I like all your asnwers, but the fact still remains... Lucky Ladies is one of the top countable games.
Thanks. Yes, very true. I was always aware of this about the game, and it performs extremely well with proper guidelines. It was mentioned at the Advanced Seminar program. Lucky Ladies is also the most widely Google-d side bet game for AP. As for it's position as top position, no it isn't the top countable game; in my starting post I presented the rankings of the side bets, and Lucky Ladies was near the middle.
It's also one of the most popular games. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure when you (or Bob or Dean or whoever) is selling the merits of Lucky Ladies to a Casino, you are not telling them, "Watch out, this game can be counted and beat". More likely, you're telling them "This is a great game. You are going to see an increase in hold on your games of X% and your players are going to love it."
Bobby and Dean are great, and for the record, they give 100% full disclosure, information, and guidelines to all operators on the products, allowing them to select which product would work best for them. (Why would you think otherwise?) And of course one of Lucky Ladies strongest points is its popularity and familiarity to the gaming public, and many operators are pleased with the product.
I've was in sales for 13 years. You sell your strong points, not your weak ones. That's just the way it is or you don't make it. You're fooling yourself if you think 100% game protection is, one going to happen. And two, going to be pointed out by the sales staff if it's a downside of the game.
No, I certainly do not believe 100% game protection is going to happen, in fact, I know that to be the case. It's just a goal, as well as an important part of QA.
But, what I DO believe is that there are people working very hard in good faith to improve the game protection situation for the benefit of our operators, and that we should be attentive to the details of game protection, as part of our manufacturing efforts.
1. Yes, I did give a "reject vote" on a side bet game because it was virtually un-defendable, (and also boring); game protection was a criterion in this case.
2. Games that can be brought to solid game protection status before they are released are updated to this best level;
3. Games that cannot be brought up to 100% safe levels, but are relatively safe, are issued with reasonable guidelines - like Lucky Ladies, a very good example.
For a run-of-the-mill vulnerable side bet (by which I mean, the AP can win, say $100 to $200 per 100 hands from the side bet), those teams that are strong enough to crush them are probably looking for hole-card play or other more significant opportunities. But there is absolutely individual play against some of these bets (those with low variance) on a large scale. Take a small step up and you get a bet like the "Red Flex" which is common in CA card rooms -- a big play but not huge, and very low variance, where local APs who know about it just sit there earning their living off the bet, not broadcasting it, just quietly beating it. I am not sure about team play, but it is certainly a possibility for Red Flex. Take a big step up, being able to pull $8000+ per 100 hands off a table (Slingo) certainly draws the best teams.Quote: GBV
The number of players capable of beating the side-bets is a tiny fraction of regular gamblers.
Lucky Ladies, with a $25 maximum, and extraordinarily high variance, is simply not worth it for any competent AP to make any extra effort. At least by card counting. If the shuffle is highly trackable, then LL can be a big play.
For a run-of-the-mill vulnerable side bet (by which I mean, the AP can win, say $100 to $200 per 100 hands from the side bet), those teams that are strong enough to crush them are probably looking for hole-card play or other more significant opportunities. But there is absolutely individual play against some of these bets (those with low variance) on a large scale.
Define "large scale". If, say, 1 in 20 players were competent AP's hitting the side bets, then it would be a huge absolute number of AP's but it still wouldn't compensate for all the regular gamblers you would likely alienate.
What is always missing from this type of scaremongering analysis is a simple loss/gain calculation from instituting the countermeasure. Even in pure, bloodless accountancy terms that type of analysis rarely flatters the loss-averse approach. When you factor in the loss of goodwill, the fact that AP's are effectively acting as shills and drawing regular players to the table, the potential cost of countermeasures actually creating other AP opportunities for the ultra-sharp, you find it isn't even a close thing.
But then, if you did that type of analysis you wouldn't even be in game protection, picking up scraps from the casino's table instead of helping yourself to the main course. At the moment you are costing both AP's and casino's money for what? I can't even fathom your motivations.
It's not missing, you just aren't privy to it. it is quite a common topic to discuss.Quote: GBV
What is always missing from this type of scaremongering analysis is a simple loss/gain calculation from instituting the countermeasure.
Debunking your baccarat advice for the tie bet was certainly my motivation for my article on the tie bet.Quote:
I can't even fathom your motivations.
a person whose only or major goal in life is to scam gambling halls cannot be argued to be operating on a very high level, but is actually enthralled in a different cat-and-mouse game that has little to do with real gambling.
You have absolutely no idea, Dan, who the real people
are, taking the real money from the casinos. People who
never talk about it, except among themselves and infrequently
and never with details. You fling all your resources at the
obvious, and the real threats, the real AP's, keep doing what
they're doing because you barely even know they exist, let
alone how to ferret them out. You're on the cutting edge of
week before last, Dan. It will always be that way.
You have absolutely no idea, Dan, who the real people
are, taking the real money from the casinos.
The guys wearing the uniforms with the casino's logo on it.
What do I win? =D
To be brutally honest, I'm amazed at just how far behind the casinos really are with regards to current AP play. .
You're not amazed, neither am I. Casinos openly admit
they wait for the latest AP techniques to surface, they
never actively go after finding them. Its too much work
and casinos aren't known for hiring the the top 10% of
college grads. Its more like the middle third of high school
You mean C and D students.
I was trying to be nice, but basically yes, C and
D students. The Peter Principle applies in most