Mistakes were made (another shady player story)
A guy walks over down on his luck, 3000 dollars worth.
He watches me play for a while and slowly starts talking to me and gives me a pound whenever i win. Mistake number one was acknowledging he exists.
He notices that although i wasnt playing basic strategy, that i was winning and he never left me after that.
Mistake number two - letting him "play". Every now and then i would add a hand, and he would play the hand, it was established that knew the winnings werent his. YES i know they legally would have been his on camera but I didnt have that issue luckily.
I start to lose, get up and he follows me to another table. Hes not always "playing" because I am choosing whether or not he "plays" a hand.
At this point I start to tell him I am about to leave and he starts to ask me for money to "have a chance to build back up his 3000 he lost" - I tell him no.
I go cash in my chips and hes still following me and hes starting to make me nervous. I tell him I am cashing and might play another hand after but he can just watch me play if he wanted.
Im playing at freebet and hes getting me even more nervous as hes pacing and at this point i think hes planning something drastic like robbing me. I play it cool, and tell him i have to go and he asks me one last time for a lower amount and let him go with 25 bucks and ran.
Oh deary deary me.Quote: heatmapIm playing blackjack, targeting kings bounty bets.
A guy walks over down on his luck, 3000 dollars worth.
He watches me play for a while and slowly starts talking to me and gives me a pound whenever i win. Mistake number one was acknowledging he exists.
Wasn't mistake No1 'targeting kings bounty bets' Or did you have some impressive counting going on?
Giving him that $25 did no-one any favours. He would probably have lost that before you could get out of his sight, or he could have just carried on hassling you. You certainly did no favours to the next guy he pan-handles, because now he know it works.
He'd been lucky to lose $3,000. It's a more useful life lesson than winning.
Quote: OnceDearOh deary deary me.
Wasn't mistake No1 'targeting kings bounty bets' Or did you have some impressive counting going on?
No counting, but I find that I can mostly stay even when it comes to simply minimum betting. So I also find that getting a 20 is alot easier when playing head to head. Getting a 20 comes out more often than winning a hand or blackjack for the matter. I was always one of those people who said side bets are for suckers, but when you only usually win a side bet or the main bet, I have chosen that the side bets can be more profitable at a lower minimum along with frequently surrendering allows me to make money quicker and easier.
If the units go up any more than 3 units its not worth it. Usually at the sands it about 20 dollar min and 50 max out on the floor.
But when it lowers to 15 financially the side bets work out alot better for me.
Edit: And giving him the 25 allowed me to run i was okay with that haha
It maybe a language barrier thing, but you seem to express some strange ideas.Quote: heatmapI have chosen that the side bets can be more profitable at a lower minimum along with frequently surrendering allows me to make money quicker and easier....
It's fair enough to say that you make certain bets because you enjoy them or because you've previously had luck with them. But I doubt you can choose to have a side bet with about 25% house edge be a way to make money quicker... Well not without also losing more on average.
Did you imply that you surrender more frequently than basic strategy dictates?
Quote: OnceDearIt maybe a language barrier thing, but you seem to express some strange ideas.
It's fair enough to say that you make certain bets because you enjoy them or because you've previously had luck with them. But I doubt you can choose to have a side bet with about 25% house edge be a way to make money quicker... Well not without also losing more on average.
Did you imply that you surrender more frequently than basic strategy dictates?
I know this sounds crazy, but the playing that I have experienced falls within the category of superstitious. I don't want to continue to think the things that I do, but I am trying to work with them. The cards I take are always a wreck for the dealer, but when the dealer takes a card, its a trump to my hand. What I think I am seeing is that the side bets win, or the original wager wins. Either or. A hand with a score of 20 is NO GOOD to me as a winning hand against the dealer normally, so the only way I can rationalize betting the kings bounty is because I normally dont win against the dealer with a 20. I swear I know people say that they are sucker bets, but when you see that the only way to make money on these particular tables is to bet a side bet and surrender any 16 besides a split makes the games tolerable.
Quote: heatmapIm playing blackjack, targeting kings bounty bets.
A guy walks over down on his luck, 3000 dollars worth.
He watches me play for a while and slowly starts talking to me and gives me a pound whenever i win. Mistake number one was acknowledging he exists.
He notices that although i wasnt playing basic strategy, that i was winning and he never left me after that.
Mistake number two - letting him "play". Every now and then i would add a hand, and he would play the hand, it was established that knew the winnings werent his. YES i know they legally would have been his on camera but I didnt have that issue luckily.
I start to lose, get up and he follows me to another table. Hes not always "playing" because I am choosing whether or not he "plays" a hand.
At this point I start to tell him I am about to leave and he starts to ask me for money to "have a chance to build back up his 3000 he lost" - I tell him no.
I go cash in my chips and hes still following me and hes starting to make me nervous. I tell him I am cashing and might play another hand after but he can just watch me play if he wanted.
Im playing at freebet and hes getting me even more nervous as hes pacing and at this point i think hes planning something drastic like robbing me. I play it cool, and tell him i have to go and he asks me one last time for a lower amount and let him go with 25 bucks and ran.
I honestly thought this would end with him giving you money to "Play," and when you won claiming you stole the money he in reality gave you out of the blue. Low lives have pulled this scam before.
Whatever floats your boat.Quote: heatmapI know this sounds crazy, but the playing that I have experienced falls within the category of superstitious. I don't want to continue to think the things that I do, but I am trying to work with them. The cards I take are always a wreck for the dealer, but when the dealer takes a card, its a trump to my hand. What I think I am seeing is that the side bets win, or the original wager wins. Either or. A hand with a score of 20 is NO GOOD to me as a winning hand against the dealer normally, so the only way I can rationalize betting the kings bounty is because I normally dont win against the dealer with a 20. I swear I know people say that they are sucker bets, but when you see that the only way to make money on these particular tables is to bet a side bet and surrender any 16 besides a split makes the games tolerable.
I suppose you know your superstition is going to get it's ass kicked by the casino's mathematician.
$:o)
Quote: OnceDearWhatever floats your boat.
I suppose you know your superstition is going to get it's ass kicked by the casino's mathematician.
$:o)
very arbitrary as i dont take into consideration the house advantage because if i probably did i wouldnt play.
I do know that but im playing short term relative to their long term and what I meant by "targeting" was that my goal is to stay even when it comes to playing blackjack, but to use the money i win targeting the game of kings bounty based on how many 20s the dealer normally gets. The dealers location is a physical location within the cards which is most likely obtainable by me. This only applies to head to head. The shufflers do not know positions so-to-say, as in they cant differentiate between the dealer and player 1 for example, but when it is head to head, it's easier to do.
I give you a coincidence : Every time a dealer is dealt cards they lie on numbers that have a ratio of 1/2. This is the result of being dealt the last cards before starting over to the second round of cards i think. And the only way I've been able to increase any amount of money I make is from head to head because when playing the game you are the dealer sometimes, as it rotates because it never knows if you are the dealer or a player.
By the way I previously posted this chart based on a pattern and anti-pattern that I thought to have noticed, and it is not completely what i THINK I see anymore, but I still believe that this chart has some truths about the parity of a round, as in my original though was that the house had mostly a 75% chance of winning at any moment, but I believe that to be false.
Quote: heatmapSo I also find that getting a 20 is alot easier when playing head to head. Getting a 20 comes out more often than winning a hand or blackjack for the matter.
Your chance of getting dealt 20, regardless of how many players are at the table ,is about 10.5%
Your chances of winning a hand is 42%. (Worse if you’re not playing basic strategy )
