I went up a couple times in march. When I went on Sunday and I got there at 10:30am they told me the upstairs blackjack pit(SHOE GAMES) would open at 12, at 12 they said it would open at 1, at 1 they said they would open at 2. I wasnt dealt a hand until 2:30. The TC got over 6 on the first shoe but I didnt win a hand. I was so frustrated after the wait and the bad run at max bet that I left. I went back during the week but they werent going to open any shoe games, so I threw 100 dollars on the craps table and recouped my previous loss. I tracked the table in my head, bet at most one bet per shooter when the frequency of sevens was low on the last 12 rolls on the number that had been rolling the most above its expected frequency on the last 12 rolls, only risking my bet for 4 rolls. My plan was to leave after I lost 3 bets. It took 4 hours. I usually track on paper when I use this strategy but I wasnt planning on playing craps. This strategy like all others has good days and bad days but you only risk 3 bets and when its working well, its so funny. You get all these people making fun of you for tracking but after hitting bets on the first roll after placing them repeatedly people start mimicking your bets and the pit starts leering at you like you are cheating. This day however no paper but boy was it working. For those who dont know when you can find a blackjack game worth playing(shoe game) they let you split pairs an unlimited number of times(to 4 hands with aces). I once split eights against a dealer 5 to eight hands with 2 double downs. Had every dollar I had with me on the table and didnt double for less. Got good cards on all but 1 hand which needed the dealer to bust. The dealer busted so I won all 10 bets. I think my next trip will be to Chester on a Wednesday to check out the freeroll blackjack tournament and the tables. The game might not be as good as at the Park but at least I know I will find a good game!!!!!!
Delaware Park? Anybody?
- Thread starter aslan
- Start date
aslan
Well-Known Member
I got the same runaround one time I visited DP, and the game like you said did not really get dealt until after 2PM. The last time I was there they offered late surrender as well. Still have it? Also, it was 8-deck, but still a decent game.tthree said:
Sounds like you are playing some sort of progression at dice that I know you would not play at blackjack. What gives?
There is a game about 30 miles south from DP at Dover Downs in Dover, Delaware. The game is 6-deck, but no late surrender. Also, I believe the number of splits is limited to 4 hands (3 splits). I like the game at DP a bit more even though 8-deck, but you never know when they will run it. It looks like they now have several hand shuffle games upstairs, but last year they had only two, and you never knew from day to day when they would run them. Of course, everything downstairs is CSM.
BJgenius007
Well-Known Member
And every AP knows to profit from 6 deck S17, you need to spread $10 to $160. And you only earn $20 a hour. It is not much better than flipping burgers.Sixtyin3 said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
So if you enjoy flipping burgers better, go for it, genius!BJgenius007 said:
The fact is, if you want to increase your winnings per hour, all you have to do is increase your max bet... if you can afford it. Otherwise, you'd better stick to what you can afford... or flipping hamburgers or whatever other occupation you prefer. No one ever said AP was for everyone.
PS-- Just because a min bet is $10 does not mean it has to be your min bet. If you can't get away with 10 to 50, you can try 50 to 750; it's all relative.
Tarzan
Banned
Dog poop
It doesn't sound like there's any reason to go to Delaware anytime soon. What a bunch of garbage! As soon as they clean out the locals and the novelty of a local casino wears off... that's it. They will then be in trouble and I hope they go broke. No one in their right mind is going to travel to go play a blackjack game as crummy as that. You never know though, perhaps a group of mental patients on furlough or something that have a few dollars on them here and there. It sounds like I would have more fun cleaning up dog poop off my front lawn from the neighbor's dog than playing blackjack in this casino!
It doesn't sound like there's any reason to go to Delaware anytime soon. What a bunch of garbage! As soon as they clean out the locals and the novelty of a local casino wears off... that's it. They will then be in trouble and I hope they go broke. No one in their right mind is going to travel to go play a blackjack game as crummy as that. You never know though, perhaps a group of mental patients on furlough or something that have a few dollars on them here and there. It sounds like I would have more fun cleaning up dog poop off my front lawn from the neighbor's dog than playing blackjack in this casino!
aslan said:I got the same runaround one time I visited DP, and the game like you said did not really get dealt until after 2PM. The last time I was there they offered late surrender as well. Still have it? Also, it was 8-deck, but still a decent game.
Sounds like you are playing some sort of progression at dice that I know you would not play at blackjack. What gives?
There is a game about 30 miles south from DP at Dover Downs in Dover, Delaware. The game is 6-deck, but no late surrender. Also, I believe the number of splits is limited to 4 hands (3 splits). I like the game at DP a bit more even though 8-deck, but you never know when they will run it. It looks like they now have several hand shuffle games upstairs, but last year they had only two, and you never knew from day to day when they would run them. Of course, everything downstairs is CSM.
I was flat betting at $30. It just took a long time to lose 3 bets. Read my situational criterion for betting:
1) Two or less sevens in last 12 rolls
2) One bet per shooter
3) Bet the number most(percent) above its expected number of rolls in the last 12 rolls(I look at the last 18 to 24 when I track rolls on paper but the last 12 are the most important). You expect 1.0 4s and 10s each, 1.33 5s and 9s each, and 1.67 6s and 8s each in 12 rolls.
4) Risk your bet for no more than 4 rolls
5) Quit after losing 3 bets
Thats the basics there are some more rules that chip away the edges a little further of when a bet is appropriate and might have you lay a number in situations where you wouldnt be betting(I wasnt laying numbers this day). The guy who taught me this has a progression that maximizes profit by trying to win 2 in a row. I never use it though. Im not confident I will hit 2 in a row but I am confident I can win 2 out of 5 which loses at most $20 and could show a profit. This day I hit almost every 4 or 10 on the first or second roll and pulled my bets that werent hitting just before the shooter sevened out. It took a really long time to lose 3 bets. If I would have been playing the progression to win alot more on 2 wins in a row I would have won many times more than what I did. There are good days and bad days. This was a very good day.
aslan
Well-Known Member
Why are you betting the number most above its expected number of rolls? Do you believe the dice are not true? Or do you believe the dice are trying to do something based on past performance? Dice have no memory. When you say they are supposed to come up so many times in 12 rolls, you sound like you're saying certain rolls are due if they haven't appeared yet. We all know that isn't true. Each toss is a separate and independent event and has no relationship to the past 12 or past 1,000 rolls. I am confused.tthree said:
BJgenius007
Well-Known Member
WVA is wild and wonderful.aslan said:
aslan said:
Just a way to pick bets with confidence. The logic of the guys who really believe in it is trends continue until they dont. I dont believe this is true dice have no memory. But it allows you a small risk way to play for a while with a a low loss limit. I stopped playing dice because of the large swings in money when the economy collapsed. GAMBLING RULE #1 never play with money you cannt afford to lose. This system gets me back at the table. I think Im way ahead for playing:
1 time lost 3 straight bets.......-$90.....range -$90 to -$93(vig on 4 and 10)
0 times won 1 out of 4 bets..........0.....range -$55 to -$31
3 times won 2 out of 5 bets......~0-.....range -$20 to +$28
many sessions winning $100+..+?00
Gamblers tend to remember their winning sessions more than losers but Ive only used this maybe a dozen times so I think my memory generated table is accurate. If so, Im happy with the results and will continue using it until(I never rehabbed my dice control after a horrible car wreck 5 years ago, my shoulder is a mess) I feel otherwise.
As we all know(I hope) counting cards or controlling dice and maybe proper strategy employed at generous paytable video poker are the only ways to believe you even have a shot at overcoming the negative expectation in casino games in the long run(who ever plays enough to really consider their history a long run event.... oh yeah the casino). Just keep the house edge to a minimum and take every chance to get an lower the edge you can find. Maybe I should go to $35/36 bets and nibble at the edge on the buy bets.
Last edited:
aslan
Well-Known Member
No, but I heard they were similar to Hollywood in Charles Town to the extent that they push the higher limit games ($25 and up). I've won at CT overall, but not much, as they are garbage games unless you can find a dealer who cuts good pen. At least in Grantsville, the PA rules rule, although even they are useless without good pen, and I believe I heard the pen was poor (would be good to confirm this). When I hear Holly-, I think folly. The company gives me bad vibes.Thunder said:
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
tthree,
Pulleeze try hard to familiarize yourself with the "Law of Large Numbers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
An illustration of the Law of Large Numbers using rolls of a single die. As the number of rolls increases, the average of the values of all the results approaches 3.5.
In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
For example, a single roll of a six-sided die produces one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, each with equal probability. Therefore, the expected value of a single dice roll is
According to the law of large numbers, if a large number of dice are rolled, the average of their values (sometimes called the sample mean) is likely to be close to 3.5, with the accuracy increasing as more dice are rolled.
It follows from the law of large numbers that the empirical probability of success in a series of Bernoulli trials will converge to the theoretical probability. For a Bernoulli random variable, the expected value is the theoretical probability of success, and the average of n such variables (assuming they are i.i.d.) is precisely the relative frequency.
For example, a fair coin toss is a Bernoulli trial. When a fair coin is flipped once, the theoretical probability that the outcome will be heads is equal to 1/2. Therefore, according to the law of large numbers, the proportion of heads in a "large" number of coin flips "should be" roughly 1/2. In particular, the proportion of heads after n flips will almost surely converge to 1/2 as n approaches infinity.
Though the proportion of heads (and tails) approaches 1/2, almost surely the absolute (nominal) difference in the number of heads and tails will become large as the number of flips becomes large. That is, the probability that the absolute difference is a small number, approaches zero as the number of flips becomes large. Also, almost surely the ratio of the absolute difference to the number of flips will approach zero. Intuitively, expected absolute difference grows, but at a slower rate than the number of flips, as the number of flips grows.
The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations are considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will converge to the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others. See the Gambler's fallacy:
The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due, and it probably arises from one's experience with nonrandom events (e.g. when a scheduled train is late, we expect that it has a greater chance of arriving the later it gets). This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages.
The gambler's fallacy implicitly involves an assertion of negative correlation between trials of the random process and therefore involves a denial of the exchangeability of outcomes of the random process. In other words, one implicitly assigns a higher chance of occurrence to an event even though from the point of view of 'nature' or the 'experiment', all such events are equally probable (or distributed in a known way).
The reversal is also a fallacy, the inverse gambler's fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes.
Pulleeze try hard to familiarize yourself with the "Law of Large Numbers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
An illustration of the Law of Large Numbers using rolls of a single die. As the number of rolls increases, the average of the values of all the results approaches 3.5.
In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
For example, a single roll of a six-sided die produces one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, each with equal probability. Therefore, the expected value of a single dice roll is
According to the law of large numbers, if a large number of dice are rolled, the average of their values (sometimes called the sample mean) is likely to be close to 3.5, with the accuracy increasing as more dice are rolled.
It follows from the law of large numbers that the empirical probability of success in a series of Bernoulli trials will converge to the theoretical probability. For a Bernoulli random variable, the expected value is the theoretical probability of success, and the average of n such variables (assuming they are i.i.d.) is precisely the relative frequency.
For example, a fair coin toss is a Bernoulli trial. When a fair coin is flipped once, the theoretical probability that the outcome will be heads is equal to 1/2. Therefore, according to the law of large numbers, the proportion of heads in a "large" number of coin flips "should be" roughly 1/2. In particular, the proportion of heads after n flips will almost surely converge to 1/2 as n approaches infinity.
Though the proportion of heads (and tails) approaches 1/2, almost surely the absolute (nominal) difference in the number of heads and tails will become large as the number of flips becomes large. That is, the probability that the absolute difference is a small number, approaches zero as the number of flips becomes large. Also, almost surely the ratio of the absolute difference to the number of flips will approach zero. Intuitively, expected absolute difference grows, but at a slower rate than the number of flips, as the number of flips grows.
The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations are considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will converge to the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others. See the Gambler's fallacy:
The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due, and it probably arises from one's experience with nonrandom events (e.g. when a scheduled train is late, we expect that it has a greater chance of arriving the later it gets). This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages.
The gambler's fallacy implicitly involves an assertion of negative correlation between trials of the random process and therefore involves a denial of the exchangeability of outcomes of the random process. In other words, one implicitly assigns a higher chance of occurrence to an event even though from the point of view of 'nature' or the 'experiment', all such events are equally probable (or distributed in a known way).
The reversal is also a fallacy, the inverse gambler's fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes.
aslan
Well-Known Member
So long as you realize its a long term -EV, which you say you do. Why even keep records? You know the eventual end result. All your recordkeeping is anecdotal evidence since you don't play all that much. All it will show you eventually is that you can lose more than you can win at some point along the way. If you're just hoping to get lucky and beat the long run, at least you know you're gambling for luck. Also, you cannot mitigate the house edge other than whittling it down with whatever true odds they allow behind the line. I'm assuming you play craps for entertainment. Surely, if not, you could find some other gambler who would be willing to flip coins with you. Happy rolls. And I hope you roll them before they roll you.tthree said:
PS-- Sorry about your car accident. I've been very lucky so far, but the way I drive, it's definitely been a -EV activity. I think I'll start cooling it for a while. Gambling at craps is a far wiser choice than gambling on the highway.
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice guys. Aslan I was actually well aware of everything you said already. I thought I made that clear in my post. I explained the logic to derive this system as the believers see it. I also said I am not a believer. I do play craps for fun rarely now that Ive lost my golden shooting arm. Mostly play AP blackjack but my meager bankroll makes the RoR get in the way of any fanciful ideas of making it more than a hobby. It was simply a way to choose bets and feel confident about those decisions compared to random guesses(i wouldnt feel confident at all about them).
The feeling of confidence wasnt meant to imply I really believed they were more likely to win than normal probability but rather that I wasnt just guessing if that makes sense to you. When I explain it, it doesnt seem to make sense. Its about comfort level and yes I do understand it is a delusion. But it does make me more comfortable about my bets. The fact that Ive had very good LUCK with it helps to allow me to feel this way(not believe it). I guess its best seen as controlling the emotional part of gambling not the logical. Scared money always seems to lose.
The other aspects of this play is the small buy in and the time killed awaiting a "good" time to place a "good" bet makes it a way for a small bankroll to enjoy the game. I hope the quotes enforce the idea that these are good in the eyes of the systems criterion not in actuality.
The feeling of confidence wasnt meant to imply I really believed they were more likely to win than normal probability but rather that I wasnt just guessing if that makes sense to you. When I explain it, it doesnt seem to make sense. Its about comfort level and yes I do understand it is a delusion. But it does make me more comfortable about my bets. The fact that Ive had very good LUCK with it helps to allow me to feel this way(not believe it). I guess its best seen as controlling the emotional part of gambling not the logical. Scared money always seems to lose.
The other aspects of this play is the small buy in and the time killed awaiting a "good" time to place a "good" bet makes it a way for a small bankroll to enjoy the game. I hope the quotes enforce the idea that these are good in the eyes of the systems criterion not in actuality.
DP is not worth stopping at
This place is such a rip off. I took my wife up there to use up my comp points on a nice meal while we play the ponies. I had never used my points and played rated there many times. I figured I would have enough for a great meal for 2. I had less than $20 in points!! When I drive a few miles up the road to the Philly stores I get more than that in a few hours of play. I played some blackjack for a couple hours. Only had a handful of tables that weren't CSMs. They were all crowded. I found a low limit table 8 deck S17, DS, LS, unlimited splitting. The pen sucked. They were cutting off about 2 decks. I managed to get 2 spots at my table as it cleared out after I got there. The dealer started giving me a hard time for playing 2 spots when the casino is crowded as some people showed to play at the table. I finally got to keep my second spot when I pointed out there was still an open spot. I played all for a couple hours since it was so crowded I didn't think it was worth trying to find another table when it felt unlucky at my table. I ended up leaving $25 at the table as opportunities were fleeting. I will not be returning. The Philly cluster of 3 casinos (Harrah's, Sugarhouse and Parx) is just up the road and they are nicer in every respect.
This place is such a rip off. I took my wife up there to use up my comp points on a nice meal while we play the ponies. I had never used my points and played rated there many times. I figured I would have enough for a great meal for 2. I had less than $20 in points!! When I drive a few miles up the road to the Philly stores I get more than that in a few hours of play. I played some blackjack for a couple hours. Only had a handful of tables that weren't CSMs. They were all crowded. I found a low limit table 8 deck S17, DS, LS, unlimited splitting. The pen sucked. They were cutting off about 2 decks. I managed to get 2 spots at my table as it cleared out after I got there. The dealer started giving me a hard time for playing 2 spots when the casino is crowded as some people showed to play at the table. I finally got to keep my second spot when I pointed out there was still an open spot. I played all for a couple hours since it was so crowded I didn't think it was worth trying to find another table when it felt unlucky at my table. I ended up leaving $25 at the table as opportunities were fleeting. I will not be returning. The Philly cluster of 3 casinos (Harrah's, Sugarhouse and Parx) is just up the road and they are nicer in every respect.