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.
Playing Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Mayor
Posted by MJ on 24-Sep-2005 11:35:03 (#14112)
In Ken Uston's classic work Million Dollar Blackjack, the author proposes some revolutionary methods of getting the advantage over the house. One of these methods is playing multiple hands in negative counts(aka card eating effect).
On page 153, Uston states as follows:
"You've just bet 4 greens and 2 reds and won the hand. The count has dropped. Spread to 2 hands of 2 red each-or even 3 hands. You've cut your bet way down and your eating up cards in this negative situation. Again, the dealer is pushed more rapidly toward the shuffle and you will tend to be dealt fewer negative hands."
I can see how playing multiple hands per round will reach the shuffle card faster. What I do NOT understand is how
the player will be dealt fewer negative hands for the shoe.
In anything, wouldnt he be dealt MORE negative hands for the shoe by playing multiple spots in negative counts?
Here is my reasoning:
Suppose a counter is playing heads up in a 6D shoe game. There are 72 cards left until the shuffle card comes out. Assuming roughly 3 cards are used per hand, playing one spot would require 12 rounds to reach the shuffle card(3 cards/player + 3 cards/dealer = 6 cards/round). So, the player would be dealt 36 cards playing one spot/round or 12 hands.
Now, what if the player decided to play 3 spots in this negative count? Then it would require 6 rounds to reach the shuffle card(1 round = 3 cards/dealer + 3 cards per player hand x 3 hands = 12 cards/round). In the end, the player would be dealt 54 cards playing 3 spots/round or 18 hands.
So, how can Uston conclude playing multiple spots in a negative count will lead you to be dealt fewer negative hands? 18 hands is more then 12 hands!!! Is there really any advantage to this approach? Thanks for any answers.
-MJ
Zengrifter has specialized in this move...
Posted by Mayor on 24-Sep-2005 13:46:47 (#14113)
I will ask ZG comment on one aspect of your question. He is a master of a move called the "grifter gambit" that may shed light on this.
Also, there are articles on this in the archives at (for example) www.bj21.com (green chip area) -- card eating in negative decks (shoes) is necessary mostly to speed up the game, not to get fewer hands in negative situations. But the experts have already written extensively about this, so I am not going to add anything new.
Here is a link -- it will cost you a bit to follow it, but it's worth it!
http://www.bj21.com/greenchip/archives/POM/index.cgi?read=9903
--Mayor
Who has higher SCORE?
Posted by MJ on 24-Sep-2005 20:05:03 (#14116)
Professor Jacobsen, thanks for your response. Is this topic covered in your book ?
My guess is that playing multiple hands(1/3 unit each) in negative/neutral counts will be more profitable then spreading 1-12 units only playing 1 hand at a time.
If a counter spreads vertically from THREE HANDS of $10/each in negative/neutral counts to ONE HAND of $360 in highly positive counts, would he not earn more then a counter who spreads from a single hand of $30 to $360 only placing one bet at a time???
If you do a SCORE comparison of the 2 players above, I reckon the card eating counter would have the higher SCORE. The reason is that his TC frequency for negative counts is drastically reduced by playing multiple hands in negative /neutral counts. Therefore, he is left to play MORE rounds in positive count situations. Does that make sense?
-MJ
You are posting this everywhere
Posted by Mayor on 24-Sep-2005 22:32:39 (#14117)
I think you are getting great answers elsewhere. Really, one site is enough, we all read all the sites 8-)
As far as SCORE, because SCORE is normalized to 100 hands per hour, it probably lowers your SCORE. But that is a paradox, because it actually increases your hourly win -- you play more hands!
--Mayor
Take a look at this article
Posted by MJ on 25-Sep-2005 22:08:36 (#14119)
Thanks for the response Mayor. Sorry for posting to multiple boards, it is just that some people will not respond to a post if it is not posted on "their" board due to politics.
I did some research on the "grifter gambit" that you mentioned and I found an entire article on this subject. It turns out that Dan Provost ran millions of rounds of simulations on inverse betting and the results agree with what you and several others have been saying. Some have warned to read this with a grain of salt. Anyhow, here is the article:
http://www.bjinsider.com/MemberLogin.php3?loginfile=newsletter_53_inv
Feel free to lend any further comment.
-MJ
analysis on this variant requires...
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Sep-2005 17:33:09 (#14123)
... #rounds, not #hands. zg
Risk wise, 2 bets of 22.5=1 bet of 30 -- 3 bets of 16.2=1 bet of 30 *NM*
Posted by Pet's-Pet on 25-Sep-2005 07:41:19 (#14118)
Link to ZG's posts *LINK*
Posted by Sonny on 24-Sep-2005 14:18:24 (#14114)
Free advice from the master himself:
http://www.cardcounter.com/best.pl?read=12
-Sonny-
Grifter's Gambit
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Sep-2005 17:35:17 (#14124)
Consolidation Betting Revealed
Circa'99 - This one is little known and stems from the theories of Mason Mamulth, 'BJEssays,'85 who is best known for poker and David Skalansky's partner.
It was first sim'd for me by GeoC who, in his own words said "at first I thought Grifter's idea was dumb." The sim-stats speak for themselves and GeoC named the scheme 'The Grifter's Gambit'
The Grifter's Gambit @ 2D
Typical Mirage 2-deck with 65 cards dealt, one player.
ZEN w/80 indices including split 10s.
Betting -
0/minus- 3 hand of 1 unit
TC 1,2 - 1 hand of 3 units
TC 3,4 - 1 hand of 5 units
TC 5+ - 1 hand of 7 units
Per 100 rounds, the sim showed -
a gain of 4.0u with a StDv of 49u.
DI 8.12 Score 62
RoRuin w/$50 units
25% $23K, 20% $27K, 10% $38K, 5% $50K, 1%
$77K.
For a typical 20 hour trip there is a 17% chance of
losing $12K
These numbers can be computed by using either JA's BJRM or Dunbar's Risk Manager. The sim was run on SBA 5.0.
I have applied the technique on and off in juicy DD games including Bellagio, Mirage, TxSta, IP and elsewhere with no heat. Irrespective of my great act, I think that the technique is pretty much off the counter-alert radar screen. I even allude to "my new system" while dealers and PCs alike grimace in disdain as I "chronically wreck the flow of cards after a favorable streak."
Recently I utilized it for hours on-end and repeatedly for several days at Bellagio, while listening to PC and dealer accounts of an on-going counter-purge, spreading
(alternating) oddly from 3x$50 to 1x$350.
I hesitate to include an estimate of just how many neg-decks I might abandon in an hour (the sim assumes NO exiting). I often appear to be closing a "big deal" and must run to the house phone or step back from the table frequently after an imaginary page or a pager/cell phone chirp (Icomplain excessively about the attorneys and associates needing me to hold their hand thru every detail!).
The Grifter's Gambit @ 1D
For a GOOD 1D there can be a virtual flat-bet-amount: -counts bet 3x1u and +counts bet 1x3u - this will yield a similar EV to a traditional 1-4 spread BUT w/higher variance.
Because the min-bet is 3x1u, the comps are much better, btw. zg
Deck Estimation
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 27-Sep-2005 02:25:03 (#14126)
Casino Verite gives you the options: 'round', 'truncate' or '%95 percentile' for deck estimation. I'm not sure if I have ever seen this idea expressed very well in anything I've read. The CV help file suggests that most people use the 'truncate' or '%95 percentile' options.
But, I have always assumed rounding was the proper way to approach this. I would see something like this, from "Professional Blackjack" by Wong:
"The running count is now +2. Since about 2/3 of the deck remains unseen, you divide by 2/3."
Assuming that the word "about" is roughly equal to the word "around", I have always rounded. When the tray has slightly less than four decks, I round to 4 decks. A little over 3.5, I round to 3.5.
I'm talking about 4+ deckers, for the sake of argument.
Questions:
1. What do you other guys do, and why?
2. Can anyone point to any math on which, if any, method is better?
-Felix
Rounding
Posted by Norm Wattenberger on 27-Sep-2005 06:44:28 (#14127)
is what nearly everyone does these days and is the default for deck estimation. One criticism I have of nearly all BJ books is all of the examples they provide for TC calculation involve integer quotients, depite the fact this rarely occurs in real life. And I've looked specifically at this in most of the books to try and determine how each calculated indexes.
alternative
Posted by Anon on 27-Sep-2005 11:50:02 (#14128)
Do you want to know TC for its own sake, or do you want to know your departure point?
see http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free_board/index.cgi?noframes;read=145985
If this does not take you directly to the window, but only to the home page, copy the URL and paste it into the address block of your browser.
Doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 27-Sep-2005 15:05:32 (#14129)
If I'm using a true count system I round to the nearest full deck because that's the way I run my sims. Truncating or rounding up will result in the errors all going in one direction. Also in my sims the difference between full deck resolution and single card resolution are minimal (in shoe games) so being I can't estimate decks any better than a full deck anyway, why try? This is a problem in SD or DD games where full deck isn't good enough so now I've switched to an unbalanced system for all games where I'm straight counting.
There's also a psychological component of deck estimation that concerns me. You've been taking a beating on your big bets, and all of a sudden that 2 decks left in the shoe looks like 3 because your subconscious has fear of putting out another big bet and losing. Or the opposite, you've been getting good variance and your subconscious is horny for more so the 2 decks looks like 1.5. In my system the bet is defined by a straight additive term to the RC so there's none of that.
This...
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 28-Sep-2005 00:06:32 (#14132)
>>Also in my sims the difference between full deck resolution and single card >>resolution are minimal (in shoe games) so being I can't estimate decks any >>better than a full deck anyway, why try?
Is one of the things I expected to hear.
This "slushyness" is never discussed in anything I remember reading. It seems that it would be of value to any beginner who was trying to get his priorities in order.
-
this is common
Posted by stainless steel rat on 03-Oct-2005 11:03:02 (#14162)
In computer chess, my "long-time hobby" I noticed many years ago that when writing code to evaluate a position to see which side stands better, it is far more important to evaluate a well-known chess feature (good for white) as +X than to not evaluate it at all. But as to whether the feature is worth +.30 or +.50 is another matter. Often the exact "score" is not as important, which means that lots of computer chess experts around the world (including myself) have spent a lot of time tuning the evaluation numbers without getting much benefit from all the work.
Counting seems similar. Whether you stand on 16 vs 10 at -1, 0 or +1 really is not going to make you richer or poorer by any significant amount. Other plays such as splitting 10's vs 4, 5 or 6 can be big money-makers if they don't get you tossed. but if you split 10's vs 6 at +3, +4 or +5 is not that big a deal, although the bigger your bet (and it ought to be big at these counts) the more noticable the effect on your win rate if you fiddle with the indices.
And then there are the discussions about rounding, flooring or truncating your indices and TC calculations. Rounding has been used with great effect for years, yet recent analysis has shown flooring to be slightly better. "slightly" being the operative word...
Exactly
Posted by Mayor on 03-Oct-2005 14:13:26 (#14163)
Chess, a long time hobby?! You are too modest.
Exact values for indices and flooring/rounding issues are just not relevant to beating blackjack. As an example, splitting TT vs. 6. If the index is 5 or 4 it doesnt' really matter. Most of the time you won't split. Many times when you do split, you have a TC of 16 or something crazy like that. Those very rare times when the TC is 4.5 and you are debating to do it or not, the actual correct decision to do one or the other is worth pennies for a $100 wager. So, it is very rare to have a situation where the question for the count index will come up, and in those cases it does, the cost of one or the other (assuming you have done your division perfectly) is worth very little. Indeed, if you aren't sure and think you may make an error, always make the play with less variance (stand on TT vs. 6 instead of split -- hit 9 vs. 7 instead of doubling, etc.). That's a safe and sure guide to these sorts of questions.
I once asked Don Schlesinger about splitting 2,2 vs. 8 in certain counts. With the number of times that play comes up and the difference in edge between one play and the other, his comment was that "knowing this index wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee over your lifetime." I have since used his line many times, but with a much broader brush.
It's just not worth it to worry about this issue. Finding a good game is much more important.
--Mayor
it is truly remarkable
Posted by stainless steel rat on 03-Oct-2005 16:43:54 (#14165)
that players, particularly "newer ones" will spend so much more energy trying to move to "a better counting system", or learn more BS departure indices, or try to reach a point where they can count down a deck in 2 seconds, and spend so very little time scouting the tables for decent rules and good penetration. And then they wonder "why isn't my super-duper level 8 counting system with 1400 departure indices winning me any more money than my old hi-lo system with the I-18 indices? :)
If they'd play with something like CVCX (qfit) for a while, they'd see that penetration, not "playing efficiency" (of their counting system) is what this is all about...
And the need for risk-averse indices
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 03-Oct-2005 17:16:22 (#14166)
One thing it seems a lot of people don't realize is the need for indices to be risk averse when they change the amount of money you put on the table. If you believe in the Kelly Criterion and that your bet needs to be proportional to your advantage, there is no difference between using non-risk-averse indices and plain old overbetting. This is especially a problem with the uncommon split and double indices because they become even more uncommon when played risk-averse.
But the one place where I prefer to use full indices is the late surrender table. Even if the play doesn't add to my advantage, there is an advantage to getting the same win rate with half the money.
RA indices
Posted by jblaze on 04-Oct-2005 14:02:52 (#14175)
I ran CVCX sims using RA indices for my count system. I also ran CVCX sims using full indices. The results: after tinkering around with optimal betting and inputting my desired risk of ruin, full indices provide better EV for the same ROR than do RA indices.
Of course they do!
Posted by Mayor on 04-Oct-2005 14:31:26 (#14176)
Of course RA indices do not give the optimal EV -- that's almost by definition!
RA indices are designed to maximize the ratio: EV/SD, hence they optimize SCORE as well; regular indices maximize EV only.
--Mayor
SCORE optimization
Posted by jblaze on 04-Oct-2005 16:19:41 (#14178)
SCORE is a measure of EV weighted with ROR from what I understand. Therefore, if you can equilibrate RORs then SCORE is directly proportional to ROR. As I said, with the same ROR, regular indices give higher EV than RA indices. The regular indices (not only by deduction but by simming) yield higher SCORE than RA for the SAME ROR.
Not quite
Posted by Mayor on 04-Oct-2005 17:34:44 (#14179)
"SCORE is directly proportional to ROR"
SCORE assumes a fixed ROR, it is not proportional in any way to ROR.
However you are correct that I was being fuzzy about "SCORE." The SCORE of the game is based on certain fixed non-risk averse hi-lo indices, a 10k BR, and a specific bet spread.
What I was saying is that if one used RA indices then the ratio EV/SD would increase even if the EV decreased (as you noted). Most investors care much more about EV/SD than they do simply EV.
--Mayor
oops
Posted by jblaze on 05-Oct-2005 08:09:23 (#14181)
Meant to say - "SCORE becomes directly proportional to EV (if RORs are the same). I will rerun sims on my comp once I get CVData here to generate indices, but wouldn't players be most interested in gaining the most return possible on a given risk? I would rather play with a $100/hr expectation and 5% ROR than a $95/hr 5% ROR expectation.
Non-RA indices require lower betting unit for same ROR
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 05-Oct-2005 13:57:01 (#14182)
It's a very small amount, but it's calculable.
Think of it like this- for a given play, with a big bet out, the advantage of doubling down is 0.5% higher than just hitting. Sounds like you should double down, right?
But put it in these terms- would you put out a big bet if the count said your advantage was only 0.5%? Unless you have an infinite bankroll, most players save their big bets for around 2% advantage. The RA split and DD indices wait until the count is high enough to indicate an added 2% advantage, or whatever the necessary advantage is to justify an additional bet of whatever size. The RA surrender indices do the same thing but in reverse.
If they didn't..
Posted by stainless steel rat on 06-Oct-2005 13:27:00 (#14193)
You just solved the "perpetual motion machine" problem. :)
Anytime you decrease risk, you decrease gain as well. But as to how you got the same ROR with RA indices and non-RA indices is a mystery. Unless your RA indices were not very RA.. RA should decrease variance and ROR, assuming nothing else changes, I would think...
Re
Posted by jblaze on 06-Oct-2005 15:06:27 (#14194)
I dont know why this is such a challenge for people to understand here. Maybe my RA indices are off, but...
My point is:
No matter what indices you use, you personally have to determine the amount of risk you wish to take on, and adjust your bets accordingly. So, run your RA indices and determine what risk level you are comfortable with. Let us say that level is 5%. Now, run sims using 'normal' indices. For the 'normal' sims, adjust your bets to match that 5% ROR. Which indices provide the higher EV? Your answer is going to be the same had I asked the question which indices produce higher SCORE (since ROR is the same - you have made it the same.)
PS
Posted by jblaze on 06-Oct-2005 15:29:26 (#14196)
You can increase gain and decrease risk with such rules as surrender.
yes,
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Oct-2005 16:05:35 (#14233)
but you can't force the casino to offer surrender. All offer some form of doubling and splitting, which allows you to increase your money on the table when you think it is favorable. Probably the best index to use for ramping your bet with hi-lo is +1. At <= 0, bet min, at +1 bet max. But that causes wild swings that a slower ramp (with a lower EV but better RoR) avoids...
I'm not sure why casinos offer surrender, except that I see ploppies surrendering ridiculous hands. For example, 19 vs dealer 10 up. So I guess they like to see that kind of thinking..
I don't use 'em
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Oct-2005 16:02:16 (#14232)
but had always assumed the purpose of RA indices is nothing more than to reduce variance. And in doing so, also reducing the EV. Some might be happy to reduce variance since the swings can be so wild, and if reducing the swings doesn't greatly reduce the EV, some would consider that acceptable.
I simply try to play as accurately as possible, using the indices that produce the highest EV, and go from there, accepting the swings as part of the "deal"...
If you (or anyone else) use another definition of "risk averse" then my impression above does not count for anything, of course.
But for my definition, the idea might be that doubling a 10 vs an A could use the normal +4 index, or you could ramp it up a bit. The higher the index for this play, the lower the risk. Of course, the lower the EV as well. Lots of other plays come to mind, anywhere you might be tempted to get more money on the table, such as splits and doubles where the decision is a bit "shakey". double 9 vs 7 for example at +3. The higher the count, the more likely the dealer actually has a 17, and you are more likely to end up with 19. So I've always assumed the idea was to make the winning probability a bit higher before doubling or splitting because doubling your bet doubles the variance for that round.
Foxwoods
Posted by BradRod on 27-Sep-2005 15:24:44 (#14130)
Planning to play there this Thursday night/ fri. Would like to meet any local players..
BradRod@surfree.com
A couple of changes...
Posted by Mayor on 27-Sep-2005 22:10:16 (#14131)
To all,
For a number of reasons, I have decided to re-focus on the primary mission of this site, the discussion of advantage gaming. That has meant deleting the "non-BJ" and "Zen Zone" boards from this site.
I hope that the "Zen Zone" will reappear elsewhere on the Internet, and that you will seek it out at its new home. I have deeply appreciated the spice that ZG has brought to this site and hope he continues his one-of-a-kind ways of expressing himself in a more appropriate forum.
With best wishes to all,
--Mayor
We support the Mayors decision.
ADMIN>AdminPost
Posted by Management on 28-Sep-2005 19:02:24 (#14141)
We hope the ZG man continues to add to the Black Jack discussion's here at CC.COM!
Who are you, anyway? *NM*
Posted by Mayor on 28-Sep-2005 21:26:51 (#14142)
Who the hell ...
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Sep-2005 19:44:50 (#14152)
... is "management/admin" ?? zg
You may remember...
Posted by Mayor on 30-Sep-2005 22:32:41 (#14153)
About 2 years ago I tried to sell this board and a member of this board at the time stepped in and said he would run it. He talked me out of selling and he took on all costs and persuaded me to stay on. His only request was that I continue to write podiums and participate int he discussions.
You don't know this person is even here because his work is silent, but believe me, without his efforts, this board would not exist today.
--Mayor
And all this time
Posted by Victoria on 01-Oct-2005 11:57:26 (#14157)
I had always thought that management here was the same as management on HBO's Carnival. Perhaps it is.
Great one Victoria. : ) *NM*
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 03-Oct-2005 10:51:11 (#14161)
Excellent Comment!!! *NM*
Posted by Hal Jordan on 03-Oct-2005 20:22:43 (#14168)
Is it Deepnet Dan ? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Oct-2005 01:24:03 (#14159)
Nice try...
Posted by Mayor on 03-Oct-2005 10:41:18 (#14160)
bzzzzzzzzzzzzt
We seem to have lost several interesting boards lately :) *NM*
Posted by suicyco maniac on 29-Sep-2005 06:23:21 (#14146)
Concur
Posted by Mayor on 29-Sep-2005 14:02:55 (#14151)
On the other hand, we seemed to have gained a new chief justice, so I guess life is in balance after all.
Surveilling the cleavage at Caesars AC *LINK*
Posted by BlackJackHack on 28-Sep-2005 11:40:08 (#14133)
I'll have to play more at Caesars AC - surveillance there is busy checking out the hotties...
Regulators fine Caesars again for surveillance's prying eyes
By DONALD WITTKOWSKI Staff Writer, (609) 272-7258
Published: Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Updated: Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Fighting back her anger, Theresa Magri shuddered while describing the videotape of her that had been secretly recorded by surveillance workers at Caesars Atlantic City.
Security cameras that were supposed to protect her and everyone else at the casino actually were being used to gawk at female patrons and employees, she discovered.
"They were zooming in down my shirt," said Magri, 40, a former food and beverage shift supervisor at Caesars. "They got as close as they possibly could."
In the second case of its kind at Caesars, the casino agreed Tuesday to pay a $185,000 fine to settle charges that four of its employees spied on women using the "eye in the sky" surveillance cameras that watch over the gaming floor.
"I can't believe Caesars allowed them to do this," Magri said. "They'll do it again and get away with it again."
The state Division of Gaming Enforcement, the casino industry's investigative arm, alleges that surveillance operators ogled women's breasts and other body parts while working the graveyard shift over a three-day period in October 2004.
"(The women) were leered at, stalked and inappropriately viewed by the respondents in this case," said Anthony Zarrillo, a deputy state attorney general who is representing the DGE.
Last December, Caesars was fined $80,000 for similar incidents involving two other surveillance operators who trained their cameras on women's low-cut necklines and other revealing clothing in 2000 and 2001. Caesars fired one of the workers and suspended the other for three days in that case.
In the most recent case of video voyeurism, gaming investigators allege that surveillance supervisors James Doherty and Robert Swan and camera operators Donald Smith and John Paul Arambulo each shot between 11 and 95 minutes of illicit tape. All four men were fired by Caesars.
"Harrah's Entertainment has absolutely zero tolerance for the type of behavior that occurred in October 2004," Caesars' parent company said in a statement.
The statement said Caesars took "prompt appropriate remedial action" in response to the unauthorized taping, but did not describe any specific measures other than to confirm that the surveillance workers were fired.
Swan and Doherty disputed the spying charges during a Casino Control Commission hearing that started Tuesday and is expected to resume sometime next week. Commissioner Michael A. Fedorko, the hearing officer, first must rule whether the videotapes should be made public and whether to allow testimony from alleged victims.
Caesars attorney Lynne Hughes urged Fedorko not to make the tapes public, arguing that their release would invade the privacy of women who were secretly recorded.
John M. Donnelly, Swan's lawyer, expressed concern that the media would show only salacious excerpts of the tapes instead of material that he contended would exonerate his client. Donnelly also sought to prevent Magri and two other alleged victims from testifying.
Zarrillo opposed any attempts to block testimony or keep the tapes from being made public. He said legal sparring over side issues would unnecessarily delay the case and cause more anxiety for the victims.
After Tuesday's hearing, Swan and Doherty declined to comment. Arambulo settled the charges against him by agreeing to a five-day suspension of his gaming license. Smith never responded to the charges and did not take part in the proceedings, according to Zarrillo.
Magri, who left her job at Caesars after the spying incident, said her anxiety over the videotapes was compounded Tuesday by seeing the men who allegedly victimized her.
"I was devastated by the tapes, but I was even more devastated to see the faces behind the cameras," she said in an interview. "When you walk into a casino, you expect good security. You should have responsible people operating those cameras."
Magri was videotaped while supervising workers at the Toga Bar on the casino floor. She said she didn't usually work at the bar, but was filling in for union employees who were walking the picket line during a monthlong strike last year at Caesars and six other casinos.
"I'll never work in a casino again or anywhere else where they have surveillance cameras," she said.
Magri claimed that Caesars risked the safety of its patrons and employees by failing to crack down on the illicit taping. Hidden in the ceilings of every casino hotel, the cameras are supposed to be used to surreptitiously monitor the gaming floor for cheating, theft and other crimes.
"There could have been a murder on the other side of the casino and Caesars wouldn't have known anything about it," Magri said.
Gamblers interviewed Tuesday at Caesars expressed anger that surveillance cameras had been misused and threatened to take their business elsewhere.
"I think they target us," Nardia Sharpe, 21, of Brooklyn, N.Y., said of the way security guards allegedly treat young women.
Lisa Robbins, 33, of Philadelphia, said she was terrified that she might be videotaped inappropriately. Her finance, Brian Lidge, 39, characterized the illicit taping as an invasion of privacy.
"From now on, we probably won't come back to this casino," Lidge said.
Read about "The X Tape" by Cellini
Posted by Mayor on 28-Sep-2005 12:31:06 (#14134)
http://www.cardcounter.com/Cellini/Cellini_The_X_Tape.htm
They've told me it's universal
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 28-Sep-2005 13:48:16 (#14135)
People who have worked in surveillance departments tell me they spend as much time screwing around with the cameras as they do on game protection. Especially when there are a lot of young people in the house who can't afford rooms (there are no cheap rooms near the CT stores) there will be sexual acts going on in semi-public areas where they don't realize there's a camera. That's an understandable risk of acting out in public. But I didn't know they also make fun of the handicapped. That is just stupid. A little risky too, because if you show a tape like that to a guy who has a kid in a wheelchair that you don't know about, you might be losing some teeth.
What happened to the Zen Zone?
Posted by zenzan on 28-Sep-2005 17:23:03 (#14137)
I came to this site as my daily habit and I noticed the Zen zone link gone. I read some postings from the Admin that this site is focused on disscusing adv player opinons only. As as posted before, the zen zone made this site stand out and I know this this the opinion on many others. The Admin replies by saying there was no need for "offending others" by posting some opinions in the zone.
WAKE UP people. Thousands are dying daily in this world. But you are so sensetive to some artilcles posted at ANOTHER link (the zen zone) which you DON'T have to read!!!.............................What a loss. What a big loss.
ZZone
Posted by Mayor on 28-Sep-2005 18:56:12 (#14140)
I have encouraged Zengrifter to re-open his zone by getting a website and a host, so that he can have full control over its contents. I suggested www.zengrifter.com or www.thezenzone.org (both available). I hope he does so. Maybe if you encourage him to do so as well, it can come to pass.
--Mayor
Oh, please!
Posted by LVBear584 on 28-Sep-2005 17:52:23 (#14138)
Lisa Robbins, 33, of Philadelphia, said <u>she was terrified</u> that she might be videotaped inappropriately. Her finance, Brian Lidge, 39, characterized the illicit taping as an invasion of privacy. (emphasis added)
What a bunch of bull. While I am certainly not condoning what these creeps did, and I agree they should have been fired, what is there to be terrified of? I assume they are zooming in on scantily-attired women. Other than the employees who are forced to dress that way, a patron who chooses to dress that way has nothing to whine about when men respond to it. Case dismissed. Next case.
want a payday
Posted by Victoria on 28-Sep-2005 18:11:24 (#14139)
Bear
I think these folks just want a payday out of being photographed, if in fact they were.
The angles and zooming might be more than she dressed for. Look at it this way, perhaps those photographed deserve the fine money more than the state.
That said, I would personally have no comment for the press.
Should have read your post first!
Posted by Praying Mantis on 29-Sep-2005 01:15:04 (#14145)
Then I wouldn't have wrote mine. Sorry to duplicate, guess we see this in the same lite?
What a Crock!
Posted by Praying Mantis on 29-Sep-2005 01:13:40 (#14144)
If these women were SO horrified and embarrassed, why did they wear such revealing clothing?
Let's face it, they wear that type of clothing just so they ARE gawked at! They love it! Now, they get paid, as well? What could be better?
Lawyers are very persuasive
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 29-Sep-2005 12:17:32 (#14150)
The ambulance chasers are very good at making people feel pain or making them feel embarrassed or whatever the tort is supposed to have been, to get them to file a suit and to make them more convincing in court. I had a car accident once and went to see a lawyer, and I swear, after talking to him, my back and neck hurt! And I'm not even that suggestible. The lawyer probably talked to these girls in such a way as to make them feel completely victimized and sleazed on.
Poker online MLM...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Oct-2005 10:37:07 (#14156)
...I found this to be an intriquing hybrid - Binion's former CIO is launching an online-poker MLM. zg
http://www.wsop.com/emovie.html
MLM
Posted by revereman on 04-Oct-2005 11:42:55 (#14173)
I think his idea is brilliant. Same as what Rob McGarvey used to do with online BJ but more professional and formal (not a knock on RM). Too bad I don't have many friends who gamble. Actually, too bad I don't have many friends period.
To those in and around Santa Barbara
Posted by Mayor on 03-Oct-2005 15:36:01 (#14164)
Chumash and Fess Parker drop plans for resort
California (Indian gaming) - Associated Press - The Chumash Indian tribe and former actor Fess Parker dumped plans to build a resort hotel and luxury homes on 745 acres of the former "Davey Crockett" star's ranch after they failed to agree on the size of the hotel and value of the land. The project was the first of its kind proposed by a California tribe. Residents in the upscale Santa Barbara County community said they were relieved that the project had been dropped. The proposal, if developed under Indian sovereignty laws, would have enabled Parker and the Chumash to skirt local land-use restrictions on a property that has not yet been designated as Indian land. The deal would have made use of a Depression-era law intended to compensate impoverished Native Americans for tribal lands confiscated by the government. It fell apart in recent months as the tribe and Parker were unable to negotiate a final agreement. Parker said Chumash officials wanted a 300-room hotel, while he was hoping for "something more modest," the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20051002-1921-ca-indiantribe-development.html
Not interested says Disney
Posted by Victoria on 03-Oct-2005 19:39:34 (#14167)
Not interested was the word from Disney about running a new series called Davey and the Chumash.
Victoria
This is the line that I find most amazing from the story...
Posted by Mayor on 03-Oct-2005 21:02:30 (#14169)
"...with the tribe's 154 members getting about $350,000 each year in casino's revenue..."
Pretendians
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 03-Oct-2005 21:30:04 (#14170)
Are the Chumash people real Indians, or just casino Indians? The "Mashantucket Pequot" tribe that runs Foxwoods has this big museum (with paid admission!) of their ersatz history. It burns me up to see them first screwing the public with bad games, then ripping off legitimate Amerind history and culture with their bogus cover act.
Very real
Posted by Mayor on 03-Oct-2005 21:36:50 (#14171)
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/California_Chumash.html
It is something to visit the old cave paintings around here, you realize just how long civilization has been here. The Chumash people lived in paradise for a long time ...
paradise
Posted by revereman on 04-Oct-2005 11:39:13 (#14172)
but then they paved paradise and put up a parking lot, at least according to the song
not worth a visit
Posted by Victoria on 04-Oct-2005 14:52:57 (#14177)
Perhaps because of their location and the mayor's history there, we have many a discussion about the Chumash casino.
I do not play there but have gone to a concert there recently. Still a very bad h-17, 6 deck shoe with the dealer cutting over 2 decks, saw some close to a half shoe.
Comps were near nothing in the past and the poker room takes too big of a cut.
So to protect their game that no one here will play I believe they now have RFID chips.
It's nice to own a casino in the Santa Barbara area and have no competition within 200 or more miles. It is just not nice to play there.
Victoria
I had a friend who worked in the tribal admin offices
Posted by Garo on 06-Oct-2005 00:05:44 (#14184)
She said they each get a much more modest $30,000 a year.
Vegas Talk Radio -- Thursday 10/06
Posted by Mayor on 04-Oct-2005 12:28:43 (#14174)
I will be on Las Vegas Talk Radio discussing G2E and new table games, this Thursday. Click below for the link -- or on that link to the left. The show will be archived for two months after it airs on Thursday (in case you miss it).
http://www.vegastalkradio.com/
--Mayor
'Anon' and others...
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Oct-2005 02:09:52 (#14180)
...please email please email me with your seniments (good/bad) regarding the demise of ZenZONE. zggriftzen@yahoo.com
Zzone
Posted by zenzan on 16-Oct-2005 19:06:42 (#14263)
was wondering if there is a way to access the prevous articles posted on the ZZ. I for one would be willing to pay a yearly sub fee.
Close call...
Posted by Mayor on 05-Oct-2005 14:07:49 (#14183)
I personally would love to see Slot Machines outlawed. Are they deceptive? it certainly appears that words like "loose" are designed to deceive. Maybe next time...
Dodging a tobacco bullet
Nevada (litigation) - Liz Benston, Las Vegas Sun - The gaming industry won a significant victory recently when a federal judge in Las Vegas dismissed a lawsuit that claimed slot machines were deceptive and misleading. Saying that there was no evidence the machines were deceptive, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt last month threw out the long-running lawsuit that -- if it had succeeded -- could have threatened the gaming industry with the financial nightmare of tobacco-industry-style lawsuits filed by losing gamblers. The 1994 lawsuit, filed by gambler William Poulos in Orlando, Fla., alleged video poker and electronic slot machines are inherently deceptive and that casinos and slot makers, through ads and other promotions, conspired to mislead people into thinking the odds of winning were more favorable than they actually were. "The court finds there's no evidence of a causal connection between any gambling losses suffered by the plaintiffs and any fraud, misrepresentation, or any racketeering activity by any defendant, or all of them," Hunt said in a September hearing.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/business/2005/oct/05/519465648.html
Odds of winning?
Posted by Sun Runner on 06-Oct-2005 08:13:12 (#14185)
<font size=3> ".. alleged video poker and electronic slot machines are inherently deceptive and that casinos and slot makers, through ads and other promotions, conspired to mislead people into thinking the odds of winning were more favorable than they actually were."</font>
<font size=3>Odds of winning? Not sure I've ever seen an advertisement that advertised anything other than the odds of losing; and plainly.
Loosest Slots! 99.98% Payback!
What did they expect; to win?!
That would be a big improvement
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 06-Oct-2005 12:52:06 (#14188)
If all slots were required to post their payback right on the machine. It would be a relatively easy thing to do, easier than posting a pay table for a VP machine. In my opinion, a lawsuit forcing this mere disclosure would be more productive than tilting at windmills and trying to ban slots.
garoyup21@yahoo.com
Posted by Garo on 06-Oct-2005 17:12:00 (#14198)
As I understand it when a bank of slots advertises "99% payout" all that means is ONE MACHINE in that bank pays out that much, the others could payout anything. This is something that should be illegal for being deceptive.
RFID vs. Mindplay
Posted by Mr. V on 06-Oct-2005 10:52:59 (#14186)
Mindplay uses digital cameras to read markings in invisible ink on the
casino's cards in order to, inter alia, accurately determine what the
count is.
If the count favors the player, the dealer is notified, and then
shuffles up, eliminating the advantage to player.
The cameras also are somehow able to monitor betting.
An interesting technology, but cumbersome and hideously expensive.
RFID in contrast would seem cheaper and simpler: this will certainly be
true as this fairly new technology evolves, and as economies of scale
come into play.
When RFID miniaturization and implementation reach the point that a
passive RFID chip can be inserted in each playing card, that will (or
probably should) seal the doom of Mindplay, as it would then be
possible to track the cards via RFID, track the player's computer chips
via embedded RFID chips, and obviate the need for Mindplay (and its
fourteen or so digital cameras).
This could well become The Final (and automatic, computer monitored)
Solution to the Card Counting Problem.
RFID is the future...
Posted by Mayor on 06-Oct-2005 12:27:37 (#14187)
...no question about it. Though something even smaller and easier may take its place, the idea that each manufactured thing on the planet can identify itself and its location instantly is certainly in our future. These things will be on every soft drink, ever condom, and every ballot in the not too distant future. If ever there was cause for privacy concerns (think Supreme Court here), the development of RFID for gaming purposes should give pause. The sanctity of individual privacy is very definitely at risk in casinos.
Each 'manufactured' thing?
Posted by Sun Runner on 06-Oct-2005 12:57:49 (#14190)
Would that it stopped there.
Not getting a fair game of Blackjack will be the least of your concerns.
YES, it is predictable that eventually people...
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Oct-2005 02:44:21 (#14208)
... will be RFID'd... at birth. zg
RFID will be easier for us to exploit
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 06-Oct-2005 13:20:38 (#14191)
Mindplay is a proprietary system, RFID technology is available to all. Think of the implications if we can walk around with RFID readers. Just imagine being able to walk by a table and know what the count of a shoe is.
Misconception
Posted by Titaniumman on 11-Oct-2005 21:39:50 (#14227)
Just imagine being able to walk by a table and know what the count of a shoe is.
RFID is not going to enable a player to do this.
there are other technology approaches as well.
Posted by stainless steel rat on 06-Oct-2005 13:21:19 (#14192)
For example, we really only need to recognize 13 different "things" in the deck, assuming suits are not important. "Hall effect" transistors come to mind, as it would not be difficult to have a magnetic stripe on a card, that does not contain any digital data, just produces a magnetic field. A hall-effect transistor amplifies based on the strength of the field. So the weakest magnetic stripe could be a "2", etc... There are other things that can be done with radioactive isotopes, tuning coils, etc. If all we want to do is determine whether a card is 2-10, J, Q, K or A.
However, a casino using this to shuffle away + counts must be illegal since they are intentionally altering the game outcome in their favor...
A limited Nevada ruling held...
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Oct-2005 02:47:01 (#14209)
... that selctive count-related shuffling was NOT illegal. According to Bill Bible "If card-counting is not illegal and palyers can do it, so can the house." zg
What next......
Posted by kbp on 10-Oct-2005 11:05:01 (#14219)
"If standing on hard 16 is not illegal and players can do it, so can the house."
Strategy variations will be especially useful to the house since they know all the players FINAL hand totals (or busts) before making hit/stand decisions. Geez, the logic.....
Good enough
Posted by Sun Runner on 11-Oct-2005 10:08:34 (#14223)
> If card-counting is not illegal and players can do it, so can the house.
If they can find enough dealers good enough to count properly while controlling their game, making payoffs, changing C-notes .. then let them shuffle-up early; maybe their ploppies and civilians will stand for it, maybe they won't.
I'll take my chances.
But they should NOT be allowed any outside computer aided device or otherwise.
Hell, why don't they just put a spotter and monitor for every table in the back somewhere, give the dealer an ear piece, and just shuffle up everytime the count goes to +2? It's ridiculous logic to even entertain the thought of these devices!?!
BTW, Automatic Monkey, what makes you think an RFID reader used by you or me will be any less illegal than a Casey?
I'm telling you, Mindplay, RFID, etc is a one way street and we are going the wrong way. None of it should be tolerated.
Using RFID on our own
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Oct-2005 13:57:59 (#14231)
"BTW, Automatic Monkey, what makes you think an RFID reader used by you or me will be any less illegal than a Casey?"
It probably wouldn't be, just a lot more useful and easy to get away with. The biggest reason for not using a Casey is that it I don't need a computer to count cards. Of course it all depends on how the RFID is used, but if it's used to benefit the casino, there is probably some way we can use it to benefit ourselves.
It would make an interesting legal case
Posted by Victoria on 12-Oct-2005 19:00:14 (#14234)
If arrested for using a device which the casinos also use. Interesting but I do not think I will volunteer.
There may be some overriding Federal law
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Oct-2005 22:19:17 (#14236)
There is a law permitting anyone to receive any wireless transmission, as long as they don't tell anyone what they heard. They had to write a special exception for it for cell phone conversations. But it's what allows people to listen to police calls and military communications even if they don't want you to. This law may permit casino patrons to receive RFID signals.
This discussion has no point.
Posted by Titaniumman on 13-Oct-2005 19:12:54 (#14241)
Why would a player, advantage or otherwise, wish to carry an RFID scanner into a casino?
First, the non-casino affiliated person would have to go through considerable and highly technically expertised effort to determine the particular carrier frequency to which the tags in the casino chips are tuned.
Then, all the information the non-casino affiliated person would have is some cryptic hexadecimal statement from the RFID tag which is the tag's identity.
All of the other information is in the casino's IT database, and is not being transmitted.
Basically, each RFID tag in each casino chip is only saying something like, "Hi! I'm RFID tag number 3FA778C6!
Player's comp cards, card scanners in the shoe, mindplay, RFID scanners at each spot on the table and God knows where else, and other similar inputs are providing all of the rest of the information that tells who is betting how much on what kind of hand in what situations and where the chips physically show up next.
The only thing players can do is to find ways to disable the chips or use them to send confusing information to the database.
Whether or not an RFID scanner is a legal device for a player to carry into a casino is a moot point. There's nothing to be gained.
Devices
Posted by the_heater on 11-Oct-2005 16:25:56 (#14225)
Obviously the house can use devices to monitor the outcomes of the game. Heck, they are required to use video cameras to monitor the games. And the counter can count cards to alter his odds in playing the game, but he may NOT use any device to assist in counting the cards (unless the house provides such device as in baccarat). And the house can alter the odds of the game by dealer PS. But if the house can use DEVICES to alter the odds of the game, then the public needs to be aware that not only do the rules of the games favor the house edge, additionally the house can use a device to further RIG the outcomes of the games. That is that the house is allowed to cheat and rig any and all of the games, and the NGC is OK with this if they allow Mindplay and similar systems.
Things to do list...
Posted by Greasy John on 07-Oct-2005 01:36:57 (#14201)
Next time I'm in Vegas, if I need a break or feel the urge, I should go to Hard Rock to see if the RFID table has telltale physical differences from non-RFID tables. I might have to ask them to turn up the house lights--it's dark in there.
Anyone Going to the Green Chip Party in Vegas? *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 06-Oct-2005 15:22:09 (#14195)
we always go but cant this year
Posted by Learning to count on 06-Oct-2005 16:44:27 (#14197)
Its a great time and well worth it. Lots of AP celebrities and famous CC historical types!!!! You can meet the las vegas bear, stanford wong, the mayor, math prof, etc etc. Lots of mischief too!
Also, anyone going to the Halloween Ball?
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 06-Oct-2005 23:19:39 (#14200)
I will be there.
Count me in! *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 07-Oct-2005 09:12:30 (#14203)
Whats the GC dates? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Oct-2005 03:37:18 (#14202)
Date and Location of a Greenchip Party is Confidential
Posted by Titaniumman on 07-Oct-2005 22:13:00 (#14204)
In order to attend a Greenchip Party, one must be a BJ21 Greenchipper who is in good standing with the community and is known to not be associated with casino managements.
A new Greenchipper wishing to attend must be vouched for by another BJ21 Greenchipper or the BJ21 Administration.
The person wishing to attend must then apply to BJ21 Administration, and if accepted, must pay the admission fee before being advised of the date of the Party. Once the person is accepted and has paid the fee, the person is granted access to the Party Page.
If the person cannot make the date of the party, a full refund is granted by Stanford Wong. Only shortly before the Party, are the attendees advised of the specific location.
Attendees are asked to not post about the party until at least a week after the Party weekend has passed.
These measures are taken to provide as much security as possible to the attendees. Attendees are advised that these measures do not provide 100% identity protection, but that each attendee must weigh their own need for identity protection against the opportunity to socialize with some of the most respected members of the community and to network for being "in the know" for certain advantage play opportunities.
El Lobo and I co-hosted the Greenchip South Party in Biloxi only a few weeks before hurricane Katrina destroyed the old Biloxi casinos. We all had a great time, and we all now realize that the memory of it will hold a particular poignancy for us as time goes on.
If you get a chance to attend a Greenchip Party, and the fairly small risk is acceptable to you, I highly recommend it. Just please respect your co-attendees' need for privacy and do your part to abide by the security measures.
What i really wanted to know...
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Oct-2005 02:42:55 (#14207)
...is whether the Nacht Halloween and GC events roughly coincided. zg
will the next GC south event be in Tunica??? *NM*
Posted by Learning to count on 08-Oct-2005 09:15:51 (#14210)
South Parties
Posted by Titaniumman on 08-Oct-2005 10:16:09 (#14211)
It is generally well known that the Vegas Greenchip Party is held sometime during Autumn and that the South Party is held in Spring/Summer.
Since each of the casino areas in the South are just a wee bit smaller than Vegas, which town the South Party is going to be held in is not publicly posted.
LTC, since you have previously attended a South Party, you can email me and I can tell you a little about what El Lobo and I have discussed for next year. By the way, my bellsouth email address will be expiring soon.
This year, Bootlegger's Concert was held on the beach in Biloxi. I have a great idea for a location for next year's South Bootlegger Concert if he honors us with his great music as he has done for the last several years.
Sorry
Posted by Titaniumman on 08-Oct-2005 10:22:04 (#14212)
Since Nacht's Halloween thing is publicly advertised to be held on October 29th, answering your question would be in violation of the security policies of Greenchip Parties.
The first rule of GC is, don't talk about GC =) *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 08-Oct-2005 16:34:18 (#14213)
Green Chip
Posted by Mayor on 08-Oct-2005 23:37:34 (#14215)
Green Chip is a pay forum -- and well worth it, but there is no assumption or even suggestion that it, or anything shared there, is secure.
david morse
Posted by richard on 07-Oct-2005 22:34:27 (#14205)
DOES ANYONE HAVE DAVID MORSES E-MAIL?
forget D.Morse...
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Oct-2005 13:08:32 (#14216)
...this is the place to learn. zg
Party Poker Blackjack
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 08-Oct-2005 18:08:49 (#14214)
Anyone know if they have tournaments planned?
None yet......
Posted by Phantom007 on 14-Oct-2005 18:25:52 (#14249)
PP now offers BJ side bet. Other than to note that it was there, I have not studied it. However, since your BJ hands would be made up from "Poker Cards" being played, AT LEAST IT WOULD BE SD!, albeit min. penetration.
Would certainly like to see tourneys there in BJ, however, for Poker Tourney's, fees start at 20% of Buy-in ($5 Tourney's), drops quickly to 10% ($20.+), and even lower at $100.
There appear to be enough BAD poker players to overcome this vig. However, most BJ Tourney Players that I have met are pretty good....would need a lower fee to make it a "good bet".
ph.7.
Yes, but for one thing...
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 17-Oct-2005 07:54:18 (#14265)
>>There appear to be enough BAD poker players to overcome this vig. However, most BJ Tourney Players that I have met are pretty good
Tourneys at PP would create a ton of new bad BJ players. One would need to scout bad players, just as in poker, and play with the worst one can find. If it were just about any other website I would be in complete agreement with you.
I would love it if it happened. I am a fairly poor tourney player. I do cram once a year to play in a big annual thing. But it isn't worth the practice time to stay proficient because there are no regular tourneys around me. It would really open a new door.
Omega II Blackjack Machine
Posted by Witness on 09-Oct-2005 23:49:37 (#14217)
I am impressed w/Omega II. I am learning it conscientiously but cannot learn the Advanced Omega II(which might be OK) because the software is not available. Or is it?
I really think if you master this level 2 balanced system and use his plus six and minus six strategies, you will be Way Ahead of basic strategy players and most high/low players too.
And a side count of aces is not that hard. Most small town and suburban casinos cut off 2 decks anyway. Just stay away from 8 deckers if you can. I have one and two deck games available to me.
My problem with high/low is that 2s and 3s are given the same importance as 4,5 and 6,which doesn't make sense to me. Also the 9 is not accounted for in high/low either, as it is in Omega as a high card with value of neg. 1. Also, so many casino personnel know high/low, I think Omega may be somewhat of a cover..not sure.
I loved the book and have read many, many of them, and gone to seminars too. I wish he would update it though.
If anyone knows where you can get the Omega II BJ Machine, please advise. Phone number in my book is wrong.
However, the 60 indexes in the plus/minus 6 strategies are plenty for me. And if you want to sit out minus counts or Wong in, you only need to learn the 12 in the plus 6 strategy.
I use CV Verite to practice, and you need to do a real lot of it, but it is worth it.
Carlson keeps a low profile and I am impressed with this -- I sometimes wonder if the rest of the Big Players make more money selling books and software.
The Witness
A few recommendations
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 10-Oct-2005 17:10:50 (#14220)
If you have the CVData software, you can generate the index numbers and spreads for any set of system tags for any game. It takes an hour or so, and you will definitely have the right numbers. Sometimes indices published in books aren't accurate. Once you generate them you can simplify them or round them as you see fit, and test the results.
No counting system will give you a huge advantage over any other legitimate system. Because of this, you don't get much cover from using uncommon systems; when you have the advantage, High-Low, AO2, Halves, whatever, will all tell you to raise your bet at around the same time. So whatever count the floor or the eye is using, they will see the advantage, see you raise your bet and believe you are counting.
Counting the 9 has it's advantages and disadvantages. If you want to do it, you really need a level 3 or 4 system to accurately account for the effect of the 9 in terms of betting correlation. Counting the 9 (as a high card) always detracts from the accuracy of your insurance bets. Some index plays it helps, others it hurts. All in all, counting the 9 is probably a wash for most realistic games.
Maybe you'd be better off with an unbalanced system. In a 1 or 2 deck game the errors you get from not true counting aren't very significant, and you don't have to stare at the cards and try to estimate half or quarter decks and try to do the division. Sidecounting aces and true counting are probably about equally onerous in a pitch game and I believe the sidecount with an ace-neutral system has more benefits than a true count. Another option would be to use Unbalanced Zen which requires neither a true count nor a sidecount to be very effective in SD and DD.
Omega is obsolete....
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Oct-2005 21:10:08 (#14226)
... not to mention that the betting advice in Bryce's book leaves the system as authored fatally flawed. If you fancy that you will be best served by moving into a level-2 count then ZEN, RPC, or UBZEN are the ways to go. Notwithstanding, level-1/HiLo systems work fine. zg
renzy frenzy
Posted by Gorgon on 12-Oct-2005 20:22:16 (#14235)
You neglected to mention Mentor. It's also a strong level 2 system.
Is Mentor an Ace-reckoned count? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Oct-2005 07:05:34 (#14237)
It's ace-compromised
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 13-Oct-2005 11:43:35 (#14238)
-1,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,-1,-2
EXCELLENT COUNT! zg *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Oct-2005 17:42:18 (#14239)
Another Bryce Carlson Software *LINK*
Posted by AlexN on 22-Oct-2005 10:23:30 (#14273)
I was also looking for this program but without success. There is an old interview
with Bryce Carlson on http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/library/lux/carlson.html.
Obviously he has developed another similar program called the "Omega II Blackjack Casino" (for MS-DOS and Windows) which is stronger and more comprehensive.
That's the good news.
The bad news is, I couldn't find this program either. Actually it should be available at Pi Yee Press (BJ21.com). As I couldn't find a program to learn AOII with I have written a program of my own. So if you wan't I can give you a version. Just write an email to Alex@Nebhuth.de. It's free.
Nevertheless if you should find one of the two programs mentioned above I would appreciate any information about it.
AlexN
What does your program do? *NM*
Posted by Mayor on 22-Oct-2005 10:59:36 (#14274)
AO2 Program *LINK*
Posted by AlexN on 23-Oct-2005 01:57:14 (#14282)
The program works with Basic Strategy, BO2 and AO2
and the Betting Systems for Las Vegas and Reno Rules.
There are 3 modes:
1. Play mode where you can play BlackJack with
the option to let the program check your play according
to the current BlackJack Strategy and Betting System.
2. Simulate mode with up to 3 players. Each player can
play with different strategies (Basic, BO2 and AO2) and
different Betting Systems. Here you can check whether it's
worth playing with certain rules and whether it's better
to play with Las Vegas oder with Reno Betting System.
It displays the earning rate and the win per Hand.
3. Drill mode. Here you can practice counting, strategy and
true count calculation.
AlexN
question...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 27-Oct-2005 10:58:36 (#14302)
how does this differ from what Casino Verite' offers??? And CV blackjack will let you practice with dozend of counting schemes, modify your betting ramp and verify you are following proper betting, check BS departure index plays, etc. And of course you can customize CVBJ with any counting system you want if you have the tag values and index numbers (CVBJ can't include all systems as some are being sold and the authors won't give Norm permission to publish the tags/indices...)
CVBJ is a "must-have" tool, IMHO.
response *LINK*
Posted by AlexN on 28-Oct-2005 15:14:44 (#14307)
Casino Verite is a "must-have" tool that's beyond question.
I just wrote the program for fun and because I couldn't define some special cases exactly with Casino Verite (Version 2.1) as they are defined in "BlackJack for Blood" (maybe it's possible with the current Version), for example:
- The Betting Indices for BO2 and AO2 depend upon the running count and the rules (Las Vegas or Reno rules)
- The Betting system slightly differs in Single-Deck, Double-Deck and Multiple-Deck games
- There are some strategy changes for double deck games which I can't define with my CVBJ Version because it doesn't differentiate between one and two deck games (once again: maybe the current version does).
- In my opinion the Basic Strategy described in "BlackJack for Blood" is more precisly than the one in CVBJ.
To determine which Betting Indices (Las Vegas or Reno) to use for rules that aren't exactly like Las Vegas or Reno rules I wrote the simulation. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to define the Betting Systems with CVBJ for reasons mentioned above. If there is a way to do this with CVBJ please let me know.
AlexN
Sure seems slow around here without...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Oct-2005 18:09:04 (#14240)
... the ZenZONE! zg
I agree
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 13-Oct-2005 21:12:45 (#14242)
Here's my suggestion: visit www.godaddy.com
$9 a year and you own zengrifter.com, or the variant of your choice.
$4 a month and you get a website.
You can create a recommended library of gaming (and other) books, complete with links to Amazon that will pay you commissions. You can run banners of online casinos with playable bonuses. You can write E-books and sell them. And you make all the rules.
Do what I do....
Posted by BradRod on 13-Oct-2005 21:28:10 (#14243)
whenever I get bored with things around here at cc.com I like to hit the road.
Just last week I visited Ukraine there is a nice little parlor type casino in Kiev with table games only, no slots. only roullete, craps, a couple of varieties of poker one of which is called Russian Poker and of course blackjack.
The 8 deck game has a cruel 50% pen, European no hole card play split up to 4 hands except aces, and a nice triple down play where if you doubled down on 2 cards you could triple down for the 4th card. I found the game playable in spite of the bad penetration because you could play a min hand of $5, A little frustrating though at high counts with the max bet 0f $200. After 4.5 hours of play I was ahead $700 and called it a night. Other Eastern European casinos that i played in required a passport be shown at the door. This place required no ID at all but they do wand you with a metal detector.
In ukriane they have hard currency regulations. You have to fill in a statement of how much currency you are bringing into the country and then they want to knwo how much you are leaving with . To avoud any hassle I hid some of my excess money away. I hid 300 in each of the spines of 2 hardbound books I was carrying and $100 in the leather sleeve of my cell phone. Thankfully got out with no hassles.
KIEV!!
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Oct-2005 19:56:34 (#14250)
" there is a nice little parlor type casino in Kiev"
------------
PS - the game you describe sounds...
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Oct-2005 19:59:18 (#14251)
... TERRIBLE! zg
Kiev has much better games *NM*
Posted by Shark on 16-Oct-2005 16:23:10 (#14258)
"Much better" ? Than BR chose the WORST TURKEY...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Oct-2005 17:30:00 (#14260)
... of a game that I've heard described in a long while. I wonder why? zg
Better games ?
Posted by BradRod on 17-Oct-2005 13:38:19 (#14267)
It was the only one that I found listed on a tour map. I later found out there were others but did not have more time to check them out. Next time I will go better prepared . The one I was at was named Grand. I t was in the Hotel Lybid. I did stumble on one other place called the Red Lion. Did not even look very appealing. Others I have since heard about were Corona Club, Naiad and Eldorado. If Shark knows anything about any of these places I would be interested in hearing about them.
October's radio show
Posted by Mayor on 14-Oct-2005 12:25:11 (#14244)
I posted my October "Vegas Talk Radio" show, where I review some of the games at this year's G2E, and give my picks for the best new games.
Here it is:
http://www.cardcounter.com/CBassInterviews/CBInterview_10_05.mp3
Game's up...
Posted by Mayor on 14-Oct-2005 15:12:19 (#14245)
I have a good friend who used to run "Casino Nights" in Santa Barbara for non-profits. He sold it about 6 months ago...
-----------
Game's up, says DOJ to casino nights
California (regulation) - Roger W. Hoskins, Modesto Bee - Local charities were scrambling this week after the state Department of Justice announced a crackdown on gaming events sponsored by nonprofit agencies. One such event is the Cattle Baron's Ball, which last year brought in $150,000 for the local American Cancer Society. Cheryl Brunk, community services director for the Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties unit of the society, said the ball accounts for about one-eighth of the group's fund-raising. "We do utilize the whole concept of funny money," she said. "It's not like you're having any kind of a financial exchange." At this point, she said, the society will wait to see what unfolds; the next ball isn't until August. "If it's not going to work, then we'll have to see what we can do."
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-dp_morning/story/11348401p-12095796c.html
Surprising
Posted by Sonny on 14-Oct-2005 16:25:35 (#14246)
> The state's direction to nonprofits stems from complaints from
> the public, he said.
I have been a dealer for a similar company for a while now. We offer Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, Poker, and Pia Gow Poker. I have never heard anyone complain about such fund raisers before, except a few jealous neighbors when we do private parties. I doubt that this is some public outcry for justice.
-Sonny-
Hey Sonny
Posted by Jay Lee on 14-Oct-2005 16:41:55 (#14247)
Are the games in SOCAL better than Northern Cal?
Nope
Posted by Sonny on 14-Oct-2005 17:39:33 (#14248)
> Are the games in SOCAL better than Northern Cal?
I'm afraid not. Many of them offer "No Bust 21" which is completely different and, from my limited research, a waste of time unless you are banking it. The Indian casinos seem to have settled on standard rules (6D H17 DAS no surrender) and the penetration is not very exciting. I've heard that some of the high limit DD action is acceptable on rare occasions but the $50 and $100 minimums are out of my range.
The best bets for my money are still up the road in Vegas (with a brief stop in Searchlight).
-Sonny-
What a wild ride
Posted by BCBoy on 15-Oct-2005 13:28:19 (#14252)
My experience is definitely an example of huge variance.
I've been playing BJ regularly for the last 5 years, and began as a typical progressionist ploppy, taking bad advice from "wise" players at the table (don't mess up the flow, the 2 is the dealer's ace), playing CSMs, all the bad stuff.
After I had accumulated a 10K loss over 3 years, I really felt like giving up.
Then I discovered sites like cardcounter.com that had winning advice and stories from the field. I decided I was tired of losing (no, really this time) and I tried Hi/Lo, but settled on KO for simplicity.
It's taken a couple of years and many hundreds of hours at the tables to finally develop the discipline and nerves to bet according to the count no matter what. Sure you just lost 3 rounds with max bets in a row, but if you pull out now with a high count, you're doomed to be casino road-kill.
After many devastating losing sessions and seemingly miraculous wins, I'm in positive territory.
I guess the point of this post is really to thank the community for sharing, and hopefully provide inspiration to someone else.
Are u a casino spy? *NM*
Posted by GCC666 on 16-Oct-2005 01:39:31 (#14254)
What are you talking about?
Posted by Mayor on 16-Oct-2005 12:01:50 (#14256)
Let's suppose he is a casino spy posting for some reason about some made up experience. What would the point then be for doing this?
Occam's razor does not side with you. The conclusion that is *easiest* is that the poster is relating an aspect of his actual casino blackjack experience.
What the poster does not say, however, and is implied by his handle, is the "BC" part. Almost certainly this refers to Grosjean's "Beyond Counting." In this case, I assume this poster has made a significant sum at the tables, and is just being kind by refering to the blackjack part of it.
--Mayor
Who said that?
Posted by Gorgon on 16-Oct-2005 13:27:02 (#14257)
I am sure he is a back-counter just like the rest of the boys!
I figured 'BC' to mean back-counting. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Oct-2005 17:27:50 (#14259)
re:What are you talking about?
Posted by GCC666 on 16-Oct-2005 17:34:40 (#14261)
BC Boy posted under a thread titled "Cascades Casino" over rge21.com a few weeks ago. The casino is located in Langley BC, Canada, so we could also assume that the term "BC" meant the Canadian province.
But of course,
Posted by GCC666 on 16-Oct-2005 19:41:45 (#14264)
"BC" could also mean "Betting Correlation".
Actually, I'm a friend and former team member of Joker's Wild, who was the thread starter of the post "Cascades Casino" on the rge21.com website. Truth is, he has played in a big city in the BC province which has a lot of casinos, and his previous history was the same as what BC Boy has stated: he was an active player for 5 years, and he played CSM's (to keep the RC). He made all his $$ back (and 10 times more) not because he played in those casinos with lousy rules; rather, he backed my fellow team members up to play for high stakes.
One more important thing: He got arrested and put in a psych ward from one of the big clubs for over a year, and, as I've contacted him lately, he told me he's gonna sue them for negligence and assault........
Therefore, I assumed that BC Boy IS a casino spy.
Joker's Wild, go get 'em!!!
Thanks for your support
Posted by Joker's Wild on 31-Oct-2005 12:45:12 (#14316)
I've never played on any CSM's since I became an accomplished player. Also, I do not use KO. I use a multi-level count instead.
I've been going in and out of casinos since I was 16. However, I've never seen anybody as ignorant as the casino that got me arrested. They sent their staff to track me down; they even asked the cops and security companies to get my identity. Such "invasion of privacy" is totally unacceptable. So how are all these assaults gonna stop if I don't beat the s**t out of them?
Hey, if any reader of this thread is a casino employee of that casino, get me arrested!! I'M COUNTING CARDS!!
An idea
Posted by Joker's Wild on 31-Oct-2005 23:57:10 (#14325)
Instead of suing the casino for $50 million over the provincial court here in BC, I might wanna get that surveillance tape of how they tortured me and dragged me out of the casino. I'll play it on one of those big screens out of a major Vegas casino. Just can't imagine what people are gonna think about their barbaric behavior!! LOL!! It's better than getting $50M, and I'm sure the high rollers would leave their properties immediately!!
My own "countermeasures"
Posted by Joker's Wild on 19-Nov-2005 00:14:48 (#14593)
Fortunately, not all the staff from that casino are bad. I recently talked to 2 of them and they agreed to be my '007s', ie. they are gonna help me in duplicating secret files, surveillance tapes, computer disks, CD-ROMS, and anything that is of great help in suing the casino successfully. I'll conceal their names until the trial, of course.
And just in case they lost their job because the casino is out of business ( or, worse yet, they got fired ), I could help them get better-paid jobs in AC, Foxwoods, or even Vegas. Some of my former team members used to work there.
THEIR END IS NEAR!!
Slots-a-Fun, a personal invitation!
Posted by zengrifter on 15-Oct-2005 17:25:33 (#14253)
Slots 2D games offer s17 + DAS + LLadies and penetration is liberally dealer-dependent. Go get'em! zg
You better watch out ZG or the
Posted by Learning to count on 18-Oct-2005 19:08:27 (#14269)
boogy man is gonna get you and drag you to the back room. Sluts O Fun can be dangerous. If you get kidnapped call Bob Nersesian. Sounds like a good game to catch AP"S.
"Sluts O Fun can be dangerous"...
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2005 20:04:19 (#14270)
... NOT! zg
I find slots depressing...
Posted by Brillo on 01-Nov-2005 05:08:55 (#14328)
Something about grinding away at the street urchins at the dollar BJ game turns my stomach but I have practiced there. It's a great place for a beginner to hone their skills. I haven't experiened any heat but I can see how it would be easy to stick out.
The players that frequent this place are the worst I have ever seen. The budget fanny-pack crowd from Minnesota and Wisconsin, on their 1st or 2nd trip to Vegas.
I doubt MGM is going to keep this propery, it's days are seriously numbered.
Right now 'Slots'...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Nov-2005 15:46:32 (#14334)
...(depending on dealer) has a GREAT low-stakes 2D game... especially if you know when to strike the side-bet. Swing-shift is best. zg
Slot player awarded $499k by Mohegan Tribal Court *LINK*
Posted by BlackJackHack on 18-Oct-2005 16:38:45 (#14268)
Can somebody run a simulation as to which is more likely:
(1) winning a $499k jackpot from a slot machine
(2) falling off of a broken chair and winning $499k in a tribal court
How did that case ever get so far?
Posted by Easy Money on 23-Oct-2005 08:53:04 (#14283)
I can't believe the tribe even allowed themselves to be sued, given they have sovereign immunity.
State of CT likes to turn the screws on them
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 23-Oct-2005 21:41:57 (#14285)
Every time one of the casinos in CT gets out of line we threaten to put slot machines in our parimutuel facilities like many other states have. They don't like that idea very much, and they have agreed to more or less abide by state law in exchange for this not being done.
CA tribes need to be treated much the same *NM*
Posted by Easy Money on 26-Oct-2005 22:53:57 (#14300)
Public intoxication laws in NV
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 21-Oct-2005 22:49:35 (#14271)
I was wondering, that because alcohol is part of my table act, do I put myself in danger of being arrested for being drunk in public in a casino? I never get belligerent or make a mess of anything, nor harass other players, but I will stagger to the bathroom (on negative counts of course!) after supposedly drinking 4 or 5, bellow for the waitress, and on rare occasions fall out of my chair. It's pretty solid and I've never been backed off once I get the act going good.
So let's say I get made as an AP anyway and management wants to really screw me over, do you think they can enter a complaint against me for public intoxication? Even though they handed me the alcohol? This is the last thing I'd want to have happen, end up in the city joint for intoxication when I'm not even drunk.
Here's one of my methods for drinking a drink without really drinking it. You get one, take a few sips, and secretly put a cigarette butt in it. Then a cocktail napkin on top of it as if you were cleaning up your area of the table. You hand it back to the waitress and to the eye it will look like you're giving her back your empty glass with the napkin in it. If the waitress asks it there was anything wrong with the drink, you tell her "somebody put their cigarette out in it." Works best in crowded casinos with plastic cups.
Private Clubs........
Posted by phantom007 on 22-Oct-2005 08:25:19 (#14272)
Since these stores are private venues, I doubt if they would push any public intoxication laws down your throat, especially since "they" are the ones that got you intoxicated in the first place.
I did get backed off once for being sh#tfaced....took the act a little too far. Basically, I had won big, got intox'd, and lost most of the winnings back. PC came up, stated he wanted me to leave a winner, and asked me to "go to bed"....not with him, BTW.
AM....got an idea to expand your act.....TRY DRINKING THE DRINK WITH THE CIGARETTE BUTT IN IT! Now that's cover.
GRIN.
ph.007.
Relevant gaming law
Posted by Mayor on 22-Oct-2005 11:08:53 (#14275)
5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action. The board and the commission deem any activity on the part of any licensee, his agents or employees, that is inimical to the public health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, or that would reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry, to be an unsuitable method of operation and shall be grounds for disciplinary action by the board and the commission in accordance with the Nevada Gaming Control Act and the regulations of the board and the commission. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation:
1. Failure to exercise discretion and sound judgment to prevent incidents which might reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the development of the industry.
2. Permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity.
3. Complimentary service of intoxicating beverages in the casino area to persons who are visibly intoxicated.
----------------------------------------
shared responsibility
Posted by Myooligan on 22-Oct-2005 12:10:15 (#14276)
Just finished a workplace training session on alcohol service-related issues. They gave us all sorts of stories about the venue getting sued because they were found partly responsible for the drunken conduct. For instance, in one case a bartender cut off service to a guy who'd been drinking heavily. His friends continued to by him drinks and sneaked them over to him. Afterwards he killed someone in a driving accident, and the venue was successfully sued for negligence.
I doubt the casino would want to go on record as being negligent or conduct itself in a manner that would "reflect or tend to reflect discredit upon the State of Nevada or the gaming industry," even if they were intent on screwing you over.
Makes sense
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 22-Oct-2005 16:01:05 (#14277)
OK now I remember from your book that they're not supposed to deal to a drunk and you can call Gaming to have drunks removed from a game. So if they served me the alcohol and continued to serve or deal to me after I appear intoxicated, they will be bringing heat down on themselves as well as me if they call the cops on me. Thanks for the info.
what they do and what they are supposed to do
Posted by Victoria on 22-Oct-2005 20:38:14 (#14278)
As we all know can be very different.
I recall a story, I think from Al Rogers, about playing poker with a fall down drunk at the Horseshoe when it was managed by Harrah's. It went something like, Al asked them to stop the drunk from playing, they did not. Al called gaming, gaming came but after they left, they continued to deal to the drunk. Only upon return did they stop. I think later Al was asked to leave.
Not sure of the accuracy of this, but we all have seen completely intoxicated players allowed to play way past the point of their being able to make good decisions.
Victoria
mixing stories
Posted by Mayor on 22-Oct-2005 21:29:23 (#14280)
I was the one playing aginast the poker guy (the story is in my book) -- Al was at the Horseshoe and got kicked out. Al does not play poker. However, many details of the stories are similar.
defective memory
Posted by Victoria on 22-Oct-2005 23:34:34 (#14281)
Mayor: Sorry about that but I hope I at least got the gist of the casinos attitude correct.
Victoria
Casinos like drunken players; they dislike those trying to keep them from fleecing the drunks
Posted by Al Rogers on 23-Oct-2005 11:25:15 (#14284)
I hope I at least got the gist of the casinos' attitude correct.
Yes, you did.
Halloween Blackjack Ball
Posted by Sonny on 26-Oct-2005 10:00:05 (#14291)
It's almost here!
Anyone want to take bets on how many people dress up like the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland? I thought about dressing up as a cocktail waitress but I looked too pretty! The drink service is slow enough that I might get fired anyway. At least I could make some tips...no, wait, none of us tip. This is not going to be a good weekend for waitresses!
Hey Mayor, will you be selling autographed books there?
-Sonny-
Just a reminder...
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Oct-2005 13:31:03 (#14294)
Halloween weekend through the 31st is an ideal time to hit all of the choice games you've been barred from... in costume/disguise. zg
But don't hit the tables dressed as...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 26-Oct-2005 13:37:37 (#14295)
...COUNT Dracula!
So, to you and others...
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 26-Oct-2005 21:55:14 (#14298)
has anyone been asked to leave a table because they were in disguise on Halloween? Never played in LV on Halloween before.
Also, conversely, I guess this would be a good time to play agressively and get barred with impunity??
-Felix
As of this moment, "yes"
Posted by Mayor on 26-Oct-2005 14:13:11 (#14296)
I am still not 100% sure of my travel plans for this weekend... it all depends on the outcome of a phone call this afternoon ...
unfortunately...
Posted by Mayor on 27-Oct-2005 11:35:50 (#14303)
...The phone call proved to be "negative" so I'll not be there.
I wish everyone who goes a great time, and I wish RGE much success with this event.
--Mayor
There is something surreal about this...
Posted by Mayor on 26-Oct-2005 14:36:46 (#14297)
Former Caesars exec sues Harrah's
National (litigation) - Wally Barr, former chief executive of Caesars Entertainment, has filed a class-action lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment, saying the world's largest gambling company owes him and potentially hundreds of other former Caesars' employees millions of dollars for their stock options. Harrah's bought Caesars last summer in a $9 billion deal. In the suit, Barr said Harrah's refused to pay employees and executives who held options to purchase Caesars' stock at the price they were entitled to...Barr said Caesars option holders covered by a 1998 incentive plan should have received the highest share price paid for Caesars' common stock in connection with the merger -- $23.76. Instead, they received $21.85...At the time of the merger, Barr held options to purchase 2.15 million shares of Caesars common stock, the suit said. At $21.85 a share, he would have been paid more than $47 million. The $1.91 discrepancy would give him an additional $4.1 million...If all 55 million options were granted, Harrah's would owe other former Caesars employees more than $105 million.
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-1/1130302875264530.xml&coll=1
Petition for a new Podium Speech from the Mayor
Posted by Myooligan on 27-Oct-2005 17:39:36 (#14304)
Please sign below if you so favor!
I'll be the first to sign...
Posted by Mayor on 28-Oct-2005 10:26:51 (#14305)
How about a guest podium, Myooligan?
somehow I get the feeling. . .
Posted by Myooligan on 28-Oct-2005 17:36:29 (#14308)
. . . that the people would rather hear from you than me. :)
Besides, with less than 20 hrs. of real casino play under my belt, I feel a bit underqualified. Still, thanks for the signature, Mayor. You're my biggest fan.
Even better...
Posted by Mayor on 28-Oct-2005 21:09:19 (#14309)
Here is a link to a person with about the same experience as you who wrote an article for the London Times.
http://www.cardcounter.com/Essay_Beasley_Murray.htm
Your turn.
Griffin Investigations, Inc. bankruptcy meeting
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Oct-2005 14:13:25 (#14306)
Griffin Investigations, Inc. bankruptcy meeting of creditors held
The 341 meeting of creditors was held Wednesday in Bankruptcy Court in Las Vegas. The creditors' attorneys who appeared were Bob Nersesian and Thea Sankiewicz for judgment creditors James Grosjean and Michael Russo, and an attorney for the law firm that is owed over $106,000 for representing Griffin Investigations, Inc. in the Grosjean/Russo suit. No other creditors appeared.
Thea Sankiewicz conducted a thorough examination of Beverly Griffin. There may be some controversy about the existence or non-existence of loans between the Griffins and the bankrupt corporation, as well as rent payments allegedly owed by the corporation to Beverly Griffin.
Griffin's bankruptcy filings show declining gross revenue in the last three years. Beverly Griffin stated that the closure of the Biloxi casinos has contributed to that decline. When asked by the bankruptcy trustee's representative what Griffin plans to do to increase revenue and/or cut expenses in order to be able to pay the corporation's creditors, she stated that six new contracts are in the works between Griffin Investigations and casinos in South America and Central America.
The leases on automobiles driven by the Griffins, a Lexus and a Mercedes, expire soon. To cut costs as part of the "reorganization" under Chapter 11, not continuing to provide cars for the two corporate officers was discussed.
Ms. Griffin stated that the database is in the process of undergoing revisions and corrections "per the advice of counsel."
Beverly is paid a salary of $2000 per week, and stated that she works about sixty hours a week. Robert receives a salary of $1100 per week, and stated that he works about twenty hours a week from his home. Two salaried "investigators" are each paid a salary of $1200 per week, plus reimbursement of expenses. The "investigators" use their own cars. There are two office staff members whose salaries were not discussed.
The corporation pays $60 per week for a cleaning person to clean the "casita" in Beverly's back yard that houses the office of the corporation.
It was disclosed that the Nevada state agency that regulates private investigators has not been notified of the bankruptcy. It was not clear if such notification is required, but the attorney for the debtor corporation said he will notify the agency. The private investigator license was last renewed in July 2005. The required liability insurance policy is in place, but does not cover libel, slander, defamation, etc. Beverly stated that she had attempted to buy such insurance in the past, but was unable to obtain it.
Many specific questions of Beverly were not answered directly. The most frequent response was that she would have to check with her accountant.
It was revealed that a separate corporation called Griffin New Jersey has the contracts with Atlantic City casinos. The exchange of money between that corporation and the debtor corporation may be subject to further inquiry.
The Griffin database was not listed as an asset in the bankruptcy schedules, and may be subject to further inquiry.
Some discrepancies between documents filed with the District Court in the Grosjean/Russo matter and documents filed with the Bankruptcy Court may be subject to further inquiry.
Maybe the Griffin's should be put under Survellience.....
Posted by phantom007 on 29-Oct-2005 13:40:54 (#14310)
Just to be sure that they don't "Rathole" chips, underclaim their profits, exaggerate their losses, and God-forbid, get undeserved Comps.
ph.7.
Griffin should be scrutinized to the fullest
Posted by Easy Money on 29-Oct-2005 21:43:14 (#14311)
I wonder if Beverly Baby paid worker comp insurance and all other applicable fees associated with having employees.
Bev is a greedy beeaatch...
Posted by Learning to count on 30-Oct-2005 07:49:13 (#14312)
she reminds me of a retired vamp who is using up her savings on face lifts and lypo suction. I am sure they covered up a lot of financiel information. They probably have three sets of books. They are a real sleezy business operation. Every one complains about the police but wow look at these dick tracey's! Scairy!
What does this mean for us
Posted by Garo on 31-Oct-2005 00:45:23 (#14313)
Does this mean we are off the hook (assuming my play warrants the attention of Griffin)? Is there someone else to step in and take there place? And if someone does step in will they have to start a whole new book, giving Griffinites a fresh start?
Means nothing...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Oct-2005 13:28:02 (#14317)
...Griffin was fast becomming irrelevent since the late 90s. zg
Like most profitable scams...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 31-Oct-2005 16:16:33 (#14318)
...it will most likely just come back again with a different name but the same people behind it. Criminals aren't afraid of the law and they certainly aren't rehabilitated by it.
Casino surveillance info nexus -
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Oct-2005 19:47:33 (#14319)
- includes -
1. corp. consolidated surveillance resources (MGM, Mandalay, Harrah's
Would 7:5 SD be a playable game?
Posted by Brillo on 31-Oct-2005 20:00:17 (#14321)
I'm no mathematician but I have worked both sides of the table and was wondering what the edge would be if you got $14 for you $10 bet instead of $12?
I can understand the anger over turning SD into a carnival game, and I can also see the point of view of the casinos not wanting to offer a game that offers virtually no edge against a BS player depending on how liberal the rules are, and a game that a decent CC could rape and pillage.
As a novice counter, I feel comfortable with a SD and I have done well during visits to the El Cortez and Fiesta Rancho. If a casino ever offered 7:5 SD in an effort to drum of business, would it be playable?
Difference between 7:5 and 3:2
Posted by Mayor on 31-Oct-2005 21:31:37 (#14322)
You get BJ about every 21 hands. If you average $10 per hand, that means that every 21 hands you will earn $14 on your BJ instead of $15. That means, you are giving $1 back to the casino out of every $210 you wager. That's an extra .48% for the house. Since the basic strategy edge is .18% for 3:2 single deck, having BJ pay 7:5 increases the house edge to .18% + .48% = .66%. This makes the game about the same as a 6D H17 shoe game. Just like the 6D H17 game, with good penetration a 1D 7:5 game could be beaten quite easily.
7:5 1D with good pene...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Oct-2005 22:31:42 (#14323)
... is a playable game, slightly inferior to the 'Reno-rules' 1D (h17 DD10/11). Significantly better than superFun1D. Wher can I find one. zg
Fiesta Rancho has not had single deck in a long time *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 01-Nov-2005 01:12:07 (#14326)
What about...
Posted by Brillo on 01-Nov-2005 02:10:23 (#14327)
I remember reading a little while back that the Tuscanny was going to have 3:2 SD. Did they ever implement it and if so is it still going on? I haven't been inside that place in over a year.
it came and WENT! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Nov-2005 12:20:51 (#14331)
Did Fiesta offer 7:5? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Nov-2005 12:21:48 (#14332)
No *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 01-Nov-2005 16:42:05 (#14335)
Well it should! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Nov-2005 20:01:27 (#14338)
I want to hear about the Halloween BJ Ball..
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Oct-2005 22:32:52 (#14324)
... since I was out of town and couldn't attend! zg
It was pretty sweet!
Posted by Sonny on 01-Nov-2005 10:57:27 (#14329)
The tournament was fun but several rounds were abruptly cut short due to time constraints. I got to play at a table with Norm, MIT Mike and Barry Meadows (and a few anonymous players). I made it to the final 3 but couldn't make any headway once they announced that the last round was suddenly 3 hands away (instead of 13). I rallied as best as I could and had to double down on a hard 15 on the last hand, but that 3 of clubs couldn't beat the dealer's hand.
There was a speed-count competition between Johnny C and a drunken Hollywood Dave, and Max Rubin gave 6:5 odds on anyone who could come within 3 seconds of Johnny C. Once I saw Johnny C count down two decks in 33 seconds I knew that I could never stumble through my level 2 system and ace side count that quickly. Still, it was fun to watch other people try. =)
I also had a nice chat with Barfarkel (LVPro), Wylie (videodude) and Jeff (I don't know). There were several other notable players/authors/publishers and a few that I didn't recognize. The atmosphere was very friendly and everyone was excited to talk to each other.
All in all it was a fun night and a good chance to hang out with some very experienced players. The t-shirts are pretty badass too!
-Sonny-
how many attended? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Nov-2005 12:20:07 (#14330)
U mean...
Posted by SpiderMan on 01-Nov-2005 13:15:10 (#14333)
those who attended recieve free T-shirts?
That's right *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 01-Nov-2005 17:14:47 (#14336)
How do they look like? *NM*
Posted by SpiderMan on 01-Nov-2005 18:43:02 (#14337)
I wouldn't attend ...
Posted by Tom on 02-Dec-2005 19:04:38 (#14764)
...Saw a non-counting Asian got flat-betted at Bar@** just for asking about Max Rubin after hearing a dealer mentioning him being a consultant for the casino!!!!
Fantastic event.
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 01-Nov-2005 22:07:00 (#14339)
Anyone who had to missed it, or didn't go because of some uncertainty or whatever , needs to consider going next year.
There was such a positive vibe. Good conversation. Lots of friendly people. It was just plain fun.
I would love to elaborate more, but I'm sick and can only spend a little time out of bed right now. I'll post more later.
Sounds like the beginning...
Posted by Easy Money on 02-Nov-2005 22:29:27 (#14342)
of what may be a real in person unity of our AP brothers and sisters. We need to keep it going in the future. It could eventually give us enough power to make a difference.
I'm still dreaming of the day a large group of us pickets a "shame on you type casino" for doing something illegal or unfair. :-)
ohh puhleese! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 01:49:02 (#14343)
ZG - I'm just a stupid self made multi-millionaire *NM*
Posted by Easy Money on 03-Nov-2005 22:10:47 (#14357)
Why the name change SB? *NM*
Posted by Sonny on 03-Nov-2005 09:07:51 (#14349)
Answer
Posted by Easy Money on 03-Nov-2005 21:57:27 (#14354)
User name and password no longer worked. Was easily fixed by starting out fresh with everything new. I'm not on here to make a name for myself. I just want to increase my knowledge in the world of AP.
I was in town but did not attend
Posted by Victoria on 04-Nov-2005 12:03:15 (#14362)
The worry about my being easier to identify than some of you guys even in costume kept me away. Perhaps some future year with a real elaborate costume I might attend.
One thing I did notice some time after your party broke up while wandering in a strip casino was a costumed 3CP team at work. Seemed like they were doing well, and just might have come from the ball.
Jeff Haney on the blackjack players' ball
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 01:54:25 (#14344)
LV Sun | October 31, 2005
Columnist Jeff Haney: Card counters and the surreality of the professional blackjack players' ball
Casino bosses liken blackjack card counters to bloodsuckers, or evil creatures dying to plunder and pillage their table games.
Usually, it's just a figure of speech.
But not Saturday night, when some of the world's best blackjack players dressed as vampires, ghosts and pirates to attend the inaugural Halloween Blackjack Ball at a non-casino hotel off the Strip.
The invitation-only affair gave blackjack experts a chance to trade tips, compete in contests of esoteric gambling skills and let their hair down.
Or dye it blue. Or silver and black, like Cruella de Vil.
Because working professional blackjack players protect their anonymity nearly to the point of paranoia, some of the costumes were more elaborate than others.
That led to scenes, surreal even for Halloween weekend in Vegas, such as Spider-Man and a masked ghoul calmly discussing the finer points of playing blackjack at a professional level -- which casinos have weak dealers, who has the most clueless pit bosses, or where you get paid a bonus for being dealt a 21 made up of a 6, 7 and 8.
Blackjack card counters track the cards that have been dealt and adjust the size of their bets accordingly, placing big wagers when the remaining cards are most favorable to them. Counting is legal, but casinos can prohibit counters from playing. That's called "getting backed off."
A card counter working alone can eke out a modest profit.
A well-financed team of counters, though, can wreak havoc in a casino, as detailed in the 2002 best seller "Bringing Down the House," which chronicled the exploits of a group of MIT students who won millions of dollars.
Several players from the celebrated "MIT team" were there Saturday, including John Chang, who won bragging rights by "counting down" two decks of cards in 33 seconds -- the best time of the night.
Counting down a deck entails removing a couple of cards, mentally recording all the others, then proving your accuracy by identifying which cards were removed.
"Two decks in 33 seconds -- that's pretty impressive," master of ceremonies Max Rubin said.
Robert Blechman, a blackjack tournament specialist from Los Angeles, challenged Chang, but finished in 37 seconds -- with a slightly inaccurate count.
"That's why they give away whiskey at casinos," Rubin, an author and former Las Vegas gaming executive, cracked.
Dave Irvine, a member of the MIT team who considers Chang his mentor, also came up short in the countdown contest.
Formerly known only as "Mr. J," Irvine decided to go public with his real name because he has been permanently backed off at every major casino. Resorting to disguises didn't work so well, he said.
"Even if it's Hollywood-quality, you can tell something's wrong, something's off, with a disguise," said Irvine, now a successful business owner and online at blackjackinstitute.com. "We looked into fat suits, we looked into dressing as women, but it was never quite right."
Hosted by Viktor Nacht, the owner of RGE Publishing of Las Vegas, the ball was sponsored by the Ultimate Blackjack Tour, a tournament that was taped in Las Vegas and is scheduled to air next year on a major TV network.
"It's going to be a big deal," Rubin said.
Rubin, now affiliated with the Barona Valley Ranch casino near San Diego, said that property is much more tolerant of card counters than Las Vegas casinos.
A skilled blackjack player who sizes his bets from a minimum of $25 to a maximum of a couple of hundred dollars could go "a long time" before he was even noticed at Barona, Rubin said.
Such players are quickly shown the exit in Las Vegas. But backing off small-time counters is a costly mistake if it alienates other customers, Rubin said.
"Vegas casinos run off too many players like that," Rubin said. "You're costing me, what, less than $100 an hour? That's OK, when there are so many others making us hundreds of dollars an hour."
Of course, with the crew at the blackjack ball, casino bosses had good reason to be wary.
One professional gambler confirmed Saturday that some plundering and pillaging in the Strip's blackjack pits was indeed on the agenda for later that night.
Jeff Haney can be reached at 259-4041 or at haney@lasvegassun.com.
Gambling Linked to Good Health?
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 02:01:44 (#14345)
Gambling Linked to Good Health
by Diane Scarponi
The Associated Press | Oct. 31, 2005
According to a surprising Yale University study, older recreational gamblers seem to be healthier than non-gamblers.
The findings are not rock-solid. They're based only on telephone interviews, but the results are the opposite of what researchers expected. The survey showed that recreational gamblers 65 and older reported being in better health than their peers who don't gamble. The older gamblers also reported less alcoholism, depression, bankruptcy and imprisonment than younger recreational gamblers, Yale epidemiologist Rani Desai said.
Desai cautioned that more study is needed to conclude that gambling can be a healthy venture, and those who help gambling addicts are skeptical.
But the social aspects of gambling - whether it's slot machines at a casino, poker games with friends or bingo at a church hall - may be an explanation for how the study turned out, Desai said.
"There's this whole concept of healthy aging - that folks who continue to remain engaged in activity, especially in the community and in social activities, stay healthier longer, so I think this is a reflection of that. It's not that gambling makes you healthy, it's that gamblers are healthier," Desai said.
Some psychologists question the findings.
"It may get them out, but the socialization isn't that much because they sit in front of machines, interacting with them," said psychologist Elizabeth Stirling of Santa Fe, N.M., who counsels gambling addicts. "I guess if you can keep it at a limit - spend $20 and go once a week - there's no harm to it, but a benefit I can't see."
Desai started the study with the idea that health problems already well documented among all gamblers might be more pronounced in gamblers over 65. Any losses would presumably hit older people harder, since most are on fixed incomes.
Also, the gambling industry tries to attract older people with freebies and trips, and even provide needle disposals for diabetics in the restrooms and heart defibrillators on the casino floor.
The survey of 2,400 people relied on the participants to report their gambling habits, health and other personal information. A survey firm called all the participants, and Yale researchers crunched the numbers.
The results could be because nongamblers might be too ill or disabled to leave the house, but there also are plenty of older people with health problems at the track and the blackjack tables.
Joe Haley, 71, of Colchester, uses an oxygen tank because he has a rare lung disease, but he still goes to Mohegan Sun casino about once a month for video poker and blackjack.
"My opinion is a lot of people are lonely and a lot of people we know who come here will tell you that. They like to play a little and chitchat with the person next to them," Haley said.
Mike Sanzo, a 73-year-old retired state highway worker, had heart bypass surgery a few years ago. He and his wife, who live in the Hartford suburb of Newington, visit the Mohegan Tribal Nation's casino a few times a week. They spend about $40, pursuing their separate gambling interests, and meet up later to compare notes on how they did.
Sanzo says he gambles for fun and enjoys the friends he's made among other regulars at the casino since leaving his job installing signs for the state highway department.
"I'm retired, and it exercises my brain," he says.
The study only looked at recreational gamblers and did not study people who had gambling problems. Very few were found in the survey, Desai said, but the health and financial problems for addicts are well known.
"The key is moderation, and once it gets to the point that you're showing signs of addiction, then it becomes a serious health threat and is overwhelmed by any small benefit it may have afforded you by getting out of the house," she said.
Keith Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, which advocates for gambling addicts, likened the Yale report to studies that have found a glass of red wine can be healthful.
He recommended that recreational gamblers should set limits, go with friends, take breaks and know the signs of addiction, such as betting increasing amounts to enjoy gambling as much, out-of-control feelings or allowing gambling to interfere with work, family or school. Gamblers also should know who to contact if they need help.
"Clearly, if it becomes obsessive and a psychological health problem," he said, "that's a concern for everybody."
Mental exercise
Posted by GPC on 07-Nov-2005 13:30:34 (#14399)
The mental exercise of skill gambling pursuits must be good for the mind of the elderly.
GPC
Mental Exercise
Posted by CanKen on 07-Nov-2005 17:45:30 (#14402)
I tell my wife that that's why I do it. But I do believe there is some validity.
CK
Brainpower...
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 01:18:06 (#14426)
... enhancement products that work ALMOST as good as card-counting -
http://www.2020brainpower.com/store/cd.cfm
English
Français
Italiano