New West Virginia Blackjack Games

[wvbjplayer]

In my last (very successful) trip to Vegas, I lost $1000 bucks in 20 minutes of hell at a Strip casino, another $500 in a half hour in another one, and $750 in one hand on a hugely positive count at a third. (IIRC the running count was like +10 in a DD game, I spread out to three $150 hands, splitting one and doubling another against a dealer 6 - the dealer uncovered a 5, hit with another 5 and made 21 with his third 5 in a row :flame: ).

Yes, but you were obviously betting at least $100/hand. I never bet more than $45/hand (and my avg. bet was $30/hand). So, my losses were the equivalent of your having lost MORE THAN THREE TIMES that amt., i.e., $6,750.

What you describe doesn't sound anything out of the ordinary to me - I'm no math whiz but since you describe going on a winning streak and then losing your rear end, it hardly follows that the house is "stacking the deck." Indeed, the reports about WV games that I've read so far suggest that it's a pretty amateur operation because of inexperience, and people engaging in the level of cheating you suspect would have to be pretty slick.

I agree that the cheating hypothesis is rather implausible. But, when the impossible has been eliminated, only the improbable remains. (Not, of course, that I believe my losses truly impossible due to chance. Truth be told, I'm still shell-shocked by what happened and don't know WHAT to conclude.)

If losing a thousand bucks bothers you so much, it's probably time for a break and to focus on another pastime for a while. Pitchers and catchers report in 10 days!

I agree! I won't be playing blackjack again for a very long time, if ever. I've no choice in the matter, anyway: Saturday's nightmare (my own wraped version of Groundhog Day, interestingly enough) completely wiped me out, erasing all my hard-earned profits and then some in very short order. It's extremely depressing. :-(

Thanks for the input, chief.

wvbjplayer

 

[wvbjplayer]

In my last (very successful) trip to Vegas, I lost $1000 bucks in 20 minutes of hell at a Strip casino, another $500 in a half hour in another one, and $750 in one hand on a hugely positive count at a third. (IIRC the running count was like +10 in a DD game, I spread out to three $150 hands, splitting one and doubling another against a dealer 6 - the dealer uncovered a 5, hit with another 5 and made 21 with his third 5 in a row :flame: ).

What you describe doesn't sound anything out of the ordinary to me - I'm no math whiz but since you describe going on a winning streak and then losing your rear end, it hardly follows that the house is "stacking the deck." Indeed, the reports about WV games that I've read so far suggest that it's a pretty amateur operation because of inexperience, and people engaging in the level of cheating you suspect would have to be pretty slick.

If losing a thousand bucks bothers you so much, it's probably time for a break and to focus on another pastime for a while. Pitchers and catchers report in 10 days!

OK, that attempt to quote portions of your post and respond to them individually obviously didn't work so well. Let's try this again:

Yes, but you were obviously betting at least $100/hand. I never bet more than $45/hand (and my avg. bet was $30/hand). So, my losses were the equivalent of your having lost MORE THAN THREE TIMES that amt., i.e., $6,750.

And yes, I agree that the "cheating casino" hypothesis is, as always, implausible. But, once the impossible has been eliminated, only the improbable remains. (No, I don't really think that such poor luck is unexplainable by appeal to mere chance. In truth, I am still shell-shocked by what happened and don't know WHAT to make of it.)

wvbjplayer

 

[SystemsTrader]

Okay, so we all know that even extreme variance in the game of blackjack, attributable purely to chance, is far from uncommon. However, what I encountered at this casino seemed to defy, not only statistical LIKELIHOOD, but outright statistical POSSIBILITY. How else could a fairly well-practiced counter, achieving consistently favorable results when playing at home or on CVBJ, win over $1,000 in 24 hrs. and then lose $1,700 in 16 hrs? Are there any math whizzes on here who could compute for me the statistical probability of that? The standard deviation would be off the charts, surely.
wvbjplayer

I have no way of knowing if you were cheated or not by the casino, but I would highly doubt it. So according to your quote above you lost $700 over 40 hours. That works out to a loss of $17.50/hr and in another post you said your average bet was $30. So for the whole session your standard deviation is probably less than 1. This is not out of the normal. If you would like I could figure out a more accurate SD for you but I would require more information?

 

[wvbjplayer]

I have no way of knowing if you were cheated or not by the casino, but I would highly doubt it. So according to your quote above you lost $700 over 40 hours. That works out to a loss of $17.50/hr and in another post you said your average bet was $30. So for the whole session your standard deviation is probably less than 1. This is not out of the normal. If you would like I could figure out a more accurate SD for you but I would require more information?

Yes, that is correct. In 40 total hours of play, I lost approximately $700. Surely it is significant, however, that I won $1,000 in the first 24 hrs. (consisting of 3 different sessions) and then lost $1,700 in 16 hrs. (consisting of a single session). Maybe not statistically, but empirically. (Obviously, if I had gone up and down the whole time, playing for 40 hrs. straight during a single trip and eventually winding up at -$700, that would be one thing; but to quickly rise to $1,000 over the course of three sessions and then just as rapidly plummet to -$700, on a wholly separate trip during which I steadily lost money except for one short-lived upswing where I recouped maybe 40% of my losses, is quite another.)

And how much less than 1? Isn't anything greater than .5 statistically significant?

wvbjplayer

 

[SystemsTrader]

And how much less than 1? Isn't anything greater than .5 statistically significant?

wvbjplayer

You will have a 1 SD game about 10% of the time. That is just a ballpark estimate and no a .5 is not statistically significant at all. This game is filled with ups and downs so if you are going to continue playing you better get used to it! Like I said earlier the way to not be bothered by such large fluctuations is to be properly capitalized and not to overbet your account.

 

[Kasi]

Can anyone else here confirm whether Wheeling has (ASM) shoes? Or both shoes and CSM's?

wvbjplayer - feel for you but if your max bet was $45, I don't think a 4.5-1 spread would do anything in these games anyway. Did you really do all this on a $700 starting bankroll?

 

[Kasi]

You will have a 1 SD game about 10% of the time.

No big deal but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean about 1 SD and 10%?

But great advice about adequate capital and not overbetting - good chance wvbjplayer may have fallen victim to both rendering his results, rather than unusual in any way, almost inevitable.

Even if he didn't, one just can't say it enough times lol.

 

[wvbjplayer]

Can anyone else here confirm whether Wheeling has (ASM) shoes? Or both shoes and CSM's?

wvbjplayer - feel for you but if your max bet was $45, I don't think a 4.5-1 spread would do anything in these games anyway. Did you really do all this on a $700 starting bankroll?

Yes. Well, I had access to more, but never dipped below -$240.

 

[geneticfreak]

Can anyone else here confirm whether Wheeling has (ASM) shoes? Or both shoes and CSM's?

I was there yesterday morning around 10 or 11 AM and there was only 5 blackjack tables open 4 CSM and one ASM shoe ($100 min). There was also one Three Card Poker and one Roulette table open, and that was it. The $100 table had one person playing and was drawing a lot of attention from both sides of the table. There were about 6 people watching in amazement and there were 3 or 4 suits watching.

The sad thing is that the CSM tables were all full and people were waiting for a seat. After circling the pit once just to see if there was any reason to play, I left and continued on my trek to Indiana.

 

[Dyepaintball12]

I don't see the need for a casino to cheat at a game where they are going to beat 99% of the players.

 

[wvbjplayer]

I don't see the need for a casino to cheat at a game where they are going to beat 99% of the players.

How about to offset a very poor opening month?

 

[Kasi]

I was there yesterday morning around 10 or 11 AM and there was only 5 blackjack tables open 4 CSM and one ASM shoe ($100 min). .

Thanks for the update.

wvbjplayer - in light of the above, and for other reasons based on some things you said, do you think there's any possibility you could have actually been playing CSM's?

 

[farookhbj]

Re:

When I went to Wheeling on opening day, they had NO ASMs. They must have just started adding them. Everything was CSM. They used RFID chips and everything. Very brutal. Mountaineer is very playable. I wouldn't touch Wheeling with a 10 foot pole until they offer ASM or hand shuffled shoe games instead of force feeding CSMS down everyone's throat.

 

[wvbjplayer]

Thanks for the update.

wvbjplayer - in light of the above, and for other reasons based on some things you said, do you think there's any possibility you could have actually been playing CSM's?

No. The difference is pretty obvious.

wvbjplayer

 

[Kasi]

No. The difference is pretty obvious.

wvbjplayer

I guess so lol - didn't mean to insult you. But I've seen where they deal 2 decks from their hand to make you think it's a double-deck, etc.

It's just that you didn't seem sure if it was 6 or 8 decks, that it went below the table, that discards got put in the side, maybe frequently? - something about one "round" rather than shoe, that others seem to say ASM's at Wheeling are a rarity with high mins or non-existent, that the count never changed much.

Anyway, if you care to share, it just didn't seem like you had a real defined card-counting plan to begin with if $45 was your max bet playing all to a smallish bankroll. What expectations did you originally have? What was the min bet?

Not that it'll make you feel any better, but I doubt if you were cheated.

 

[wvbjplayer]

I guess so lol - didn't mean to insult you. But I've seen where they deal 2 decks from their hand to make you think it's a double-deck, etc.

It's just that you didn't seem sure if it was 6 or 8 decks, that it went below the table, that discards got put in the side, maybe frequently? - something about one "round" rather than shoe, that others seem to say ASM's at Wheeling are a rarity with high mins or non-existent, that the count never changed much.

Anyway, if you care to share, it just didn't seem like you had a real defined card-counting plan to begin with if $45 was your max bet playing all to a smallish bankroll. What expectations did you originally have? What was the min bet?

Not that it'll make you feel any better, but I doubt if you were cheated.

1. The tables vary between 6 & 8 decks. Sometimes, certain tables alternate between the two, quite at random. It's not always easy to tell how many are in play just by looking, b/c the last 2-3 decks are hidden away under a piece of opaque plastic. You can always ask the dealer, sure, but you can always ask the PB which counting method he prefers, too.

2. ASM's are NOT a rarity at Wheeling. There's almost always at least one $25min. ASM table up & running. But never lower, that I've seen. At least not so far; I'm hoping that will change as the novelty for the locals wears off and their business slackens off.

3. I had a very "defined" plan indeed. In fact, I even made a spreadsheet on which I correlated various count ranges w/ bet amounts. (I used several well-respected resources to guide me.) My bets ranged from $25 to $50, incl. up to $75 on double-downs (I usu. DD for less, just to be safe). Given that I was playing near-perfect BS, varying my play only in response to the count (seldom necessary), even such a slight spread - i.e., 2:1, occasionally 3:1 - proved quite profitable, thanks in part to some early good luck (and good counts).

4. My expectations were very modest: to make perhaps $50-100 per 4- or 5-hour session. I vastly exceeded my expectations, racking up a grand in about 24 hrs., before rapidly plunging to -$1,700 in 3/4 of that time. Talk about yer rude awakenings! ;-)

5. You're right that, at least the last time I was there (the night of endless horros), the counts rarely swung much in either direction - incidentally, precisely what you'd expect if the shoes were high-low stacked.

6. You're also right that I probably wasn't cheated. Nevertheless, I have never had, or even seen, worse luck: the odds of what happened to me, in a game where even the average player faces only a very modest statistical disadvantage, have to have been well under 1%.

wvbjplayer

 

[SystemsTrader]

3. I had a very "defined" plan indeed. In fact, I even made a spreadsheet on which I correlated various count ranges w/ bet amounts. (I used several well-respected resources to guide me.) My bets ranged from $25 to $50, incl. up to $75 on double-downs (I usu. DD for less, just to be safe). Given that I was playing near-perfect BS, varying my play only in response to the count (seldom necessary), even such a slight spread - i.e., 2:1, occasionally 3:1 - proved quite profitable, thanks in part to some early good luck (and good counts).
wvbjplayer

Never double down for less, its a big mistake and that is what ploppies do. You are doubling from a position of strenght so take advantage of it. Doubling will actually make you lose more hands over just hitting because you cannot take additional cards however the mathematical expectation of doubling will make you earn more money over the long run. That is what determines when you will double. It takes courage to play this game, when you have the edge you have to take advantage of it and get the most money on the table possible within your risk level, even when you are taking a pounding. This is not a game for chickens.

 

[Kasi]

3. I had a very "defined" plan indeed. In fact, I even made a spreadsheet on which I correlated various count ranges w/ bet amounts. (I used several well-respected resources to guide me.) My bets ranged from $25 to $50, incl. up to $75 on double-downs (I usu. DD for less, just to be safe). Given that I was playing near-perfect BS, varying my play only in response to the count (seldom necessary), even such a slight spread - i.e., 2:1, occasionally 3:1 - proved quite profitable, thanks in part to some early good luck (and good counts).

While it still seems strange to me that tables could vary at random between 6 & 8 decks, I guess anything is possible in such a new environment.

I guess I've been thinking you were playing all-hands in these shoes but, with that 1-2 spread, maybe not?

If you were playing all hands, with the rules as I understand them, it just doesn't seem possible you could be playing with an advantage.

Mostly I realize this is Monday-morning quarterbacking at its worst but, should you ever perhaps decide to play again, I'm hoping you may better understand exactly what you want to do and what to realsitically expect and what bankroll you may need. I'm guessing these may have been the fatal flaws in your plan.

 

[wvbjplayer]

While it still seems strange to me that tables could vary at random between 6 & 8 decks, I guess anything is possible in such a new environment.

I guess I've been thinking you were playing all-hands in these shoes but, with that 1-2 spread, maybe not?

If you were playing all hands, with the rules as I understand them, it just doesn't seem possible you could be playing with an advantage.

Mostly I realize this is Monday-morning quarterbacking at its worst but, should you ever perhaps decide to play again, I'm hoping you may better understand exactly what you want to do and what to realsitically expect and what bankroll you may need. I'm guessing these may have been the fatal flaws in your plan.

I was playing almost all hands. Occasionally I took bathroom breaks when the shoes were particularly bad. It made no difference: they were even worse when I got back, and stayed that way consistently.

I'll probably play again eventually, but with my bankroll now so severely depleted, I'll have to just flat-bet initially, hope for a bit of luck, and, if I get up a decent amount, start increasing my bets substantially and hope for the best. (I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Wonging at such a small place where so many eyes are watching.)

I had begun to think I'd never have to worry about getting wiped out, with so much profit under my belt and such relatively modest bets. And, I'm sure, had I managed to double my bankroll last time, my element-of-ruin would've plunged to somewhere around 1%. Alas, I may be the luckiest unluckiest individual who ever lived. ;-)

wvbjplayer

 

[SystemsTrader]

I was playing almost all hands. Occasionally I took bathroom breaks when the shoes were particularly bad. It made no difference: they were even worse when I got back, and stayed that way consistently.

I'll probably play again eventually, but with my bankroll now so severely depleted, I'll have to just flat-bet initially, hope for a bit of luck, and, if I get up a decent amount, start increasing my bets substantially and hope for the best. (I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Wonging at such a small place where so many eyes are watching.)

I had begun to think I'd never have to worry about getting wiped out, with so much profit under my belt and such relatively modest bets. And, I'm sure, had I managed to double my bankroll last time, my element-of-ruin would've plunged to somewhere around 1%. Alas, I may be the luckiest unluckiest individual who ever lived. ;-)

wvbjplayer

wvbjplayer after reading this latest post from yourself, I'm now convinced you weren't cheated you were just playing a poor game. Even after doubling your bankroll you were not playing with a 1% ror it was actually 100% using 1-2 and 1-3 spreads against 8 decks and doing play-all. Unfortunately the bad variance caught up with you sooner rather than later. I just assumed you were only backcounting. You need about 10k to safely do play-all on a $5 table against shoes. Those $25 min tables are a sure recipe for disaster. If you are ever going to play this game again it is time to become a smart student of the game and really learn what it takes to beat the casinos. Get some of Snyder's or Renzey's book or start with the free resources on this website and make sure you know the difference between six and eight decks and please just backcount against shoes until you have a large account of at least 5 figures.