HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: EGG9EJS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Eric J. Splaver)
Subject: Re: WAF
Reply-To: eric@hup.ucla.edu
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:45:42 PDT

In article <1992Jul20.232653.13658@ultra.com>, on 20 Jul 92 23:26:53 GMT,
howard@sinoda.ultra.COM (Howard Simonson) writes:

>|>
>|> Your questions are good and much of what you ask is posted.
>|>
>|> BUT STOP YELLING :-)
>|>
>
>Check out that address, Jon.  The poor guy looks MVS-bound.  When you're
>that deep in IBM-land, uppercase is about all you get.  Frankly, I'm always
>amazed to see something IBM-ish (barring Amdahl/UTS) actually connected and
>posting to the net.  Corporations usually have entire organizations to keep
>just that from happening.  :-)?
>
>As for the topic, WAF, I too find that variance is inherently linked to
>this variable, especially when she's right behind you kicking your chair :-)

Thanks for cutting me some slack Howard!  I am MVS-bound if I want to
connect to the net, but happily I codirect an IS office on the UCLA
campus where I spend most of my time writing code for administrative
applications which will run on a Netware 386 PC lan.  We are using a
local mail gateway, which is why my direct e-mail address is not
MVS-bound.  I'm happy to report I changed my pdf editor defaults to
support lower case.  We've been considering writing our own news reader
and a few more embarassing messages will probably be all the incentive
we need. 

Eric J. Splaver
eric@hup.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Coupons, Coupons, Coupons...
In-reply-to: mannys@thebookstore.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 21 Jul 1992 21:27:24 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:00:25

In article <l6p09sINN738@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> mannys@thebookstore.Eng.Sun.COM (Manuel 'Manny' Raposa) writes:

>   I was in Vegas a couple of weekends ago, and stayed at the Stardust.  For
>some reason, they gave me a 'bunch' of the "Start with an Ace up on Blackjack"
>coupons.  You use these as a guaranteed Ace on your first card.  Bet limit is
>$3 min, and $5 max.   Limit is one per day, so I tried to use them on various
>shifts, but I ended up with 4 of them left.  It may be quite a while before
>I get back to LV, so if anybody wants them, let me know and I'll send them to
>you.  They must have some sort of positive expectation!

Yeah, they give you about a 35% edge over the house.  That's why they
have a $5 max.  I'll take 'em if nobody else has snarfed 'em up....
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: darrenl@natinst.com (Darren Lilie)
Subject: Where in Vegas are those quarter/dollar "fall-over-the-edge" machines?
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:33:25 GMT

I'm heading to Vegas this weekend and am wondering if anyone can recall what
casinos these machines are in because I havent played them in quite a while.

Darren


Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: wallace@dtc.hp.com (David Wallace)
Subject: Query on Cheap Tahoe/Reno BJ Conditions
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:02:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Design Technology Center, Santa Clara, CA

I'll be up in Tahoe for a couple of days soon, and would like to know
about conditions at the cheap BJ tables (cheap = $2 minimum or better).
This is not primarily a gambling trip, but I may stop by a casino or two
if I have time, and would like to hit the ones with the best conditions first.
I expect to be using a very small spread (1-2) with no strategy adjustments.
I know this is unlikely to produce a profit under NN conditions,
but I will have a very risk-averse wife along who influences my utility
function.  My principal objective will be to play for a couple hours on
a $20-30 bankroll, while practicing counting under casino conditions.
Any suggestions given these constraints?

Dave W.		(dwallace@dtc.hp.com)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Trip report Foxwood Conn.
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:51:09 GMT

>
>>So I sat down, 6 decks, (I think) and they dealt about %80.  DAS, one card
>>on split A's, resplitting, DOA, and there was over/under side bet.
>
>Could someone please post or send me the appropriate over-under count for
>this game?  Am I correct in assuming that the over/under bet offers the best
>odds for the player here (using the over/under count, of course)....?
>
>
>---Sean

I counted just for the over/under.  I counted 10's and A-3.  I did a simulation
on this once shen they had the single deck over/under in Reno, and it seemed
like you needed a count of -4 to bet under, and +1 to bet over.  I'll
do the calculation again soon.

I think one could stand behind somebody, wait until the count is right, and
then backbet and put up an over/under bet.  You could do this with your
buddy who is doing a regular count and playing the spot.  Sounds
like an opportunity.

Jim
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: Lotto 6/49. Statistical Analysis Done on "10 years of Data"
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:51:52 GMT

From article <1992Jul28.153101.20586@dragon.acadiau.ca>, by 900073s@dragon.acadiau.ca (Donald Smith):
> 
Stuff deleted.

> I performed a standard statistical test on the data, and the results
> said (basically) that there is no way in hell that you can conclude that
> the balls do not come out in a TOTALLY random order.
> 
> Let's put it this way: If you *were* to decide that the data is *not*
> random, there is a 57.34% chance that you would be wrong. (odds NO
> statistician would find acceptable)
> 
Stuff deleted
> 
> -- Steve

	Am I to assume that you did a statistical evaluation assuming that
the picks were random and found that there was only a 42.66% chance
(100% - 57.34) that the picks would deviate from equal occurances
as much as they did?  This is a very common statistical method and
would seem to be relevant here. If this is so then you are wrong that
no statistician would accept the idea that the numbers are not random.
5%, 2%, 1%, and even much lower numbers are very commonly used as
"acceptance" criteria in cases such as this.  Also, finding that 
there is only an "X" percent chance of the results being as far as
they were from equal occurances is absolutely not the same as saying
that there is only an "X" percent chance that the picks are random.
If you did your analysis differently please post your method (with
the data would be nice) so that it can be determined what you
are saying here.

Scott Lackey
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Variations of Poker wanted
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:15:14 GMT

I have a monthly poker game that is more for socializing than winning $$. I
feel we are in a rut with the same games being played over and over. Can anyone
pass on their favorite variations of poker? We play the usuals:

5 stud
7 stud
5 draw, jacks to open, trips to win
7 stud hi/low
7 stud roll your own
Follow the queen
Imaginary

We rarely play any wild card games (except for follow the queen) but would try
anything interesting.

Thanks!
From: red@HARVARD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Peanuts! Kelly Criterion Strategy Adjustments! Popcorn!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:30:19 GMT
Organization: Harvard University

hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
> I should add that my modified program to compute splitting adjustments
> properly has not completed even one count level in the last two days
> of CPU time.  I don't see any approximations that can be made - the
> split hands have to be resolved one after the other in order to
> determine the expected log of the bankroll after the round, which
> creates a combinatorial explosion.  Any ideas from Steve Jacobs,
> Steve Markowitz, or others?

For a bet size of only 2% of bankroll, E - V/2B makes a very good
estimate for the relative worth of two decisions under the Kelly
criterion.  Rather than keep track of expected log, just keep track of
the expected value and variance and use the above formula.

BTW:  The utility functions x^a/a relate to the formula E - V/2kB by

	k = 1 /(1-a)    or    a = 1 - 1/k

so you can come up with strategies for these other utility functions,
too.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Red Taylor                      | red@harvard.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: messiah@nevada.edu (mw)
Subject: Re: Look, Ma , one hand!
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.160055.24833@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> bobm@hpcvxbm.cv.hp.com (Bob May) writes:
>elliott@aero.org (Kenneth B. Elliott III) writes:

>   True or not, I've found that
>   a lot of dealers get "stupid" when dealing with don't bettors - forcing 
>   you to carefully explain *exactly* what you want, while perfectly 
>   understanding the drunk at the end of the table who wants to buy the 4/10,
>   place the inside and cover the horn, all signified by grunting and tossing
>   a black chip in the Field...

I don't play a lot of craps so forgive me if I don't have the terms quite
right. Anyway, occasionally I'll play a craps table if I have a coupon but
then I've noticed something that I consider highly ethically dubious...

My first time at a craps table, years ago, I placed a bet on the Pass Line
while a point had already been established. What point it was, I can't recall
suffice it to say that this proposition is a horrible one. Assuming the point
was say a 9, which must come up before a 7 in order to win, then placing a
Pass Line bet after a point is made gives the following expected value
(4/10)(+1) + (6/10)(-1) = -(2/10) of a unit for a whopping 20% disadvantage. 

Now imagine doing the opposite; betting Don't Pass after the point has been
made. That would reverse the odds in the player's favour because now its
the 7 that must come up before the point, in order to win. FAT CHANCE!!!
They'll yell "no bet" before that bet hits the felt.

OK, rookies oughta know the rules to keep from getting burned, but somehow
the house only sees fit to remind them of the rules when it helps the house.

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Kurt Marko)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Reno for Cheapskates
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:38:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

In article > stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>My wife and I just got back from Reno (we where there from Monday,
>July 13, to Friday July 17), and since we are not real gamblers,
>here are some money saving hints and notes.
>
>Hotel/motel room:  Through the AAA, we had booked a motel room at

I just booked the C^2 for $37 double (weekdays).  I haven't stayed at
the one in Reno, but the rooms in Vegas used to be decent...it's a lot
newer than the `old' Clarion (Skyway tower's something like 7 years
old). 

>Meals:  The  Circus^2 fun book (we picked up coupons for it

Not the cheapest, but with the recent discussion of buffets, I thought
I would mention the one at Bally's (what are they called now?...anyone
at bally.com care to comment?:).  The food is excellent, although the
atmosphere leaves something to be desired...it runs $7.95 I believe.
Downtown, I've always liked Harrah's buffet.  For real cheap food it's
probably hard to beat Cal-Neva (what is it... 99c ham(steak?) and
eggs?).

>Cheap Blackjack:  In the Skytower Casino at Circus^2, there

Cal-Neva had a couple of $1 tables last year (upper level).  One shoe,
one single deck.  They were always busy, but the single-decker was
great practice for counting as the dealers were _slow_ and left the
cards up a long time; standard N. Nev. rules.  C-N also has(had) 25c
craps.  Down in Tahoe, Bill's also used to have a $1 table.

Kurt Marko


Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jeff@hlmsdeep.b23b.ingr.com (Jeffrey A. Hinz)
Subject: RE: Lotto Analysis Ontario
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:35:13 GMT

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: New Video Poker Machine
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:49:05 GMT

In article <JACOBS.92Jul21114210@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu
(Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.211143.14891@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>> I saw a "double" Video Poker game in Reno last week, and I'm curious
>> as to expected payout.
>>
>> It was a 9-6 Jacks or Better machine with a 53 card deck.  The 53rd
>> card is a "double" card, and it doubles the payout of a high pair,
>> two pair, three of a kind, and 4 of a kind hands.  It had no other
>> value (i.e., it isn't a Joker), so its presence means that there
>> are only four real cards to play with.
>>
>> So, how does the extra "double" payout balance needing to form a hand
>> with only 4 cards?
>
>This looks like a rather amusing machine.  If the rest of the payoffs
>are "normal", it would seem like it should give the player a big advantage,
>because a big chunk of player return comes from large pairs.  Unfortunately,
>it appears that it would take major modifications to my video poker program
>for this, so I doubt that I'll be able to really answer this question anytime
>soon.

Let's do a quick and dirty analysis, since nobody else has.  We'll
assume that first you draw 5 random cards from a 52-card deck, then
with probability 5/53, you replace one of them (at random) with the
"double" card.  Note that this ignores the ability to draw cards.

If you don't get the "double" card, the payoff and odds are the same
as a normal 9-6 machine.

If you do get the card, let's see what happens.  We'll start with your
hand before the replacement.  I don't know what the payoffs normally
are, so I'll use [hand] to mean the payoff for hand.

(1) Pair: 40% of the time this card kills your pair, 60% of the time
it doubles your payoff: Total payoff 1.2 [pair]

(2) 2 Pair: 80% of the time this card kills one pair, giving you 4/13
of one pair and 9/13 of nothing (only high pairs count).  Your payoff
is 0.4 [2-pair] + 8/13 [1-pair].

(3) Trips: 60% of the time you get 4/13 of one pair, 9/13 of nothing.
Payoff is 0.8 [trips] + 8/13 [1-pair].

(4) Straight: tough shit.

(5) Flush: tougher shit.

(6) Full House: 60% of the time this card kills the trips, 40% of the
time it kills the pair.  Payoff is 1.2 [two pair] + 0.8 [trips].

(7) Quads: 80% of the time you get trips. Payoff is 0.4 [quads] + 1.6
[trips].

(5) Straight Flush: Don't you wish you were playing a regular machine
instead?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Quicker analysis: Would they have this machine if it gave the player
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki)
Subject: Re: Where in Vegas are those quarter/dollar "fall-over-the-edge" machines?
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:18:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.183325.24454@natinst.com>, darrenl@natinst.com (Darren Lilie) writes:
>I'm heading to Vegas this weekend and am wondering if anyone can recall what
>casinos these machines are in because I havent played them in quite a while.
>
>Darren
>
>

I know there is at least one in the Trop. As you walk in, walk down
the right side of the card tables under the stained glass ceiling.
It's about half of the way back.

I've seen a number of them downtown, I just can't remember where.
There was one upstairs at an Irish sounding casino...

		-John Kalucki
		johnk@gordian.com
From: billped@wolverine.EBay.Sun.COM (Bill Pederson - nosredeP lliB)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Samuelson (was Re: Yeah... ANOTHER var
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:40:30 GMT
Reply-To: billped@wolverine.EBay.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wolverine.ebay.sun.com

In article 19123@fid.morgan.com, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>You will bet Kelly.  I will bet Kelly +$.01.  If we win, I'm 1 cent
>ahead of you; I'll bet Kelly thereafter, and stay ahead of you.  If we
>lose, I'm 1 cent behind you, so I'll bet Kelly(my bankroll + 1 cent) +
>2 cents this time.  Again, if we win, I'm 1 cent ahead of you.  If we
>lose, I'll continue the same strategy.
>
>Note that my strategy has a nonzero risk of ruin; however, that risk
>is quite small, and in all cases where I don't go broke, I outperform
>you.
>
>Now, if the strategy were to be "specify a fraction of your bankroll
>as a function of the odds on the bets available" then my strategy
>wouldn't be allowed.
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

I think Seth is on to something here.  All discussions prior to this have focused
on continuous betting functions.  Seth is suggesting a discontinuous function
with the point(s) of discontinuity dependent on the success/failure of the hands.
Actually, Seth's betting function sounds like "Kelly meets Martingale(sp?)"

How about the point of discontinuity at the breakeven point? at some other point,
either fixed or variable?  Would the marriage of two betting functions (one of 
them being Kelly) provide greater returns than Kelly alone while keeping the risk 
of ruin down to (theoretically) zero?


Bill
Newsgroups: rec.gambling,ont.forsale,misc.forsale
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Lotto 6/49 Analysis - Ontario
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:23:22 GMT


Time to dredge up that old signature file o' mine....

Ah, yes, here it is...

"State-run lotteries: Think of them as tax breaks for the intelligent"

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
   Said Captain Jean-Luc Picard to the tailor at his machine: "Make it sew!"
Newsgroups: rec.gambling,ont.forsale
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: Re: Lotto 6/49 Analysis - Ontario
Reply-To: glenm@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:28:43 GMT

In article <Bs3w79.7L8@ecf.toronto.edu>, ricegm@ecf.toronto.edu (George Matthew Rice) writes:
|> My question though is this. If this state run gamblimg machine that
|> we call the lottery donates all profits (I don't beleive it but...)
|> charities then does that mean that we can claim these lotto tickets
|> as charitable contributions when it comes tax time?

No good. You can't claim it as a charitable donation because you
aren't *donating* money. You are *purchasing* a service (the chance
to win a prize).

Sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin              Bell-Northern Research          Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Phone : (613) 763-7299   Fax: (613) 763-2626             Internet: glenm@bnr.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: Single deck vs. Multi deck
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:05:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155613.5657@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>The FAQ is quite interesting.  However, there is nothing abou the difference
>between single and multi deck games for black jack.  Besides the number of 
>decks, could someone offer their expertise about the advantages of single
>deck games.  

No one has responded to this post yet?

You're right, the FAQ doesn't have one of the most common FAQ's:
"What's the difference between single deck and multiple deck blackjack?"

There are some surface differences, such as single and double deck usually
being hand-held, while four or more decks are dealt from a shoe, but
there are fundamental mathematical differences too.

Single deck blackjack is usually better than multiple deck blackjack
for card counters, basic strategists, and the clueless.  Additional decks
make busts less likely, since one can draw to hands like 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
(for 18) which are improbable/impossible in single deck.  Busting less
often helps the dealer's hand more than yours, since the dealer is forced
by the rigid rules to hit more often than you.  Blackjacks are also less
frequent, which is bad since you get paid 3 to 2 for those.  All in all,
multiple decks will cost a basic strategist nearly 0.5% in advantage, which
is more than all but the very best package of favorable extra rules will
give you.  This was an intuitive explanation; a complete mathematically
sound (albeit huge) proof can be generated by a combinatorial analysis
program.

Card counters face the additional problem that the count is less volatile
with multiple decks and hence offers less frequent opportunities for large
favorable bets.  Consider the difference between an urn with 1 black and
1 white marble versus an urn with 100 black and 100 white marbles.  Draw
half the marbles: what is the probability that all the remaining marbles
are white?  In the 1 and 1 case, there is a 1 in 2 chance.  In the 100 and
100 case, there is only a 1 in 100,891,344,545,564,193,334,812,497,256 chance!

Steve Jacobs: Feel free to add some or all of this to the FAQ, but don't
forget to flame it first!
-- 
Michael Hall            \
NASA Ames Research Center\ Card counters do it with penetration.
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \
From: garay@sapir.lap.upenn.edu (John Garay)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: AC: Best BJ rules
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:35:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Language Analysis Center

-In article <84161@netnews.upenn.edu> garay@sapir.lap.upenn.edu (John Garay) writes:
>>At the Claridge, they have a special promotion where different combinations
>>of cards pay extra:   7,7,7 any suit pays 3:2
>>		      5 card 21 pays 2:1
>>		      6,7,8 (different Suits?) pays 3:1
>>		      Ace of Hearts with Queen of hearts pays 2:1
>>		      DAS, Resplit up to total of 3 hands
>>		      Resplit Aces
>>		      DOA, Late Surrender
>>		      6 deck shoe, sometimes 5$ minimum
-cheese@wam.umd.edu (Fletch F. Fletch) (Jason) writes:
-Unfortunately, they only have one table like this, their so-called "Las Vegas
-Table."  The penetration here is about 60-70% (which isn't bad in AC), but
-the table limit usually hovers between $15-25 on the weekends.

??? Claridge has at least 4 tables with these rules going at once.  All are 
located in the same corner, right next to the Double Exposure tables.  On 
weekends, the minimums do go up to $15-20, though, with one table higher than
the three others.
Is penetration really that low?  I'm just starting to count and haven't
noticed that yet.  How do the other AC casinos compare? (Notably Trump Plaza?).

John    garay@sapir.lap.upenn.edu



Newsgroups: rec.gambling,ont.forsale,misc.forsale