Ecco tutti i commenti pubblicati sul sito, con le discussioni più recenti elencate per prime.
Per partecipare a una qualsiasi di queste discussioni, potete rispondere nella pagina dell'articolo.
Quote: “So, here’s the betting schedule I worked out for a $3000 bankroll. Bear in mind that as the bankroll increases (or decreases), the schedule must be changed in order to keep the risk of ‘gambler’s ruin’ about the same. I will modify the schedule at $1000 increments; that is, if I win $1000, I’ll refigure the betting schedule by remultiplying all the percentages by $4000. On the other hand, if I choose to spend my profits, I’ll just continue to operate with the original schedule. In the unlikely event that I hit a big losing streak (how’s that for positive thinking?) I really couldn’t downsize the bets very much. As long as the bank remains above $2000, I’ll stick with this schedule. If it should go below $2000, I’d quit until I could build the bank up again.”
The realities of this confuse me. Bankrolling 3000 but only exposing 1000 in reality, does strange things to my mind when calculating willful bets, unless this is blatantly stated to be “And then I will go elsewhere and re-win myself to 3000 using my remaining bankroll”
Am I correct in assuming this is the modus operandi?
Auguro a lui e alla sua famiglia il meglio. In poche settimane lui (e voi per estensione e anche per intuizioni dirette, portando le sue informazioni ai ritardatari come me) mi ha portato dal pensare "Questo sembra statisticamente calcolabile" (e anche ahi, i miei soldi da spendere!) a "Dovrei fermarmi alla doppia puntata stasera o no".
Just got back from Ceasers Palance. Tested my suspicions again.
1) New Deck
2) Deck Spread out
3) Deck placed in shoe and never shuffled in front of me
4) EMPTY TABLE – I was the only player at the table
IMMEDIATLY LOST 7 HANDS IN A ROW STRAIGHT !!!! Per this website – odds of this are 1.1% or 1 in 90 !!!!!
My suspicion has again been confirmed. However I have NO EVIDENCE other than circumstance. So I need to know if anyone else has experienced this.
I’m wondering if the casinos are setting up the new decks in a mathmatically predetermined way which give the dealer an edge if they are not shuffled good enough.
Anyone comment on this? I don’t want to hear oh your an idiot. ALLOT of math research goes into Casinos and they have BILLIONS at thier disposal – basically infinate money to see if there is a way to get a new deck in a preset way that mathmatically give them a huge edge.
IF you have the time and money to test this – give it a try on 5 sessions and see if 3-4 lose money. AGAIN this is how you do it:
1) Empty Table – Table must be EMPTY
2) Cards spread out on table
3) New Deck (if the cards are spread out on the table it means IT IS A NEW DECK)
4) YOU NEVER SEE DEALER SHUFFLE THE CARDS. THEY SIMPLY PUT THE CARDS IN THE SHOE AND START DEALING.
Follow these steps as an experiment (if you have the time, money and are interested) and record your results. Most of you probably won’t do this but if I’m wrong – you have no reason not to.
I am suspicious because the odds of this happening WITH the same environmental variables I just listed must be very, very low.
I am wondering, if the casinos are engaged in a legal conspiracy to “legally defruad” players based on the above.
If I’m the only one – fine. However I’ve been talking to other people and they have noticed the same thing.
Again – I’m not willing to say anything for sure – at this point is an ongoing experiment. I’m going to go to other casinos and try this AGAIN and record my results under the same conditions.
The trainer just bugged on me. I just split tens for the second time and received a 7 on my first one and a A on my second one and now it’s not letting me stand. It’s only letting me double SO NOW i HAVE to double my soft 21 or close the game 🙁
And when the player takes a non-bust card, the odds of the dealer getting a bust card go up. It all evens out in the end. If this does not make sense to you, I suggest taking a course in probability and statistics so that you might gain a better understanding of how games of random chance work.
I wish my dum as wouldve ask and learn alil more about the game before wasting 3,000 up there cause how u bet against the dealer hand and lose then somebody elae step in and win all kinda ways…
El Cortez fa ancora single-deck 3:2 DA split 4x, senza DAS e senza resplit aces (ahi, ma mi ha fatto male solo una volta). Giocate solo un buon gioco di copertura e fate un po' di bangering. La gente parla di essere investita come un cane e si riferisce a questo locale come The Sweaty Spaniard, ma io ho fatto 200 up e 300 up in giorni consecutivi con spread ASSOLUTAMENTE FOLLI (intendo dire che ho fatto red chipping fino a fare 75 o 150 drop) e poiché di tanto in tanto ho splittato 10 come un pazzo, non ho mai ricevuto nulla di più di un "Buona fortuna! :D" dal dealer o dai pitbull. Ho anche portato un foglio di strategia di base su un foglio 8,5×11 che non solo mi aiuta a giocare (contare per me è molto più facile che memorizzare la BStrat) ma aiuta anche la mia copertura. Ingoiando l'orgoglio, mostrando un po' di emozione, si possono fare soldi, secondo i miei calcoli.
Tuttavia, sono davvero nuovo a tutto questo, quindi le mie parole possono essere prese non con un granello, ma con un'intera miniera di sale.
And in the event that the player draws one of the few small cards, the dealer’s chance of busting goes up, right? The effect of the two outcomes completely offset each other, and the net result is zero change in the percentage chance that the dealer busts.
You ask if you are missing something here. Yes, keep thinking. Third base’s actions do not matter. Period.
No, the option isn’t which card do you want him to take. The option is for him not to take a card at all. Because in a neutral deck there are more cards that would bust a 16 then cards that would make a 16. So, it is more likely that the next card, regardless of where you grab it from the deck, is a bust card. If the player takes that card then the odds of the dealer getting a bust card go down.
Quote: “So, here’s the betting schedule I worked out for a $3000 bankroll. Bear in mind that as the bankroll increases (or decreases), the schedule must be changed in order to keep the risk of ‘gambler’s ruin’ about the same. I will modify the schedule at $1000 increments; that is, if I win $1000, I’ll refigure the betting schedule by remultiplying all the percentages by $4000. On the other hand, if I choose to spend my profits, I’ll just continue to operate with the original schedule. In the unlikely event that I hit a big losing streak (how’s that for positive thinking?) I really couldn’t downsize the bets very much. As long as the bank remains above $2000, I’ll stick with this schedule. If it should go below $2000, I’d quit until I could build the bank up again.”
The realities of this confuse me. Bankrolling 3000 but only exposing 1000 in reality, does strange things to my mind when calculating willful bets, unless this is blatantly stated to be “And then I will go elsewhere and re-win myself to 3000 using my remaining bankroll”
Am I correct in assuming this is the modus operandi?
Auguro a lui e alla sua famiglia il meglio. In poche settimane lui (e voi per estensione e anche per intuizioni dirette, portando le sue informazioni ai ritardatari come me) mi ha portato dal pensare "Questo sembra statisticamente calcolabile" (e anche ahi, i miei soldi da spendere!) a "Dovrei fermarmi alla doppia puntata stasera o no".
Grazie Bill e grazie Ken.
Just got back from Ceasers Palance. Tested my suspicions again.
1) New Deck
2) Deck Spread out
3) Deck placed in shoe and never shuffled in front of me
4) EMPTY TABLE – I was the only player at the table
IMMEDIATLY LOST 7 HANDS IN A ROW STRAIGHT !!!! Per this website – odds of this are 1.1% or 1 in 90 !!!!!
My suspicion has again been confirmed. However I have NO EVIDENCE other than circumstance. So I need to know if anyone else has experienced this.
I’m wondering if the casinos are setting up the new decks in a mathmatically predetermined way which give the dealer an edge if they are not shuffled good enough.
Anyone comment on this? I don’t want to hear oh your an idiot. ALLOT of math research goes into Casinos and they have BILLIONS at thier disposal – basically infinate money to see if there is a way to get a new deck in a preset way that mathmatically give them a huge edge.
IF you have the time and money to test this – give it a try on 5 sessions and see if 3-4 lose money. AGAIN this is how you do it:
1) Empty Table – Table must be EMPTY
2) Cards spread out on table
3) New Deck (if the cards are spread out on the table it means IT IS A NEW DECK)
4) YOU NEVER SEE DEALER SHUFFLE THE CARDS. THEY SIMPLY PUT THE CARDS IN THE SHOE AND START DEALING.
Follow these steps as an experiment (if you have the time, money and are interested) and record your results. Most of you probably won’t do this but if I’m wrong – you have no reason not to.
I am suspicious because the odds of this happening WITH the same environmental variables I just listed must be very, very low.
I am wondering, if the casinos are engaged in a legal conspiracy to “legally defruad” players based on the above.
If I’m the only one – fine. However I’ve been talking to other people and they have noticed the same thing.
Again – I’m not willing to say anything for sure – at this point is an ongoing experiment. I’m going to go to other casinos and try this AGAIN and record my results under the same conditions.
The word of the option can be bigger, The amount of bet can be bigger. is there a quick bet of 100 200 400 800 . Can the maximun bet to 2000. THANKS
The trainer just bugged on me. I just split tens for the second time and received a 7 on my first one and a A on my second one and now it’s not letting me stand. It’s only letting me double SO NOW i HAVE to double my soft 21 or close the game 🙁
Se un giocatore decide di stare su 15 per qualsiasi motivo e il mazziere ha 16, deve comunque pescare un'altra carta visto che è inferiore a 17?
Sì
I understand that this is a prectice mode of blackjack,. but if you split 10s, you really don’t understand the game. You play how you practice.
It’s called a basic strategy deviation.
The true count hit the index point to make the basic strategy deviation.
Il conteggio delle carte è legale?
Questo perché si intendeva quante possibili mani di jack nero, non di jack "nero".
Buona domanda. Il casinò che frequento fa lo stesso.
And when the player takes a non-bust card, the odds of the dealer getting a bust card go up. It all evens out in the end. If this does not make sense to you, I suggest taking a course in probability and statistics so that you might gain a better understanding of how games of random chance work.
I wish my dum as wouldve ask and learn alil more about the game before wasting 3,000 up there cause how u bet against the dealer hand and lose then somebody elae step in and win all kinda ways…
El Cortez fa ancora single-deck 3:2 DA split 4x, senza DAS e senza resplit aces (ahi, ma mi ha fatto male solo una volta). Giocate solo un buon gioco di copertura e fate un po' di bangering. La gente parla di essere investita come un cane e si riferisce a questo locale come The Sweaty Spaniard, ma io ho fatto 200 up e 300 up in giorni consecutivi con spread ASSOLUTAMENTE FOLLI (intendo dire che ho fatto red chipping fino a fare 75 o 150 drop) e poiché di tanto in tanto ho splittato 10 come un pazzo, non ho mai ricevuto nulla di più di un "Buona fortuna! :D" dal dealer o dai pitbull. Ho anche portato un foglio di strategia di base su un foglio 8,5×11 che non solo mi aiuta a giocare (contare per me è molto più facile che memorizzare la BStrat) ma aiuta anche la mia copertura. Ingoiando l'orgoglio, mostrando un po' di emozione, si possono fare soldi, secondo i miei calcoli.
Tuttavia, sono davvero nuovo a tutto questo, quindi le mie parole possono essere prese non con un granello, ma con un'intera miniera di sale.
I guess math wasn’t your best subject in school.
I am a dealer on a strip casino and of you have a blackjack or …soft 11….and the dealer has a 5 or 6 showing you ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN
And in the event that the player draws one of the few small cards, the dealer’s chance of busting goes up, right? The effect of the two outcomes completely offset each other, and the net result is zero change in the percentage chance that the dealer busts.
You ask if you are missing something here. Yes, keep thinking. Third base’s actions do not matter. Period.
No, the option isn’t which card do you want him to take. The option is for him not to take a card at all. Because in a neutral deck there are more cards that would bust a 16 then cards that would make a 16. So, it is more likely that the next card, regardless of where you grab it from the deck, is a bust card. If the player takes that card then the odds of the dealer getting a bust card go down.