At one time, the website CardCounter.com held an active message forum with many contributors. When the previous site owner planned to shut down the site, he allowed us to archive the messages here at BlackjackInfo. They are formatted as they originally appeared, but no further comments on threads are permitted. If you want to discuss any of these topics, please do so at the BlackjackInfo Forums.
Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by SammyBoy on 11-Apr-2003 14:57:17 (#3766)
I've decided to give up the quest. I have the utmost respect for you guys that are able to ride this rollercoaster. After putting a serious dent in my bankroll, I've decided to give it up. It is no longer fun for me. I need to find something else more productive to do with my time. Good luck to you all!
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by HiNoon on 11-Apr-2003 19:06:31 (#3771)
Thanks for posting this. Good luck to you in your pursuits and thanks for the posts and contributions you've made to the community.
All the best.
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by Learning to count on 11-Apr-2003 19:13:45 (#3773)
Sam I know how you feel. It sucks to lose when you know your doing it right. If you are playing for a living stop. Take a break and then get your life straight and find another means to make money. If your just playing to make extra money I mean it's not your main source income then stop take a break. Take some time off and dont play. If you do decide to come back and play do so as a hobby. My first dreams were to be the next Ken Uston or Stanford Wong. Now I just wanna be like the Mayor live life be happy and get a BJ education. My game is for fun and tasting the Vegas good life. This means playing low stakes within your bankroll and possibly being a red chipper. I hope you the best what ever you choose. Stay in touch and say hi once in a while. Stay positive bro!
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by Cadillac on 12-Apr-2003 00:06:23 (#3776)
i feel'ya bro........it can be a pain in the f'in ass.......take it easy
too bad...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 12-Apr-2003 01:25:50 (#3778)
This seems kind of abrupt Sammy, but I do understand where you're coming from. Maybe a couple weeks off to clear the head will do you some good. I wouldn't go making any decisions immediately after a big hit, of course your gonna wanna quit, your emotions may get the best of you. Of course there may be other factors here, I don't know, but I just thought I would give you a little encouragement and perhaps get you to at least re-think your decision with a clear head. In any case, I wish you the best.
ANS
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by ZOD on 12-Apr-2003 08:15:09 (#3780)
Putting a serious dent in your bankroll is never fun. If the roller coaster has really begun to sicken you, then get away for while. Get a little perspective before making a permanent decision.
That said, life's too short to be miserable. Thanks for the contributions to our community here. Good luck at whatever you decide. Hope to hear from you again. Best...
ZOD
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by Biff on 12-Apr-2003 09:34:20 (#3781)
Know exactly how you feel. I have taken about eight months off, but am now ready mentally to hit tables again. Am going to start out playing red, SD, 1-4,5 spread and get some practice in prior to moving up to green and light black action.
Give it some time and keep reading boards.
Good luck,
Biff
The TRUE test of a counter...
Posted by Sonny on 12-Apr-2003 12:22:39 (#3783)
...is not how fast he counts down a deck, how many indices he knows, or how well he plays - it's how much he ENJOYS to play. It's how much he enjoys being at the tables. It's how much he YEARNS to read every book ever written on the subject. This is what seperates the counters from the ploppies. Counters have an instinctive desire that promotes an enormous level of dedication to this game.
Let's face it, there are a million better ways to earn money out there. Was is Wong who said "Anybody out there smart enough to do this is probably making much better money doing something else"? The reason we all play blackjack is because it's fun for us. If it is no longer fun for you, then by all means stop. If you're anything like me, a year or so from now you will be reading through your old blackjack books again, remembering your past sessions, and itching to get back on the soft felt.
If not, then walk away and don't look back. If you can go on without ever missing it, that means you never really wanted it in the first place. At least you got a taste of this world. You should always feel proud that you learned how to beat the house, even if you never got a chance to.
If we never hear from you again, good luck. If you ever do come back, you'll have plenty of friends waiting for you. (Joint bankrolls maybe? Sorry, I can't stop thinking about blackajack for 3 minutes!).
-Sonny-
P.S.-Always feel glad that you didn't take up roulette!
Re: The TRUE test of a counter...
Posted by Wong Out on 13-Apr-2003 00:24:16 (#3788)
Damn, and to think that I have always been doing it for the money! BJ is too much of a pain in the ass for me to be fun. Unless you enjoy whiling away your time indoors in a smoke filled room surrounded by abusive ploppies and glaring pit critters. It can be fun to identify and capitalize on some specific casino or dealer weakness.
Sammy - good luck in your future endeavors. BJ is a tough grind indeed but the rewards can be there if you can handle the flux. If not the the best thing to do is to quit. Many of us get too focused on short term wins/losses. Don S ran a recent test (publicized on richard reids math board) where he ran several 500 hour samples using the BJRM randomn walk feature. The differences in results between the trials were striking. The "long run" can be a real challenge for all but the most battle hardened to achieve.
wong out
Thanks for the Kind Words
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Apr-2003 09:03:59 (#3792)
and encouragement. I'm definitely going to take an extended break to rebuild my BR. It's been 4 days since my last session and I must admit I'm not missing it yet. I do find myself wanting to read these boards though. :-)
When I first started counting I was able to keep my emotions under control. But during this current losing streak I find myself getting really angry and while playing to try to get my money back, all I could think about is all the things I could be doing with my time instead of breathing in second hand smoke, taking abuse from ploppies for splitting 9's against a four in a monster count with max bets out watching as the dealer makes 21 instead of busting, had I not split.
I'm sure these wounds will heal in time and I may try again, but right now it still hurts to think about it. When I first started I thought that I could not lose as long as I learned the indices, bet properly, and was skillful in counting. While that is true in the long run, it is not in the short run. I even remember giving others the advice that in losing streaks the only thing you can do is play through them. That's what I've been doing, but when you continue to lose night after night, day after day, at some point you have to do something else.
If I felt like I was making mistakes it would be much easier to handle the loses. As I write this, I know I will probably be back at the tables one day, but for now it is still much too painful. I don't think this is farewell, just goodbye until we meet again.
Sam
Re: Thanks for the Kind Words
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Apr-2003 13:56:49 (#3793)
The edge is a small one Sammy. Take some time off and if you're ever in the area of CyberBlackjack, drop by and I'll hook you up to a real edge....smile
Rob
Bet ramping hypo
Posted by Running Count on 11-Apr-2003 19:13:02 (#3772)
This came up below in a discussion of HiOpt2, but I thought up here people might respond more redily...
Here's the hypothetical: Spreading 1-5 on SD, DA2, NDAS, 70% pen. Two options for betting schedule based on the HiLo TC:
<table border="1" cellpad="4"><tr><td colspan="2">Low Variance Option</td><td colspan="2">High Variance Option</td></tr><tr><td>TC</td><td>Units Bet</td><td>TC</td><td>Units Bet</td></tr><tr><td><0</td><td>1 (or 0)</td><td><0</td><td>1 (or 0)</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr>
<tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr>
<tr><td>>5</td><td>5</td><td>>5</td><td>5</td></tr></table>
What's going to be the impact on overall expected return and variance of these two options? I'm wondering if the increase in risk of option 2 is worth the increase in $ per session. Can anyone point to a sim that shows this (or maybe even run one?)
Thanks,
RC
a related question
Posted by illustrious bakedbean on 11-Apr-2003 19:35:35 (#3774)
i'm wondering which of those two schedules the readership here would prefer, and under what circumstances.
thanks in advance.
Re: Bet ramping hypo
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Apr-2003 12:02:12 (#3782)
I have data for 5 rounds to 2 which is pretty close to 70%.
"Low Variance" spread
Win/100 3.92
SD/100 26.79
"High Variance" spread
Win/100 4.37
SD/100 30.75
Win/100 3.68
SD/100 25.09
2 Deck Rules Vegas?
Posted by Tom G. on 12-Apr-2003 13:05:43 (#3784)
Anyone have the rules, or where to find on line for 2 deck games at: Rio, Stratosphere, Flamingo Hilton, Horseshoe, Place Station. Also any games under $5.00 Thanks
Re: 2 Deck Rules Vegas?
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Apr-2003 23:01:05 (#3787)
I suggest you get a copy of CBJN (Current Blackjack News) from www.bj21.com before going to Las Vegas, it will help out a lot. It lists all the games and their current rules. Games change.
Can someone help me answer this Blackjack question?
Posted by Shawn on 12-Apr-2003 17:28:28 (#3786)
Does anyone know when I should take insurance when using the Advanced Omega II system? This one guy told me that you should take insurance when the True Count is +6, but he never told me if it is for a single, double, six, or eight deck game.
My question is when should I take insurance if I'm playing a double deck or a six-deck game? When using AO II, do the indices vary depending on the number of decks?
Thanks to all who respond,
Shawn
Re: Can someone help me answer this Blackjack question?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Apr-2003 03:39:26 (#3791)
Yes, you take insurance at a +6. Since you're true-counting, it doesn't matter how many decks you use--it will always be at +6 or higher.
Regarding the index numbers: same with any number of decks. If you don't have the book, go buy it because Bryce Carlson does include caveats for a few plays (which are deck-dependent)in his charts.
-----
Does anyone know when I should take insurance when using the Advanced Omega II system? This one guy told me that you should take insurance when the True Count is +6, but he never told me if it is for a single, double, six, or eight deck game.
My question is when should I take insurance if I'm playing a double deck or a six-deck game? When using AO II, do the indices vary depending on the number of decks?
Thanks to all who respond,
Shawn
Insurance index as a function of decks
Posted by Theef on 17-Apr-2003 10:12:27 (#3829)
You say you always take insurance at AOII +6, no matter how many decks are in the game. Is this a specific feature of AOII? If I recall correctly the Hi-Lo insurance index differs depending on the number of decks. It's 1.3 in SD, and 3 in 8D, if memory serves.
Re: Insurance index as a function of decks
Posted by Cyrano on 18-Apr-2003 02:47:14 (#3846)
You're not mistaken about Hi-Lo. Even Hi-Opt 1 and Uston's APC use different index numbers for insurance (+2 for SD, +3 for Multi for the H-O 1). However. p. 143 of BJ for Blood says +6 or greater. Maybe Bryce Carlson felt that +/-1/2 index number was negligible. Since I don't have a sim program and I don't use a balanced system, I really can't give you a clearer picture. All I know is it's one of the most powerful systems on the market for any decks.
Side Count KO
Posted by Cadillac on 13-Apr-2003 00:34:01 (#3790)
Does anyone use an ace side count w/ ko for SD and DD? How's it done? Thanx in advance
Re: Side Count KO
Posted by phantom007 on 15-Apr-2003 02:30:02 (#3799)
NO! Since I do not know KO, I know nothing about related side-counts.
For SD, and maybe DD, may I suggest AO-II...see "BJ for Blood" by Bryce Carlson for specific suggestions as regarding Ace-side counts.
In SD only, I often also keep an "8-side-count", for Insurance purposes.
For a lesson on Futility, I suggest "LV BJ Diary" by Stuart Perry. IMHO, made things way too complicated via 1/4-decking multi-deck shoes, and side-counting to boot! Certainly, he won a few $, got laid once, and got barred/backed-off multiple times. Despite his skills, I suspect he created a monster in which his "Concentration" gave him up!
On the other hand, he got laid one more time than I usually do on my LV trips!
But I am CHEAP!
phantom007.
Re: Thanx Phantom
Posted by Cadillac on 15-Apr-2003 08:33:57 (#3801)
I do have BJ for Blood and will consider AOII in the future. I've only been at this a few months and not quite ready for level 2 yet.
Recently, I have been studying Bryce's +6 and -6 BS charts as well as the advanced indices. For now, I'm trying to modify my ko system using them, which braught me to the ace side count. I've heard of people using the ace side count for inurance /w KO but I didn't know if it could be used for playing purposes since it's not an ace neutral count. Thanx again
Re: Side Count KO *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 16-Apr-2003 01:32:29 (#3811)
I have created an ace side count system using the K-O point count values, and it is comparable in strength to the best multi-level ace side count systems. See the link below for a comparison with Hi-Opt I and Omega II.
Top 21
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Apr-2003 14:11:57 (#3794)
zengrifter 509 14.74% 1/17/03 11:07:44 p.m.
The Mayor 415 12.02% 4/12/03 9:01:05 p.m.
Rob McGarvey 410 11.87% 4/14/03 11:56:49 a.m.
Learning to count 249 7.21% 4/11/03 5:13:45 p.m.
BradRod 159 4.60% 3/24/03 1:53:08 p.m.
SammyBoy 122 3.53% 4/14/03 7:03:59 a.m.
Adam N. Subtractum 118 3.42% 4/11/03 11:30:37 p.m.
Re: Top 21
Posted by phantom007 on 14-Apr-2003 14:27:18 (#3795)
And ZG is still #1, after almost 3 months off! Where is ZG anyhow?
phantom007.
Re: Top 21
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Apr-2003 14:48:36 (#3796)
Making licence plates in New Jersey. He had to go to jail for 30 months.
Are You Serious!?
Posted by phantom007 on 15-Apr-2003 01:50:45 (#3798)
While "trolling" over on CC.Cafe a few days ago, I noticed a post wherein someone asked "Where were the regulars, such as ZG?", and I believe that you replied "He is someone's bitch in prison.", or something to that effect, or affect, whichever is correct.
Anyhow, ARE YOU SERIOUS!?
I do not proclaim to be a BJ expert, though, IMHO, ZG's posts were usually EXPERT on this BJ Board...His posts on the non-BJ Board were NOT EXPERT...certainly well-read and educated, but LIBERAL, and thus, WRONG!
If he is in prison, then WHY?
Certainly, if ZG was "diddling" kids, he deserves punishment! Except for this, he probably is guilty of doing things that most all moderate to high income individuals do, and/or would like to do.
Anyhow, if ZG is in prison, do you or anyone know his address? Some mail and/or gifts might be appreciated. Personally, I always thought ZG was an A-Hole, because he was obviously smarter than me, and made alot more $ than me...not to mention that he was LIBERAL, thus defining "A-Hole".
And even if he is in prison, it is always possible that he is innocent!
If I were in ZG's supposed situation...I would appreciate a few friends!
Why not start here?
phantom007.
Dead Serious
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Apr-2003 09:05:41 (#3802)
Anyhow, ARE YOU SERIOUS!?
Yes, he is in jail: http://www.njusao.org/files/da1127_r.htm
I do not proclaim to be a BJ expert, though, IMHO, ZG's posts were usually EXPERT on this BJ Board...His posts on the non-BJ Board were NOT EXPERT...certainly well-read and educated, but LIBERAL, and thus, WRONG!
Whether he is right or wrong about anything, he has the ability to "capture" your attention. You may now understand why he is such a conspiracy theorist. He thinks everyone is out to get him, probably because they actually are.
If he is in prison, then WHY?
For gaining peoples confidence (where the term "con" man comes from) and stealing from them.
Certainly, if ZG was "diddling" kids, he deserves punishment! Except for this, he probably is guilty of doing things that most all moderate to high income individuals do, and/or would like to do.
Greed can take the temper out of your morals in a hurry, just as lust can.
Anyhow, if ZG is in prison, do you or anyone know his address? Some mail and/or gifts might be appreciated. Personally, I always thought ZG was an A-Hole, because he was obviously smarter than me, and made alot more $ than me...not to mention that he was LIBERAL, thus defining "A-Hole".
Intelligence is NOT wisdom. Many a brilliant mind is behind bars. He will have plenty of company. I'm sure we could track him down in a hurry. Call the NJ prision system and they will tell you how to get a hold of him.
And even if he is in prison, it is always possible that he is innocent!
WRONG! grin It depends on who you listen to, him, or the feds. I'm sure when he comes out he will be the same ball of wax, braging about some new scam he was pulling off in jail, and what he will do one he is sprung. I do hope I am wrong, but my spider sense says NOT.
If I were in ZG's supposed situation...I would appreciate a few friends!
Why not start here?
Sure. I'd like to send him a "fruit" basket....grin I'd actually thought of sending a pastor in to see him. He has made my heart rather hard towards him because of the way he reacted when I caught on to him a year or so ago. Anyone in NJ willing to look him up for his CC hommies?
"You guys start a riot, and me and mini me will walk out the front door"
"I know guys on crack that makes more sense than you"
"Listen Cuz....
"It's a hard knock life.......
Re: Dead Serious
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Apr-2003 09:50:26 (#3804)
Rob, I like your statement '"LIBERAL" and therefore wrong'. FYI, I am about as liberal as they come 8-)
My wish is that the ZG discussion will move to the non-BJ board ASAP. Thanks.
--Mayor
Re: Dead Serious
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Apr-2003 12:11:27 (#3805)
It was not I that said Liberal was wrong or right, it twas the party to whom I was speaking with. And I think the subject is done so no need to move it.
Liberal has its place. Like a liberal sprinkling of cheese on your pasta.
Something unusual happened...
Posted by JLP on 14-Apr-2003 20:13:34 (#3797)
Something unusual happened to me while playing at around 3am in Montego Bay casino in Wendover, Nevada.
I'm a novice player that is just starting out. I mostly go to Wendover, NV 3 times per month. I use A -1, 4 +1 and 5 +1 method of counting. I start at +4 and at table minimum of $3. at +6 I go to $6. and at +7> I go to $10.
I hope most of you professionals don't laugh at me, but I enjoy BJ and am unusually successful at this very basic counting system; I follow BS religiously while playing. While using this very basic counting system, I notice while playing that when my count goes above +8, that others counters in the table bets go up also. Now, I don't know what system they use. In the Sims I run, when the count A45 gets to +7> , K-O also triggers a high positive count.
Anyway, back to my story. This morning I was at the only $3. table at Montigo Bay at around 3am. The place is under construction and there were very few people in the casino. At the table there was only myself and my girlfriend.
We were there for about 3 hours. In those 3 hours each time the count was at +6 or above I was betting according to my betting schedule and I was winning 80% to 90% of all the hands. I even split 3 3s at +9 count with $30 dollars out against the dealers 6 up card and the dealer busted. At this time the dealer ( older female) says to me, "...you knew exactly when to put out the extra money...". My response was that I was just lucky. Shortly after that, she was relieved and I watched her walk past the PB in the other side of the room and leaned over to say something to him and just continued walking. He then came right up to my table and just stood there watching the table. I became very nervous and just cashed up my winnings and left.
The reason this was strange is because I posed no danger to the casinos vaults betting a spread from $3 to $10. Is this the norm behavior of some greedy casinos?
Re: Something unusual happened...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Apr-2003 08:07:06 (#3800)
Yes, they hate to get beat, even when you are able to do it fair and square.
Re: Something unusual happened...
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Apr-2003 09:31:16 (#3803)
Greetings,
You said:
I use A -1, 4 +1 and 5 +1 method of counting. I start at +4 and at table minimum of $3. at +6 I go to $6. and at +7> I go to $10.
Your system is not a winning one, so I doubt that after they examine your play under the cameras, you will get any heat. Certainly they will be curious -- casinos dislike ALL winners implicitly, and will try and find out if you are really playing a winning game. Once they have determined the extent of your system, I strongly doubt anything will come of it.
The question of just how cheap casinos can be is still an open one.
But, congrats on the run of good cards!
--Mayor
Re: Something unusual happened...
Posted by Learning to count on 15-Apr-2003 13:22:03 (#3808)
I agree with the Mayor your action was harmless and your run of luck was just that luck. WHen you play all in todays conditions you have to pound down big bets when the time is right to overcome the hazards of the game's VIG. Play all can be a pain in the arse. You should wong if your betting so small. Heck I would play 25 cent VID POKER for the comps with this type of action. You have to have some dinero to play all! Like I said wong its better.
It IS a winning system in that game
Posted by T-Hopper on 15-Apr-2003 19:28:19 (#3809)
It doesn't take much to overcome the house edge of 0.2% or so in a single deck DOA game. This very count is discussed in T-H Basic Blackjack, complete with stats for a 1-3 spread.
Still the fact that a casino would sweat silver action from someone whose bets aren't even correlated with the 10s coming out show just how much of a bluff the supposedly "sharp" employees are more often than not.
Bugs
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Apr-2003 08:18:02 (#3813)
T_Hop, did you get all of the bugs worked out of your programs and sales problems?
Rob
That bug was in Microsoft's program, not mine! *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 16-Apr-2003 12:11:32 (#3816)
Re: That bug was in Microsoft's program, not mine!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Apr-2003 12:18:10 (#3818)
The program you wrote was in an up do date version, so it was just a case of people with old versions of exel that couldn't read the info. And what about your sales and distribution bugs?
Distribution problems....
Posted by Alexander Mundy on 16-Apr-2003 18:19:22 (#3822)
That's like asking if Saddam has fixed the hole in his roof.
HA! ;> *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Apr-2003 21:41:52 (#3823)
Re: It IS a winning system in that game
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Apr-2003 09:16:07 (#3814)
It is like an A-5 count, but it is an unbalanced A,4,5 count. If it is winning, with a 3-1 spread, I would think the extent of the winning % only betting variation and no strategy deviation is microscopic, but I would love to know the numbers if you have them easily at hand.
See T-H Basic Blackjack, page 23
Posted by T-Hopper on 16-Apr-2003 12:08:31 (#3815)
A 1-3 spread gives a tiny .04% ROI using the T-H Instant strategy for playing in a H17 4 rounds to 2 game. The "1-3" column in the charts at http://thbj.com/samplespng.htm gives the same figure for several "real" systems.
Re: Something unusual happened...
Posted by JLP on 15-Apr-2003 20:54:14 (#3810)
Thank you everyone for the responses.
Learning to count:
You mentioned "...run of luck..." in your response. One thing I can never understand is why some dealers, (Asian woman dealers in particular) can be so incredibly lucky, at least in Wendover.
Another thing that I don't understand is why some players at a table can never do anything wrong, even when they are drinking heavily, winning hand after hand.
What is "luck" anyway, and can it be bottled and bought??!!
The Mayor:
Thanks for the congrats! Last weekend was the first time I even attempted to count cards in a live casino environment, granted a very basic counting system. I was so nervous at first, that maybe the dealer could read my mind I ordered a tequila just to keep my knees from making noises. As for counting, I'm going to look at the K-O and T-H systems.
T-Hopper:
I agree, anything to lessen the edge can make a difference. I'm going to give your system a try.
Everyone, thanks again for your responses!
Did you read about this count in my book or come up with it on your own? *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 16-Apr-2003 12:12:53 (#3817)
A45 and K-O
Posted by JLP on 16-Apr-2003 13:14:11 (#3819)
T-Hooper:
First I have to say that I'm in awe to be in the midst of real professionals.
I have read a few books and have read a lot of posts. Prior to actually going to a casino and keeping track of 3 cards I had this fear of not only being caught, but of being so distracted that even 3 cards would be an overwhelming task, but, last weekend I did it.
I had read about A45 before in different posts. Since I did not want to get confused with negative numbers, I start my count at 4.
One thing, the dealer needs 4s and 5s and we need As. With an unbalanced system such as the one I used more emphasis is placed on the 4s and 5s, that means more weight is based on the dealer busting as opposed to me getting a blackjack. Of course I only used this very basic system in betting, not playing; for playing I used strict BS.
As I stated before, when using a sim, and when my count goes to 8+, K-O count is triggered. This is probably just random coincidence, but, it appears that just keeping track of 3 cards, and when the count reaches 8+ it duplicates K-Os system.
"The Mayer" is right when he says it was just a lucky streak. I just used this system one weekend, and I'm sure it was just pure luck.
Re: A45 and K-O
ADMIN>AdminPost
Posted by Management on 16-Apr-2003 16:32:57 (#3820)
JLP your right you are amongst some of the elite in card counting! So why dont you create a legitimate profile and become part of the club. It's free, informative and FUN! Join us!
Re: A45 and K-O
Posted by JLP on 16-Apr-2003 17:54:31 (#3821)
I just did, thank you!!!
Re: A45 and K-O
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Apr-2003 08:26:23 (#3828)
You get a FREE mug with a picture of the Mayor on it, and a TShirt that says "I Count Cards for Fun and Profit" smile
Re: A45 and K-O
Posted by Learning to count on 17-Apr-2003 10:57:42 (#3830)
Robert now calm down now remmeber Aces and faces and the fifty dollar gambling bonus. Now that does skirt grifting. Just kidding. :)
Short Skirts, Tight Aces, and Sweet Faces
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Apr-2003 12:32:00 (#3831)
"Robert now calm down now remmeber Aces and faces and the fifty dollar gambling bonus. Now that does skirt grifting. Just kidding. :)"
Grifter wears a skirt? So you have been in to see him!! grin Now don't fudge the deal up now by comparing it to free coffee cups and tshirts.
Aces and Faces Blackjack is available for FREE to BS BJ players that are willing to play online. They will make $250, and $120 in bonuses per month, plus a kick back from me for $275 for hitting their first 8 casinos. Otherwise they can buy it for $15 and when and if they are ready can get their $15 back by launching their online career, they can do so. Plus they will have a signed copy from the Canadian Master of Blackjack. High Low count, Hi Opt II, Hi Opt III, Zen III, and Z3Max, shuffle tracking, ace sequencing, bankroll 101 201 301, etc.
Maybe for Billion Dollar Blackjack I will go with the free tshirts.
Hey have you seen Iraqi's Most Wanted Playing Cards? There is your major Grift! Look for the PDF file with white background for that one.
Tip hustling backfire and other tales
Posted by Running Count on 15-Apr-2003 13:04:45 (#3806)
A few interesting tidbits from the recent trip to Northern NV:
Overall trip outcome:
Net: +10 units
High: +33 units
Low: -2 units
Most interesting occurance:
Dealer at a cheap local joint cursed out my buddies for not tipping when they won (not all that much). Eventually tells them straight up that its their job to tip when they win. Then tells a ploppie that its a good thing he's there, b/c without him, she'd get no money at all. My friend, face burning in rage, tells her to go to hell and leaves the table. Play resumes. I join the table later, and the new dealer hears teh story. Eventually, pit boss gets involved and the end result was a sincere apology from the casino and a meal for all 5 of our party. Not bad food, either.
Closest thing to a backoff I've gotten yet:
At another joint, I am taking a break from counting, chatting with a cute dealer and hanging out with my buddy at his table. Its just us three. I drop a $25 chip on the felt every time the count gets high trying to look like I'm just fooling around. After about the 5th time doing this, she laughs and says "I saw that coming." After the hand (I lost) she leaned over and said "you probably want to stop jumping in in the middle of a deck. The casino thinks that SOME people might be doing that to, uh, improve the odds, and wouldn't like that very much." She noticed the heat coming before I did.
Best buffet in Northern NV:
The P-mill. Hands down. Mmmm...
Best odds in downtown Reno:
That remodeled casino/hotel just West of the strip has D9, NDAS (-.26%) single deck to go with its 10x/$2 craps. Ro7 pen. Nice if you can't/won't drive out to Sparks. This hotel also has the best rooms for the best prices for low rollers in town.
RC
Re: Tip hustling backfire and other tales
Posted by Learning to count on 15-Apr-2003 13:17:24 (#3807)
Haa I love it when you can get justice in the casino! You should have kept playing that green chip to see if heat really did come. ALl the while getting her phone Number would have been the cherry on top of the cake. I really dont think the casino would have done much maybe ask you to leave. Flat betting twentyfive bucks is passe'. Now if it were black then get ready to bolt for the door. You guys do know how to party. Your definitely on my next CC.COM degenerate gambler's fiesta list.
Re: Tip hustling backfire and other tales
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Apr-2003 08:15:14 (#3812)
Hahaha! Sounds like fun, yur fiesta. I think you can call the Nev Gaming Commission in on them for chip hustling?? Not sure. Probably why the free meals.
I'd tell her if she wants the money that bad she better be able to suck a golf ball thru a garden hose or the crome off a trailer hitch,
Because I don't tip dealers, McDonald's employees, or sheity taxi drivers, you funkin beitch.
What's the difference between backed off and barred? *NM*
Posted by Dummy Dude on 16-Apr-2003 23:06:49 (#3824)
Re: What's the difference between backed off and barred?
Posted by Learning to count on 17-Apr-2003 08:17:30 (#3826)
Backed Off: Basically the casino advising you that you can play any other game except blackjack.
Barred: Basically the casino saying that you cannot come in the casino any more.
Then there is preferential shuffling, bad stares, verbal harrassment, illegal detainment, false arrest, being beat up, photgraphed and blackballed, false criminal charges, comp retrievals and rip offs, and the possible cheating dealer. Hey I thought gambling was entertainment!?!?!????????????
Hey DD why dont you sign up and learn more!
ADMIN>AdminPost
Posted by Management on 17-Apr-2003 08:20:24 (#3827)
Its free, its fun, and you could learn how to WIN! WE WANT YOU TO BE A CARD COUNTER!
Insurance index numbers
Posted by Running Count on 17-Apr-2003 12:49:47 (#3832)
I just spent the last 1/2 hour in bjmath.com and, after taking advil for the headache the formulas gave me, I still don't know the answer to my question:
Why should the index number for insurance increase so dramatically as the number of decks increases? The proportions of high to low cards remain the same as the TC increases regardless of the number of decks. Also, the index numbers for most other playing decisions in the Ill18 remain mostly stable as the number of decks increases. What's the math going on here?
More broadly, how can I explain to my brother why, mathematically, single deck gives a better advantage for the BS player than 6D. The best I've managed is a weak "is has to do with the lower variation with less cards in the deck."
Running Count
Re: Insurance index numbers
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Apr-2003 14:01:55 (#3833)
Simply put, most counts do not include 789 in the count, and as the # of decks goes up, the number of non counted cards does too. This is compensated for by upping the number from +1.4 for 1 deck to +3 for 6 and 8. If you want perfect Insurance bets you can use Thorps 10 count, but again, we have to sacrifice certain things to gain advantage in the rest of the game.
Totally wrong. The correct answer is...
Posted by T-Hopper on 17-Apr-2003 18:42:51 (#3839)
The insurance index only changes based on the number of decks for counts that include the ace. When you count the dealer's ace as -1, you are introducing an error in your true count that varies according to the number of decks remaining at the time. If you use High-Low, I would suggest using a +3 index in any number of decks, but DON'T count the dealer's ace before you make your decision.
Really?...
Posted by Running Count on 17-Apr-2003 20:20:51 (#3840)
T-Hopper wrote:
> insurance index only changes based on the number
> of decks for counts that include the ace
Sounds good, but according to the system indices on the menu to the left, the numbers increase for HiOpt1 (a non-ace count) just as they do for HiLo (an ace-reckoned count). In fact they are identical. So your explanation (which makes intuitive sense) seems not borne out by the numbers (unless Eliot mis-typed).
Robbie Mack's explanation seems not to make sense, either, since the proportion of 7s, 8s, and 9s theoretically stays the same as the number of decks increases.
My non-expert understanding was that the increase in the insurance count had to do with the fact that SD play more closely aligned to the expected outcome -- less variation is expected. But I can't translate that into a logical explanation.
RC
Look like a cut & paste from High-Low
Posted by T-Hopper on 17-Apr-2003 20:32:40 (#3842)
See the Hi-Opt II chart on the same page, where the index is 3 in 1 deck and 4 in 2+ decks. That's a difference of just one point between 1 and 6 decks (and probably just a fraction of a point) with an ace-neutral multi-level count.
A Typo in the Indices, Mr. Mayor? Your constituents want to know! *NM*
Posted by Running Count on 17-Apr-2003 23:55:58 (#3845)
Re: A Typo in the Indices, Mr. Mayor? Your constituents want to know!
Posted by The Mayor on 18-Apr-2003 08:21:11 (#3847)
I don't understand what the question is, or else I would answer.
If the question is are my numbers correct, the answer is yes.
If the question is "why are my numbers correct", the answer is because that is what the simulator showed them to be.
Sometimes that's the only argument I have.
--Mayor
So if the nu,bers for hiopt1 are right...
Posted by Running Count on 18-Apr-2003 14:35:39 (#3850)
...then how does that affect your theory, T-Hopper?
RC
Some theory
Posted by T-Hopper on 18-Apr-2003 20:56:22 (#3852)
The only time the number of decks makes a difference in the outcome of a hand is when you are drawing more than one card - not for insurance. A given (exact) TC represents the same ratio of 10s no matter how many cards remaining.
Since we use not exact TCs but TCs bundled into groups, you will see minor fluctuations in the index due to things like # of players or level of penetration, since these things affect the distribution of exact counts within each interval n..n+1 or n-.5 to n+.5. Usually these factors won't change the number by more than a single point.
Humble and Cooper give +2 for single deck and +3 for 2 or more decks for Hi-Opt I.
That Too
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Apr-2003 20:22:18 (#3841)
Use Hi Opt II and you'll never go wong, I mean wrong.
A big reason why SD is best for BS players
Posted by Theef on 17-Apr-2003 14:06:22 (#3834)
To get a blackjack, you need a 10 and an Ace - two different-valued cards. You can never get a blackjack when you draw two of the same-valued cards.
The fewer decks you use, the less chance you'll get two same-valued cards. Suppose you get an Ace as your first card in SD. Already the number of Aces left in the deck has decreased by 25% because there are only three left. This decreases your chances of getting another Ace. Put another way, it increases your chances of getting a non-Ace. This is good because you want a certain type of non-Ace - a 10.
Now suppose you have 8 decks. There are 32 Aces in there. When you draw that first Ace, you've decreased the supply of Aces by only 3.125%. So your chances of getting a non-Ace didn't increase as much as they would have if there were only one deck.
It works the other way, too - if you get a 10 (or anything else) your chances of getting a non-whatever-it-was increase more with one deck than with multiple decks.
So fewer decks means fewer pairs, which means more non-pairs, which means more A-10 non-pairs.
Of course, the dealer gets more blackjacks too, but that's okay, because when the dealer gets blackjack, you only lose one bet, whereas if you get blackjack, you win a bet and a half. The more blackjacks, the better, even though the dealer gets as many as you get.
great answer
Posted by illustrious bakedbean on 18-Apr-2003 22:07:31 (#3853)
that was wonderfully clear.
and it tracks the best explanation i could come up with during a conversation with a bj friend of mine.
well done. i wholeheartedly concur.
Re: A big reason why SD is best for BS players
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 27-Apr-2003 13:09:36 (#3947)
Nice explanation *NM
Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system
Posted by JLP on 17-Apr-2003 15:35:39 (#3835)
Anyone know where I can get Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system?
Re: Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system
Posted by Cadillac on 17-Apr-2003 22:17:35 (#3843)
The link dosen't seem to be working anymore. I have a hard copy I can fax or mail to you. By the way, has anyone used the color ko system? And?
Re: Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system
Posted by JLP on 18-Apr-2003 10:54:14 (#3848)
Please send it to:
karado2003@yahoo.com
Sad news about one of our stars
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Apr-2003 17:39:14 (#3836)
One of our brightest young talents passed away yesterday. Ricky, otherwise as "El Burro" was found dead late last night sitting in his car parked in his garage. The cause of death was asphyxiation. An autopsy is being performed to determine more information.
This is very sad. He never really knew how much I liked and cared for him. I will miss him.
I met him once, in December of 2001. He was as intelligent and excited about the game as anyone I had ever met. His knowledge of advanced ways of beating the game was enormous, and his enthusiasm knew few equals. We spoke often on the phone during the early part of 2002, and he gradually became involved with the highest circle of advantage players in Las Vegas.
I became aware that Ricky had a substance problem in the middle of last year, and also heard of other hard times that started to befall him. I spoke to him once on the phone late last year, and pleaded with him to let me come to Las Vegas and take him to a treatment center. I told him I knew about his problem and that I was willing to do whatever I could for him. It was already too late.
His downward spiral landed him in prison, and finally these sad events.
I cannot understate how excellent an individual Ricky was, and how glad I was to know him for the brief period we communicated. I will always remember him as the bright young star I met that one cold Las Vegas evening.
--Mayor
Very sad
Posted by JLP on 17-Apr-2003 18:04:53 (#3838)
Very sad
My condolences to Ricky's family, to you Eliot, and to all others that knew Ricky
Stars Have Fallen
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Apr-2003 22:19:02 (#3844)
RIP Ricky. Far too often this can happen to people with potential. We often don't see the contribution we can make, or how important we are in the eyes of others. I hope others can learn from his adversity, and realize that drugs can make you crazy, or help you stay that way.
I doubt drugs is all to blame.
Posted by TG on 18-Apr-2003 12:59:06 (#3849)
Mayor, sorry for posting. I know you dont care too much about the tactics I use and my opinions,but in the end we're all friends. I have a need to get(what I feel)is an inportant message to aspiring gamblers.
I've only met El Burro from internet postings and considered him to be one of the few friends I had in cyberspace who was a true cardcounter in action. It is my understanding he moved to Vegas several years ago at a young age with high hopes and dreams of becoming a professional gambler. I feel it is very important for newbies to understand becoming a pro gambler is very diffcult to achieve and is not as easy as "Read a book,learn to count,get bankroll,move to Vegas,get rich." The risk can be huge when someone takes on Vegas with very little experience under the belt,in some cases the risk of suicidal tendencies can occur, as in Burro's case.
At a young age I also moved out to Vegas as a newbie with intentions of becoming a pro gambler. Eventually I went broke due to misuse of money management and inexperience. I lost everything I had and began visiting pawn shops,to survive. It was a very depressing time in my life. I felt like a nobody,a bum. I had to leave Vegas quick before trying something crazy. It's best to set goals at a lower expectation and leave Vegas far before anyone gets in the miserable situation I was in. It was a costly lesson of emotions and money that I learned,experienced,and will never forget.
Anyway,enough rambling. My point is, it is very unlikely that only drugs are to blame for El burro's death. God bless him,he will be missed.
TG
Re: I doubt drugs is all to blame.
Posted by miss brown on 20-Apr-2003 04:09:33 (#3860)
." The risk can be huge when someone takes on Vegas with very little experience under the belt,in some cases the risk of suicidal tendencies can occur, as in Burro's case."
I believe the true cause has yet to be determined! RIP Burro.
miss brown
Re: I doubt drugs is all to blame.
Posted by wong out on 20-Apr-2003 09:26:41 (#3862)
I think that TG is probably a little right. The drugs were perhaps the sympton of other issues. In any event it is truly sad. I never met the Burro but did exchange a few emails with him and found him to be a bright young guy. He was really "high" about being a pro player and was throwing away his engineering degree/career (IMO - you need to use it or you definately lose it in the mind of many employers). At the time he was enjoying some good flux and didnt want to hear it; he jst focused on how much more he made (per hour) than his engineering buddies were.
The problem is adv play is about extracting a tiny amount back with huge variance and it is easy to forget how bad the bad can be while times are good. It never ceases to amaze me how "experienced pro's" will excitedly talk about big wins (or big win rates) for a short time (hundreds of hours is a short time in 21). I cringe because I am always afraid that they are headed for the big fall and are not prepared emotionally for the downdrafts of the game. IMO guys that make it over the long haul are not enthusiastic and aggressive but realistic and conservative. I think that El Burro's problems were partially attributed to drugs but may have also been affected by some short term problems in the negative flux area as well. Just guessing...
In any event it is very sad and I feel bad for those that knew him well.
Re: I doubt drugs is all to blame.
Posted by LVHC_Hitman on 21-Apr-2003 12:43:03 (#3881)
To suggest that El Burro was an unsuccessful gambler and this is what drove him to death is erroneous. El Burro was bright, skilled and was a hard worker. At one point in time, he was a colleague and a friend of mine. But the sad truth is that El Burro had a drug problem and I strongly believe that, had El Burro never taken that first hit of methamphetamines, his life, and the lives of those who knew him, would have been much different. Things would not have gone the way they did. I think he had the potential for greatness, be it in the gambling world or elsewhere, but drugs sent him into a downward spiral which ended in a very sad death. Some of us saw what was happening and even tried to help him, but our words were powerless in the face of the euphoria and solace he found in crystal meth and, sadly, self-destruction was an inevitability. Drugs turned him into a different person and, whether directly or indirectly, it is because of substance abuse that he is no longer with us today.
I am not an anti-drug crusader, I've certainly done my fair share, but El Burro's demise is a lesson to us all. No matter how bright, talented or driven you are, if you go up against something like crystal meth, you will lose. It will ruin you and, starting with your first hit, everything good in your life will begin to dimish and everything bad will escalate. I have seen it happen to other people and, over the year and a half or so that I knew him, I saw it happen to El Burro.
As miss brown has suggested, perhaps the truth and all the facts will come out someday. Or perhaps they won't. But, whatever the case, RIP, El Burro.
Nice To See Your Take on This LVHC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 22-Apr-2003 12:13:15 (#3896)
I think that gamblers, including, and possibly more so advantage playing gamblers, have a propensity for addictive behaviors. There are certain stimuli created in the brain when you win, or lose, that will send off euphoric signals that often keep the player coming back for more. I have watched my Father battle many of these demons since my first trip to Woodbine Raceway when I was around 7. Horses, sex, drinking, pornography, lottery, collecting star trek tapes, computer, and recently hold'em poker are things that often blinded him to the fact that he was missing the rest of his life. The hold'em started when he saw how well I was doing with my blackjack, almost like he wanted to compete with me rather than tell me how good it was to see me succeed at the things he wanted to succeed in. I didn't want to follow in his footsteps and get into horses, and years later when I asked him about explaining his method in further detail, he kind of shrugged me off, which leads me to believe he knows I will find a hole in it somewhere.
I think we should all be aware of the possibility that we can become, or possibly already are showing signs of addiction. I joke around and tell people that I am addicted to winning. The fact of the matter is I am telling the truth. It would be rather easy for me to quit if I wasn't winning. I experimented with drugs when I was young and foolish and I quit when I didn't like the feeling any more. Maybe if I was taking some of these new drugs I would not have been able to call it off so easily. I have my Grand Fathers will power, which seemed to skip a generation and I find it easy to control everything in my life when I chose to do so.
I agree, we can learn from those who have fallen along the way, and those who have risen to new and higher levels of achievement. The choice? Is yours....
Re: Sad news about one of our stars
Posted by marvin on 22-Apr-2003 12:47:19 (#3898)
I met El Burro a few times, about 8 months into his learning card counting. He was so smart. I was surprised how fast he picked up blackjack knowledge and winning playing skills.
I believe he could have succeeded in any endeavor he chose, because of his dedication and ambition. His parents seemed to be so proud and loving towards him. That's the Ricky know. I hope others will heed the warnings of drugs. Drugs and gambling can be a deadly mix.
Rest in peace Ricky.
Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Yaada on 18-Apr-2003 18:07:41 (#3851)
Ive been trying to read as much as I can and reviewing the search results between the two counting strategies. I saw that post about how KO under estimates in the beginning and over estimates late in the deck and how Hi-Lo seems to be more accurate through out the deck. Also the indexes between the two - KO has less while Hi-Lo has more. I go back and forth reading and studying both books but Im just undecided on which one I should concentrate on.
I have CVBJ and I been playing it while using both strategies. Now I wont actually keep the count, but I just peek at the count while playing and to see which count strategy would be better. I have some what been practicing with counting using the KO. But since Im so undecided and I try practicing the count with Hi-Lo I sometimes forget to convert the 7's as a zero integer. I think this is because Im bouncing back between the two rather than focusing on just one. I think the main problem of why I lean towards KO is because I feel hesitant about the Hi-Lo due to the true count conversion and the decks unplayed estimate. Im not too sure what the deciding factor would be for me to choose one. But then Im also hesitant about the KO because of the under/over estimation of the edge it has.
I have basic stratgey memorized for multiple decks. I just figured I would be playing 6 deck shoes more so than 1 or 2 decks. The 1 or 2 deck games here locally have all the cards dealt face down. Now I guess I could count them once all the cards are turned up. I guess Im just more inclined to playing the shoe games because the cards are dealt face up. So I dont have basic strat for single and double decks although I see there isnt much of a difference. From my understanding KO is great for single and double decks.
What can you recommend for someone that wants to learn to count? Is there some what of a step or pre-requisite involved here for learning to count? I know for just playing BJ the first and most important step is memorize basic strategy. So which one - HiLo or KO? Ive read it many times - learn the count strategy that you will most likely not make mistakes and be able to play perfectly. I think I could play either without out mistakes so long as I focus solely on one. Now that I want to improve my skills I want to count - so what next? What count should I practice and focus on?
Any tips, advice, suggestions, or help please.
Thanks
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Learning to count on 19-Apr-2003 18:29:13 (#3855)
The best I can say is that KO is easy and hilo is difficult because of the TC conversion. KO has less indices and hilo well has a lot. SIms have shown KO to be a better betting count and as strong as hilo in decision making. A simple system is good and can add up to being stronger because of the less work involved. Hilo can be a bear but is deadly at single deck or six deck. There is a multitude of research and work that has been produced for hilo. This is what you should be looking at. I love the computations that run through my head as I count. SO I was perfect for it. My cousin panthercounter is a KO counter. He does not like six decks and prefers single and double deck. He advised that his EV suffers in six deck. He feels that the KO is stronger at single deck. He is still learning though. Good luck on your choice and play with skill when you count. LTC
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Yaada on 19-Apr-2003 20:55:47 (#3857)
Thanks. When your cousin plays the single and double decks are the cards held in each players hand? Im guessing these games are refered to as pitch games where the dealer "pitches" the card to the player and they pick them off the table. How does he count - counts after all the cards are placed face up?
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by panthercounter on 20-Apr-2003 00:46:42 (#3859)
I count the cards after they are placed heads up. It is not really that hard to see the cards. I typically will only play at a table with 1 or two other people. I will not sit at a crowded table. It hurts my ability to play 2 hands when the count is right. I do not like the six deck games and have not found
K-O to be as strong with them. With good penetration K-O is a good system. K-O is easy to learn and use but it is not for everybody.
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Learning to count on 20-Apr-2003 09:53:43 (#3864)
I think KO is easy and just right for a begginer. I think hilo is a step higher and needs more study.
As far as playing pitch games one thing we do is we try and play at the same table and show each other our hands. One note of caution if you start showing the cards to each other the pit demons could start huanting you. We try and make a game of it. If I get a stiff I say "shite panther counter I always lose at this game" and show him the stiff. He in turn says "ha I have a great hand" and teases me with it. Every one is happy!
I liken held games to mass confusion. I feel the ability to see cards fast is what is needed. Every time a card is revealed you must count it and then remember later that you have counted it. Its difficult at first then it becomes easy. There are some double deck games where the cards are dealt face up. MOst will be pitch. This is why I feel counting a deck under fifteen seconds is necessary to playing blackjack. LTC
Count on it
Posted by Cyrano on 20-Apr-2003 19:59:09 (#3869)
I noticed you guys are relatively new to counting and especially pitch games. I wanted to see how your experience with counting pitch games are, specifically, what was the hardest part about it? I learned late last year and felt overwhelmed when on my first trip, the dealer flipped over a bj with 4 other people playing. I thought 5 total people means the game would be slower, but boy was I wrong! When everybody realized they lost, they tossed their cards in and I was scrambling to count everything! I'm sure my eyes looked like that of someone going into seizure. Anyway, to make a long story short, I wasn't able to do it so I flat-betted until the next shuffle (which took only 1 hand). After that, I prayed the dealer would never get another bj--a real double-whammie for me. Luckily, during my 1 hour of play, the dealer only hit it that one time but after that, I decided to drill and drill and drill. Even now, I'm still uncomfortable with the dealer getting BJ and can only catch a full table 1/2 of the time and I still breathe a sigh of relief to find a table with 2 other players and 1 happens to be a ploppy. It gives me time to pause, since none of this is second nature to me yet. It took me 3 weeks just to learn how to count cards AND add the face values of my cards and figure out what what to do when my turn comes. The hardest part wasn't the memorization. The parts were easy for me but the sum was a bear.
Re: Count on it
Posted by Learning to count on 20-Apr-2003 21:28:20 (#3870)
Three weeks to learn is excellent. It took me years to get good. It took me months to learn. I have to say that reading a table of cards at those moments when they hit the table is difficult. If the players put them down so as to show the values then it is possible. If they are not visble then you have to take what you have and make due. I must again emphasize that speed is important to read the table. I drill daily but then again I play seriously several times a year in vegas, gulf coast, tunica and cruise ships and boats. I firmly believe in speed reading. You have to train at it. I find single deck easier than six deck and more profitable; but you must be able to play heads up or with one other player, you must be able to play more than one hand in positive counts, you must get RO6 or better and be able to push the pen by playing multiple hands early, finally you must be able to spread enough to beat the vig but not get heat. Oh yeah if you want to wong at six deckers then you have to be fast. I know the books say you can play if you count 20 secs but I know the pros count below 11 secs...nine and eight secs is possible. Oh and yes you must know BS by instinct (including indexes). My only other suggestion is to get involved in the community and earn trust and find a mentor/coach. There are many things about playing BJ that the pros know and keep close to themselves. LTC
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Yaada on 21-Apr-2003 22:52:42 (#3890)
Panthercounter - are you using the Preferred Strategy or the Full KO Strategy?
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Apr-2003 23:49:10 (#3893)
Yaada,
If I were you, I'd just go with the 6-D Full Matrix, since you will be primarily playing 6-D's. It's ONLY 18 numbers. Think of it like this... if you know 3 sets of phone numbers, you've already learned more numbers than the Full Matrix! I think it's worth it to learn the Full Matrix, especially with so few numbers to remember.
--Cy
By the way, I've found I can't count down a deck in 15-20 seconds, mainly because I can't flip cards 2 at a time so fast. How do you all do it?
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Yaada on 22-Apr-2003 08:20:40 (#3894)
I dont think they actually "flip" the cards over. I think you start with a full deck face up and just shuffle the cards (single cards to pairs to 3 or even 4 cards at a time) in to your other hands with your thumb thats holding the deck. Is that right guys?
Cyrano - I thought there is a Preferred Strategy (18 matrix numbers - Category A,B,C) for any number of decks and then there is the full matrix (Appendix in back of book) that has alot more matrix numbers which cover 1,2,6, and 8 decks. Or did I misunderstand what you just posted?
Thanks
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Cyrano on 22-Apr-2003 19:26:59 (#3905)
You're right. Both the Preferred and Full have index numbers for the different decks. I'm just saying since you indicated that you will primarily be playing 6-Deck games, you should just focus on the 6-Deck indices. Since it's not too much of a stretch between learning the Preferred (18 situations) versus the Full (similar 18 situations with different numbers), it's well worth your while to just sit down and memorize for 3-4 days. I approached learning index numbers the same way I approached learning state capitals: 10 capitals a day for 5 days (I don't believe in learning all 50 in 1 sitting). For index numbers, I wasn't so productive, but I was still able to incorporate the same methods, learning about 7 index numbers a day (the system I use has about 50 index numbers). It took me a little more than 1 week, about 2 hours each day--1.5 hours to memorize, .5 hours for review. Basically, broken down into minutes/index number, it was roughly 15 minutes each. Don't just say "ok, 15 minutes are up, I'm moving on." Spend as much time as you need until you're comfortable with it. Your time constraints might only allow you to learn 2/day. That will still take you less than 2 weeks to learn the Full Matrix. After the initial learning period, you'll realize it only takes a few minutes to just review the numbers even if you put it down for several weeks.
Good luck on whichever method/count you choose!
Thanks *NM* *NM*
Posted by Yaada on 22-Apr-2003 19:43:53 (#3907)
To each their own
Posted by Running Count on 20-Apr-2003 14:10:40 (#3866)
Yaada,
Everyone has skills that come easily to them and ones that are harder. I suggest learning a system that matches your skills. If quick mental math is no problem, then HiLo is easier -- the division is lickedy split. If you can add and subtract quickly, but the division to TC or deck estimation throws you, maybe stick with KO.
If you're like me, you enjoy learning systems for the fun of learning them. In the long run, if you plan to do this recreationally, my guess is that either system will be about the same in terms of production. I'm studying HiOpt2 because if I wasn't, I'd be forced to study schoolwork, and that is the least-productive "system" of all.
RC
Re: To each their own
Posted by Yaada on 21-Apr-2003 18:22:50 (#3886)
Thanks RC. You pointed it out to me - "quick mental math" Im sure with practice and time the true count conversion of Hi Lo would come without even thinking about it. But for now its not that way. I will focus on KO.
And yes Im basically doing this because its fun and enjoyable. Its giving me the opportunity to brush up with my basic math skills. In the long run I can forsee myself using Hi-Lo.
I guess Im going to have to really work on getting that KO Count down to 15 or 10 secs.
Thank you guys for all your advice - very helpful.
Yaada
Re: Undecided - KO or Hi-Lo?
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 28-Apr-2003 16:29:08 (#3959)
Dear Yaada,
I recommend Hi lo for many of the reasons our fellow counters have been telling us about. I have additional reason why I think Hi lo would be better.
It is a balanced system. You can play it your whole life, and I've made money with Hi lo, or you can use it to transition to a more complex system. Once you understand how the balanced system works you can convert very easily to any other balanced system. I play Uston APC and i just learned new card values and new indexes included an Ace side count, which is a lot easier than it seems. And divide my running count by remaiing half decks and I turned a ford into a Ferrari. No really new concepts just spins on the old ones. You don't have to do all these things at once just practice adding one thing at a time. I am going to show you guys one of the little tricks i learned in how to keep an ace side count without your feet or any physical object very easily.
hope this helped.
when it's heat, & when it's not
Posted by illustrious bakedbean on 18-Apr-2003 22:14:23 (#3854)
during a few recent sessions, the pit bosses have been staring at my table rather consistently, before i have done anything that could give me away.
other times, i've been at chatty tables and the pit bosses have decided to join the conversation, sticking around for lengthy periods of time.
still other times, i've been at the only open table, and the pit boss naturally keeps an eye on the table.
so my question: is all scrutiny actually heat? my sense is "definitely not."
so the next question: WHEN is it heat, and how can you tell?
what sort of pb activity makes you guys nervous, and what do you write off as natural?
and lastly, is it an iron-clad no-no to spread (say 1-4 or 1-5 on sd) when a pb is paying attention, but you're pretty sure he's not suspicious?
Re: when it's heat, & when it's not
Posted by Learning to count on 19-Apr-2003 18:46:46 (#3856)
Heat: When the casino is suspicious of why you are kicking their arses.
If you bet big and win consistantly the casino will notice. Beyond Counting by Grossjean is what you should read about heat. The one thing that brings on heat is black chips filling your pockets or if the casino knows you are a counter. If you are a red chipper then I would not worry. Green chipper and building stacks of over 150 will get noticed. Real heat will be there when you hit the 100 to 10,000 min/max table. Heat comes when you win, raise bets and win, stay too long at a table while winning, midshoe entry and winning, splitting tens and winning, just plain winning will get you heat whether you are counting or not! Face it the Casinos are there to take your money. They dont even want to allow real "gambling". They just want to take your money while they masterbate your ego.
If you are playing and the critters start to watch your play stay calm. If you are getting attention because of any of the above its heat. Other wise the critter is bored and is just watching. what you may interpret as heat may be nothing. I onced stashed 400 plus in green in my pocket. The critter saw that my mountain had left the building and was visibly upset. He kept asking "did he lose it, what happened to the chips, whats this guy up to"? I was scared I though he thought that I was counting. Later I found out that the count was comming up and he was light on green and black chips. I colored them up so he would be healthy in green. Who knows what lerks in the minds of pit critters any way. Life goes on. Keep on counting and dont fret the small stuff.
Re: when it's heat, & when it's not
Posted by Running Count on 19-Apr-2003 21:35:36 (#3858)
LTC wrote:
> [the casinos] just want to take your money while they masterbate your ego...
If the casinos do it to players, shouldn't this be "give your ego a handjob"? Of course the PCs could, and do, masterbate their OWN egos.
Just a stickler for proper use of sexual terms,
RC
Re: when it's heat, & when it's not
Posted by wong out on 20-Apr-2003 09:32:17 (#3863)
Heat is when the 4 suits watching your action follow you to the next table. Or when the phone rings in the pit as you approach it or when you are being read the tresspass act. Anything less is just the "onset of heat" and to be ignored...:)
winning hand/losing hand
Posted by steve on 20-Apr-2003 09:10:40 (#3861)
I posted this question on another board, but received not the answer, I was looking for. In BJ, there are many hands, called losing hands(hands, where the probability of winning is less than 50%). I want to know, which of these hands change into winning hands(probability of winning more than 50%), because we have reached a certain +TC.(I am thinking of all the stiff dealers up cards) Who has the numbers?
Re: winning hand/losing hand
Posted by Running Count on 20-Apr-2003 13:59:12 (#3865)
Here are some sites I've found fun in terms of statistics:
BJ Stats. Sortable tables and charts. I don't think I saw exactly what you are looking for, but close.
http://bjstats.com/bjsc.asp
Wizard of Odds. Lots of probabilities, including win/loss on any composition of hands. Doesn't include changes w/ TC, though.
http://www.wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/bjapx5.html
Please post to this list if you find anything better. Of course, knowing the percentage win/lost at a given TC for any dealer upcard/your first cards combo would be a 3-dimensional chart -- kind of difficult to read. Also, it is completely irrelevant to playing strategy, but I agree its fun to know this stuff.
RC
Re: winning hand/losing hand
Posted by steve on 20-Apr-2003 14:47:57 (#3867)
Thank you, very helpful information.The wizardoffodds table
gives an idea, that players 17 vs. dealers stiff hands could turn to a "winning hand" if TC is positive.
Re: winning hand/losing hand
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Apr-2003 19:22:23 (#3868)
Your definition of a losing hand:
hands, where the probability of winning is less than 50%
The correct definition of a losing hand:
The EV is negative.
You are asking, which hands change from a negative EV to a positive EV with a high enough count.
One that comes to mind, e.g., is doubling 7 vs. 5 (single deck).
There are many others.
--Mayor
never db 7 mayor
Posted by hammer on 21-Apr-2003 08:47:43 (#3871)
pure crazy..
the count is high..so then you are expecting a 17,oh baby,,
and the dealer may still not break..
???
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Apr-2003 09:05:19 (#3872)
The index for doubling 7 vs. 5 is +9.
Please ...
--Mayor
Re: ???
Posted by hammer on 21-Apr-2003 12:19:18 (#3876)
No I repeat never db 7,I do not know any book that tells otherwise
and if so, do not believe it,hey why stop there db 5 too then.
17, is one of the worst hands anyways.n.m *NM*
Posted by hammer on 21-Apr-2003 12:20:51 (#3877)
Re: ???
Posted by Running Count on 21-Apr-2003 12:32:21 (#3879)
Hammer wrote: "I don't care what the book says"
Then why are you posting here? The first lesson of advantage play is "the math never lies." If you can make a good argument, like "doubling 7 on a 5 increases variance with little increase in EV, and thus is not worth it in a risk-adverse strategy," then please do.
Yeah, that's right, a newbie is doggin' your post...
RC
Re: ???
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Apr-2003 12:35:34 (#3880)
Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack gives the indices for doubling not only 7 vs. 5, but 7 vs. 3.
Such plays are routine by professional players.
Please look at Wong's PBJ and its tables, it is the bible on hi-lo.
I know a player who goes by the handle of "Doubledown" who knows ALL of the doubling indices, down to doubing 5 vs. 2, which he claims he has correctly done based on the count exactly once.
--Mayor
Indices for HiLo from -10 to 10?
Posted by Running Count on 21-Apr-2003 12:22:33 (#3878)
Hey Eliot,
I was just thinking it was time for me to progress beyond the Illustrious 18. Can you or someone link to or post the indices for TCs of -10 to +10 for HiLo (SD, 2D and 6D)?
I need more BJ-related homework,
RC
Re: Indices for HiLo from -10 to 10? *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 21-Apr-2003 13:15:49 (#3882)
See the link below
Wow! Great link
Posted by Running Count on 21-Apr-2003 13:24:34 (#3883)
I found all I wanted to know and more! I notice that the root site (http://www.thbj.com/bj-strat/) allows folks to put in any strategy and variables they want.
Hot stuff! Thanks, bro!
RC
indices say never dbl 7 here it is...
Posted by hammer on 21-Apr-2003 15:46:44 (#3884)
this is from a n average of over 12 books/and software comprised
into one chart..
HI-LO count strategy for four or more deck games where doubling down is permitted after splitting: Player's
Hand Dealer's Upcard
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
8 12 HD 8 HD 6 HD 4 HD 2 HD 16 HD H H H H
9 1 HD -1 HD -3 HD -5 HD -7 HD 3 HD 7 HD H H 15 HD
10 -11 HD -13 HD -14 HD -15 HD -17 HD -7 HD -5 HD -2 HD 3 HD 3 HD
11 -15 HD -17 HD D D D -10 HD -7 HD -5 HD -5 HD 1 HD
12 3 HS 2 HS 0 HS -2 HS -1 HS H H H H H
13 -1 HS -2 HS -4 HS -5 HS -5 HS H H H H 16 HS
14 -4 HS -5 HS -6 HS -8 HS -8 HS 18 HS 18 HS H 12 HS 12 HS
15 -6 HS -7 HS -8 HS -10 HS -10 HS 10 HS 9 HS 7 HS 3 HS 9 HS
16 -9 HS -10 HS -11 HS -12 HS -13 HS 9 HS 7 HS 4 HS 0 HS 8 HS
17 S S S S S S S S S -7 HS
A2 11 HD 7 HD 3 HD 0 HD -3 HD H H H H H
A3 12 HD 6 HD 2 HD -2 HD -5 HD H H H H H
A4 H 6 HD 0 HD -5 HD -16 HD H H H H H
A5 13 HD 4 HD -4 HD -10 HD D H H H H H
A6 1 HD -4 HD -11 HD D -17 HD H H H H H
A7 0 SD -3 SD -7 SD -8 SD -11 SD S S H H 0 HS
A8 7 SD 5 SD 3 SD 1 SD 1 SD 17 SD S S S S
A9 10 SD 8 SD 7 SD 5 SD 5 SD S S S S S
AA -14 XP -16 XP P -17 XP -16 XP -12 XP -11 XP -10 XP -12 XP -6 XP
22 -2 XP -6 XP -5 XP -6 XP -9 XP -14 XP 4 XP X X X
33 0 XP -3 XP -4 XP -6 XP -11 XP P 4 XP X X X
44 X 8 XP 3 XP -1 XP -2 XP -20 PX X X X X
55 X X X X X -17 PX -18 PX X X X
66 -2 XP -4 XP -7 XP -8 XP -10 XP X X X X X
77 -9 XP -9 XP -10 XP -12 XP -13 XP -17 XP 6 XP X X X
88 P P P P P P P P 7 PX -18 XP
99 -3 XP -5 XP -5 XP -7 XP -8 XP 3 XP -8 XP -8 XP X 4 XP
1010 10 XP 9 XP 6 XP 5 XP 4 XP 14 XP X X X X
Re: indices say never dbl 7 here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Apr-2003 16:44:57 (#3885)
That your sources do not include indices for doubling 7's is not important to me. They are valid indices, of use to some players in some situations.
I must say, that if you continue in this manner, I am going to start removing your posts. The use or existance of these indices is not a topic of dicussion. The indices exist, have meaning, are important to some players and are used by those players, and are in Wong's book PBJ.
Please start over.
--Mayor
no problema
Posted by hammer on 21-Apr-2003 19:20:38 (#3887)
A few pros/books,etc do show slightly different
charts for basic strategy and indicies.
I merely pointed out this one,(also some show db12)
I thought we are to have valid
debates and discussions,if you still feel Iam still wrong
then I will gladly stop postings. But will continue my postings
to many members that have emailed me directly for some time now.
Not here to cause problems,just here to help and learn.
Re: no problema
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Apr-2003 23:18:55 (#3891)
Your right in saying that different professionals show different BS charts. You're wrong, however, in assuming that means their opinions differ when it comes to "the right play". At any one time, there's only ONE correct BS play. Stanford Wong prescribes a "generic BS" because he moves between single and multi-deck games and this form of BS lets him play any one of these. Some other authors prescribe BS for what they play. The BS of a single deck, double deck, 4-deck, 6-deck, etc. are all different, just like rule variations can cause the BS to differ. Index numbers also change with each of these variables. Performance numbers can also change. I believe the Mayor posted something on how KO Blackjack manipulated the conditions to suit their system better.
Regarding Stanford Wong and Doubling 7's, p. 46 of PBA (S17 Indices) show double 7 against 5 and 6 at +9, p. 48 of PBA (H17 Indices) show double 7 against 5 and 6 also at +9. p. 41 (Double Down S17 Table) shows the same thing, double 7 agains 5 and 6 at +9. To be fair, Stanford posted, it looks like, over 100 index numbers. I would only learn maybe the top 50 and thus far, it seems that doubling 7's wouldn't be on that list.
Mayor, are you sure that double down on a 7 is meant for the SD game? "One that comes to mind, e.g., is doubling 7 vs. 5 (single deck)." I thought PBJ was based on multi-deck games, and with the exception of Vegas SD games, most places don't allow doubling on 7's.
I think you're both right. Stanford DID publish doubling on 7, but many authors left it out because there's a lot more profitable index numbers to remember first.
Yes, SD too *LINK*
Posted by Running Count on 22-Apr-2003 10:34:04 (#3895)
According to what I just learned at http://www.thbj.com/bj-strat/, you double 7 against a 5 in SD (H17) at a TC of 9, or against a 6 at a TC of 10.
RC
Re: Indices for HiLo from -10 to 10?
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 27-Apr-2003 07:54:33 (#3943)
Dear Elliot,
It seems that you would only use most of these indexes in a one deck game.
In which IMHO Hi-lo is a poor choice of strategy. If you play shoe games I have a really nice set of indices that I got from S-a-g-e.com and then expanded to include surrenderable hands (2 cards)and non surrenderable hands (3 or more).
I have simmed it to death and it works in the simms and it works in the Casino. Its the system I cut my teeth on. I'll even tell you the betting schedule that is synchonized with it. Yes all of this can be yours at the warehouse clearing price of $0.00. You may ask yourself . How can they do it for this phenomenally low price. Well my friend the answer is Volumn.
PS dyslexic atheists don't believe in dog
Stephen Bauer
Re: never db 7 mayor
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 28-Apr-2003 13:53:46 (#3958)
Dear Hammer,
I double on 7 once in a while. Uston APC indexes are 7v4:13,7v5&6:12. There is a name for people that believe their intuition is superior to the mathematics , they call them Gamblers.
Penetretion and bet speard Advantage
Posted by Mayrosiakovos on 21-Apr-2003 09:27:15 (#3874)
So ...in european game (no hole card) with 65% penetretion,BSE +0.07 and B.S 1-10/1-12 wy have about 1%.
I play head-on most of the time,with hi-opt 1 no A side count, i use the
formula BSE+0.50*TC+SG+ deeper into the deck from Peeter Grif.
In negateve counts 2H's MNM,+1 1H/ +4 2H's/ +5/6 2H's the 1% of my bank plus the 0.30%from the 2H's bet.
So..in same casinos they know that i m counting when i play and instant to throw me out they kill the penetretion, 3decks cut off (50% ?).
You think that if i use bet speard 1-18 or 1-20 all toke the 1% back ??
questions on being barred
Posted by Negus on 21-Apr-2003 10:43:20 (#3875)
Hi All
I am looking for advice about having been barred from MGM Resorts. I was recently barred from playing in one MGM-Mirage resort casino in Las Vegas and was read the trespass act as I was escorted from the building. They didn't get my name and so don't know who I am.
I was wondering about a few things.
1. Is this trespass act valid for all MGM-Mirage resorts or only for the Casino I was thrown out of
2. What would be the chances of them identifying me on their premisies if I stayed clear from the pit and was only there in the stores, restaurants or bars. Would they be likely to prosecute me if I wasn't there to gamble.
3. Since they don't have my name could they prosecute me under this act as they're not certain if it was me in the first place.
Thanks in advance for all your help
Negus
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by sighguy on 21-Apr-2003 20:22:46 (#3888)
Dude you had your picture taken 4 ways to Sunday long before the final sentence of the trespass act was uttered. As to whether the trespass was valid at all MGM properties, technically yes..but, I doubt you'd be messed with at another club, unless they detected you counting there as well. I don't think you'd be arrested, but you'd be trespassed again. Eventually, an arrest could be in your future, regardless of whether they have your name or not. Although I do hear that MGM-Mirage has an excellent record of sharing information between themselves.
Re: questions on being barred
ADMIN>AdminPost
Posted by Mangement on 22-Apr-2003 13:45:27 (#3900)
Dude you have posted several times on this site. Your oppinion is valued here on CC.COM. SO why dont you create a profile and officially join the club. Its free, its easy, and is a privilige!
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by Learning to count on 21-Apr-2003 21:21:17 (#3889)
Negus first of all under normal conditions a tresspass warning must be accompanied by some type of official documentation; a police report for example. In order to do so you must have a police officer present and your identity must be established. If they trespassed you without identifying you then the trespass is a bluff.
Now if they photographed you and wrote a casino report and filed it then they would have the begginings of a case against you when you return. If they did arrest you based on this photo and thier casino report then you would have a great defense. Your lawyer could argue first that no official legal officiate was present and that the film could be someone else and that they are wrong. The photo would be circumstantial at best. He could further argue what crime did you commit to recieve such treatment. This could be considered some type of civil rights complaint. I still am amazed when they trespass a person without knowing the identity and having a police officer to offciate the trespass.
Stay away for a couple of months they will forget. Also take notice of that shift and stay away from them. Above all be carefull the pit devils will lie to get you arrested. Most of these trespass cases are dropped. It is another form of harrassment at best.
I know its Nevada but they have follow the rules too or at least act like they do.
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by sighguy on 22-Apr-2003 12:25:19 (#3897)
What a bunch of drivel. A police officer must be present for a trespass warning? Not. The trespass warning is given by the owner or (representive of) the owner of the property. Name required? Not. I know that, at some clubs, when they trespass a "refused", the photo is always taken with security in the photo, to prevent the "must of taken a photo of me walking through the casino." schtick. Although..arresting counters for trespassing would probably never happen, simply for the fact that it ain't worth the effort, since you'd simply be backed off/booted out, once again. Trespass arrests are usually reserved for the [other] low-life types that frequent casinos, the bums and those that would steal from the patrons.
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by Learning to count on 22-Apr-2003 13:03:10 (#3899)
Yep, sorry but thats it, a police officer must be present to witness the casino giving an official warning. Then it must be logged by a report or a FC card (Field Contact card and placed on the computer at the PD). Then if you come back then you will be arrested. It is called evidence it is the way you officiate the warning. A picture and even a report saying you gave a TW to a unidentified person aint gonna fly in court.
Yes A casino gorilla can grab you and hold you and read the warning; but without your identity and it being recorded on a municiple or state record; you dont have a good case. TO take it further they may press charges if they want but they will not stand. This is a bad case and will amount to bad case law and possibly a lawsuit for false arrest lack of probable cause.
The reason the gorilla can garb you is because the state granted businesses the right to detain thieves and hold them for the police. They also granted the business the right to expell anyone for no reason from thier place of business. This is a granted of quasi police powers to private businesses but with the cooperation and responsibility of the power of the state. The probelm in Nevada is that a special relationship between the casino and government has existed to the point that the casinos take the law into thier own hands and the state looks the other way.
Were you pinched by the casino and arrested? You seem scared of this scenario. It would scare me if I did not know my rights; I guess.
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by sighguy on 22-Apr-2003 14:46:35 (#3902)
I've already used "drivel" right? Let's see......balderdash LTC..A cop does not have to witness a trespass warning. I have been in this state for a very long time and have witnessed scores of trespass warnings and a bunch of arrests for either refusing to leave when told to, or returning after being warned not to. Metro will cite the individual and, unless the individual is being a dick-head, will release them. As to whether the judge will do more than levy a $50 fine, hey, who cares? The casino is following the letter of the law when arresting a person for trespass who has returned after being warned not to or for refusing to leave, Metro is following the letter of the law when citing that person for the violation of the law. The trespass act and the consequences of violating it have been challenged and..gee, the law is still with us. Gotta love the English and common law, don't ya?
NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
1. Any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
2. A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by either of the following methods:
(a) Painting, at intervals of not more than 200 feet on each side of the land, upon or near the boundary, a post, structure or natural object with not less than 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint or, if the post is a metal fence post, painting the entire post with such paint.
(b) Fencing the area.
3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
4. An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
5. As used in this section, "fence" means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence.
[1911 C&P § 500; RL § 6765; NCL § 10447]-(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997)
Re: questions on being barred
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Apr-2003 13:47:01 (#3901)
>1. Is this trespass act valid for all MGM-Mirage resorts or only for the Casino I was thrown out of
Unless they explicitly stated ALL, it is only valid for this one. What did they state?
>2. What would be the chances of them identifying me on their premisies if I stayed clear from the pit and was only there in the stores, restaurants or bars. Would they be likely to prosecute me if I wasn't there to gamble.
Good chance they will spot you coming in the door if not too much time has passed, especially if it the same store. FRS is pretty powerful. Yes, they would most likely prosecute you.
>3. Since they don't have my name could they prosecute me under this act as they're not certain if it was me in the first place.
Yes.
Sucks!
Book: "Powerful Profits from Blackjack"
Posted by JLP on 22-Apr-2003 17:25:25 (#3903)
Any opinion on this book by Victor H. Royer "Powerful Profits from Blackjack"?
Re: Book: "Powerful Profits from Blackjack"
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Apr-2003 08:05:51 (#3926)
There is little info on this book, but to pre-judge the guy by his previous works might be wise. He looks more like a writter than anything else.
You be the judge:
Casino Magazine's Play Smart and Win: How to Beat Today's Most Popular Casino Games
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - July 1994)
Casino Gamble Talk: The Language of Gambling and the New Casino
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - June 2003)
********************
Powerful Profits from Slots
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - March 2003)
********************
Powerful Profits from Craps
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - August 2003)
Casino Games Made Easy
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - March 2000)
AND MY FAVE:
The Great Spy Films
by Victor H. Royer (Paperback - October 2003)
Uston
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 22-Apr-2003 21:04:00 (#3908)
Dear Mayor,
Been polishing my 1981 Uston APC. Took it for a spin on a cruise to nowhere and It runs so sweet. Its a new baby, the pain of which was quickly forgotten.
Re: Uston
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Apr-2003 12:42:03 (#3909)
What an interesting post.
I don't really know how to answer you, because I can't quite make out the question. But, somehow, their is just enough wildness in your post for me to tell you are having fun, and that's what is important here (that, and making $$$).
--Mayor
Re: Uston (translation)
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 23-Apr-2003 15:57:55 (#3910)
Dear Mayor,
I have gotten quite adept at the use of the Uston APC count. I learned at a website called "gamemaster"; there I learned the hi-lo count with many indexes. Norman Wattenbergs Casino Verite is a most excellent program which combined with hundreds of hours of practice can turn you into lean mean full indexes ace side count, betting and calculating machine.
1 2 6 or 8 Deck?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Apr-2003 08:24:17 (#3917)
Your second translation was better, but the fog of Uston is still rather thick. And I do hope you are talking A side count, which is not really a side count, and not the confounded 7 side count that seems to be croping into every side count conversation on BJ boards across cybers ace. How much of an advantage to you IQ endowed brainwaves figure it gives you?
I just love to see people that go off about keeping track of Ace density saying is just isn't worth it turn around and try to shove side counting 7's right up yur poopster for better playing efficiency. BE and penetration is where it's at. Add a few dozen indices for fun and profit and call me in the morning.
Re: 1 2 6 or 8 Deck?
Posted by Stephen Bauer on 26-Apr-2003 21:25:20 (#3940)
Dear Rob.
APC on 1,2 deck. Hi low on anything else. Actually you don't have to be very bright at all to count and play advantage BJ. You only need one trait, tenacity just sit down and learn what you have to memorize and practice till you can do it in your sleep aand then go and play. If any new computer sims have been done using Ustons APC and side Tally if you will, I dould be very interested in the results if they vary from the 1981 version of Million dollar blackjack.
Thanks
Best Las Vegas casinos to play Blackjack
Posted by bjren7 on 23-Apr-2003 16:49:09 (#3911)
I see a lot of post asking for the best LV casinos to play 21. I can't tell you the best but here are a handful which I find to be among the worse of the worse. Of course I'm just another BJ fanatic but I like to share my opinions with my fellow BJ buddies. Do you guys know of any LV casinos that should be added to the list?
1. All Station casinos (not to be confused with Boyd's Main Street Station)
2. Binions Horseshoe
3. Barbary Cost
4. Fitzgeralds
5. Flamingo Hilton
6. Four Queens
7. Las Vegas Club
8. EL Cortez
9. Plaza
10. Silverton on Blue Diamond
Re: Best Las Vegas casinos to play Blackjack
Posted by Sonny on 24-Apr-2003 00:35:01 (#3913)
I would have to disagree with a few of your choices:
The Silverton? The last time I was there they had a good $1 shoe game. With $1 minimums, why bother Wonging out? I got no real heat for a $1 to $60 spread (after a few 7&7's) and the dealers were fun. I could even sit out a few hands without any nasty looks. It's a great "last chance" on the way back to Los Angeles, especially once you've seen the nasty games in Jean and Primm.
Fitzgeralds had re-instated their DAS game for a while, but they may have revoked it by now. For a while it was the only decent DD game downtown.
I would like to add the Lady Luck casino to your list too. Not only was the DD game pretty weak, but the critters would swarm my nickel spread, even before I was tossing out the big bets! Now I'm a pretty aggresive player, but when the pit is sweating my 3-4 unit bets, I just have to bail.
Other than that, I'd have to agree with your post. It's sad to see Binion's on the list, but they have really gone downhill this past year. I used to LOVE them. I've NEVER had a losing session there. I guess having your cage robbed when you're already going bankrupt makes you tighen up quite a bit.
And don't forget O'Sheas! How can you argue with 1D H17 D10-11 NDAS 6:5 BJ with 55-65%penn? Where else can you find a single-deck game with over a 2% house edge?! It makes SF21 look FUN!
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I'm sure other will have more to add to the already good list.
-Sonny-
Re: Best Las Vegas casinos to play Blackjack
Posted by Learning to count on 24-Apr-2003 06:06:20 (#3914)
AAAAHHH the worst...you left out the Sahara whew the worst game in town! Six decks with a three deck cut off.....YECH! AS far as the the sweaty spaniard and the LVC I found both places to have playable games. Good places to play well I would say Palms 6 deck, LVC single deck, El Cortez single deck, Western single deck, Flamingo six deck wonging, Mandalay Bay six decks wonging....These are good for a start. If you want to experience a real greasy over reaction paranoid barring go to the bar bar eee coast and spread 1-6. There are a lot of good places to play just stay away from 6/5 single deck, super fun 21, and any bad penetration games.
Re: Best Las Vegas casinos to play Blackjack
Posted by Big Cowboy on 24-Apr-2003 09:15:10 (#3919)
I would like to add the Xcalibur on the strip. 6 decks, H17, No surrender, No splitting Aces, and worse than usual penetration. That place really does make my skin crawl. The funny thing is I recently just walked through there last August just to see what their rules were. I played a few hands just to find out more and figured out that their rules had not changed since 1996. They stunk then, and they stink now. I have no idea why people even go to a place like that. At the same time, I still wonder why people play 6:5 BJ.
I agree that the Mandalay Bay is a good place to play, and I would also add the Grand is a nice, comfortable place to play.
Re: Also Note.
Posted by panthercounter on 24-Apr-2003 11:16:01 (#3920)
Stay away from CSM's, crowded tables, and any place where they call check play on a $15 bet. Try different places and different times. You can find a place in vegas you like.
Re: Best Las Vegas casinos to play Blackjack
Posted by Steve Langely on 25-Apr-2003 19:16:54 (#3933)
Slots of Fun used to be: 1D, DAS, Stand17, no heat. Now it's 6-5. I found out when I was paid $60 for my $50 blackjack.
El Cortez * * * * * Blackjack
Posted by Tom Berg on 16-Feb-2005 07:00:16 (#12140)
I played at El Cortez and was treated like a Whale. Betting 10 to 100, 25 to 500 and 100 to 1000. No heat from the PIt but they were trying to figure out my strategy. The pit had to teach the dealers how to pay a 1000 bet and do some things but the game was great. Ahead in the morning , even in the afternoon and down a little that night but that was my fault for playing with the same crew all day long, should have moved to a less crowded table but we were having such a good time playing there with 5 guys from California on an Bender.
Robera's restaurant is 4 Star or better, what a surprise. I was comped a $100 meal for Two, I had two lobsters tails( 7" of meat in each and my friend had a great Fillet, good Salad and the biggest shrimp I have ever seen in a shrimp cocktail. The posts I have seen on Ratelasvegas.com confirm what I experinced and that is where I will be playing from now on. Check it out because where else are you going to find Single Deck for $ 3,5,10 bet minimum.
And I hear that their Tower rooms are Large, clean and very nice for the Price
Are you an AP?
Posted by Player on 16-Feb-2005 13:07:32 (#12147)
Your post confuses me. About five times in your post you write things that indicate you are not playing with the advantage.
I am happy you got down some 1k bets at the EC, but if the EC allowed you to play all day, I am sure you are playing a losing game. You might seriously consider some of your issues and try again with your post.
This post appears to be a joke, or an ad for the El Cortez
Posted by LVBear584 on 16-Feb-2005 13:56:53 (#12148)
I played at El Cortez and was treated like a Whale. Betting 10 to 100, 25 to 500 and 100 to 1000.
Which betting level was it? It makes no sense that you would play at three different levels.
How did you get the EC to raise its table limit to $1000? It has been only $500 for as long as I can recall, though I must confess to not having been there in a long time, having been asked to never come back many times. However, Current Blackjack News still shows it as only $500.
Check it out because where else are you going to find Single Deck for $ 3,5,10 bet minimum.
If you are playing with a max bet of $1000, why would you notice or care about the <u>minimum</u>?
Sorry, but this post appears to be a joke, or an ad for the El Cortez. The Cortez pit critters would have a heart attack over anyone spreading $25 to $500. Betting $100 to $1000 at the Cortez is highly unlikely.
never been there
Posted by stainless steel rat on 16-Feb-2005 15:00:28 (#12151)
myself, I was warned off by counting friends and have never tried to play there as a result. They gave me horror stories about backoffs and barrings for minimal spreads. Of course the BC I have tried, and ran afoul of quickly with a 1-1 bet spread. :) So anything can happen...
my first El Cortez experience
Posted by Boomer on 16-Feb-2005 14:34:27 (#12149)
I am very new to the whole world of advantage play, but I have been doing a great deal of research on the topic for a while. After my trip to the El Cortez on Feb 13th, I highly doubt anyone would be able to use that kind of spread. My spread of $5-25 was generating a great deal of attention at my table, with two pit bosses looking over each shoulder of the dealer once I had won a $25 bet. I could tell that they were not thrilled with my play, so I bailed out with my winnings. Based on my one experience there, and never noticing anything like that anywhere else, I think it would be highly unlikely to be able to play such a large spread at the El Cortez.
EC has good comp value...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Feb-2005 21:08:15 (#12159)
... for red-chippers, but the best value I've found at red-chip level is the Sun Coast. zg
ZG?
Posted by SammyBoy on 17-Feb-2005 14:22:53 (#12175)
Do you think I earned any comps during the 90 minutes I played there?
My El Cortez experience
Posted by KennilworthKid on 17-Feb-2005 11:39:37 (#12172)
I've been there 3 times, playing red, but only for 20 minutes each time, and have a net win of $60 for the three times, 2 out of 3 sessions win. Just going into the place seems a little dicey, as it is not in a nice area, but once inside I had no fears. The first time I went there I was a little overdressed, and was stared at by the pit boss. The other times, jeans and an old shirt and no special attention, until I started winning...then the dealer was changed withshortly thereafter. I quit then, I am very suspect of things like that.
The game offered is the classic downtown single deck, 50% pen with double on any two and hit a soft 17. But betting $25 or more results in a "checks play" call, or for that matter, buying in for $25 or more results in a "changing $xx" call. So betting anything much will draw attention. Minimums are usually $5 or more on weekend nights, and finding an uncrowded table then is not easy. Mornings and weekdays would probably be a better time.
Anyway, my special tip is anyone going there is to count your chips before cashing out. Two times out of the three I was there the cashier tried to short me $5...and I was only cashing out for $60-$90 each time!
How does the Western compare
Posted by SonOfBeve on 17-Feb-2005 13:54:14 (#12174)
another low limit single deck game, but the dealers shuffle rather than the machines. Anything better about the Western's game over the EC?
Western has better game if....
Posted by KennilworthKid on 18-Feb-2005 13:55:29 (#12183)
you can stand the smoke & can brave the environment.
I been in there only once, but drove by a few times. The Western has the same rules as El Cortez, but they deal a few cards deeper.
However, the area is a couple of blocks farther into the skid row area, and I would not feel comfortable parking my car anywhere near...indeed, on my only visit I say LV Police busting a couple of guys in the parking lot across from the casino. Even though I was there at 7:30 am on a weekday, and when the Freemont Street casinos were slow, every table at the Western had 3-4 persons playing, and just about all were smoking. Security is highly visible there...and that's a good thing I think. If you go, where you rattiest clothes, don't shower that morning as well as pass on shaving, leave your girlfriend/spouse behind and you will fit in. Limits are low and its a good place to get some cheap experience.
the big W
Posted by Dali-lama on 21-Feb-2005 04:58:13 (#12203)
now, now... you must follow the dali-lama here ...the big W is nirvana.
Well, at least it was untill the carpeting and mind play games came in....:-)
Mindplay at Big W?
Posted by LVBear584 on 21-Feb-2005 15:23:52 (#12207)
I hope you're joking. Since I am unwelcome there at present, I can't go see for myself. Surely you jest. $20,000 tables at a place that probabaly doens't make $20,000 on a table in a week? And gives no worthwhile comps?
LVB of course
Posted by Dali-lama on 22-Feb-2005 06:24:53 (#12212)
I jest... so sorry you are no longer allowed in my favorite venue.
Will you ever let us know what happened? Or at least steer me in the right direction so I don't face the same fate.
best wishes DL
Big W backoff
Posted by LVBear584 on 22-Feb-2005 12:32:24 (#12216)
Will you ever let us know what happened?
Very polite backoff. The person backing me off told me that the casino manager had decided I had won "enough" there, and I wasn't permitted to play any more. No guards, no hassles, no subsequent trouble at other related venues.
Other casinos should learn from the Western the proper way to handle a backoff. Under previous administrations there, all but one of my backoffs had been handled similarly. Only once did the Big W ever use a guard to hassle me, way back when the big pit boss who would sleep standing at the pit stand was still there, probably four years ago.
I have been chased out by a heavy
Posted by eyesfor21 on 22-Feb-2005 14:09:08 (#12217)
so its not always so pretty. lucky my friend pulled
up in front and I ran into the car as we speed away with
mucho chips.
they also do not allow shades to be worn.
Shades are the least of it
Posted by Sonny on 22-Feb-2005 17:29:11 (#12219)
> ...they also do not allow shades to be worn.
They are also very opposed players to wearing hats, wigs, or fake beards, although you will not be barred for that alone.
-Sonny-
detection??
Posted by stainless steel rat on 23-Feb-2005 15:29:42 (#12222)
how would they know? Do you have to walk thru a beard-testing booth before entering the pit area? :)
Of course if your beard is glued onto the side of your head rather than on your face, I suppose they might figure this out...
What if I wear a toupee? *NM*
Posted by jp on 23-Feb-2005 15:42:48 (#12223)
sir..
Posted by stainless steel rat on 23-Feb-2005 21:35:02 (#12224)
please stop by the "rug inspection booth over there on your right." If our test for a "rug" is too invasive, you are entitled to a free visit to the hair transplant/plug unit right next door. :)
detection??
Posted by Sonny on 24-Feb-2005 00:41:54 (#12225)
> Do you have to walk thru a beard-testing booth before entering
> the pit area? :)
In my case it was a little more obvious. Many years ago the holiday spirit captured my soul and I played a session at the Western in my Santa suit - complete with hat, beard, wig, and boots. Although the session was fairly uneventful, the walk from Fremont Street to the Western was quite strange. Most of the vagrants yelled at me "Nice costume! Who you gonna mug?" or "Why ain't you come to my house again dis year, man?!" Although I normally don't mind a little attention, I would prefer to be invisible to the dawdlers that inhabit those few blocks, especially when my session bankroll could easily sustain them for at least six months. The only thing that makes me more uncomfortable than the discourse of derelicts is the prattle of pit bosses.
The security guard in the lifeguard-type booth at the front door was the first to notice, but he didn't seem quite sure what to do. He sat up, poised, ready, confused. The heat didn't come until I sat down and dropped a fistful of twenties on the table. Needless to say, the pit critters were not at all amused. There are only two reasons that people walk into the Western wearing a disguise: either they are trying to hide from you or they are trying to hide from someone outside. I can assure you that both kinds of people get watched very closely at the Western. They demanded that I remove each piece individually until my face was clearly visible. When one of the pit bosses recognized me he began laughing and explained the situation to the others. Somehow none of us thought it was terribly funny. I guess the holiday spirit had worn off somewhere around 8th Street.
I feel much more comfortable telling this story now that almost all of the staff at the Western have been replaced. Currently only a lone dealer and a cashier still remember this incident. The cashier still calls me "Santa Man" so I call her "Chatty Cashy."
-Sonny-
seems that
Posted by stainless steel rat on 24-Feb-2005 09:40:14 (#12226)
I had heard about such an incident from someone else within the past couple of years. This person described the incident pretty much as you did, so it is nice to know who the "BJ santa" really was... The person I am mentioning (but not naming) claimed to have been playing there when this happened, although I suspect it has probably happened more than once that time of year. :)
The EC's game is better ... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 18-Feb-2005 18:49:53 (#12186)
... on days and grave (when you can get an uncrowded game) because the shuffle machines increase the number of hands and the dealers deal deeper and faster. On the other hand, the Western dealers are prone to more mistakes that can favor a savy player. Dealer mistakes at the Western probably add an additional 20% to your EV. zg
The Western is dangerous
Posted by Virgin Counter on 06-Mar-2005 10:55:37 (#12306)
Walking there from the EC is very risky and not advised. Lots of bums and street thugs. Is your life really worth it just to play some good single deck? My last time there we literally had to run down the middle of the street to get away from the predators that were zeroing in on us as easy marks. I would carry a gun if I ever went to this place again. I know people will think I am paranoid or overreacting, but that place is scary and there are lots of bad people both inside and outside.
EC
Posted by Virgin Counter on 04-Mar-2005 23:24:57 (#12297)
I got plenty of heat playing there spreading 1-5 red using KO. They counted the discard tray, gave me dirty looks, made the dealer shuffle on a huge plus count.
From my experiences they are very wise to any advantage players. The bosses hover around the incompetent dealers watching everything. Any variance in play causes immediate concern.
Perhaps a disguise like a street bum would work for awhile like pretending to blow a govt. check or something.
If anything it's amusing to play there with the bosses constantly abusing the fresh off the boat female Chinese dealers who speak barely any English. There's one African-American boss who is especially brutal on these poor girls.
Personally, the EC is pretty much impossible to play at and I spread 1-5 red. I can't imagine the trouble a 1-5 green spread or higher would cause at this place.
They have upgraded their sports book though, if you don't mind some bum sleeping next to you. It's actually a nice place to watch games.
He's not the toughest
Posted by ShoelessMoe on 09-Mar-2005 11:43:32 (#12386)
If anything it's amusing to play there with the bosses constantly abusing the fresh off the boat female Chinese dealers who speak barely any English. There's one African-American boss who is especially brutal on these poor girls.
The bespectacled asian woman whom dealers refer to as "mom" is the worst. I can say that I have benefitted from flustered new girls who had just been brutalized by mom. Can't say more than that.
Take 95 north....
Posted by Alexander Mundy on 25-Apr-2003 20:18:07 (#3934)
420 miles.
Back to the books.
Posted by marathon slim on 24-Apr-2003 07:38:29 (#3916)
My "teacher" came over and ran me through a few things to see how I have been doing. I have my deck count down to 17 so far. Still plugging away. Not bad for starting out at 37 seconds.
Anyone ever have a count of 12 in a single deck? We had one last night. WOW.
He has given me new exercises to try and has instructed me to read two more chapters of KO, Indices.
You all told me to get the BS down perfectly. I am almost there. Only missed two last night. One was a brain fart. So who knows, maybe in a year or so i can be ready for this test at the tables.
Re: Back to the books.
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Apr-2003 08:30:13 (#3918)
You are ready now. You should be focusing on your betting strategy. Your speed is sufficient, and a small brain fart will not kill you so long is it is not something like double 5,6 v 6 up when the count is +10TC. I hope your teacher will not make you into a career student, or ask you to join him in a team effort. Your 1% advantage will not pay for your students fees, or for his possible hand in your back pocket.
Be wise, and beware.
Re: Back to the books.
Posted by marathon slim on 25-Apr-2003 05:59:37 (#3923)
As a matter of fact that was mentioned. He was impressed with my "I can not do this" to 17 second counts. Said I needed to get down under 15 to have a shot at his team.
There is NO money involved here. He is a personal friend doing in because he likes teaching it and doesn't want me to lose too much.
15 Seconds?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Apr-2003 07:46:45 (#3924)
I can count a deck down in 0 seconds. I look at it and know that it will equal 0 4 aces played instantly. There is a certain point where your speed becomes totally academic and you are there now. Team?? Fugk the team bro. How many waking hours have you already been working for "the man?" Or getting a % of the big picture for working so hard? Please consider my words, maybe not right now, but remember them as you play into those hot dark nights over blowing sand, noisy slots, and snapping cards.....
Semi-newbie questions:
Posted by Feepness on 24-Apr-2003 13:21:45 (#3921)
Ok, here are a couple questions from a newbie. I started learning about six months ago and I'm making quite a bit of progress. I've hit the local Indian casinos for red chip practice and can keep count the majority of the time, calculate the TC, and bet properly. No indices yet, though I am using insurance when appropriate (God that is SUCH a killer feeling to hit insurance when you have a lot out there). After 35 hours of logged casino play I am down 1.4 units (last 4 hour trip I lost 40 units!!!) including what is spent on tipping. I'm not sure I have an advantage yet, but I'm pretty certain I've shaved my disadvantage considerably. Especially since I no longer drink at the tables... :) I have a couple questions based on what I know. I'm using the Omega II count (difficult for a newbie I know, but I like the challenge and won't feel the need to step up later).
1) Counting down a deck. I can currently count down a double-deck, two cards at a time in 40-45 seconds. Some people report 15 (or less!) per deck and my main book (Blackjack for Blood) says I should be at 35 before I'm truly ready. My problem is I can't flip the cards any faster and maintain any sort of organization. Can someone describe their card flipping process in more detail? I can barely hold two decks in one hand and get the first 10 cards out properly, and then if I flip too fast they end up in a messy pile and start to shift all over the place making it more difficult to keep track. Is this how I should be doing it? Do yours end up in a neat stack? Do you hold one deck and then pick up the other mid-count?
2) Calculating basic strategy, indices, and simulations. I'm not interested in "practice" programs. I'm in computers and could code my own simulations, but of course the complexity can be incredible. I already checked out SBA2000 and BRJM but the documentation was thin and I didn't make much headway. I'm planning to plow through it more this weekend to see what I can understand. It looks like the combo of SBA 2000/BJRM can do a lot for bankroll/betting management and calculating BS/indices but actually getting it to work is another matter. Am I barking up the right tree? Is this the best software for the job? (I realize this can be a bit "religious" so just opinions please!)
Thanks for your help!
Re: Semi-newbie questions:
Posted by Cyrano on 25-Apr-2003 01:19:35 (#3922)
1) Tell you a way how to increase your counting speed dramatically... Yaada answered the same question I had a few threads ago:
"I dont think they actually flip' the cards over. I think you start with a full deck face up and just shuffle the cards (single cards to pairs to 3 or even 4 cards at a time) in to your other hands with your thumb thats holding the deck."
Talk about supercharging! My time dropped almost in half! I alternate between this way and the old flip and count so my brain retains its versatility to both count in pairs and scan for cards to cancel (when I'm thumbing through the cards, I often see more than 4-6 cards at a time and cancel and count as my thumb is moving back to grip another few cards).
2) You've already named 2 of the top sims on the market. You should check out CVCX (www.qfit.com)too. I'd probably drop PBA from your list (www.bj21.com): I use it and I've noticed there's a pretty big discrepancy between the numbers, both index and advantage/count, it generates and the numbers the author advocates for an unbalanced count.
Bang On *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Apr-2003 07:51:01 (#3925)
Re: Semi-newbie questions:
Posted by panthercounter on 29-Apr-2003 00:49:39 (#3964)
You said
"After 35 hours of logged casino play I am down 1.4 units (last 4 hour trip I lost 40 units!!!) including what is spent on tipping"
Heres some advice...... "Don't Tip". The casinos do not tip you when you lose......
remember this: "Tipping is a city in china"
Good luck
Positively Fifth Street *LINK*
Posted by Running Count on 25-Apr-2003 14:22:16 (#3927)
I'm loving this book. Addicting read. 1/2-way through it I already want to start playing poker. I also want to read more about the history of LV.
Any APs out there mix in some poker with their BJ? Do the casinos comp poker play? Is it good cover (my guess is no)?
RC
Re: Positively Fifth Street
Posted by HiNoon on 25-Apr-2003 16:48:16 (#3928)
If you want to read more about the histroy of Vegas, a fantastic book is "Running Scared" by John L. Smith and William Hinton. It details the rise to power of Vegas heavy, Steve Wynn. I'm sure that a good deal of the accounts are to be taken with a grain of salt, like any vegas expose, but it's pretty fascinating stuff.
Cheers
Getting backed-off
Posted by Steve Langely on 25-Apr-2003 18:17:38 (#3929)
If I'm playing BJ single deck, open for $50 and then on second round spread from $25-$100 is this likely to get me backed off; because it did. I've now been backed off from three casinos since 1992. Anyone have any thoughts.
Re: Getting backed-off
Posted by panthercounter on 29-Apr-2003 00:58:30 (#3965)
I have spread 1-7 units in single deck with no problem. I find that using 2 hands helps keep the heat off. Start 2 hands of 1 unit then if the count goes up go to 2 hands of 3 rather than 1 hand of six. Also it helps to use smaller denominations of chips. Its funny that 1 green chip is noticed but 2 hands of 7 red chips is ignored.
good luck
Re: panthercounter's reply
Posted by Steve Langely on 29-Apr-2003 16:47:16 (#3971)
I have started 2 hands of $50 each and on the 2nd round gone to 2 hands of $100 or 1 hand of $25--and all in between. Occasionally a dealer will allow going fom one hand to two in the second round. But having recently been backed off starting at $50 and then playing the second round from $25 to $100 (1-4 spread) I'm thinking a 1-3 spread on the second round might be better. Since I've been backed off now 3 times in 33 weekend trips to Vegas over the last 13 years I have to consider my future to play. There are only about a dozen single deck places in Vegas and Laughlin in which to play; and if I get barred by a casino which shares info, or I get into the black book, well, I'll have to get good at Texas Hold "Em.
single deck
Posted by shoesize on 25-Apr-2003 18:29:41 (#3930)
I just wondered how much heat players are getting in single deck versus shoe games.
Re: single deck
Posted by Clyde Smith on 27-Apr-2003 12:53:17 (#3945)
I'll tell you what I know. Most places that have the Superfun games will allow you to count all day long without approaching you. The makers of the game say that the player has no advantage if he is counting.
Golden Gate single Deck
Posted by Steve Langely on 25-Apr-2003 19:03:16 (#3932)
Anyone played his game?
Re: Golden Gate single Deck
Posted by Running Count on 26-Apr-2003 18:12:39 (#3937)
Played swing shift there once about a month ago. Nothing special. When I came back to play during grave, the place only had some crappy 2D, and it smelled like vomit. Mmmm...
RC
Stuffle Tracking For Imbeciles - Part 1
Posted by Sonny on 26-Apr-2003 15:00:57 (#3935)
Okay, so maybe the title needs some work. If I were Arnold Snyder, perhaps it would be titled "Algebraic Approximations of Normal Distributions in Single-Pass Riffle Co-Minglings and Disbursements of Cards in the game of 21."
Maybe my title isn't so bad.
I've read several "Shuffle Tracking For Dummies" type articles, but have always found the techniques to be too difficult to apply in a casino environment. I decided to start looking for a way to simplify and optimize the current methods of shuffle tracking in order to facilitate their use in casino play. Why should the "dummies" have all the fun? Us imbeciles wanna win besides! The following will summarize my findings on shuffle tracking - specifically what Mason Malmuth refers to as "card domination", however I have mostly heard the term "cut-off tracking" used to describe it. This type of tracking is only effective against a single pass shuffle, but variations exist that can be implemented against various shuffles. Hopefully the approximations in this article will help to simplify these cases as well.
Summary of Cut-off Tracking
Cut-off tracking consists of retaining the count at the end of the shoe (after the final round has been played and the cards are about to be shuffled). Assuming a balanced count is employed, the remaining unseen cards (hereafter referred to as the "cut-off slug") must therefore have a value that is equal to the running count but with the sign reversed. For example, if the running count is +7 at the end of the shoe, then the cut-off slug contains cards that will sum to -7 in order to assure a zero final count. The next step in tracking the shuffle is calculating the "average count density" of the used cards in the discard tray (hereafter "discards"). In the above example, assuming a six-deck with five dealt game, you would figure that the discarded 5 decks with a count of +7 would average 7 / 5 = +1.4 per deck. If we then shuffle our cut-off slug with one of the discard decks, we would estimate a count of -7 + 1.4 = -5.6 for the new two-deck shuffled slug. We could then cut these cards to the bottom of the shoe, adjust our starting running count, and play with a significant advantage in a four-deck game. We are essentially using the cut card to "short the deck" of cards we don't want. Similarly, this method can also be used to cut good cards do the top of the shoe.
As we can see, this can be an incredibly powerful tool to use in actual casino play. Unfortunately, the computations can be a bit too clumsy for some of us to have ready when the cut card lands in front of us. Hence the need for a system that can be employed by the average imbecile.
The Approximation Formula
So isn't there an easier way to get from point A to point B? Happily, yes! Let's take a look at the formula we have already:
Shuffled slug = cut-off slug + average count density (per slug)
Average count density = discards / (number of slugs in shoe - 1)
To break this formula down, we will see that the shuffled slug (the value of the cut-off part that we are tracking AFTER the shuffle) equals the original value of the cut-off slug plus the value of the estimated average count of each slug from the discards. The average count is found by dividing the known count (the running count before the shuffle) by the number of slugs it is comprised of (number of slugs - 1). We subtract 1 because we don't want to include the cut-off slug in our division because it has it's own value already.
This is the standard formula which most of you have probably wrestled with while the dealer is shuffling and stacking away. Although it is very straightforward, the division to find the average count density can be difficult when awkward numbers are used. How many of you would have come up with +1.4 in the above example? After a few hours of casino practice, I decided that I couldn't get it. I was having problems with switching the signs as well. I would get confused with the "negative slugs are GOOD now" concept and was afraid that I would cut a bad slug to the front by accident. So I did what anyone with the mentality of a thirteen-year-old boy would do: I whined about it being "too hard" and gave up.
A few months later I sat down with Excel and used the above formula to make a spreadsheet showing different running counts for the cut-off slug and their final outcomes. I thought that having the formula with various solutions in front of me would help me to understand the concepts and perhaps memorize some of the tricky division problems. I figured that memorizing +1.4 is easier than finding 7 / 5. However, after staring at the numbers for a while, something occurred to me. Why am I going through all of this trouble? Why am I swapping signs, subtracting slugs, and dividing "average count densities"? If I have to figure out how many 1.5 deck slugs are in a six-deck game I'll scream! Yes, I know the answer is 4 and it's easy to remember - but when you're starting out and the dealers are using different penetration levels, it can become maddening. That's when I saw the shortcut.
Stuffle Tracking For Imbeciles - Part 2
Posted by Sonny on 26-Apr-2003 15:01:47 (#3936)
The Track-Factor
If only there was a way to get the final answer without going through all of the dividing and swapping and slug-number nonsense. Well, there is. Once I saw all the numbers in front of me, I saw the shortcut. Once we know the value of the shuffled slug, we simply divide it by the value of the original cut-off slug to get a simple conversion factor.
Conversion factor = shuffled slug / cut-off slug (before shuffle)
In the example from part 1, we used -7 + 1.4 = -5.6 as the value for our shuffled slug. We now get -5.6 / -7 = 0.8 as the conversion factor. We can now use this number to MULTIPLY by our original cut-off slug to get our final answer. Instead of fumbling with the "average count density" and adding it to the cut-off slug, we can have our answer with one simple multiplication! This new Track-factor (A.K.A.-the "Sonny is a brilliant imbecile" factor, although I have a feeling the former will probably stick) gives you all the power of shuffle tracking without all the messy "thinking". Now, to us imbeciles at least, multiplying by 0.8 isn't much easier than dividing 7 / 5, but there are more shortcuts to come.
I ran the same calculations for more running counts (-20 to +20) and found that the Track-factor was constant for all. This meant that no matter what the cut-off slug value was I could multiply it by 0.8 and get the value of the slug after the shuffle!
After a moment of euphoria, reality kicked in. This would ONLY work for six-deck games where five decks were dealt. I doubted if many people would find this information helpful, so I ran the numbers for six-decks with 4.5 dealt and again with 4 dealt. I figured that these would encompass most situations. What I found was fantastic!
In the 4.5/6 game, the Track-factor was a constant 0.67 (actually 0.6 repeating, but who multiplies to the 3rd decimal place in their head? Not us imbeciles! We're only giving up about 0.5% accuracy anyway), and the Track-factor for 4/6 was an even 0.5. This meant that if you were "lucky" enough to find a game that cut-off two full decks (something that most counters would point and laugh at all the ploppies in) you could take HALF the value of the cut-off slug as the value of the shuffled slug. You are now playing in a game where the conversion is EASY and you know the average count of four of the six decks. Imagine cutting the last two decks to the bottom and playing in a four-deck game with a positive running count off the top! Gee, maybe the "brilliant imbecile" title WILL stick. This is a fantastic compromise: The casinos get to keep their lousy games and we get to make a profit on their backs! Yaaaay!
Not quite. There are limitations to this. Although it does become easier to calculate in games with close to four-deck penetration, it is completely useless with anything worse. As Malmuth points out, if only three decks are dealt, they will most likely closely resemble the undealt portion the majority of the time. Also, the reduction in EV due to the poor penetration level, even at the four-deck level, can be very costly. Conversely, the more cards that are dealt, the less cards there are to track. In this case, however, even knowing that a few extra fours and fives are behind the cut card can give you a good advantage.
Although I am certainly not encouraging players to seek out tables with two decks cut-off (I'm not a TOTAL imbecile), I am pointing out that if you are stuck playing in a poor game (due to location or bankroll) this technique becomes simplified and may help you to get your edge back.
So the next time you see someone playing at a six-deck shoe with lousy penetration, he may not be a ploppy - he may be an imbecile!
-Sonny-
P.S.-He may also be an imbecile ploppy.
Going for Best Posts, Sonny? ;-)
Posted by Running Count on 26-Apr-2003 18:33:48 (#3938)
Okay, knowing NOTHING about shuftracking, let me see if I got this right, homeslice.
Say I'm playing a 1.5 cutoff shoe game. RC at the shuffle is +10. 1.5 deck slug is riffled into another deck-and-a-half. Multiply 10 x 2/3 to get 6.7. Divide by the number of decks in the combined slug, and our TC for the 3-deck slug is 2.2. Put the cut card carefully to push those 3 decks to the front, and you have 3 decks-worth of somewhat rich cards?
Is this right?
Do casinos really shuffle this way (One part of shoe into only one other part of shoe)?
Cheers, and nice post,
RC
Following your footsteps!
Posted by Sonny on 26-Apr-2003 20:40:07 (#3939)
>RC at the shuffle is +10. 1.5 deck slug is riffled into another
>deck-and-a-half. Multiply 10 x 2/3 to get 6.7. Divide by the
>number of decks in the combined slug, and our TC for the 3-deck
>slug is 2.2.
Not exactly. The "old fashioned" way to do it would be to divide the RC of the discards (+10) by 3 (How many 1.5 deck slugs are in a 4.5 deck discard tray?). Now you know that each 1.5 deck slug in the discard tray should have an average +3.33 RC. If you mix the cut-off slug (-10, the opposite of the discards) with one discard slug (average=+3.33) then you would get a 3 deck slug with a count of -6.67. Now, a slug with -6.67 RC worth of high cards is pretty darn good in my book. I would cut them right to the front, start my RC at +6 (truncate it to be safe), and play the next 3 decks as though it were a 3-deck shoe (divide your RC by 3 to get your TC). After those 3 decks, I would either leave or drop my RC by 6 point to play the "un-tracked" part of the deck. This would easily let you come off the top of the shoe with larger bets, and since you're only dividing by 3 to get your TC you will have more plus-count opporunities.
My "new fangled" method is much simpler: just take the RC of your cut-off slug (-10) and multiply it by 0.67 (the Track-factor for a six-deck 4.5 dealt game). This gives you a -6.67 RC right away. Why bother with all the other junk? Just MAKE SURE that your deck estimation is correct since a 2-deck cut-off slug should be multiplied by 0.5 (half of the RC) and a 1-deck cut-off slug should be multiplied by 0.8 to get the proper Track-factor numbers. If you find a sloppy dealer, they may give you diferent penetration levels for each shoe, so keep your eyes open!
>Do casinos really shuffle this way (One part of shoe into
>only one other part of shoe)?
No, they don't. Although if you find one that does, CALL ME!
Serously though, no. You will probably not find a single-pass shuffle in any reputable casino. I saw one in an Indian casino last year, but it didn't last long. The techniques I described are just a simplified way to accomplish the task. They can be tailored to fit different shuffle types, but that is something for the readers to do. I don't know what type of shuffles your local casinos will be using.
Also, you will NEVER see a dealer grab two 1.5 deck stacks of cards and shuffle them together. That would be one MONSTER PILE that no dealer could properly execute. Most likely the dealer will pick up full or 3/4-deck slugs and shuffle them together. This is not a problem since two 3/4-deck slugs would be the 3-deck slug you're tracking. It's still in the same place, but it took 2 tries for the dealer to fully get through it.
I hope this helps people.
-Sonny-
Nice posts, a minor nitpick...
Posted by alienated on 27-Apr-2003 07:38:09 (#3942)
Your suggested method for estimating the running count for the segment is perfectly fine. It is also correct to calculate the starting true count for the segment by dividing this segment running count by the number of decks in the segment. So in the example with a 3-deck segment with total running count +6.67, it is fine to calculate the initial true count as 6.67/3. However, it is not appropriate to adjust your true count throughout the segment using a true-count divisor of 3 - n, where n is the number of decks dealt from the segment. The reason for this is that you only have specific information about 1 1/2 decks in the 3 deck segment. That is, your information is only partial. To update your true count throughout the segment would require use of the NRS formula. If you don't want to use the NRS formula for practical reasons, it is better to play the entire 3-deck segment as if the true count is always 6.67/3. (It is only appropriate to use a true-count divisor of 3 - n in situations where you have specific information about all cards in your segment; eg, if two 1 1/2 deck slugs were married, and you had a count on each of them.)
None of this alters your main insight, which is that the correct initial true count can be determined by using the running-count estimation method you outline.
I enjoyed reading your entertaining posts.
alienated
Re: Nice posts, a minor nitpick...
Posted by Sonny on 27-Apr-2003 16:35:33 (#3950)
>(It is only appropriate to use a true-count divisor of 3 - n in situations
>where you have specific information about all cards in your segment; eg, if
>two 1 1/2 deck slugs were married, and you had a count on each of them.)
Shouldn't the TC conversion of 3-n be appropriate since we are estimating the value of the unknown 1 1/2 deck slug to be the average of the full 4 1/2 decks seen? In this regard, we do have general information about all the cards in the segment. This is the method that Malmuth suggests in his Card Domination section. Although we only have specific information about the cut-off slug, the Track-factor does account for the unknown segment by estimating the average value and integrating it into the result. Let me know if I misunderstood your post (or if my concept is truly flawed, preferably the former!).
I'm glad you enjoyed my post. Thanks for your input.
-Sonny-
TC Estimation in Shuffle Tracking - Part I
Posted by alienated on 28-Apr-2003 01:22:51 (#3954)
Sorry for the excessive length of my reply. It touches on various related issues, so hopefully it will be of some benefit to others as well.
Consider a 3-deck segment within a 6-deck shoe. Suppose the 3-deck segment contains a 1.5 deck slug with count X. Suppose also that this slug is mixed with another 1.5 decks that are drawn randomly from the 4.5 decks not in our known slug. Call the 4.5 decks not in our slug 'others'. The count of the others is -X. As you correctly point out, our best estimate off the top of the shoe is that the 1.5 decks drawn from these 4.5 decks with count -X will have a count of -X/3, since these cards represent one third of the others. You then correctly point out that our estimated overall count for the 3-deck segment should be:
RC = X + (-X/3) = 2/3*X
or
TC = -RC/3 = -(2/3*X) / 3 = -2/9*X.
For example, if X = -10, our estimate of the segment's overall running count is 2/3*(-10) = - 6 2/3, and our estimate of the true count is + 2 2/9. These are our best guesses off the top of the shoe.
It is important to realise, however, that our estimated true count will not, in general, be equal to the *actual* true count. Rather, it is equal to the *expected* true count. On average our true-count estimate will be correct. That is, if we repeated the exercize many times, the average actual true count would approach our expected true count. But in many of these trials our expected true count would deviate from the actual true count. Our estimate is simply our best guess off the top of the shoe. But we are making our best guess with only incomplete information. We cannot be sure that our estimate is correct.
This means that although our expected true count is our best guess off the top of the segment, it will usually not remain our best estimate all the way through the segment. This is because part way through the segment we will have more information about the likely composition of the 1.5 decks that are not from our slug than we had at the start of the segment. If we don't take account of this new information, we will no longer be basing our decisions on the best possible true-count estimate.
An example might help. The hi lo count is assumed throughout. Consider a 3-deck segment from a 6-deck shoe containing a 1.5 deck slug with count -9 and 1.5 decks drawn randomly from the other 4.5 decks. Off the top, we would expect that the 3-deck segment has a total running count of -9 + 1/3*(9) = -6 (= 2/3*-9), implying an expected true count of +2. Accordingly, the IRC could be set to +6. After 1 deck is dealt we would expect the running count to be +4 (6 - 2 = 4), leaving our true count estimate unchanged at +2 (4/2). But suppose, as will often happen, that things do not go as expected, and the running count rises to +12 over the first deck rather than falling to +4. If we were to estimate our true count as +12/2 = 6, we would be considerably overestimating our edge. Although in one sense the rise in running count strengthens our belief that it will fall over the remainder of the segment, it simultaneously undermines our confidence in our original assumption that the 1.5 decks of others really had a count of 1/3*9 = 3. It is starting to appear as if, of the 4.5 decks of others, a disproportionate amount of small cards just so happened to get mixed with our slug, so that the 3-deck segment seems less likely really to have a total running count of -6.
The basic point is made clearer if we consider the implications of an extreme scenario where, with 4 cards remaining, the running count is +8. Since in this case it is obviously impossible for the running count to drop by 8 over the next 4 cards, it would clearly be nonsensical to calculate the true count as 8/(4/52) = +104! (This true count does not even make sense, since the true count of a level-1 count cannot possibly exceed 52 in absolute value.) In other words, it is no longer evenly remotely possible that our initial count estimate could be correct.
TC Estimation in Shuffle Tracking - Part II
Posted by alienated on 28-Apr-2003 01:24:37 (#3955)
Notice the difference between our current situation, where we only have partial information about some of the cards in the segment, and a situation of complete information. An example of the latter is where you know the actual (not expected or average) counts of two 1.5 deck slugs that are married to form a 3-deck segment. If the two slug counts add to -6, then you know that the running count must fall by 6 over the segment. If the running count initially rises, this in no way undermines your confidence, since you *know* the total count of the segment. (Of course, in practice we will still need to worry about tracking errors, shuffling imperfections, etc, but this is a separate issue to the one we are currently discussing, and will apply equally whether we have complete or incomplete information in the sense in which we are using those terms here.)
Returning to the case of incomplete information, the tracker can approach the situation in a variety of ways, some better than others. Let's consider the ramifications of using three commonly proposed methods:
NRS Formula: This is the optimal method if it is assumed that the 'others' in our segment really are drawn randomly from the 4.5 decks not in our slug. The formula allows for our uncertainty by specifying a larger initial true-count divisor (that is, we treat the segment as if it contains more decks than it really does) as well as modifying the slug count by applying a multiplier. The size of the initial true-count divisor and the size of the multiplier depend on the degree to which our slug information is 'dispersed' (ie, the size of our slug relative to our segment). The greater the dispersion, the weaker our information, and the more conservatively we must figure our edge. Now, off the top of the segment, the NRS formula gives the same true count as the other method we used above. For instance, in our previous example, both methods give an off-the-top true count of +2. This reflects the fact that our alternative, simpler method does represent our best possible guess prior to the dealing of any cards from the segment. However, the great value of the NRS formula is that it enables us to update our best guess as cards are dealt. For this reason, our true-count estimate will constantly be fluctuating, and we can base our decisions on the latest true-count information. It is critical to remember, though, that these updated true-count estimates are not based on an initial true-count divisor of 3, but are calculated using a number of decks (or 'pseudodecks') that better reflect the uncertainty over the precise segment count. It is only in the special case of complete information that the NRS formula reduces to the simpler procedure of treating the 3-deck segment as a 3-deck 'shoe'.
Constant TC: In this method, the off-the-top true count is calculated in the simpler way we used earlier. Importantly, however, the tracker plays the entire segment as if the true count is always equal to the off-the-top true count. While this method is not optimal, it does have practical benefits, and it avoids the extreme over (and under) betting that would occur if the 3-deck segment were to be treated as a 3-deck 'shoe'. It also has the merit of having some of the logic underlying the NRS formula naturally built into it (though only up to a point). In particular, by keeping the true count constant when the running count falls slower than expected (or rises), the method implicitly allows for the fact that it is becoming increasing likely that the 'others' in the segment are poorer in high cards than was initially assumed off the top of the segment. Similarly, by keeping the true count constant when the running count falls faster than expected, the method makes some allowance for the growing likelihood that the 'others' are richer in high cards than was initially supposed. So although the 'Constant TC' method is suboptimal, it does have considerable merit, both in practical and logical terms. The method is recommended, for instance, by Arnold Snyder in _Blackbelt in Blackjack_ (1998 edition).
Segment = Shoe: This is the flawed method we have been discussing. The method enables optimal play off the top of the segment, but will cause overbetting (often extreme overbetting) whenever the running count falls slower than expected (or rises). The slower than expected fall in the running count contradicts our initial best guess of the overall segment count. We should downgrade our estimate of the segment's favorability to reflect this, not raise our bets by persisting with an assumption that is no longer as likely to be correct. Conversely, the method will cause underbetting whenever the running count falls faster than expected. By dropping your bet when more high cards than expected are dealt early in the segment, you will fail to capitalize on many favorable situations. While it is possible that this drop in the running count was caused by lots of slug cards being dealt early in the segment, it is more likely that the 'others' in the segment just so happened to be richer in high cards than was initially assumed. (The NRS formula weights these two possibilities appropriately.)
Here is another way of seeing the flaw in the 'Segment = Shoe' method. Consider once again a 3-deck segment within a 6-deck shoe. Now, without observing the previous shoe, I know that there is a 0-card slug with count 0 mixed with 3 decks of 'others' drawn randomly from the 6 decks of cards not in my known 0-card slug. So my best guess for the segment count, prior to the dealing of any cards, is RC = 0 + 1/2*(0) = 0 = TC. So far, so good. Now suppose that after 1 deck is dealt, the running count is +10. By the logic of the 'Segment = Shoe' method, I would be entitled to calculate the true count as 10/2 = +5! But we know that this is incorrect, since without tracking information, the true count must clearly be 10/5 = +2. The error in the 'Segment = Shoe' reasoning is that our best guess for the overall segment count is no longer 0 as soon as the running count deviates from 0. Instead, our best guess becomes RC - TC*n, where n is the number of decks remaining in the segment. For instance, with a running count of +10 after 1 deck, our best guess for the overall segment count is 10 - 2*2 = +6. In other words, we now expect the running count to be +6 by the end of the 3-deck segment because, by the true-count theorem, we expect the true count to stay exactly where it is.
I hope this last example does not seem too flippant. That is not my intention. Those with moderately long internet memories may recall that I made a very similar logical error in the not-too-distant past. Specifically, I was concerned with an n-deck shoe for which each 4n-card segment contained 4 cards from each deck of the previous shoe. Accordingly, I reasoned that the expected total running count for each 4n-card segment off the top of the shoe would be:
4n/52*(c1+c2+...+cn) = 0
where c1,...,cn denote the counts of the n decks of the previous shoe. I then reasoned that if the running count rose by just 1 over the first 2n cards of the shoe, the true count for the first segment would be, not 1/(8 - 2n/52), but 1/(2n/52)! For example, in an 8-deck shoe, a running count of +1 after the first 16 cards would indicate a segment true count of 1/(16/52) = 3.25! I hesitate to dredge this up, as it was one of my more embarrassing moments, but I think it illustrates quite well the logical traps we can sometimes fall into. Of course, in most scenarios the 'Segment = Shoe' method will not lead to such disastrous results as I managed to derive! But the same basic logical flaw is common to all applications of the method to situations of incomplete information.
TC Estimation in Shuffle Tracking - Postscript
Posted by alienated on 28-Apr-2003 01:27:51 (#3956)
Having said all this, it would be misleading for me to suggest that the issue of the appropriate true-count divisor has been completely free of controversy. You may be aware of the extremely interesting debate that occurred between Arnold Snyder and Don Goren. Some of it can still be found in the archives at Michael Dalton's site, though I think it costs $35 to join. In brief, Goren argued in his _Blackjack Review_ series (1997) that his neural networks approach enabled him to base his true-count calculations on the number of decks in the segment, rather than some larger amount of pseudo decks. This was despite the presence of uncertainty in the situations he was addressing. However, it is important to realise that Goren's method was based on an attempt to predict the count of the segment based on information relating to *all* cards that were *likely* to be in the segment, not just a specific slug and some 'others'.
Goren's argument was controversial. If we *knew* that our 3-deck segment contained two 1.5-deck slugs, each with a known running count, we would be completely justified in using an initial true-count divisor of 3. Very few, if any, would disagree with this. But Goren didn't know the exact count, but rather used a method which enabled him to predict the most likely count for each segment, based on the counts of the previous shoe's segments and the most likely postshuffle locations of those cards from the previous shoe. In other words, he was calculating the average count, and the variance of counts around the mean. Thus, while his initial true-count divisor would be set to the number of decks in the segment, it is possible that his estimate of the overall segment count took account of uncertainty, rather than being a simple averaging procedure.
When I first read Goren's work I was convinced it was correct in every way. I'm not really sure now. I don't think he provided us with enough information to assess the method fully. Since his method does not adjust the initial true-count divisor, its validity appears to hinge on the appropriateness of his initial count estimate. However, it does seem hard to see how such a count estimate could allow for both the possibility that the running count falls slower than expected *and* the possibility that it will fall faster than expected.
Now, it may be that Goren's neural networks enabled him to account for effects of which I am not aware. He refers to 'dynamic equations' in his response to Snyder, even though his articles in _BJ Review_ only presented static ones. He also mentions a narrowing of the count distribution the deeper into the segment we go, as well as a statistical breakdown occurring when only a small number of cards remain, so that it is important never to divide the running count by less than some minimum fraction of a deck when calculating the true count. It does appear that by limiting the reduction in the true-count divisor, he is in some way allowing for the possibility that his best guess has changed, part way through the segment.
This controversy aside, I think it is safe to say that in the absence of some more sophisticated method, such as may possibly be provided by Goren's neural networks approach, the tracker should stick either to the NRS formula or the 'Constant TC' approach when faced with incomplete information.
Estimation Will Always be Estimation
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Apr-2003 07:48:48 (#3957)
Actual location is another matter, but estimation also plays a role. Math it do death, you are right or wrong, or close as in horseshoes n hand gernades. Nice to see you posting again Ali.
RATS!
Posted by Sonny on 28-Apr-2003 23:28:36 (#3962)
Foiled again! I'll get you next time, you shifty shuffle!
So let me get this straight: Even IF I find a shuffle that can be tracked AND I figure out a decent way to track it, I STILL can't use the information I've got because I don't have an optimal way to apply it?
Damnit!
Why can't shuffle tracking just be EASY! I can feel the thirteen-year-old inside of me taking over.
Oh well. At least I know it now before I blow all my money at the tables.
Thanks enormously for your help, Alienated. I can see you've put a lot of thought (and typing) into this. I guess it's time for Phase II - "Sonny The Imbecile Goes Back To The Drawing Board."
Unfortunately I got frustrated and snapped all my pencils, and my crayons don't erase.
-Sonny-
Re: RATS!
Posted by alienated on 29-Apr-2003 00:36:12 (#3963)
Don't get discouraged. Everything you posted was great except for one small point which you can easily fix. Don't forget I was only explaining why you shouldn't treat the n-deck segment exactly like an n-deck 'shoe' (unless you have 'complete' information). Your method of calculating the off-the-top segment count is entirely correct. You just need to choose how you want to treat true-count fluctuations part way through segments. You have at least two choices:
1. Play as if the segment's true count is always equal to its (correct) initial value throughout the entire segment.
or
2. Use the NRS formula.
Although option 1 is not optimal, it is still a good method to use and is based on sound principles. Among other things, it makes use of the true-count theorem (which, loosely speaking, states that the true count is most likely to stay where it is), and engenders some of the underlying logic of the NRS formula, as I tried to explain in my other posts.
EXAMPLE: 6-deck shoe, 3-deck segment, 1.5-deck slug, slug count = -9.
Using the method you came up with and outlined in your post, the expected total running count for the segment equals (2/3)*(-9) = -6. This implies a true count of -(-6)/3 = +2. For the entire 3-deck segment, simply play as if the true count is +2.
Arnold Snyder in _Blackbelt in Blackjack_ suggests the following tweaks to this method:
i) Figure the initial segment true count conservatively; eg, you could assume a slug count of -7 instead of -9, because maybe the slug was broken or you miscounted or something;
ii) If the running count drops *way* more than you expect, you could drop your bets for the rest of the segment, just to be safe.
You should only take measure ii) when the drop in count is extreme. Remember that a more rapid than expected fall in running count is always telling you two contradictory things: a) a more than proportionate number of cards from your slug may have been dealt; b) the 'others' in your segment may be richer in high cards than the 'others' overall.
Lastly, my nitpick only applies when your information is partial. If you have complete information, you can treat an n-deck segment exactly as you described - ie, as an n-deck 'shoe'.
Is asking for ID when entering becoming routine?
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Apr-2003 09:57:02 (#3944)
What right do the casino police have to ask for ID as individuals enter a casino? This really infuriates me -- and portends a sorry future for our privacy.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/26/foxx/index.html
Same law that allows bouncing drunks...
Posted by Running Count on 27-Apr-2003 15:33:07 (#3949)
...I would think.
I get IDd all the time to verify my age. Many casinos don't let anyone in at all under 21. They need to check IDs for this purpose. And since they can kick anyone out for any reason, they could ask you to stand on your head if they wanted to. If you refuse, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, they can trespass you.
RC
Re: Same law that allows bouncing drunks...
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Apr-2003 17:41:26 (#3951)
The people ID'd were about 33 years old, I doubt there was any problem with their age. I just wonder if this casino is making it a point to ID everyone as they walk through the doors. Does anyone have experience at this casino that could corroborate this information?
Bally's in the same city
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Apr-2003 19:08:02 (#3952)
has a sign that says anyone under 40 will be asked for ID. Guess they knew Jamie must be in his 30's.
Privacy info: www.epic.org
Posted by Running Count on 27-Apr-2003 20:25:04 (#3953)
Re: decline of privacy. I'm much more afraid of new gov't intrusions into our privacy than about casinos. I can always choose to not go to casinos that don't respect my anonymity, but I can't avoid giving up every vital fact to Big Brother, especially since our information seems to be suddenly a matter of national security.
If you are concerned about these issues (and I can see that many of us are), check out www.epic.org. They have lots of resources about things like surveillance, tracking by gov't or private investigators, etc. You might also learn about the legal rights around using fake IDs at private establishments like casinos.
RC
p.s. According to the article, Foxx's sister is 25. I'm 25, and get IDd fairly regularly (I thought my prematurely receding hairline was proof enough, but I guess not). Maybe they were concerned about her. Sounds like she and Foxx were pretty much just a-holes, anyway.
Zen Casino Marketing
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Apr-2003 13:06:05 (#3946)
Spotted recently on the Palace Station marquee:
Re: Zen Casino Marketing
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Apr-2003 15:14:26 (#3948)
Now we have to see posted the equally zen:
<FONT SIZE=6 COLOR=GREEN> <CENTER>
I experience that all the time
Posted by Theef on 06-May-2003 15:54:38 (#4053)
Whenever I have to wait twenty seconds because someone won three dollars on the royal match, it's costing me EV even before I play my hand. Losing without losing.
English
Français
Italiano