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.
Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by phantom007 on 30-Nov-2002 21:24:29 (#1067)
Wong's "Professional Blackjack" gives Indicies for the Hi-lo counting system.
Carlson's "Blackjack for Blood" gives Indicies for the AOII counting system.
My question is: "Is there a site/book that gives Indicies for all common systems?"
The main reason for this post is that for me, the heat in Tunica this fall/winter is nearly unbearable, and so I am thinking of moving to a much cooler climate, i.e., 6D games. Have been using AOII with Ace-side Count for SD and DD action...Ace-side count in 6D is just a pain.
But personally, I have asthetic problem with counting systems that ignore any cards other than the "8". I have settled on Revere's "Systemic Count" for my 6D attack...2-7=+1, 8=0, and 9-A=(-1). 96%/55% Betting/Playing Efficiency/Correlation are published.
But what are the Playing indicies?
Thanks.
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Nov-2002 23:05:04 (#1068)
Name your system, I'll be happy to post the tables.
May I suggest Halves?
--Mayor
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by Z on 30-Nov-2002 23:40:24 (#1069)
Mayor can you post tables for HiLo True Count for 8D, DAS, S17, DA2, Late Surrender?
Thanks,
Z
Revere Systemic Count.
Posted by phantom007 on 01-Dec-2002 08:55:22 (#1071)
As found in Frank Schoblete's "Best Blackjack".
2-7 valued at +1, 8 = 0, and 9-A valued at -1.
Thanks.
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by Steephen on 01-Dec-2002 09:55:50 (#1073)
Dear Z,
I have done extensive work on the system and playing conditions you list. I have all the indices for a true count from -1 to 5 including all indices for surrender which generates an extra set of strategies because surrender is for two cards only so that a 14 vs. 10 in which the 14 is composed of two cards is different from a 14 vs.10 in which the 14 is composed of three or more cards. I have all the nuancies and kinks worked out.I have researched and calculated everything you are looking for. Figure out a method whereby I can send it to you as an e-mail attachment and I don't have to publish my e-mail address publically.
Steephen
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by Z on 01-Dec-2002 12:30:10 (#1074)
Hey Steephen,
Thanks so much. Look to hear from you at bjz21@yahoo.com.
Z
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by phantom007 on 02-Dec-2002 12:10:35 (#1092)
Dear Steephan:
If you could e-mail these indicies to me at Richard0518@aol.com, I would certainly appreciate it.
Thanks
phantom007.
You could keep your AOII indices...
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Dec-2002 23:45:47 (#1105)
... and switch to a 1/2D TCadjustment. zg
Re: Seeking Info. on Playing Indicies.
Posted by Steephen on 09-Dec-2002 18:38:08 (#1401)
No problem phantom..
Hope you make a million $$
"Fab 4" Blackjack Boards *LINK*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 01-Dec-2002 07:44:39 (#1070)
Good morning and Happy Today (always my favorite day of the week)
My jolly old fingers have been typing again and I have come up with a framed page that will give you access to the "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards on the 'net. I'm sure you will want to put it in your favorites list, or even
make it your home page.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/bjboards.htm
or
http://www.casinotoronto.ca/bjboards.htm
You will find that when the page loads BJ21 will ask you for a password. If you have a password just enter it. If not, press cancel and if you wish to join, click in the top right box on the line "click here to sign up free."
Have an Awesome Day!
Rob McGarvey
One question, one comment
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Dec-2002 13:36:51 (#1075)
Nice work.
One question, bj21 has a password protected site, even for their free pages. I hope that people are not accessing it through your password indirectly, that may cause some problems. Have you ok'd this with them?
One comment. I saw your post on rge21 for about 20 minutes. Then it was busted.
Have a nice holiday!
--Mayor
Re: One question, one comment
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 09:32:42 (#1078)
"Nice work.
Dunkashen!
"One question, bj21 has a password protected site, even for their free pages. I hope that people are not accessing it through your password indirectly, that may cause some problems. Have you ok'd this with them?
Passwords are stored on your computer if you chose that option, not in the pop up box for the site you are visiting. Read below about the okay part.
"One comment. I saw your post on rge21 for about 20 minutes. Then it was busted.
It was up a little longer than that ;> My page used to pull up their message board directly bypassing the front page allowing the PLAYERS direct access to the info. RGE has changed their CGI settings to prevent that from happening now, so, as you can see, they only want to let you play after they have taken a few 10's out of the deck....grin They did say that I had a direct link to them from my players club, which needs an overhaul (picturing Jim Carey from The Mask). It's a free board that I am linking to, but .... no comment.
I failed to foresee their next move, and should have, in mercenary fashion, went in under cover of darkness instead of beating drums with bag pipes blaring, sending fear into their programmers ;> I dare not make the same mistake with BJ21.
What I was and am trying to do is allow BJ players a simple way to post, and find info re BJ, and let them know who really gives a "sheyet" about them.
"Onward BJ soldiers!"
Re: One question, one comment
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 10:33:09 (#1086)
They are also moderating my posts now. One piece of pork gets into the all beef sausage and I'm put on SPAM watch! laughing
My moderation story at rge21
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Dec-2002 14:37:30 (#1097)
I was put on "moderated" status there after I made a comment about software needing to be reviewed independently, and having those reviews appearing on sites that don't also sell the software. Because several programmers responsible for top programs post there, I was given the "persona non-gratis" status shortly thereafter.
--Mayor
Re: My moderation story at rge21
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 14:52:48 (#1098)
You are still "suspect" right now. I checked you out. I doubt they will take it off of us until all our teeth and claws fall out. ;>
RGE is a PUBLISHING company. They remain in a mode of competition. Never forget that fact, and you'll do well.
Re: "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards
Posted by 10Splitter on 02-Dec-2002 07:15:55 (#1077)
Cool page.
I would suggest that you include the www.bjmath.com site and make your page the fantastic 5. (Although it might get tricky to put 5 sites into differant frames). ;)
10Splitter
Re: "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 10:10:14 (#1081)
Thanks for that tip. I do want working boards with the right "flavor," ie, mods that are willing to HELP the players out, to reach their goals, without all of the extranious anti-advantages that keep croping up. Which board do you suggest? Their counting board? The new BJ21 has only one chat board re BJ so it is rather easy to work with. I could go to 6, but do like the "Fab 4" because of its recognition in the BJ community. T-Hopper is putting up a board shortly so am looking forward to that.
I am going to try to place a button on the page that will allow you to switch from box A to box B C and D to go full screen. Right now I just open in new window and have all four up and ready, and refresh at will ;>
Re: "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards THOPPER
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 00:53:45 (#1107)
"T-Hopper is putting up a board shortly so am looking forward to that."
----------
Wasn't THopper's board idea forthcomming to be the merged 4in1 board that you just came out with? Was his idea different or the same as this? THopper? zg
Re: Blackjack Boards *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 07-Dec-2002 20:20:23 (#1310)
What I am working on will make it possible to view and search messages from different boards and different sites all on one page. I believe it will save over 50% of the time spent browsing boards, making more of them worthwhile again.
Re: "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Dec-2002 09:57:35 (#1080)
Thanks for the info!
Prego *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 10:10:55 (#1082)
Re: "Fab 4" Blackjack Boards
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 22:38:06 (#1103)
I can change the page so that each board will be the width of your screen, and you can scroll down from site 1, 2, 3, 4, and add more boards that way. Any other suggestions??
http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/bjboards.htm
Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my response
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Dec-2002 19:32:42 (#1076)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-01-Sun-2002/living/20002578.html
Here is my response (sent to the editors of the LVRJ):
===========================================================
Dear Sir,
In response to the comments of Alan Feldman, senior vice president of public
affairs for MGM Mirage, that appeared in the December 1 story: "CARD
COUNTING: Creating Their Luck", in which Feldman is quoted as saying: "We
view card counting as manipulation of the game, much in the same way a
person who marks cards is manipulating the game."
I find Alan Feldman's remarks highly insulting, and typical of the
propaganda war waged by casino executives, floor men, and detective agencies
against proficient gamblers of all kinds. There is simply no sign posted in
any casino that requires us to leave our brains at the door, although the
casinos would prefer that every gambler do so. We train and practice to
become skilled enough to beat these games, we follow the rules posted,
promoted, and allowed by the casinos. We do not cheat, mark cards, or
otherwise gain an illegal edge over the games. Everything we do is strictly
in accordance with the rules.
The casinos respond by calling us cheats and liars, by harassing us,
detaining us, arresting us, illegally searching us and seizing our winnings,
and in some cases roughing us up. Casinos give away free drinks,
decorate their hotels to focus our attention on the games, and use every
other subliminal trick in the book to get people to lose more money. And
while they are busy manipulating people's minds, these same casinos hire
private detective agencies who work hard to catch us, we the skilled ones
who only want to play a fair game, following their posted rules.
This shows who the real cheats are. The casinos are the ones who are lying
here, and Feldman's remarks are typical of the war being waged against those
who are skilled enough to beat the casinos at their own games.
Re: Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my respons
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 09:37:25 (#1079)
A very strong letter in support of knowledgeable players. The pen is mightier than the sword, but only for those who are left alive to read after the battle is over.
Re: Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my respons
Posted by Learning to count on 02-Dec-2002 10:23:07 (#1083)
Mr. Feldman is a typical casino management bean counter who is worried about the bottom line: the greed and legal theft of the money from fools. Casinos are there because of the addiction to gambling; that is part of our culture. It is a strange relationship based on greed, addiction, and the so called "entertainment" from gambling.
It is amazing when I watch the travel channel and see "whales" who are finaciel genuises in thier own right. They made billions in thier own prospective businesses yet they go to Vegas get drunk, laid and drop millions at the baccarat table. It is beyond me why this takes place. They are proud that they have created financiel empires but then can come and drop 20 million at the tables and write it off to a fabulous time in Vegas. Big sports figures dump 100's of thousands if not millions just to look good at the H*rdr0#k or at the P3lms casinos.
In the early 80's Vegas started to change. The family unit was the new target. "Hey why not attract the millions who spend thousands for four or five days of riding roller coasters and taking pictures with a rat." A day in Disney world for four will cost you $500: Gas, parking, tickets, food, souvineers, hotel, etc.. That same $500 could be sucked down the throat of a slot machine.
Black jack is like a decoration for the casinos. Look at the revenues of slots versus table games. Scairy! The table games, thank god attract the suckers. Table games give a classic casino its mystique. Hey could you see James Bond sitting at a back of wheel of fortune machine with his latest fling on his shoulder while his arch nemisis is on the other side trying to out spend him by force feeding hundred dollar bills into the machines' bill chomper. Given the tables still give a good showing for themselves even better than the days of the green felt jungles. Slots are king these days.
We get to play because Black Jack exists. It exists because of its longevity due to its historical significance in the gambling culture/environment. If they took it away they would lose casino tradition and a great mythology: THE GAME THAT CAN BE BEATEN! So they keep it. Plus it does add some what to the bottom line. I believe the casinos did try to change the tastes of gamblers when they started with the oceans of slots that were desigend into every new casino: MGN, LUXOR, Treaure Island, etc.. It failed the suckers want a choice on how they will lose/be entertained.
Now to get to the heart of the matter. Casino management wants to make money by putting the illusion that you have a chance to become rich by just pulling the arm or pushing the button. They need to attract the crowds. the public loves to gamble and is accustomed to seeing and playing table games.
So when a group comes along and beats that table game the casinos despise this. It has gotten so bad that the casinos think that they have a right to "steal" your wagered moneys. They use every tactic to take it including attacking your five senses, lusts, and thoughts. I think that more work has been done on the psychology of luring suckers into the casino and parting them with thier money then the actual provision of entertainment that they are protraying gambling as. "Wow I just dropped six grand and wow; oh I had such a great time; I am so happy; Its only money!" I heard this from two suckers a man and wife slot team that they had just lost six thousand dollars in three days of slot play. They do this three times a year. It was Fun for them.
So any attack on the casino money making system is obviously going to get what we are getting as advantage players, harassment barrings, illegal arrests, kidnapping (yes I mean kidnapping; every time they drag a person down to the security office against thier will, in handcuffs, with out legal criminal probable cause it is is kidnapping).
Yes it is wrong and yes they are wrong and do violate the so called laws that they themselve lobbied to get in Nevada to protect themselves and somehow protect the LOSING tourist. Solution: whew I really dont know except to be careful and have a good lawyer on retainer if you are pro.
The only thing that worries me now is the effect that the MIT book will have. Uston's MIllion Dollar Blackjack" scared the shit out of the casinos. He was able to change the world of gambling as well; But look at the state of Blackjack in AC. SAD! The MIT book is interesting in that it shows the level they played; that big wins are there if you have it all together. The only thing that bothered me was the amout of boasting and bitch slapping they were giving the casino industry. Some good things need to be kept quiet sometimes. Keep on countin and beware the bean counters in the sky are watching recording and digitally evaluating. LTC
Re: Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my respons
Posted by easyrider on 03-Dec-2002 01:36:44 (#1108)
Long Live this great board, and the principles on which it is founded, Mr. Jacobson...
Just to comment on this thread a bit...
The foundations of the whole casino industry are unethical at best, criminal at worse. And I have certainly met people in the industry who I wish I hadn't. But I don't believe it's necessary to villify people for wanting to make a legal living. There are certainly other glaring examples of institutionalized fraud in American business. Now, I'm not endorsing or rationalizing unethical or immoral practices but simply calling on the "Caveat Emptor" principle of any Captalistic system.
Casino owners are just trying to turn a profit from this human phenomena called Las Vegas, just as I am. If people are stupid enough to give their money away to casino games they can't win, let them. And if others are stupid enough to offer a game that a savvy player can regularily beat, let them. In fact, if it wasn't for the unskilled "recreational" player, advantage blackjack wouldn't exist. Do I enjoy watching players get swindled out of a month's pay without any hope of return? No. But it's not for me to decide what people do with their lives, and I'll take advantage of the house's ensuing hospitality.
I feel lucky that a window of opportunity still exists. Conditions could change tomorrow, forever ending beatable 21 games, for gambling houses owe me nothing by the way of favorable rules, hospitable environments, kind treatment, or even the right to play. I take what is measured out and ask for nothing more, and fortunately at present, that's enough to consistently win. When that window closes I'll quit.
Re: Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my respons
Posted by Learning to count on 03-Dec-2002 11:28:19 (#1128)
Your right ER but the problem is that the casinos in thier capitalistic endeavor have a monopoly and use this to get away with illegal activities such as false arrest, illegal detentions bordering on kidnapping, physical abuse/battery, illegal search and seizure/theft, illegal use of personal financiel information...the list goes on. But you are right about the choice they give the suckers.....LTC
Re: Las Vegas Review Journal story, and my respons
Posted by easyrider on 03-Dec-2002 12:13:10 (#1130)
Yes, LTC, point well taken...casinos have no right to break the law, and shouldn't assume this priviledge.
I also agree with your observation that the proliferation of slots is scary. I owe this to two factors. First, Vegas is no longer catering solely to gamblers. The vast majority of tourists these days aren't going necessarily for gaming, but for the spectacle of Vegas. These people aren't gamblers and wouldn't even know how to approach a blackjack or craps table, but slots is easy, any idiot can put a quarter in a slot. Second, we live in a society growing intensely impersonal, heck sometimes I wonder if people even realize there's a human being in the car ahead of them while laying on the horn. Slots is appealing to people who don't want to interact with other dealers and players or don't want to risk embarrassment. Sure there will always be those who just love to whoop it up loudly at the craps table, but how many more sit quietly behind a slot machine?
Blackjack will always have a place in Vegas though, partly because of slot revenue. So let the ploppies plunk their change down the drain if they like. And if the masses ever wise up to realize the whole thing is a scam...even better, the world will have progressed into a more intelligent state...but I doubt it.
Was This heat? Or Just Paranoia?
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Dec-2002 10:27:36 (#1084)
I was playing double deck this weekend spreading only 1 to 4 and the table was hot early. I quickly got ahead about 25 units. About 45 minutes into play the pit critter in charge starts staring at me with a very unfriendly look. I look back at her and smile and continue to talk and laugh with the dealer and all the players at the table. She continues to stare at me and I continue to act as if I'm a regular ploppy that would have no reason to be nervous. A few minutes later the girl working at the computer is no longer typing and staring at the monitor. She is staring at me and will not stop. You'd swear it was a staring contest or something. Again I played it cool and acted as if I had no reason to be worried. I played for another 2 hours and it was up and down. Once the table cooled off and I started digging out more hundreds (I had a few hundred in chips in my pocket that they didn't know about) they seemed to pay less attention to me. After coloring up they would think I lost about 10 units but I actually won about that much. I'm really curious about what will happen next time I go back, probably in 2 to 3 weeks.
Low Heat
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 10:42:37 (#1087)
3 hours of play at one table is a little on the long side. I have played a 2 deck game and had a similar experience, but that was because I had to put in a certain # of hours for my freebie stay. When they turned the heat up on me I started betting 5-10-20 then flat bet greens using Oscar when I had to to recoup my $ and actually made more money doing that than counting. I was still counting, but my bigger bets lined up with my freakdaddy progression. I was chatting away like a J bird looking all over the place, joking with the dealer. The other pit crew knew I was counting and just kept an eye on me since I was only playing small stakes.
Stay under the radar, but fly around the barns if you can ;>
No Heat
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 02-Dec-2002 11:12:14 (#1088)
The girl entering data was staring at you?
That person is a clerk that is paid $5 an hour (or whatever minimum wage is now) to enter play time and average bet amount into the comp system to keep it as real-time as possible. I would think that 99% have ZERO knowledge of blackjack.
So if that person was staring at you, you must have had something hanging out of your nose.
Re: No Heat
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Dec-2002 13:47:01 (#1094)
Those were my thoughts exactly so at the next negative count I went to the restroom and checked. Everything was cool there. I'm not sure why she was staring so hard, I mean I'm a good looking guy and all, but I'm no Brad Pitt or Ben Affleck. I thought that maybe the Pitt Wench asked her to check me out to see if I looked suspicious.
Re: No Heat
Posted by Learning to count on 02-Dec-2002 13:54:03 (#1096)
That was funny but true. They are only interested when you when bet big consistantly; black or purple or multiple high stacks of green. Make sure the person staring is a Pit buzzard and not a clerk.
I Use HI-LO and the IL 18 and Fab four and surrendar 16 vs 9,10, or A. Spread now is 1-30; if I can get away with it I will bet up to two hands of 100,(four greens per stack). I dont like to bet solid black on a nickle table. I feel it is arrogant and gets noticed. I used to spread 1-20 in red but have since been shown the light by my mentors. I ramp up if possible.
You really have to have the cajones to bet wide; mine are small but growing haha. I found this out after playing for 12 hours and dropping over 1200. The feeling is stomach grinding and emotionally earth shattering the first time you hit a big negative deviation steak on a high TC.
I am also serious about maintaining emotional control. After a big win one afternoon it took me two hours to calm down. The addrenalin rush and the psychological effect can cause you to overbet the ole bankroll much less make it hard to concentrate. I meditate in my room before and after playing. I even close my eyes and clear my mind during play. The noise and commotion at a casino is excellent to focus clearing your mind.
After a good session I fell it is an excellent time to fish for comps and to see if your rep is suspect. I take a break and come back later. Bank roll is average for red.
Re: Was This heat? Or Just Paranoia?
Posted by Learning to count on 02-Dec-2002 11:47:12 (#1091)
I had the same response when I pocketed $600 plus in green. I did the old switch. I restacked reds with green. The Pit buzzard noticed and the staring and whispering started. I later found out that the Buzzard was upset because he a had a significant depletion in green chicps and that this could be seen as a losing table. They had to call for a refill. In the end I ended up tossing them back on the table and explained to the buzzard directly that I removed them so as to keep thievery and jealousy away from my money while I went to the men's room.
Justified Heat IMO
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 02-Dec-2002 12:55:18 (#1093)
You verified for them what they expected when you "reproduced" the missing greeners they knew were gone. Paranoia is fear without a cause for it. I'd back myself off this place for a while and get a different game plan together before I went after them again. You're a good player and you want to stay in business. Try not to spend too much time at any one table in the future. Get up and leave when they shuffle, or better yet, pass on a few neg EV hands at the end of the deck before you color up. Then walk around looking for a good Bacc Craps or Roulette game to play, but don't play it. Take a nap thru the shift, wake up, have a boilin' hot cup a Joe to get your brain racin' and come back down and kikderazz! ;>
PS What count do you use, indices, BR (if that isn't too personal) and you spread 1-4 in red or green?
Why Is It Unwise to Play Through a Shift Change?
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Dec-2002 10:29:56 (#1085)
I always hear that you should never do this but have never heard the explanation.
Re: Why Is It Unwise to Play Through a Shift Chang
Posted by Learning to count on 02-Dec-2002 11:28:50 (#1089)
Because if you are winning they will take note and pass this info to the next shift. Then you will recieve continued suspicion and evaluation.
Re: Why Is It Unwise to Play Through a Shift Chang
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Dec-2002 13:48:34 (#1095)
That was what I had figured but never heard anyone mention it.
one question
Posted by Shell on 02-Dec-2002 15:48:30 (#1099)
Mayor, I want to say thank you. I really appreciate the effort you put
on this website, cause I enjoy it a lot.
I wonder if the casino check the gambler's win/loss amount every time
and totally?
Re: one question
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Dec-2002 23:24:50 (#1104)
I wonder if the casino check the gambler's win/loss amount every time
and totally?
-----------------
YES, they do if they are using a player-ratings system, so it doesn't hurt to palm 5-7u per hour, or tend to pull out the Pcard more when losing, and/or other tactics. (if you be counting) zg
Re: one question
Posted by Calib Vincent on 03-Dec-2002 02:05:14 (#1109)
What other tactics, zg? How do you stay on the comp grift without alerting the casinos to the fact that you're cleaning them out on a regular basis?
cjv
Re: one question
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 10:39:26 (#1121)
You don't need comps at every casino you play. At the ones you have a big loss, that's when you get rated. There are a couple of casinos that know me as a big loser, and that's great. I am sure to drop $20 on a slot machines and maybe a few on Craps each time I get my comped stay. The value of the comp is worth the investment. And I limit my BJ play at those casinos.
--Mayor
Re: one question PALMING
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 13:26:31 (#1132)
I don't share Mayor's opinion that a counter should only whip out the Pcard when losing, or that the comp-casino not be played serious. For my approach, it works fine to Pcard them when winning and to play at my comp-host resort.
I do palm 5-10u/hr to offset recorded wins, and I sometimes palm more aggressively on occaission turning a 20u win into a percieved 5u win.
And I do NOT fit the profile at any time. zg
More palming questions
Posted by ZOD on 03-Dec-2002 19:13:50 (#1151)
I palm a good number of chips myself. But, just out of curiosity, what chip denominations are you able to sneak away? And does the number you palm vary based on how attentive the floor person is to the table and chip tray?
ZOD
Re: More palming questions
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 20:04:26 (#1156)
At the green and low-black levels I have not found them to be as attentive to the tray count as is attributed to them - I typically palm a combo of denominations green-black, NOT to be overdone, perhaps 3or4xEV/hr.
IF a PC asks me point blank if I have any chips I will unhesitatingly pull a few out and declare "my lucky ones! - I never pull them all out and its settled, nothing covert or foretelling. zg
Re: More palming questions
Posted by ZOD on 03-Dec-2002 20:32:04 (#1158)
Your "lucky ones." Nice touch. I'll have to remember that one.
ZOD
has anyone seen this? *LINK*
Posted by darksun on 02-Dec-2002 18:18:22 (#1100)
while browsing google today i stumbled across this:
the domain is registered to a David Irvine, dba Beat the House LLC.
any takers on whether this is going to be a scam site or legit?
-eric
Re: has anyone seen this?
Posted by learning to count on 02-Dec-2002 20:59:37 (#1101)
I am worried about the hype that this MIT story is going to do to the state of affairs of backjack. The casinos in their paranoia and greed will view this story as a danger to thier business. Even though the MIT team was obviosuly a team of intelligencia matmatica the casinos will start tightening up. It all goes in cycles I guess. IT will be make life interesting at the tables.
Re: has anyone seen this?
Posted by darksun on 02-Dec-2002 22:17:51 (#1102)
I agree =( I think it sucks that right about when I start learning how to count the MIT story surfaced.
On the other hand
Posted by ZOD on 03-Dec-2002 19:06:19 (#1150)
Of course, the other side of the coin is that reading the book could stimulate more people to attempt counting. More people trying and failing is just what the casinos (and legit counters) should want. Blackjack gets a boost in popularity and we get other opportunities to blend in with the semi-ploppies.
Best...
ZOD
Re: On the other hand AGREED...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 19:58:31 (#1155)
... Agree with ZOD, especially considering that MGM is tied to the MIT movie-rights - Thorp, Revere, Wong, et al were the greatest boon to BJ and casino table games EVER, why would that stop now? zg
Re: On the other hand ALSO AGREE
Posted by NewbieCC on 18-Dec-2002 10:19:39 (#1874)
ZOD wrote: "Of course, the other side of the coin is that reading the book could stimulate more people to attempt counting."
I agree STRONGLY with ZOD. This will be good for counters in the long run. I heard a radio show featuring the author of Binging Down the House a few months ago and got interested in Blackjack. I went out and bought the first book I saw on Blackjack and read it cover to cover. It seemed like easy money to me. A sure thing. The majority of people would probably just head right to the casino and give it a go . . . we all know what would happen to them.
I did not. I then got a simple BJ computer game and gave it some practice. Got to the point that I could do BS and count with a fair amount of accuracy. It still seemed like easy money to me. Maybe even more so. This is where most of the remaining people would stop (if they actually get this far) before they go out to the nearest casino and blow their whole bankroll.
I am an bit of an over-achieving academic type with a little pessimism sprinkled in, so my yearn for knowledge mixed with a gut feeling that it can't really be THAT easy lead me to dig deeper. I am just at the beginning of that discovery process, and you folks have been extremely helpful. Despite the simplicity of the game itself, BS and counting etc, there is a lot more to taking the Casino's money than that, as you all know. I think that the common person will be seduced by the simplicity of the game, and not dig deep enough to learn to do it reliably or learn all the subtleties necessary to put on a good act. They will increase the level of noise that the pit crews/eye in the sky will need to contend with. In this situation, I can't help but think that a proficient pro with a solid act will find it easier to blend in with the crowd.
Again, I am just a newbie, so take it for what its worth.
-NewbieCC
Re: On the other hand ALSO AGREE
Posted by Learning to count on 18-Dec-2002 10:43:24 (#1875)
I agree with you Newbie a lot of people will go out and read the books and try and get rich quick. A boon for book sellers and secret strategy sellers. The casino's know this. That is why MGM bought the rights to the book and are planning to make a movie about it. Well in all thier wisdom why not. Get the suckers out to try a new secret winning strategy and lose more money. Thats what they want. The casinos know they can handle the fad when and if it comes. WHen you think of it this is a great strategy the casinos can always make the games even more ridiculous. 6/5, CSM's, super fun, no hole card, both dealer cards up, 3 deck cut off, or go to the sahara and play the worst game in town for a buck. Carnival time in party town. One thing though this is cyclical in nature Blackjack will remain and we will find other LEGAL ways to defeat it. LTC
What's this?
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 03-Dec-2002 02:13:06 (#1110)
Howdy,
I've just downloaded the trial version of the Casino Verite software (Which I will surely buy). Using The Efficiency Calculator, I've found the following to be true:
Count 1-
-1,.5,1,1,1.5,1,.5,0,-.5,-1 (halves)
BC= .99
PE= .56
IC= .72
Count 2-
-1,.5,1,1,1,1,.5,0,0,-1
BC= .99
PE= .55
IC= .78
Is this a published count strategy? Maybe X2 as a level 2 count? If not, what indecies might be compatible with this?
I find this very intriguing because I have been drilling with halves this past week or so, and I'm finding it a bit tiring. Count 2 would be easier to use, and it looks like it should perform about as well.
Thanks
-Felix
Re: What's this?
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 03-Dec-2002 08:49:36 (#1116)
That is a count called RPC, Revere Point Count.
Check out "Blackjack as a Business" for details.
Re: What's this?
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 10:10:51 (#1119)
These numbers are not what you should care about. Instead, you want to know how many $ per hour each system yields in a "standard" game. The definitive comparison of systems appears in Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 2nd edition, which is worth its weight in chips.
--Mayor
Ploppy play as cover?
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 07:21:52 (#1112)
I got to thinking about the last two or three times I have played in a decent DD game. I have just started taking counting seriously over the past 6 months so these games were really just to start getting into the feel and rhythym of the game vs my living room table.
But I noticed that as groups of friends would sit in, something strange happened. On two occasions a couple of tourists/friends would drop by, where it was obvious one was showing the other how to play, explaining the rules etc. Inevitably a run of low cards in the first two rounds would vault the count skyward. Now the one friend would say something along the lines of "See, look at all the low cards, that means you know there are a ton of aces and faces left." Then they would up their bets. (I briefly thought these were minor team plays, but I honestly think they were tourists)
So what about that? Could you and a buddy pull something like that off? Could you playing one on one with a dealer make a comment like "Hey where are all the face cards?" I know it probably seems obvious, sorry to think out loud like this.
Re: Ploppy play as cover?
Posted by Learning to count on 03-Dec-2002 08:14:37 (#1113)
Not in the real world. I would be careful in a LV casino. I would not even act if I was a begginer explaining about any card counting skills. A better ploy is to discuss a basic strat card play with a big card in front of you and add asking the pit buzzard or the dealer "what the hell should I do now". Read "Beyond Counting" by Grosjean it covers cover plays. I dont like verbal cover plays as you may give out the wrong info. I do like using cover from other players. If a good looking women is playing, or a asian player with a fat bankroll and heavy bets, or an obnoxious drunk who smokes too much and bets wildly, or a good personality that gets the attention of the pit critters off your play and into conversation on other issues. I learned from my mentors that if you bet big and win big they will ex you with or without cover it does not matter! This my humble oppinion and I am still a begginer and I need to learn more! LTC
Re: Ploppy play as cover?
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 08:43:57 (#1114)
Thanks LTC. I actually felt more comfortable playing when they were there, as the eyes were all on them and not on me. I had been spreading 1-4 greens fairly comfortably without any heat. I dont know if this is a decent enough spread to make it worthwhile for the longrun, but it was what I felt most comfortable with.
Re: Ploppy play as cover?
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 08:52:09 (#1117)
Ace,
According to The Mayor's Super Duper Blackjack Card Counting Computer V2.4, with a spread of 1 to 4 you can still make money even with only 50% penetration using HI-LO and S17. Check it out under JAVA Simulators on the left.
Casino Credit?
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 08:46:46 (#1115)
In my past non-counting life I was a winning green chip player who traveled to Vegas 4-6 times a year. As such I had very small ($2500) credit lines established at a few casinos. It helped me get free rooms and meals whenever I was out.
Does it go without saying that I should never use credit for sessions I intend on counting? I know it does go without saying, I just wanted to hear from others who may have encountered the same thing. Typically I would stay mid-strip and play 6D for "fun" but also keep markers open or use profits to count at other smaller casinos nearby.
Re: Casino Credit?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 11:04:29 (#1124)
I would dip into your credit in big way and let them know you are trustworthy, paying it off before you trip out, or by check shortly there after. It will also help you out when you send them that check that you send them a thank you card and address it to the credit manager, and possibly include a gift that they can share in the credit office. Tell them you had a fantastic time and can't wait to come back in to see them again. You will not be telling a lie now will you? ;>
Re: Casino Credit?
Posted by Learning to count on 03-Dec-2002 11:21:03 (#1125)
As per casino credit I have never used it, yet. From reliable sources to wit: Pro players. They say if you are proficient and and can win you need a bankroll. Put up ten thousand and see if they will give $50k. It will establish you for comps and the high life and could enable you to have sufficient capitol to make MONEY! I say if your ready DO IT! IMHO LTC
Disagree somewhat.
Posted by phantom007 on 03-Dec-2002 14:19:39 (#1133)
I agree with using credit for cover, comps, etc. However, would strongly caution anyone using borrowed money to gamble. Certainly, if your "Gambling Fund" was $50,000., I have no problem with depositing $10,000. with the Cashier's cage, so as to get a 5:1 "Margin". Again, though, extreme caution with borrowing $ for this purpose.
Caution, yes...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 14:32:18 (#1134)
...notwithstanding, casino-credit ia an excellent way by which a disciplined counter can increase his effective BR/profits/survival. zg
Re: Caution, yes...
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 15:53:38 (#1137)
I would never gamble money I could not pay back when I walked out. I have $10,000 in credit lines spread through 4 properties, though I will only use what I know I can pay back. I just use it to increase my comps, and also so I am not carrying large amounts of cash back and forth across the country.
Or the 'ZG VIRTUAL BR'...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 16:27:20 (#1144)
...if you have $10k cash and qualify for 4 $5k credit lines (total $20k), use the cash to float your lines and support play at non-credit-line casinos - the resultant higher EV and/or increased survival is made possible by the business tool known as OPM* - what better irony than to use the casinos' money for your own BR? zg
*Other People's Money
A recurring paradox...
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 01:13:48 (#1259)
... I often encounter is the former 'chump-gambler' with a casino-credit line becomes a decent counter with NO casino-credit... paradoxical IMO. zg
Re: Disagree somewhat.
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 22:22:08 (#1164)
Well said. I would never pull more than my bankroll would cover. You can play as if your roll is 50K when you only have 20K, but your actual vs virtual risk of ruin is much higher.
Basic Stretegy
Posted by Z on 03-Dec-2002 09:32:39 (#1118)
Can anyone tell me where I can find basic strategy for 1D, D9, S17, No Hole Card! game? Blackjackinfo.com does not have an option for no hole card. Some online casinos offer this game. What is the approximate house edge at these games?
Thanks,
Z
This link has it...
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 10:12:30 (#1120)
http://www.thewizardofodds.com/game/reviewmicrogaming.html
My "Letter to the Editor" appears in today's LVRJ
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 10:45:29 (#1122)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-03-Tue-2002/opinion/20188260.html
Congratz! *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 10:59:08 (#1123)
Re: My "Letter to the Editor" appears in today's L
Posted by JR on 03-Dec-2002 14:52:47 (#1135)
I'll second that!!
Re: My "Letter to the Editor" appears in today's L
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 03-Dec-2002 22:05:58 (#1161)
Mayor, why do you bother with your half-hearted crusade against the casinos? Is it because you are mostly out to make a name for yourself? That is the only conclusion I can reach. You send letters to the LVRJ and you even go as far as making television appearances, yet you will not root out the surveillance spies on your very own site! Do you know how many surveillance agents are listed on your guest book? In fact, you only took down the name of a guy who actually came out and said point blank that he is in surveillance but you leave the ones who are hiding their identities alone Furthermore, you refuse to take action against the surveillance people who post messages trying to bait the hapless counters here into giving up information about their tactics and instead focus your attention on eliminating the right to privacy of the visitors to your site and heavy-handedly removing posts from actual professional gamblers whose opinions just happen to disagree with your own, very narrow, point of view. Your draconian methods of handling this forum put you in league with the other sites out there who are afraid of dissent and heated discussion and not in keeping with the mindset of an enlightened academic. They do it, presumably, to protect profits. What is your excuse?
This is but one facet of your apparent crusade which has me perplexed. The other, of course, is that you represent only yourself and a handful of other recreational blackjack players. You are not even a Nevada resident and yet you are attempting to affect policy changes here. You are not even a professional blackjack player yet you are sticking your nose in business which ultimately does not concern you. Some of us are professionals whose livelihoods depend on things in the casinos staying exactly as they are; yet misdirected people such as yourself are butting in and attempting to make changes which will, in the end, only hurt the cause of card counting. You don't see me going around trying to divert more funds from professors' salaries at state universities in California to use that money instead to improve traffic conditions in the Los Angeles metropolitan area just because I am annoyed to death everytime I drive through there.
If you get roughed up, file suit! People do it all the time and win. Don't whine to the newspaper. If you get kicked out for being a skilled player, accept it and try not to get kicked out next time! For someone who is a self-proclaimed master of games, you certainly have missed the boat on what the real game is when it comes to advantage play. Blackjack is a simple game and requires very little skill to beat. Getting an edge is just one small piece in the puzzle of profitable gambling endeavors. The real game being played is the game of going into a casino, taking its money and then leaving unmolested. Those who cannot do that resort to complaining about the unfairness of the game and how the deck is stacked in the house's favor. Well, guess what, that's the way it is. The casinos are there to win money, not to give it away. They are trying to run a business and when I get kicked out of a place, I understand exactly why, and I do not hold it against the casinos. If they go beyond their right to protect their assets from my skill by refusing to allow me on their property or deal to me, then I can take other measures starting with a phone call to my lawyer, not a letter to the LVRJ's editor or a whiney interview with George Knapp.
I recommend that you try to strengthen your own game instead of trying to make your opponent play at a lower level.
Re: My "Letter to the Editor" appears in today's L
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 22:48:30 (#1169)
LVHCM,
Thank you for contributing an important view, I hope you will continue to give your side, while staying within the posting guidelines.
>Your draconian methods of handling this forum put you in league with the other sites out there who are afraid of dissent and heated discussion and not in keeping with the mindset of an enlightened academic.
Your posts have been deleted in the past because they violate the explicit posting guidelines of this site. In particular, they put this site at legal risk. One of the LVHCM affiliated posts had a physical threat. Many are full of private and personal information. Recently, one of your posts threatened to bring this site to its knees if I attempted to censor you. Others use fowl and abusive language. Keep it clean and on topic and you are welcome here!
>They do it, presumably, to protect profits. What is your excuse?
I don't need an excuse. I actually enjoy running this site.
>yet misdirected people such as yourself are butting in and attempting to make changes which will, in the end, only hurt the cause of card counting.
Possibly. However, that is not my intention, nor is there any evidence that anythign I have done to date in the media has hurt any games. In particular, pros like you do not own the game, even the amatures are entitled to play, and their experiences are real as well. The cause of card counting is all of our cause, not just the pro's cause.
>If you get roughed up, file suit!
There are many lines of attack, open to all. Media, legal, financial. Let's hit them in every way we can!
>I recommend that you try to strengthen your own game instead of trying to make your opponent play at a lower level.
I continually work to improve my game.
Again, thank you.
A friend suggested that the LVHCM open their own site on which they can freely post their views.
--Mayor
Let's get a few things straight
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 04-Dec-2002 01:28:45 (#1177)
I believe you have me confused with someone else. I have never put up a post which violated the posting guidelines, nor have I ever threatened you or anyone else on this board. I have absolutely no reason to threaten you. If I ever feel the need to take our discussions to another level, I'll just knock on your office door and we can talk in person, or maybe I'll just say hello the next time I see you in a casino (I saw you, did you see me?) but now I'm getting off topic. Lucky for you, I'm a nice guy, though I can't say the same for the entire LVHCM. Anyhow, back to the matter at hand. The only post of mine you ever busted was one in which I included the home addresses of the director of the Stratosphere surveillance and the owner of Griffin Investigations. Why you busted that is still a mystery to me. I think that information should go right back up for all to see.
Secondly, as far as we professionals are concerned, anyone who clumsily attacks the casinos in a way which could potentially prove threatening to our financial means, regardless of his intentions, needs to be shut down. One thing I learned long ago in life is not to mess with another man's ability to make a living. While I think you are probably harmless, believe it or not, some pros consider you a threat. So far your media blitz has proven completely ineffective and has largely fallen on deaf ears. As long as that continues, you can continue to feed your ego and try to have fun being the righteous crusader. Just remember who the general public is. They are the same people who split 7s into a ten up or who hit their 8s against a 7 up. Trying to win any sort of favor in the public arena, among people whose opinions are given to them by others instead of formed through critical thought, is about as futile as trying to spread 1 to 20 black with the count on a single deck and get away with it. But if you really push the casinos, they will start playing hardball and you are going to crash and burn. They own the government in Nevada. Just accept it, justice will not be done as long as the casino industry is the number one source of tax revenue for Nevada. You're better off draining their coffers from subjecting them to your superior skill on the table so that they have fewer dollars to send to their marketing departments to rope in more suckers and, in turn, have lower annual revenues to divert to government bribery.
You did manage to avoid answering a few of the points which I brought up in my previous post, so I'll attempt to prod you again. Why do you protect the identities of the surveillance people here? I do believe my associate pointed out that one of your posters was, in fact, a casino surveillance employee and all you did in response was bust his post making that statement. Why would you remove the name of a person who admits openly to being in casino surveillance from your guest book? If they want to come out and say who they are, we should let them because at least then we know with whom we are dealing. You have at least two other surveillance people in your guest book. Can you figure out who they are? It certainly casts your own efforts in a shadow of suspicion when you add those things up and then throw a few other into the mix: your brazen attitude about your picture and identity being known (a friend to casinos need not worry, you know), your ostracization from Green Chip events and your removal from the face of rge. I'd like an explanation about all of this, because I'm starting to wonder where you really stand, though I certainly don't expect you to answer if it's not in your best interests.
As for the LVHCM setting up a website, that is not going to happen. It is far more fun and useful to take the truth, regardless of how painful it can be, to the existing sites and let them sweat our action.
At least I can respect you for letting these posts go through. I'm sure the moderators on any of the other blackjack sites would have prevented them from going in since they pay no homage to the site and, if anything, could be construed as insulting if read in the wrong frame of mind. You see them for what they are: an opportunity for meaningful discussion instead of more drivel. Perhaps there is hope for you yet, though I have my doubts.
Re: Let's get a few things straight
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Dec-2002 09:38:02 (#1184)
>I believe you have me confused with someone else. I have never put up a post which violated the posting guidelines, nor have I ever threatened you or anyone else on this board.
That's good to know, however, any post that has the LVHC... attached to it is assumed to come from the mind of a group, and therefore the individuals posting under these tags are assumed to be working together, and all posts will be considered as coming from the same person(s) with the same agenda and hence will be treated as a group. LVHCM, LVHC Consig, LVHC Hitman, etc. All the same. Moreover, if any individual from your group posts under a separate (non-LVH) handle, that is also assumed to come from the group, for now.
> Lucky for you, I'm a nice guy, though I can't say the same for the entire LVHCM.
A threat, veiled, yet a threat. And just above you said you don't violate any posting guidelines. Yet you continue to threaten me.
>Anyhow, back to the matter at hand. The only post of mine you ever busted was one in which I included the home addresses of the director of the Stratosphere surveillance and the owner of Griffin Investigations. Why you busted that is still a mystery to me. I think that information should go right back up for all to see.
I offered to put it back up, on my terms, in a way that I felt comfortable with, but I never heard back from you. I suggested an anti-Griffin book. I was told by a friend that such a book already exists and is shared among you. Why not make it public?
>Secondly, as far as we professionals are concerned, anyone who clumsily attacks the casinos in a way which could potentially prove threatening to our financial means, regardless of his intentions, needs to be shut down.
Hence Griffin, Biometrica, etc. all need to be shut down! I can't think of anyone more clumbsy than these. And I am working to shut them down. At last, a point we can agree on!
>Why do you protect the identities of the surveillance people here?
I am not protecting their identities. I am happy to know who these people are, and say so, but I simply don't know them like you do. Some are forthright about it, and post inside info about their experiences. Others are, as you say, spying. If you know the surveillance, please tell me and I will out them immediately. As for "suspected" surveillance -- you even accuse me of that (see below) -- it is getting absurd how many people were being accused of being casino spies. If you can state that so-and-so works at a casino, and you can document it, say so and I will out them.
>Why would you remove the name of a person who admits openly to being in casino surveillance from your guest book?
Because Jimmy (from the Chumash, actually a floor person) said some nasty things about the students at UCSB that were not in the spirit of the guestbook.
>It certainly casts your own efforts in a shadow of suspicion when you add those things up and then throw a few other into the mix: your brazen attitude about your picture and identity being known (a friend to casinos need not worry, you know), your ostracization from Green Chip events and your removal from the face of rge.
This is the comment I was referring to above. You are implying here that I work for the casinos or am otherwise a spy. Please. This violates a posting guideline (it is slanderous).
>I'd like an explanation about all of this.
What explanation, either you want to meet me and talk with me in person (you had the opportunity) or you don't. If you want to meet me and work this all out, I'd be happy to, if not, you are really going off the deep end here. I am sure you know how to contact me, if you want to do so then let's talk.
>because I'm starting to wonder where you really stand, though I certainly don't expect you to answer if it's not in your best interests.
Yet another statement in which you suspect me of being a spy. Again slanderous and in violation of the guidelines. These are the sorts of things that get your posts busted.
>At least I can respect you for letting these posts go through.
Yes, that should say a lot to you. This is not an "at least" -- this is huge, baby! In this post alone, you threatened me and accused me of working for casinos. This post clearly violates the guidelines, yet here it is! Wow!
You asked some questions, and I have answered them. Now, let's move on to your positive contributions to this site!
--Mayor
Re: Let's get a few things straight
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 04-Dec-2002 10:35:56 (#1190)
>Yet another threat, veiled, yet a threat. Why do you continue to threaten me?
I think you are being a little paranoid. As I have already indicated, I have no reason to threaten you. It's just not my style. I'm just telling you, despite your insistance that the LVHCM is some sort of collective brain, that I'm a nice guy but other members are not. It's these people who aren't so nice who would be the type to make threats, not me.
>I offered to put it back up, on my terms, in a way that I felt comfortable with, but I never heard back from you.
Go ahead and post it then. Put it anywhere you want on your site, I don't care, I just think that sort of information is something people should have about them since they have it about us.
>Hence Griffin, Biometrica, etc. all need to be shut down! I can't think of anyone more clumbsy than these. And I am working to shut them down.
Now your naivete is showing. I am a featured member of Griffin but it has had no affect on my ability to make money in a casino. Griffin provides the casinos with a false sense of security instead of providing them with anything worthwhile. As long as the casinos keep buying into the Griffin myth then that just makes things easier for me. Biometrica is an even bigger joke. I'm not happy that they send my picture around and put out false information about me but so what? If it really made a difference in my life I'd fight it, but, for now, it just isn't worth the hassle. Are you even in Griffin? Have they ever done anything unjust to you?
By the way, just how do you intend to shut them down? How much money are you going to throw into your efforts to bring them down? You realize that, in the modern American era, justice is bought not granted. I'm sure your opponents are ready with big bankrolls to defend their businesses.
>I am not protecting their identities. I am happy to know who these people are, and say so, but I simply don't know them like you do. Some are forthright about it, and post inside info about their experiences. Others are, as you say, spying. If you know the surveillance, please tell me and I will out them immediately. As for "suspected" surveillance -- you even accuse me of that (see below) -- it is getting absurd how many people were being accused of being casino spies. If you can state that so-and-so works at a casino, and you can document it, say so and I will out them.
Do some internet searches on the names in your guest book and see if any of them pop up as being surveillance people. I am often surprised just what you can find out about a person on the web. As for me accusing you of being in surveillance, I don't think I ever did that. I just have to wonder, all things considered, where you really stand.
>As I said, that person also called me a casino spy in the same post. Absurd.
Why is it absurd to be a skeptic about things?
>Because Jimmy (from the Chumash, actually a floor person) said some nasty things about the students at UCSB that were not in the spirit of the guestbook.
That should get them fired up enough to double their card counting efforts and really give a smack to the Chumash.
>What explanation, either you want to meet me and talk with me in person (you had the opportunity) or you don't. If you want to meet me and work this all out, I'd be happy to, if not, you are really going off the deep end here.
I'd rather not meet you in person. I am genuinely suspicious of you and your intentions. I don't want my photograph appearing on this site! It is unclear where you really stand and what your actual agenda is. I'm not implying that you are a casino employee, I am inferring it from the evidence as being a possibility, albeit remote. So far, you've offered no information to contradict this. Are you suspected by the Green Chip community of being dangerous to their identities? Is that why you were denied entrance to their last event? What about rge? Why can't you post there? I know Don prides himself on rooting out casino spies and others who could be considered dangerous. Maybe I'm nosing around in your private affairs, but you have to try to step away from what you know and look at yourself from the perspective of someone like me and maybe you can see why I, and many others, have become suspicious of you.
>Yes, that should say a lot to you. This is not an "at least" -- this is huge, baby! In this post alone, you threatened me and accused me of working for casinos.
Yes, clearly you are a bigger man than Wong or Matthews.
>You raised some excellent questions, and I have answered them. Now, let's move on to your positive contributions to this site!
Being the voice of dissent is a positive contribution. Sure, I may be an unpleasant bastard, but I do contribute to the site. You are the authority figure on this site and the only one with the power to censor, yet you participate in discussions and offer your opinions all the same. If no one is here to question you and give you a hard time then your site will die a death of timid back-slapping and universal agreement even though the authority is occasionally wrong. Scroll through some Green Chip threads to see what I mean. The oneness of opinion and the tag-team lambasting of anyone who disagrees with the party line or questions one of the many "authorities" is sickening. Especially when they're wrong!
Legal Concerns
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 16:16:45 (#1206)
Legally and financially I do not think that CC.com is the place for counter-surveillance data that may violate industrial secrecy and personal liberties. A better place would be an off-shore server-host, maybe with a domain 'phukgriffin.com' or some such (could even be a subscript-based service if it included updated illicit copies of Griffin and other surveillance-nexus data). CC.com could link to it, of course. Note as well that previously I have invited a LVHC poster to post the addresses and other data at CCCafe which is semi-anonymous and impenetribal.
As for your LVHC handles, how about you guys assigning #s 1-n? Then when we see a post from LVHC-2 we will know a distinction as well as capo-ranking of that persona, ca'pece? -zenrackets
Re: Legal Concerns
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 04-Dec-2002 17:34:14 (#1207)
I don't think posting the names and addresses of the director of surveillance at the Stratosphere or the owner of Griffin Investigations is in any way a violation of anyone's privacy or "industrial secrecy." The Stratosphere's SD is very public about who he is and his identity can be found on several surveillance related websites, as can a few of the names in the guest book here. Furthermore the names and addresses of business owners, such as Mr. Griffin, are public information. I don't necessarily agree with this but it is the perogative of the United States government that this is the case. As such, nothing I ever posted was in violation of any laws and there is no liability.
Of course, following someone to his car and then recording his license plate number so that you can later ask your corrupt police officer friend to run the plate and get your identity IS illegal for several reasons, but that's exactly what casino people and Griffin agents do.
I would post this stuff at CCC but, let's face it, nobody but you and Rob McGarvey ever post or read anything there.
Re: Legal Concerns
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Dec-2002 18:00:18 (#1210)
I have never had a problem with having this information on my site, I just want to be able to control it. I don't want it slip-sliding away into a post that will be forgotten in time. I want a link to it on my main page, and I want it done in a way that has all the proper disclaimers to protect myself legally. Finally, I want it to look good.
I deleted the old forums and do not have the names/addresses, nor do I have the time right now to look them up. Send what you like to me, you will get a result.
--Mayor
Responses to LVHCH & Mayor
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 19:03:12 (#1213)
----------
LVHCH - "I would post this stuff at CCC but, let's face it, nobody but you and Rob McGarvey ever post or read anything there."
----------
Granted, CCCafe is no longer viable for anything but linking newbies over to McGravey's one man bandstand and school of higher gamblenomics, though the ineffable John May does show up a few times per month in an apparent display of fiegned relevancy. Which LVHC# are you?
----------
Mayor - "I have never had a problem with having this information on my site, I just want to be able to control it. I don't want it slip-sliding away into a post that will be forgotten in time."
----------
Disagree - I will share in the glee of posting such counter-counter-intel, BUT it should be posted by a 3rd party elshere (not CC.com) NOT directed by you and only then can CC.com link to it. There are now illicit copies of Griffin-mug with occaisional updates to boot that could/should/can be included!
zg
What Law?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 04-Dec-2002 19:32:59 (#1215)
"I would post this stuff at CCC but, let's face it, nobody but you and Rob McGarvey ever post or read anything there."
Glad you droped by and know the score. I would like to speak to you by private email if I can. I would like to sort out a few things with you. Your knowledge and street edge are very evident to me.
blakjack@idirect.com
Re: Let's get a few things straight
Posted by Learning to count on 04-Dec-2002 10:19:50 (#1188)
I respect the LVHCM as a definite group of pro-players. I understand their view. What I dont understand is, "why the threats?" The suspicion of the mayors collusion with the casinos is absurd especially with the lengths he has gone in his intelligent use of Freedom of Speech in the media.
Making money from black jack is not an excuse for a person to claim his that right to make a living is a reason to threaton any one for thier views; or their rights to run their "PRIVATE" blacjjack community web site as they see fit!
If Blackjack is what a person relies on to survive on then don't blame or threaton anyone, ploppy or pro for their oppinions. I think relying on something so dangerous as gambling to support a family; wife, kids, pets, and mortgage payment; is very risky. If you pull it off; Salute! Especially with the casino corporation's ability to "control" the legal environment.
I agree the casinos will do what they want. In the light of the mayors freedom of speech through his oppinion in the las vegas journal. I think the Casinos are not afraid of a university professor PHD and his intellectual endeavors in advantage play. They probably in all thier arrogance laugh at the letter and are saying "yeah right". I fear more teams like the MIT boys who (true or false) are bitch slapping the casino corporations and laughing at them. This is dangerous.
I think the intensity of the Mayor's letter is in the tradition of Ken Uston. He is on the straight and narrow. Question why would such a successful team as the LVCHM be upset over a minor effort by a educated and well meaning person as the Mayor? Please as my Godfather in "chicago" once said it is better to keep a low profile when you are making money then running around trying to be a big shot. God bless him he survived a life time of 87 years and had a life that could be a book that would make the sopranos look like a soap opera. Please try and not push this mafia thing either. I was slapped around in high school by making fun of those people. I have respect for them even though they are what they are. I too welcome the LVCHM to these pages I would like to know how to spot the weak dealers and take advantage. Salute! Bon Giorno! Salute!
Re: My "Letter to the Editor" appears in today's L
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 23:02:46 (#1172)
A very in depth post LVHC Capo. A pleasure to "meet" you.
The enemy speaks
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 03-Dec-2002 11:27:54 (#1127)
Q & A session with a poster called 'oddball' and 'Mr. Cellini', who is a former casino survellance operator with a new book on cover. Post was lifted from BJ21 site, my comments in the < > braces.
Q-In evaluating a player is it all about bet spread and its correlation to the count?
A-Yes it is, if you fit the profile!
< that is a big IF. >
Q-Like does a counter who appears all jokey,here for a laugh,having good fun with the dealers and ploppies last longer than a counter who is silent.
A-Yes, such a player will last longer, because he has ventured somewhat out of the "Card Counter" profile.
< Note to self: Need to avoid that profile. LOL >
If you read the last Blackjack Forum, you will note that in the "top 21 signs of a card counter" article, all 21 have one element in common; counters are a serious bunch and do not appear to be on vacation, they are in the casinos to make money. This shows in their countenance, mannerisms, and overall playing style.
< Note to self: have you checked your countenance, mannerisms, and overall playing style today? >
Q-I mean i try to do the just another ploppy havin fun thing but sometimes i think "how can they not realise i am counting".
A-If your "act" is unconvincing to you, you can bet that it will seem stiff and rehearsed to both the floor people and surveillance. You have stumbled on a very good point that even many pros have failed to notice. Magicians practice their moves in front of mirrors for hours and hours until they, themselves, are convinced by their sleight of hand move. Only then will they perform such a move in public or for others.
< Remember my previous advice about not trying a never-played-the game-before ploppie act? Your Act should try to incorporate your style naturally, so you don't have to work that hard at it, and it doesn't appear to be an ACT. >
< Thank you Mr. Cellini, for the confirmation on the enemies position. >
Need an answer...
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 16:02:55 (#1138)
I posted this on another board but got no responses...
A good friend of mine will be in town this week and wants to go to the casino. He is not a counter. Should I tell him that I can count cards and help him, or should I keep quiet and let him play on his own? My wife and another trusted friend are the only people I have discussed my abilities with. He can be trusted to not say a word, but I do worry about him no longer looking like a ploppy if he is asking me for advice or waiting to place his wager only after I place mine. Has anyone else ever been in this situation?
Re: Need an answer...
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 16:04:45 (#1139)
My humble opinion.
Since anything can happen in a weekend, even your best advice could murder him at the boards, then you would lose a friend. You can talk about how you play the game, but don't preach. Let him have his experience the way he wants to have it. And if he comes asking for your help, only then, can you lead him to the waters of advantage play.
Friendship is so much more important than a winning weekend.
--Mayor
Re: Need an answer...
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 16:17:58 (#1141)
Thanks Mayor! That sounds like great advice.
Re: Need an answer...
Posted by MrPill on 03-Dec-2002 16:23:38 (#1143)
I would agree with the Mayor, anything can happen in a weekend.
I too have a couple of friends that I sometimes go to the casinos with. I have discussed my "Hobby" with them but have stressed for them to get a solid basic strategy down first. They have on occasion increased their bet as mine went up, but as luck would have it everyone at the table was winning and we both kept getting stiff hand after stiff hand.
I stress to them that anything can happen in the short run, but if you learn a count and practice it, you should end up on top in the "long run". I enjoy my hobby and have losing sessions but I am up for the year.
At least I got them away from the slot machines and now they play a solid game with basic strategy.
Pill
Re: Need an answer...
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 16:28:37 (#1145)
I have a group of 6-8 core friends that come with me at one time or another, usually 3 or so per trip. I have only told one that I count, but not the rest of them. They are all strict BS players, which it took me 3 years to get them to do, the last thing I want them to do is act all suspicious or holding up play. The one who knows I count has started to learn HiLo but he agrees with my assessment in not letting the rest of the group in on it.
Re: Need an answer...
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 16:43:50 (#1148)
Thanks to all for the advice! That is the great thing about this site, people are not afraid to speak their mind or share their opinion.
Trip Report
Posted by learning to count on 03-Dec-2002 21:43:10 (#1160)
Over Thanksgiving I went home to mama and grandmas and a great meal. My cousin and I went on a casino day cruise. This was a small boat with a terrible game. Six deck, between one and a half to two decks cut off, S17, das, split aces once, no surrendar, basically crap. Oh and 5-50 min/max or 10-100min/max. We went for sh*ts and grins. I put fifty down and played all three hours. I left with $185 dollars. 10 unit buy in 37 unit buy out. I basically had a fun time with this boat.
Well during my habitation at third base a husband and wife team from Atlantic city New Jersey sat down. As the game proceeded the wife advised every one at the table, dealer and pit buzzard included that her husband had been a black jack dealer at the claridge casino in atlantic city and that he was an expert gambler. He sat down and started telling everyone what to do. Including yours truly. He became so intense he advised the pit critters that they should let him deal and he could show them how its done.
Well all three hours I just counted away and grinded my small lead. Mr. AC over there was loud and obnoxious and still telling everyone including thedealer how to play. I just smiled and kept quiet. Mr. AC started to point me out because I made a couple of basic strategy diversions with success. He in turn was lecturing me on basic strategy. I thanked him and went on counting and playing. The bell rang and the dealer anounced last hand. I was dealt a twelve against the dealers six. My bet was one unit and the true count was less than minus one. The AC pro had put out the last of his chips; forty bucks; in a hail mary play to recoup some of his losses. He also told every one else to bet it all too. Well every one stood on thier pat hands he had eighteen. I hit and took a four for a total of 16. The dealer hit and got a 4 and won. I was cracking up. MR AC blew up and started shouting at me about how my play continually changed the flow of cards and probably was the reason he dropped four hundred.
I pushed in my meager pile of red and two green chips and proudly said can I change these for less chips please. I smiled at MR AC and asked him politely to CALM DOWN and waved him off. Mrs AC pushed him away and muttered something about my ignorance and for Mr AC to watch out for his high blood pressure.
Let the ploppies do all the teaching and bragging it is great cover for us. LTC
Dream/Fantasy situation!
Posted by phantom007 on 03-Dec-2002 22:34:39 (#1165)
As the beer commercial said "it don't get any better then this". When an obnoxious player takes "your heat", the more the better!
I do hope and pray, that you had a Count in which you should have split 10's, AND DID!
phantom007
Re: Trip Report
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 22:36:07 (#1166)
Nice work! Against all odds, and oddballs. ;>
Doubling 11 vs a 2 or 3 with a very low count, DD?
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 16:12:26 (#1140)
Been using a number of different programs to practice on lately, just to get the feel of different speeds and environments.
Using Yahoo today, DD H17 DOA, on Fast Speed.
Count was -8, get 8 3 vs Dealer 3.
I realized at that point, this is one of the definite plays that not doubling would/may(?) mark you as a counter. Any BS strategy worth their salt knows this is an obvious doubling situation, yet I did not want to leave my hand exposed for the dealer to make theirs.
I lost both hands after doubling and hitting a 4 and a 2.
Thoughts on situations like this?
Re: Doubling 11 vs a 2 or 3 with a very low count,
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 16:23:24 (#1142)
I would play the hand correctly unless the pitt boss was right there watching every move I make. I say this because with a count of -8 (I'm guessing this is the true count) you would have a minimum bet out (I probably would have made a trip to the bathroom) so doubling doesn't kill you. But with no heat at all I would play it correctly and not double. Just my opinion.
Re: Doubling 11 vs a 2 or 3 with a very low count,
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Dec-2002 16:33:25 (#1146)
According to Wong's PBJ, for single deck DOA, H17
11 vs. 3 has index -12
11 vs. 4 has index -13
Unless you are playing a lot, I would not worry about this being a cover play. Many double, many do not, it is not a "give away" like taking insurance, or standing on 16 V. T sometimes and not others.
--Mayor
Re: Doubling 11 vs a 2 or 3 with a very low count,
Posted by SammyBoy on 03-Dec-2002 16:40:52 (#1147)
WOW! Didn't realize the index was that high. I guess I should preface all my responses by saying that I'm still a beginner when it comes to counting effectively.
I guess the point I should make is that it is probably more important to play correctly than it is to play wrong for the sake of cover. I guess it depends on the situation and how closely you're being watched. Being a red chipper I don't get watched much, but thanks to the hot streak I've been on the last few weeks, I nearly have my bankroll built up to play quarters.
Thanks
Posted by ace on 03-Dec-2002 19:41:40 (#1152)
Thanks for the input. For me I am probably most comfortable at that point making the double, especially since I was at 1 unit bet.
Like any other sport or game, I am finding with counting the name of the game is practice practice practice.
New BJ eBook
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 21:39:55 (#1159)
At a glance of the promo site, this looks like a good book with a few new 'secrets' - the multi-tiered betting (OF COURSE!) strategy is probably worth the price alone. zg
----------------------------
Dynamic Blackjack
by Richard Reid
www.extremebj.com
"How to look like a typical gambler, yet still have a powerful advantage? Learn To Play Blackjack ... the Dynamic Way!"
From: Richard Reid
I was thrilled that the concept of playing 'dynamically' could be so powerful.
This system has been many years in the making. Having over 20 years of playing experience, I know how hard it can be to win when using a static system of traditional card counting.
I wanted to come up with a method to get the casino personnel off my back so that I could have fun without the hassle.
Using a traditional counting method alone makes it tough to fool the casinos. This is because the casinos are aware of the traditional techniques and take steps to diffuse them. And one can't win if one is not allowed to play.
I experimented with various cover betting techniques. Some worked okay, but after simming them, I discovered just how costly they were to my bottom line. In addition, casino personnel know the standard tricks of cover betting.
There had to be a better way. Then it struck me that combining various techniques might be just the answer. I experimented with various combinations and ultimately devised a system comprised of several powerful and practical methods.
"Dynamic Blackjack" is not one of those books that generalizes about how to make money playing blackjack.
It gives you the facts and lets you decide for yourself which techniques to select and how many techniques to include.
If you learn to play dynamically, the casinos will have tremendous difficulty in figuring out that you are playing with a solid advantage.
To the casino, you will appear to be a typical gambler out to have a great time. And that is exactly what we want them to think.
Because you're constantly changing techniques, playing dynamically brings life back into your play.
Not only will you play a strong game, you may even find that you're having fun as well.
Let's take a glimpse of what you'll find in the "Dynamic Blackjack" eBook:
Solid Fundamentals - "Dynamic Blackjack" provides an introduction to the world of blackjack. It covers a wide scope of topics from, where to sit and why to sit there, how properly select a table, how to bet, how to play, when to leave and much, much more.
Generic Basic Strategy - Instead of learning different strategies for different games, you will be taught a single playing strategy that can be used in any game. When combined with the TNT21 strategy variations to enhance the power of your play, you will be using one of the most powerful strategies devised.
EBJ II Counting System - The EBJ ll is a powerful counting system with extremely high betting correlation. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a higher betting correlation in any level-two counting system which makes it ideal for multiple deck games.
Dynamic Play - Dynamic Play refers to a constantly varying strategy. Change is the key to fooling casino personnel. Utilizing various techniques like basic strategy, cutoff tracking, segment tracking, best halves tracking, combined with play and betting variation according to the true count can provide good cover.
Multi-Tiered Betting - means constantly changing your bet sizes with the illusion of randomness, yet actually following fixed and powerful optimal betting schemes. Multi-tiered betting helps you look like you don't have a clue what you're doing. The casinos will love you.
Shuffle Tracking - means following the money cards through the shuffle, cutting them into play and betting higher in the playzone. "Dynamic Blackjack" explains three methods of tracking: cutoff tracking, best halves tracking and segment tracking.
Segment Location - means keeping track of the various sections in the shoe with a higher proportion of money cards. You will be shown a relatively simple method based on a hexadecimal to binary conversion for remembering where each segment of money cards are located in the discard pile. Knowing where the money cards are located will give you a headstart in following them through the shuffle.
Playzone Counting - means counting in the playzone. You will be shown a simplified method for determining the true count in the shuffle tracking playzone. Combining playzone counting with multi-tiered betting will have even the best traditional card counter thinking you're a big time sucker.
Long run revenue - provides a method of determining how many hands you will have to play to get into the long run. You will learn how to compare various games. You will also learn how to calculate the loss in revenue which would occur were you to play an inferior game.
Record-Keeping - means to keep a record of each session. You are shown exactly which entries to record and why.
Record-Analysis - means to analyze your record data to gain insight into your play. You keep records for a reason, not just for something to do. You are shown how to use an XmR chart to gain meaningful insight into what your data is trying to tell you. The information provided in the analysis will help to improve your game further.
I believe that playing Dynamc Blackjack virtually solves the problem of being barred. It certainly gets casino personnel thinking you're a easy mark which makes playing much more enjoyable.
"Dynamic Blackjack" teaches:
solid fundamentals
a dynamic method of playing
the powerful new EBJ II counting system
a multi-tiered method of betting
three types of shuffle tracking
how to record your session data and why
how to properly analyze your recorded data
At $39.95 CAD ($25 US), you should find the information in "Dynamic Blackjack" to be invaluable.
Best of Success,
Richard Reid
P.S. Play Well and Prosper
NOTE: "Dynamic Blackjack" is an eBook which requires Microsoft Windows or equivalent to run.
Re: New BJ eBook
Posted by phantom007 on 03-Dec-2002 22:17:57 (#1162)
Hey, ZG, I just ordered this e-book based on your recommendation. In doing so, I provided name, address, CC info., etc., over what appeared to be an unsecure site. I hope this was a "serious" recommendation!
But, I am concerned, this is an "e-book", yet it says "allow 2 weeks for delivery"...is this the normal course of business?
Re: New BJ eBook
Posted by phantom007 on 03-Dec-2002 22:20:00 (#1163)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me this is the math guy, and not the one who does "shoe-bombs"!
phantom007
Re: New BJ eBook
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 22:43:10 (#1168)
Yes same guy - email him at rreid@smartt.com if you don't receive your ebook passcode immediately. BTW, I didn't mean to indicate that I have read this book, now YOU are the official CC.com reviewer of DynamicBJ! zg
Re: New BJ eBook
Posted by Calib Vincent on 04-Dec-2002 09:37:18 (#1183)
Yes, phantom007, we're all looking forward to your review. Cover is the most serious issue in cc today and represents the most significant challenge to the profitable future of our trade. If this book achieves what it says it does, then it's got one of my green chips!
cjv
Re: New BJ eBook
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 14:11:23 (#1201)
Author Richard Reid has forwarded me a review-copy for reporting on here and at CCCafe - stay tuned. zg
May have to pass........
Posted by phantom007 on 04-Dec-2002 14:23:09 (#1203)
on becoming CC.com's official reviewer of DynamicBJ. Just got an e-mail that said there was problems with my credit card, and that I should send a Money Order (??????). Anyhow, Credit Card worked fine at Barnes & Noble, the Car Wash, and the Fast Lube place.
I have read 3 chapters of Richard Harvey's latest book on BJ. He is teaching, BASED ON PRELIMINARY COMPUTER STUDIES, that:
-Card Counting does not (always) work.
-One is better off playing FULL tables.
-The # of hands played does make a difference.
Had to stop after 3 chapters. Was afraid that I read any further, that I was going to learn that the world was flat, that Republicans are not always right, and that Casinos have our best interest at heart.
May try to finish this book someday, but first, need to read "Video Poker Answer Book", "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold-em", and for the 8th time, "Shuffle Tracking for Beginners"...I still don't get it.
I will try to re-order Richard Reid's book, via another Credit Card. If I get it, I will be happy to give a review.
Posted by on 31-Dec-1969 18:00:00 (#1179)
Not the same.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 04-Dec-2002 09:29:49 (#1182)
This guy's name is actually something else. Cellini is just his pen name.
He worked many years as the eye in the sky, has now semi-retired, and so wrote a book about what he knows. I think it is available from the RGE21 site. He had an article in last quarter's Blackjack Forum magazine "21 ways security identifies a counter".
Re: Not the same.
Posted by Learning to count on 04-Dec-2002 09:42:53 (#1186)
Thanks for the info. I deleted my post because I remembered about the rule on posting names of casino people. Sorry
System indexes
Posted by BjFool on 04-Dec-2002 09:18:58 (#1180)
i find it somewhat strange that Hi-opt II system indices coming from 3 different sources would show , on certain hands significant differences.
sources: 1)Cardcounter.com 2)Casino Vérité 3)BlackJacK Pro
exemples:
Hard hit
13 vs 3 (-3)BlackJack Pro
13 vs 3 (S) Mayor's site
Hard double down:
9 vs 2 (+3) Casino Verité
9 vs 2 (+1) BlackJack Pro
8 vs 6 (+3) BlackJack pro
8 vs 6 (+4) Casino Verité
and that's just to name a few, there are many more such differences. Anyone care to explain the reason for this? It seems to me that those TC numbers have a great impact on the playing strategy.
thanks in advance
BjFool
Re: System indexes
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 04-Dec-2002 13:15:58 (#1195)
It could be different programs used or slightly different rules. If you want to be safe use the highest number or verify the rules and which program you are willing to trust.
Re: System indexes SIMPLY STATED...
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2002 23:18:17 (#1251)
SIMPLY STATED - there ain't no such thing as 'precise' indices (i#s) - #decks, %pene, generation-method, and other factors will create different i#s for the same hand - which is a good reason to learn grossly-rounded i#s - regardless of which i#s you use they will produce the same results statistically - so use i#s that are the easiest to remember and the fastest to deploy. zg
Effect of cash back
Posted by Count Luckula on 04-Dec-2002 09:20:52 (#1181)
Let's say you are playing and 8D DOA DAS 75-80% pen and the casino is sending you 0.5u/hour for your play. How does this affect your risk of ruin and your advantage? Bankroll of 200u? 500u? 1000u?
Re: Effect of cash back
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 02:20:07 (#1261)
I don't know the math to give you a scientific answer, but an extra 0.5u is an Ev boost to be sure. A similar question that I have not received a sufficient answer for is this - if a casino will rebate to me a % of my loss, how big a rebate will turn a BS player into a +Ev? Anyone? zg
Re: Effect of cash back
Posted by Shark on 06-Dec-2002 05:25:48 (#1262)
Try downloading the software on www.jimkilby.net. It will answer your ROL questions. I hope that will help. Shark
Request to group
Posted by The Mayor on 04-Dec-2002 09:42:12 (#1185)
I have posted two of the LVHC's recent submissions below. Because this board is moderated, they are not able to freely post, yet I feel what they are saying needs to be addressed. I am not happy posting these things, but my committment to Freedom of Speech demands it.
These posts stretch the policies of this board to the limit, however they are articulate and ask some good questions. Other boards simply ban all posts from this group.
By way of introduction. The LVHCM represents a group of advantage players who target table games of all sorts. They do not use card counting, they use other legal methods that generate advantages many times the level of counting. Clearly, I am not at liberty to discuss these methods. If you want a glimpse into this world, read the court documents of the Grosjean/Russo case on this site. This elite group is at the very top end of earnings for what is possible playing these games. I know one of them personally, and I know the others by name.
I would like your thoughts on these posts, and what my policy should be towards this group of individuals in their efforts to be heard.
Thanks,
--Mayor
Re: Request to group
Posted by Learning to count on 04-Dec-2002 10:31:16 (#1189)
Hey I back the web site 100%. Read my post below. This threatoning thing is sad. I think they LVCHM should stop and help begginers such as my self. Or maybe they should get thier own website I would check it out for the info they give. It would not hurt. LTC
Re: Request to group
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 04-Dec-2002 11:56:22 (#1192)
"I have posted two of the LVHC's recent submissions below. Because this board is moderated, they are not able to freely post, yet I feel what they are saying needs to be addressed. I am not happy posting these things, but my commitment to Freedom of Speech demands it."
Freedom of speech can get you killed in any country. What in particular do you want addressed? You are out in the open, so leave the surveillance peoples addresses up and allow LVHCM to set you apart from the rest of the BJ boards. If they want to shut you down there is nothing you can do about that but see if they can or not. Their guerilla tactics on other boards and not setting up their own simply means they do not want to hold any ground, just pass as they please and leave a nice wake behind. I've had run ins over passing on info re online sites with people that wish you still got the 100% bonus for playing your depo and bonus threw once. My site got trashed because of this. Everyone in North America and beyond knows about the LVA 3:1 BJ coupons because Grifter has spread the word far and wide. And doing all of this online talking? I have learned a lot from it, as I am sure many more people are right now. When do you close this circle? Does anyone have the power to tell you to close it, or do you just know when to quit?
"Other boards simply ban all posts from this group."
Reminds me of running numbers for the Mob in NY. That was against the law, but now it's okay to play Pick Three under the gov't authority. They are in business to sell books and memberships. These guys are beyond the scope of publishing rights and all the james bond spy vs spy baloney.
"By way of introduction. The LVHCM represents a group of advantage players who target table games of all sorts. They do not use card counting, they use other legal methods that generate advantages many times the level of counting. Clearly, I am not at liberty to discuss these methods."
Why not?
"If you want a glimpse into this world, read the court documents of the Grosjean/Russo case on this site. This elite group is at the very top end of earnings for what is possible playing these games. I know one of them personally, and I know the others by name."
This is part of the problem. You are asking people that are way outside the circle on how to deal with "da boys" inside your circle. Right now you're responding to Rocco, when it is Luigi that don't do any talkin' that you should worry about. I know why they threatened someone's life (not yours). They are lucky they heard the rattler's tale first. If I was the person I used to be the guy would have been history long ago. It would look like an accident. You don't have to like them, but you should definitely respect them and how they manifest themselves.
I would like your thoughts on these posts, and what my policy should be towards this group of individuals in their efforts to be heard.
Your board, your call. I think this guy has made his point and is not interested in wasting any more of his more than precious time here. If he wants to post just apply your guidlines like you do to everyone else, or set up a LVHC Mafioso Board.
Ariva derchi
Re: Request to group
Posted by Learning to count on 04-Dec-2002 12:53:40 (#1193)
"I am not happy posting these things, but my commitment to Freedom of Speech demands it."
*When does the issue of freedom of speech come into play here. This is a privately owned site which allows people to discuss blackjack according to the rules implemented by the owner. The owner has to be cautious of civil legal issues and also criminal federal issues on threats, invasion of privacy etc.etc. This is not a milk crate on some street corner.*
Freedom of speech can get you killed in any country. What in particular do you want addressed? You are out in the open, so leave the surveillance peoples addresses up and allow LVHCM to set you apart from the rest of the BJ boards. If they want to shut you down there is nothing you can do about that but see if they can or not. Their guerilla tactics on other boards and not setting up their own simply means they do not want to hold any ground, just pass as they please and leave a nice wake behind. I've had run ins over passing on info re online sites with people that wish you still got the 100% bonus for playing your depo and bonus threw once. My site got trashed because of this. Everyone in North America and beyond knows about the LVA 3:1 BJ coupons because Grifter has spread the word far and wide. And doing all of this online talking? I have learned a lot from it, as I am sure many more people are right now. When do you close this circle? Does anyone have the power to tell you to close it, or do you just know when to quit?
*Some information that has been posted has to do with private info on people on both sides of the table and was intended to cause problems that could progress to civil litigation issues. ...And why should the Mayor be responsible for being sued because someone with a gripe can't publish them himself*
"Other boards simply ban all posts from this group."
Reminds me of running numbers for the Mob in NY. That was against the law, but now it's okay to play Pick Three under the gov't authority. They are in business to sell books and memberships. These guys are beyond the scope of publishing rights and all the james bond spy vs spy baloney.
This is part of the problem. You are asking people that are way outside the circle on how to deal with "da boys" inside your circle. Right now you're responding to Rocco, when it is Luigi that don't do any talkin' that you should worry about. I know why they threatened someone's life (not yours). They are lucky they heard the rattler's tale first. If I was the person I used to be the guy would have been history long ago. It would look like an accident. You don't have to like them, but you should definitely respect them and how they manifest themselves.
*Thats just the problem everyone seems to be a tough guy and if you dont agree we have to play the La Costra Nostra game when all we wanted to do was play blackjack. This is a simple site for begginers and other neophytes of the game with good intentions. No one here wants to get involved in the politics of survival let move on*
I would like your thoughts on these posts, and what my policy should be towards this group of individuals in their efforts to be heard.
Your board, your call. I think this guy has made his point and is not interested in wasting any more of his more than precious time here. If he wants to post just apply your guidlines like you do to everyone else, or set up a LVHC Mafioso Board.
Ariva derchi
*I agree whole heartedly the Mayor's board the Mayors call. Point well made and lets move on.*
Addressing The LVHC presence @ CC.com
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 13:49:52 (#1197)
Addressing The LVHC presence @ CC.com
Apparently, the LVHC Hitman is NOT LVHCM (aka 'El Burro') who, posing as OCKO, assailed me with spurious attacks here (and elsewhere, I am told). The reason for his attacks upon me is unknown as I have never had any dealings with him/ - El Burro's behavior at this site was unwarranted and unconscionable and should earn him a lifetime-ban from this site... or at least warrant his apology, which I suspect will not be forthcoming.
Regarding frontload-play at BJ as well as various 'poker-themed' table games (ie, 3-Card Poker, Carib.Stud, Let.Ride, etc.), I am happy to share the abbreviated strategies that will allow any reader of CC.com to experiment freely, though I do not claim these stratagems to be a part of my regular modis-operandi.
Simply stated - BJ 'flashers' are few and far between, BUT if you know what to look for and are disciplined to always be looking you WILL find one on occasion (good for 2-6% EXTRA gain) - poker-themed frontloaders are more common, and a simplified strategy for exploiting those dealers/games will yield a 3% (approx) edge.
Discussions of the above game approaches should be initiated by separate thread.
zg
Re: Addressing The LVHC presence @ CC.com
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 04-Dec-2002 17:43:10 (#1208)
>Apparently, the LVHC Hitman is NOT LVHCM (aka 'El Burro') who, posing as OCKO, assailed me with spurious attacks here (and elsewhere, I am told).
You're right about one thing, I'm not El Burro. However, LVHCM isn't either, last I checked, unless there has been more identity impersonation going on here. Most of us in the LVHCM have no other easily recognizable or well-known handles.
Re: Addressing The LVHC presence @ CC.com
Posted by Learning to count on 05-Dec-2002 22:09:01 (#1248)
SO are you saying that El Burro is the culprit. Or is he part of the LVHCM???
Is he #1,#2,#3... #8? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 00:58:14 (#1257)
Re: Request to group
Posted by Calib Vincent on 05-Dec-2002 15:26:22 (#1242)
Excuse my ignorance but who are LVHCM and what are these mysterious tactics of theirs? Do they just try to get a sneak peak at the hole card? "That old trick never works."
Whoever they are or whatever they stand for, I think you're within your rights to apply the same standards to their posts as to everyone else's. Could you not just delete the stuff that violates your guidelines (or cut and paste the relevant and interesting stuff, whatever takes less editing work) rather than bust the whole post?
Just a thought.
cjv
Re: Request to group
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 01:04:18 (#1258)
Do they just try to get a sneak peak at the hole card? "That old trick never works."
--------
Actually the consistency varies by dealer, BUT if you found a really good one the advantage over the house would range from 5-7% flat-betting BJ (assuming correct holecard BS w/no hitting 17+), so its good to be always 'looking' for a flashing dealer - more common nowadays are the flashing poker-theme dealers (3-card Poker, etc.) where a simple strategy can yield a 3% advantage (see Stanley Ko, JGrossjean). zg
Re: Request to group
Posted by Calib Vincent on 07-Dec-2002 14:18:51 (#1297)
So, there's someone spotting on the other side of the pit and he signals to the player at the table the value of the hole card? Dangerous if found out. Maybe you could use a rotating spotter who signals to an intermediate who signals the player? Many variations on the theme no doubt.
Is this legal, by the way? And why is it apparently such a touchy subject on this board?
And what about casinos that now use mirrors so the dealer need not lift the hole card?
cjv
Re: Request to group
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Dec-2002 15:12:40 (#1298)
A) It might be illegal, B) that method does NOT work anymore. zg
LVA POV 3:1's - limited or timed?
Posted by ace on 04-Dec-2002 13:12:01 (#1194)
Tried emailing Mayor which managed to blue screen my entire machine.
In reading through some past posts I have discovered this newsletter and offhand it looks like an incredible value at $37. I was wondering if people knew offhand about the 3:1 BJ coupons they have listed at a half dozen or so places, are some a one time shot or are they all good for an hour? If they are good for an hour is there a max bet? On the surface it seems like this is an extremely high EV deal, but I thought I would ask someone who knew about it.
Thanks.
Re: LVA POV 3:1's - limited or timed?
Posted by JR on 04-Dec-2002 13:53:03 (#1198)
Of the 8 coupons in the POV book that are either 2 for 1
or 3 for 1 BJ, only the 2 for 1 coupon to be used at the
Golden Gate casino downtown Las Vegas is a timed coupon.
It is for 1 hour of play and good from noon to midnight.
So all BJ's will pay off at 2 for 1 for the full hour.
All the others are for 1 time use only--so the dealer
will take it away after the player gets his/her 1st BJ.
All are only good for bets up to $25. Also, for the POV
book for 2002, all the coupons expire either Dec 27 or 28.
Re: LVA POV 3:1's - limited or timed?
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 13:58:28 (#1199)
Not timed per'se - they are good untill you receive a winning BJ - so be sure to have $25-2x$25 bet the entire time - the 3-1 coup affords a 6% advantage untill played - the 2-1 Ggate coup is a timed 1hr coupon. Buy AT LEAST 2 memberships at LVA (one for Mrs.Ace EVEN IF there is no Mrs.Ace). zg
Re: LVA POV 3:1's - limited or timed?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 04-Dec-2002 14:02:27 (#1200)
Do you have to show them the book with the coupie in it or will they just accept the coupie?
Re: LVA POV 3:1's - limited or timed?
Posted by ace on 04-Dec-2002 14:20:21 (#1202)
Thanks zg.
Just to clarify, the GGate is one hour 2:1 (I think the LVA site says 3:1) is that $25 max bet? And the rest of the 3:1's are just one shot coupons good until you hit one (just one) with no time limit?
Either way am I correct in assuming this is worth $37?
Re: LVA POV 3:1's - WARNING
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 15:35:53 (#1204)
WARNING - the only data posted at LVA's site is for 2002 POVs - there has been some speculation that the 2003 POV may not have the same value - currently the value of the $20-$25 BJ coupons in each POV equates to about $400 - a solo player with wheels can easily pound one POV in a day while counting as well. zg
ps - they DO require presentation of the un-torn coup/POV.
2003 POV
Posted by Theef on 04-Dec-2002 22:34:05 (#1226)
Fewer opportunities in next year's POV? Gee, I wonder what (or who) could have made them reconsider? :-)
I was about to ask anyway if you or anyone knew what next year's might look like. I hope the 3:1 coupon hasn't gone the way of the internet signup bonus.
Super Fun 21
Posted by Lapper on 04-Dec-2002 16:04:07 (#1205)
At the advice of our mutual friend who just graduated from UCSB I read your page on SF21. You know me as LAPPER on the bj21 boards. I am very impressed by your analysis of Super Fun 21 and am thinking of trying to play it at one of the local Indian casinos. I'm sure that Harrah's at Rincon offers this game. I have no problem spreading 1 - 20 and according to your analysis that makes the game beatable. I have just one question for you about the counts you recommend. Both KO and UBZII are counts that assign a negative value to the Ace. Since SF21 is a game where most blackjacks pay even money wouldn't it make more sense to use an Ace neutral count like Hi-Opt I?
Re: Super Fun 21
Posted by Lapper on 04-Dec-2002 18:26:46 (#1211)
I just answered my own question, by looking at your EoR table. Since removal of aces is still -.3 or so it still makes sense to count it as negative. It looks like a good count for this game would be Wong's Complete Halves count, because it not only counts the ace as negative but assigns a -1/2 to the nine also, which fits in nicely with your EoR table. The problem with that count is that it is a level three count requiring you to remember three different numbers for different cards, thereby making it very difficult to master, especially under high speed conditions. So, your recommendation of KO or UBZII looks pretty good to me.
Re: Super Fun 21
Posted by Lapper on 04-Dec-2002 18:41:23 (#1212)
I just came across a balanced count that seems to match up better with your EoR table than UBZ11 or KO. It is called the Silver Fox count and it is basically KO except you assign a -1 to the nine, making KO a balanced count. Since this is a level one count it would be easier to keep than UBZ11 or Wong's Halves count, and in single deck you really do not have to do true count conversion, so that advantage of KO really doesn't exist. I imagine that since just about every count I've ever seen adds 0.5% for each +1, that for this count the critical number would be +3 just like KO and because of the assignment of -1 to the nine, I would anticipate that a simulation using this count would yield a higher betting correlation than KO or UBZII.
I do not have the software to run that simulation to prove my point, but if I am correct adding one number to the KO count that you already know doesn't seem too hard and may be worth the effort.
Re: Super Fun 21
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 19:13:33 (#1214)
CCCafe search archive has 30+ SF21 posts, this site has 10+ - figure that for SFox count INSTEAD of +/- 0.5% perTC, shave that to +/- 0.33% - Halves is OUT, but a neutralAce count like HO1-2 or RAPM OR a compromisedAce count like UBZ or ZEN would work well... AND YES with a 1-20 spread (assuming sufficient pene of at least 60% AND a mastery of the correct SFBS) WILL get the money.
On a related note, it took them all year to catch-up, but neither Fiesta will any longer allow the LVA 3-1 coupon to play at SF21. zg
Re: Super Fun 21
Posted by Lapper on 05-Dec-2002 13:28:39 (#1237)
If you shave the advantage to .33% per +1 of TC than the critical point for getting the money becomes +4 rather than +3 as I said. I think that you would certainly need good penetration and not too many other players at the table to see enough +4 or better opportunities to make it worthwhile. Hopefully, most people still see this game as an oddity, so that knowledgeable players can find tables that provide the right conditions.
I would vote "YES".
Posted by phantom007 on 04-Dec-2002 19:35:29 (#1216)
That is, Yes to an "ace-neutral" count. But keep a side-count of Aces. Since an Ace-10 still equals 21 in this game (and in most places, all Diamonds still equals BJ), a deck rich in Ace's is probably advantageous, especially when also Positive.
Further, if one DD's 11, and draws an Ace, One can always surrender.
Some of the "math folk" can hopefully give your post more precise answers to your question.
I played SF21 once as a "ploppy" last year, but plan to "study up" before my next LV trip in Feb. Seems a whole lot like LV Club's Liberal 6D game, which pays 3:2 on all BJ's, but does not have "Surrender after DD" option. Both games are certainly "Fun"...I am not sure either is "SuperFun".
Of interest, at least to me, SF21 has just appeared in Tunica...one table at the Sheraton (a Ceasar's Property). There it is called "Fun 21", and has all of the same rules, the best I can tell. The table is always full, so I have just watched a few hands. They do not have the cute little rule cards available in the corner of the table like LV SF21...I suspect they are offering the game without paying royalties...they have a "cheap" little sign in the right corner anouncing "Fun 21", and another "cheap" placard in the other corner listing the rules. When I say cheap, I mean the type a hardware store would engrave for you for $3.00 + tax.
Certainly, if SF21 stays around permanently, then OCKO's work will likely become the Thorpe of the game. Likewise, if you are a Green Chipper on bj21.com, then Mr. LVBear has some interesting posts on this game.
Good cards, and Super Fun!
Wonging question/discussion
Posted by Learning to count on 04-Dec-2002 19:58:01 (#1217)
If one starts playing at the beggining of a shoe and it goes tc -1 would one leave/wong out or continue playing to see where the count goes. Or if a TC of
-1 isn too low at what TC would one wong out.
If one is backcounting what are suggestions when to jump in at what TC? For six deck, or two deck, where mid shoe entry is allowed of course.
Oppinions please.
Re: Wonging question/discussion
Posted by hinoon on 04-Dec-2002 20:36:09 (#1218)
I wouldn't think that a -1 count would be the time to wong out. A -1 count isn't much of a significant disadvantage ...and you're at the beginning of the shoe.
I'm not a seasoned expert, but I would think that you'd wong out at about the same time you'd start to jump your bets up if the count is positive. Or, thinking of the team play model that the teams use in the MIT book...about the time you'd signal a gorrilla (is that a common term, or specific to that book?).
I'd like to know how some people approach wonging. It's a new tactic for me. there's no law that says you can't just sit out a hand. I often do that if I'm ordering a drink or otherwise occupied, and I've seen plenty of people just tell the dealer that they're sitting the hand out with no ill will or stinkeye from the dealer. I've also heard of people getting up to go to the restroom, but that seems like a good plan if the count is really negative towards the end of the shoe as opposed to mid shoe, unless you're a working with a team and can get updated on the continued count when you get back.
That's my layman's logic on the issue...I'll be interested in seeing other replies.
cheers
Sitting out hands...
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 21:39:59 (#1221)
...is a valid method of increasing the effective spread - if you were to bet 1u every-other -Ev hand, your ave -Ev bet would be 1/2u, etc.
Re: Wonging question/discussion
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 05-Dec-2002 14:10:39 (#1239)
See "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger, Chapter 12, Part 1.
For practical purposes, it makes no sense to hang around a negative shoe, hoping it will go positive. The tendency is for the true count to remain the same. A negative shoe usually stays negative. What are you hoping for, a -1 shoe to move 3 to +2? It is just as likely for a neutral shoe to move the same 3, 0 to +3. So would you rather play the next round at +2 or +3?
Also the new addition in the Second Edition of the book has more discussion of optimal entry and exit points for wonging shoes, when you have other tables available to go to.
In other words, you might want to exit a shoe, even if the count is slightly positive, and start playing at another table where there has been a fresh shuffle. The reason? In the slightly positive shoe, if you are close to the cut card, there can't be very many cards come out to make the count more positive. Also, you have very few rounds left to take advantage of the slight edge represented by the positive count. At some point it becomes better to enter a freshly shuffled shoe, in the hopes it goes highly positive early, and you have many rounds to take advantage of a big edge.
great thanks! *NM*
Posted by Learning to count on 05-Dec-2002 15:02:25 (#1241)
Betting Questions
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 21:36:34 (#1220)
From: "zengrifter"
Subject:Re: BJ methodology refinements
To: BW CC: nadiaruss13@aol.com
**Hello ! Yes I remember, the gallery! Is it a brick and mortar business as well?
----- Original Message -----
From: "BW"
Subject: BJ methodology refinements
> Dear ZG,
>
> I am writing you to thank you for the working methodolgy for playing
> 2dk you gave me a year or so ago. I came across your instructions
> just prior to a deer hunting trip to N. Wisconsin where I was also
> planning on playing some of the Indian Casinos. I came off with 330
> units in three days of play at four different places.
>
**Skill is being prepared for the positive (and negative) swings.
> I want to fine tune what you gave me (ie. play two hands in negative
> counts and one hand in positive counts while playing heads-up with
> Dealer; play one hand in neg. counts and one hand in pos. count
> while playing with two or more players).
**Should read 1hand in -counts, 2hands in +counts, with 2 or more (others' spots). If the rules preclude you from mid-entry of the second, start with 2hands and stay at 2hands unless the count goes south.
>
> First of all, is? this equally applicable to 4 and 6 Dk
>
**Yes and no - one difference is that you will need a larger effective spread than you use in 2Ds AND you will need to abandon most -count shoes beyond about -3 TC.
> Secondly, I am so comfortable playing two hands in neg. counts
> that I want to do the same when others are present. Is there a
> mathamatical reason why I shouldn't?
**Playing 2hands (or 3hands) in -counts eat/accelerate the -Ev decks/time, but if there are others at the table who are going to slow the game/reduce your +Ev anyway, I say let THEM EAT the -Ev/time, but then when you are in +Ev/time you become one of the pigs in a trough tussling to eat a limited amount of slop, get it?.
>
> A lot has been posted lately on the added value of playing two
> hands. Would you discourage that in positive counts until TC +4 or
> +5 is reached?
**Depending on the #others at the table it is not optimum, necessarily, to push to 2hands in a +count, heads-up for instance would be penalized statistically by doing so (except arguably on the last round).
**Notwithstanding, today's game requires more creativity to gain longevity and one of the areas that we have a lot of wiggle-room is in semi-cover betting - changing the routine constantly between 1-2-3hands, not clearly related to the count, is one way to achieve 'semi-cover' betting. The important 'balancing' aspect of this sort of mixed#hands gambit is that a sufficient spread is maintained throughout - for example on a good 2D betting 2-3x1u (2-3hands of 1u) in -counts a bet of 1x8-12u in +counts is reasonably sufficient IF you vacate a few -decks per hr - conversely, if you bet 2-3x5u in +counts your corresponding -count bet would be 1x1u, bet 2x6-7u in +counts and your -count bet is 1-2x1u, more art than science - the more -counts you can avoid altogether, the more leeway you have with reduced-spread and/or non-optimum +count bets.
>
> Part of my camo is to begin play with two units on each spot. When
> I win and the count drops (which it usually does) I have problems
> with how to lower my bet. Typically, I will remove one bet and play
> the remaining 2-unit bet. Then on the next bet, if still minus or zero,
> split the bet to two spots. Is this what you do or do you leave the
> two 2-unit bets up until you lose one...and then split to two 1-unit
> bets?
**Like I say, the more important element today is mixing-up the betting while being sure to maintain a sufficient spread across each face of the gambit - so it doesn't matter how you accomplish the chore of betting less in -counts and vice-versa BUT my preference in the instant case is to immediately divide the remaining bet into 2hands or even 3hands if allowed in -counts - this will increase your overall variance/risk because your average min bet has increased, as will your comp-value, so calculate more BR for increased variance when betting 2-3hands in -counts.
> Thanks again for your help.
**By the way, you are not my only world-class artist BJ student, I want to introduce you to Comrad Nadia Russ from Moscow - she is you will see a world-class renound artist - and she is connected if we ever play the Russian games safely - check her out her at - http://hometown.aol.com/nadiaruss3000/index.html
**Nadia, check out BW's gallery and work at [deleted]
>
> BW (artguy)
>
> PS Two of these casinos had 2-dks and 4-dks cut to 80% (but with
> ndas on the 2-dk). Interested?
>
**YES, including #tables open/shift/limits, etc.
** Cheers, ZG (griftguy)
New to the board/Omega II count
Posted by ElementX on 05-Dec-2002 05:39:36 (#1227)
Hi everyone,
I am new to the board even though I've been reading the posts for quite some time. You guys are extremely knowledgable players from whom I can learn, and I hope to contribute a thing or two myself here. I'm a recent UCSB grad (now living in Los Angeles) and took up blackjack and cardcounting about a year ago. So, a big hello to everyone. I was using hi/lo and then read Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood and started using the Omega II system. I have found it to be effective, especially in Super Fun 21, though I have yet to master all the indices. Learning the indices for a +6 TC and wonging into six-deck games has been quite effective also. Has anyone read the book and used the system for either SD, DD or 6D play? Any additional thoughts?
Cheers.
Re: New to the board/Omega II count
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 05-Dec-2002 13:22:32 (#1236)
"I am new to the board even though I've been reading the posts for quite some time. You guys are extremely knowledgable players from whom I can learn, and I hope to contribute a thing or two myself here."
Welcome to Card Counter Dot Com! ;>
"I'm a recent UCSB grad (now living in Los Angeles) and took up blackjack and cardcounting about a year ago. So, a big hello to everyone. I was using hi/lo and then read Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood and started using the Omega II system. I have found it to be effective, especially in Super Fun 21, though I have yet to master all the indices. Learning the indices for a +6 TC and wonging into six-deck games has been quite effective also. Has anyone read the book and used the system for either SD, DD or 6D play? Any additional thoughts?"
That is one book I have not had a peek at yet. I have read some of Carlson's work on card clumping and he had done an amazing job by refuting that you can form a system to beat it. His AOII ranks up there with the Hi Opt II and Zen counts, and that is the reason I would like to get his book. You know how to play multi-deck by back counting and wonging in and out so you know what you are talking about already.
Welcome Aboard!
Re: New to the board/Omega II count
Posted by Learning to count on 05-Dec-2002 15:00:23 (#1240)
Welcome Equis. We are all here to learn and exchange ideas. This is a great board to "peacefully" trade ideas, experiences and make new friends. My best advice IMHO is to read every thing you can on advantage play. I play hi-lo and love six deck shoes. How about a breakdown of your system :) LTC
Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by ElementX on 05-Dec-2002 20:58:59 (#1245)
Hi LTC,
I like the hi-lo because of its simplicity- level 1 systems are good also for team play because each member can learn it quickly. Do you play the negative counts on six deck shoes or do you prefer to come in with a good plus count? Do you play SD or DD? I switched to the Omega II count because it is slightly more effective in single and double deck play, though in these games there is usually no mid-shoe entry. I use the Omega II in six-deck games but don't play against the negative counts. Still trying to master the Omega II indices. The only problem with Omega II is that the ace is neutral and it advocates an ace side count, which is supposed to improve playing efficiency. Mathematically, the removal of an ace gives approx. a 0.50% disadvantage to the player (www.ace-ten.com - a good site by the way).
ElementX
Omega II - FLAWED?
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2002 21:47:07 (#1246)
NO, just obsolete - and the BryceBlood book IS flawed in terms of betting advice/strategy and many/most other game-points. Suggestion 1) return to HiLo IMMEDIATELY, learn 50+ indices, and don't look back... or Suggestion 2) swap your current Ace and 9 tags ala ZEN, learn 50+ indices for that system, and don't look back. AO2 is the second most over-rated system in counting, the first being HO2. zg
You're right about the betting...
Posted by ElementX on 05-Dec-2002 23:53:05 (#1252)
Yes the betting strategies are certainly outdated, too simplistic- I have had to come up with some of my own when playing SD and DD based on the TC. For six deck I like to flat bet with a strong plus count. But as a counting system, I think the Omega II gives a pretty accurate reflection of the deck situation. Zen is good in that it takes the ace into consideration rather than the nine, which has a smaller effect on the player as a percentage. I'll take a look at it- Where can I get the Zen indices? I want to stick with a level 2 system but I think it is important to know the hi/lo indices also.
ElementX
Re: You're right about DECIDE
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 00:40:08 (#1253)
"Where can I get the Zen indices?"
If you were already committed to the AO2 i#s I would tell you to stick with those BUT use ZEN tags, otherwise get ZE#s from Snyder's 'Blackbelt in BJ' or form anyone qualified to provide them from one of several i#s generators.
"I want to stick with a level 2 system but I think it is important to know the hi/lo indices also."
NOT so, you will only need ONE set of i#s - level-1 or 2 is relatively unimportant BUT stop straddling the fence. zg
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by Learning to count on 05-Dec-2002 22:03:53 (#1247)
I use hi-lo because that is what I am good at. Computing the true count is easy for me and I use limited indices; Ill18,fab4,etc.. I learned hi-lo from Jerry Patterson's books and from one of his proteges who played during the Uston era.
I did not really put 200% into it until two years ago. I went through a divorce and I wanted to do something I always wondered about. Professional Advantage play. I dont have the pro bank roll (100K) but I feel I have pro level skills. I still need experience and I need to sharpen my indicies skills and deviating from basic startegy. I recently understand the value of surrender when you have a big bankroll out and are stiffed. Surrender is so important and I know it cold.
I still am gun shy about big bets. I over protect my bankroll. I am changing though with time and understanding when the big guns should come out. "Ya gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em".
I love singledeck. I sometimes can see the deck if they deal deep enough. I can remember what aces are left with out keeping a mental track. I just remember.
I love to make my decisions on how to play my hand correctly. I am able to track the TC up to my hand and make the decision according to the TC. I can track the TC at the moment the dealer lays his first and second card down. The only bad thing about single deck is the heat and terrible penetration. I still love it though it is a challnge! I love the action too. Yeah ZG Im addicted!
Six deckers are cool and they are plentiful. I have been learning DD and it is interesting but hard to get good pen. I played at one casino where the dealer would go to one deck then shuffle then at the next deal he would deal out to almost a half a deck. It was weird but I took advantage of until I fell asleep at 3am.
The one thing I still have problem is with negative deviation. It kills me to drop a grand in three or four hands. I feel Like I am in a hole and have to dig out. I know, I know you will come back and the you have to ride the coaster. It is like deppression with lots of lows and less highs.
As far as team play I suggest you play for your self. I have a group of friends who at every trip become more cohesive. We protect each other and stay alert and locate good games, weak dealers, and good looking chics. I dont want to be responsible for another persons money. I am also untrusting of other people being responsible with my money. Start with a scout team who look for good games. LTC
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 00:44:49 (#1254)
"The only bad thing about single deck is the heat and terrible penetration"
------
Reletively - a 1D 50% pene is mediocre, requires a 1-6+ spread, a 2D 60% pene 1-10 spread is a higher SCORE. zg
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 05-Dec-2002 22:23:17 (#1249)
I have seen somewhere (RGE) that the Ace value is as high as .61% You seem smart enough to figure out for yourself what is working for you. I use Hi Opt II and find it rather easy, but I stick to 20 indices which represent over 90% of all possible gain from deviating from basic. Learning more indices is a waste of time in my opinion. Don Shlag says 18 indices are enough, but if you are going to be playing full time then you may want to put in the extra effort.
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 00:53:37 (#1255)
RM - "I use Hi Opt II and find it rather easy, but I stick to 20 indices which represent over 90% of all possible gain from deviating from basic."
-------
Disagree, even in 8D games the extra gain available by increasing from 20 to 75 i#s of the order of 18% (according to CCCafe 'moderator' THopper), in 1-2D games the extra available gain is of the order of 25+%
-------
RM - "Learning more indices is a waste of time in my opinion. Don Shlag says 18 indices are enough."
-------
"Enough" is a subjective term, though DS himself employs about 100+ i#s. zg
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 06-Dec-2002 05:51:40 (#1263)
I would think that anyone that makes their living playing blackjack should use as many indices as possible. That exta 10% works like compound interest over time, just like the extra edge of one system over another makes a big difference long haul.
10% of 1% Compounded
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 06-Dec-2002 11:17:48 (#1266)
"I would think that anyone that makes their living playing blackjack should use as many indices as possible. That extra 10% works like compound interest over time, just like the extra edge of one system over another makes a big difference long haul."
One more comment on this issue. This last 10% we gain by going beyond the first twenty indices is 10% of the possible 1% or so gained above the 1% we have just using basic. Using 6 decks 5 dealt S17 DAS LS 1-12 spread with a 10K BR $ won per 100 hands is:
KO $50.50
HL $52.04
Zen $56.95
AO II $60.21
Hi Opt II $61.61
This is only a few $ difference for those 100 hands, and will compound the bankroll in the same degree, as will the extra .1% added edge to our supposed (on the high side) 1.9% edge by using basic and twenty indices.
More important is penetration, game rules, and the proper use of the bankroll based on the count.
Re: 10% of 1% (NO!)
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Dec-2002 11:36:19 (#1334)
KO $50.50
HL $52.04
Zen $56.95
AO II $60.21*
Hi Opt II $61.61*
*NOT REAL - w/o a 3card secondary count overlayed onto the primary count - with only an Ace-density estimate per 1/4D AO2 and HO2 might not yeild equiv to ZEN or RPC. zg
Re: 10% of 1% (OUI!)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 08-Dec-2002 15:59:27 (#1346)
KO $50.50
HL $52.04
Zen $56.95
AO II $60.21*
Hi Opt II $61.61*
*NOT REAL - w/o a 3card secondary count overlayed onto the primary count - with only an Ace-density estimate per 1/4D AO2 and HO2 might not yeild equiv to ZEN or RPC. zg
If you can't handle the count, just fall back to something you can handle. You could be using Zen and having trouble with the +2 and -2 and lose your $56.95 edge to something below HL.
Once again, Uston's version of Hi Opt II does not require Humble's "3card secondary count overlay" It is rather simple to use IMO
By 1985 Uston no longer...
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 03:17:21 (#1421)
...advocated the insufficient method that you are advocating, he said its OBSOLETE (Uston on BJ). zg
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 07-Dec-2002 18:00:26 (#1304)
See the link below for a comparison between High-Low with basic strategy (BC .97 PE 0)and a system similar to Advanced Omega II(BC .98 PE .72); slightly higher BC). Keep in mind that risk was not considered in this comparison, only raw win rates relative to the maximum bet.
Re: Hi-Lo / Omega II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 07-Dec-2002 19:48:24 (#1306)
Excellent work TH. I love the way you used the graphs to let viewers see the difference in these percentages over time. If you are going to be putting in a lot of time at the tables it is worth your while to learn a more complex count and add more indices.
Over time? *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 07-Dec-2002 21:14:44 (#1314)
The x-axis shows the cut card effect, not results over time. The sine wave structure you see is caused by the cut card effect. This is caused by the last round tending to be more likely to be dealt with a negative count at certain penetration points. At other points, the number of rounds dealt will be fairly consistent, reducing or eliminating the negative count bias. The distance between peaks and valleys of the curve corresponds to the average number of cards dealt per rounds.
Re: Over time? ENGLISH?
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Dec-2002 11:28:31 (#1333)
So, what are you aeeing in ENGLISH PLEASE? zg
Omega II count and SF21
Posted by Buick Riviera on 05-Dec-2002 15:52:31 (#1243)
I was using hi/lo and then read Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood and started using the Omega II system. I have found it to be effective, especially in Super Fun 21
In an article written by Orange County KO (available at this site, click here:
http://www.cardcounter.com/SuperFun21.htm), he recommends other count systems with this game. Of course, I presume you are following the BS for this game also because it is quite different from the traditional games you mentioned in your post. OCKO has a nice SF21 chart as part of his article.
The Wizard of Odds recommends a slightly different BS for SF21 than that of OCKO, which is linked and discussed in the OCKO article.
I thought this may be of interest since you have beem attackimg the SF21 game.
Buick
OCKO's SF21 is THE Seminal SF21 work *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 00:57:00 (#1256)
Re: Omega II count and SF21
Posted by ElementX on 06-Dec-2002 20:16:38 (#1279)
I think the key to SF21 is the betting spread and whether you play one hand or two hands at a time, rather than the particular counting system used. OCKO's piece is certainly exceptional.
ElementX
Re: Omega II count and SF21
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 21:03:31 (#1282)
Just like reg21. zg
50+ INDICES, lazy goldbricks!
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2002 23:04:27 (#1250)
Lazy goldbricks (YOU know who you are)!
IMHO its time for YOU to advance to 50+ indices (75 IS BETTER) - how would you justify only knowing 1/3 of the multiplication tables?
LEARN -4 to +10 (approxHiLo), BS for 22-99 and A2-A7.
Look at it this way: if you can increase your gain by 20% just by adding extra ROUNDED indices -and- if you also play 20% faster -and- if you then also play a 20% longer session, on average - the compounded result implies an overall relative sessionEv increase of 100% - yes/no?
Am I being too unscientific here? Did we need HO2 with betting side counts and/or multiparam-adjusting to double our Ev? Why NOT double our Ev if its that easy?
Get the lead out! sgt.zg
Re: 50+ INDICES, lazy goldbricks!
Posted by Learning to count on 06-Dec-2002 05:56:59 (#1265)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...uh...what...what.... oh let me sleep:)
DD' on Indices
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 23:26:46 (#1484)
DD' on Indices (bj21)
Insurance, 16v10, and 15v10. After that the value gained from
strategy departures drops considerably. A good argument for risk
averse strategy. Only use the variations that make a measurable
difference in ev.
One thing is, however, that after you become experienced you will not
be memorizing indeces. You will be so used to the numbers from the
constant discussions of how to play every hand that you will know
them pretty well. As long as you have the big 3 correct, you could
change all the others randomly up or down one and you'd see almost no
change. Exact numbers are very unimportant. But if you understand the
play you will always be in the ball park.
When publishing they should give all the exact correct numbers. They
should not make a judgement call for you as to what is important,
what you should learn, and what you should not bother with. We can
all look at the numbers and decide for ourselves whether we want to
learn 20 numbers, 30, etc. I only use about 30 numbers.
Insurance
hard 12 v 2,3,4,5,6.
hard 13 v 2,3,4
hard 14 v 2,10
hard 15 v 10
hard 16 v 9,10
11 v 9,10,Ace
10 v 9, Ace
9 v 2,3,7
8 v 4,5,6
A2&A3 v 4
A7 v 2,Ace
A8 v 4,5,6
A9 v 4,5,6
TT v 4,5,6 (about 2 or 3 times per year)
99 v 7
44 v 4,5,6
Okay, I guess that's 42 numbers. But some of these are approximations
and I didn't set out to have this many. Most expererienced players
have many more than this, like doubling 8 v 3, or A5 v 2, splitting
33 v 8, etc, most of them worthless. But if you know them, especially
the hit/stand on stiffs, you might as well use them. Why not? The
rare worthless doubles and splits you can do without to decrease
variance.
Re: DD' on Indices YES
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 23:28:23 (#1485)
YES, in between serious play - like the decade from '88-'98 - when I
am playing recreationally twice per year - NO indices per'se yet I
know where the departure points are regardless. Notwithstanding,
right now I know 100#s and wizz through the flash-cards shuffled
randomly - what does my extra discipline get me if playing quarters?
probably an extra $7 and hour statistically. On the other hand I
believe that excerizing intuition on the many borderline plays that
occur can garner more than an extra $7/hr - so YES precise indices
are NOT necessarily the optimum approach. zg
Spacey to Bring Down the House
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 01:21:50 (#1260)
Spacey to Bring Down the House
Source: Variety
------------------
http://www.zentertainment.com/categories.php?op=newindex&catid=2
MGM has acquired the film adaption rights to Ben Mezrich's book BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE: THE INSIDE STORY OF SIX M.I.T. STUDENTS WHO TOOK VEGAS FOR MILLIONS for Kevin Spacey's Trigger Street Productions to develop and Spacey to star in. The book tells the true story of a group of M.I.T. students that trained themselves to be card counters and consequently won millions in Vegas. "Like OCEAN'S ELEVEN, it's that story of beating the house, only this story is true," said Michael Nathanson, chief operating officer and president of MGM Pictures. "Kevin will play the M.I.T. teacher who is this brilliant ringleader, and there are great parts for a young cast. We want to start production before the end of 2003."
http://movies.go.com/movies/B/bringingdownthehouse_2004/
Kevin Spacey is developing a film about MIT card sharks who use their wits to fleece Las Vegas casinos. Based on a best-selling book, Bringing Down The House, by Ben Mezrich, the film will tell the true story of Ivy League students using card-counting to beat casinos at blackjack. Spacey will produce the film through his production company Trigger Street. Speaking in London yesterday, he said no decisions had yet been made about a screenwriter, director or cast, although Variety reports that he himself plans to take a supporting role.
Re: Spacey to Bring Down the House
Posted by Learning to count on 06-Dec-2002 05:55:10 (#1264)
Ken Uston will roll in his grave!
The corporations are devious put to out this movie add all the hype, sex, and violence. A urban hip hop music score. A pop cast Brittany Spears, BS Boys, Puff Daddy etc....and we have the saturday night fever hit of the new era. Everyone will run to learn how to count and win thier way to high roller suite heaven. 6-5 BJ payoffs, SF 21 with half a deck cut off, csms in every home... I need to write a book I can a make million...I'll call it "So you wanna be a whale". "The card counters guide to riches, fame, and a movie contract."
Sarchasm aside this too will pass. History is cyclical with an evolutionary change. Hegel says it is the forward movement of our time towards our revelation/final outcome. Hey maybe we will be celebrities too :)
PS Kevin Spacey???
Re: Spacey to Bring Down the House
Posted by hinoon on 06-Dec-2002 11:32:29 (#1267)
When I first found out about the MGM sale, my initial thought was that it would be a bad development. A popular movie inspiring people to learn to "play" instead of plugging their ATM cards into slot machines might thus inspire casinos to adjust their rules. The "cover" would be blown. But I really don't think that's the case. Vegas movies make money. Con movies make money. But people realize that they aren't MIT students. Some people will pick up a book (like the thousands before them) and learn a halfassed count. They'll sit at the table, have a few drinks, and while checking out the ass on that waitress by the craps table, invert the count and lose their shit. Casinos will see a resurgance of clients who now think that the key to breaking Vegas is to bring in a great big bankroll. Maybe a few bright people will learn to count and count well. But honestly...they probably would have regardless.
With all of that said, there's no writer, no talent attached (Other than Spacey). It's a far cry from being made. Most movies take a good 5 years to develop and make it onto the screen. It'll be interesting to track the project and see how it turns out.
It'd be a good flick though.
ZG, Mayor, et al. do you think that a movie would hurt the game? I'd love to hear the opinion of you guys that are actually living it.
Or It Could Be. . .
Posted by Buick Riviera on 06-Dec-2002 12:19:21 (#1268)
. . . Like The Big Player, the movie rights sold but the movie never made based on Ken Uston's book.
Buick
Re: Big Player
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 06-Dec-2002 12:54:26 (#1271)
This time it will probably fly with the new version of it ala Ocean's 11, with the Hip Hop til ya don't stop boggie ta boggie ta da boggie da beat. These sites will get a lot of hits, books will sell, people will sell courses, and 98% of the people that hit the tables will pay for it. 1% will break even, and another 1% will end up making money.
Re: Spacey to Bring Down the House
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Dec-2002 12:19:44 (#1269)
do you think that a movie would hurt the game?
-------
I agree
Posted by The Mayor on 06-Dec-2002 12:43:36 (#1270)
The more popular BJ becomes, the more people will "think" they know how to beat it and lose. But with more interest comes more competition for those people. The margins can be smaller because more tables will be open.
And...
Posted by ZOD on 06-Dec-2002 20:58:01 (#1281)
And, as people flock to the tables to "beat" the game, perhaps it will underscore to the casinos that more profit is made getting ploppies in than keeping skilled players out.
ZOD
RayMon
Posted by phantom007 on 07-Dec-2002 05:28:11 (#1285)
Rainman is the Cause of 6:5 BJ and CSM's. Now I know why! Probably Dustin Hoffman cost me my 100X odds on Craps in Missouri casino's too.
I'm not a pro but I do have two cents.
Posted by Theef on 07-Dec-2002 21:37:46 (#1315)
I think ANYTHING that publicizes, let alone glamorizes, ANY table game over slots is good for the card counter.
duhhh
Posted by joe on 17-Aug-2005 21:11:58 (#13838)
clearly, this movie will inspire successful teams to take from the casino....this equals bad new for card counters
Yeah,also the wanna be's and losers. *NM*
Posted by Tom on 19-Aug-2005 06:09:53 (#13847)
The flaws in that book are myriad
Posted by Canadian Plopper on 18-Aug-2005 13:06:17 (#13844)
I will preface my comment by saying that I have gambled all over the world with a particular emphasis on Las Vegas and the Bahamas (the featured locations of that book)and also read Burning Down the House about a year ago. I remember that after reading it I concluded that much of it was pure fiction. The description of the gambling in Bahamas was so full of inaccuracies that I concluded that that section was completely false and fabricated. The use of big players to wander around in a drunken stupour only to drop winning $10,000 bets and then wander off seemed implausible (and certainly impossible this decade) and may result in success once -- BUT ONLY ONCE! A better card counting movie that I saw a few months ago was Canadian made and I wish I could remember its name -- a great scene near the end of it involves the card counter pretending to speak Chinese and saying that a marksmen had a gun trained on the pit boss (in this "illegal" casino) and would shoot him unless he let him take the money. Anyone know the name of that movie?
back betting question
Posted by Pal on 06-Dec-2002 15:57:49 (#1274)
My roomate plays perfect basic, and I count hi-low. Since you can't wong in at foxwoods (crowding), would it be a good strategy for me to back count and bet behind him only when the count is +2 or more.
I only bring $100 bankroll per trip. I am still in college, and don't have the time or bankroll, and I am not confident enough in my skills yet to play seriously, but I figure I should give myself my best chance. Would my EV be greater back betting, not using the I18? would it generate heat? or should I just play and exit wong?
Re: back betting question
Posted by The Mayor on 06-Dec-2002 18:46:13 (#1278)
with $100 bankroll per trip, if you only play + counts, say with a max bet of $10 (spreading $5-$10), you have an EV of about .50 cents per hour, with a risk of losing your entire $100 of about 20% per trip (based on your $100 bankroll).
Better strategy -- get a part time job that pays $7 per hour and put the money directly into your bankroll. When you get a decent bankroll, play for real (max bet at least $50). In the mean time, work hard, get good grades, and buy some sim software so you can play at home.
--Mayor
Re: back betting question
Posted by Splitz on 09-Dec-2002 21:44:45 (#1410)
Whats a good "sim program" and where can I get it? and how much?
-Thanks!
any one heard this one yet
Posted by Learning to count on 06-Dec-2002 18:09:14 (#1277)
Park Place appealing $8 million judgment won by high-roller
In the casino business, they say, the house always wins -- a truism
that has prompted numerous gamblers to try their skill at counting
cards or by outright stealing.
A federal jury verdict last month, however, marked a surprising
turnaround for a casino giant used to pouncing on potential cheats.
Last month, a U.S District Court jury in Las Vegas sided with high-
rolling gambler Steven Mattes in a fraud suit against Park Place
Entertainment Corp., awarding Mattes close to $8 million in damages
on all seven charges leveled against the company, including $1.5
million in punitive damages.
The suit -- a far cry from casinos' typical disputes with gamblers
over jackpots -- has attracted notice from casino insiders and
prompted an investigation by state casino regulators into claims that
the company lied to Mattes and cheated him out of millions of dollars.
Las Vegas SUN: Park Place appealing $8 million judgment won by high-
roller
What I read was...
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Dec-2002 02:35:41 (#1322)
...he lost big during the opening of Paris and the mgmt, fearing variance, wanted to lock in the win so they denied him the promised credit but they did refer him to the Hilton - in lawyerese PPE's defense was marred by "latches" and "dirty hands" bolstered further by a casino host who borrowed $250k from the plaintiff (illegal) and then apparently lied about the amount under oath! YAAA BABY YAAA. zg
denied him promised credit?
Posted by Steve on 08-Dec-2002 12:07:47 (#1336)
Hi,
I didn't see this article. What you are saying is they denied him promised credit after an initial loss? Something like, "sir, your 10 million in credit is approved, here is an initial $2 million", then the guy loses the $2 million and comes back and asks for more money against his credit and they say "oh, so sorry, we've decided not to give you more credit because you lose so much (that way we get to keep it!), but we have arranged for you to go across the street and lose another million or so to them, then they can pull the same scam". Something like that?
Steve
Re: denied him promised credit?
Posted by Learning to count on 08-Dec-2002 15:46:05 (#1345)
A good reaon to save money until you can have a million dollar bankroll so you can go to PPE casinos and play 6/5 black CSM Blackjack. I hope he wins more at the appeal or at least sues them again for dragging him through court because of their greed. HAHAHA
Surrender when playing two hands
Posted by ElementX on 07-Dec-2002 05:00:36 (#1283)
When playing two hands, would it be advisable to sometimes go against basic strategy and surrender the poorer hand, depending upon the player's advantage of each of the two hands. For example, say the dealer is showing a 4 up, your first hand is a hard 16 (average player advantage of -19.4%) and your second hand totals 8 (average player advantage of +8.4%). This would give an average overall advantage of -5.5%. Would it be good to surrender the 16 and then play out the 8? What if you had to play the 8 first and the 16 second? Would you surrender the 16 depending on the outcome of the first hand? This is not considering the situation of the count. I am wondering if there is a more optimal set of indices for two-hand play. Okay.. my mind has definitely shut down for the night!
ElementX
Re: Surrender when playing two hands
Posted by phantom007 on 07-Dec-2002 05:21:20 (#1284)
I would not surrender 16 vs. Dealer 4 in your example. As a general rule, only surrender hands that you will lose more than 75% of the time. This is usually 16 vs. 9,10,+/-A, and 15 vs. 10, and ONLY at neutral counts and above.
Certainly, there are other conditions where surrender might be advantageous, such as 14 vs. 10 at higher TC's.....however, against mid-to-low # cards, not so. High TC should cause one to Stand on the 16, DD on the 8, and most likely, the dealer will bust out.
Re: Surrender when playing two hands
Posted by The Mayor on 07-Dec-2002 12:50:40 (#1295)
Surrender those hands it is proper to surrender, and no others.
>For example, say the dealer is showing a 4 up, your first hand is a hard 16 (average player advantage of -19.4%) and your second hand totals 8 (average player advantage of +8.4%). This would give an average overall advantage of -5.5%. Would it be good to surrender the 16 and then play out the 8?
Neither of these hands is proper to surrender under ANY conditions I am aware of (with the single exception of hole card play, when you know the dealer has a 6 or 7 burried, it is proper to surrender the 16).
Surrender: 16 vs. T,A, 15 vs. T all the time.
In H17 games, also surrender 17 vs. A and 15 vs. A.
Re: Surrender DISAGREE
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Dec-2002 02:31:21 (#1321)
I have to disagree with Mayor, though I cannot state my position in math-terms, ElemX has a germ of a good idea that has infrequent application, and is supported by recent 'out-of-box' thinking related to insurance-bets. The strategy that ElemX has suggested will REDUCE VARIANCE but I would not do it in the instant example - I WOULD do it (perhaps) if I held a 16 and a 20 vs 8 for example. Yes/no? zg
see this post and JGrossjean's Beyond Counting for further (similar) treatment -
Re: Surrender DISAGREE
Posted by ElementX on 08-Dec-2002 14:28:40 (#1338)
ZG- you give a very good example. I would likely surrender a 16 vs. 8 if I also had a 20 and the TC was substantially positive. My example was not very illustrative and less clear-cut. Likewise I am unable to explain it mathematically- when I employ this tactic in the casino, it seems to save money on individual hands (when dealer gets a 19 or 20 after having an up card of 5 or 6), but I don't know what the long-term effect is. Certainly the reduced variance you mentioned causes the bankroll to fluctuate less.
ElementX
Re: Surrender DISAGREE
Posted by The Mayor on 08-Dec-2002 14:45:59 (#1340)
The index for surrender for 16. vs. 8 is about 5 (+/- depending on the game). In other words, take the hit!
to ElementX: is this what you are really asking
Posted by Steve on 09-Dec-2002 10:38:54 (#1374)
Hello ElementX,
I don't think anyone answered your question. I think what you are really asking is this: "Is there a strategy that would treat the two hands as one outcome by summing the Ev of both and adopting a strategy that seeks to optimize the overall Ev"? Is that your real question?
For this question to have any merit, the two events would have to be interdependent, because if you look at each hand individually, assuming them to be independent, then the hit/stand decisions are obvious and don't vary due to the presence of the other hand.
In your example of 16 v 4, the player will lose 19% when standing, but will lose 50% when surrendering. Obviously, you want to stand.
But, what if the two events are interdependent in some way? Given that the two hands are dealt during the same round, does this make them interdependent in some way when they wouldn't be interdependent if they were dealt in two separate rounds?
I think that what you are getting at is this: if I play two hands instead of one and my goal is to have the highest Ev per round, instead of per hand, would I modify my play?
Hmmmmm, verrrrryyyyy interesting. I have to think about this.
Let me make sure I see where you are really going with this: "If I 'know' I am going to win one hand and I 'know' I am going to lose the other hand, should I surrender the loser and end up with a win of .5 my bet or take the push"? Obviously, you don't 'know' the outcome of the hands, but you expect it.
My initial feeling is that the two events are independent and there is no reason to vary your play. But, I need to do some reading on the interdependency (or lack thereof) of two hands played during the same round.
Regards,
Yes
Posted by ElementX on 09-Dec-2002 20:30:43 (#1406)
Steve,
You hit the nail right on the head with your interpretation. If you try to take the two hands and try to maximize the total OVERALL EV, would there be a divergence from normal play, especially when surrender is concerned? When playing two hands, the player should be concerned with the overall result, rather than the result of each hand individually. Here is another scenario: Dealer has a 2 up, you have two 16s- would you surrender one of them? I don't know how much literature is out there analyzing play of two or more hands. Any further thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your reply Steve.
ElementX
English
Français
Italiano