HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franzen@iris.usc.edu (Wolfgang Franzen)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: a few bj questions
Date: 6 Apr 1992 16:06:16 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: iris.usc.edu

Since neither Steve Jacobs nor Michael Hall has taken the time to respond
to what I consider to be a possibly misleading posting, I will put in my
two cents worth.

Wayne Hathaway (wayne@ultra.com) makes the following observations:

> Anyway, I just wanted point out that the term "double down" is a bit
> of a misnomer, in that you do *NOT* have to exactly double your bet.
> In fact, you can bet any additional amount UP TO the size of the
> original bet (subject to table limit restrictions).

> Remember this when you've got a $20 bet out and you get an 11 and want
> to double, but find that you have only $10 more with you; go ahead and
> bet the $10!  (Money-management issues aside, of course! :-)

Since I have never seen anyone attempt to ``double for less'', I can only
take Wayne's word that this is allowed.  However, assuming this is allowed,
it is clearly not always advantageous to do so.

Let E[Hopt] = the expectation when hitting optimally
    E[H1]   = the expectation when taking exactly 1 additional card
    E[D] = 2 E[H1] = the expectation for standard doubling

Clearly E[H1] <= E[Hopt] in every case.
Furthermore, when standard doubling is advantageous E[D] > E[Hopt] > 0.
Therefore, when standard doubling is advantageous

0 < E[H1] <= E[Hopt] < 2 E[H1]

Now if E[H1] is strictly less than E[Hopt], then if the additional amount
bet is less than (E[Hopt] / E[H1]) - 1 times the original bet, then the
player could do better by hitting optimally.

Now say you have an 11 against a dealer 4 through 6, then E[H1] = E[Hopt]
(assuming you are following basic strategy).  In other words you would
take only one additional card in any case, and so doubling for less is
always ``safe''.  However, if the dealer shows 2, 3, or 7 through Ace, then
E[H1] < E[Hopt] and so additional analysis is required.  In particular, if
if you have an 11 against a dealer 10, where doubling is the correct basic
strategy decision, I doubt that ``doubling for half'' is advantageous.
(Although I haven't done a detailed calculation and might be wrong).
Furthermore, when you have anything less than 11 then E[H1] < E[Hopt] no
matter what the dealer's upcard, and doubling for less becomes a much
more dubious proposition.

Wolfgang
From: dt@cbnews.cb.att.com (timothy.e.daughters)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: That Horse Race game and other items
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:01:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Apr3.054600.9628@shinobu.sgi.com>, by stantz@sgi.com (Mark Stantz):
> In article <1992Apr2.195535.22096@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>>A few unrelated topics:
>>
>>   1.	I see a game with 5 horses (5 camels at the Taj Mahal) where
>>	bets are placed on an exacta (is that the 1-2 finishers in
>>	any order?).   It's typically a quarter bet in LV and $1
>>	in A/C (although at the Taj, two of the four sides were 50
>>	cents and two were $1; at Trump's Castle, one side was $.25,
>>	one was $.50, and two were $1.00).
>>
>>	Anyway, when the machine figures the odds, what percentage
>>	do those machines keep for the house?
> 
It shouldn't be hard to figure out the house edge for a particular race.
Just figure out how much you need to bet on each combination to come out
with a particular pay back no matter what combination wins.  For example,
you need to bet 50 quarters on the combination that is paying off 2 for 1
to equal the payoff that one quarter will pay on the 100 for 1 combination.
The total of the bets minus the payoff is the house take.

I'll have to figure that out on my next trip.  Of course, you will need to
write the numbers down and take them back to your room since they won't allow
you to use a calculator in the casino.

BTW, Excalibur has a fun one at the back of the casino that uses knights
in armor on horseback racing around a castle.
-- 
Tim Daughters			"I had no shoes and I pitied myself.
AT&T Bell Laboratories		 Then I met a man who had no feet,
North Andover, MA		 so I took his shoes."   --  Dave Barry
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: cheese@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Jason Steinhorn)
Subject: Re: Blackjack strategy
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.154126.2099@midway.uchicago.edu>  
kolt@quads.uchicago.edu (Matt K/Gonzo) writes:
> In article <1992Apr17.010500.5856@leland.Stanford.EDU>  
rishi@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rishi Varma) writes:

> >Just doing a survey...assuming you can't count worth shit...how many of  
you
> >would draw a card in the following situations:
> >

> >i) You have a 16 (3 or more cards) and dealer shows 10.
> I'd take a card, almost all the time. (cept when I'm looking at  
2,2,4,4,4)
> >ii) You have a 12 and dealer shows 5.
> I'd never take a card.
> >iii) You have a 17 (3 or more cards) and dealer shows A.
> Hard 17? Are you kidding? Never, if counting, I guess there's a crazy  
outside
> chance. Blech. 
> >Thanks.

Uhhh, Matt, what he asked was, assuming you did *NOT* know basic strategy.   
Obviously what you would do would be the correct basic play...but what  
would you do if you didn't know BS.

    ____  _                                   
   (      \)     ___   ___         ___             Jason Steinhorn
    \      \____ \__)  \__)   /\   \__)         University of Maryland         
     \____/ \   \/\____/\____/ _)__/\____         cheese@wam.umd.edu

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Kelly Criterion after initial bet
In-reply-to: dt@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of 8 Apr 92 16:47:33 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: usa
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:44:54

In article <1992Apr8.164733.9057@cbnews.cb.att.com> dt@cbnews.cb.att.com (timothy.e.daughters) writes:

> I have been giving some thought to how the Kelly Criterion applies to wagers
> after your initial bet.  One simple example is insurance.  Suppose that your
> counting system says that before the deal, you have a 2% expectation on your
> next bet, and you bet 2% of your bankroll.  Then, the dealer shows an ace,
> and your counting system says that insurance has a positive EV, but that
> the EV is only 1%.  Since the Kelly Criterion in this situation says that
> you should only bet 0.5% of your bankroll (not 1% because of the 2 to 1 
> payoff), you shouldn't take full insurance.  That is, if your initial bet
> was $20, your insurance bet should only be $5.  That is sure to raise some
> eyebrows, and the situation doesn't come up often enough to worry about.
> Of course, if the count is just over the insurance threshhold, and you have
> a big bet out, Kelly may be telling you that full insurance isn't worth the
> risk even though it has a positive EV, and maybe you should pass on it.

With Kelly betting, you can also find situations where partial insurance
is correct even though insurance has a negative expectation.  Griffin
mentions this in "Theory of Blackjack".

> Now, on to some more interesting situations:  How does the Kelly Criterion
> affect other plays that involve putting more money on the table?  All of
> the split and double down decisions are based solely on EV, but maybe the
> added EV is not worth the added risk.  I am sure that this is true at the
> decision levels where you start to split tens or double down with soft 20
> maybe even when you start doubling with 8 or 10 vs 10.  

Funny you should ask.  I'm working on a program to find correct playing
strategy based on an arbitrary utility function that can include expectation,
variance, and bankroll.  I suspect that doubling and splitting will be less
common when risk is taken into account, but I don't know how much the
playing strategy will change.  When surrender is allowed, I would expect
surrender to become more common in a risk-averse strategy, since surrender
reduces the variance to zero.  I'll report my results when they become
available, but I don't expect to the program to be fully functional for
a few months (I'm distracted by poker programs at the moment...)
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Limit congressmen to two terms.  One in office.  One in jail."
From: mitch@dc49.dc (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: "all-in" poker strategy
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:56:21 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@dc49.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 12602@nevada.edu, messiah@nevada.edu (MARCO) writes:
>To poker fans who are familiar with "all-in" rules commonly used at
>Nevada casino poker, I pose the following question to ponder:
>Is there an optimal "all-in" strategy? It seems to me that if your
>chips are low, and you are in a bad position (Hold 'Em poker assumed),
>or have a hand that needs to draw cards cheap, then it can only benefit
>you not to have to go into your pocket if you run out of chips.
>The other side of the coin is that your also gonna get good cards that
>you will want to jam the pot to the max with, but there won'y be any
>chips in front of you.
>Is going all-in worth foregoing potential profits? Are there any special
>playing requirements (minimum calling, betting, raising standards) that
>should be adopted? After all if you don't take some risk with dwindling
>chips, then they will soon get eaten up by posting the blinds (Hold 'Em -
>equivalent to the forced bet on 1st low card in Stud)...

This problem is as old as the game of table-stakes poker.  It depends on
how you evaluate the opportunity cost of playing a pot.  If you are a very
conservative player who is protecting his stack (and BR) then going all-in
is not a problem for you.  If you are a jam-up kind of guy who likes action
and derives great amounts of pleasure from winning big pots then you should
never be in the position to go all-in, unless you are playing no-limit.

I have my own personal opinion on this one but I really can't get into it
here for the simple reason that I deem it too valuable.  Basically, you
are going to have to evaluate your own playing style and determine whether
or not you want to miss out on anything.

---

Mitch Sako - LSI Logic Corp		Phone  408-433-4187
internet:    msako@lsil.com		FAX    408-433-8796
uucp:        lsil!msako
From: kolt@quads.uchicago.edu (Matt K/Gonzo)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: BJ:  High stakes in Atlantic City
Keywords: high stakes blackjack, blech
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:26:45 GMT
Reply-To: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <9204100412.AA10572@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU> jtilbury@HARVARD.EDU writes:
>Everyone always says where the $1 or $2 tables are but nobody mentions
>the $1000 or $10,000 tables.  Isn't anybody else curious?  Please,
>when you make a trip report, include information about table maximums
>when you give the table minimums.
Not to flame you, but I think that it is much more of general interest where
low stakes stuff is. The amounts that you talk about wagering represent my 
trip bankroll. I occasionally notice table maxima, but it's rare that they are
significant: in AC it seems that every table has a $500 max. In LV $5K is
normal, with $1K and 2.5K also around. It just seems to me not too important
to be put in trip reports. Oh well. It won't find its way into mine; I won't be
bothered.
Good luck anyway...
Matt



-- 
Matt Koltnow   B0 t-- w- c+ g+ k s+ e r- p     "Payin' anything 
Email: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu                 To roll the dice
Ntalk: kolt@ellis.uchicago.edu  (or @quads)     Just one more time."--N. Schon 
It's a bad sign when security thrice your size monitors your roulette play.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: elliott@aero.org (Kenneth B. Elliott III)
Subject: Re: "Diamonds are Forever"
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:04:05 GMT


>> Bond, who is on her RIGHT!  Finally, there is that spiel that Bond makes
>> to impress Plenty with his knowledge of the game.  I suppose it all makes
>> sense, if you stretch a little, but it's certainly not what an experienced
>> craps player would do, and it most certainly could not have won him so
>
>Umm, wouldn't an experienced craps player (with some common sense knowledge
>of stats) come to the same conclusion as the computer in the movie
>_War Games_ - namely that there is no point in playing this game?  (Assume
>here for the sake of argument that the only goal here is making money and
>further assume that the die aren't loaded...)
>
>--twc@legal.uucp
>

If your only goal is making money, you're better off not gambling.
You don't get to be an experienced craps player by saying "Whoops, the
house has an advantage on every bet!  How about that!  Guess I
shouldn't play."  I really don't think that Bond was there to pick up
major bucks; I think he was interested in the Hot Babe (TM) action.
*I'd* talk like that if I was guaranteed to wind up with multiple
thousands of dollars and Plenty to boot. :-) (How silly, to be
analyzing a movie.  But as long as I'm at it...)

The original post said that Plenty rolled craps and the stickman
treated it like a seven-out.  What happened was that she rolled a
seven, and the stickman said "Seven, the lady craps out" or something
like that.  I've never heard anyone say "craps out" instead of "seven
out" when you do indeed seven out, but then again, maybe the Tropicana
has changed...

Anyway, experienced craps players play because they like to.  They
generally make whatever the hell bets they feel like.  *Smart* craps
players make a line bet and possibly one or two come bets, backing all
of them with maximum odds (up to about 3x).  People who understand the
house advantange craps has and only want to make money do not play
craps for that purpose.  Then again, otherwise-smart individuals still
have trouble with Monty Hall...

KBEIII
--

Ken Elliott III                  The Aerospace Corp.
elliott@aero.org                 P.O. Box 92957
(310) 336-8166                   Los Angeles, CA 90009
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 21:03:17 EDT
From: <JBL108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Please Help ! Going to A.C.

I need to know if there are any casino's that have a $2 table or $5 dollar
table on friday nights . I am leaving tommorrow and would appreciate a quick
reply.   Thanks in advance .  John
From: kolt@ellis.uchicago.edu (Matt K/Gonzo)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: The Unofficial Guide to LV
Keywords: neat, book
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

This book came out recently. I think that it is well written. I took objection
to the guy's book on Walt Disney World. There were a lot of poorly done 
sections. And since I work for Disney in the summer and at Christmas, I _knew_
that it was bad. Anyway, I bought this work and it is fascinating. It is more
travel oriented then gambling oriented, but the travel info is valuable. I 
think that it is definitely FAQ material as a reference work.
I'll post more, including a better book review later. Just wondering if anyone
else has any opinions on it.

Matt



-- 
Matt Koltnow   B0 t-- w- c+ g+ k s+ e r- p     "Payin' anything 
Email: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu                 To roll the dice
Ntalk: kolt@ellis.uchicago.edu  (or @quads)     Just one more time."--N. Schon 
It's a bad sign when security thrice your size monitors your roulette play.
From: franzen@iris.usc.edu (Wolfgang Franzen)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: a few bj questions
Date: 7 Apr 1992 13:10:49 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: iris.usc.edu

I am posting the following for Daniel C. Testa <testad@rpi.edu> who does
not have posting capability.

Wolfgang

[Concerning blackjack doubling for less ...]

I enjoyed your post on doubling down for less than double the money.  As a
math weenie, I want to point out that E[H1]=E[Hopt] not only when you
have 11 and the house has 4,5,or 6, but also when you have a hard 10 or a
soft 17.  In these cases it also pays to double for less.  E[H1]=H[Hopt]
when you have a hard 12 and the dealer has a 2 or 3 and when you have a
hard 16 and the dealer has a 7,8,or A, a hard 16 when the dealer has a 10 and
the count is negative or a hard 16 when the dealer has a 9 and the count is
sufficiently small.  In these cases, E[H1]<0, so you shouldn't double.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jxr@thumper.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: $5 min BJ in AC on Friday eve./Saturday ?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:56:53 GMT

From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: $5 min BJ in AC on Friday eve./Saturday ?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:38:42 GMT

Remesh Venkataraman writes:
	Is it possible to find these tables anywhere in AC ? How about on
	Saturday evening?

> At one point, Trump's Castle was advertising that they will always
> have $5 BJ and craps.  I don't know if that's still their policy
> or not.  (If in doubt, just call them.  I think they have an 800
> number, so 800-555-1212 is a good starting point.)

Trop World advertises that they ALWAYS have $5 BJ (and craps, I think)
available.  Of course, this may mean 1 $5 BJ table with a long wait. 
But the few times I've checked they did, in fact, always have at least 1
$5 table.

JR

Xref: sparky rec.gambling:2192 misc.invest:6517
From: weller@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Timothy Weller)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling,misc.invest
Subject: Re: Review of Talk "Duality of Data Compression and Gambling"
Date: 6 Apr 1992 20:52:30 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu

hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:

>>TITLE:    Duality of Data Compression and Gambling
>>
>>SPEAKER:  Professor Thomas M. Cover
>>          Departments of Electrical Engineering and Statistics
>           [Stanford University]
>>
>>
>>PLACE:         Hewlett-Packard, 5M Auditorium
>>               1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto


>What follows is a summary of the talk.  I don't pretend to understand
>everything that Professor Cover said, and so there may be some
>errors in my transcription.

Most of this material is in his new book on Information Theory with
co-author Joy Thomas.  Not for beginners by any means, but reasonable
for those with math/stats/prob at the level of a first year grad class.
Also, good bibliography to track down what's not in the book.  If you
liked the talk, get your hands on the book.

I know Dr. Cover quite well.  His theory is elegant, but the fact is
that it is difficult to put most of this stuff into practice.   His best
game is backgammon, although he does play some poker.  An exciting person. 
His brother, BTW, just won an event at the Amarillo Slims Poker Tournament.

-Tim (weller@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu)
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: a few bj questions
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:42:22 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <1992Apr7.161201.6735@engage.pko.dec.com> cantor@star.enet.dec.com  
(Dave Cantor) writes:
> 
> In article <ku1mb8INNt2m@iris.usc.edu>, franzen@iris.usc.edu (Wolfgang  
Franzen) writes...
> > 
> >Since I have never seen anyone attempt to ``double for less'', I can only
> >take Wayne's word that this is allowed.  However, assuming this is allowed,
> >it is clearly not always advantageous to do so.
> 
> You can also take my word for it that it is allowed.  It is allowed in every
> casino I have ever played in (more than 30 of them).  

Suppose you are betting X dollars.

Let P be the probablity of winning when you take 1 card, and
    K be the fraction of the bet you want to double down with.
    (0 < K <= 1)

Let Q be the probability of winning when you take as many as you want.

Expected Earnings when you double is
   (X + KX)(2P - 1)
   (1 + K)X(2P - 1)

Expected Earnings when don't double is
   X(2Q - 1)

So, you should double down whenever you can select a K such that
   (1 + K)X(2P - 1) > X(2Q - 1)
   (1 + K)(2P - 1) > 2Q - 1
   P > ((2Q - 1) / (1 + K) + 1) / 2

Suppose K = 1
   P > ((2Q - 1) / 2 + 1) / 2
   P > (2Q + 1) / 4

You should only double your full amount when P > (2Q + 1) / 4

Now we get to the real question.
Is there a value of K < 1 when it would be unprofitable
to double down less than the full amount?  (when P <= (2Q + 1) / 4)
Suppose 0 < K < 1

         K < 1
         1 + K < 2
         1 / (1 + K) > 1 / 2
         (2Q - 1)/(1 + K) > (2Q - 1)/ 2
         (2Q - 1)/(1 + K) + 1 > (2Q - 1) / 2 + 1
         (2Q - 1)/(1 + K) + 1 > (2Q + 1) / 2
         ((2Q - 1) / (1 + K) + 1) / 2 > (2Q + 1) / 4

Since we know that P > ((2Q - 1) / (1 + K) + 1) / 2
         then P > (2Q + 1) / 4

But we have assumed that P <= (2Q + 1) / 4 a contradiction.
Therefore the premise that there exists a K < 1 is false.

Therefore, it never pays to double less than the full amount.
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Bay Area (California) cardroom experience
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:18:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cells.JACOBS.92Apr9141813
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
In-reply-to: daniel@quilty.Stanford.EDU's message of 9 Apr 92 08:18:50

In article <DANIEL.92Apr9081850@quilty.Stanford.EDU> daniel@quilty.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Weise) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.221843.17292@ntg.com> slandrum@ntg.com (Stephen H. Landrum) writes:
>
>    ...
>    two tables going, a 3-6 Hold'Em, and a dealer's choice.  They advertise
>    a 7-stud game (which is the reason that we went, one of my friends was
>    looking for a 7-stud game), and claim that they usually have one going
>    on Friday, but not this time.
>
> Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that California
> law only allowed card games where all of player's cards are dealt face
> down.  Therefore there is no stud in California card rooms.

Things change.  Stud is now legal.  "Horse Stud" is still illegal, but
nobody cares because nobody can remember what it is.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Limit congressmen to two terms.  One in office.  One in jail."
Newsgroups: rec.gambling