Thread Rating:
Poll
1 vote (6.25%) | |||
3 votes (18.75%) | |||
9 votes (56.25%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
9 votes (56.25%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
3 votes (18.75%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
4 votes (25%) | |||
2 votes (12.5%) |
16 members have voted
I also just put together a video with inventor Angel Espino explaining the side bet.
Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xirOJKDxalk
The question for the poll is would you play Pocket Rockets (multiple votes allowed).
Quote: DRichI would assume you could get a small edge by counting aces as they come out.
link to original post
I think more than small.
Quote: WizardQuote: DRichI would assume you could get a small edge by counting aces as they come out.
link to original post
I think more than small.
link to original post
what about counting for the 11 or less part?
Quote: JoeTheDragonwhat about counting for the 11 or less part?
link to original post
That's only 21% of the return. I still say an ace/non-ace count would be powerful. If teliot sees this thread, the chances are good he would provide us with a card counting vulnerability analysis.
Quote: DRichI would assume you could get a small edge by counting aces as they come out.
link to original post
I heard that...
Doing some quick computing, using a balanced count of -12 for each ace and +1 for each non-ace, the "magic number" for a 6-deck shoe appears to be around +28.
As for an unbalanced Ace count, I don't get a positive EV for any value.
Quote: DRichI would assume you could get a small edge by counting aces as they come out.
link to original post
Even though counting aces would be the most important thing for a potential AP, the "extra effort" of also counting each suit could make a "big enough" difference to make it worthwhile to use a "harder" count, see scenarios below .
With 1-deck remaining and all cards evenly distributed, except:
1) There are 4 aces of the same suit, then I get an EV of about +19.31%
2) There are 3 out of the 4 aces of the same suit, then it is about -1.06% EV, this is a ~20.36% swing against the player (when compared to scenario "1)", above).
Yes, I would say this is highly vulnerable. Not sure I want to do the analysis. Is this in a casino? I don't like analyzing games that aren't placed anywhere.Quote: WizardQuote: JoeTheDragonwhat about counting for the 11 or less part?
link to original post
That's only 21% of the return. I still say an ace/non-ace count would be powerful. If teliot sees this thread, the chances are good he would provide us with a card counting vulnerability analysis.
link to original post
Quote: teliotYes, I would say this is highly vulnerable. Not sure I want to do the analysis. Is this in a casino? I don't like analyzing games that aren't placed anywhere.
link to original post
It's at a couple casinos in Colorado.
The forum should be advised that the side bet creator is aware of its vulnerability and how to defend it.
Quote: isaaclIncorrect. It has exactly zero placements in Colorado, despite the creator's claim to the contrary. One of the alleged placements, The Brass Ass, had never heard of it. The other, Saratoga, said they will have the sidebet "in a month or two." Nice ponytail, BTW.
link to original post
I guess I stand corrected.
okay, when the side bet gets an actual placement that has been verified I will do the advantage play analysis.Quote: WizardQuote: isaaclIncorrect. It has exactly zero placements in Colorado, despite the creator's claim to the contrary. One of the alleged placements, The Brass Ass, had never heard of it. The other, Saratoga, said they will have the sidebet "in a month or two." Nice ponytail, BTW.
link to original post
I guess I stand corrected.
link to original post
Quote: WizardQuote: isaaclIncorrect. It has exactly zero placements in Colorado, despite the creator's claim to the contrary. One of the alleged placements, The Brass Ass, had never heard of it. The other, Saratoga, said they will have the sidebet "in a month or two." Nice ponytail, BTW.
link to original post
I guess I stand corrected.
link to original post
That ain’t no guess. That’s the way it’s gonna be. 30 to 27.