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 2011 to 2040

How the U.S. Is Getting Beat in Online Gambling *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Nov-2005 19:31:15 (#14692)

How the U.S. Is Getting Beat in Online Gambling

Wildly popular, yet still illegal in the U.S., Internet gaming has earned vast sums for its creators. Meanwhile, a wave of IPOs in Britain has left American banks out of the action

By PETER GUMBEL / LONDON

Timje.com | Nov. 20, 2005

Gambling lore is filled with tales of the lucky novice who walks into a casino and breaks the bank. This year it really happened. The fortunate neophyte is Vikrant Bhargava, who is from Rajasthan, India, and admits that he had never set foot in a casino until recently and still isn't all that fond of gambling. But in a single day in June, he and two colleagues walked away with the poker purse of all time: more than $1 billion in cash.

...more - http://www.time.com/time/globalbusiness/article/0,9171,1132818,00.html?promoid=rss_top

Gambling-Addiction Study Gets Out Of Hand
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Nov-2005 23:14:50 (#14693)

Gambling-Addiction Study Gets Out Of Hand

November 19, 2005 | Las Vegas Tribune

LAS VEGAS, NV—A gambling-addiction study by researchers at UNLV's Gaming Studies Research Center has "gotten way out of hand," sources close to the project reported Monday.

Addiction & Behavior

"Just one more sample group," said study director Robert Layton, nervously snapping the clasp of his lucky clipboard. "I have a hunch about this batch, a real hunch. I think it's gonna be a honey."

Layton, who has been conducting research in the lab and the field since March 2001, is studying relapse rates in habituated long-term gamblers. He is aided in his research by colleagues Dr. Steven "Shooter" Ojeda, Dr. "Big" Arnold Stangel, and non-faculty laboratory assistant Fancy Nancy, who was enlisted in the belief that she might, for reasons unknown, have a favorable effect on results.

The study, which is now nearly $10 million over budget, was supposed to have been completed by this past May. Layton continues to gather data, however, insisting that the big breakthrough, or "payoff," is just around the corner.

"The last dozen subjects looked like they'd plot a near-perfect obsessive-pattern distribution curve once their habits were charted," Layton said. "They fell into two groups of six on both sides of the line. Classic boxcars. And a researcher whose office is right across from mine just hit it big studying the effects of class and religion on betting habits, so I figure I gotta be next."

"The lack of results so far, sure, it's discouraging," Ojeda said. "But this baby's so fat with data, we're due for a big payout. That's the way it is in this business of high-stakes research. One big winning test group can make your whole study."

Layton expressed confidence that "major findings" will come soon.

"Unlike some of the researchers out there, we've got a system that works," Layton said. "The University of Nevada–Reno guys, for example, they use a Von Rhiemann-style control group to enhance certain values in figuring their results. The difference is, we know how to twist its tail—you know, finesse it."

Others at UNLV do not share Layton's optimism.

"They've been talking about hitting it big ever since the study began," said Howard Leventhal, a UNLV professor of social psychology and illness. "But there have been no results. Which is strange, when you consider how much time and effort they've put in. I mean, last month, Dr. Ojeda took out a second mortgage on his house because of some 'sure thing' he had."

Added Leventhal: "I told them not to bet the farm on anything based on classical conditioning. But there's something about a researcher that can't resist the long shots. Goes back to Skinner."

Though they admit that the project has taken far longer than expected, members of Layton's team insist that their efforts will be well worth it in the end.

"Why spend your time studying habituation patterns of office-drone Joes and Janes when the payoff here is potentially so much bigger?" Ojeda said. "Besides, as long as you're spending lots of time at the tables collecting data, the coffee's free. Can't beat that with a stick."

Ojeda then excused himself to investigate a hot tip concerning the borderline obsessive-compulsive behavior of adult children of abusive alcoholics taking in the fifth race at Santa Anita.

"Baby, this one is the big one, I can feel it," said Stangel, holding a CD-ROM of raw data to his ear and shaking it. "This contains data from control groups seven and eleven, stuff we'd thrown out because it seemed so blue-sky, but we were thinking too hard and not going with our gut. Sometimes, the scientific method can lead you wrong, you know?"

"Seven-eleven! Seven-come-eleven!" said Stangel, pausing to let Fancy Nancy blow on the disc. "Daddy needs a new paradigmatic skew!"

xxx

Nevada To Phase Out Laws
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Nov-2005 23:24:54 (#14695)

Nevada To Phase Out Laws Altogether

November 19, 2005 | Las Vegas Tribune

CARSON CITY, NV—The Nevada legislature voted Monday to repeal all laws within the state and prohibit the proposal of any new laws.

"Laws have been good to the state of Nevada," said Gov. Kenny Guinn between swigs of Jim Beam. "But ultimately, after carefully considering what's best for the long-term economic growth and prosperity of the state, we decided that lawfulness just wasn't a good idea."

Nevada's laws, Guinn said, will be slowly phased out over a five-year period, easing residents into a state of total anarchy. Gambling and prostitution have already been decriminalized, and car theft is slated to follow in 2004. Bans on murder and rape will be lifted in 2007.

Though the elimination of the rule of law has been a topic of discussion in Carson City for some time, it only recently gained favor among a majority of state legislators.

"Critics always argued that if we allowed gambling and prostitution, it was just a short leap to lawlessness," said Senate Majority Leader William Raggio (R-Washoe), flanked by a pair of armed strippers. "It didn't sink in for a while, but we eventually just sort of looked at each other and said, 'Why not?' Without laws, Nevada could offer a whole range of entertainment and lifestyle options never before imagined."

As a result of the eradication of laws, more than 20,000 police officers and other law-enforcement officials stand to lose their jobs. The loss should be offset, however, with the creation of jobs in new fields.

"Nothing stimulates employment like lawlessness," Raggio said. "We estimate that this move will create more than 400,000 jobs in such newly legal professions as prizefight rigger, ticket scalper, drug runner, bribe coordinator, and arsonist. In the construction industry alone, some 20,000 workers will be needed to build whorehouses and install stripper poles in fast-food restaurants."

Though Monday's decision eliminates the need for them, Nevada's lawmakers will retain their jobs.

"The people of Nevada can rest assured that their state senators and assemblymen will still be taking care of their needs, be they sex, drugs, or a quick C-note to lay down on the Lakers plus six," Guinn said. "As for Nevada's elected officials in Washington, they'll still be in Congress. But, to be honest, they won't be doing a heck of a lot. They'll mainly just be hanging out, seeing what the other states are up to."

Guinn "highly recommended" that Nevada residents buy a gun and learn how to use it if they plan to remain in the state beyond Dec. 31, when all gun-purchasing and gun-use regulations are repealed.

"When the clock strikes midnight on Jan. 1, 2003, it's survival of the fittest," Guinn said. "My lovely wife Dema can already pick off tin cans from 50 feet, and my son is becoming highly proficient in explosives. I strongly suggest you all do likewise."

Reaction from Nevada's residents has been largely positive.

"I've been waiting for this moment for 20 years," said Reno blackjack dealer Dale Everson, polishing his new machete while enjoying a lapdance. "Pretty soon, I won't have to worry about speeding tickets or emissions tests. Only the common sense and inherent decency of the people of Nevada will govern this state. That'll be more than enough for me."

xxx

So what will the casinos, NGC, and Metro officers ignore all day? =) *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 27-Nov-2005 00:17:02 (#14699)

Ahhh, a 'KOAN' ! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Dec-2005 16:11:22 (#14966)

To those who hated me over the years
Posted by Joker's Wild on 01-Dec-2005 16:24:32 (#14744)

ENOUGH!!! I haven't gambled for months already, and I don't plan on going anymore. So what is all the tracking from you guys?

IF I SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES!!! I'm always serious.

You pathetic losers got my identity, listened to my phone calls in secret, hacked into my emails, and harrased me both physically and mentally over all these years. But if I did nothing illegal, then it's your problem. Just get the hell out of my face, okay?

Otherwise, I'm gonna sue the casino ( which got me arrested, physically assaulted me in front of everybody, as well as stealing over 2K from my wallet ), the cops, and the security for 50M each. Either leave me alone or meet me in the provincial courtroom. I'll give you an option.

I could recall the firefighters having upbeat slogans like 'Serving with pride' on their firetrucks. Well, replace the word 'pride' with 'corruption' and you get the picture. Shame on you!! You guys are testing my patience.

It sounds like you should sue...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Dec-2005 18:25:58 (#14745)

...at least call Bob Nersesian and have a free consultation.
- zg(I'm paranoid too, but I have no doubt that people are out to get me)

Not sure if Bob N takes cases in Canada
Posted by LVBear584 on 01-Dec-2005 18:37:05 (#14748)

I assume a "provincial courtroom" is in Canada. At least we know casinos are the same everywhere.

re:Not sure if Bob N takes cases in Canada
Posted by Joker's Wild on 01-Dec-2005 20:24:27 (#14752)

A 'provincial courtroom' is in Canada. In the states there are Esquires, here in Canada there are those called 'Queens' Counsel'.

I found it funny that the casino who got me arrested have different signs on their walls like, 'We have the right to refuse service', or 'The use of electronic devices are strictly illegal'. However, the law here in BC doesn't say anything to support these bull****. I could even get in touch with my former team members and use a BJ computer to beat them for high stakes. If they want to put us into trouble, I'll take legal action.

Oh, Canada aye? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Dec-2005 23:58:32 (#14755)

And u know what, zg?
Posted by Joker's Wild on 01-Dec-2005 20:14:15 (#14751)

When they got me arrested that day the cops showed no respect for me in the back room. They even dragged me out of the casino and put me into a mental institution. I was a little bit afraid at that time, but I remember exactly what happened that day.

Meanwhile in the psych ward, the cops 'claimed' that I got a 'gambling problem'.
(Holy s***! I haven't gambled for months before I got arrested. So where is that so called 'gambling problem')? Also, they said I was aggressive. It was the casino security who was aggressive, not me. They came up to my back silently and tackled me down on the floor till the cops arrived. Such barbaric behavior is totally uncacceptable. And the cops told the medical staff of the psych ward how they tracked me down using cops cars, helicopters, and the aid of their colleagues who work for security companies. As to what I've heard, they use helicopters only to track guys who smoke pot.

What a bunch of criminals! However, I'm quite frustrated, as one of my lawyer friends told me that it is legal for the cops to track people whom they believe are acting conspicious. But I'll got straight ahead and see what they've got up their sleeve, and act accordingly.

What were you arrested for?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 01-Dec-2005 21:34:26 (#14753)

It sounds like there are a few critical pieces of this story missing.

They barred me and I got back.
Posted by Joker's Wild on 01-Dec-2005 23:56:13 (#14754)

But they didn't read the 'Trespass Act'. Here in BC there is no such thing. Therefore, it is not illegal for me to go back.

That day I got back and they asked me to leave in an extremely rude way, as they knew I was a card counter, flamboyant, proud, and stuff like that. I didn't leave, continued to ignore them, held my head way up, and they knocked me down.

Sounds like you have a bit of emotion invested in all this
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 02-Dec-2005 01:25:42 (#14756)

And I'm not trying to be insulting by saying this, but you may have shown some emotion when this was happening that caused them to take you to the mental hospital. Letting emotions control you when you are playing is dangerous as we all know, and it's also dangerous in confrontational situations like dealing with police or security. Pride is something you want to leave home, at all costs. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't believe the casinos in BC have the ability or the motivation to read your email or follow you with helicopters. They can't accomodate action big enough in those casinos to justify those measures.

My advice is to try some other stores. There are a few decent games in BC and many more down in Washington State.

Kinda agree with what you said
Posted by Joker's Wild on 02-Dec-2005 14:38:16 (#14760)

When I got knocked down on the floor, I was swearing like crazy. Maybe that's the reason why they put me in the psych ward. However, I've seen people being sent to such places just because they are drug addicts, or verbally assaulted the police in some way.

Honestly speaking, I knew weeks ago that the cops do follow people around by helicopters. My lawyer friend told me that.

OTOH, I have an email address over Yahoo. On numerous occasions it took over 10 minutes to download after I logged in, and usually there's an error message sayin' that the page couldn't be displayed. Therefore it is safe to say that my email had been invaded by hackers.

And you know what? I often have to encounter a pit boss over the 21 table. When the PB is dealing, even a 3-year-old kid knows what is goin' on. HEAT!!

On the last session I played before I got arrested, there are 2 cops walkin' on the casino floor (not the one which kicked me out). After that night, I was sure the cops are involved.

And yes, I do have to hunt for greener pastures.

Saw a casino staff on the train tonight
Posted by Joker's Wild on 08-Dec-2005 02:03:39 (#14825)

He gave me a REALLY dirty look and got off 1 station earlier than I do. Should've followed him out and beat him up real hard and bump his head over to the wall, but I gave up the idea because I was tired after a day's work. But if I see them again next time, I would've done that--and as nasty as I could. Pretending not to see them didn't really mean I didn't notice them.

Nobody has ever taken any real advantage over me in ANY way. Never!

You sound like a nutcase :( *NM*
Posted by Psychiatric Hospital on 09-Dec-2005 06:53:05 (#14838)

Oh, yeah?
Posted by Joker's Wild on 09-Dec-2005 16:34:55 (#14848)

But you guys have been tracking me for years, correct? By car, by train, on the streets, you name it. YOu pathetic losers know better than I, don't cha? As I've stressed before, the cops do have the right to track people, but the casinos don't. It's a criminal offense. You guys have the right to deny it, but if I've gotta meet you guys in a courtroom, I have strong evidence to back me up. I've got all the incident written down in one of my notebooks, license # of cops and security vehicles, etc. For those casino staff who followed me on the train, I could've taken those surveillance tapes and replay them in court. And if you guys didn't give up the tapes, it's even worse--obstruction of justice.

Also, you guys showed no respect for me and other players. When I was losing, you guys made fun of me. When other players are betting max and winning, you guys showed no respect, either, and eyeing them closely as if they're criminals. I've encountered numerous occasions when players are flat-betting a quarter table and you losers asked a PB to deal. What the fu** do you guys have in mind. If you guys can't afford to lose it, close all the tables. It's that simple.

I've been physically harrassed on numerous occasions. The most obvious one is the one which I got arrested and got sent to the psych ward. However, there are a few points that are suspicious if a person could use some deep thought:

1. If I did something wrong (which I didn't), just ask the cops to put me in jail. Why was there an ambulance waiting out there?

2. The cops locked me up in the backroom and asked me who my doctor is. (Hey, do you mean my family doctor, my optometrist, a psychiatrist, or someone else?).
Such a stupid question.

3. The casino stole my money (a few grand) without ever paying me back.

4. The cops were making fun of me when I was being interrogated. What the hell did they have in mind?

5. They dragged me out of the casino. If you've seen the DVD by Wong, it is so easy to spot the similarities.

6. And if I deserve to be hospitalized, it's the fault of you folks. Why did I keep on encountering cops cars out side my home, the places I go a lot, and even seeing them in the casinos I play? If you guys can't even afford a few losing sessions against a 'slighly higher than average' card counter like me, then I don't think you guys have the guts to operate a casino. Again, SHAME ON YOU!!

However, I won the 'review panel' in the psych ward, and I was free to go.

And that's why I backed others up to play instead of playing the game myself. It's a more logical choice, since the rules stink.

p.s. Are you a casino staff? If so, then your post should've been busted.

Ya! So there! zg *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2005 15:53:25 (#14856)

High rollers, big losers
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Dec-2005 18:30:23 (#14746)

High rollers, big losers

Area casinos have exacted a terrible toll from some local gamblers, and the state has done practically nothing to treat people who get hooked

By ANDREW Z. GALARNEAU
NEWS NIAGARA BUREAU
11/27/2005

NIAGARA FALLS - If you were being swept toward the brink of Niagara Falls and your feet suddenly caught on a crack in the limestone, would you call that lucky?

A 47-year-old Buffalo accountant gambled away several thousand dollars in the Seneca Niagara Casino on March 19, 2003. He wrote a goodbye note and stepped into the Niagara River.

... continued - http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051127/1054592.asp

Ruth Parasol, gorgeous online billionaire
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Dec-2005 18:34:30 (#14747)

Billionaire Plays Her Cards Right in Online 'Gray Market'

By Joseph Menn, LA Times Staff Writer

Ruth Parasol has made a fortune selling vice to the masses.

Through phone sex, then Web porn and most recently online poker, the 38-year-old lawyer has leveraged a succession of new technologies to become a self-made billionaire whose net worth rivals those of Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban and Las Vegas mogul Steve Wynn.

... continued -
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-cards27nov27,1,2368814.story?coll=la-headlines-business-careers

'American Idol' for gamblers
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Dec-2005 18:39:54 (#14749)

'King of Vegas' looking for 'decathlon' gambler

By Jerry Fink <jerry@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas Sun

Internationally renowned sports handicapper Wayne Allyn Root says he does his best thinking early in the morning when he is walking his dog.

Two years ago, after returning from a stroll at an Anthem Country Club park, he jotted down two ideas -- one for a book, the other for a TV series.

At 7 p.m. Friday, Root will be at Borders Books & Music, 2190 N. Rainbow Blvd., to sign copies of his best seller "Millionaire Republican: Why Rich Republicans Get Rich -- and How You Can Too!"

Monday he begins taping for Spike TV his reality series, "King of Vegas," which features professional and amateur gamblers competing for a $1 million prize.

The winner takes all. The losers go home empty handed.

The hourlong series debuts at 10 p.m. on Jan. 17 and will air on Tuesdays for the next 10 weeks.

"Basically, the show is 'American Idol' for gamblers," Root said.

... continued - http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2005/dec/01/519749613.html

Root is a scamster. I wouldn't go within a mile of this thing. *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 02-Dec-2005 19:13:28 (#14765)

I already submitted you as a contestant! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Dec-2005 21:15:54 (#14767)

Who wins more money at SD...
Posted by Wongster on 02-Dec-2005 08:13:51 (#14757)

I'm basically wondering how important it is to use proper indices when it comes to SD. I've read that they are even more important than bet spread in an SD game. So who wins more money at SD? The player who spreads from $5-$60 using no indices, or the player who spreads from $5-$25, using 18-30 indices? Thanks in advance for any information.

Go with the larger spread, if you can
Posted by Sonny on 02-Dec-2005 14:12:31 (#14759)

> So who wins more money at SD? The player who spreads from $5-$60 using no
> indices, or the player who spreads from $5-$25, using 18-30 indices?

All things being equal (playing speed, heat, penetration, crowd conditions, etc.) the BS player with the 1-12 spread will win more than the 1-5 index player. In this case the huge bet spread easily overcomes the more accurate playing strategy. However, I doubt that anyone would get away with a 1-12 spread at a SD game for very long (other than ZG!). That is another reason that playing indeces are so important for pitch players. Not only do they add more value to your win rate, but they are more practical than using a larger spread in most cases.

-Sonny-

Also.
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 02-Dec-2005 15:05:14 (#14761)

Sonny is accurate in his statement.

I think where you may be a little confused is that indices are MORE important in pitch games than shoe games, but spread is the MOST important (along with penetration) in all games. If play variations are a concern, I would recommend a simplified set of indices like those in Hi-Lo Lite.

-Shaggy

Concerning spreads
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 02-Dec-2005 15:08:59 (#14762)

My thoughts on bet spreads is this:

Your max bet should be as large as your bankroll can handle and your min should be as small as the casino will allow. Don't get stuck in the mentality of 1:4 is the proper spread to beat a single deck game. All this thinking does is lower your winrate. Why spread $25 to $100 when you can spread $10 to $100.

-Shaggy

1-10 @ 1D...
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Dec-2005 21:15:01 (#14766)

... is the max needed - at 1D beyond 1-10 spread no appreciable gain is derived, assuming reasonable pene. zg

I'd bet
Posted by stainless steel rat on 05-Dec-2005 15:05:49 (#14786)

that at beyond 1-10, the only penetration one should be worried aboutin SD games is the bit boss's shoe penetrating their anal orifice as they are booted from the building. :)

Good Point!... I'm still trying to pass a few PC shoes ;-) *NM*
Posted by Dog Hand on 07-Dec-2005 14:06:10 (#14818)

speaking of "the boot"...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 07-Dec-2005 20:20:25 (#14822)

Any news from Biloxi? I'm getting flyers from the Beau, but only "we will reopen in 2006" or some such...

Biloxi reopening
Posted by GPC on 08-Dec-2005 07:49:30 (#14826)

I read a news article that the Imperial Palace, Palace, and Isle of Capri will be reopening late December or January.

GPC

wonder how things will look...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 08-Dec-2005 10:37:31 (#14829)

Going to be interesting to see what games they offer, since competition will be very limited for a while. Maybe less 6:5 to entice people back? Maybe some decent SD/DD games for a change. Or maybe not. :)

Used to be good games
Posted by GPC on 09-Dec-2005 07:30:43 (#14840)

In the past they used to offer many good games at the various casinos for low stakes. But two of my favorite haunts for $5 2-deck games are gone and not likely to return (Treasure Bay and President). The BeauRivage had a good 6-deck game (S17, DOA, DAS, RSA, LS, 75% pen). Never really played much at the two 'Palaces' or Isle of Capri, but I remember a decent 2-deck game with an automatic shuffler at The Palace.

GPC

follow-up with more info
Posted by stainless steel rat on 08-Dec-2005 08:48:24 (#14827)

Checked one of the Beau flyers. Main "drift" was "Visit our properties in LV."

Story in today's paper here about the Beau having paid employees for 3 months since Katrina, but they are now stopping that practice, cutting off fringe benefits like insurance in the process. They sent notices to employees stating that the Beau is planning on opening in late 2006, probably August or September.

Didn't see any mention of the other places including you-know-where. Just hope their trespass database got blown away as well. :)

I thought the 3-month pay was a pretty good deal for employees to give them a chance to either move or find something else in the coastal area... Apparently many moved to LV, which must have a dealer glut now. :)

If you re-asked the question
Posted by Victoria on 02-Dec-2005 15:14:15 (#14763)

Had the question been between a 4-1 spread with full indices and say a 6-1 spread with no indices, then you probably are fairly close and the math guys would have to figure it out with computer sims.

5-1 vs 12-1 is such a huge difference and remember indices are far less important than spread and penetration.

Victoria

maybe neither
Posted by stainless steel rat on 02-Dec-2005 22:14:03 (#14768)

spreading 1-5 and beyond in SD invites scrutiny, which invites being shown the door or worse.

A good counting system can beat a SD game with no spread at all, so a good counting system with a small spread can do pretty well.

I personally shoot for 1-4 in SD, and can, on occasion get away with more depending on what is going on at the table, the location (small bets at tables used to big bets are often overlooked, while big bets at tables used to seeing small tables attract the pit, the eye, and others...

SD is a "touchy/feely" type game. You have to be aware of what is going on throughout the pit, to see if you are attracting attention, and you often have to go to lengths to disguise your spread...

puzzled by the question *LINK*
Posted by Myooligan on 03-Dec-2005 16:22:25 (#14777)

It's obviously not either/or. Why wouldn't you want to use play variations, too?

Play variation alone isn't worth much, though you can do OK with only a betting strategy, as others have already said. As for how play variation (in this case the I18) combined with betting stacks up to betting alone, gotta recommend you take a look for yourself at the link below. Compare KO Rookie(basic strategy) to KO Preferred(I18).

Does 'Casino Surrender' option have any merit?
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2005 00:41:08 (#14769)

New Blackjack Betting Option

As reported by the Chicago Sun Times: "An innovative betting option known as Casino Surrender, which was recently introduced in the greater Chicago area at the Blue Chip Casino & Hotel in Michigan City, Ind., has the potential to become a standard feature at blackjack tables in casinos nationwide if the early returns are any indication.

"Since its debut on two tables at the Stardust in Las Vegas last April, it has expanded to 70 tables at 12 casinos and is currently licensed in the states of Nevada, Indiana and Mississippi. Before the end of the year it'll be on 100 tables at 16 casinos.

"Casino Surrender is not be confused with surrender, an old blackjack option with limited availability whereby a player can elect to forfeit half of his bet to the house when he feels his two-card dealt hand is in a position of weakness against the dealer.

"The new patented variation turns the tables on the casino by permitting the player to force the dealer to surrender under the following conditions: The player is holding a two-card 20 (10/10 or A/9) and the dealer is showing a 10-value up-card with no ace in the hole.

"The reward for the player is the return of his original bet and a win of 50 percent of its value without having to play out the hand while risk having the dealer turn over a 10-value card for a 20 (push), or, worst case scenario, drawing to 21 and beating you."

xxx

Yes
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 03-Dec-2005 14:01:27 (#14775)

The obvious situation being if you are a holecarder. It might have positive EV on very high, ace-neutral counts but in a shoe game you'll probably see a hole card more frequently than such a count. Just a guess, I haven't analyzed it.

BBC Documentary on Card Counting
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2005 01:19:11 (#14770)

BBC Science & Nature

Making Millions the Easy Way

Programme transcript:

NARRATOR (JOHN SIMM): This is the story of how a group of gamblers fleeced the casinos for millions. These were no ordinary gamblers, they were brilliant students with an extraordinary secret that meant they simply couldn't lose. Their secret would draw them in to the world of mobsters and underground societies, hidden gadgets and high tech surveillance.

... continued - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/million_trans.shtml

What is your millionaire potential?
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2005 01:20:41 (#14771)

ONLINE TEST
What is your millionaire potential?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/millionaire1/

took the test and scored a 23!
Posted by Learning to count on 03-Dec-2005 08:32:55 (#14773)

So why the F&%ck am I so broke! No Bankroll no car no mo trips to LV! : (

Because you missed two that were most important :-)
Posted by Easy Money on 03-Dec-2005 10:07:45 (#14774)

Here's my copy and paste from the test: Your score is: 25

My score is: 21 *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2005 14:46:37 (#14776)

Because such questionaires should be taken
Posted by SpiderMan on 03-Dec-2005 17:53:18 (#14778)

as a reference only. However, I got 17.

She was just 17
Posted by Gorgon on 05-Dec-2005 22:22:57 (#14791)

Was she soft or hard?

I...obviously don't know... *NM*
Posted by SpiderMan on 06-Dec-2005 00:39:43 (#14794)

Not a Millionaire
Posted by CanKen on 04-Dec-2005 10:14:05 (#14779)

I scored 20. I've sometimes thought that I could have made a million or two if I'd really wanted to. But I have always preferred a balanced life of work, family, reading, music, sports, and a reasonable amount of sleep. Now that I'm retired, comfortable but not rich, I can leave out the work part. CK

Me: 17, My wife: 14
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Dec-2005 12:43:58 (#14780)

Poor but happy...

That's legal in certain states *NM*
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 04-Dec-2005 14:13:48 (#14781)

Meditation Improves Attention & Brain Function
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2005 01:54:00 (#14772)

Meditation Improves Your Attention

Buddhist monks have claimed for centuries that meditation helps increase attention and concentration.
New findings offer support for this notion.

Increases Thickness of Brain Regions

Researchers at Harvard Medical School examined Westerners who meditated for about 20 minutes every day, but didn't necessarily believe in the tenets of Buddhism. MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was used to look at brain parts involved in memory and attention. The thickness of those regions had increased.

... continued here - http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-13-meditation-study_x.htm

Re-engineer Reality Tech
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2005 22:28:02 (#14782)

The latest in reality re-manifest over-drive engines.
Get'em while they're hot! zg

ULTIMATE Psionic Manifestor
http://xtrememind.com/Ultraradx.htm
Plazo UltraRAD - XTech
Rapid Response Manifestation Engineering
Influence your World in Three Easy Steps
1. Passionately focus on your desire
2. Press the Rate (S4) switch
3. Sit back and wait until the explosive OverDrive EngineTM core re-engineers reality to your specifications.
http://xtrememind.com/Ultraradx.htm

Sweet Sixteen Sidebet
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 05-Dec-2005 03:29:47 (#14783)

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/bjapx8.html#Sweet16

Does anyone know if this sidebet is being dealt anywhere?

I saw it in 2001...
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2005 10:33:52 (#14784)

... at the LVClub. Shortly after its arrival Wong posted Stanley Ko's methodology for beating it. End of sidebet. zg

$5 bonus on blackjacks *LINK*
Posted by GPC on 05-Dec-2005 12:34:22 (#14785)

PLAYER'S EDGE: Terrible's celebrates anniversary:

To celebrate its fifth anniversary on Tuesday, Terrible's is offering several one-day only promotions including ... a $5 bonus on all blackjacks.

This looks like a legitimate big-time AP for one day. If you're in town tomorrow, go for it!

GPC

Not "big time", maybe small time.
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2005 17:06:28 (#14787)

Can someone tell me the added EV for 2D and 6D assuming average bets of $10, $15, $20, etc. zg

simple answer
Posted by stainless steel rat on 05-Dec-2005 18:41:30 (#14788)

Since you get a snapper about once every 21 hands, at 100 hands per hour, this ought to add $25 to your hourly EV. Since this will probably be a shoe game at a full table, figure maybe 1/2 that or whatever is the normal rate for 6-7 players (I don't play full table shoe games at all so I am not sure about the speed).

For a $20 per hour EV, this would be a significant boost. For a purple-chip unit, it would be loose change at best. :)

Red-chippers: double/triple your EV! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2005 20:31:43 (#14789)

If I were there
Posted by stainless steel rat on 05-Dec-2005 21:37:42 (#14790)

I'd camp out. I primarily play $5-$40 or $50 DD games, or $10-$40 SD games, so it would certainly be interesting for me. Even on the occasions where I play $25 min tables, another $25 per hour would get my attention...

But I have never personally played such a promo unfortunately. Played quite a few matchplay type opportunities, and the coupon promos where your first snapper pays 2:1, etc. But nothing quite like this. Maybe I'll get a chance one day...

Terribles has LLadies on all tables, BTW. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2005 22:38:40 (#14792)

query
Posted by stainless steel rat on 06-Dec-2005 09:31:50 (#14795)

I've played in Vegas a fair number of times, but never been to "Terrible's"? Is this at one specific location? (since I noticed when I was there that several casinos had the name "Terrible's" on the front if my memory is correct. For example, I think I saw one on the way to Hoover Dam, heading up to the Grand Canyon South Rim...)

Located @ Paradise & Flamingo *NM* *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2005 12:02:07 (#14797)

Time's a waisting... *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2005 22:52:25 (#14793)

...

Streaks
Posted by barbie on 06-Dec-2005 10:38:25 (#14796)

OK, I know what I'm about to suggest flies in the face of all the sound math underlying AP, BUT.....
The thing that defeats most counters, psychologically and financially, is betting big into strong pos counts and still losing, hand after hand after hand. BJ is a game of streaks, and these inevitable positive-count big-bet losing streaks are infuriating, and costly. Likewise, it's the inevitable hi-count winning streaks that make it all worthwhile. So.... what if, when count is hi, you immediately reduce the big bet way down after a losing hand, but then go right back up after the next winning hand (and stay there as long as you keep winning)? You literally guarantee never having a horrible big-bet losing streak, but also guarantee participation in every big-bet winning streak. In other words, if it's the horrible losing streaks of big bets that kill us and demoralize us, and the winning streaks that make us $$$, why not be assured of never losing 2 big bets in a row?? Please tell me why this doesn't make sense? Any sims on this?

The sims on this sort of thing...
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2005 13:31:27 (#14799)

... indicate that due to the randomness of the events you are describing, lowering your bet will only reduce your profit over the long-haul.

Notwithstanding my response, IF we could ever get beyond the static statistical model(s) that we use, something like you propose could be workable.

Look at it this way - when meteroligists analyse annual weather probabilities they produce annual-statistical rainfall expectation... BUT when it is raining, predicted or not, they are free to come in from out of the rain, yes?
- zg(closet voodooist)

streaks
Posted by barbie on 06-Dec-2005 14:33:53 (#14802)

ZG, your profundity overwhelms me! Seriously, how can profit suffer in long-run if you literally guarantee that you never, ever lose 2 big bets in a row? You're still taking full advantage of inevitable win streaks, but avoiding ALL losing streaks. Is this too simplistic? Where's the flaw? Mayor??

No thanks...
Posted by The Mayor on 06-Dec-2005 17:10:28 (#14805)

>Where's the flaw? Mayor??

Not interested... I've got a book for sale, however...

--Mayor

20/20 Vision
Posted by Sun Runner on 07-Dec-2005 09:23:37 (#14816)

> Seriously, how can profit suffer in long-run if you literally guarantee that you never, ever lose 2 big bets in a row?

What if that was all you ever got!?

You BC, the count goes up, you bet big, lose two in a row, and leave. And you do it time after time after time. It happens. Where is the guarantee that you ever hit a short term winning streak? How can you not be sure that your winning streak is about to follow those two lost bets that you bailed on?

A gambler bets big when he has the advantage. Period. And this is gambling, make no mistake.

Having said that, I will admit to owning one Jerry Patterson book and further admit that I do wonder sometimes, late at night, when no one is around, about .. card-clumping.

Yikes!

Blackjack: A Winner's Handbook
Posted by Sonny on 11-Dec-2005 23:21:09 (#14875)

> Having said that, I will admit to owning one Jerry Patterson book...

Actually, his chapter on shuffle tracking is incredible! Unfortunately, the other chapters are complete crap.

> ...I do wonder sometimes, late at night, when no one is around, about ..
> card-clumping.

Card clumping is not the issue, predicting it is the problem. For some reason I doubt that looking for empty ash trays will predict slugs of high cards as Patterson suggests. When all is said and done I'd prefer to WATCH the shuffle, SEE where the cards go, and KNOW where those cards end up after the shuffle. Call me old fashioned but if you want to know where the cards will end up you should be watching them, not the ash trays.

-Sonny-

Psychologically it may have value
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 06-Dec-2005 14:04:11 (#14801)

It also provides betting cover. Letting your average big count bet bounce around provides cover but increases the effect variance because being it's an average, some of those bets are going to be higher than what your advantage would justify. This isn't something a low level player should ever have to do.

Lowering the bet has the same psychological benefit without the increase in variance. I'm a guy who has had to leave the table with chest pain due to the stress of one of those losing sessions. Fortunately stress was all it was, but stress of that level is unhealthy anyway. When you're properly capitalized relative to your bet you can shrug off those losing streaks; it's when you're betting your balls that they hurt you.

It just doesn't work that way...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 06-Dec-2005 15:38:11 (#14803)

You are trying to recognize a streak before it happens, and this can't be done in 21. If you bet big, and lose, and then bet small and win, when you should have bet big and won, you just lowered your EV.

Best way to beat this game is to play a lot at home with chips, so that you get used to the idea of "playing with plastic" and don't associate dollars with chips until you get ready to cash out.

One reminder: your AP edge comes from betting big when you have an advantage over the house, and betting small when you do not. If you bet small when you do have an advantage, you are just lowering your EV. You can't lower it very far before it goes negative, since it is not that big to start with...

I'm not trying to recognize
Posted by barbie on 06-Dec-2005 16:37:28 (#14804)

streaks in advance, I'm simply avoiding them. As long as I continue playing, I know they WILL occur, whether I recognize them in advance or not. I understand, math-wise, that by not betting big in every pos situation, I'm not maximizing my edge. But I also know in the real world there are countless times I could lose 4 or 5 or 10 big bet hands in a row despite wonderfully hi counts, despite my edge, despite all my skill as an AP player. And it's those inevitable losing streaks that seem to turn sessions into DISASTERS. My thought is to play all winning streaks to the hilt, but avoid disaster by simply not allowing big losing streaks to occur at all.

Forget about individual session results/"streaks"
Posted by LVBear584 on 06-Dec-2005 17:11:30 (#14806)

My thought is to play all winning streaks to the hilt, but avoid disaster by simply not allowing big losing streaks to occur at all.

The losing "streak" many continue into your next session and far beyond. Not betting big when you have the advantage is just plain silly. There is no way to recognize a streak before it happens. Concentrate on playing good games well and forget about short-term results. Assuming your skill is adequate and you are playing decent games under good conditions, the long-term results will take care of themselves. If you need to worry about any individual losing streak, you are probably overbetting your bankroll and/or your comfort level.

The losing streak may continue
Posted by barbie on 06-Dec-2005 17:40:00 (#14807)

.... That's just my point! Long continuing losing streaks, where strings of big bets are repeatedly lost, one after the other, session after session, seemingly w/o end. That's the kind of thing that can wipe us out, financially and/or emotionally, no matter how big the bank. So my thought is to prevent that from ever happening. Ever! I'll just never permit the loss of even 2 big bets in a row. In the real world, if you just keep betting big into long losing streaks, while I cut back after every big losing bet and never experience successive big losses, won't I lose less and live to fight another day?

Limit session losses instead
Posted by Soft 21 on 07-Dec-2005 01:34:50 (#14813)

By sometimes betting small when the count is high, you are effectively lowering your bet spread and therefore your EV. Instead, try taking a breather after you've lost more than a certain amount of money. Then return fresh and ready to play well.

you missed his point...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 07-Dec-2005 20:15:18 (#14821)

Just because you quit playing _now_ because you lost N in a row, does _not_ mean that you won't continue that streak when you start to play at the next stop. Streaks can just as easily continue across multiple sessions as they can extend across multiple hands or multiple days. Or, on those really ugly times, across multiple weeks. I've had that happen. I haven't yet lost for multiple months, but have heard others report such results...

If you believe in "fate" and believe "fate" has it in mind that you lose 10 in a row, then stopping after 3 will not deprive "fate" of her just rewards. When you decide to play again, she is right there to extract the other 7 losses to give you that 10 in a row. I don't believe in such nonsense of course, but that's the idea. You can't stop a streak unless you stop play for all time...

not a violation
Posted by Goose on 27-Dec-2005 01:53:14 (#14988)

although we might only consider BJ that pays 3:2 it is still BJ when paying 6:5. at least it's not roulette or craps. it's even BJ when it pays 1:1. maybe it's unplayable, maybe it's not but the name of the game is the same.

I also disagree with Al re: gaming control. within the past year i have gone to gaming twice to resolve disputes and both times they've resolved the case in my favor and in a reasonable period of time.

truthfully complaining to gaming about 6:5 BJ and what casinos call it is a waste of time. truthfully, i wish there were more 6:5 games. if you don't understand why then you shouldn't ask the question.

Try this situation
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 06-Dec-2005 17:58:12 (#14808)

You and I are in a hypothetical situation where we are playing the exact same cards against the exact same dealer cards. We have a monster count. We both throw out the same max bet. We lose. You drop to a min bet (or a lower than max bet), I throw out another max bet. We win. You throw another min bet. I throw out another max. We win. Because you have won two in a row, you place a max bet. I place another max bet. We lose. The count is still high, I place a max bet, you place a min bet. We lose. Next hand I place a max and you place a min. We get a blackjack.

Results: (m)=min bet, (M)=max bet
You: (-M)+m+m-M-m+m = Up three min bets, down two max bets. (overall loser)
Me: (-M)+M+M-M-M+M = Even.

I come out ahead. In your attempt to avoid a bad streak, you cost yourself the EV to break even for the session. You will probably think that this situation was specifically cooked up to thwart your idea, and it was. But what the others are stating holds true, by not playing optimally, you are giving up EV. In the long run, this lost EV will cause you to break even or lose.

-Shaggy

Sounds like bull shite to me.
Posted by Learning to count on 06-Dec-2005 19:17:53 (#14809)

I think this thread needs to be cut. This is mythology!

It is mythology but
Posted by Victoria on 06-Dec-2005 21:53:33 (#14811)

In my opinion it is one of the main reasons that many folks who learn how to count do not ever become long term winning players.
The so called streaks will happen and sometimes you get your butt kicked and other times they end and before the count goes back down you have more than made up what you lost earlier.

On a personal note, I once lost 10 in a row heads up with a dealer in a nice positive shoe and left once the count went down. Wonged into another shoe at +2 and lost the next 6, so that was 16 positive count hands in a row. Two hours later, at another casino, I play heads up, the shoe goes positive and as it keeps going up, I keep winning. Must have won eight of nine with a couple of BJ's and a split with a double and made almost all of it back in a matter of 5 minutes.

Many people do not have the makeup to continue to keep putting out the proper bet no matter what happened the past one or ten hands. These people are the counters who land up most likely long term losers. Because I think many have this problem, there is merit in this thread.

Victoria

Yes and No...
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 06-Dec-2005 23:14:42 (#14812)

Yes, this certainly is mythology. But the original post has a tone of inquiry. So it probably shouldn't be cut.

Barbie, I hope you truly try to digest what everyone is saying. I know you are frustrated because you have had some bad sessions, but what you are proposing is absurd.

The "Bystander" Effect
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2005 13:21:45 (#14798)

Munich scientists study bystander effect
Physorg.com | December 06, 2005

A Munich, Germany, study indicates the larger the group watching someone in trouble in a public place, the less likely anyone will offer to help.

... continued here - http://www.physorg.com/news8767.html

Comp Resource??
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 07-Dec-2005 16:30:49 (#14820)

Anyone know of a website that has up to date, comprehensive listings of how casinos are awarding/redeeming comp points and awarding different levels of mailers.

Probably one out there, maybe I am just not Googling hard enough.

Paradise Island, Bahamas
Posted by bradrod on 08-Dec-2005 17:09:27 (#14830)

Does anyone know anything about playing conditions at Atlantis or Crystal Palace or other casinos near Nassau ? I am going there next week on a playing vacation and would appreciate any info. Will post a trip report when I get back.

Atlantis
Posted by revereman on 08-Dec-2005 22:39:49 (#14834)

Was there several years ago and EVERYTHING is expensive and comps (I hear) stink. Only played one shoe, lost every hand in the first half of the shoe and won every hand of the last hand of the shoe and won $2.50, I seem to recall I only flat bet $5 because I just wanted to say I played there. This was a port of call on a cruise and not a gambling trip. Sorry it's not much of a trip report.

Nassau
Posted by BlackJackHack on 08-Dec-2005 22:57:22 (#14835)

Both Atlantis and Crystal Palace offer 6D S17 DOA DAS no LS (basically AC rules) with table mins from $15 up to $500. At Atlantis, there are also several $10/15 min. 6:5 SD games (which, unfortunately, means very few $15 min. 6D games). Comps are tough at Atlantis - it is high roller central. Crystal Place has easier comps.

Atlantis is the dominant casino and gets all the big action - in terms of table games, it is comparable to a medium-sized high-end casino on the Strip. The Crystal Palace has seen better days. I have read somewhere that Harrah's will be taking over the Crystal Palace in the near future and modernizing it (and probably turning the games into crap).

Those are the only two casinos on Nassau. There is an Isle of Capri on Grand Bahama (I've never played there).

s17
Posted by BradRod on 09-Dec-2005 05:36:37 (#14837)

I should know this one by now. Does this mean the dealer must hit a soft 17. I usually avoid this game. Are there any strategy variations one should use for it ? I am pretty sure that in Atlantic City the dealer stands on soft 17.

By the way revereman was there a casino on the boat that you were on ? I had some really good play on a cruise that I took to ALaska in August.

S17 means...
Posted by GPC on 09-Dec-2005 07:24:01 (#14839)

S17 means that dealer (S)tands on soft 17, H17 means that dealer (H)its soft 17.

S17 is the better rule for the player by about 0.20%.

GPC

Cruises
Posted by revereman on 09-Dec-2005 10:58:24 (#14842)

I have been on two cruises, both with casinos. They closed at 4 am, back to room at 4:05 and always missed the midnight buffets (so I only gained 10 pounds, instead of 15).

S17 means dealer stands on 17. Rules on both cruises were very similiar to AC.
One 7-day cruise starting on Sat., I spread from $5-100 and I was half-shoed by Tuesday. It was really my fault. I didn't think they would care because the players were so bad, the ship must have made a fortune. So that's my warning, you can be ID'd on a cruise ship. I actually saw another counter on the ship, but he wouldn't acknowledge it in the airport in the way home. You know those counters, very paranoid. Splitting 10s on a cruise ship (at least these 2) is the norm, so you can get away with that when appropriate. When I got half-shoed, the pit was only about 5 tables, so I just hovered for a while (each day)and made the whole pit 50% (or worse) penetration. That was sorta fun but I would have preferred playing. I didn't bring my usual bankroll or bet my usual stakes because that was not the purpose of the trip.

Re: s17
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 09-Dec-2005 12:18:37 (#14844)

>>I usually avoid this game.
Advantage is -0.2% more for H17. Shouldn't be a deal-breaker if pen is good.

>> Are there any strategy variations one should use for it ?
There are a couple, I remember looking into this myself. I decided for as often as I would play multideck H17, learning them wouldn't be worth the brain-clutter.

I just re-confirmed this over at Wizardofodds

Hit A,7 vs A in H17 *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 11-Dec-2005 23:04:13 (#14874)

Is true for S17 too! *NM*
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 12-Dec-2005 01:20:03 (#14876)

Only for multi-deck games. You stand in SD S17 *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 12-Dec-2005 09:44:26 (#14882)

Yup...
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 12-Dec-2005 11:58:53 (#14885)

The thread is about the Atlantis 6-Decker.

This has got me thinking. So I went back and revisited how I learned the basic strategies.

There are a handful of things that should have been obvious, like doubling 11 vs. Ace in multideck H17. I know to do this in SD because I learned the SD strategy perfectly. Then I chose to ignore it for multideck H17. So, I never really made the connection that this play was likely correct as a result of the H17 rule.

I was a little bit too "rote" with my approach to learning the BS charts. I will go back and concentrate on the nuances a bit.

The double on 11 thing is something like .01% difference on that situation only. And how often does that situation arise? I don't think I lost too much EV in the meantime(LOL)

Hmmmm, hey wait a minute... you know of any S17 SD 3:2 ???? If so, please share!!

Go South, Young Man! *NM*
Posted by Dog Hand on 14-Dec-2005 16:42:37 (#14913)

Atlantis
Posted by kbp on 09-Dec-2005 10:15:43 (#14841)

We stayed at the Atlantis 4 or 5 days last February. Atlantis conditions are as BlackJackHack states except a few shoes were $10 min. Mon thru Wed, I believe, and they went to $15 Thur thru Sun. Hand shuffled games. As stated this is not a Low Roller joint. Also, there may have been 6:5 double deck, but don't quote me on that. (not that it matters). I ruled out all the 6:5 crap on day one.

S17 - dealer stands on soft 17

Harrah's in the Bahamas *LINK*
Posted by BlackJackHack on 09-Dec-2005 13:36:18 (#14845)

Here's a story on the re-development of Cable Beach, which includes the Wyndham Hotel & Crystal Palace Casino

Take A Cosmic Journey
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Dec-2005 17:14:37 (#14831)

Secret Worlds: The Universe Within - View the Milky Way at 10 million light years from the Earth. Then move through space towards the Earth in successive orders of magnitude until you reach a tall oak tree just outside the buildings of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. After that, begin to move from the actual size of a leaf into a microscopic world that reveals leaf cell walls, the cell nucleus, chromatin, DNA and finally, into the subatomic universe of electrons and protons.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

ok. next trip.
Posted by BradRod on 08-Dec-2005 17:57:12 (#14832)

any casinos once we get there ? EV's by multiples of 10 ??

Thanks for the post. I passed the link on to my nephews.

Circus Circus closing?
Posted by Garo on 08-Dec-2005 20:06:58 (#14833)

I heard a rumor that Westward Ho and Circus Circus were closing, but I can't find anything on the web about it... anyone know anything?

The Ho
Posted by Praying Mantis on 08-Dec-2005 23:21:26 (#14836)

I believe Westward Ho has already closed. It was slated for closure around the end of November.

Heard nothing of Circus Circus.

Regards,

Blackjack’s Death Count?
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Dec-2005 15:09:12 (#14847)

Blackjack's Death Count
Is the total casino management of MindPlay killing 21?

by MARC COOPER | LA Weekly

BILOXI, MISS. — The future of blackjack has been revealed and it's ugly. As legalized gambling continues to blossom, with a record 73 million Americans expected to visit a casino before the end of this year, the industry's managers are scrambling to stack the odds on the simple card game of 21 ever more in their favor.
... continued - http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/03/cooper-blackjack.php

Very Scary *NM*
Posted by revereman on 09-Dec-2005 18:33:35 (#14849)

The ploppy is still the king
Posted by victoria on 10-Dec-2005 00:16:08 (#14850)

So why since the advent of Mindplay21 has it not spread all over Vegas like 6/5 blackjack or hitting soft 17?
I think the answer so far is obvious. The average player, not even understanding that the thing can cheat him, just does not want to play at a table with a new gizmo and has voted against by not playing. No different, in that players mind, than playing with a CSM and that is why you do not see any CSM's on high limit tables.

Now can Mindplay be put into an area with no competition and plenty of players with success? I fear the answer is yes but so far, where there is competition, it has been a failure in my opinion.

Victoria

MindPlay is useless
Posted by LVBear584 on 10-Dec-2005 13:23:16 (#14853)

I have played more hours and won far more money at Reno's Eldorado (MindPlay's ooriginal development partner) since the installation of MindPlay than I did before MindPlay.

Despite the phony sales hype, it is useless for weeding out skilled players. Flamingo Las Vegas has removed MindPlay. MindPlay can be declared a failure.

"MindPlay useless"... IRONIC...
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2005 15:06:58 (#14854)

->"I have played more hours and won far more money at Reno's Eldorado (MindPlay's original development partner) since the installation of MindPlay than I did before MindPlay."<-
----------------------
... considering some of your rants err growls and the litigation. zg

True comedy
Posted by LVBear584 on 11-Dec-2005 03:23:24 (#14861)

At first, I was a vocal opponent of MindPlay. Now I don't care about it. I'd rather play against MindPlay than against a grizzled veteran pit boss who dislikes skilled players. MindPlay is only as good as the employees using it. The few casinos using MindPlay think they can spend even less time and effort to recruit, train and motivate their pit employees. At many stores, pit staff is at an all-time low as to knowledge and interest in their jobs. This permits aggressive play that wouldn't have been possible even a few years ago.

I repeat: Despite the phony sales hype, MindPlay is useless for weeding out skilled players.

Though MindPlay is good at reducing the comps awarded to ploppies, it can be declared a failure at stopping skilled players,

The purpose of Mindplay
Posted by The Mayor on 10-Dec-2005 17:08:32 (#14857)

The real purpose of Mindplay has always been to streamline comps. Identifying players at the correct level for their comps is far more valuable to casinos than catching a few card counters. That it has as a side effect the ability to assist in catching counters is what we were fighting. But, that was never its purpose. The problem is that the cost is very high, so the gain in "correct comping" is not necessarily worth the price. It does not seem to be catching on, that should be the clue.

On the other hand, at least downtown, several stores are advertising that "all blackjacks pay 3:2."

Now, if only those cowboys would get out of town. I'm afraid of cowboys.

--Mayor

"cowboys"...
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2005 17:41:04 (#14858)

-->"Now, if only those cowboys would get out of town. I'm afraid of cowboys."
--------------

You should be dressing like one right now - you could play at all the places that no longer allow Professor Mayor to play at! zg(thinks Eliot would make a good cowboy!)

Who woulda ever thought - "Eliot the bronc buster"
Posted by Easy Money on 10-Dec-2005 22:14:29 (#14860)

zg(thinks Eliot would make a good cowboy!)

...and with a big wad of chew in his cheek, he'll be able to spread 'till the cows really do come home. Don't forget to use an empty beer bottle for a spittoon.

The other main purpose
Posted by victoria on 10-Dec-2005 20:12:50 (#14859)

Besides the reduction in comps, Mindplay was sold to the casinos (not to the staff) as a way to reduce both pit and survielance staff. A casino which reduces staff based upon dependance on a device like Mindplay, can become subject to many forms of advantage play.

Now everybody has a reason to be afraid of cowboys
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 11-Dec-2005 11:41:24 (#14863)

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808403311

Be afraid, be very afraid! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Dec-2005 18:37:27 (#14869)

Much better than counting?
Posted by michael on 10-Dec-2005 01:59:16 (#14851)

in the book Busting Vegas , the authors mentioned that the "adanced tech" they use has much better edge over counting. these tech are Cut Cards, Ace Sequencing, Shuffle Tracking. on their website, they said they have as much as advantage to as much as 50% per hand, as opposed to the 5% per hand maximum advantage of card counting. Anybody belive this? Are there really suck tech that have as much as 50% edge? counting seems nothing compared with these tech then..

Misleading advertising...
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2005 15:10:40 (#14855)

... used to hype their study materials. The 50% claim is based on the extremely rare if ever situation where we KNOW that we will get an Ace. The one method that can 100% predict the Ace on occassion, using the cut-card, is illegal BTW. zg

cutting to the ace is illegal?
Posted by Myooligan on 12-Dec-2005 18:25:53 (#14892)

Didn't know that. Zg, would you mind elaborating?

It depends on how you (or the dealer) does it.
Posted by Sonny on 13-Dec-2005 09:49:43 (#14902)

The method described in the MIT DVD is completely legal, but very inaccurate. ZenGrifter is talking about a method with 100% accuracy.

-Sonny-

I was referring to the method where...
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Dec-2005 22:19:28 (#14954)

... the cut-card is expertly inserted an exact number of cards from the front and then the expert cops a peek, then once in 13 insertions one would see an Ace and know exactly when it would appear. Some pros almost went to jail for this. It wasn't the cutting, it was the peeking. zg

advice for casinos
Posted by casino consultant on 11-Dec-2005 06:33:15 (#14862)

Hallo to all.

I want to give the casinos the advice, how they can make safe the game of Black Jack. When they follow this advice, they don´t have to take care of any counter and offer in a relax way the game of BJ:

When you offer the 6 deck game, put the shuffle card at 2.2/6. ( a little more than 2 decks). When the min is 20, the max should be 200, when the min is 50, make the max 500. One player can only play 3 boxes. But not less than 3 spots, because then the players are angry and change casino.

You must allow the player to double any 2 cards, also surrender. When you offer these rules, you will be very happy.

See you in the casinos

Gee thanks consultant...
Posted by Casino Owner on 11-Dec-2005 18:34:39 (#14868)

...you just cut my profits by 38%. CO

I love it!
Posted by Sonny on 11-Dec-2005 20:26:53 (#14872)

> When you offer the 6 deck game, put the shuffle card at 2.2/6. ( a little more
> than 2 decks)… One player can only play 3 boxes. But not less than 3 spots.

Hmm, three boxes played and 114 cards dealt before a shuffle. That gives you about 11 rounds per shoe instead of the usual 22 (assuming 4.5/6 penetration). In the time it takes the dealer to shuffle you could have played 6 more rounds. Let's take a look at this.

If you use auto-shufflers you will never need to stop and shuffle, only replace the used shoe with a freshly shuffled one. We'll assume that an auto-shuffling table can deal 100 rounds per hour. That means you can deal 100 * 3 = 300 hands per hour, assuming you are dealing to 3 spots for each round.

If you deal 75% of the shoe before shuffling you will play 22 rounds before you have to shuffle (thereby wasting 6 rounds in the process). That gives you about 100 / 28 = 3.6 shoes dealt per hour. At 22 rounds per shoe you are dealing 3.6 * 22 = 79.2 rounds per hour and about 79.2 * 3 = 238 hands per hour (slightly inaccurate due to rounding). That's only about 79% of the potential 300 hands since you are wasting about 3.6 * 6 * 3 = 65 hands of play while shuffling.

Now let's assume that you are dealing 11 rounds then shuffling (and wasting 6 more rounds every time). You will be dealing 100 / 17 = 6 shoes per hour. That adds up to about 198 hands dealt and over 100 hands wasted shuffling every hour. Now you've dropped to about 66% efficiency. Not such a great plan, is it?

> See you in the casinos

You sure will! I'll be the guy tracking those two decks and cutting them to wherever I want them to be. It's like reverse cut-off tracking. The top of the shoe will ALWAYS be advantageous for the player, even for the ones who aren't counting!

You've managed to reduce the amount of action your casino is getting while simultaneously turning every player in the casino into an Advantage Player. Please tell me where you work! PRETTY PLEASE!!!!

-Sonny-

Mayor - Please place this post in the "Best Posts" page.
Posted by toddler on 12-Dec-2005 12:36:32 (#14887)

Great job, Sonny. Zender would be proud.

...and profits lost by restricting max limit.
Posted by Tom on 13-Dec-2005 08:10:09 (#14901)

Mr. casino consultant,are you for real?
Let me give you some free consultation:

"Forcing ploppies to bet less can be a costly mistake."

KO-COUNTING
Posted by spraymaster on 11-Dec-2005 15:22:23 (#14864)

how many of yous play with the ko-count and how good has it been with your play it over time i been working on it but have not went and tryed its comeing soon i just would like some feed back from player that count with it if someone can thanks alot goodtime112@aol.com

how much is the edge of shuffle tracking?
Posted by michael on 11-Dec-2005 15:50:34 (#14865)

what the max possible edge that shuffle tracking can achieve for 6-deck shoe game? Do most pro counters use shuffle tracking to increase their edge? Is any classical book on shufftle tracking that I am supposed to read to learn this tech?

thanks

A fairly ignorant response
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Dec-2005 16:51:29 (#14866)

>what the max possible edge that shuffle tracking can achieve for 6-deck shoe game?

If you track perfectly, and know every card and the exact order... well, I am not sure what your question is here. Maybe you are asking what kind of edge a reasonably good ST'er can get. That depends on the shuffle he is attacking and his skill with that particular shuffle. But, it is a much stronger technique than card counting. If you track a single Ace perfectly and "own" the table so that you can steer cards whereever you wish, you can get close to a 50% edge. If you are just talking about tracking segments of paint (as most ST'ers do), then in practice the upper bound is about 5%.

>Do most pro counters use shuffle tracking to increase their edge?

No.

>Is any classical book on shufftle tracking that I am supposed to read to learn this tech?

Read EVERY book. The books that are out there don't begin to teach you all you need to know. But there are so few, certainly you should read them all. It is a very long road. Those who travel it and succeed are true warriors. I know a couple of infrequent posters here who are on that road, and if they want to chime in, it would be very appreciated.

If you go to "The Best Posts" on this site, there are a couple of great articles by Sonny. Here is a link to one of them.

http://www.cardcounter.com/best.pl?read=18

--Mayor

thanks a lot and...
Posted by michael on 11-Dec-2005 17:44:05 (#14867)

thanks a lot for the useful info! I do have a few more questions though.

I am quite new to ST. In your response, it seems to me that there are a few kind of ST tech. so what the the major kinds of ST that most BJ pro use to incrase their profit?

For books talking about ST on market, I only know there is a chapter talking about it in Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder. Is The Blackjack Shuffle Tracker's CookbooK by him still on the market now? Any other books that we can buy about ST now?

Also, what about the edge for Cut Cards and Ace Sequencing? Any book or material that we can find to learn these tech?

thanks a billion!

Some recomendations
Posted by Sonny on 11-Dec-2005 19:17:41 (#14870)

> I am quite new to ST. In your response, it seems to me that there are a few
> kind of ST tech. so what the the major kinds of ST that most BJ pro use to
> incrase their profit?

There are several different variations on shuffle tracking. The link that the mayor mentioned above describes cut-off tracking, where you track the cards that are behind the cut card. It is probably the easiest and most often useful method of tracking a shuffle. It is the best place to start.

There is also segment tracking, where you track several segments of the shoe and follow them through the shuffle. Often times knowing the location of just one or two "rich" or "poor" spots will be all the information you need. You can also achieve this through card sequencing or slug sequencing.

Full-blown shuffle tracking requires documenting every segment of the shoe and following them through the shuffle so that you have a fairly accurate representation of the shuffled shoe. It is a very difficult technique to master and you will rarely find an opportunity to use it, but it is also the most powerful variation.

> For books talking about ST on market, I only know there is a chapter talking
> about it in Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder. Is The Blackjack Shuffle
> Tracker's CookbooK by him still on the market now? Any other books that we can
> buy about ST now?

Those are both great books. You could also check out Mason Malmuth's "Blackjack Essays" for more information about cut-off tracking (he calls it "card domination") as well as some other decent information. The Cookbook is still available in certain stores and on the internet (amazon.com and advantageplayer.com are both good sources). There are also a few articles on bjmath.com but they can be a bit hard for newbies to understand. There are a few other books that I could mention but they are either somewhat unreliable (J. Patterson) or too advanced for beginners (McDowell) so I therefore do not recommend them to you.

Unfortunately, you will have to do most of the work yourself. You should read as much about it as you can, but eventually you are just going to have to do your own research in order to find ways of making it work for you. Each casino will offer different opportunities and will require you to customize the techniques for their shuffling procedures. Once you understand how these techniques work you will know how to recognize the weaknesses and spot the opportunities in certain casinos.

> Also, what about the edge for Cut Cards and Ace Sequencing?

The advantages for these techniques completely depend on how accurately you can perform them and how often the opportunities arise. Any inaccuracies (and there will be plenty, even for experienced players) will reduce or possibly destroy your edge. On the other hand, even with perfect prediction you will not make any money unless you find games that can be tracked. There is an enormous amount of work that must be done in order to use these techniques. By the time you are ready to try them in actual casino play you will already know how much of an advantage you can expect.

> thanks a billion!

No problem. Welcome to the site!

-Sonny-

and the very frustrating part
Posted by gambler on 11-Dec-2005 20:13:47 (#14871)

will be, that the dealer will 4 times in a row turn an ace on his ten
for a black jack, or the slug you tracked is only at the bottom loaded with pictures, and all your spots will receive a small card as the second card, and the dealer will make 17 out of a 6.

gambler.

True, but less frustrating than card counting *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 11-Dec-2005 22:55:37 (#14873)

Effortless cutoff tracking
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Dec-2005 01:50:53 (#14877)

There is one technique for manipulating a shoe that requires no effort whatsoever at the table. Unfortunately it only works when you have the cut card.

For every shuffle there exists two cut points such that one will maximize the amount of the cutoff that will be dealt in the next round, and one will minimize it. For example in one place I play, the cut point for maximum cutoff is 1.5 decks from the front, and for minimum it is 3.5 decks. All I need to remember is those two numbers. So if the running count at the end of the shoe is positive the cut card goes 1.5 back, and if it is negative it goes 3.5 back. That's the simplest form of shuffle tracking and probably the least powerful. But it's a good place to start if you want to get into analyzing and tracking shuffles.

How did you arrive at 1.5/3.5 ? *NM*
Posted by Pet's Pet on 12-Dec-2005 09:01:24 (#14881)

one idea...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Dec-2005 12:27:39 (#14886)

This all depends on the shuffle used, how many decks are cutoff, etc.

For example, at the first "indian store" where the "shuffle-tracking" concept suddenly popped into my head, we were in a 6d shoe, with 1.5 decks cut off. The shuffle was a single riffle, with the cut-off 1.5 decks stuck on the top of the discard tray.

With a big + count left, the last 1.5 decks are rich. After that single riffle, the bottom 3 decks are 1/2 as rich since the 1.5 decks are now diluted with 1.5 decks with an unknown count. So given the cut-card, where do you insert it? If you insert it 3 decks from the front, you just moved the 3-deck rich segment to the front of the shoe. So that is a good reason for 3 decks from the front for this particular game. Play 3 decks, then get up and leave. Or, if the count was negative when the shuffle card came out, put the cut card 1.5 decks from the back, which cuts one half of the diluted (and 10-poor section) to the back of the shoe, the other 1.5 decks go to the front. Now you don't play, or you min bet if you have to, for 1.5 decks, until you get to the other 3 decks, which must have a count exactly the opposite of the 10-poor half and you can ramp your bet to that count level without worrying about counting or anything else.

Notice this would change if the penetration changed to 5.0/6.0 decks dealt. Or if you play an 8D shoe, etc. But for a particular game with particular penetration, when you cut you can maximize your advantage. If someone else cuts, you simply have to remember whether (a) you start off in a rich or poor section of the shoe, and (b) how many decks to play before this section is gone.

That's sort of the idea he was getting at I assume... Of course different shuffles, and plugging the undealt cards changes all of that significantly. And hardly anyone does a single riffle today because of this.

AM - if I mangled your idea, by all means correct this. :)

It just changes the composition of the shoe, in the long run
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Dec-2005 15:01:12 (#14889)

My method was to simulate the shuffle using CVShuffle and see where the cutoff cards are most and least likely to end up in the next shoe. Placing the cut card at 1.5 puts the maximum of the cutoff cards back into play, and placing it at 3.5 puts the maximum of the cutoff cards back behind the cut card again. It's a function of that particular shuffle and has to be recalculated for every shuffle.

For shuffles that use a plug, a more effective (but slightly harder) method is to do the exact same thing but for the first deck or so where the dealer usually doesn't insert a plug. It's only harder because you have to remember what the count was at that point, not what it was when the cut card comes out.

It doesn't buy you all that much, just on the average adds/subtracts a few cards from play. But if you were playing a shoe game where you knew a couple of 5's had been thrown in the trash can, pretty good deal no? Once you calculate those two points, it's basically a freebie.

When I first started this tracking approach...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Dec-2005 15:29:29 (#14891)

I kept track of each deck for a 6 deck shoe, then I could calculate how each deck was affected when mixed with its "matching" deck from the second stack. Wasn't too hard, but since the single-riffle is pretty rare (I played at one Indian store where a dealer was _very_ old and a single riffle took him a couple of minutes so he still does it when no one is looking) I quit worrying about it. And you are right, CV shuffle will point out some things that are not expected when you first think about this process...

A couple of examples
Posted by alienated on 15-Dec-2005 02:39:53 (#14919)

<em>It doesn't buy you all that much, just on the average adds/subtracts a few cards from play. But if you were playing a shoe game where you knew a couple of 5's had been thrown in the trash can, pretty good deal no? Once you calculate those two points, it's basically a freebie.</em>

Nice post. As you say, it doesn't buy you much, but it is better than nothing for virtually no effort.

A couple of examples might give other readers some idea of the likely value of this approach.

The tables below use the following key:

d = shoe size (in decks)
p = penetration point (i.e., the amount of decks before the shuffle card)
k = the amount of cutoffs
a = the amount of cutoffs cut into play
Nm = the expected amount of cutoffs in play with no smart cutting
Dv = deviation from the normal amount of cutoffs in play with smart cutting
AvBig = average number of big cards cut into play when cutoffs rich
AvSmall = average number of small cards cut out of play when cutoffs poor
N = number of pseudo decks in the played shoe (only relevant if the NRS approach is used)
r = multiplier (only relevant if the NRS approach is used)

(NB. I have arbitrarily assumed that when the count of the cutoffs is zero, the player cuts to minimize the number of cutoffs in play.)

 

   

                                Table 1 

   

d   p   k    a      Nm      Dv      AvBig    AvSmall     N       r 

8   6   2   2.00   1.50    0.50     2.17                7.71   -0.43 

            1.90   1.50    0.40     1.74                7.81   -0.35 

            1.80   1.50    0.30     1.30                7.89   -0.26 

            1.75   1.50    0.25     1.09                7.93   -0.22 

            1.70   1.50    0.20     0.87                7.95   -0.18 

            1.60   1.50    0.10     0.43                7.99   -0.09 

            1.50   1.50    0.00     0.00                8.00    0.00 

            1.40   1.50   -0.10               0.39      7.99    0.09 

            1.30   1.50   -0.20               0.78      7.95    0.18 

            1.25   1.50   -0.25               0.98      7.93    0.22 

            1.20   1.50   -0.30               1.18      7.89    0.26 

            1.10   1.50   -0.40               1.57      7.81    0.35 

            1.00   1.50   -0.50               1.96      7.71    0.43 

            0.90   1.50   -0.60               2.35      7.59    0.51 

            0.80   1.50   -0.70               2.74      7.46    0.58 

            0.75   1.50   -0.75               2.94      7.38    0.62 

            0.70   1.50   -0.80               3.14      7.31    0.65 

            0.60   1.50   -0.90               3.53      7.14    0.71 

            0.50   1.50   -1.00               3.92      6.97    0.77 

            0.40   1.50   -1.10               4.31      6.78    0.83 

            0.30   1.50   -1.20               4.70      6.59    0.88 

            0.25   1.50   -1.25               4.90      6.50    0.90 

            0.20   1.50   -1.30               5.10      6.40    0.92 

            0.10   1.50   -1.40               5.49      6.20    0.96 

            0.00   1.50   -1.50               5.88      6.00    1.00 

   

   

   

                                Table 2 

   

d   p   k    a      Nm      Dv      AvBig    AvSmall     N       r 

6   4   2   2.00   1.33    0.67     3.08                5.33   -0.67 

            1.90   1.33    0.57     2.62                5.50   -0.58 

            1.80   1.33    0.47     2.16                5.65   -0.49 

            1.75   1.33    0.42     1.93                5.72   -0.45 

            1.70   1.33    0.37     1.70                5.78   -0.40 

            1.60   1.33    0.27     1.23                5.88   -0.29 

            1.50   1.33    0.17     0.77                5.95   -0.19 

            1.40   1.33    0.07     0.28                5.99   -0.07 

            1.33   1.33   -0.00     0.00                6.00    0.00 

            1.30   1.33   -0.03               0.14      6.00    0.04 

            1.25   1.33   -0.08               0.35      5.99    0.09 

            1.20   1.33   -0.13               0.55      5.97    0.15 

            1.10   1.33   -0.23               0.97      5.91    0.26 

            1.00   1.33   -0.33               1.38      5.82    0.36 

            0.90   1.33   -0.43               1.80      5.70    0.46 

            0.80   1.33   -0.53               2.21      5.56    0.56 

            0.75   1.33   -0.58               2.42      5.48    0.60 

            0.70   1.33   -0.63               2.63      5.39    0.64 

            0.60   1.33   -0.73               3.04      5.21    0.72 

            0.50   1.33   -0.83               3.46      5.02    0.78 

            0.40   1.33   -0.93               3.87      4.82    0.84 

            0.30   1.33   -1.03               4.28      4.61    0.89 

            0.25   1.33   -1.08               4.49      4.51    0.92 

            0.20   1.33   -1.13               4.70      4.41    0.94 

            0.10   1.33   -1.23               5.11      4.20    0.97 

            0.00   1.33   -1.33               5.53      4.00    1.00

EXAMPLE from Table 2:

The second table says, for instance, that if you are playing a 6-deck game where 4 decks are dealt, and the maximum amount of cutoffs that can be cut into play is 1.8 decks (out of a possible 2 decks), then of the times in which the cutoffs are rich, on average you will cut in 2.16 extra big cards.

Of course, if the cutoffs are poor, you will want to minimize the number of cutoffs in play. Suppose the minimum amount of cutoffs that can be cut into play is 0.75 decks. Then of the times in which the cutoffs are poor, on average you will cut 2.42 extra small cards out of play.

Obviously the further you can get away from normal dispersion of the cutoffs the better. If the cutoffs were distributed perfectly evenly throughout the shoe, the deviation from normal dispersion would be zero, and the gains from this approach would also be zero.

The simplest way to approach the situation described in this example would be to treat the game in the normal fashion; i.e., as a 4/6 game and an IRC of zero. Your indices and betting will err on the side of caution, which is not a serious problem, given that the shift in true-count distribution will only be subtle in the average case.

Improvement can be obtained by using the NRS parameters. When the player can cut 1.8 decks of cutoffs into play, table 2 indicates that the appropriate choice of N is 5.65 and r is -0.49. So, for instance, if the running count of the cutoffs is -6, set your IRC to +3 and treat the game roughly as if it were a 4/5.65 deck game.

Similarly, when the player cuts a minimum of 0.75 decks of cutoffs into play, the appropriate parameters are N = 5.48 and r = 0.6. If the running count for the cutoffs is +7, set your IRC to +4 and treat the game roughly as if it were a 4/5.5 deck game.

NOTE: There is a subtle but important difference between a literal game with N decks and the pseudo (NRS) game we are playing here. Specifically, with the NRS pseudo game we need to be sure that we will complete the round without the shuffle card being reached. This is because the cutoffs supposedly excluded from play due to the player cut come back into play once the shuffle card has come out. In other words, only use the NRS running count if the entire round can be dealt before the appearance of the shuffle card. (Aside: It is possible to treat the round involving the shuffle card as a boundary and base the bet on this boundary information, which I have described elsewhere.)

Although on average the impact of this sort of cutting on the true-count distribution will be small, in individual cases the effects can be more worthwhile. Continue considering the 4/6 game. From time to time the 2 decks of cut offs will have more extreme running counts. A cutoff running count outside the range [-6,+6] will occur about 37% of the time. About 15% of the time the cutoffs will have a running count outside the range [-10,+10].

This means that some shoes will be much more appealing than the average. For instance, if the cutoffs have a running count of -10 and the maximum amount of cutoffs that can be cut into play is 1.8 decks, then you are entitled to set your IRC to +5, giving an initial true count of almost +1 for the 5.65 deck pseudo game. If the cutoffs have a running count of +/-15 (cases this extreme or more extreme occur about 4.7% of the time), then you can set your IRC to +7 or +8, depending on the precise case.

Needless to say, if the cutoffs are more evenly dispersed throughout the shoe, the gains from this approach are even more modest. If the maximum amount of cutoffs that can be cut into play is only 1.6 decks, then in cases where the cutoffs are rich, the player will only cut an average of 1.23 extra big cards into play. The gains from the NRS approach are also reduced, N rising to 5.88 and r shrinking to -0.29. Then even a running count of +/-10 for the cutoffs would only justify an IRC of about +3 and an initial true count of just over +0.5. Just as obviously, if the cutoffs are less evenly dispersed, the gains can be greater than in the examples discussed above.

Thank You very much ! Very enlightening. *NM*
Posted by Pet's Pet on 15-Dec-2005 10:35:09 (#14921)

A small question:
Posted by Pet's Pet on 15-Dec-2005 10:53:01 (#14922)

How frequently do you find games with this degree of trackability?
Is this applyable to most hand suffled games, or only simple shuffles?

Thanks again for your great contributions.

A vague answer and some other remarks
Posted by alienated on 15-Dec-2005 18:53:08 (#14927)

It won't always be very effective to focus on the cutoffs. As Automatic Monkey says, plugging may contribute to a very even dispersion of the cutoffs throughout the shoe. Even if the cutoffs are topped, they may still get very evenly dispersed.

But there is a bigger point in all this, which was stated explicitly by Automatic Monkey: the same approach can be used for any segment of the shoe, not just the cutoffs. So for some shuffles, as is pointed out, you may find that the first deck provides a better opportunity (i.e., is quite unevenly dispersed throughout the shoe). Or perhaps the last dealt deck is more unevenly dispersed. Or perhaps some other section of the shoe. It doesn't really matter. The trick is to find the best choice for a given shuffle.

The method is applicable to quite complicated shuffles, although its power will decline the more evenly the targeted segment is dispersed throughout the shoe.

Here is one other point to keep in mind. It may be better to focus on a smaller segment of the shoe that is contained entirely within a certain section of the new shoe, rather than picking a larger segment that will be spread (albeit unevenly) throughout the entire shoe.

For instance, suppose that for a particular shuffle we have two choices. One option is to take advantage of a property that 80% of the first deck goes into one half of the new shoe (let's assume a 6-deck shoe). The other option is to use another property that 100% of the first 33 cards go into one half of the shoe. Which is the best option?

The two options have the following parameters:

 

   

Option    N     |r|      x     y    IRC(x)  IRC(y)  IRC>|6|  IRC>|10| 

   1     5.60   0.67   -4.31  4.95   3.32    2.90    14.2%     1.2% 

   2     5.37   1.00   -3.51  4.15   3.51    4.15    17.3%     2.7%

The meaning of the notation is as follows:

N = number of pseudo decks (using NRS) (i.e., treat the best half of the 6-deck shoe as containing this many pseudo decks)
|r| = absolute value of the multiplier (using NRS)
x = average running count of the tracked "slug" when its count is negative and we want to cut it as much as possible into play (the "slug" in option 1 is the first deck of the shoe; in option 2 it is the first 33 cards)
y = average running count of the tracked "slug" when its count is nonnegative (includes the zero case) (here we would cut as much of the slug as possible out of play)
IRC(x) = average initial running count when the slug count is negative = r*x
IRC(y) = average initial running count when the slug count is nonnegative = r*y
IRC>|6| = percentage of shoes for which the IRC is outside the range [-6, 6]
IRC>|10| = percentage of shoes for which the IRC is outside the range [-10, 10]

Let's compare the two options. With option 1 we track a whole deck, but only 80% of it is retained in one half of the shoe. The other 20% spills out into the other half of the shoe. In this situation we are entitled to play the best half as if it is a 3/5.6 deck game. On average, the IRC will be set to +3, giving an average initial true count of +0.54. Sometimes the situation will be better. For instance, we get IRC > |6| about 14.2% of the time, giving us an initial true count exceeding +1. In a tiny 1.2% of cases we get IRC > |10|, giving an initial true count approaching +2.

With option 2 we track less cards (33 instead of 52), but all of these cards are retained in one half of the shoe. This enables us to treat the best half as a 3/5.4 deck game. The average IRC will be +3 when the 33 cards are cut into play and +4 when they are cut out. We get IRC > |6| about 17.3% of the time and IRC > |10| a smaller 2.7% of the time.

On balance, option 2 appears to be the slightly better one in the specific example we have considered. Its effective penetration is slightly better (3/5.4 versus 3/5.6), its average IRC is marginally higher, and extreme IRCs are more frequent. (Note: Although x and y are bigger in absolute value for option 1, these larger magnitudes for x and y translate into smaller IRCs because the multiplier is smaller with option 1 than option 2 (0.67 < 1).

Even so, either of these options is a worthwhile play. More generally, changing the assumptions of the examples will alter the relative results. For instance, if 90% (rather than 80%) of the first deck ended up in one half of the shoe, or if only the first 23 (rather than 33) cards ended up in one half of the shoe, option 1 would become relatively more attractive. The purpose of the above comparison is simply to show that there are various options when considering how to approach a particular shuffle.

Lastly, keep in mind that your "slug" does not necessarily have to be a literal slug. That is, a 52-card slug does not have to be 52 consecutive cards. It might be made up of cards 1-26 and 79-104. Or it might be made up of the first and last dealt half decks. It doesn't matter. The main questions are: 1) How many cards do you have a precise count on?; and 2) How many of them end up in a certain segment of the new shoe?

Fantastic post!!!!!!! Thanks *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 15-Dec-2005 11:30:33 (#14924)

Thanks Sonny. Glad you enjoyed. *NM*
Posted by alienated on 15-Dec-2005 19:20:17 (#14928)

and/or. . .
Posted by Myooligan on 12-Dec-2005 01:55:02 (#14878)

in addition to Sonny's suggestions, another route is to pick up CVBJ and CVShuffle and teach yourself by playing around with the shuffle analysis tools. Actually, I think you could learn a lot just by picking up the demo version, which will give scrambled results but could teach you a lot of the main concepts.

BTW, you might not be able to find some of the answers you're after anywhere. Research on things like ace prediction isn't available (to the public, at least) anywhere near the scale of traditional card counting. And unfortunately the technique doesn't lend itself particularly well to quantitative analysis, at least in terms of producing a clear cut SCORE or ev. Too many variables: Are you only tracking one ace per six deck shoe, or all 24? Are you able to track the ace precisely (ev=52%) or to the nearest 4 cards (ev=13%)? Are you able to suddenly jump your bet from $500 throughout the shoe to 7 hands of $10,000, like the MIT guys, or are you playing in a casino that is watching out for that sort of thing?

So I think it's hard to compare to card counting.
My solution: Do both :)

Why the low limits for 6:5 SD?
Posted by Wongster on 12-Dec-2005 08:59:32 (#14880)

I had dinner at the Monte Carlo last night. I noticed the highest-edged BJ game they had going there, if you could call it BJ, was SD 21. You could bet a max of $500 on that game. However, they had some 6-deck shoes with some pretty good rules, surrender, DAS, RSA, where you could bet $3000. They also did not allow you to take even money on the SD 21 game? Why?

Is this a case of casinos being paranoid, or do they have a legitimate reason to fear someone betting more than $500 on this game? Do they really think counters flock to SD 21? Or is this reverse psychology? Making the gambler think they are really frightened of this game, that's the reason for the low limits.

Casino execs cut their own profits...
Posted by Easy Money on 12-Dec-2005 20:24:34 (#14895)

unknowingly because of their stupid ploppy mentality by not allowing the ploppies to take even money.

Even money on 6:5
Posted by GPC on 13-Dec-2005 07:28:17 (#14900)

The reason you can't take 'even money' on a 6:5 BJ game is that on that kind of table insurance doesn't work out that way when the player has a blackjack. If the dealer has BJ, then you do end up winning 1:1 on your original bet, (push on the BJ, pays 2:1 on your insurance bet.) But if the dealer doesn't have BJ, you lose your insurance bet, but only get paid 6:5, (not 3:2) on your original bet. If you bet $10, you lose $5 and win $12, so you only win $7, not $10.

'Even money' IS insurance, it's not some new bet.

GPC

to limit the spread
Posted by BlackJackHack on 13-Dec-2005 11:23:21 (#14904)

My guess is that they keep the table max down to limit the possible spread. I imagine the game is beatable with some monster spread ($25-$1000, perhaps). I assume the house has decided that it's easier to keep a low table limit than to hire competent PCs to police the games (they probably put entry-level PCs on these games and put more competent staff on the high limit games).

1-20 will suffice, BUT they also limit holecard play. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2005 22:07:10 (#14916)

Chess... just another game...
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Dec-2005 10:35:02 (#14883)

I am always watching out for Crafty... I used to run Crafty on my Sparc station in Ohio (it was a robot on one of the Internet Chess Servers) about 10 years ago.

http://www.ru.is/wccc05/default.asp?Page=Notepad&ID=3

Not as good as the 2004 finish, but still world class.

There's a great article on Computer Chess in this week's New Yorker as well.

--Mayor

rumor mill...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Dec-2005 13:01:30 (#14888)

Rumor has it that the author is doing a major rewrite of the "smarts" of the program, planned debut at the next WCCC event. Might be a few surprises built in as well...

I hope...
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Dec-2005 15:06:39 (#14890)

I hope the author writes a program that crushes "Hydra" -- shouldn't be too hard for that kind of genious programmer.

--Mayor

How many openings do they teach chess programs?
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Dec-2005 18:28:32 (#14893)

As a dedicated novice I've been of the opinion that you need to learn only one opening as white (and learn it well), and a dozen or so defenses to be a good novice player.

So being some openings are clearly more powerful than others, why would you teach a program more than one, and for that matter, why would a pro use more than one?

(P-Q3 fan myself. Keeps them guessing.)

When I ran it...
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Dec-2005 18:47:04 (#14894)

I ran an opening book size of several hundred megabytes, that was in 1995. I am sure these things now have books of gigabyte size. What is far larger, however, are the endgame databases. They are huge and exhaustive.

Crafty allowed the person running it to customize the opening repetoire -- I used to aim towards gambit and open lines that were unusual, to quickly get the human into a position that was open, complicated, and unknown. Using that strategy, the program I ran go over a 2500 rating. Look at the top ratings it achieved and their dates. This program lives on fics (free internet chess server)

 

fics% finger meru 

Finger of meru: 

 

Last disconnected: Sun Jun  1, 13:06 PDT 2003 

 

          rating     RD      win    loss    draw   total   best 

Blitz      2244    350.0   14865    1427     900   17192   2576 (09-Jul-1996) 

Standard   2177    350.0     948     123      93    1164   2407 (03-Mar-1997) 

Lightning  2293    350.0    1079     137      42    1258   2548 (26-Jun-1996) 

 

 

 1: Crafty v16.13 (1 cpus) 

 2: Meru runs using xboard and a zippy interface (Thanks Tim) on a random  

\   machine. 

 3: Message all complaints/problems/questions to Meru's operator "mayor" 

 4: Sometimes manually operated or with human assistance

--Mayor

file sizes.
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Dec-2005 20:40:01 (#14897)

a gigabyte opening book is pretty common. The file "enormous.pgn" many use for opening book preparation is well over a gigabyte of ASCII text.

The endgame tables boggle the mind. We have completed the 6-piece endings now, and we have about 1.2 terabytes of data as a result. The new 5-piece format we all use still takes 7 gigabytes for all the 3-4-5 piece endings possible. The 6's stretch that to 1.2 terabytes. 7's are a ways off for most...

computers...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Dec-2005 20:37:54 (#14896)

are blessed with perfect memory, and near instantaneous access. So the opening book can be as big as you want. For example, how about taking 10 million grandmaster games, cataloging their opening moves, and then using that to play the opening?

Trivial to do with a computer.

BTW one for white is not quite enough. For example, 1. e4. You still have to deal with a bunch of choices by black. 1. ... e5, 1. ... e6, 1. ... c5, 1. ... c6, 1. ... d6, 1. ... Nf6, etc. Gets pretty hairy to be prepared for anything your opponent throws at you, regardless of your first move...

Ah so that's how chess programs work

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 2011 to 2040

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 2011 to 2040

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game