HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Lotteries
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:29:50 GMT

In article <18291@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>P.S. This also fits in with the strategy to avoid #s that go into dates...
>Poll a bunch of your friends and find out what little superstition they use
>to chose #s, avoid it. Also, bet 'unlucky' numbers like 13 etc on the (in my
>opinion) likelihood that significant other people avoid it.

I think that using ANY number widely perceived to be "lucky" OR
"unlucky" is poor strategy.  Lots of people think that 13 is a 
lucky number.  Just try going to Vegas on a friday the 13th.  I
think the best way to avoid splitting the pot is to select some
sequence of numbers above 31 such as 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, and 47.

Guido
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: ahmcs@world.std.com (Alan H Mintz)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II talk...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: global
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:26:35 GMT

tharvill@cse.unl.edu (Thomas Harvill) writes:

>Hi there....

>I just wanted to write to say that I agree with Roy about keeping track
>of response time when assigning seats.  I think this is a really good
>idea.  That way, those of us that are more addicted could get more of
>the fix....

I see a problem here with accelerated blinds - perhaps two separate tourneys.

>On the timeout earn back thing... Don't you think that this should be
>a little more subjective... I mean, if you have mail problems, and that
>was really the cause of your timeout, take your case up with Ron Duursma.
>He can't totally be without compassion for extraordinary circumstance.

(In response to Roy's comment about keeping track of whether a timeout was
for reasons outside the player's control also...)

It is my understanding from having done so that there are no exceptions.

>The rule should probably stay the way it is.  I suppose that the reason
>for it was to 'weed' out people who weren't _really_ interested in playing,
>and thus hold up everyone else.  But come on, this is America, plea your
>case to the judge directly,

Not having fallen off the turnip truck yesterday, I did just that before
posting. See results above.

>it is probably inefficient to argue for 
>people that we don't want in the tourney anyway (people who time out
>flagrantly.... :)  )

Perhaps. The rule change would need to weed those people out still.
-- 
< Alan H. Mintz | alan@mq.mq.com      | ...!uunet!ahmcs!mq!alan  BEST PATH >
<            OR | ahmcs@world.std.com | ...!uunet!world.std.com!ahmcs      >
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: ahmcs@world.std.com (Alan H Mintz)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:05:06 GMT

Jonathan Rosenberg <jxr@thumper.bellcore.com> writes:

>(Quotes me)

>The game at our table (& at most tables, I bet) is so abysmally slow
>that the only hope for making the game playable is the timeouts.

>12 hours (9-9 EST) was the initial timeout & that should be PLENTY of
>time to act.  In fact you usually have about 24 hours.  Not to mention
>the advance plays, which can avoid any delay.

>I can sympathize with someone timing out once.  But, then you've only
>lost 2 hours & that shouldn't be critical.  But, I just have no sympathy
>for people who have timed out more than once.  If you're afraid of
>running into a problem with an upcoming play, go on vacation.  That's
>what the command is for.

Ever have your mail system fail without warning, or knowledge of it
for 2 days? Ever have your host's hardware upgrade take an extra day
to get mail connections going again and have no way of sending
in a vacation command? I guess not. Maybe these aren't good excuses
and I'm the one that's all wrong on the subject.

One thing's for sure, though. If you time out more than twice and your
machine isn't directly connected to the Internet, you're almost 
guaranteed to fall into an inescapable downward spiral of timeouts.
-- 
< Alan H. Mintz | alan@mq.mq.com      | ...!uunet!ahmcs!mq!alan  BEST PATH >
<            OR | ahmcs@world.std.com | ...!uunet!world.std.com!ahmcs      >
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: ajayj@microsoft.com (Ajay Jindal)
Subject: Re: BJ: 6 deck strategies
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:31:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BzC4HJ.A82@hfglobe.intel.com> nhuang@hfglobe.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.193812.25910@microsoft.com> ajayj@microsoft.com (Ajay Jindal) writes:
>>Which of following books cover basic strategy and counting strategies for
>>6 deck blackjack games:
>>
>IMO, it does not matter how many decks there are, as long as you keep tracks of
>the TRUE COUNT, you are in excellent condition.  True count is computed as 
>follows:
>
>True count= running count / remaining decks.
>
>The trick here is learn to estimate remaining decks.  Buy six decks of cards
>and start practicing. :-)
>
Yes but just like there is a different basic strategy table for single 
deck games and multi-deck games, are there also different playing charts 
for a multi-deck game based on the TRUE COUNT?

>>Also, does hit soft 17 have any affect on the basic strategy?
>>
>A lot of books tell you to hit on soft 17 ALWAYS.  I found this to be a
>good advice.
>
I meant dealer hits on soft 17.

Ajay.
From: Kelly.Rosato@bird.com (Kelly Rosato)
Sender: FredMail@bird.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: I DON'T LIKE THOSE DAMN L
Date: 10 Dec 92  14:55:00 EST

TO: tharvill@cse.unl.edu

TH>This 'lottery' mentality is opium for the masses....  give me a game that
TH>I can grind on...    Of course, when it's net dollars.... GIVE ME A
TH>LOTTERY.... :) :)


My tagline says it all.

KR
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Lotteries are a tax on people that are bad at math.
 * Origin: Bird Info Network Gateway 303-423-9775 (1:104/234)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Ceasers in Palm Springs?
From: yb@netlink.cts.com (Scott Mitchell)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:58:38 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

I've heard rumors of Ceasers starting up a casino in Palm Springs, that 
includes slots!  Does anybody know if this is true or not, and if so, 
what are the chances of the reservations setting them up?  Thanks!!!

--                    
INTERNET:  yb@netlink.cts.com (Scott Mitchell)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!yb
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Pick-6 games (was pick-3/pick-4 games)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:39:18 GMT

In article <184566@pyramid.pyramid.com> breid@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com (Bill Reid) writes:
>Gee, I hate to spoil the fun, but if you want to win the lottery, it can 
>be done, and it has been done, and there's no fantastic amount of 
>data-crunching involved with coming up with a winning strategy.  
>A group of Australian investors have been winning lotteries around 
>the world; they won the West Virginia lottery last year for a something 
>like a 20 million jackpot with a 4 million investment.  

Should point out that this isn't anything like a sure thing.  If that
jackpot was paid out over 20 years (and I would bet A LOT that it
was) then the present value of that money is really only about $7 million
(and if inflation kicks up between now and twenty years from now it will
be worth considerably LESS).  So they bet $4 Million to get $7 Million.
The catch is that if even ONE other person also picked the winning 
combination they would only have won $3.5 million for a $.5 million loss.
I don't know much about how this syndicate is set up, but I am suspicious
that it is primarily designed to make money for the promoters (who I am
sure take "management" fees).

As far as I am concerned, if people want to do things like this the lottery
commision has NO BUSINESS preventing them from doing so.  That is provided
that they aren't using methods not available to anyone else to purchase the
tickets.

Guido
From: TRADER@cup.portal.com (Paul Vincent McGinnis)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Non-smoking Casinos
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:48:09 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Last time I was there, the Tropicana had a large non-smoking area. Maybe,
I can put down - "add a non-smoking section" on my shareholders paperwork
at the Four Queens (yes, I bought a fair number of shares in their parent
corporation... it's amazing what a cheap stock purchase commission can
do to one's sanity...)

Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: eo@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Ed Oliveri)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:38:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.123117.6750@dbased.nuo.dec.com> hallyb@globbo.enet.dec.com (John Hallyburton) writes:
>
>Likewise.  How about -this- proposal:  If someone has timed-out and lost,
>say, 2 hours, then every advance bet they make [that actually gets played]
>wins them back, ohh, 10 minutes of timeout.  
>
>That way, someone who has caused a table delay can reduce their punishment
>by helping speed things up at their table.  Now admittedly some folks will
>have to suffer because of hard/software beyond their control, but that's life.
>--
>						"The Smart Money was on Goliath"
>						John Hallyburton 43 55'N 71 45'W

And speaking of suffering because of software beyond our control,
I think every player should get an additional two hours of time
whenever the server screws up.

-- 
Ed Oliveri, eo@cbnewsb.att.com     OR     att!cbnewsb!eo
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: erb@world.std.com (ed r baker)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:39:56 GMT

I've also timed out twice.  The first time was due to the server not
accepting any mail so I couldn't send my vacation command.  Sure enough,
the server came back on-line during my vacation.  The second time was
my fault because I sent an invalid command, and then took a day off.
That one cost me a small pot.  I almost won anyway, except someone bet
$100 instead of checking at the very end.

I agree that time-outs should be reset at each round.

-Ed

P.S. My invalid command was "BET $500".
From: hallyb@globbo.enet.dec.com (John Hallyburton)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:25:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: dbased.1992Dec17.123117.6750
Organization: Twin Peaks Municipal Software Works


>I take his argument to be more that we should allow for the inescapable
>reality that email is not perfect.  I myself have never (yet) timed out,
>but I think the current time-out scheme needs some reworking. 

Likewise.  How about -this- proposal:  If someone has timed-out and lost,
say, 2 hours, then every advance bet they make [that actually gets played]
wins them back, ohh, 10 minutes of timeout.  

That way, someone who has caused a table delay can reduce their punishment
by helping speed things up at their table.  Now admittedly some folks will
have to suffer because of hard/software beyond their control, but that's life.
--
						"The Smart Money was on Goliath"
						John Hallyburton 43 55'N 71 45'W
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jhoste@kuju.claremont.edu (Jim Hoste)
Subject: looking for article on loaded dice
Keywords: probability, dice, loaded dice
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:34:05 GMT

Next semester I will be teaching an elementary probability class  
structured around the theme of games and gambling. I want to include some  
material on loaded dice. Surely someone has worked out the physics of  
rolling a die (in the shape of a cube) whose center of mass is not in the  
center of the die. What are the probablities of landing on the various  
faces as a function of the location of the center of mass? The same  
question can be asked for dice in the shape of other polyhedron,  
homogenious or not. 
	I am also interested in the following related question:
Can one create a die having n faces where the probability of landing on  
each of the faces is given in advance?  This is certainly true if *die* is  
interpreted fairly loosely. Somebody must have worked this out already.
	Can anyone recommend any good articles on these topics?
	I will summarize the replies that I receive.
	Thanks, Jim Hoste

ps I am also posting to:
	rec.gambling
	sci.math
	sci.physics
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: RSSM RESULTS
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:47:06 GMT

In article <2022.27.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> paul.westley@uttsbbs.uucp (Paul Westley) writes:
>-> For a fairly new reader of rec.gambling but one who is interested in
>-> this topic, where can one learn more about thi RSSM roulette method?
>
>Try the Mickey Mouse Club - could somebody please point these roulette
>system players to joke.sub or something.  But one more time anyway -
>THERE IS NO WINNING ROULETTE STRATEGY, BET $100, WIN $94.50, that's all
>you need to know.

Not true.  Roulette is potentially beatable.  In particular, bets are
permitted until just before the ball is about to fall, and some wheels
and croupiers have biases.  q.v., "the Eudemonic Pie" and Lawrence
Scott's (sp?) book/video on how to win at roulette.

-- 
Michael Hall            \ But I'd be very skeptical about any roulette system
NASA Ames Research Center\ developed by Rabbi Rabinowitz, or that Kumquat X15
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ system for that matter.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: galanter@nyu.edu (Philip Galanter)
Subject: Re: Lotteries
Reply-To: galanter@nyu.edu (Philip Galanter)
Organization: New York University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:39:07 GMT

A number of years ago I spoke with some of the computer folks at the  
Illinois State Lottery...I had wanted to get raw data on numbers bet and  
numbers that won...the guy said he couldn't release the data, and that 
even if he could I wouldn't want it due to sheer volume.  (I knew we both  
used CDC systems, and figured it wouldn't be that big of a deal...but I  
digress...)

Anyway, he said they did their own analysis for various reasons and noted  
the following common betting patterns...in no particular order...

previous winners
numbers from news stories (e.g. flight numbers of crashed airplanes)
ages of family members (e.g. 34, 32, 10, 8, 7, & 2)
dates
geometric patterns on the mark-sense betting cards (lines, boxes, etc.)

The idea is to avoid any of these so that if you do win you won't have to  
share the pot.  

Phil


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philip Galanter         New York University    phone:    212-998-3041
Research Associate      251 Mercer             fax:      212-995-4120
Academic Computing      New York, NY 10012     internet: galanter@nyu.edu

O f f i c e   o f   A r t s   &   M e d i a   T e c h n o l o g i e s
From: barrey@Novell.com (Barrey Jewall)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Nicknames for various points in Craps
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:03:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Novell, Inc.

In <1992Dec18.223833.10032@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:

>Okay, I know a point of four is known as "Little Joe," and a point of ten
>is "Big Dick," but how are the others called? I forgot.

>BTW, while they're not exactly points, I know already that 2 is "Snake Eyes,"
>3 is "Cock-Eyes," and 12 is "Box Cars."

>Thank you in advance for your assistance. I need this information for a
>"research project."

>==Doctor FORTRAN

Research project, huh????

Seven is often known as "red", but that's really not a point either.

Snake-eyes is also known as "my mother-in-law's eyes". Heard in both
Reno and Tahoe, and some in Vegas.

Haven't heard too many others, though...
Bah

--
+ Barrey Jewall - Network  Admin.++  and yea, though I walk through the shadow 
+ barrey@novell.com	         ++ of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif. ++ the meanest sonofabitch in the valley...
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: ace side counts ?
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:45:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Hello,

I have heard a lot of talk about ace side counts, could someone post a
brief discription on how to use it and why it is important. I have always
counted ace's the same as 10's.

Thanks,

Ken
From: ahmcs@world.std.com (Alan H Mintz)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:47:24 GMT

eo@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Ed Oliveri) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.123117.6750@dbased.nuo.dec.com> hallyb@globbo.enet.dec.com (John Hallyburton) writes:
>>
>>Likewise.  How about -this- proposal:  If someone has timed-out and lost,
>>say, 2 hours, then every advance bet they make [that actually gets played]
>>wins them back, ohh, 10 minutes of timeout.  

I like this.

>And speaking of suffering because of software beyond our control,
>I think every player should get an additional two hours of time
>whenever the server screws up.

Yaaaah! :-)
-- 
< Alan H. Mintz | alan@mq.mq.com      | ...!uunet!ahmcs!mq!alan  BEST PATH >
<            OR | ahmcs@world.std.com | ...!uunet!world.std.com!ahmcs      >
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Splitting Aces
In-reply-to: bryn@mindlink.bc.ca's message of Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:26:15 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:56:39

In article <18725@mindlink.bc.ca> bryn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bryn Dyment) writes:
>
> I was just wondering if the multi-deck basic strategy 'always split aces'
> would apply to our local casino, where only one card after splitting aces is
> allowed.

This is pretty much standard procedure when splitting aces.  Few casinos
allow more than one card to be drawn to a split ace.  Virtually all
published basic strategy charts are based on the assumption that this
rule is in effect, unless stated otherwise.

Slitting aces is roughly as favorable as doubling on 11, and this is
always more favorable than hitting a soft 12, by a fairly healthy margin.
'Always split aces' is a pretty sound rule for any number of decks.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Don't worry, I just have these harmless pocket rockets...."
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: slaven@iastate.edu (Dave Slaven)
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:20:43 GMT

Hi.  The members of the "committee" have been fairly silent in this
debate.  I guess i'm sort of a member (it's a pretty loose
organization), so i'll break the silence.  Mind you, i'm not speaking
FOR the committee here, so don't take any of this too seriously.  

First of all, i'll address:

>>>Likewise.  How about -this- proposal:  If someone has timed-out and lost,
>>>say, 2 hours, then every advance bet they make [that actually gets played]
>>>wins them back, ohh, 10 minutes of timeout.  

One thing to keep in mind is that this tournament has been a helluva
lot of work for Ron.  I hate suggesting solutions to problems that
involve more programming.

Second:

I wrote Ron:

> 1)  Are timeout periods set back to 12 hours at the beginning of each
> round?  Much of the discussion on the net seems to be centering around
> this possibility, and i seem to remember that the answer is yes.  But
> that could be my imagination.

Ron said:

>Timeouts will be reset to 12 hours at the beginning of a new round.

Apparently, this does not even require "Our Fathers" or "Hail Marys".
Your slate is wiped clean automatically. :-)

As for the issue of server breakdown, I think this is a tough one.
I hate to see people get their time marked down when it's not their
fault, but on the other hand, if you are trying to play from a system
which habitually loses contact, then you are a nuisance to other
players.  Someone pointed out that even if you're timed out a couple
of times, you still have 8 hours for each move, which is plenty if you
check mail twice a day.  And let's face it.  If you ONLY check mail
twice a day, you're a nuisance to the other players.

I guess the bottom line is this.  In order for the tournament to be
enjoyable, it has to move at a reasonable speed.  As a result, the
World Rec.Gambling Poker Tournament is not for everyone.  It requires
a fairly solid mail connection, and it requires a commitment to check
mail often.

I hate to sound like a hard-ass, and i hope i haven't made any enemies
at my table.  (People at other tables only concern me insofar as i
might make it to the second round, and have to play some of them. :-) 
Anyway, the discussion has provided food for thought for WRGPT3.

-- 
Dave Slaven 

"And if you must keep talking, please try to make it rhyme." 
               --Mose Allison
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Software review: Stanford Wong's Video Poker (info request)
In-reply-to: carter@spot.Colorado.EDU's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:41:09 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<carter.724722069@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:31:27

In article <carter.724722069@spot.Colorado.EDU> carter@spot.Colorado.EDU (Mike Carter) writes:

> Speaking of video poker, I came back from Vegas last week having done very
> well and am now in the process of writing my own simulator.  I'm interested
> if anyone can fill in the gaps/make corrections for the following payoff
> schedule or pointing me at a decent reference or FAQ would be fine to.
> Seemed like on the `standard' `Jacks or Better' type machines, the payoffs
> were:

[payout schedule deleted]

The payoff on full houses for this machine was probably 8 times the number
of coins bet.  This is the proverbial "8/5" machine, named for the 8X payoff
for full house and 5X payoff for flushes.  Many of the "Jacks or Better"
machines have the same payout for everything except flush, full house,
and royal flush.  With a 1000X payoff for royal flush, the 8/5 machine
has a house edge of 2.2%.  The 800X payoff (with 5 coins) shown in your
table would increase the house edge to about 2.8%.  The less common "9/6"
machines have a house edge of only 0.5% with 800X payoff for royal flushes.

VP machines with a progressive jackpot become favorable for the player
when the jackpot is high enough.  This is covered in the FAQ, so I
won't repeat the details.

There are MANY different payout schedules used for video poker, but the
strategy given in the FAQ is pretty close to correct for most of the
jacks/better machines.

> I realize that there are probably lots of good simulators out there already
> but being the geek that I am, I'd rather do it myself.  

Go for it.  However, be warned that it can be difficult to interpret
the results of VP simulation because the game has a very high variance.
This simply means that the results will vary a *lot* from one simulation
to the next, because the occasional royal flush has a huge influence on
the outcome.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Don't worry, I just have these harmless pocket rockets...."
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: fobcoat@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (BRYAN COATES)
Subject: LV TRIP Part II
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:05 EST  

I'm going to LV DEC. 20-25.  Anyone else going to the Harrahs party?
From: shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: CFD: Creation of Rec.Gambling.Lottery
Date: 16 Dec 1992 04:57:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

I know that to win the lottery is a worse chance than being struck by
lightning. But, I buy a ticket and sure I probably won't win, but I pay my
dollar and get a chance and a little hope to win some money and do what I
always want. (Tell my boss to take this job and shove it up his *** :-)

Mike

-- 
It's not love, it's deep seated neurosis. Don't confuse the two.