HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Splitting 10's (was Re: LV recommedations requested...)
In-reply-to: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:24:17 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<JACOBS.92Nov9205337@cells.cs.utah.edu>
	<1992Nov20.032417.5139@kronos.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:36:01

In article <1992Nov20.032417.5139@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
>In article <JACOBS.92Nov9205337@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.021330.12874@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
>
>>> Preliminary simulation results indicate that it costs close to 20%
>>> of overall profit if you fail to split 10's.
>>
>>20%?  I'm extremely skeptical of this claim.  You are saying that a card
>>counter with a 1.5% edge will have a 1.8% edge by adding just this one
>>strategy adjustment?  I really doubt it.  I might believe that correct
>>insurance plays would be worth that much, but not splitting 10s.
>
> Sorry for waiting a while to respond...
>
> Someone emailed me saying he found not splitting 10's will cost 17%
> of expected winnings; as I recall I found that it costs 17% of return
> on investment, but I can't find that old article.  So a 1.8%
> bankroll-per-hour-return-on-investment counter would have a 1.5%
> bankroll-per-hour-return-on-investment just by dropping this one
> adjustment.

I'm sorry, but these numbers simply do not sound reasonable.  A player
will get a pair of tens about one hand in ten.  These will be up against
a 5 or 6 only one time in 6.5 hands.  So, one hand in 65 will be a
"candidate" for splitting tens.  The count has to get fairly high in
order for ten splitting to be profitable, but I'll be generous and say
that 20% of these hands will be splittable (this figure is probably way
too high).  That means that one hand in 325 will be a pair of tens that
are worth splitting.  Now, if these splittable hands give on average a
10% edge to the player (compared to standing), and these are always played
with a 5 unit bet, then you will gain an extra half unit every 325 hands.
With a 1.5% advantage, the card counter can expect to win about 4.875
average bets in these same 325 hands.  So, if the average bet size is
about 2.something units, the player wins about 10 units without splitting
and about 10.5 units with splitting tens.  This is about a 5% increase,
and I think I've been overly generous with my numbers.

In short, 10 splitting just isn't that valuable.
--
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: cheese@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Jason Steinhorn)
Subject: Re: E. Clifton Davis & New Blackjack
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:02:20 GMT

In article <JACOBS.92Nov16122102@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu  
(Steven R Jacobs) writes:
> > This is followed by endorsements by BJ author Jerry Patterson, BJ 
> > dealers, BJ pit bosses, etc.
> 
> I would guess that just about anything endorsed by pit critters is 
> likely to favor the house rather than the player.

I wouldn't say Jerry Patterson is the best endorsement either.

Jason
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager)
Subject: Re: Parlay Cards
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:05:31 GMT

In article <1efb7eINN8jn@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon) writes:
> I have a question concerning parlay cards in nevada. Lets say that the 49ers
> are favored by 6 points, if they win by 6 points do you win or lose?
> 
> Or do they have to win by 7

It depends on the type of card; they have all kinds.  On some cards, ties
win.  On others, ties lose.  Some cards have lines which end in half points
only guaranteeing that there will never be ties.

> Do all ties win or lose in nevada?

When you bet off the board (i.e., not betting parlay cards), ties or "pushes"
result in no action.  This means that if you had a straight bet (1 game), you
simply get your money back.  If you had a parlay (again, off the board), the
parlay is reduced by one game.  So, if you had a 3 team parlay in which you
won 2 of the games and tied the third, your winnings would be equivalent to
that of a 2 team parlay.

> Please someone give me the answer

Consider it done.  By the way, someone in this group has been maintaining
a sports betting FAQ.  I've read it and it's got a lot of good information.
I don't have a copy handy, but if you post a message requesting it, I'm
sure someone will get it to you.

Mike Sager
From: weinstoc@sei.cmu.edu (Chuck Weinstock)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Las Vegas Advisor Party?
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:25:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: sei.1992Nov17.142514.3244
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute


First of all the free rooms at the Flamingo are a result of my having stayed
there and gambled there before.

The free rooms at Harrah's are another matter.  It seems that Anthony Curtis,
publisher of the Las Vegas Advisor, went to Harrah's casino marketing
department looking for a coupon to include with the Las Vegas Advisor (coupons
from other casinos appear at regular intervals).  Instead he was offered the
following free for all of his subscribers:

1. Two free nights lodging, December 20, 21
2. A Harrah's hosted party on Sunday night, including food and beverage
3. A "fun" blackjack/slot tournament with at least $2,500 in prize money put
   up by Harrah's.
4. Other goodies I've no doubt forgotten.

The free night at the Stardust comes from a coupon included in an earlier packet
of coupons from the LVA.

I suspect if you've ever been rated by a Las Vegas casino that you could
promote a few free room nights in December (notoriously slow).



Chuck Weinstock				weinstock@sei.cmu.edu
Software Engineering Institute		(412) 268-7719
Carnegie Mellon University		(412) 268-5758 (Fax)
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
From: erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Lo-roller trip report:  Sycuan, San Diego, CA
Date: 23 Nov 1992 03:16:18 GMT
Organization: Linguistics Department, UCSD
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bend.ucsd.edu

Well, I played in a California card room for the first time yesterday, at
Sycuan casino in El Cajon, California.  I played 1-1-2-2 Texas Hold 'em at
the 'beginners' table.  Normal rules, but no check-raising, and if you bet
or raised on the turn or river, you had to bet $2 (not $1).

It was definitely a beginners' table.  Dealers-in-training dealt, and there
were a lot of flipped cards on the deal.  Most of the people at the table
tended to stay in too long, i.e. most bets were called all the way through.
Winning money was simply a matter of waiting for decent cards, and folding
your second-best hands early enough.  I bought in for $40, and left with $62
2 1/2 hours later, which I guess is ok.  The rake was nasty, as there were two
blinds of $1 each, which both went to the house.

Previously I have played at the 4Q and Cx2 and gotten chewed up by the sharks.
The quality of play was a lot worse (but I am a little better than I was then,
mostly due to the net.holdem tournament, I've learned a lot!)

I went on a Sat. afternoon, and the place was pretty crowded.  I'll probably
be heading back soon.

Other games there include 1-3 hi lo stud, and 3-6 and up reg stud, 3-6 and up
texas holdem (incl. a hi-lo game or two) and something called 'kill' texas
holdem (what is this?)  No omaha, no lowball, but today (11/22) they supposedly
opened a whole new cardroom so maybe they will have more games now.

Of course, they got bingo and a bunch of asian games and ca. aces, but who
cares, right?

Anyway, if anyone comes to San Diego and wants to go, lemme know, I'll go wit
ya.

---Sean

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: craps
In-reply-to: jacob@ocf.berkeley.edu's message of 20 Nov 1992 11:59:59 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<1eijvvINN1ob@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:47:58

In article <1eijvvINN1ob@agate.berkeley.edu> jacob@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jacob Jin) writes:
>In article <JACOBS.92Nov19070000@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.082233.10603@netcom.com> edan@netcom.com (Edan Shalev) writes:
>>> my last 2 visits to vegas proved that betting on the 6 and 8 (with odds)
>>> when the table was "hot" and betting on the dont pass when the table
>>> was "cold" seemed to have worked well.  I only made about $75/hr
>>> but for the 2 trips i have gone craps has gotten me ahead, where
>>> blackjack (with the 5 decks) usually empties my pockets.
>>
>>You got lucky.
>
> Psh! Do I detect a little babyish cynical envy here?

Nope.  I play craps occasionally myself, and when I win I figure I got
lucky.  In my book, you got lucky any time you come out ahead after
playing a negative expectation game.

>Next thing you be
>telling me that I didn't deserve to win my 8-5off vs black rockets.

Perhaps you deserved to get lucky (but knowing you, I doubt it :-)

>(To quote Highway 61: Yeah, I was lucky. Lucky I got to play with a
> bunch of losers like you.)

Them's fightin words.... :-)



--
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: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: Rank of Hold`em Pocket Cards
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:15:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.205110.26231@netcom.com> slick@netcom.com (Martin Veneroso) writes:

>In article <17967@autodesk.COM> jamesr@Autodesk.COM (James Rowell) writes:

>[discussion of the relative merits of pocket card rankings by Sklansky
>and Malmuth versus figuring it out for yourself deleted]
>>Hey, Steve, why don't you bail us out of this hole we're digging
>>ourselves into! I'd like to hear your views. :-)

>Laugh and the world laughs with you, take on Zimmers and you're on your own!

Geez, am I getting a reputation ALREADY?  Oh well, it's better than nothing,
and I'm sure not going to distinguish myself as a card player.

Once again, I didn't mean to come down on James, but I did think that he
was trying to reinvent the wheel.  M&S' wheel is already pretty round...

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
From: jamesr@Autodesk.COM (James Rowell)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Rank of Hold`em Pocket Cards
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:35:21 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

In Hold`em Poker for Advanced Players, Malmuth and Sklansky rate
the opeing hands according to their own criteria.  (It's great
but it'd be nice to see exactly how they derived the tables.)

It seems to me that the hands could be ranked better by a purely
rigorous mathematical evaluation of all the opening hands.  What
is each hand's exact mathematical expectation to win?  (I think
this means, if you played each opening hand head up against every
other opener a jillion times each, what would its percentage win
be in each case?  Stats experts may have a better way of stating
what I'm stumbling on about if it makes any sense at all!) Once
you have this information, you can make "value judgements" (no
pun intended) about how you feel about playing certain hands.
This MUST have been done, anyone know where?  OR Anyone figured
this out and want to share it?  (I've thought about it briefly
and it seems ugly, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.)

James.

P.S.  To all those that responeded to my enquiry about poker pro-
grams and code,... THANKS!  I'll keep you all posted...
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: pbf@inoms.bellcore.com (Phil Franklin)
Subject: Re: Not the Monty Haul problem
Organization: Bellcore
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:57:29 GMT

In article <JEFFT.92Nov20120648@w20-575-81.mit.edu>, jefft@athena.mit.edu (Jeff Tang) writes:
|> 
|> Something that's been bugging me.
|> 
|> 
|> Question:
|> 
|> You're given two envelopes and told that the contents are determined
|> randomly, except that one has twice as much money as the other.  You open
|> one envelope and find 1 unit.  Now, you're given the opportunity to either
|> take the unit you found, or give it up and take the contents of the other
|> envelope.  What do you do?
|> 
|> Answer 1:
|> Well, since there wasn't really any information revealed by opening the
|> envelope, switching to the other envelope wouldn't be any different than
|> choosing that envelope in the first place.  Therefore, it doesn't matter if
|> you switch.
|> 
|> Answer 2:
|> Well, the other envelope has either .5 or 2 units.  Since there's a 50%
|> chance of each of these, you'll come out with 1.25 units on average as
|> opposed to sticking with the single unit, so you should switch.
|> 
|> 
|> What's wrong with one (or both) of these answers?

What's wrong with these answers is that they don't take into account
the chooser's utility value for dollars.  The one thing that opening
that first envelope does for the chooser is to define the parameters
of the choice in the range of .5 - 2 units.  For instance, suppose the
chooser is an average college student, and the unit is $1.  The
difference between $2, $1, and 50 cents is probably not enough to keep
the chooser from risking 50 cents on the chance for an extra dollar.
If, on the other hand, the unit is ten thousand dollars, The chooser
may not be willing to risk $5,000 on the chance of $10,000 more.  And
if we take it even further and make the unit $10,000,000, then the
chooser may say, "The worst I can do is $5,000,000, so let's take a
chance." 

In other words, there's no objective "right" choice -- every person has
their own utility function which defines the right choice for them.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Rank of Hold`em Pocket Cards
In-reply-to: mzimmers@netcom.com's message of Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:23:19 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<JACOBS.92Nov19153604@cells.cs.utah.edu>
	<1992Nov20.032319.13032@netcom.com>
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:06:10

In article <1992Nov20.032319.13032@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <JACOBS.92Nov19153604@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>
>>In article <17967@autodesk.COM> jamesr@Autodesk.COM (James Rowell) writes:
>
>>> I'm in agreement with your statement above, but to claim that ranking
>>> hands in a formal way is flawed is slightly overkill.
>
>>I'd say _huge_ overkill.  Winning more money rather than more pots
>>is equivalent to maximizing expectation rather than maximizing the
>>probability of winning.  
>
>You must never play in games with chumps!  (Though you did play against me.)

I think you misunderstood what I said.  Winning more money is the same
as maximizing expectation.  Winning more pots is the same thing as
maximizing probability of winning pots.  These are not the same thing,
but either goal can be approached analytically.  None of this excludes
the possibility of playing against chumps, nor does it exclude the
possibility of adding a "chump factor" into the analysis.

>I can think of multiple playing styles that are optimized to win pots, but
>will bankrupt the player in short order.

Agreed.

>The most obvious is Will Call,
>the player who never drops.  Sure, he'll win the most pots of anyone at
>the table, but he'll also donate blood through the nose the rest of the
>time.

That is essentially what I said, isn't it?

>There is a *major* difference between playing to win money, and playing
>to win pots.  Perhaps, Steve, you're so experienced in Hold-em that
>you're looking past the differences because you'd never make such
>mistakes?

I'm not looking past any differences.  If you analyze poker trying to
maximize expectation (money won on average), you will get very different
results than if you analyze poker trying to maximimze the probability
of winning pots.  A table which shows the probability of winning with
different hands can be used for both purposes.

>>If anything, formal methods that are applied
>>correctly only server to _underscore_ the correct goals of poker play.
>
>All I meant was that it was a mistake to only consider the probability
>of winning, when assessing the value of a starting hand.  I don't
>think we have a disagreement here.

OK.

>Besides, Jacobs, who are you to talk?!  Aren't you currently getting
>you butt kicked in the tourney?  Hat-trick indeed!  HAH!!!!!!!!

It ain't over til it's over.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Don't worry, I just have these harmless pocket rockets...."
From: sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Looking for an X-blackjack player
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:04:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: w20-575-58.mit.edu

I am looking for an X-blackjack player so that I can
practice some basic strategy and such.  Are there
any programs out there (preferably with source) that
will also check for player errors with respect to
basic and counting?

thanks
sidlives@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: trm+@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Thomas Mathies)
Subject: TV show: cheating in casinos
Originator: trm@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:27:41 GMT


A promo for HARDCOPY said Monday's show would deal with
cheating in casinos. The promo had video from casino
security cameras.

Air time in Pittsburgh is 7 pm on channel 4. Check local
listings for your area. (I think this is a syndicated
program.)

Tom Mathies
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: Rank of Hold`em Pocket Cards
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:23:19 GMT

In article <JACOBS.92Nov19153604@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:

>In article <17967@autodesk.COM> jamesr@Autodesk.COM (James Rowell) writes:

>> I'm in agreement with your statement above, but to claim that ranking
>> hands in a formal way is flawed is slightly overkill.

>I'd say _huge_ overkill.  Winning more money rather than more pots
>is equivalent to maximizing expectation rather than maximizing the
>probability of winning.  

You must never play in games with chumps!  (Though you did play against me.)
I can think of multiple playing styles that are optimized to win pots, but
will bankrupt the player in short order.  The most obvious is Will Call,
the player who never drops.  Sure, he'll win the most pots of anyone at
the table, but he'll also donate blood through the nose the rest of the
time.

There is a *major* difference between playing to win money, and playing
to win pots.  Perhaps, Steve, you're so experienced in Hold-em that
you're looking past the differences because you'd never make such
mistakes?

>If anything, formal methods that are applied
>correctly only server to _underscore_ the correct goals of poker play.

All I meant was that it was a mistake to only consider the probability
of winning, when assessing the value of a starting hand.  I don't
think we have a disagreement here.

Besides, Jacobs, who are you to talk?!  Aren't you currently getting
you butt kicked in the tourney?  Hat-trick indeed!  HAH!!!!!!!!

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano)
Subject: Re: GAMBLER'S MATE Week 11
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:41:56 GMT

In article <1eehhdINNabq@agate.berkeley.edu> jacob@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jacob Jin) writes:

>If you review some earlier posts, many express similar opinions about
>the Centigram Quad X5 Matrix, and you don't see them posting much
>anymore, do you? A lot of people use G-mate, actually, and with the
>correct 60% success rate it boasts. The same could be said of The CQX5M.

Okay, I'm convinced. Gambler's Mate is as big a joke as the Centigram Quad
X5 Matrix.
From: mbn@skeletor.hf.intel.com (Mike Northam)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Notre Dame vs Penn State
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:10:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: greyskul.1992Nov18We0910530r.mbn
Reply-To: mbn@greyskul.hf.intel.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Shorter Software Solutions

>>>>> "jim" == Jim Pak <jpak@manute.sps.mot.com> writes:


jim> The early line is Stanford -3.5 over CALIFORNIA.

jim> And while I'm at it, here are some other early college lines of note.

jim> (Home team in CAPS)

jim> Favorite     Line  Underdog

jim> Michigan     7.5   OHIO ST (opening line was 9)
jim> Miami        6     SYRACUSE (opening line was 7.5)

jim> (Pac 10 stuff)
jim> Usc          8.5   UCLA
jim> Oregon      13     OREGON ST
jim> Washington  14     WASH ST
jim> ARIZONA      6     Arizona St (opening line was 8)

jim> and for a 49er fan like yourself,

jim> 49ers -6.5 RAMS, total 43

jim> Hmm, lot of home dogs above...
                 ^^^^^^^^^
Not only that, but home dogs in the BIG GAME of the year for some of these
teams, notably the Pac 10 matchups of Cal-Stanford; UO-OSU; UW-WSU;
USC-UCLA--games which are often closer than expected.  Makes one ponder
the merits of a big "home dog" parlay, eh?  Fortunately, I don't know any
bookies.  :-)



--
Mike Northam, Shorter Software Solutions, on contract to Intel Corp.
(h) (503) 324-1831 (intel office) (503) 696-4860 (shorter) (503) 357-1010
mbn@greyskul.hf.intel.com
"You ducks are really trying my patience...but you're SOOO cute. --Apu 9F01
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: BJ - good reading material
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:07:55 GMT

In article <1er1jsINN2tt@oak3.doc.ic.ac.uk> kcw@doc.ic.ac.uk (Kim Chung Wong) writes:
>
>I was wondering if anyone could recommend any good books on the more
>advanced BlackJack systems

Sure:

  "Blackbelt in Blackjack" by Arnold Snyder
  "Million Dollar Blackjack" by Ken Uston
  "Professional Blackjack" by Stanford Wong

>that include complete and thorough mathematical analyses of the systems.

Oh.  Then forget my suggestions above.  I don't think there are any such
books.  I don't even think "Theory of Blackjack" by Peter Griffin has what
you want.  Epstein's "Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" has some
meaty tables on the 10's count, and some on high-low, neither of which
is an "advanced blackjack system".  Most books, and the rec.gambling FAQ,
do contain tables of the betting correlations and playing efficiencies as
well as some (disceiving) advantage statistics from simulations, but this
doesn't strike me as "complete and thorough mathematical analyses".

>I am intending to carry out various simulations based on these systems.

If all you want is confirmation, then post your results on rec.gambling;
rec.gamblers will flame you severely if your results disagree with theirs.

-- 
Michael Hall            \ Of course, "New Blackjack" by E. Clifton Davis and
NASA Ames Research Center\ Jerry Patterson is backed by a complete and
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ thorough mathematical analysis. :-)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:25:32 EST
From: <BKL104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Vegas Odds Needed


   If anyone out there is familiar with where it is possible to acquire
current Vegas Odds for various different sporting events, some leads would be
greatly appreciated.


   The location is insignificant provided the information is somewhat current.


One further question :  Is the network posting/transmission of this type of
information considered legal? ?

                   Thanks in Advance --

                             Brett Lynch

--------
bkl104@psuvm.psu.edu
brett@vivaldi.psu.edu