Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1437
  • Posts: 24845
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGamesmrsuit31
December 18th, 2019 at 7:23:21 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I'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."
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
December 18th, 2019 at 7:26:33 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

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.



Now will you apologize for assuming a tale from 2004 is relevant to a poster in 2019?
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
December 18th, 2019 at 7:30:32 PM permalink
Quote: CharlesMousseau

Now will you apologize for assuming a tale from 2004 is relevant to a poster in 2019?



You must be joking 😂😂
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGames
December 18th, 2019 at 7:32:05 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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."



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.
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
December 18th, 2019 at 7:33:48 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

You 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.
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
Thanks for this post from:
Forager
December 18th, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM permalink
Quote: CharlesMousseau

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.



Godspeed in your endeavors. Right now you're failing.
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
Thanks for this post from:
MaxPen
December 18th, 2019 at 7:46:02 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

You 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.
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
December 18th, 2019 at 7:49:05 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

Godspeed 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.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
Thanks for this post from:
CharlesMousseau
December 18th, 2019 at 8:07:19 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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."



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.
.
UCivan
UCivan
Joined: Sep 3, 2011
  • Threads: 84
  • Posts: 843
May 27th, 2021 at 10:08:34 AM permalink
Because this side bet has a similar hit rate (25%+), as Lucky Lucky (LL), I would compare them. LL is very popular in CA for good reasons. I understand Brent, mrsuit31, could take some heat, so I'll just say it.

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.

  • Jump to: