was surprised to see how rarely I get big counts.

**Thats why wonging is best.

I also read in K-O BJ that some european Casino subscribe to Griffin... it sucks, I hoped it would be a little more lay-back there.

**Small stakes wonging requires NO COVER anywhere (when playing 6-8D games)

I was also shocked to read that card-counting would be illegal in Monte-Carlo... do you have information in this regard?

**Not illegal... small players will have no problems there.

Sorry to ask so many questions by email, but I read the two "espionage" posts on Snyder's website and don't feel like posting too much about myself anymore.

Schmedely

**Nothing posted here will give you away. zg

What are TC and TE exactly? Only difference is that TE = TC - HouseEdge? *NM*
Posted by Royam on 26-Jun-2004 13:55:20 (#8997)

True edge is not advantage
Posted by Seeker on 28-Jun-2004 09:31:29 (#9017)

zengrifter writes in part:

"TE is calc'd after starting housEdge is deducted."

Snyder uses "true edge" to mean the extent to which the advantage has shifted in a player-favorable direction as a result of card depletion. He writes, "Note that with the Hi-Lo Lite, you must subtract the house advantage off the top from the true edge to arrive at your advantage." (from http://www.bjfonline.com/chpt9.cfm) The reason to do it this way is that play variations are keyed to specific TE index numbers. For this purpose, the starting house edge doesn't matter. Whether to stand on 15 vs. 9 is unaffected by whether you can double after splits.

Yes. I don't like...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Jun-2004 11:04:13 (#9023)

For this purpose, the starting house edge doesn't matter. Whether to stand on 15 vs. 9 is unaffected by whether you can double after splits.
---------------

...the term 'True Edge' for this reason. In my previous answer I was referring to bet-size calc. I use a 1D TC adjust. zg

Betting scale
Posted by Royam on 28-Jun-2004 15:23:04 (#9025)

So TE is like TC in the end, no? Except that TC is usually caclulated "per deck" and the TE in the Zen system is explained by Arnold Snyder as a count "per quarter deck". Not of much importance anyway, I compared with the indices I have for the hi-low and I'm pretty sure I'm doing it correct (whereas I was first wondering if I would not be using indices 2 or 4 times too "small", if you see what I mean).

Anyway, what would be a good betting spread then, based on the TE?

What about this:
TE below 1: 1 unit,
TE reaches 1: 2 units,
TE reaches 1.5: 3 units,
TE reaches 2: 4 units,
TE reaches 2.5: 5 units,
TE reaches 3: 6 units,
TE reaches 3.5: 7 units,
TE reaches 4: 8 units,
TE reaches 4.5: 10 units,
TE reaches 5: 12 units,
TE reaches 5.5: 14 units,
TE reaches 6: 16 units.
TE reaches more: mental orgasm.

Royam

Its partially rules and...
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Jun-2004 11:43:51 (#9034)

... BR dependent, but here's my suggestion (rough) -

600 BR
6-8D (not 1-2D)
(TE = 1/4D TC)

WONG:
TE reaches .2-.5: 1 unit,
TE reaches .5: 2 units,
TE reaches 1: 4 units,
TE reaches 1.5: 4-4 units,
TE reaches 2: 5-5 units,
TE reaches 3: 6-6 units,

PLAY ALL:
TE below .2: 1/4 unit
TE between .2-.5: 1/2 unit,
TE reaches .5: 2 units,
TE reaches 1: 4 units,
TE reaches 1.5:4-4 units,
TE reaches 2: 5-5 units,
TE reaches 3: 6-6 units,

Thx, but need 1 precision
Posted by Royam on 29-Jun-2004 14:03:59 (#9036)

To make sure I understand it right, could you please confirm the meaning of the abbreviations:

600 BR: means bankroll of 600 units?
6-8D (not 1-2D) : means 6 to 8 decds (not 1-2 decks)?
(TE = 1/4D TC): means true edge equals quarter deck true count? (I must be wrong on that one)

Thanks,

Royam

ZEN TE is a 1/4D TC
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Jun-2004 15:59:23 (#9037)

TE = 1/4D TC): means true edge equals quarter deck true count? (I must be wrong on that one)
-----------------

The '98 version Zen is based on a 1/4D TC-adjustment - Halves was based on a 1D TC, right? Don't call it TE anymore, call it by what it is - in the case of '98 Zen its a 1/4D TC. zg

Lol, ok
Posted by Royam on 29-Jun-2004 18:06:24 (#9038)

I thought you were using the "=" as in a mathematical equation, my bad.

Now it's clear and I agree with you, the "TE" expression is misleading.

Thanks

Royam

4 deck game optimal system/ betting spread?
Posted by bryan on 27-Jun-2004 13:23:35 (#9003)

I was reading on Bj21.com in the blackjack school section that 4 deck games require at betting spread of 1 to 12, while 6 deck games require only 1-8.
Why is this? It would seem that the 4 deck game should require the smaller spread.
The rules of the game that I play are as follows: Early surrender (except vs. ace), DA2, DAS, H17, 4 decks.
The allowed betting range is $5-$100
But I also play at a table where it is $5-$50

Currently I use wong halves and I bet as follows TC bet

- or 0 $5

+1 $10

2 $20

3 $30

4 $40

5 $50

6 $60

Is this a favorable game? Am I using an appropriate betting strategy?

THanx

What's The Penetration? *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 27-Jun-2004 16:19:17 (#9008)

Not a bad game...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 27-Jun-2004 18:29:40 (#9010)

Except for the H17. This sounds like a local game somewhere between the Rockies and the Missississpi, and 4 deck is a good deal because you get the cards dealt face up and you don't have the long waits and other disadvantages of 6D or 8D.

A 1-12 spread is good on any game, it is not true that you need a larger spread with a lower number of decks. The only reason you'd want to lower your spread is to keep yourself from being booted out of the casino. You can use the same strategy and spread with any shoe game, 4D to 8D, only changes you'll have to make are for H17/S17. and DAS/no DAS. DD requires some subtle changes, and SD is a very different kind of game. Halves is a very strong system for shoe games, you might want to consider waiting for TC=+2 before raising your bet at all, but other than that it sounds like you're doing everything right. (Not that I'm an expert or anything.)

Here is a spread for Hi-Lo
Posted by John on 27-Jun-2004 21:16:18 (#9011)

Here is an optimal 1-12 spread spit out from CVCX. This spread is designed to optimize bankroll growth. You can see how it is and maybe translate it to Halves if you don't have software to do so.
Basically, CVCX says to get the money out as quickly as possible at +2 TC. What true count that is for Halves I don't know.

0....1 unit
1....2 units
2....6 units
3....9 units
4....12 units

To me, this is different than your spread, but it seems to me your spread would work but may not make as much as one that is generated from a software program.

1 - 12 spread Halves from CVCX
Posted by John on 27-Jun-2004 21:30:42 (#9012)

Hey. I put your game into CVCX. The only difference was that I used late surrender instead of early since it wasn't available.

The optimal spread it kicked out for a 4 deck H17 game like yours with 70 % pen was this:

0....1 unit
1....2 units
2....4 units
3....8 units
4....10 units
5....12 units

Very similar to yours actually.

Early Surrender
Posted by DeadMoney on 27-Jun-2004 23:23:22 (#9013)

This should be correct. He meant late surrender. Early surrender is against an Ace prior to checking the hole card. Early surrender doesn't exist anywhere and that is why it is not on your software. Late surrender is your first 2 cards against anything other than a Natural and can be found on some shoes games.

CVData supports ESR
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 28-Jun-2004 00:27:44 (#9014)

Although it doesn't exist in any organized game in North America anymore, according to CBJN. I hear it is found in some overseas casinos and will occasionally turn up in a private game.

Only got to play it once, I was at a table where the BJ-checking device wasn't working, so the dealer was not checking and only collecting original bets if he had a BJ. But he was honoring surrenders on the spot. He did this for about an hour before a PC came over and corrected him. Pretty cool, no?

Clearly should have played Double Deck
Posted by John on 28-Jun-2004 03:56:06 (#9015)

I did some analysis on CVCX regarding my last trip. There is no doubt that I should have played the double deck even if the pen was 50 %. I got c-score of 42 on the method that I was playing on double deck. I was spreading 1 - 30 and getting away with it. I happen to get unlucky and stopped after a few shoes. That was so much better than the c-score of 17 I was getting on 6 deck. I really need a laptop to bring with me on these trips.

Usually it's better
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 28-Jun-2004 10:40:52 (#9022)

Yeah a DD game is almost always better than a 6D game, unless the rules and pen are much better on the shoe. There are always exceptions.

A laptop is a handly thing to have with you but be careful. Last winter they broke into my motel room in Reno and stole mine. I've noticed in some of the newer casino hotel rooms they provide safes that will accomodate a laptop.

Hello Zen G.
Posted by JB on 28-Jun-2004 10:10:59 (#9021)

I dropped in from the East mid week and we spoke at length about, specifically, Uston, Celini, and longevity, and that table with the "east coast" logo. R u still there? Would like to visit again in mid July. Thoroughly enjoyed our conversations and your extensive knowledge of the game.

Yes, hi...
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Jun-2004 11:15:38 (#9031)

... not at GGS anymore. Here is the story I told you about -
http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?read=774 zg

Where now?
Posted by JB on 07-Jul-2004 11:13:02 (#9139)

Thanks, did read back in April as soon as I got back. Interesting, to say the least.

You around anywhere else these days?

Basic Strategy - A, 2, 5 vs 3
Posted by DSCH on 29-Jun-2004 09:08:19 (#9030)

Let's say I have an Ace and a 2 vs the dealer's 3. I know that the correct basic strategy play is to Hit. So I Hit and get a 5. What is the next move?

I know that with a soft 18, I'm supposed to Double vs a 3, but obviously I cannot do that on my 3rd card...

Play it normal
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 29-Jun-2004 11:43:12 (#9033)

Play it just like the chart says. That's a stand. There are games where you can double on 3 cards and count your blessings if you're in one.

Mayor spotted in Nevada?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 30-Jun-2004 03:48:48 (#9039)

Or it could have been his twin brother. I won't say where until he says it wasn't him, or that he's out of the venue.

Could be...
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Jun-2004 10:44:10 (#9041)

Haven't been in Nevada in a few weeks...

I guess not
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 30-Jun-2004 16:45:03 (#9042)

Must have been your twin brother I saw playing at the best green chip SD in town. I was the wiseguy at the other table being a heat magnet.

You get around
Posted by John on 30-Jun-2004 18:49:41 (#9043)

Wow, Automatic, I thought you were strictly east coast. You are becoming international, and that is very good.

I had a great week. 168 green units in 2 1/2 days. Not bad but big brother is watching.

Twins
Posted by revereman on 01-Jul-2004 09:12:38 (#9046)

I was checking out of Foxwoods once and my family was waiting outside one of the casinos for me. When I came up to them, they took a double take because they saw me playing in the casino. I took a double take too since I saw me playing in the casino. I guess the moral of the story is that there are many good looking BJ players around. I didn't go in to look closer. Would have been too weird but now I wish I had.

twins
Posted by suicyco maniac on 01-Jul-2004 20:56:57 (#9055)

I feel sorry for the poor ploppy who gets barred for being Eliot. I can hear it now "what do you mean I can't play BJ?"...."Don't play stupid with me Mr. Jacobson you know why!!!"....."Mr. Who???" God that would be great...SM

That's a great image!!! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 01:02:06 (#9060)

Mine
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Jul-2004 08:54:22 (#9064)

gives traffic reports on CP24 in the AM in Toronto. ;>

Radio
Posted by revereman on 02-Jul-2004 09:10:18 (#9066)

I heard you had a face for radio, Rob. :)

Hahahahaha!!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Jul-2004 09:20:47 (#9067)

Nice one. As I get older I have been compared to Clint Eastwood and Kirk Douglas in their 40's. Not bad company I must say. Who have you been compared to by your close friends??

twins
Posted by revereman on 02-Jul-2004 13:44:25 (#9078)

not on a public forum. some places might actually figure out who I am.

Stricttly DD
Posted by RyguyRocky on 01-Jul-2004 01:24:33 (#9044)

Hey guys.

I play strictly DD $5 min, DOA, DAS. Penetration is very good where I play. 60-75%. Last time I played there the dealer RAN OUT OF CARDS! There was 4 of us at the table and he cuts so deep he runs out of cards. He's like SH#! PIT! The PB comes over and all apologetic.. Like it's a bad thing! I'm sitting there with a huge grin on my face! After the last card was dealt I had the count at 1. It's a good feeling to know that he burned a ten off the top while the ploppies are all looking at each other wondering what's going on!

But I digress....

I have a very conservative spread. I fear that I'm not taking full advantage of good counts.

Here is what I am doing at the table. I would like to hear some comments/suggestions. I am a red player. :)

0 - 1 unit
1 - 1 unit
2 - 2 units
3 - 3 units
4 - 4 units
5 - 5 units
6 - 6 units
7+ - 8 units

My max bet is $40 at +7 or more.

Are You Using Hi/Lo?
Posted by SammyBoy on 01-Jul-2004 09:51:44 (#9047)

If so I would have my max bet out at +5.

Bet spread
Posted by DSCH on 01-Jul-2004 11:06:01 (#9052)

So it seems that a betting spread of the following might be good:

TC <=1 Min bet
TC = 2, 3, or 4 1/2 Max bet
TC >=5 Max bet

What do you think?

Non-Optimal
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 01-Jul-2004 12:53:06 (#9053)

I think you would be overbetting on your +2 counts, and really underbetting your +4 counts.

Depatures from the optimal bet spread I posted below can only perform less effectively. Exceptions being using a larger spread, instead of the 1:8 shown, or wonging on negative counts, etc.

The advantage of your bet spread is there are only 3 jumps, (min., half/max, and max.) so this might provide some cover, instead of mechanically racheting the shown optimal spread up and down constantly.

However, I think I would work on ACT or other methods to get the optimal spread down, before hurting my EV by using less optimal betting patterns. (A pattern is a pattern, if watched long enough or close enough, eventually it will be detected.)

Yes. Hi-Lo ** NM ** *NM*
Posted by ryguyrocky on 02-Jul-2004 14:00:38 (#9079)

Conservative = losing money
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Jul-2004 10:07:08 (#9049)

You are losing a lot of money by your spread. If your objective by being conservative is to reduce swings, then I suggest not playing (or getting a day job). If your objective by being conservative is to optimize the ratio EV/SD (which means winning as much as possible per unit variance), then you should ramp up MUCH more quickly, with your max bet at +5 consisting of 8 units.

--Mayor

I use Hi-Lo---max bet at TC= +4 == Mo Money *NM*
Posted by John on 01-Jul-2004 10:12:29 (#9050)

Double Deck Spread
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 01-Jul-2004 10:50:58 (#9051)

+0 -- 1 unit
+1 -- 2 unit
+2 -- 3 unit
+3 -- 5 unit
+4 -- 7 unit
+5 -- 8 unit

Wow
Posted by RyguyRocky on 02-Jul-2004 14:22:26 (#9081)

thanks for all the great responses!

I see where I am going wrong... I was under the impression that a good spread for me would be 1 unit per TC. (BTW Mayor I do have a day job) :)
I am not getting the $$ out fast enough.

I have adjusted my spread accordingly and will begin using either

AdM's

+0 -- 1 unit
+1 -- 2 unit
+2 -- 3 unit
+3 -- 5 unit
+4 -- 7 unit
+5 -- 8 unit

or kRis's

+0 -- 1 unit
+1 -- 2 unit
+2 -- 4 unit
+3 -- 6 unit
+4 -- 8 unit

Reason for my spread.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 02-Jul-2004 15:18:40 (#9083)

+0 -- 1 unit
+1 -- 2 unit
+2 -- 3 unit
+3 -- 5 unit
+4 -- 7 unit
+5 -- 8 unit

If you study the actual true edge at certain true counts in typical double deck games, there is very little difference between a +1 and +2 count (yes, there is increased edge, but in percentage terms, not that great).

But there is a big jump in advantage between a +2 and a +3 count, hence the bigger increase in bet:
(+1 -- 2 unit to +2 -- 3 unit = 50% increase,
+2 -- 3 unit to +3 -- 5 unit = 66% increase)
This is probably due to some double down indexes kicking in.

+4 count and +5 count, the advantage increases some, but not much in percentage terms. Probably because whatever deviations you are doing to basic strategy at +4, you are pretty much also doing at +5.

And that is why it also doesn't make much difference what you do at even higher counts. First, higher than +6 counts are rare, and there really isn't much more advantage at +8 than +9, for example. Yes, there is some increase, but not enough to significently increase the percentage of your bankroll you are putting on the table.

My DD Spread
Posted by kRis on 02-Jul-2004 00:49:12 (#9059)

I use 2 units per TC up to TC=4. Sometimes I go higher but you have to consider bankroll. I base this spread on highly effective computer simulations and analysis. I also mix it up to avoid a pattern and employ some cover betting such as letting max bets ride to the next shoe if the pit is watching or if they recently made a call to surveillance. For red chipping you don't have to worry about all that too much.

Good Luck,
kRis

I Used to Use
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Jul-2004 08:51:34 (#9063)

the running count in red using Hi Opt II, which was conservative even then, but very easy to do. My spread would often get into the high teens this way. Cover was using the Martingale at times in red. You can often make your next bet look like a double up, or a reverse Marty after that, all within the parameters of the count. It looks like a dogs breakfast to anyone watching, but its still fulla meat n gravy.

Vintage RoboCount *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Jul-2004 15:03:38 (#9082)

Risk of losing half of my bankroll
Posted by maggimaster on 01-Jul-2004 02:27:47 (#9045)

If I know my Risk of ruin for my whole bankroll (let's assume it is 10%), can I calculate the risk of losing one half or 1/4 of my bankroll?

Regards, maggi

Answer
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Jul-2004 10:03:17 (#9048)

If you ROR for your whole bankroll is 10%, the you have a 31.6% chance of losing 1/2 your bankroll and a 56.2% chance of losing 1/4 of your bankroll.

--Mayor

risk of losing half of the bankroll
Posted by maggimaster on 02-Jul-2004 03:21:59 (#9061)

Mayor, thanks for your answer. Can I scale it linearly, means with 1% ROR I have 3,16% chance of losing half the bankroll?

Greetings, maggimaster

A little math
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 09:54:59 (#9069)

If your risk of losing x is y then your risk of losing (1/2)x is sqrt(y).

Puzzled
Posted by Stealth Bomber on 02-Jul-2004 09:09:32 (#9065)

Mayor, I'm baffled by how the numbers can be so high in this analogy regarding ROR. For example: Your numbers, ROR 1/2 = 31.6 and ROR 1/4 = 56.2 . Without knowing how to do the math for this, and based on the direction your numbers are headed, I will estamate the ROR for 1/8 to be about 70%. How is this possible if we are playing with 0% - 2% edge? Can variance be this bad? Maybe that's why I've been on the "sucking eggs" side lately.

Answers
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 09:52:13 (#9068)

>I will estamate the ROR for 1/8 to be about 70%.

Close -- 74.9%

>How is this possible if we are playing with 0% - 2% edge?

It be possible.

>Can variance be this bad?

That's the game of blackjack, take it or leave it ...

ROR of Kelly betting 10% ?
Posted by Markus on 02-Jul-2004 12:16:12 (#9071)

Mayor,

the risk of losing half the bankroll for Kelly bettors is 33.3%, which is pretty close to your 31.8% for a ROR of 10%. Does this mean that the ROR for Kelly bettors is close to 10% ??? I am confused because I thought that Kelly bettors would have a ROR of 0%.

Greetings, Maggimaster

common confusion
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 12:27:32 (#9072)

True Kelly betting has you resizing your wager after each bet based on your current bankroll size and current edge. In this case the risk of ruin is 0%.

The typical way ROR is determined is that one computes optimal Kelly betting once, based on a fixed bankroll, then one does not resize bets at any future point. Without resizing, there is a real possibility of losing the entire BR. It is the latter that is typically assumed when discussed ROR or trip-ROR.

--Mayor

Zeno's Paradox, then?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 06-Jul-2004 13:37:28 (#9131)

But won't any betting system reduce your risk of ruin to zero if you can always reduce your bet based on your bankroll? For example, I could set up a system where my max bet equals 1/16 of my bankroll. That way, I can split 4 times, double on each hand, lose all bets and still only lose half of my bankroll. What makes Kelly any better than that?

What makes kelly "optimal'
Posted by CT Counter on 08-Jul-2004 00:49:27 (#9155)

Kelly is better if your goal is to maximize the expected growth rate of your bankroll. Lots of fractional betting schemes keep your bank above zero, if you had infinitely divisible capital. But Kelly gives you the fastest growth rate, meaning the fewest average hands to double your bankroll.

there are some excellent posts by some very good players at BJ21.com and bjmath.com, as well as the paper by Kelly on proportional betting on bjmath.com. I imagine there may be some fine posts here as well but I am not as familiar with this site.

Podium
Posted by suicyco maniac on 01-Jul-2004 22:24:52 (#9056)

I would have taken his money If I didnt someone else would...But I am a greedy heartless SOB. All my time in casinos has hardened me. Good to see you did the right thing though Eliot... :)

My Hero
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Jul-2004 08:28:05 (#9062)

I was at the late great Binion's and there was a guy there so pissed he had to hold himself up with the blackjack table he was playing. He was stacking reds into the rafters, and winning bags of reds from the table. Later that night he was bagging greens the same way. They had to carry him to his comped room and his greens to the cage for him. How could I help him? I picked his droped chips up for him and helped him stack them, and told him the proper play for each play ala the count.

There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity and you seemed to walk that line this time and fell on the right side of the fence. I'd be a bit more cautious Eliot. It's one thing to get nailed defending your family, and something totally different for a few bucks, even of a drunken stranger who will lose it that way or another. Your actions were noble and worth bosting of, but I suggest you be more careful.

Vigilance
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 10:09:04 (#9070)

My wife's reaction when she read the podium was that without a moral point, the story was simply vigilatiism. She inspired the penultimate paragraph, about the question we each face in such situations -- which occur in life far more than we may realize. It is our obligation as citizens to both fight against those laws that are immoral and unjust, and to support those laws we believe in that are moral. Both sides of this apply to the advantage community as well.

As advantage players, we face an immoral and unethical adversary (the casino), we are fighting for our rights to play the games by the rules offered, without an invasion of our personal privacy. And, in the singular instance described in the podium, I was able to wage the good fight from the other direction.

Life provides many circumstances where we can stand on our own moral high-ground, righteousness is easy. It is important to choose our battles wisely.

--Mayor

Similar situation at Horseshoe - I was later ejected for calling GCB *LINK*
Posted by Al Rogers on 02-Jul-2004 14:13:32 (#9080)

Congratulations to The Mayor for standing up for what is right.

We had a lengthy discussion on BJ21.com Green Chip about the similar incident reported in the newspaper story below.

My June 7 Green Chip post follows:

Saturday evening, while I was walking through the Horseshoe (I had not played or watched any of the games), I was approached by three security guards. One of the guards asked me, "Haven't you been '86'ed' from this property?" I replied no, and asked why he thought I should have been "86'd." The guard replied, "After you called Gaming a couple of weeks ago about that drunk, the shift manager you complained about told us that if you ever return, we have to tell you to leave the property."

They were polite, and seemed to be embarrassed by what they were doing. There was no attempt to "backroom" me, no demand for identification, and no threats made. They did not read the trespass act to me. I promptly complied with their request, and left the premises. They did not follow me to the door.

I am still waiting for Harrah's response. I doubt if there will be one.

The Mayor wrote:

As advantage players, we face an immoral and unethical adversary (the casino) ...

Well said.

Sounds
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 05-Jul-2004 08:57:17 (#9110)

just like the guy I saw there. He was a reg customer and got pretty tanked while playing. It's sad to see people with so many personality problems like alkie ism and gambling, and the vultures that continue to allow them to kill themselves.

My Thoughts as Well
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Jul-2004 12:31:51 (#9073)

You did a good thing. It's hard to say what I would or would not have done since I was not actually there, but I probably would have said something to the floor. I doubt very seriously I would have called Gaming Control, unless they had really pissed me off. I generally try to mind my own business, but I have a weakness in that I like to help people. I often cause myself alot of problems because of this.

Too bad you didn't...
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Jul-2004 12:45:28 (#9074)

... do it during an episode of Casino! zg

It Would have been cool to see the Mayor on TV! *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Jul-2004 12:48:48 (#9075)

That occured to me
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jul-2004 13:13:38 (#9076)

It would have been great to get this on film and broadcast nationally -- it would have been 100% worthwhile ...

Speaking of national TV, today at 4PM Fox Sports is having their next installment of the poker tournament at the Plaza on June 6. I was there at the final heads-up match. If they broadcast the conclusion today, look for yours truly.

--Mayor

Podium
Posted by Sohrab on 02-Jul-2004 13:43:49 (#9077)

I admire your courage, but I do not know if I agree with you. I would feel better if you had stopped a drunk blackjack player from losing to the casino. Then I would know you were right.

It is easy for blackjack playrs to feel good about money taken from rich, nasty casino, but all poker players take advantage of their brains to take money from less smart people. This is poker.

When Bill Gates was in town for Comdex, big poker players tried to get him in their game so they could take his money, too, but he wouldn't play with them. Bill is too smart.

How do you draw line between drunk poker player and bad poker player? Or between bad poker player and good player who got angry and now plays bad (tilted)? I wonder what you think?

Poker Software
Posted by John on 02-Jul-2004 22:29:33 (#9084)

Hey,

I got the money to buy poker books and software, now so I was wondering what some of you poker professionals thought of the software located at

http://www.poki-poker.com/

I just want to study it for right now in between playing blackjack. It seems a lot of mathematicians are making it to final tables in WPT and that was my major in college so I thought I study that and game theory and see what I think about it.

Just trying to do anything I can to NOT get a real job.

Ko Count: Risk of Ruin
Posted by MJ on 03-Jul-2004 17:39:38 (#9087)

This is my first post on this site and I just wanted to say I think your doing a good job of educating BJ players and sharing knowledge about the game!

Mayor, I was wondering what the ROR(risk of ruin) is if my bankroll is $1500 and I go into Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun and spread from $15 to $150? I would be using the KO Preferred system in a 6 deck game. How many hands would it take to double my bankroll and what are my chances of success assuming typical rules with Late Surrender and 75% penetration? 65% penetration? Right off the top my Basic Strategy expectation would be in the neighborhood of -.36% right?

What about the same spread ($15 to $150) for a bankroll of $3000? Any words of wisdom would greatly be appreciated!!! Thanks a million....

-MJ

Casey
Posted by Ed on 30-Sep-2004 17:41:52 (#10322)

I almost bought Casey last year. I became sidetracked,was in the hopital etc.
It still does interest me, thogh. I go way back to when Thorpe came out with
his first "ten count." Also, I knew lawrence Revere and took some lessons from him. He was then known as "Specs Parsons." (I worked with him at the old El Cortez, in Vegas, in the early 60's)
I didn't know his real name for
a long time. I spent a lot of my life in the casino business on both sides
of the pit and in the slots :-) Ah, those were the days.

I used to a lot of crossroading in the 60's and 70's. And carrying a computer
seems pretty tame to me,now. Especially in these Indian Casinos where the
help don't even know they're alive. I know the jail time etc. But Casey is only illegal in four states, right? If "they" take it away in a backroom deal,
one could get another. I just would't jump my bet around in an out of line manner so some idiot boss that couldn't count anyway would think I was.
I tried to bring up the discussion of May 22,2003 regarding Casey and can't
get it to come up.
What were the things that appear to be bad with Casey.
Coming out of retirement.
Ed.
I may not be able to respond right away, as I'm going away for a few days.
I appreciate any thoughts you may have. I haven't done anything in quite
a while, been out of touch.

It is a felony now
Posted by Sohrab on 01-Oct-2004 02:24:35 (#10333)

and they would not just take it. They would send you to jail. The police and courts love casinos and will protect them. If you knew Spec you are not young. Do not spend your last years in jail. It is not worth the risk.

what me worry ?
Posted by gehrig on 01-Oct-2004 10:47:35 (#10334)

with a dime in the joint a fellow could sharpen his theoretical 21 skills, between the marx and lenin readings. and with a clandestine, felon banked 21 game therein, could be the fellow would accumulate enough cigarettes to maintain the junk addiction.

sounds like a win-win.

Ploppy answer
Posted by Royam on 04-Jul-2004 00:08:40 (#9089)

Hi MJ,

I'm also new here and still a ploppy. I'll answer what I can and the experts will correct me and supplement with more detailed answers.

The numbers you mention do not sound good. The ratio of your big bet to your total bankroll is 1/10. As a comparison, Wong who bets conservatively speaks of 1/150 if you play a single hand or 1/200 if you play 2 hands. Other authors (namely Snyder) recommend no more than a 1/100 ratio.

I am incapable of answering your question regarding your exact ROR using the mentioned bet spread with your bankroll, but it would be way too high. From a more pragmatic perspective, the problem I see with a $1,500 BR is that your biggest bet should be $15 or so and that it will be hard to find tables where you can still have a bet-spread that allows you to take full advantage of the count without overbetting, which would increase your ROR.

I have no casino experience, but from what I've read, you might want to be careful with the spread you mention. 1-15 might draw heat if you begin to win regularly or play big. Authors recommend finding other ways to get an edge than crazy bet variations (e.g. wonging, playing 2 hands when count is positive, etc.), or have a real good act.

As for how many hands you would need to play, your expectation for for complete KO system, 6 decks, using a 1-10 spread (traditional rules) is .73 %. It seems that, if you play an average of $10 a hand, 100 hands an hour, you would make $7.30 an hour, so about 200 hours of play to double your BR.

Now I leave the word to the experts...

Royam

Your answer is great
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Jul-2004 09:36:06 (#9090)

I don't have the software to easily run a sim for this person, but there is absolutely no doubt that playing a $150 max bet with a $1500 or even $3000 bankroll is absurd. The entire bankroll could easily be lost the first session.

If I were to ball-park this, I would say there is about an 80% ROR with a $1500 BR and about a 65% ROR with a $3000 BR.

--Mayor

How can ROR be so high?
Posted by MJ on 04-Jul-2004 18:43:46 (#9100)

Mayor,

Pardon my ignorance as I am a newbie but how can the Risk of Ruin be so high as 80% for a $1500 BR and 65% for a $3000 BR(spreading $15 to $150 in both instances)? I don't doubt that you are correct but I would just like to understand your reasoning behind your estimates. Your figures are a rude awakening to me and make me think twice about hitting the tables!

Allow me to explain my reasoning and maybe you can correct my fallacies about the game. Recall that the games I would be playing in are 6D, S17, DAS, DA2, and Late Surrender. All of these rules would provide a -.36% expectancy for the player. Thats nearly a dead even game already!

Lets assume for just a moment I were flat betting at $15 a hand. In the short run I could easily come out ahead but in the long run I understand that I am destined to lose. Thats just the law of large numbers...The longer I play the more inevitable losing becomes as the house will grind out its .36% edge. So how do I get ahead? Alas the KO system!!

Now, Dr. Vancura states in "Knock-Out Blackjack" that employing a 1-10 bet spread with the rules described above(excluding late surrender) would allow the player a .73% expectancy using the KO-Preferred system. So now I have the advantage! I understand a little about standard deviation and variance but with this system shouldn't I win the at least the majority of the time(meaning I earn more then I lose)? When I place my top bets at the high running counts shouldn't I win the majority of those bets? If anything shouldn't my ROR be BELOW 50% for whichever bankroll I choose to employ? With your ROR estimates of 80% and 65%, I get the impression that NOT the counter but the house has the advantage. With an 80% ROR, that means I will ultimately go broke 4 out of 5 times I attempt this venture with a $1500 BR. I thought the odds were in the counters favor. Intuitively these RORs do not make sense to me. FOR MY SAKE AND THAT OF THE OTHER NEWBIES....PLEASE HELP.

Thanks,
-MJ

Confusing EV and StdDev
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Jul-2004 19:50:27 (#9103)

>With your ROR estimates of 80% and 65%, I get the impression that NOT the counter but the house has the advantage.

Don't confuse standard deviation with expected value. They are not the same thing.

For example, if you played a game that had 100 spots, and one spot payed 101-to-1, would you think that having 10 bets would be enough to beat this game? Or could you imagine you might have to play it 1000's of times (or more) to demonstrate your edge? That is not too far from what blackjack is like.

Standard deviation and expected value are different things. Have a positive EV does not mean there is no standard deviation to contend with.

As for how I arrived at the numbers, I used the standard SCORE model of a $10,000 bankroll and about a 13% ROR (which gives a max bet around $150), and worked backwards to your bankroll. Again, my estimates are rough, but I doubt many would say they are too low. If anything, your odds are higher than I posted of going broke.

--Mayor

Interesting Response
Posted by MJ on 05-Jul-2004 09:24:30 (#9111)

Thanks for the reply Mayor. You guys saved me $1500! That was a good example with the 100 spots. Just because I have a slight advantage in a game does not mean I will last long enough to realize it with only 10 bets...even if it does pay 101 to 1.

I was misguided in the belief that just b/c I have a positive EV I stood a good chance of winning the majority of ALL hands played in the long run. Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates that does not neccessarily have to be the case.

But please allow me to ask you this. If I were to wong my way into 100,000 hands that had a significantly high RUNNING COUNT(lets just say +4 which is the pivot point using KO system), would I win the majority of these(and ONLY these) hands played? Or would I still lose the majority of the time but make my juicy profits through double downs, blackjacks, splits, and index plays?

The author of "Las Vegas Blackjack Diaries" says you will lose more hands then you win, even at high counts. Some players tell me you win more hands during high counts and others say the opposite. Please set the record straight once and for all. Thanks again.

-MJ

W/L/T Percentage Changes with RC *LINK*
Posted by Dog Hand on 08-Jul-2004 23:09:51 (#9174)

MJ,

The link below shows the Win/Loss/Tie percentage as a function of High-Low RC. The conditions are 6 Decks, 75% penetration, 1-8 spread, no cover, S17, DAS, and LS, using the High-Low count. I know you asked about KO, but the differences will not be significant. As you can see in the chart, for reasonable RC values (say between -25 and +25) your Win percentage will be close to 43%. The major change at high RC is that as the RC increases, the Tie percentage increases.

Thus, the reasons a card counter makes money by betting big at high counts are the BJ bonus, more favorable double downs, and more favorable splits.

Hope this answers your question!

Dog Hand

$50 minimum at Foxwoods for 6 deck *NM*
Posted by John on 05-Jul-2004 02:05:04 (#9107)

6 deck $25 minimum/Foxwoods
Posted by Lars on 17-Jul-2004 21:29:36 (#9348)

I've played 6 deck at $25 minimum in the pasthell i even seen $10 and $15 minimums on 6 deck at certain days and hours for short times though.. admittingly i havent been to foxwoods in ages so it might or is different now..

Mayor's right..
Posted by Cyrano on 05-Jul-2004 04:16:47 (#9109)

I just simmed it with CVCX and it came to be 78.4% ROR with optimal spread.

Almost forgot
Posted by MJ on 04-Jul-2004 18:58:07 (#9101)

Just wanted to say thanks to Mayor and everyone else for answering my question.

-MJ

Another problem
Posted by Seeker on 04-Jul-2004 12:02:49 (#9092)

Your proposed spread between your highest and lowest bets is only 10-1. You should have an advantage at that ratio, but not all that much of one. At the eight-deck tables, you'll spend a lot of time playing your minimum bet in negative-expectation situations. These hands are so numerous that your expected losses on them, even at only $15 a hand, will take a serious bite out of your expected win on the few $150 hands.

The best alternative for your circumstances would be to back-count and Wong in when you find a favorable situation. After you Wong into one game, move on to another pit. I have no recent experience with this style of play at the Connecticut joints, but I think it's very likely that you'll have no heat problems at your bet level. The downside is that you'll have to do a lot of walking and then, when you've covered one casino, some driving followed by more walking. Welcome to the glamorous world of advantage play. The reason to put up with all this is that it's the only way to avoid paying the "rent" of playing all those negative-EV hands.

Find out, by observation or by asking, when the shifts change for pit personnel. If you time it right, you should be able to do a Wonging tour from one end of Foxwoods to the other, stop for a snack, and then start all over again with a bunch of pit critters who haven't seen you before.

At Foxwoods, last I knew, backlining was permitted. You assume the additional risk that the ploppy will misplay the hand, though. It doesn't take much departure from BS to wipe out the small edge you'll have even at a good count. If the count gets into positive-EV territory but someone grabs the only open spot before you do, you should probably resist the temptation to backline.

I'd advise you to forgo comps, i.e., don't get rated. You don't want to fix in the pit critter's mind the fact that you jumped into the middle of a shoe and then left at the shuffle. Your post gives the impression that you can readily return to these places fairly often, so even if you don't play the same pit twice on the same shift on the same day, over time they may come to recognize you. Not getting rated helps you avoid or at least delay that. Your comps with this style wouldn't be worth much, anyway.

Switching from a play-all style to Wonging should improve your hourly EV.

As for your original question, about RoR, I agree with everyone else that you shouldn't play with only ten max bets. I remember (all too vividly) a session in which I had a net loss of ten max bets in six minutes. Admittedly, that was in a heads-up game, which you won't get at Foxwoods. If you have a comparable bad run of cards at a full table, you can expect to survive for twelve or even fifteen minutes before blowing your entire bankroll. Most players wouldn't be comfortable with that level of risk, though.

You need about $23,000
Posted by John on 04-Jul-2004 13:37:19 (#9097)

I've never been to foxwoods or mohegan sun but I believe they are 8 deck games. I did a sim on your game. I believe that if you want to tackle foxwoods and mohegan, you will need a 1 - 16 spread at least. I believe 1 - 16 spreads are necessary for H17 6 deck games and 8 deck games to make it worthwhile. If I can get away with more, of course, I do it.

I put in 8 deck s17, DAS, DOA, Ls which is probably one of the best 8 deck games you can get. For 70 % pen, it said you need a bankroll of $23,000. This is if you spread 1 - 16. I get 10 % ROR, $38/hr, c-score of 18, DI= 4.32 .

For a 1 - 12 spread with the same minimum of $15, I get a ROR of 7.9 %, $28/hr, a c-score of 15 and DI= 3.96 .

Both of these strategies were play all strategies.

Good news, though.

If you have 4,000 dollars , you can wong those puppies.

Spread $15 to $60. This is exactly what you do for a game like this:

<0 .....don't play
1......$15
2......$20
3......$35
4......$45
5......$55
6......$60

That is the optimal 1 - 4 spread for wonging in an 8 deck game with the above rules.

Bad news is that you only make $8.17/hr .

All sims done with Basic Hi-Lo
Posted by John on 04-Jul-2004 13:45:04 (#9098)

Forgot some things

31 % ROR with your current bankroll of 1500 dollars wonging in .

Mayor was correct, about an 83 % ROR with a play all strategy with current 1500 dollar bankroll.

If you play 8 deck, make sure your count is ace-reckoned. (Hi-Lo or something)

Playing in those casinos
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 06-Jul-2004 16:53:18 (#9133)

I also play in those casinos, started my career there with even less capitalization. But I was very, very lucky and able to triple my bankroll before my first losing session.

Mohegan has 6 deck shoes out in the older "Casino of the Earth" section, and in the new section right near the Sunburst buffet. Foxwoods has only 8 deck except for the high-limit section (where you will definitely NOT be playing for a long time) which is 6. Now overall, Foxwoods had better average penetration *but* you can hunt around for better still penetration at the 6 deck shoes at Mohegan. Since you only care about the penetration at the table you are playing at, Mohegan can potentially give you a better game.

Wonging: both casinos are very Wongable, much easier to Wong out than in though. I'd strongly advise learning to Wong. Here's a way to Wong in with a partner: sit and play, and have your friend sitting there watching and "hanging out". When the count is right, call him a chicken for not betting and dare him toplace a big bet out.

ya
Posted by suicyco maniac on 06-Jul-2004 19:22:52 (#9135)

keeping one or two ploppies to wong out on can be a beautiful thing :-) I'm sorry I just have no more sympathy for people who willingly throw so much of their money and life down the tables with not even the slightest idea what they are doing.... SM

What I would do
Posted by Jman69 on 30-Sep-2004 19:45:59 (#10324)

Keep your max bet at 1% of your bankroll.
If you bet too much you will very likely lose your entire bankroll, then be forced to save up again from scratch.

Budget your income and set aside an amount of money you can afford to live without.
If you don't have enough money to spread 1-12 right now (keeping max bet at 1% of bankroll)
Wong into positive counts and exit on negative counts.
With wonging you don't need the full bet spread and can easily lay down 1% of your bankroll per hand in positive counts.

Trust me, feed your bankroll every week by $50-$100 + all your winnings and it will grow at a steady rate.
Bet too much and you will lose your bankroll over and over again.

What the heck- self-barred?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 04-Jul-2004 11:50:48 (#9091)

Holy cow, I was playing at a large shop on the Strip this week and a casino manager came over and told me my name was on a list of people who have barred themselves from the casino (due to a compulsive gambling problem), that I would be allowed(!) to cash my chips in but I would have to leave the casino floor.

After about 10 minutes of arguing they conceded it could be just a computer glitch and that I would be allowed to continue playing but I would be photographed. Sounds like BS to me. I was spreading heavy and winning, so I think this may have been a warning shot. So I responded by telling them no way, I don't want to play in your <expletives deleted> casino anymore and I want everyone's name because I'm going to get all of you <expletives deleted> fired for embarrassing a high roller at the table. (I'm not, but indicating that I think I am makes me sound like a real amateur. The whole purpose of standing and arguing was to act like an angry tourist.)

Now I've heard of this self-barring practice, and one of it's characteristics is that if you play after self-barring you agree to forfeit all winnings. This is what I thought might be coming. I'll be steering clear of this shop for a while.

Maybe Your Wife Put Your Name on the List? ;-) *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 04-Jul-2004 12:52:11 (#9093)

Are you not afraid casino employees might read your post and remember the incident with you? *NM*
Posted by Royam on 04-Jul-2004 13:09:50 (#9094)

He's not going back there... *NM*
Posted by John on 04-Jul-2004 13:14:29 (#9096)

Ok, but what about other casinos?
Posted by Royam on 04-Jul-2004 18:41:15 (#9099)

Certainly, the "incident" was recorded and casinos have a legal duty to keep tapes for a few days (don't remember how many, 7 I think).

So if surveillance people see this thread, is there no risk that his picture ends up in the Griffin book?

Royam

Way too paranoid
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Jul-2004 19:46:59 (#9102)

No casino person is going to read a thread, track down survellience, then try and retro-engineer who the person is. That kind of thing simply does not happen.

This site has my REAL name all over it.

I use my REAL ID when I play.

If I, by living example, am not proof enough of the fact that casinos do not monitor these sites or threads to ID players, what more do you want?

--Mayor

Not the same
Posted by Royam on 04-Jul-2004 22:08:39 (#9105)

You... have reached a level of fame where you are intouchable, or the crowds would be unleashed against the tortfeasors... Ok-ok...just kidding. I guess you must be right.

My paranoia comes from reading too much. One author, might be Snyder, used to organize BJ round-tables in his living-room. One casisno had a floorman drive 200 miles to infiltrate the round-table and identify counters. This was 20 years ago and I just assumed that today's living-room where place like this site... Wong recognized that his green chip is infiltrated and even a black chip membership was sold to the CEO of a Vegas Casino, who had used his real name.

Your web-site is THE first one to come when you research "card+counter" on google; you have your picture on your web-site and these guys can't smell you when you take their money... there is a problem in their system, no? Let's hope management at Griffin does not become more clever ;)

Royam

the issue seems to reduce to...
Posted by gehrig on 04-Jul-2004 23:01:18 (#9106)

the universality of the relatively new procedure of "self exclusion". if one were to request self exclusion from a joint, wouldn't it be consistent with the aim of that "protection" to advise other joints in the corporate group ? would that request not similarly be sent to credit central, accessible by virtually all (nevada) licensees ? would that be an invasion of some privacy if that request were broadly distributed ?

could be a new method of legally passing information betwixt casinos, "for the good of the gambler/victim"

Mayor...
Posted by Cyrano on 05-Jul-2004 04:10:58 (#9108)

Just curious to what level do you go... When you play BJ, do you use any camo? Do you use a "reasonable" bet spread so you don't draw heat? Roughly speaking, how long do you play per session?

Yes...
Posted by The Mayor on 05-Jul-2004 10:08:50 (#9113)

>When you play BJ, do you use any camo? Do you use a "reasonable" bet spread so you don't draw heat? Roughly speaking, how long do you play per session?

This varies, of course. Typically, I am a VERY aggressive player. I spread $5 to 2x$100 at the Las Vegas Club single deck last time I was there. What I do have is a well-developed "heat-o-meter" and at the first sign of it I leave. That can even be a conversation between two bosses that I suspect is about me, or it can be a phone call where the boss turns his back to me. Of course I will use camo when needed to get the heat off, but I also freely double-down on T vs. T or A and split T's. I almost never play a session longer than 90 minutes, and usually they are much shorter.

I am a low level player, and because of this may not be of interest to many places. I certainly don't recommend my spreads or style to anyone betting "real" money, or to a would-be professional.

--Mayor

:-)
Posted by Cyrano on 06-Jul-2004 13:33:49 (#9130)

2x$100 is VERY real money to me.. ;-) The reason I ask is I'm trying to figure out how people can make 6 figures doing this. In order for you to do that, you have to be taking an average of at least a thousand out of the casinos every day you play. Anything less probably isn't worth my time, considering I still have to pay most expenses a sole proprietor will have to pay (medical, travel, taxes, etc...) Seems to me that's gonna draw scrutiny no matter what you do.

self-barring
Posted by rocky on 09-Jul-2004 16:49:56 (#9179)

Computer glitch, my ass...this was pure harassment. Since this is a Nevada store, they have to get you to SIGN OFF on your self barring and must be documented by dated photo or surveillance tape. If they allege a computer glitch, then screw with them in return...ask to see your self-barring document along with the dated photo. Keep in mind that this falls under the trespass law..good ole NRS207.200...time on this is only one year and you have the right to return after that. I'd raise holy hell all the way up to President/GM level since this is clearly their mistake. As far as being ID'd as a card counter and winding up in Griffin...your face is already. As a former surveillance type, I provided the pit/casino manager with recognitions in the past just to see them do absolutely nothing...if you're losing, they could care less. The only exception is good ole Tom Hyland...he'll get 86'd on general principle...they fear him that much.

But I'm only a green chip player
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 10-Jul-2004 00:30:18 (#9184)

This shop spends more on urinal cakes each day than they could lose to me. It's totally irrational for them to make a scene at the table and scare away the ploppies on the July 4 holiday in order to intimidate me. Plus I've never really played in Vegas before, come on, can't they tell the players without a scorecard?

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Home

Basic Strategy Engine

Rules of Blackjack

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game

Card Counting

Interviews

Blackjack Blog

Message Boards

Blackjack Tournaments

Gambling Online

Newsletter Archive

Books & Software

Threads 1201 to 1230

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 1201 to 1230

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game