quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Actually, it would not be out of the question for me to make a living playing blackjack, except for the facts that I live in Florida, where I have to drive to Port Canaveral and get on a casino boat to play, and also because I'd probably have to play forty hours a week to match my salary, and suddenly it seems like a bit less fun. (At least at my real job, I can surf the internet! )
(I've oversimplified things there, but the point is while I do think it's possible, I don't think it's practical at this time.)
Not to mention that once the casino notices you're on a winning trend, they change the rules on you. They start shuffling after every hand, using unscrupulous dealers, increasing shoe size and generally making it impossible for you to win any money short of luck.
Or at least, they started doing that to me.
That's why I said I was oversimplifying.
I have found that at the stakes I play, I pretty much don't attract attention. I have no doubt that people in a control room somewhere know precisely what I'm doing, but since my base bet is $10 at a $5 table, and since it takes forever to build up your winnings, I really don't think anyone is interested in stopping me. In a gambling town like AC (where I have had very good results) there are enough casinos that somebody like me could, by switching casinos often enough, slide by almost under the radar. On a little casino boat probably not so much.
Dag, in AC they cannot throw you out. The only place they can do that in the US is Las Vegas. In AC, what they will eventually do is put their fastest dealer on the table. But their fastest dealer can only be on one table at a time, neh? If you're big time enough (in your base bets, and, therefore, your profits), you'll be a priority, which leads to my point about it basically being just like . . . work.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I've never seen them shuffle after every hand or change the shoe size. Both would be pretty dang impractical. What they can do is sneak down the shoe penetration (i.e., put that little red or yellow card closer to the front of the shoe), deal faster, distract you with waitresses or dealer chitchat, etc.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, Icarus is right. The shoe size is standard and they never ever shuffle till the shoe is through(well, till the yellow card that is). Not sure where you were playing Demonstrocity where they were able to mess with you like that.
Icarus, I'll practice up my counting skills for next time you hit up AC. Or even better. YOU practice up your counting skills. Then just give me a little nudge when the count is right for some big bets. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, i never seen anything but an 8 deck shoe anywhere i've played(is it 8 or 6?). Except for in Vegas where certain casinos will have single deck blackjack.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've settled into a slightly less aggressive system of bet upping than I was using when we last gambled together. It seems to work, but puts less at risk in case things go badly. I've also made powerpoint flashcards for all the major variations of casino rules (shoe size, soft seventeen rules, and splitting and doubling rules), which has helped me speed up my decision-making considerably. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen 8 and 6 and occasionally 1. Most casinos I've been in use six, but Carnival, for instance, uses 8. I don't remember AC well enough. I thought it was 6, but it could be 8. (How many it is ought to have a subtle influence on your strategy, if you're really serious.)
EDIT TO ADD: It's not a secret. You can watch a table before it opens, as they are shuffling the decks. Or you can learn to tell by the size of the plastic compartment they put the played cards in.
SECOND EDIT: I've never adapted since they replaced the Edit link with a word-less icon. My brain doesn't process images as well as written words, and I routinely hit the quote button instead of the edit button. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well don't you just divide whatever the count is by the number of decks to get your true count(is that the correct term?).
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's for true count. (And it's divide by the number of decks still in the shoe.) But there are a variety of strategies for then deciding what your bet should be. (And a variety of counting strategies, though most people pretty much just use the same one.) I'm familiar with about four strategies for setting your bet.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always find it amusing when 'scientists' or statisticians say that people who gamble don't understand math/statistics. My response is that statisticians don't know how to have fun.
I play poker online sometimes (though I play it with friends more often). Sure, there is luck involved...though there is actually more skill than luck. You have to know what to do with the hand you are dealt...and what to bet. Of course, when you play online the amount of luck involved increases...and the level of skill required decreases.
Though for me, I don't play to win money...I play for fun. I know people who spend 10-15 bucks a week going out to bars and such. How is it different than sitting down with some friends at a poker game with a 15-20 buck buy in for a night of fun.
Sure there are people who get addicted, but then again I have known people who were addicted to everquest or WoW.
It is not the job of the government to babysit us. Decide what you can afford to spend on entertainment, and don't spend more. I don't need a government official to stand over my shoulder telling me that I can't spend my money how I want because some moron spent his rent/food money gambling.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: yeah, Icarus is right. The shoe size is standard and they never ever shuffle till the shoe is through(well, till the yellow card that is). Not sure where you were playing Demonstrocity where they were able to mess with you like that.
Icarus, I'll practice up my counting skills for next time you hit up AC. Or even better. YOU practice up your counting skills. Then just give me a little nudge when the count is right for some big bets.
Seattle, Vegas, Reno, Niagra, and a couple reservation casinos in California.
Because the shuffling patterns are not official rules in almost all casinos, they're allowed to do basically whatever they want. They tend to do this to staticians, because the easiest way for staticians to make money is to bet the minimum until the odds are extraordinarily in their favor, then bet the maximum. Variance, obviously, is prudent.
The infamous MIT blackjack teams have much more complicated strategies than that, like shuffle tracking, team play, complicated acting routines, etc., but they also make a ton more money and incur the wrath of private investigators, casino officials and crime syndicates.
quote:Actually, i never seen anything but an 8 deck shoe anywhere i've played(is it 8 or 6?). Except for in Vegas where certain casinos will have single deck blackjack.
This varies by casino, but most Vegas & Reno casinos have 2 deck and single deck blackjack. Most small casinos (like the ones here in Seattle, except on reservations) don't. No clue about AC, having never been there.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know people who spend 10-15 bucks a week going out to bars and such.
man...i'd like to know what bars those are. I can't make it out of NYC without spending at least $100 for a night out at the bars. And that's just one night! Needless to say I don't drink in the city all that often.
Granted I go to Atlantic City willing to gamble upwards of $500, and even our home poker game you have to be willing to risk $100-$200 to play. Didn't all happen at once though. 8 years ago when we all started playing we used to buy in for $10 or $20. And it's slowly progressed throughout the years.
posted
I'm more concerned about the privacy issues.
This bill by itself will have little effect on most people who play casino games online. You can easily transfer money into your online gambling accounts by using a legitimate third party payment service like Neteller. Sure, it costs a bit more than using Paypal, but it is a legitimate service.
Once legislators figure that out, what other measures will they take to prevent Americans from gambling online? Random audits of our bank transactions? Detailed monitoring of our ISP's IP access records?
Are there less intrusive ways to stop Americans from gambling online? Is there a way, for example, to prevent Americans from accessing any of the gambling websites by blocking specific IP addresses? That seems less intrusive.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe find a way to regulate it instead of banning it. Regulating something above board is always safer than forcing something underground.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard rumors that the corporations that own the big Vegas casinos are the ones behind this bill. Supposedly, they are tired of losing business to online casinos.
This theory get passed around a lot at poker forums, but it doesn't quite make sense. Wouldn't MGM and Harrah's rather legalize (and get good regulation of) online gambling so that they can jump in and compete?
I'm sure people would rather play at a poker site with the Harrah's name than at PartyPoker.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but if the big casinos reason that US legalization of online gambling is very unlikely at this point, better to quash their competition than try for something unlikely.
posted
I thought it was illegal to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes, as long as it doesn't affect someone outside the premises.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've heard rumors that the corporations that own the big Vegas casinos are the ones behind this bill. Supposedly, they are tired of losing business to online casinos.
Simplify "business" to "money" and you can add homeless people to that list.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an interesting op ed piece I read regarding online gambling today, which made a lot of good points. Granted, it's from Slate, but it touched on some worthwhile things.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Online gambling will go underground. People will find a way to get the funds to the source they need to get it to, and they'll still play.
You know you can't be arrested for playing poker in your own home so long as no money is in sight. Other than that, playing with chips is fine.
So I'll buy 20 dollars worth of goods and services from a third party, who will then transfer that money to the gambling site, and then back through the third party again back to me when I win. That't still illegal, but if it's all overseas companies doing it, and millions of American online poker players are forced into the underground, I don't really think the US government has the time or manpower, let alone the resolve to really track down thousands or millions of 20 and 30 dollar fraud here and there. They'll let it go, and brush it under a rug.
The only people who'll be hurt by illegalizing it and upping the punishment for it, are the gamblers. With it being driven underground, they'll have no protection against fraud, identity theft, and a myriad array of other problems that can, and most likely will crop up as a result of doing this. Not to mention the millions, and over time billions in lost revenue to the state and federal governments.
This isn't a well thought out law at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like gambling, as it can destroy families and lives. It's a great redistrobution of wealth, from the poor & middle class (mostly) to the very rich.
With that in mind, I think it's silly for the US Gov to think it can control the Internet. It's stupid! Not going to happen.
Instead of going after the credit card companies, why not focus on educating people on the math and stats behind gambling? Of course state gov that allow casinos and have lotteries have an interest in keeping their residents gambling. Think of the lost tax revenue!
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I thought it was illegal to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes, as long as it doesn't affect someone outside the premises.
Prostitution is illegal. So is smoking pot in your house.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny I played blackjack and got screwed 4 times in a row and lost $30, screwed as in no matter how I had played my cards I would have lost to the dealer,(I promptly left) and went to the roulette table.
I made $100 at the table playing my chips on black and red, took my winnings and left. I swore I'd never gamble again because I don't have the personality to control myself, (I had my friend basically hold my money and he promised to make me leave the roulette table if I lost another $30 or if I gained $100).
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find Hold 'em to be a lot more fun than most casino games. My brother played War for awhile at the casino, which I thought was a wretched idea, but he seemed to enjoy it, but then he usually leaves the casino with a couple hundred more than he came into it with.
I make enough playing Hold 'em to almost always break even, and usually come out slightly on top. But then, I always know when to stop.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Congratulations, you're in the majority. Just like most people who use alcohol - they know when to stop.
There are those that do not, who become addicted. However, potential for addiction is no reason to make something illegal. You can get addicted to all manner of things - sex for instance - but that's a matter for therapy, not legal action.
Gambling will not be stamped out, and it's growing rapidly. Poker players have moved out of smoky back rooms and into the limelight, some becoming as recognizable as sports stars or celebrities. They get money from endorsements, television companies get money from advertisers when broadcasting poker tournaments, and celebrities have used the increased interest to make money for charities.
Beyond all the various state sponsored outlets, every reservation in the country has at least contemplated building a casino, and many have. The government doesn't get any tax cut off of these either.
Limiting the viable outlets does not curtail interest. They should open US borders to online gambling sites and install regulators to oversee and tax the industry.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Poker players have moved out of smoky back rooms and into the limelight, some becoming as recognizable as sports stars or celebrities. They get money from endorsements, television companies get money from advertisers when broadcasting poker tournaments, and celebrities have used the increased interest to make money for charities.
Now you've got me waiting in anticipation for a Olympic event in poker to be announced. Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I figured the U.S. has been sucking it up at everything from basketball to baseball to soccer so maybe introducing some less athletic events into the Olympics might give us a fair chance. I was going to suggest adding video gaming too, but then I remembered South Korea.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We didn't suck at baseball, I think the fact that no one outside of the Americas and Japan really play the sport is what led to it being removed as a sport.
And as far as basketball goes, it wasn't the best we had to offer, which I think still isn't a good excuse, but I don't think they were playing for America, I've seen all-star games where the players played better than that.
Third, we've never really been a soccer powerhouse. I'm glad we're finally starting to really rock it out, especially considering there's more soccer players in America than any other single country in the world.
I can't remember a time when we weren't in the top three in the medal count.
Ironically, we seem to do much better in individual events than in team events. I wonder what that says about the people really representing the nation they compete for. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
