Empty the Rack Blackjack
Quote: mrsuit31Thank you for these responses Charles.
Of course. And if you ever need to fine tune your tables for a thinner AP edge, you know where I'm at :)
Quote: CharlesMousseauI mean, you know there are some places that lose their s$!# over any vulnerability.. I was part of a team of low-variance cash-cow counters at a local game that was AT BEST like $20 per hour and one day I was picking a teammate up at a casino 5 miles outside of town where they made him wait outside in 40 below weather. PS my American friends, 40 below is the exact same in Canada and the US. So that was $20 CAD an hour though. They banned him for life and wouldn't let him wait inside. His phone was about to die and I remember my last words, "go inside and punch a security guard in the nose, they'll have to keep you inside, it's better than dying."
So yeah, some casinos are paranoid f!#/ing stains about counting -- every $50 and $100 max table in all of Calgary has a CSM on it as of today, lol -- but from my point of view, I use "how vulnerable is regular blackjack, which you have 20 tables of" as a metric of how much of an AP honey pot you're drawing. That standard $25 max on the sidebet does a WHOLE LOT to curb the vulnerability of blackjack side bets.
Baccarat bets, with it's 7.75 / 8 pen and the ability of a team to play every sidebet spot with no waiting bet, that's another issue :P but blackjack sides *again, in my professional opinion* are judged to separate standards.
Charles,
Really nice to have you back here discussing these things. The rules have changed a bit since you were active, so please notice above, I have masked your swears. Board is hard PG.
Quote: MaxPenSee you in a few days after you get off suspension for your f word transgression.
I get a kick out of guys that try and play on both sides of the fence😂
Your use of the present tense implies that what I did in 2004 reflects on who I am in 2019.
For what it's worth, I get a kick out of people so myopic and stunted that they can't understand that, while they have the right to engage in advantage play, they aren't even one iota of the Robin Hoods that they imagine themselves to be.
Guess I'll see you a few days after my subsequent suspension for my use of anti-leech hate speech.
Quote: MaxPenSee you in a few days after you get off suspension for your f word transgression.
I get a kick out of guys that try and play on both sides of the fence😂
Charles is a long-time member who hasn't been on in a while, so I have masked his swears and stopped at a warning. The rules have changed since he was active, so I'm giving him a mulligan.
Quote: CharlesMousseauYour use of the present tense implies that what I did in 2004 reflects on who I am in 2019.
For what it's worth, I get a kick out of people so myopic and stunted that they can't understand that, while they have the right to engage in advantage play, they aren't even one iota of the Robin Hoods that they imagine themselves to be.
Guess I'll see you a few days after my subsequent suspension for my use of anti-leech hate speech.
Rules have changed in this area as well Charles, zero tolerance for personal insults. Please be cautious, even with ad hominem generalizations, to discuss the post and not the posters or the group.
Quote: beachbumbabsCharles,
Really nice to have you back here discussing these things. The rules have changed a bit since you were active, so please notice above, I have masked your swears. Board is hard PG.
Duly noted. My usual haunts are forums that have auto swear filters that have a "don't dodge the filter, just swear and we'll take care of it :P" mindset. Now I know better, and I apologize for my ignorance.
If there are also rules against deflating the egos of the morally sententious who cling to the fiction that their exploitative greed is somehow more noble than the exploitative greed of others, please advise, and I promise, that won't happen again either.
Bear in mind, your second warning will be difficult given that, as you clearly saw, I was doing nothing more than returning in kind what I was given without provocation :) but I will also bear that in mind and dedicate myself to report rather than rebuke.
Quote: CharlesMousseauDuly noted. My usual haunts are forums that have auto swear filters that have a "don't dodge the filter, just swear and we'll take care of it :P" mindset. Now I know better, and I apologize for my ignorance.
If there are also rules against deflating the egos of the morally sententious who cling to the fiction that their exploitative greed is somehow more noble than the exploitative greed of others, please advise, and I promise, that won't happen again either.
See my caution above.
I must say, I've missed you.
Quote: beachbumbabsSee my caution above.
I must say, I've missed you.
Like I said, by the time I had read the first warning, I had violated the second and third.
Glad I could contribute. My clients think my contribution on this forum is valuable, on a professional level, and that is all that matters :)
Quote: CharlesMousseauLike I said, by the time I had read the first warning, I had violated the second and third.
Shades of an old Benny Hill lyric:
"Well she talks so slow,
one evening when
she went out with her boss,
before she could say
'I'm not that kind
of a girl', she was."
Quote: beachbumbabsCharles is a long-time member who hasn't been on in a while, so I have masked his swears and stopped at a warning. The rules have changed since he was active, so I'm giving him a mulligan.
Do you even research before making claims to try and justify defending the indefensible? You might want to refamiliarize yourself with the definition of "awhile".
I am done. Sorry I wasted my time bringing up a rule violation. Always nice having to tolerate personal insults as well with no recourse.
Quote: WizardI'm sure Charles warned you it would be very vulnerable to card counters, thus I would put it on CSM games only.
I've been challenged on this statement behind the scenes. I hope I'm allowed to say that I've see Charles' math report and it demonstrates the game is about equally as vulnerable as blackjack itself. Unlike blackjack, it would be a high-variance bet for the counter. We all know advantage players loathe variance, or at least they should.
Unlike blackjack, as well, I think counting it would go more easily unnoticed.
As someone else noted, about 99.9% of bettors will not be counters. I don't mean to say the other 0.1% can ruin the game. So maybe I was wrong about the CSM statement and the "very." Penetration of no more than 3/4 and some vigilance against counters should be fine. Lucky Ladies is also vulnerable to card counters, in theory, but I've seen hundreds of tables with that one. I'll rephrase my comment to "I'm sure Charles warned you it would be vulnerable to card counters. I would recommend some defense against them."
Quote: MaxPenDo you even research before making claims to try and justify defending the indefensible? You might want to refamiliarize yourself with the definition of "awhile".
I am done. Sorry I wasted my time bringing up a rule violation.
Now will you apologize for assuming a tale from 2004 is relevant to a poster in 2019?
Quote: CharlesMousseauNow will you apologize for assuming a tale from 2004 is relevant to a poster in 2019?
You must be joking 😂😂
Quote: WizardI've been challenged on this statement behind the scenes. I hope I'm allowed to say that I've see Charles' math report and it demonstrates the game is about equally as vulnerable as blackjack itself. Unlike blackjack, it would be a high-variance bet for the counter. We all know advantage players loathe variance, or at least they should.
Unlike blackjack, as well, I think counting it would go more easily unnoticed.
As someone else noted, about 99.9% of bettors will not be counters. I don't mean to say the other 0.1% can ruin the game. So maybe I was wrong about the CSM statement and the "very." Penetration of no more than 3/4 and some vigilance against counters should be fine. Lucky Ladies is also vulnerable to card counters, in theory, but I've seen hundreds of tables with that one. I'll rephrase my comment to "I'm sure Charles warned you it would be vulnerable to card counters. I would recommend some defense against them."
If in your professional opinion, the game could use further security against APs and their.. singular mindset. I'm completely on board with that. I told my client, as I tell all my clients, that I will never give a SUBjective opinion. I'll use a standard casino yardstick (regular BJ, and sidebets at the same game) and let his clients decide from there. I think we both know, Wiz, since you witnessed me getting backed off at the Tuscany for a 1-2x2 spread in 35 minutes (i.e. 5 minutes too late to win our bet :P ) that Vegas is a paranoid buggin' market.
Quote: MaxPenYou must be joking 😂😂
I'm quite earnest. I was a super low stakes counter in 2004. I'm a professional mathematician whose job it is to put BIG APs out of business in 2019 and keep small ones in check. How do you parse the perspective of a whole generation as so incredulous that you can't see that change? Even George Wallace (the politician, not the comedian) changed his mind in that time frame.
Quote: CharlesMousseauI'm quite earnest. I was a super low stakes counter in 2004. I'm a professional mathematician whose job it is to put BIG APs out of business in 2019 and keep small ones in check. How do you parse the perspective of a whole generation as so incredulous that you can't see that change? Even George Wallace (the politician, not the comedian) changed his mind in that time frame.
Godspeed in your endeavors. Right now you're failing.
Quote: MaxPenYou must be joking 😂😂
All I'm going to say on this matter, or say to you ever again, is to look at our avatars.
I'm posting a picture of myself, with my infant daughter the minute she was born. You have a picture of Vladmir Putin.
So, for you who is roiling in the deepest of anonymous fens that the internet has to offer, to suggest that *I* am beyond credulity, well, you have your take, I have mine.
Have a day.
Quote: MaxPenGodspeed in your endeavors. Right now you're failing.
I'm not failing at a single thing. Funny as it turns out, I'm actually contributing to society; I can also read a calendar, which apparently isn't the common sense skill it used to be.
Quote: WizardI've been challenged on this statement behind the scenes. I hope I'm allowed to say that I've see Charles' math report and it demonstrates the game is about equally as vulnerable as blackjack itself. Unlike blackjack, it would be a high-variance bet for the counter. We all know advantage players loathe variance, or at least they should.
Unlike blackjack, as well, I think counting it would go more easily unnoticed.
As someone else noted, about 99.9% of bettors will not be counters. I don't mean to say the other 0.1% can ruin the game. So maybe I was wrong about the CSM statement and the "very." Penetration of no more than 3/4 and some vigilance against counters should be fine. Lucky Ladies is also vulnerable to card counters, in theory, but I've seen hundreds of tables with that one. I'll rephrase my comment to "I'm sure Charles warned you it would be vulnerable to card counters. I would recommend some defense against them."
Thank you for this Mike. In the final report, I will have a few higher edge options for the folks who want the extra protection, if they are on the Romes mindset of not wanting to slightly increase the cutoff. As always, it will need to find a home (or temporary residence) for any of this to even matter. Hopefully when some of the 3 Card Fury installs begin starting up next year, maybe this will catch on with some of those operators.
It below is Brent's game.
(1) It does not have the "it" factor, while LL has "3 card initial cards making 21 with 6-7-8 or 7-7-7". The "it" must be unique.
(2) It does not have some super high payouts like LL (i.e. 200 to 1, 100 to 1)
(3) LL pays high odds to player's first 2 bad cards, 6-7, 7-8, 7-7, etc. This is a very important "feel good" factor
(4) LL offers the anticipation for dealer's showing 6,7 or 8
(5) It has 1 to 1 payout. Please do at least 2 to 1
(6) LL wisely uses first 2 cards scoring 19, 20,21 to flatten its vulnerability
(7) Its winning hands have no common theme
(8) may have others??
I do play LL all the time because this sucker bet is "fun to play."
The first challenge of a new game is that it has to be superior than all old one. Otherwise there is no reason to replace old ones.
Good luck.
