Online Sports Gambling Cont.If I can flatter myself to think anyone pays much attention to my posts, I'll say that you may remember I said I wouldn't do online sports gambling after checking into it and risking $10 to see if I could get it back without a hassle. I did get a small hassle, a mysterious "reversal" of my request to withdraw. After a second request, though, it came through. And all they have for me is my name, address, and phone no.
I have tested the withdrawal process once more, successful for about $30, and am now in the process of testing a withdrawal of $50. As far as my contributions, I have deposited, net, zero dollars now, so, yes, this is all money I have been able to accumulate from offers that they have floated. Remarkably enough, if you wait long enough in Virginia anyway, free bet offers will come along as will deposit match offers. Admittedly, what I've accumulated is chump change, but to some degree this is because I don't take full advantage. I fully expect that if the amount gets large enough, they may decide to give me a hard time on withdrawal. Plus, if you win cumulatively as much as $600, they say they are going to report it to the IRS. The wording makes it sound like if you won $12 a week that'd do it, and as far as I know, they might not even deduct your losses first. All in all, not betting very much sounds like a very sound decision.
Meanwhile, it's been an education. There's something about the ability to 'gamble anytime' that's sobering for me, I can't see the purpose unless I gamble smart. At a brick and mortar sportsbook, I generally just pick a team, pay only a bit of attention to the odds, and make small bets for fun, expecting in fact to lose money more often than not. As online activity, constantly betting, nothing seems crazier than doing that same thing.
That isn't to say I haven't tried to have fun with some bets, so this is how that has gone:
*Learning the Ropes..............Man, everything has a learning curve. You just have to take the plunge, make your mistakes, and figure out what the hell they are trying to say half the time. One quirk to remember was a free bet I started with that got interrupted until I could get "location confirmation" downloaded and working, and for some reason it didn't at first. Then after it was working, I was informed, your free bet has already been used! So that went bye-bye. Learning curve for that, make sure you are all set to go before using offers. All kinds of things like that.
*The Money Line..................... I had thought that the way it goes, the oddsmakers set up the beginning money lines and then see where the betting goes. If there is heavy betting on one end, then the line would move, and you might wait to see if it moves enough to be attractive. I've noticed though, with well-heeled outfits like I am betting at anyway, that it goes like this: Both the favorite and the underdog bets have a house edge [of course] but if the betting is heavy on one side, then the first thing that happens is that side only moves. The Yankees, say, might start at -120, and if the betting comes in heavy on that, it'll go to -125 quickly and soon worse. They want to limit the action somewhat with those bettors. But their opponent's line that started at, say, +105, doesn't move at all for quite a while. Finally, as the game approaches start time, it might finally move. Or not. They have the wherewithal to cover the bets without needing the money to come in on the other side, that is clear. That the less heavily bet line moves at all might be just a hedge against the possibility the oddsmakers didn't get it right, I think. Basically, they want to maintain that if the oddsmakers did get it right, you lose in the long run betting either side, why should they move the line? Some of this I've learned too from what the Wizard has said. In any case, I don't waste much time trying to take advantage of heavy big city betting.
*Live Betting........................ The live betting is where you want to be if you want to see some wild swings. I am not sure, but I think there may be opportunities here. If the underdog scores first, the reaction is very strong. In one game, the Yankees were the favorite, and I had bet on the Phillies line that was at +105. They did score first, in the first inning I think, and all of a sudden you could take the Yankees at +400 and I took it. That bet lost, but I had both sides at positive something and couldn't get hurt. I just felt that +400 was way too good odds, that the Yankees had better chances to still win than that suggested. I'll admit the problem is that the team that scores first does have the best chances to win by a pretty large margin. Maybe it's best to just stay with your bet and get the payoff, +400 doesn't cut it. To research that would really be a job. All I can say is, the Yankees almost won and my feeling at this point is, I'd do it again. I do think your original bet has to be something that makes sense, and if it is late innings, it's going to be best to stick with it.
*Offers...................... I am such a piker that I can hardly believe they bother with any offers. But if you wait they will come. Most of it is the "parlay boost tokens" and they have this going all the time; the Wizard looked into it and confirmed, these reduce but do not eliminate the house edge. Hopefully this will show up in an ask-the-W. If you are betting on several games at once anyway, might as well use the boost, assuming you can emotionally stand long strings of losing waiting for the big hit.
Also, though, I've been able to take advantage of free-bet offers, small though they might be, and recently took the plunge on a deposit match offer. This deposit was actually just a return of the money I had withdrawn as a test. I could have made a bigger deposit [$150 I think?] and gotten it matched, but I'm just not going to get that invested, none of it is going to be my money and if it is ever all gone, that'll be it. I still don't trust that a withdrawal might get some hassling, and then there's the matter of reporting to the IRS if I win hardly anything at all. It's not for me. In any case, the match required I play if off 5 times through, any sports bets:
*Deposit Match.................. This is how that went. I realized that what I thought I knew about this kind of thing wasn't going to work. Let's say it was $150 [it wasn't], so now I would have had to make $750 worth of bets. I believe it is true that the smartest thing to do is make one $750 bet. In order to do that, though, I'd have to deposit a chunk of change, the money is otherwise simply not there. Well, I'm not going to do that, as I explained. So, instead, I had to make a series of small bets and hope I kept winning half of them!
I tested whether you could guarantee keeping about half: many games are at -110/-110 , and if you take both sides, you give up 9.1% of what you bet. That'd be $68 if you did it for the entire $750, guaranteeing you kept $82 of a $150 bonus. But I instead went about making the best bets I could find, un-hedged, mostly hockey bets. I wasn't scoring big on anything, so when I had about $20 to go I did do the doey-don't, so to speak, on such a baseball game, $10 each side, and it went through without a squawk, qualifying as $20 play-through.
Update: just got my $50. Maybe I can just stick with "no more than $50 and there'll be no hassle"?
Handy Craps MathI was explaining Craps math to somebody by email and got to this point. I want to preserve this so I don't have to do it again if explaining to somebody else!
I promised you some math. Here is how to come up with 1.41%. In gambling it is always the probability of the bet winning times the win amount, minus the probability of the bet losing times the loss amount. The final HE is the sum of the HE of each type of roll result in Craps
Michael Shackleford, who has a helpful set of websites, breaks down how to figure the house edge below. It's the prob. of winning minus the prob. of losing at one unit, which avoids having to multiply by the bet amount, since that would be 'times one'.
He then works it out to common denominator because he wants to get to 244/495, a well known ratio for chances of winning. That allows him to use 251/495 as the chances of losing.
"The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36.
The probability of establishing a point and then winning is pr(4)×pr(4 before 7) + pr(5)×pr(5 before 7) + pr(6)×pr(6 before 7) + pr(8)×pr(8 before 7) + pr(9)×pr(9 before 7) + pr(10)×pr(10 before 7) =
(3/36)×(3/9) + (4/36)×(4/10) + (5/36)×(5/11) + (5/36)×(5/11) + (4/36)×(4/10) + (3/36)×(3/9) =
(2/36) × (9/9 + 16/10 + 25/11) =
(2/36) × (990/990 + 1584/990 + 2250/990) =
(2/36) × (4824/990) = 9648/35640
The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640 = 17568/35640 = 244/495
The probability of losing is obviously 1-(244/495) = 251/495
The player's edge is thus (244/495)×(+1) + (251/495)×(-1) = -7/495 ≈ -1.414%."
Now here is each damn possible event you can put into an online calculator without using common denominator and the shortcut of -[251/495]. Instead the prob. of losing is crunched out same as prob of winning. As an exercise every once in a while I try to duplicate this.
[6/36] +[2/36] +[3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] -[1/36] -[1/36]-[2/36]-[3/36]*[6/9]-[4/36]*[6/10]-[5/36]*[6/11]-[3/36]*[6/9]-[4/36]*[6/10]-[5/36]*[6/11]
it will equal -0.0141414141414141 if put in a calculator
Tuttigym, here is the distribution made by people who did it by actually rolling the dice and tallying the results. Hope this helps.
image from https://sakibaminwfe.commons.gc.cuny.edu/lab-report/
The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640
9648/35640 = So the probability of making a point is 27.07%?
9648/35640 is indeed 0.2707, [deleting what I wrote after that, not understanding something myself]
[3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] is also 0.2707
for some reason though this does not seem to be the chances of winning when you get a point, since 0.2707 is 1 in 3.694 while in contrast, the chances if the point is 10 or 4, that is well known to be 1 in 3 chances of winning. The chances of winning should get better than 1 in 3 if sometimes the point is 5,6,8, or 9? no?
244/495 overall though, which you can see is close to 1 in 2 since 495 is close to 500
I'll be puttin' triple odds on the Don't Pass!
Several years ago I started a thread regarding the above subject matter on the HE of the pass line bet. The thread lasted for months and had, I believe, hundreds of responses most of which were negative and/or unfriendly. The thesis I proposed was that (1) the actual pure math as shown above is absolutely accurate, (2) that a player's reliance on such a skimpy advantage is a fools errand in that no one has actually witnessed the above outcome, and (3) that the PL wager when employed during the course of "normal" play as used by most all "establishment" bettors, i.e., PL + odds + one or two other numbers + some form of progression is a losing strategy a vast majority of the time. Simply put, after a point is established the house's advantage jumps dramatically because there are more ways to 7 out than to convert any point, and the more numbers one bets on, the more non-point winners one must hit just to break even with the totality of bets placed on the table.
Before membership goes ballistic on the above assertions, I believe winning at the table on a regular basis is difficult only because it takes a "hot shooter" to provide point conversions and/or a long roll posting many numbers BEFORE a 7 out occurs.
So rather than attacking the messenger, I propose that responses try to provide direct evidence that PL bets overall are profitable in the normal process of play.
>>rather than attacking the messenger, I propose that responses try to provide direct evidence that PL bets overall are profitable in the normal process of play.
Profitable? Nope, agree, not attacking.
Mr. O: Further down in this blog, I believe your calculations show an overall point conversion rate at 27+%. Does that mean the House wins approximately 73% of all hands where there is a point established? I am using simple math here. Are my assumptions correct? If so, how does the House's 73% winning advantage on point establishments square with a 1.41% HA.? Can you tell me, approximately, the percentage of outcomes of Come Outs vs Point establishments?
>> Are my assumptions correct?
yes, as far as I can determine. Of course we all knew already it was going to be house advantage once it gets to resolving a point
>> how does the House's 73% winning advantage on
>> point establishments square with a 1.41% HA.
It's in the blogpost, I'll try to help. Quoting,
"The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36."
pr (7) that he uses means the chances that a 7 is rolled ... that's the 6/36
pr (11) means chances that 11 is rolled ... 6/36 there
perhaps confusingly he is showing how to get to 244/495, so he can use 251/495 as chances of losing. So he doesn't show otherwise the chances of losing on the come-out, but I do in the number crunching that you can put in a calculator. Which is this part,
and that is probability of rolling 2, 12, and 3, resp.
If they didn't make you resolve your points, at this stage you're looking good. 8 ways to win, 4 ways to lose, 12 ways altogether. 8/12 is winning two-thirds of the time.
So it has to be that once you have a point to resolve, chances are against you, and that is all represented in the rest of it. It all looks like a big jumble unless you recognize each part.
Wizard's pr(4)×pr(4 before 7) means the chances of rolling a 4 is determined, then that is factored against the chances of rolling a 4 before 7. He shows that as (3/36)×(3/9) next.
That same thing is in the 'calculator equation' that I put in there as [3/36]*[3/9] , with the calculators you use * symbol for multiplying. And I also include the chances of rolling a 4 factored against the chances of rolling a 7 before 4, in other words the chance of losing, it's in there as, -[3/36]*[6/9], notice the minus sign. Wizard does not show this latter bit because he is going to use 251/495 as an overall chance of losing.
If you followed me so far, I hope you can find the other point numbers
Thanks for the response, however, you failed to answer, for me and perhaps the rest of the craps community, the most important query, what is the total percentage of those 2 to 1 PL wager wins against the percentage of point outcomes. The question may be a bit clumsy, but are point outcomes 90% of the totality of outcomes? Is it more or less? The reason these questions are so important is that "weighing" PL wins at Come out on equal footing with point conversion wins is, my words, misleading simply because a House win ratio of 73% to 27% totally skews what I call the "true" HA. By folding, let's say, 10% of the game into the total outcomes available and allowing such to be on "balance" with the vast majority of outcomes, disallows the proper mathematical valuation. or proportion.
One other thought: most players wager many more "right side" bets after point establishment. Those bets usually, in my experience, exceed the totality of the PL + odds bet combination. 1.) A 7 out wipes out all of those bets creating a large deficit in ones bank roll. 2.) A point winner only gives the right side bettor the PL + odds $$$ while leaving the other bets on the table to be at risk for the next point. 3.) That win/loss imbalance is unaddressed always when discussing the HA.
Please comment, and if you know the answer to the percentage of play question please enlighten me.
I did forget to say this has been analyzed as the percent of rolls that are come out rolls , "In craps 29.6% of total rolls are come out rolls, on average"
a little more than half way down
hope this helps
Mr. OG: Thanks for the response and enlightenment. So, of that 30%, one can assume that the player will win 2 to 1 of those Come Outs only which are even money wins and usually at the table minimum, and then 70+% of the game are point decisions where the player is "expected" to lose 73% of the time at perhaps five or six times the money. Would that be a fair assumption? (the minimum of that assumption would be 2 times, i.e., PL + odds ). With that being the assumed case, how can one justify expressing such a low HA/HE when the reality is far more dire.
As a thoughtful and reasonable individual, wouldn't you tell or educate would-be craps players the reality of the above and forego the rhetoric of the, my words, misleading PL HA/HE math?
I'm working myself up to asking you a great big question, but I'm going to do it at your thread in the forum. Soon but not immediately.
Mr. OG: I read the above calculations as well as some of the others on pages 2 & 3. The lines of numbers, parentheses, math signs (+; -; =), and eventual resultant fractions which then are converted to decimal numbers which are then translated to percentile scores or such is, for me and perhaps others, beyond mind blowing and confusing.
You and others have done, and are doing a volume of work, and there is great preparation which is evident. As you know, perhaps heresy, I find the conclusions reached to be completely out of touch with the reality actual play. Mission146, Chumpchange, and a whole host of others embrace all of these calculations and concept. I am the outlier; I know. I have taken a lot of heat, which I can handle because I know that here is no real malice, but there is lots of frustration with my views. Basically, my feet are planted in cement as are yours and the others. From my point of view, that is okay.
The "final" question(s) for me: Is there ANY demonstrable real world craps play PROOF (emphasis) that any of the calculations presented throughout this blog have and/or can happen? Can anyone direct a naysayer, such as myself, to the "holy grail" of such documentation? Showing the math or the calculations are theories and, in your own words above, "PROBABILITIES" (emphasis) without substantiation. When terms such as "expected," "probability," and "variance" are used to describe results, what follows is vagueness and doubt.
What I have witnessed and experienced from others in their posts is, for me, an unreasonable certainly which they foist upon others who desperately want to win.
Thank you for your patience, intellect, and forum friendship. Perhaps, one day I might be able to return the kindness.
>The "final" question(s) for me: Is there ANY demonstrable
>real world craps play PROOF (emphasis) that any of the
>calculations presented throughout this blog have and/or
Proof? I guess step one is the distribution. Prove to yourself that 7s are the most common, 6 & 8s are next, and so on. Even kids playing board games learn an 11 or 12 is hard to roll. Then ask yourself, can a mathematician figure out exactly how likely it is to win or lose if you bet a 7 comes up rolling 2 dice, and someone takes your bet on some other number? I'm not being snide, to my way of thinking, I think the math can answer that question and the casinos rely on it too.
I felt your point was that for just a few rolls, the dice can take you anywhere, so 'quit talking about the math'. That's an OK point. I agree that a newbie can be led to think 1.4% means he can't lose much money. Ha.
>Can anyone direct a naysayer, such as myself,
>to the "holy grail"
>of such documentation?
I don't know. I can only point to the distribution. Look at this blog post again here [not these comments], I changed it and put in a pie distribution. It may not help but I'm trying.
I absolutely get the "probabilities." What one cannot say is that these are "certainties" and can be considered "reliable." The uninitiated, the novice, the mathematically "challenged," and the gullible can only see a perceived HA/HE that is so miniscule, i.e., !.41% that their foray into the game would only result in small losses. Those who "push" the theorized 1.41% HA/HE, I believe, have an absolute responsibility to provide the complete picture that 73% of 7 outs due to non point conversions, which are predominant in the game, and will actually result in losing sessions a vast majority of the time.
The pie chart above is really interesting. How many actual dice rolls were tallied? Did the tally report all consecutive rolls or were they from different tables at different times? Did the tallies included consecutive hands and were the Come Outs distinguished from point play or was it all lumped together? For me, those are important questions that go to credibility.
There are several anomalies which I am sure you recognize and actually demonstrate why "probabilities," "expectations," and "realities" need to be emphasized and explained in greater depth. The "7" is right on; the "6" & "8" overperformed by about 4%; the "9" overperformed by 3%; and the "5" underperformed by 5%. So how does this chart "show" or "report" a HA/HE 1.41% when 84% of the numbers rolled were not a "7"? What the chart actually conveys is that there are 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose which is what I have stated a lot with associated caveats. The chart does not show a tiny HA/HE; it actually shows a gigantic player edge because there is NO context regarding the number distribution during play. If one were to ask you that question, how would you answer?
Mr. OG: A small slice of my background. I was interested in sports science. While in graduate school, I was required to do some form of research and present a thesis to be presented to a committee for review, critique, and grade. When I went to the library and saw the volumes of research works (theses) that had been submitted by other students, I was taken aback by the length of the various works in the many disciplines.
My advisor informed me that the vast majority of papers were between 75 and 300+ pages in length because the topics, for the most part, were extensions of previously done research with a different "twist." I was a gymnast and my specialty was the still rings. In one of my classes, a low level engineering class, I ask the prof. how it could be determined how much strength it would be required of a gymnast to perform an "Iron Cross" on the still rings. He honestly replied that he could not begin to guess. I asked if that research would be an acceptable project for my thesis. The answer was in the affirmative.
In doing research to do my research, I found that there was none. Nine months later my project was completed and the paper was written. The bibliography was a page and a half. The completed thesis was 18 pages long. I received 6 hours of A (my grade). It was the shortest master's thesis in school history. That was 1963, and, I believe, it is still the shortest (no confirmation).
A professor mentor of mine told me, early in my educational experience: "Do not believe ANYTHING you hear or read, ANYTHING, unless your intellect tells you to do so." I have always lived by that.
Very impressive resume there, sir.
I too believe skepticism is a very valid part of Science.
If you took such courses, you may be able to comprehend OK the math of 'standard deviation'. This is a mathematical approach to the question "if the HE is only 1.41% , why did I just lose thousands of dollars playing Craps?"
Are you familiar at all with that math?
btw I have lost as much as $1000 playing Craps, but I always quit at that point. I have won as much as $1800 too though, and also tend to quit when going over $1k so as 'not to give it back'. Longterm I am behind as most will be, but it has been fairly cheap entertainment.
"Standard deviation" may have been something of which I was aware, but it is not in my wheelhouse currently because there is no need to use such. However, anybody who has played our game has probably mirrored your experiences to some extent. I absolutely KNOW that you comprehend my firm positions concerning HA/HE and more than likely share my concerns.
The over whelming negative and harsh reactions to my position are unfortunate. I understand those that believe as they do because their indoctrination has never been truly challenged on any level. I personally can not process their blind acceptance of something that does not come close to actual reality.
Mr. ChumpC provided one outlandish "mathematical" example of an "equation" containing a fraction with 5 or 6 numbers on either side (numerator/denominator). He then translated that set of fractions into a percentile "score." Why? It is not even close to reality. Yet there will be some who will believe it is gospel. Very sad.
I did ask some questions about the pie chart which you did not address. That is okay, but if you do have any answers, let me know.
I just added a link you can click on right above the pie chart that talks about the chart. It shows the results of 100 rolls of 2 dice and I was actually looking for one that used maybe 100,000 rolls, but couldn't find one.
Standard Deviation is not too easy 'to do' but is not too hard to understand. Basically it's a method that looks at that pie chart and asks how likely it was. For example, there were more 8s than 7s, and it would say what the chances were of that.
Mr. OG: Thanks for the response. I think you will agree that 100 dice rolls is an inadequate sample size to determine much of anything one would consider credible. I will look at the link you posted. As you know, all casinos "monitor" each table with CCTV. Suppose one could review and calculate all the dice rolls and hands played from 4 tables for a period of say 3 weeks. All players would have their identities masked for confidentiality. There would probably be a real sample size of at least 100,000 rolls and perhaps 25,000 hands played all consecutive. Here is what will be uncovered:
1. A pie chart reflecting a true picture of the percentage of numbers as above.
2. A credible breakdown (percentage) of hands solved by Come Out and Point Establishment.
3. A means of determining the overall average wagers placed per hand.
4. The average wins per hand.
5. The average losses per hand.
6. The true difference of the above thus providing the actual "weight" of the PL wins or losses so that the overall "real" HA/HE is documented.
7. To determine if there is a reality of the 495 PL outcomes. (however, in Vegas that would be impossible). I can explain that statement later unless you can figure it out yourself.
8. There may be other mysteries uncovered I have not thought of but the above would be a great start.
Is it possible to accomplish? Yes Is it likely? No
Cherokee May 2021Harrah's Cherokee Hotel and Casino Resort was the venue recently for the wife and I to meet up with Doc and Mrs. Doc, socializing, having dinner and playing Craps with him. Doc focuses on Craps while I am also there to play video poker and bet on hockey at the sports book. The wife and I stayed a bit longer and spent a portion of the time enjoying Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Maybe we caught things at a pretty good time. Coronavirus restrictions were going away, restaurants and bars open, and for that matter got a room pretty easily compared to the past. Very few people were wearing masks, not required for sure, and the playing tables seemed unrestricted as to how many were seated or allowed.
The Pandemic meant a change to smoke-free in the casino, something that may prove permanent I think.
Our room was in the Creek Tower section, suiting Mrs. Gambit just fine, not overpriced I wouldn't say. It was the quietest room I've stayed in, perhaps ever.
Near future promises more rooms and a convention center, plus other new things coming I think ... it's hard to find up-to-date information on that. We got no noise from any of that though. The Missus enjoyed walking around the very nice nature-centric outdoors at the hotel, and the weather was comfortable enough to sit outside etc. with evidently low humidity. It got into the high 80s but I would say it was fine weather.
image from https://www.theonefeather.com/2020/09/operations-moving-forward-at-harrahs-cherokee-casino/
The buffet was closed and restaurant reservations were a little tricky. The Brio Tuscan Grill was very hard to book, it's quite the favorite due to being a nicer restaurant with relatively modest entree prices. That is, relative to the other choice without leaving Harrah's, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. I'd be disappointed if we hadn't eaten there at least once, but unless you killed 'em at the Craps table it's time to bring the credit cards when at the latter. Reservations were easier to get but they were booked up some too.
Though there is the food court too, reopening the buffet will help and there should be a new brewpub opening soon, the Wicked Weed. Not sure what that name is supposed to suggest, maybe cbd oils in the beer along with the hops? I think they'll have to!
It's a big casino floor, and the layout is such that it's easy to get lost trying to find your restaurant etc. If you figured out some landmarks the next time you come down a different escalator and you're lost again. Well, not such a big deal as all that, no search teams have to come looking, but I was happy to discover what I'll call 'the yellow brick road'. Only sometimes yellow, but constantly changing colors, and it's up above, sort of similar looking to very large joined cinder blocks. This traces a trail from essentially the Craps area to the Sportsbook. Very key and I never knew about it.
I suspected we would find that the lowest minimum for Craps was going to be $15, and I was right. Since I started playing Bank Craps about 16 years ago, my MO has pretty much been to play the Pass line with odds and sometimes press by adding Come bets with odds. But $5 tables were often to be found, and if I had to play at a $10 table, fine. I figured out I was pretty consistently making about 50 bets an hour, comfortable with average bets of around $50 once odds were added.
With $15 tables I was starting to find I was getting out of my comfort zone with this pattern. 50 bets an hour was too much, even if keeping the average bet with odds around the same $50. So this time I changed my MO. It's 10x odds there so this time I decided if I wanted to press I'd increase the free odds instead of making Come bets. The downside to it is the feeling you have less action, with having to just wait for your one bet to resolve. You can get a shooter who's is rolling all the numbers on a long roll while he never hits yours, that is the worst part. I have to say it worked out pretty well for me though, I left there with more bankroll than I started with, 2 sessions paying off nicely by my standards with only one that knocked me back anything worth mentioning.
Doc and I decided we had to try some different Craps we spotted, 'Roll to Win' Craps. You use a video screen instead of chips, and there is only one dealer. Players throw the dice; no felt but a glass top instead. Thinking about it now, I see no reason to have the glass table unless what's under the glass reads the dice? Really, we just wanted to say we tried it, but it did have the attraction of being a $5 table with 5x odds. There was naturally less down time paying off winning bets. At bubble Craps machines I've tried, it was very irritating to have the odds turned off automatically and often for no reason, but I had no trouble with that with this one. Doc said he noticed the dice did bizarre stuff, getting an extra boost of some sort at times. That's worrisome but I doubt if it's the machine cheating. You can see how someone might conclude differently, especially if it's true the table reads the dice. I don't think I'd play it again unless the table minimums were even higher than $15 with the real tables, I'm too traditionally minded. Hey, we can say we tried it though. We didn't play long and Doc won a bit while I lost a bit.
I also had to try an Ultimate Texas Holdem electronic game. This was do-able for $1! Two dollars I guess since you have to make ante and blind bets both. I hadn't played in a long time but I was sure it would come back to me. I remembered the thing about 21 outs but I forgot the way in which I liked to speed through the thinking on that. I couldn't remember exactly what to act on for 4x betting, but remembered it was 'Queen, something' and just avoided 'Queen, 5' and similar. The 21 outs thing just didn't seem to come up.
The thing had a big screen with frequently changing, buxom dealers. Decolletage aplenty. Oddly, only two of 5 video terminals were in working order. If I remember right I lost 6 dollars after playing for 30+ minutes; I'd play this again, but want to re-familiarize myself with the Wizard free game first.
The table game area did have UTH for $15, which means $30 initial betting of course, plus $60 when you bet 4X. Didn't sit down as I didn't feel like robbing a liquor store first.
There was no sportsbook when I was last there in 2017. The new one is pretty awesome and a great place to spend some time. I have been to 3 of these attached to casinos and have been surprised they don't assist the bettors better. There are tons of bets to make but they don't put them out there. They may or may not put out some sheets, it's very incomplete. They should have live betting of some kind but if they do, it's not really set up for it. Video terminals would be a great idea and I've never seen one at any.
One redeeming quality though: you make your bet, you get your slip, and you collect cash if you win. No giving your name, address, phone no., bank account, SS#, no photo taken of you holding up your passport, nobody saying you don't get your initial deposit back 'pal', and all that. And it's a nice place to just be and watch sports.
I started a forum thread on this too, https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling-outside-vegas/eastern-us/36018-cherokee-vp-dilemma/#post807951 , but here is more detail.
As opposed to a lot of casinos nearer to me, they do offer a lot of video poker. They group VP machines at the bottom of one of the escalators to the gambling area, but also scatter them around the casino floor and on bartops. It makes it a game to possibly find the best paytables, and these are unlikely at the large group.
There were Ultimate X machines so vulturing was conceivably doable, however, I'd bet they get worked over pretty good at all hours.
Double Double Bonus machines are very heavily represented, along with other ideas along those lines, Triple Double Bonus for sure. I greatly prefer just 'Bonus Poker' or 'Jacks or Better' if you can get good paytables. If you checked into the thread I started you'll know it needs to be 25 cents too to fit the bill for me. It's just obvious to me it's hard to last at double double and triple double etc, even Bonus Deluxe can take your money pretty fast. Yeah, these heavy-on-bonus machines give it back if you 'hit' of course, so if the paytables are good I have to say it's just preference. The best I could find that suited me was Bonus Poker at 7/5. I had looked all over the casino for something better and finally found BP at 8/5 and 25 cents just before leaving. As it turned out, I never got a chance to play it. PM me if you want to know where it was, I hate to be selfish but I hope it is still there on a return visit, and it almost seems like a mistake.
Mrs. Gambit and I decided to spend morning and afternoon in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on the last day. Very beautiful as you already knew of course, and we had a nice lunch at a great picnic area that's as you come in a few miles, close enough to the casino to do a picnic excursion for something different. I recommend doing that, there's a nice deli on the way and a Subway too.
Elk were introduced starting in 2001. There are warning signs, the website posts this, "Warning! Elk are large animals--larger than black bears--and can be dangerous. Female elk with calves have charged people in defense of their offspring. Males (bulls) may perceive people as challengers to their domain and charge. The best way to avoid these hazards is to keep your distance. " So I guess Darwin awards are possible, people are so dumb. https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/elk.htm
Sure enough we saw some just as we were headed back, and the wife took a picture.
Had a great time in the company of some very fine people and ready to head back!
Regarding the Roll to Win craps, this was my very first time trying that game. Players are seated in front of individual terminals where they place/manage their wagers. The table top -- normally a felt in "real" craps -- is also a video display in this game, usually showing a table layout similar to a regular felt. However, it does change frequently. This puzzled me a bit, since when seated in front of my betting terminal, I could not even see the table surface. Was there something I should have been looking at? All of the players essentially remained seated except the shooter, who stood to pick up and throw the dice. If there is important info displayed on the changing table top, then the players aren't seeing it. There are also video boards suspended from the ceiling, and they may be showing the same info, but I didn't delve into comparing the two.
OG mentioned that I "noticed the dice did bizarre stuff." I think it was related to the material surface of that video display. OG called it glass, but it may be an acrylic or some such thing. When I was tossing the dice, I was throwing them probably six feet (horizontally) in the air. One time when they hit, they just plain stopped, "bouncing" just three or four inches each. That shocked me -- is was as if they landed on glue or something. On another toss, when the dice hit the surface, they both bounced directly to the left, a ninety degree turn with a first hop 3/4 of the way across the table. I know I wasn't putting that much "spin" on them, so I don't know what was up. I don't think it had anything to do with an impropriety in the game, just an odd combination of friction and elasticity that gave unexpected results. At least the table top wasn't cluttered with stacks of chips that I needed to avoid with my throws.
I had one other disappointment with the game, and that involved using the touch-screen betting terminal. It was necessary to select a chip denomination, then select a wager location, then click for each chip you wanted to bet there. If I wanted to place an $18 wager on the six, I needed to select the $5 chip, click the place bet spot three times, select the $1 chip, and click the spot three more times. Sometimes the touch screen seemed to ignore my touches. There was a countdown timer running that limited the opportunity available for changing your wagers, and I found that I sometimes had significant difficulty getting my preferred wagers placed. Maybe just a lack of experience with this game. When a place/buy wager paid off, a pop-up appeared, giving you a chance to parlay the bet. I always tried to hit the X to turn down this offer. Once, I must have fat-fingered the press and made the error of placing a lay bet on the same number (the wager positions were close together). The timer ran out before I could correct this, and that roll was the 7. The accidental bet was a winner, while my others all lost. Unfortunately, the denomination that was accidentally wagered wasn't appropriate for a lay bet, so my winnings included an odd number of pennies. All the coins went into the cashier's tip box when I redeemed the payout ticket.
>>> the material surface of that video display. OG called it glass, but it may be an acrylic or some such thing
I guess you may be right, they just thought it'd be great to display this and that, but definitely you want to be seated to operate your video terminal. It can't be worth the expense if you can't see it except when shooting. Is it possible it reads the dice? Only one dealer, who has to be trusted, and he might be tempted if only his buddies are at the table .... hmmm, is my imagination running away with me?
I found what I posted about shortcut-thinking in the 21 outs in Ultimate Texas Holdem. The thing is, you don't have time to tediously count the outs! Check it out and this will be handy reference for me too
This last Memorial Day I visited Cherokee's Harrah's and was shocked that the craps tables and other table game minimums were $25. I did not play. It was interesting that the craps tables and most other tables were jammed with players. With Harrah's being the only casino available within several states, I guess they can do whatever they want. The $$$ continue to flow as there are enough patrons available to spend those big $$$ and perhaps absorb large losses just to be able to participate. A few days after returning home, I decided to try to design my play to be able overcome the $25 minimum by thinking outside the box. I believe I can create betting patterns, make multiple wagers of from $3 to $15, have fun, perhaps win, and thwart, for the most part, the $25 minimum. So "O" pump up your creative juices and tell me how you might attack the problem economically.
>>> I believe I can create betting patterns, make multiple
>>> wagers of from $3 to $15, have fun, perhaps win, and thwart,
>>> for the most part, the $25 minimum.
thanks, btw, for your comments.
the 'have fun' part I hope comes true. Sounds like you're going to be working the middle table bets. The variance is pretty high so you never know
I related how I also have a problem with the table minimums getting higher. We still want to live in the 2000s I guess LOL.
>>> So "O" pump up your creative juices and tell me how
>>> you might attack the problem economically.
I'm probably going to stick with avoiding Come bets to keep from having too much in action. When I want to press, I'll add to the free odds instead of making a Come bet, as I certainly will not be using that to the full 10x available to start out. If it's only 3x4x5x that might be a prob.
Ironically, there is one clear way to handle the higher minimums and neither of us is going to do it. You can work out on paper what your *total action* would be at the old minimum you were comfortable with. Then you bet in such a way that you do not exceed that; probably just counting the number of line bets would work, not exceeding those. Doing this, you actually increase the probability you will win over your old style, going by the idea that it is better to take a certain amount and divide it up into just a few bets than it is to take that amount and divide it up into a multitude of bets. Though the EV is the same either way [unless you fail on the 'same amount' bit] , that it is better is illustrated by betting $1000 on a coin toss 1000 times for $1. Almost for sure something close to half the bets win, half lose, you wind up a bit or down a bit. [edits] If you bet the $1000 on a single toss of the coin, though, you have the best chance to win another $1000, indisputable. It's also indisputable that this is the best way to lose it all at once! For that reason a middle way is what I like best.
Sorry, a lot of that was to convince me, not so much you, necessarily. I just don't know that I will deviate this much, but I have started to change.
Eye-Popping T&C TextI've also looked into the Terms and Conditions of Fanduel and William Hill for Virginia
As suspected, deal-breaking content in both. And I might as well indicate the bothersome text for MGM too.
MGM, Bad:"to facilitate these Security Reviews, You agree to provide such information or documentation as We, in Our unfettered discretion, may request."
Worse: "Your acceptance of these Agreements serves as acknowledgement that the Form 1099-Misc may be issued by Us by January 31 following the year of the receipt of a prize consisting of cash or merchandise for which a 12 month accumulated value of six hundred US dollars ($600) or more won by using the Services are subject to the IRS regulations."
William Hill, skipping just 'bad', it's there, and on to Eye-Popping: "To verify Your identity, We reserve the right to request satisfactory proof of identity (including but not limited to copies of a valid passport/identity card and/or any payment cards used), a photograph or picture of You holding up your valid passport/identity card and satisfactory proof of address"
Fanduel T&C: overtly not as bad perhaps, covertly perhaps, see this from Fanduel FAQ ... Eye-Popping:
"Attempting to withdraw deposited funds
The withdrawal process is intended only for winnings. If you would like a refund on one of your recent deposits, please contact our Customer Support Team."
Who agrees to this stuff?
Unfettered discretion? Unfettered? So the t&cs were written by an intern holding a thesaurus?
some lawyer is very proud of himself for coming up with that one
after reading these things I have to say it is their absolute wish in each and every instance to dream up whatever means they can to see if they can keep you from your money, a desire only modified by realizing you are going to keep gambling ... or maybe realization you are going to complain to the Virginia Lottery which runs it all in my state. That's a maybe.
https://www.valottery.com/aboutus/casinosandsportsbetting [go to infractions section]
I've had to take a picture of myself and show my ID to buy generic viagra at forhims. If they send your money out, what recourse would they have if they just said we thought it was you. I pretty much understand everything to be fine mentioned above. Whatever proof of address is, I don't understand what that means and as simple as it might mean, it could be onerous.
"I've had to take a picture of myself and show my ID to buy generic viagra at forhims." TMI? LOL
" If they send your money out, what recourse would they have if they just said we thought it was you. I pretty much understand everything to be fine mentioned above." You mean you are OK with about anything they'd ask for, I guess. Yeah, I'm different than most I think. Don't want to have to jump thru hoops, and I don't like them even having my SS#
" Whatever proof of address is, I don't understand what that means and as simple as it might mean, it could be onerous" I still maintain that if you use Paypal they should just forget all that crap
Well, Well, Well !After applying for it again, this showed up this morning in my paypal account:
April 4, 2021Payment received
Paid byBetMGM LLC
Transaction ID [deleted]
Looks like I have to take back what I said. Partially. Though these at-heart nefarious people can't resist messing with you... and I am sticking with the reasons they have for doing it as I outlined... as you can see I finally got my 13 bucks and $3 profit. BetMGM-VA was entitled to decline paying me according to the T&C I did read, but they paid me anyway. Good for them, considering the amount.
To be sure, I'm not going to be depositing any more money. The question "will possibly they try to mess with me?" has been answered. I will take advantage of any further freebets offered, however. Surprisingly enough, they are still coming. Currently a $5 freebet that may have only come my way because the withdrawal request was reversed at one point. That is delicious, and I won't decline just because it makes me look greedy. I'm a gambler and when it comes to gambling, it's all about seizing the moment, you see, some of the rules are unwritten. Of course, it's only $5, not worth my time or their attention either, so I won't try to cash out winnings unless these keep coming. Possibly that ultimate cashout will be denied unless I deposit $10 again, fair enough. But they are letting me make the bet.
I'll keep you posted. T&C on the $5 bet is below.
tip on 'joke' in previous title: connect the *two previous* titles.
Terms & Conditions
1.1 These Terms and Conditions apply to the specific promotional offers in our sports betting and live betting line-up called and displayed as "FreeBet".
1.2 In addition to these FreeBet Terms and Conditions, our General Terms and Conditions and our Standard Promotional Terms and Conditions apply.
1.3 In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between these FreeBet Terms and Conditions, the Standard Promotional Terms and our General Terms and Conditions, these FreeBet Terms and Conditions shall prevail, followed by the Standard Promotional Terms and Conditions and then the General Terms and Conditions but only to the extent necessary to resolve such conflict or inconsistency.
2.1 Where offered, a "FreeBet" entitles You to place a bet without prior deduction of the stake from Your account balance. The amount that is used for the calculation of the possible winnings of this bet ("FreeBet Value") will be displayed as "Stake".
2.2 FreeBets can be subject to certain restrictions: they can be e.g. only valid for certain sports or leagues or for bet placement on specific devices. In such cases, the respective restriction will be displayed in the FreeBet overview.
2.3 If the selection in your bet slip can be played with a FreeBet, the respective FreeBet will be offered to you automatically in your bet slip. You can then play the selection as a FreeBet or use the FreeBet at a later point in time.
2.4 Available FreeBets are displayed on the website above the bet slip. By clicking on this area, you can open the FreeBet overview which lists all of your Freebets that can still be used.
2.5 Unless otherwise stated FreeBets will only be available to real-money players and you are required to make an initial deposit of at least $10 into your account in order to participate.
2.6 Where a FreeBet is settled as "won", you will be credited with FreeBet winnings which will be equal to the FreeBet value multiplied by the odds stated on the bet slip minus the FreeBet value.
2.7 If a bet placed using a Freebet is settled as ‘cancelled’, that Freebet will be deemed invalid.
2.8 If a FreeBet is settled as a ‘dead heat’ (d/h) and the corresponding dead heat odds become < 1.0, no funds shall be deducted from You.
2.9 A FreeBet can be placed as one straight bet or one parlay but the FreeBet value cannot be split between various bet placements. Multiple straight bets, Round Robin bets and bankers are excluded from FreeBets.
2.10 Where offered, a FreeBet can only be used once and within the time frame displayed on screen. If the validity time expires without the FreeBet being used, the FreeBet will become invalid.
2.11 A FreeBet can only be used for our sport betting or live betting line-up. All other products are excluded.
2.12 Where there are specific conditions that apply for selected betting options, for example minimum odds, parlay restrictions etc., these restrictions will also apply for FreeBets.
2.13 Where the player's betting limits are less than the FreeBet value, the FreeBet will have to be forfeited.
2.14 The company does not guarantee the availability of FreeBets on all devices and browser versions.
Oh. I got the song reference. Not sure how it relates to the thread.
You remind me that some 50 years ago, I was in the Mikado in the school play. I recall being late for my cue and in my haste to get on stage I stomped on the headmistress's foot. I never did apologise. Sorry Miss Austin if you are reading this.
I also remember the red-head star of the show. Kathleen Cartlidge (Yum Yum).
>I got the song reference. Not sure how it relates to the thread
It doesn't relate. You might think I'm putting on airs, all cultured and all that, but it's just that for some reason the song "A Wandering Minstrel I" has been on my mind. It's always bugged me that it isn't " I, a wandering minstrel" ... I think someone who 'gets' poetry sees why it is the way it is. I'm afraid I don't have that facility much
definitely had to put the Gilbert & Sullivan reference in there to avoid 'a pondering gambler I' meant a post about such a gambler, *part one*. I'm sure someone did anyway LOL.
So you get the Hearty Hiyo Silver , Sir!