Just when I thought Vegas was legit

[ZenKinG]

So why are you STILL playing Planet Hollywood then? (I believe I asked this months ago). Whether they are cheating or not is completely irrelevant at this point. If you are uncomfortable playing there because you think they are or for any other reason....DON'T PLAY THERE! The benefit of Las Vegas is quantity. To keep going back to the same store that you believe is cheating is the definition of insanity.....literally.

Because im a big picture person. Im trying to get a good data sample out of planet hollywood to figure out if its rigged and its not looking good for them. It was the same for Sands and Harrahs back in PA. Because if i indeed am getting cheated, what is even the point of playing anymore? Any casino can cheat me at any point. Makes me not even want to play anymore if thats the case. All my hard work just gets flushed away.

 

[SplitFaceDisaster]

I thought this was an excellent post. You say you can increase bankroll growth by going with higher index numbers before doubling. How much higher? Are you only increasing the index number by one or two? Do you do this will all doubles? You say cherry pick the doubles where you do this? Does this mean you don’t do this with all doubles? Any clarification here would help. Thanks!

I won`t go into a ton of detail here, because I`ll let Dummy clarify what he meant by what he said. However, I can answer some of these questions since he hasn`t replied yet. In terms of bankroll growth, he meant that it would be more steady and less swingy. Meaning that using the RA index doubles instead of the regular, EV-maximizing doubles would lower your variance (because of course the double works a larger percentage of the time). Most of the time the index number is only increased by one. But, you can`t just add one to any double and have it become an RA index play. The reason why is that it`s dependent on the specific hand. For instance, there are some doubles where the RA index number is going to be the same as the EV-maximizing one. This is because the EVs are different for different hand match-ups. So there`s no need to wait until one true count higher, because the EV is big enough at the regular index number, whereas for other hand match-ups the EV isn`t. For instance, if I run a sim on CVData to generate RA index numbers, sometimes the index number will remain the same as the one it would generate if I didn`t have the RA index generating setting on. But yes, most of them that do increase, only do so by one number. I think the only exception is 10 vs. 10, where it increases from 4 (for hi-lo) to 7. I think there might have been one or two I`ve seen in CVData that increased by more than one in sims I`ve run, but almost all have only been by one. If you get Don`s book Blackjack Attack version 3, he has an entire chapter about this subject (chapter 13).

 

[DSchles]

I won`t go into a ton of detail here, because I`ll let Dummy clarify what he meant by what he said. However, I can answer some of these questions since he hasn`t replied yet. In terms of bankroll growth, he meant that it would be more steady and less swingy. Meaning that using the RA index doubles instead of the regular, EV-maximizing doubles would lower your variance (because of course the double works a larger percentage of the time). Most of the time the index number is only increased by one. But, you can`t just add one to any double and have it become an RA index play. The reason why is that it`s dependent on the specific hand. For instance, there are some doubles where the RA index number is going to be the same as the EV-maximizing one. This is because the EVs are different for different hand match-ups. So there`s no need to wait until one true count higher, because the EV is big enough at the regular index number, whereas for other hand match-ups the EV isn`t. For instance, if I run a sim on CVData to generate RA index numbers, sometimes the index number will remain the same as the one it would generate if I didn`t have the RA index generating setting on. But yes, most of them that do increase, only do so by one number. I think the only exception is 10 vs. 10, where it increases from 4 (for hi-lo) to 7. I think there might have been one or two I`ve seen in CVData that increased by more than one in sims I`ve run, but almost all have only been by one. If you get Don`s book Blackjack Attack version 3, he has an entire chapter about this subject (chapter 13).

Note, also, as I explain in the chapter, that when you use r-a indices, you really have a choice: get the same e.v. that you had before, but with less variance, or keep variance the same as before, but get more e.v. That choice is entirely up to you, but either way, you have improved your bottom line.

Don

 

[ZenKinG]

The fact that no one finds my findings from Planet Hollywood suspicious really says a lot about how much people actually play on here. Go on Verite and see for yourself how many 8 deck shoes go over +2 time and time again. I understand the theory of large sample sizes, but what you drones on here don't understand is you also can learn a lot from short term anecdotal data. The fact that I lost on top of it shows there are shenanigans going on. I think it's time the call the gaming commission once again. These ASMs are being messed around with behind the scenes clumping cards and bringing the small cards to beginning of the shoe so a counter can have large sized bets all throughout the shoe busting all of his hands, while the dealer never breaks at all. Like I always have been saying, this society has gone to complete trash. Just a bunch of immoral piece of shit droned out people walking the streets today selling their soul for a dollar when none of them realize that at the end of the day we all are going under the ground. Good luck taking your billions with you to the grave when you're 90 yrs old croaking on your death bed. People are just wasting their lives chasing this illusion of paper in your wallet that really has no intrinsic value whatsoever. The jokes actually on all of you.

 

[bjo32]

Note, also, as I explain in the chapter, that when you use r-a indices, you really have a choice: get the same e.v. that you had before, but with less variance, or keep variance the same as before, but get more e.v. That choice is entirely up to you, but either way, you have improved your bottom line.

Don

Thanks Don. I’ll reread this chapter. I’ve read it before but it’s not one I refer back to. I’ve typically stayed away from risk adverse plays but it sounds like I need pay more attention to this. I’ve always remembered the 10 vs 10 was +7, and I use that one. But that’s about as far as my risk adverse play goes.

And thanks SplitFaceDiaster! Your discussion on this topic was helpful. I always enjoy learning new aspects of the game. I’ve heard this stuff before but I haven’t incorporated much of it into my game. I’m not too old to learn some new tricks.

 

[Dummy]

I thought this was an excellent post. You say you can increase bankroll growth by going with higher index numbers before doubling. How much higher? Are you only increasing the index number by one or two? Do you do this will all doubles? You say cherry pick the doubles where you do this? Does this mean you don’t do this with all doubles? Any clarification here would help. Thanks!

It isn't as easy as move all double indices. Each index must be considered separately considering how much advantage is at the index, how quickly advantage accumulates after the index is exceeded, and bet size at or near the index. It is a stricter restriction than RA indices but there needs to be a method to making the decisions. Personally at large bets I want a bigger gain in EV than with little bets. It really comes down to personal preference. Do some research into it. Don't trust what anybody you don't know says. Check it out. You give up some win % to double unless you would only take 1 card anyway. Selling the ability to take another card which will result in a lower W/L% needs to be viewed a bit different than when you would take just one card no matter what. In the latter situation you win and lose hands with 100% correlation whether you double or not. So doubling becomes strictly a question of volatility if you know you will only take one card. Volatility depends on bet size. How much extra EV is worth the added volatility? For any hand verse a particular dealer up card the answer may be no the added EV is not enough to make me want the extra volatility but at some point the extra EV from doubling is too much to ignore. How much EV depends on the size of your bet and the percentage gain.

 

[gronbog]

These ASMs are being messed around with behind the scenes clumping cards and bringing the small cards to beginning of the shoe

How do they manage that when it is one of the players who cuts the shoe?

 

[Dummy]

I won`t go into a ton of detail here, because I`ll let Dummy clarify what he meant by what he said. However, I can answer some of these questions since he hasn`t replied yet. In terms of bankroll growth, he meant that it would be more steady and less swingy. Meaning that using the RA index doubles instead of the regular, EV-maximizing doubles would lower your variance (because of course the double works a larger percentage of the time). Most of the time the index number is only increased by one. But, you can`t just add one to any double and have it become an RA index play. The reason why is that it`s dependent on the specific hand. For instance, there are some doubles where the RA index number is going to be the same as the EV-maximizing one. This is because the EVs are different for different hand match-ups. So there`s no need to wait until one true count higher, because the EV is big enough at the regular index number, whereas for other hand match-ups the EV isn`t. For instance, if I run a sim on CVData to generate RA index numbers, sometimes the index number will remain the same as the one it would generate if I didn`t have the RA index generating setting on. But yes, most of them that do increase, only do so by one number. I think the only exception is 10 vs. 10, where it increases from 4 (for hi-lo) to 7. I think there might have been one or two I`ve seen in CVData that increased by more than one in sims I`ve run, but almost all have only been by one. If you get Don`s book Blackjack Attack version 3, he has an entire chapter about this subject (chapter 13).

Good explanation. I was talking about selectively using more aggressive risk aversion than the risk averse index criterion set by Don and usually referred to as RA indexes. Frequencies at the index are important and where you are on the bellcurve is important. If the index is negative, moving the index higher has a small impact on the hand verse dealer card overall doubling frequency (how much you alter the percentage of the time the hand verse dealer up card is doubled), the bet will likely be small and the combination of the two will have little impact on volatility. It is probably doesn't affect volatility enough to change the index. At a small nonnegative index there is a lot of frequency at the index relative to the frequency further above the index and bets may be a bit bigger. This could be worth an index adjustment if the EV gain at the index is small enough. But at larger positive indices the change in the percentage of time you double by moving the index becomes more relative to the rest of the time you double because of the shape of the bell curve. You are in the most vertical part of the bell curve and eliminating the most frequent TC sector while bets are rapidly getting bigger as the TC increases. This combination makes it the most impactful on volatility to be more patient. Your highest indices are very infrequent and in the tail of the TC frequency bell curve. but have the highest bets out when they are used. You should certainly consider RA indexes there but their impact on volatility will be less dramatic if all things are equal. So you basically there is a limited number of doubles to consider and you know where to take the closest look at being patient to double and assess the cost of doing so. The rate of gain is a good indication of your costs correlation to the playing EoRs for any hand verse a dealer hand. If the correlation is poor you can either do something to make it stronger if you track enough information, or move the index.

 

[DSchles]

Each time you write "verse" you mean "versus."

Don

 

[ZenKinG]

How do they manage that when it is one of the players who cuts the shoe?

Card clumping an ASM completely nullifies the player cut before the game begins. Also we have NO IDEA what is in the shoe since the cards come pre shuffled in 90% of this mafia ridden piece of shit town. Theres so many people out there thag have no idea what is happening behind the scenes. Out of all the industries out there, we're supposed to expect a fair game from an industry that relies on taking your money. Thats a good one. Thats why it frustrates me so much the lack of transparency these days.

Its a shame the gaming commision and the courts in nevada are nothing but window dressing and a smokescreen to protecting a patrons rights. Way too much tax revenue to be lost by ever taking down one of vegas' casinos.

 

[ZenKinG]

Note, also, as I explain in the chapter, that when you use r-a indices, you really have a choice: get the same e.v. that you had before, but with less variance, or keep variance the same as before, but get more e.v. That choice is entirely up to you, but either way, you have improved your bottom line.

Don

You're once again missing the big picture as is everyone on these forums. If you're using risk averse indices as well as cover, you're on the wrong path. If you need to use risk averse indices, you shouldnt be playing in the first place. If your bankroll is that poor where you cant use EV maximizing indices, then my friend its time to find a new bankroll growth strategy. Perhaps working two jobs until you're ready to actually play. The edge is simply way too small to pass up any EV when it arises.

 

[bjo32]

You're once again missing the big picture as is everyone on these forums. If you're using risk averse indices as well as cover, you're on the wrong path. If you need to use risk averse indices, you shouldnt be playing in the first place. If your bankroll is that poor where you cant use EV maximizing indices, then my friend its time to find a new bankroll growth strategy. Perhaps working two jobs until you're ready to actually play. The edge is simply way too small to pass up any EV when it arises.

ZenKinG, I agree with you on this one. That’s why I’ve never paid much attention to risk averse indexes, with the exception of 10 vs 10.

And that’s why I’ve struggled with this concept of better bankroll growth using risk averse indexes. I don’t care about variance because my bankroll is pretty much unlimited. I’m only trying to maximize EV so I can maximize my earnings. But based on all the posts from Dummy, I’m wondering if I’m doing the right thing. I plan on spending more time researching this.

 

[ZenKinG]

ZenKinG, I agree with you on this one. That’s why I’ve never paid much attention to risk averse indexes, with the exception of 10 vs 10.

And that’s why I’ve struggled with this concept of better bankroll growth using risk averse indexes. I don’t care about variance because my bankroll is pretty much unlimited. I’m only trying to maximize EV so I can maximize my earnings. But based on all the posts from Dummy, I’m wondering if I’m doing the right thing. I plan on spending more time researching this.

Ignore it. EV maximizing indices are always the way. Never use cover either. Those are 2 topics that should never be discussed again. All it does is help sell books and waste precious time on these forums. The players who are actually out there playing and make money dont use either, at least the smart ones dont. The ones discussing super level multi parameter counts, risk averse indices, cover plays, either have their own agenda, flat out frauds, or simply dont play enough and are novices to how it really works out there.

As long as you play short sessions, backcount, rathole, and stay within tolerance levels(under 2x250) you can last forever, especially since if you ever get trespassed, its all a bluff and has no real enforcement power at least in Vegas and PA, but im willing to bet its the same all around the country because its simply unconstitutional for a casino to do that if youre not being disruptive or disorderly in any way. Casinos like to claim theyre private property, but theyre actually not. Casinos are 'gaming establishments' which has its own specific rules in the law of what they can and cannot do.

You can still make a nice living counting cards if you do it right, but youre gonna need a locale with lots of games such as Vegas or be willing to travel. In my opinion there hasnt been a better time to be a mid stakes player. You can still fly under the radar and still average close to 75 an hour. It wont be easy of course because the variance in this game is ridiculous and anyone who says otherwise is a fraud. It can be done but you have to play aggressively, stop giving any of your edge away with all this riduclous garbage being talked about on these forums, and have crazy amounts of discipline. It almost has to be a game you want to beat more so because of the mathematical challenge rather than to make money from it.

 

[gronbog]

These ASMs are being messed around with behind the scenes [ ... ] bringing the small cards to beginning of the shoe

How do they manage that when it is one of the players who cuts the shoe?

I'm asking specifically about how they bring the small cards to the front of the shoe when they don't know where it will be cut?

 

[ZenKinG]

I'm asking specifically about how they bring the small cards to the front of the shoe when they don't know where it will be cut?

Clump a bunch of small cards together and it doesnt matter where you cut. There will always be a high clump in the beginning. The truth always comes out. Eventually Vegas will be exposed when someone with big pockets that also has the passion that I have to challenge these mob ridden casinos, gets the truth to the courts.

 

[gronbog]

Clump a bunch of small cards together and it doesnt matter where you cut.

No, the shoe would have to be cut at the start of the small clump. The small clump could just as easily be cut to the middle, the end, or out of play entirely.

 

[KewlJ]

Somewhere and I don't remember where, I read that the way to do it was to clump a bunch of large cards together, not small. Regardless of cut, or number of players, when that clump of large cards came out, you would have a lot of pushes involving 20's. And the entire rest of shoe would be made up of a shortage of 10 value cards....advantage house.

I am not buying into any conspiracy theory that this is what Planet Hollywood is doing. It would be illegal and I wouldn't expect one of the big boys (chain casinos) to get into that. But you never know, greed is a powerful thing. That kind of decision wouldn't even have to come from the top. If could be some shift manager who's intent wasn't so much greed in as far as more profits for the casino, but greed in wanting to bump numbers for his shift to make him look good for his own personal job preservation. That seems much more likely to me.

I have mentioned my own concerns and experience about this, but will do so again. There is a small store on boulder highway that I used to play a couple times a week. Double deck game (dealt face up) with ASM. At the time this store was not part of any chain. It was part of a two casino operation. It has since become part of one of the bigger boy chains.

So for several years, I played and had good results. Reasonable results compared to EV. Actually one of my better results for a year or two. That is why the store remained in my rotation. Then one day, the pit person, who surely knew me, came over and punched a code into the machine just as I started playing. I lost and lost pretty badly. It got my attention because it seemed like I barely won a hand. But those sessions happened. Over the next year, I continued playing that store. Some days I won, some days I lost. This seemed pretty normal. But my losses were bigger than my win, which isn't unusual, but the losses were MUCH bigger than my wins and over this year, I was running just about even. Many small wins offset by larger losses. This also didn't seem that unusual.

And then I noticed that each time this particular pit critter, punched the code into the machine, I lost and lost fairly big. Every single time. I asked one time what that was and he gave some stupid reply about a diagnostic check to be sure the machine was working properly. I responded that each time he did so, I lost. I wanted him to know that I was suspicious.

Once I became suspicious that my big losses, coincided with this particular pit guy punching a code into the machine, I stopped playing there. The sample size was pretty small. Maybe 6-8 sessions, once I really realized, but many more before it completely hit me. Too small of a sample size for me to definitively state (like some here) that this casino and pit critter were cheating via the ASM, but enough that I was no longer comfortable playing that game. And with such a large number of games available to me, I was not going to play a game that I was uncomfortable with.....for whatever reason.

Edit: I don't know why I never mention this store by name. No reason for this. It is Eastside Cannery, at the time just part of the two casino cannery operation, now part of Boyd. And they no longer have that game.

 

[Dummy]

You're once again missing the big picture as is everyone on these forums. If you're using risk averse indices as well as cover, you're on the wrong path. If you need to use risk averse indices, you shouldnt be playing in the first place. If your bankroll is that poor where you cant use EV maximizing indices, then my friend its time to find a new bankroll growth strategy. Perhaps working two jobs until you're ready to actually play. The edge is simply way too small to pass up any EV when it arises.

This is a choice that is made by APs. You must decide if you really believe crazy swings with less certain BR growth is worth getting a little extra EV when your EV is already huge. I have always thought big BR players think about a lot of things backwards because they think their BR will allow them to be close to EV over time without risking busting out. It is true on the latter but not the former. The law of large numbers just tells you the difference between expectation and actual results will become more insignificant when compared to the total, not that it will get closer to expectation in terms of dollars. The swings associated with EV maximizing are brutal. You can do something about that without spending much EV if you do it surgically. For players that can raise their bets it may even be an EV gain when you bet to the same RoR but most with huge BRs players can't or don't want to bet larger bets for heat or table limit reasons. This causes them to not see any value to the change because it losses EV. But the gain is still there in reduced variance (volatility) and is still just as valuable. Remember the strength of you play is about both EV and variance as Don is so famous for his method of quantifying the trade off with SCORE. Everyone should understand that. Variance is the likelihood that successive rounds will be resolved the same. When playing two spots, covariance tells the likelihood that you will get a win/loss push on a round. Lower of each is better. But why is it better?

People know lowering variance and or covariance is best but I am not sure they understand why. It is because when you are headed for about the same destination in long run EV and you intersperse pushes in the series big betting opportunities as either pushed rounds with lower covariance or pushes for successive rounds with lower variance you remain closer to EV as you head for that long run EV in the short term. While variance and covariance are long term stats what makes lowering them valuable occurs in the short term. If you are headed for a particular EV at say 9 times n-zero, the long run, adding in more pushes along the way means you can't stray as much from expectation and it means it is less likely to happen as quickly. That string of bets in a big bet opportunity has more pushed rounds or pushes over successive rounds by winning one round and losing the next or vise versa but still generates about the same EV per round in the long run. That spreads the volatility out more globally instead of having extreme short term volatility.

If you understand that you understand why making these short term trade offs is a step in the right direction despite costing you a little EV to spread out the rate at which money is lost and won when making the decision. What you get is a better return on the double decisions that are the most volatile and better return on their hitting decisions but a trade off of a minimal reduction of global EV. Just how much of your EV is from doubling one hand versus dealer total when the gain from doing so is minimal? Gain is minimal and you rarely see the TC at the index (or inn some cases a little over the index) while you have the hand and dealer up card. You act like that picking the ones that affect volatility the most while gaining the least EV will somehow destroy you global EV. Doubles are not that common. Doubles that are at the index even less so. Add a decent bet size and there are even fewer being considered.

Why looking at EV maximizing is backwards is because the long term EV change is not much but with the way the increased number of pushes that are built into each betting opportunity you find limit how far away from EV you can stray in the short term so you tend to be much closer to EV in any given number of rounds. So the choice is essentially I have this monster EV right now. I can have a lot more volatility, for good or bad, in the short term but arrive at about the same but slightly higher EV in the long term or I can choose a much more stable way to get to almost the same long term EV. With big bet out you can choose how you use doubles, splits, and surrender to use their affect on variance and EV to smooth BR growth or you can just go crazy swings are fine with me for almost no gain in relative global EV. Don points out with SCORE that what is important is the the gain in EV relative to the increase in variance not just the gain in EV. You don't have to just use surrender when it is plus EV to do so. If EV change is small to move the EV maximizing index you can get a valuable tradeoff of steadying BR growth for a pittance in EV by getting zero variance for little change in EV.

The same type of thing is true with any double or split decision. The total cost depends on frequency of the hand versus the dealer up card and EV gain at or above the index (similar to the I18) but the effect on volatility also depends on frequency and EV change. Think like SCORE and I18 when applying altered indexes to control volatility when money at risk either increases or decreases from your decision. If you are splitting will you be doubling if you draw the right card or not? If you double the split how much EV gain is there at split index for the doubling indexes you may be using? Are you getting two strong starting hands VERSUS the dealer up card or two weak hands. These are all important aspects to consider when deciding if the increased volatility is worth the small additional EV gain.

ZK, I have a question for you. What is your EV for EV maximizing indexes? What is your EV for risk averse indexes? How about going past RA indexes a bit at the right TCs and had versus a dealer up card combinations for doubles splits and surrender? Are you just repeating things you have heard when you say the edge in BJ is too slim to give up any EV for cover or any other reason, or have you done the research to decide for yourself the benefit and gain from doing so in every type of situation? It is an important lessen to learn that every generalization probably has its exceptions to the rule. Often there they are numerous.

 

[JJP]

Zenking,

It is not all in vain. I was in Vegas in March and played several places. I happened to be at Planet Hollywood for their sports book, but did end up playing blackjack for just under an hour there. I had a very unmemorable stop there, basically breaking even. But seeing a veteran player like you suspicious of the place, I would be hesitant to play there. With so many other options in town, no reason to play somewhere even if one just has the slightest suspicion. KewlJ mentioned Eastside Cannery; I've never heard of it but as a Boyd shareholder, it did get my attention.

KewlJ,

Have you been back to Eastside Cannery since it was taken over by Boyd?

 

[KewlJ]

KewlJ,

Have you been back to Eastside Cannery since it was taken over by Boyd?

Oh yeah. Not to play blackjack so much for several years now. The game I described is no longer offered. But East Cannery has always had good mail offers for local players. Just a small amount of machine play generates mail offers worth much greater value. Unfortunately, this property along with most in Vegas has deteriorated as far as mail offers in the last couple years.

My partner and I used to like the small inexpensive, but value, fresh and clean buffet. Unfortunately Boyd closed the buffet at Eastside earlier this year in an attempt to direct traffic to nearby Sam's town buffet. We also liked the sportsbook deli for a quick bite / fast lunch. Good burgers and deserts. Unfortunately that along with the steakhouse (carve) closed on June 1 and Boyd continues to allow this property to go to crap.