Blackjack Observation
My question is this. Why can't a game, separate from the game of roulette, be developed to play within the game itself, that would give you the edge. Like what happens in BJ. Not counting, but something compatible with roulette. BJ was once mathematically unbeatable too.
The point is, sometimes in blackjack the odds are in your favor. Not often, but sometimes. Card counting helps you know when that is, and that's why you bet more when the odds are in your favor. If you bet enough when the odds are in your favor, and little enough when they're not, the weighted average will be positive for you. No other casino game has that property, because there is no other casino game where the odds are sometimes in your favor frequently enough to matter. That's not to say that they're *never* in your favor, but that's basically what advantage play is -- seeking out player-advantage situations and playing them until they're no longer advantageous.
If you do figure it out, my advice is to explain the alternate game fully to me, and then tell nobody else.
3 eights and 2 sevens, how much would you bet ??
Quote: buzzpaffIf you were playing heads up with the dealer in a SD game dealt to the last card, and you knew the remaining cards were
3 eights and 2 sevens, how much would you bet ??
Shouldn't you bet the moon? The dealer has to bust.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, blackjack was always mathematically beatable -- just nobody knew it.
Then it was unbeatable, according to the experts of the time. The earth was never flat, but all the experts believed it was.
Quote: waltomealBefore Thorpe (or whichever genius on the boards claims to have known about counting before Thorpe), blackjack was thought of in the same way.
.
There were people counting cards for decades before Thorp. Some even wrote books about it in the 50's. Thorp was well aware of them. What he did was prove it worked with a computer and that made if feasible. Before then, counting was dismissed as a parlor trick and not taken seriously.
Quote: MathExtremistbut that's basically what advantage play is -- seeking out player-advantage situations and playing them until they're no longer advantageous.
It wouldn't at all be the same for roulette as it is for BJ. Whole different set of circumstances.
Quote: EvenBobThere were people counting cards for decades before Thorp. Some even wrote books about it in the 50's. Thorp was well aware of them. What he did was prove it worked with a computer and that made if feasible. Before then, counting was dismissed as a parlor trick and not taken seriously.
The basic strategy was basically worked out in the 1950's using adding machines. As pure mathematics it is not very groundbreaking, and would have easily been understood in the 18th century, but without modern calculating devices the bookkeeping would have been overwhelming. The digital computer allowed the calculations both for basic strategy, and different counting schemes to be evaluated at a reasonable pace and without fear of error.
When Edward thorpe tested out his strategy in Vegas, they were smart enough to know to reshuffle a lot, and to put extra people at the table.
It's not so much that Christopher Colombus was the first European to sail to the new world, it now looks like a number of people beat him to it. It's the fact that he could do it repeatedly, and he could teach other people how to do it. Plus he wrote a book about it. I think of Edward Thorpe in very much the same vein.
In a way, the same is true about roulette. If one had an ideal eye, capable of exact measurements of speed and direction of the ball and the wheel, and an ideal brain, capable of performing billions of calculations per second, then, barring quantum effects, one would know exactly which number the ball will hit the moment it is released from the dealer's hand.
It does not sound humanly possible at the moment, but, that seems like exactly the situation with BJ before the practical counting techniques were invented.
Quote: weaselmanMathematically, BJ was always beatable, and "they" knew it was, and knew how. They just did not have the tools to actually achieve it in practice until later.
In a way, the same is true about roulette. If one had an ideal eye, capable of exact measurements of speed and direction of the ball and the wheel, and an ideal brain, capable of performing billions of calculations per second, then, barring quantum effects, one would know exactly which number the ball will hit the moment it is released from the dealer's hand.
It does not sound humanly possible at the moment, but, that seems like exactly the situation with BJ before the practical counting techniques were invented.
That is a hell of a lot harder than adding -1 and +1 LOL
Quote: buzzpaffThat is a hell of a lot harder than adding -1 and +1 LOL
Yes, it is, which is, probably, the reason why it has not been done yet unlike the other thing. But that wasn't the question.
The primary reason it took so long for BJ counting techniques to be invented was not so much because of the invention of counting itself, but for lack of a computer to analyze the invention. Only once that happened was it more readily accepted.Quote: weaselmanIt does not sound humanly possible at the moment, but, that seems like exactly the situation with BJ before the practical counting techniques were invented.
It seems unlikely that it will ever be humanly possible to do naked eye ball tracking and reliably predict the outcome well enough to gain an advantage.
But even if that skill is ever developed, it's a simple thing for the dealer to say "No more bets" before spinning the ball.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe primary reason it took so long for BJ counting techniques to be invented was not so much because of the invention of counting itself, but for lack of a computer to analyze the invention. Only once that happened was it more readily accepted.
Well, I don't really know the history of the invention, but I don't quite see how you can possibly "invent" something without being able to analyze it (unless you are Rob Singer, of course). I would call that a "speculation" rather than an "invention".
There is a lot of speculation going on about ways to beat roulette too right now, as we all know :)
Quote:It seems unlikely that it will ever be humanly possible to do naked eye ball tracking and reliably predict the outcome well enough to gain an advantage.
Yes, it does.
I am talking purely theoretical possibilities.
But roulette has been beaten in the past. I think I have heard a story about a famous mathematician (was it Pascal?) in 19th century, who had surveyed several roulette wheels for imperfections, and beat the hell out of them before being subsequently banned from every casino in town.
The wheels have improved a great deal since then of course, making an exploit like this impossible, but the dynamics of the story is kinda the same as that with card counting in blackjack.
Quote:But even if that skill is ever developed, it's a simple thing for the dealer to say "No more bets" before spinning the ball.
Yes. About as simple as to shuffle the deck as soon as the count gets high ... or to invest into a CSM :)
Quote: DJTeddyBearBut even if that skill is ever developed, it's a simple thing for the dealer to say "No more bets" before spinning the ball.
Even better, the casino could set up a system to track the velocities of both wheel and ball and issue a prediction before the ball lands. Why? To make the game more exciting. You could then place a side bet on whether or not the predictor will succesfully pick the right number. Oh, I know this method doesn't predict numbers, only sections of the wheel. But it would be simple to set up and RNG to pick a random number out of the predicted octant.
It's a lot fo trouble for a side bet, so it probably won't get done. And if it is, the HE will be outrageous.
Quote: weaselmanIn a way, the same is true about roulette. If one had an ideal eye, capable of exact measurements of speed and direction of the ball and the wheel, and an ideal brain, capable of performing billions of calculations per second, then, barring quantum effects, one would know exactly which number the ball will hit the moment it is released from the dealer's hand.
It does not sound humanly possible at the moment, but, that seems like exactly the situation with BJ before the practical counting techniques were invented.
Sort of. The difference is that, in the roulette case, it would be a matter of physical skill to (a) perform the necessarily mental calculations and (b) place the required bets before the "no more bets" signal. Based on my knowledge of Nevada regulations, that would make roulette a skill game and therefore illegal.
Plus, the casino has the ultimate countermeasure: prevent the players from seeing the ball in the wheel until "no more bets". Whether that's accomplished by not releasing the ball until after the bets are frozen, or by some clever mechanical contraption, that would remove the "exploitable" feature entirely.
Quote: MathExtremistSort of. The difference is that, in the roulette case, it would be a matter of physical skill to (a) perform the necessarily mental calculations and (b) place the required bets before the "no more bets" signal. Based on my knowledge of Nevada regulations, that would make roulette a skill game and therefore illegal.
Why isn't blackjack illegal then? (I am not arguing you are wrong, just asking)
Quote:Plus, the casino has the ultimate countermeasure: prevent the players from seeing the ball in the wheel until "no more bets". Whether that's accomplished by not releasing the ball until after the bets are frozen, or by some clever mechanical contraption, that would remove the "exploitable" feature entirely.
That's not the point.
The casino always has a countermeasure. In case of card counting for example, it would be using preferential shuffling or a CSM ...
Quote: weaselmanWhy isn't blackjack illegal then? (I am not arguing you are wrong, just asking)
Mental skill is allowed. Not physical skill. If you can beat roulette by being "fast enough", while other physically slower players can't match your results, that's counter to NV public policy and the regs.
Lots of games have optimal player strategy. Basically all card games, including VP, allow you to "play poorly" and do worse than a player who knows the strategy. In NV, that doesn't count as a "skill-based game". But it does elsewhere...
Quote: MathExtremistMental skill is allowed. Not physical skill. If you can beat roulette by being "fast enough", while other physically slower players can't match your results, that's counter to NV public policy and the regs.
I am not sure how you make the distinction.
When counting cards, you have to be fast enough too, don't you? Adding and subtracting ones to a single whole number is hardly a "mental skill". Mentally performing complicated physics calculations seems much more of a such.
Quote:Lots of games have optimal player strategy. Basically all card games, including VP, allow you to "play poorly" and do worse than a player who knows the strategy. In NV, that doesn't count as a "skill-based game".
I was talking about card counting, not BS.
Quote: MathExtremistSort of. The difference is that, in the roulette case, it would be a matter of physical skill to (a) perform the necessarily mental calculations and (b) place the required bets before the "no more bets" signal. Based on my knowledge of Nevada regulations, that would make roulette a skill game and therefore illegal.
What is the exact clause or document that makes skill games illegal? (I presume you know the law so can reply, I'm interested).
Quote: MathExtremistI don't have an exact cite; the last I heard, there was some language that said if the difference between a physically-skilled player and an unskilled player is more than 4%, the game wasn't approvable. Roulette (under the assumption that some people can visually predict octants and others can't) would have a much higher delta than 4%.
Only if they can predict it with 100% accuracy. But if the accuracy is only a little bit (less than 4%) higher than 1/8 (not sure what "octant" means in this context, assume it is 1/8th of the wheel, which would be 4.75 numbers :)), it would still be ok, right?
I figure, if a card counter could reliably track every single card that leaves the shoe, and analyze the balance of the shoe in real time, his advantage would also be more than 4% better than those who do not count at all.
By that definition, RapidRoulette and RapidCraps are games of physical skill.
I failed to get an intended bet down at least one time in the short times I was playing each game.
Quote: DocShouldn't you bet the moon? The dealer has to bust.
Dealer has to bust? Are you serious? Say you are dealt 2 8's, dealer 2 7's, you split the 8's, split the next 8 and then the rest of the cards are shuffled. Why does the dealer have to bust? He may not even need another card.
Quote: dmDealer has to bust? Are you serious? Say you are dealt 2 8's, dealer 2 7's, you split the 8's, split the next 8 and then the rest of the cards are shuffled. Why does the dealer have to bust? He may not even need another card.
The question presupposes that you would not be stupid enough to split 8's if the dealer had 14 and you knew the next card was an 8.
Quote: SOOPOOThe question presupposes that you would not be stupid enough to split 8's if the dealer had 14 and you knew the next card was an 8.
It would be stupid if the EV of 8 against dealer 14 is less that +.34. Since you determined that it would be stupid, what, exactly, is the EV of 8 against dealer 14? Yes, you would put out max bet or three.
Quote: weaselmanOnly if they can predict it with 100% accuracy. But if the accuracy is only a little bit (less than 4%) higher than 1/8 (not sure what "octant" means in this context, assume it is 1/8th of the wheel, which would be 4.75 numbers :)), it would still be ok, right?
An octant is 1/8th of the wheel. I don't recall how the division is made, but some segments would have more numbers than others. That's not a problem, so long as you can guess where the ball will land and place a bet on every number in that octant before the dealer says "no more bets."
Allegedly that's what the Eudomonics group more or less did way back when. More or less because their gear wasn't reliable.
In the old Mission: Impossible series, they had the gear, in the 60s!, shrunk down to fit in a purse, which lay next to the wheel, and reported the exact number rather than an octant to a wrist watch. Wow! They also cheated at Baccarat somehow.
Other than that, which required a large construction crane to suspend my disbelief, it was a pretty good episode.
Quote: DocSix bets? I don't see that. But, yes, perhaps you could win three bets if you are dealt all the eights. Or lose. I think that the original question was "How much would you wager?" I have indicated that I would bet the max, perhaps everything I have. Would you? If so, you wouldn't have funds to split a pair. If you reduce your wager in anticipation of splitting, you might be dealt a 15, with no opportunity to split. I still opt for maximum bet and always stand.
Gee Talk about being desperate to GAMBLE !!! Given the golden opportunity for a can't lose bet and need to consult the Wizard ?
We aint in Kansas anymore, Dorothy LOL
Quote: dmMaybe the Wizard can tell us the value of 8 v 14. Yes, you have the possibility of losing but also the possibility of winning 6 bets.
The question wasn't what you'd do, but how much you'd bet at first. If you know there are 3 8s and 2 7s left in the deck and you're heads-up vs. the dealer, the optimal strategy is to bet your entire bankroll and then stand, regardless of what you have. You have 100% chance of winning because the dealer will bust. You also have no additional funds with which to split, in case you do see the 8s, so that's a moot point.
If, however, we're only talking table max and I get 8-8, I'd split, place another max bet on the 8, and stand without taking a card for said split =p. You can do that right? Seems it would be in the House's advantage =)
1. It's not illegal to use your brain in order to predict the most likely area that the ball will land on the roulette wheel. This method is called "visual ballistics" or "wheel watcher". In Atlantic City they can not ban you for playing "wheel watcher". In Las Vegas they can ban you if they don't like the color of your shoes. (For now.)
2. Many millions have been won by "wheel watcher" teams back in the 1970s - 1990s. Some "wheel watchers" are still in action to this day. Such players brought about fundamental design changes to the wheels. George Melas of rouletteresearch.com details the changes that have taken place to the wheel over the years and why they have been made. In particular he discusses an incident at "North Hampton" at the "Rubicon". During this period, casinos in Europe and abroad were losing more money to the wheel watchers than they were to card counting blackjack players. (Note, I did not say the US. even though some were playing here as well.) It's also worth noting that George Melas is responsible for designing roulette wheels for John Huxley TCS. -including the Starburst wheel that looks like a cheap hubcap.
3. To this day there are well known wheel watchers playing the game as a "skill". Christian Kaisan is probably the most well known, since he's been known to grant interviews. Laurance Scott is another well known "wheel watcher". Kaisan has made several million playing the game as a skill. He is also banned from numerous casinos.
4. The guys in the Eudemonic Pie were not the first guys to play using a ballistic computer. Others were successful years before them. Also, the "Eudemonic's" were not successful.
5. "Visual Ballistics" aka "Wheel Watcher" also does NOT require a computer or a device. Only a brain and good eyes are required.
6. The edge attained by the "wheel watchers" was substantially higher than the edge gained by the "card counters".
7. One of the earliest wheels watchers was named William Nelson Darnborough (1869-1958) from Bloomington, Illinois . If he was alive today then he would be almost as old as Laurance Scott. :)
-Keyser
Quote: Keyser-including the Starburst wheel that looks like a cheap hubcap.
And works extremely well for thwarting the wheel starers..
It's a crazy world.
Quote: Keyserthere is a group of guys that specialize in the wheel as well.
Yeah, those pesky wheel starers are always smarter than the wheel designers. According to them, anyway..
to 23-1 on a straight number. Sorta like 6-5 BJ.
Quote: buzzpaffDon't tell everybody about us wheel starers, .
I don't think they're too worried. I have heard the bragging for years and have yet to see anybody demonstrate their wonderful talent. Most of those who claim it are now teaching it because they can't do it on the modern wheels.
Quote: KeyserFor now, it would appear that they are. For more info check out rouletteresearch.com. It's the website of the chief wheel designer and engineer for TCS Huxley.
I see nothing there about anybody beating low profile wheels.
Quote: EvenBobI see nothing there about anybody beating low profile wheels.
Neither do I.
The closest thing it seems to offer is software for electronic devices, but not prediction by eyeball alone.
Quote: DocSix bets? I don't see that. But, yes, perhaps you could win three bets if you are dealt all the eights. Or lose. I think that the original question was "How much would you wager?" I have indicated that I would bet the max, perhaps everything I have. Would you? If so, you wouldn't have funds to split a pair. If you reduce your wager in anticipation of splitting, you might be dealt a 15, with no opportunity to split. I still opt for maximum bet and always stand.
You will expect to double maybe 1 maybe all 3. I would opt to maximize my expected win. You apparently wouldn't. But maybe you have way more moons than I do.
Quote: FaceIf we're talking unlimited max bet, then yeah, bet the farm.
If, however, we're only talking table max and I get 8-8, I'd split, place another max bet on the 8, and stand without taking a card for said split =p. You can do that right? Seems it would be in the House's advantage =)
Thanks for helping explain that you might not do the simple thing. Standing on your first 2 cards was the obvious conclusion to draw without any real thought. I've never heard of an unlimited table max.
BS...my dealer son and I discussed a new stradegy and he was adament that my suggestion would be more damaging to my
bankroll than BS. Here goes...I did try this out in my local casino, between poker sessions, and was it very profitable and actually
more fun than BS. Essentially it is a NO BUST BJ. Splitting, doubling, taking insurance is permitted.....playing 3 hands with equal
bets...not hitting any 12 or above. So you couldn't shoot me dead before the dealer turned his hand up. Compared with BS, does
this compute? I played for 20 minutes and turned a 100$ buy-in into 475 and left the table. It seemed as if it played better than
BS (Basic Straegy)...with the dealer busting alot, it really paid off. Only near the end I increased my bets from 10$ to 20$. Is it
possible this can be figured out. The game was six deck, vegas rules.
Quote: weintraubaI am hopeful I get this answered. Though my BJ life is close to 40 years, and some playing counting, modicum efficiency in
BS...my dealer son and I discussed a new stradegy and he was adament that my suggestion would be more damaging to my
bankroll than BS. Here goes...I did try this out in my local casino, between poker sessions, and was it very profitable and actually
more fun than BS. Essentially it is a NO BUST BJ. Splitting, doubling, taking insurance is permitted.....playing 3 hands with equal
bets...not hitting any 12 or above. So you couldn't shoot me dead before the dealer turned his hand up. Compared with BS, does
this compute? I played for 20 minutes and turned a 100$ buy-in into 475 and left the table. It seemed as if it played better than
BS (Basic Straegy)...with the dealer busting alot, it really paid off. Only near the end I increased my bets from 10$ to 20$. Is it
possible this can be figured out. The game was six deck, vegas rules.
Your son is right. Do not do this. The probability of the dealer breaking with the worst up card is only around 43%.
You got lucky.
Then again, you picked the best of the worst.
What I mean by that is, towards the bottom of the Wizard of Odds BlackJack page, is a section on Bad Strategies. The "Never Bust" strategy has the lowest house advantage of the three bad strategies listed. That doesn't mean it's good. Just not as bad as the others.
