Q&A Section now Open

I have always enjoyed your website whenever my wife and I are preparing for our biennial Vegas vacations but was really surprised when I found out you of the brains behind the SSA's popular baby names website. What are the odds? About 100% I guess. I remember going through those lists trying to find a not too popular and not too obscure name for our son. We ended up taking Peter, apparently the 187th most popular name that year for boys. Anyway, who'd a thunk it. One question I did have from that article was what did you end up naming your kids? Interestingly, as a Scott, I have apparently gone from the top 12 in 1969 to an unpopular 322nd today. Anyway, love your site, keep up the good work it is always a great vacation prep.

Dear Wiz

From October 2007 to November 2009 (statewide in NV)
(1) Blackjack has dropped from roughly $1.5 billion to $1.0 billion
(2) Baccarat revenue has returned to pre-depression levels (around $900 million)
(3) Rest of pit (except blackjack and baccarat) has dropped from $2 billion to $1.5 billion
(4) Slots have dropped from $8.4 billion to $6.9 billion

BJ hasn't been as low as $1 billion since 1997.

The recent upturn in gambling numbers for Nov 2009 after 23 months was entirely due to baccarat.
Here are the actual numbers for Nov 2009 vs Nov 2008 (for the strip)
Baccarat went up $53.474 million
Blackjack went down $2.351 million
Rest of pit went down $5,709 million
Slots went down $9.033 million
Card games went down $239 thousand

Do you think it is significant that blackjack has dropped so much while baccarat has returned to pre-recession levels? Does this spell doom for some of the more venerable stalwart casinos that have been with us for decades?

Quote: sgaliger

I have always enjoyed your website whenever my wife and I are preparing for our biennial Vegas vacations but was really surprised when I found out you of the brains behind the SSA's popular baby names website. What are the odds? About 100% I guess. I remember going through those lists trying to find a not too popular and not too obscure name for our son. We ended up taking Peter, apparently the 187th most popular name that year for boys. Anyway, who'd a thunk it. One question I did have from that article was what did you end up naming your kids? Interestingly, as a Scott, I have apparently gone from the top 12 in 1969 to an unpopular 322nd today. Anyway, love your site, keep up the good work it is always a great vacation prep.

Sorry for the tardy reply to this. My kids are names are all ones you would have heard of, and nothing terribly unusual, like Michael Jackson's son "blanket." We blew it with my son's name, who was born in Feb 2002. At that time, we only had 2001 data, and chose a name at about #50. The name we chose shot up into the top 10 the year he was born, making me look like just another conformist (exactly what I'm fighting against). I'd rather not give the specific names, out of privacy concerns, sorry.

Quote: Wizard

We blew it with my son's name, who was born in Feb 2002. At that time, we only had 2001 data, and chose a name at about #50. The name we chose shot up into the top 10 the year he was born, making me look like just another conformist (exactly what I'm fighting

I understand that there is now a new kind of consultant that uses your SSA website to help nervous parents choose a name for their child that in 25 years will ascend to just the perfect level. Not fading into oblivion and not common as mud. It's ironic to know that the man who invented the concept found it difficult to predict one year into the future.

There seems to be a clear preference against the Latin names for males , and towards Jewish ones. Anthony is the lone exception in the top 100. There is not a similar shift for females since Emily is #1 and Ava is #5. What do you think that means? Is there an anti-Latin prejudice?

With regards to children's names you should pick up Freakonomics (the original book). It has a detailed section that talks about the correlation of children's names to "success"... a very interesting read.

+1 for reading Freakonomics...if you enjoy this board, you'd probably enjoy that book.

Quote: Wizard

Per hand the expected loss would be $100*1.06% + $100+1.24% = $2.30. Assuming 72 hands per hour, the expected loss per hour would be $165.60.

But in developing any sort of real P-B baccarat-strategies, it's the house's basic edge of 1.17% on all banker-bets, and of 1.36% on all player-bets, which must be overcome. Waiting out the ties means nothing to the winning or losing, itself.

Ultimately, who's promoting those slightly "lower" edges... the casinos?

dear wizard,
i have been browsing the forum and could not find an appropriate thread for my question. i am working as a surveillance personnel in one of the casinos in the Philippines. i am making an independent study on the shuffling procedures of our casino. in an effort to stimulate randomization, cards at high level pits, have been ran twice on an automated shuffler (as opposed to just once for the low limit pits). these cards will be manually shuffled at the table as they are put in use. after a month of tracking, i have a figure that places the House winning on about 60% to 70% of these double shuffled shoes. this figure is meaningless unless of course you could provide me some insight. on a normal 8 deck baccarat game, is 60% to 70% a normal or expected win percentage for the House on all total shoes played? if so, then i could convince management to just stick with the original (single shuffled) procedures as double shuffling not only takes time but also places extra strain for the shuffling machines in the long run. if the figure 70% is in anyway, higher than industry standards, then i guess we must stick to it. thanks!