HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Betting both sides to get Comps
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:54:16 GMT

In article <183121@pyramid.pyramid.com> breid@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com
(Bill Reid) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.111300.22804@trl.oz.au> emmerik@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Mike VanEmmerik) writes:
>>jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
:
>Yes, that's the ticket...what we really need is a "log optimal" roulette 
>strategy.  It will be developed soon, not long after Steve Jacobs 
>perfects the "log optimal" craps strategy (right after the "log optimal" 
>BJ strategy is finished, sometime in the year 3067).  Steve realized 
>that the standard Martingale was not 
>"log optimal" for craps play because you risk 
>$128 to win $2 after 7 losing bets, so he deduced it would be better 
>to use a b^7 scheme, where you risk $128 to win $126 after 1 losing bet.  
>Last I heard he brought the entire power grid of the western US trying 
>to compute the "crossover point" to make craps winnable.  Stay tuned.

Hey, wait a minute!  I started that "log optimal" stuff here!

Besides, I'm sure Steve knows the log optimal roulette and craps
strategies as well as I do; they're both quite simple.  In fact, the
formulas I posted many months ago enable you to calculate them exactly.

>>>In fact, the casinos would be smart to *encourage* variance reducing
>>>techniques by the players.  When you reduce your variance, you reduce
>>>the variance for the house as well.  
>
>Exactly.  Which makes you wonder about the smarts of a guy who writes 
>a book on casino management telling you to be on the lookout for these 
>types of plays.  If you actually bought this stuff, at least you 
>would be able to fit in intellectually with 
>other pit bosses, so I guess it qualifies as "training material". 

Someone who is carefully reducing his variance is never going to get
"steamed" and start betting a lot more than he can afford.  Casinos
don't favor such people; they like those who lose and increase their
bets to win it back, and those who win and increase their bets to
pyramid their winnings.
 
>In reality, the large number of non-corelated decisions taking place 
>in a big casino virtually guarantees they never have a losing day, so 
>they keep relatively little cash on the premises.  In the rare instances 
>where their bankroll is dented (and it happens occasionally, which 
>should be a lesson to BJ "team players"), they phone up a bank where 
>they have a credit line, then issue a cashiers check to the big winners.  
>They can usually repay the loan within a day or so, so great is their 
>money-making ability.    

Since casinos take markers and checks from losers, and pay cash to
winners, I suspect that their profitability is even better than their
cash situation would indicate.

Seth "what is the log of a hot babe (tm) anyway?" Breidbart
sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Vegas Info
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:59:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.221355.1236@osf.org>, ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:
|> ----------------
|> 
|> In response to those looking for nice but inexpensive accomodations in
|> Vegas, I can recommend two places:
|> 
|>   Downtown:  The Odgen House  - Freemont Street  
                    ^^^^^^^^^^


   Sorry - It's actually called the Ogden House. And their phone number is 
   (702) 385-5200. $18 per night - check it out!!

-Ron

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Big August rec.gambling excursion
In-reply-to: funky@nevada.edu's message of Thu, 13 Aug 1992 06:26:02 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<JACOBS.92Aug12163509@cells.cs.utah.edu> <g94mq_+.slick@netcom.com>
	<1992Aug13.062602.16405@nevada.edu>
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:36:41

In article <1992Aug13.062602.16405@nevada.edu> funky@nevada.edu (MATTHEW KAPHAN) writes:

> I've never posted to rec.gamblers yet, but I have been reading it.  Anyways
>I live in Vegas, and I wouldn't mind getting together with you guys.  I'm not
>much of a blackjack player, but I enjoy poker and Pai Gow Poker.  I thought
>I'd include a short story of how great a town Vegas is.  I was at the Desert
>Inn once playing poker <7 card stud>  and heard screaming coming from teh
>Baccarat pit.   So I wandered over there and witnessed a chinese man betteing
>$10 to $100 thousand dollars a hand.  I als

> essed the guy throwing chips out to the people cheering him on.  Realizing
>I had better odds winning money over here then on the poker table I hung out
>and managed to score a black <$100> chip.  Vegas, what a great town.  Let's
>all agree on a place to meet and I'm there.  

OK, new plan -- barbeque at Matthew's house, in back by the pool.  What was
that address again?

If someone can bring a rope and a couple of guys can help me, we can cull
a calf and/or a lamb from JR's room, so we have the meat covered.  Best to
plan this for early in the trip to get one that's still alive and free of
teeth marks.

Here are the food/entertainment assignments:

   Blair -- dancing girls, Rum and diet coke, leftover bedsheets from the Trop.
   Jacko -- White Tigers from Mirage (for security)
   Jeff -- poker table, disguises for any BJ teamers who might show up.
   Michael -- helium & women's panties, "Presto" name tags
   Frank -- Liquid Plummer, Elvis costume
   Bill -- police and pit critters to bust things up when neighbors complain.
   
I'll round up off-duty cocktail waitresses from the Rio to round out the
entertainment.  If I'm not there by midnight, start without me.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Never teach a card counter to sing.  It wastes your time and gets the card
 counter barred."
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: emmerik@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Mike VanEmmerik-ITG Brisbane)
Subject: Re: Betting both sides to get Comps
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:07:00 GMT


>[munch]
>wrong bet.  All betting both sides does is reduces the variance of
>outcomes without affecting expectation.  I would think that a
>casino operator that comped 1 unit bets on right or wrong but not
>1/2 unit bets on both was acting irrationally.  Is there something
>I'm missing?

Yep. Variance is where the casino makes most of its money, since most
people have too small a bankroll. Expectation (house percentage) is only
5.25% for Roulette (ignoring the 5 way bet), but they make 20%-30% due
to variance and low bankroll. If they figure on 20% of action as a comp,
then variance reducing techniques will cost them money. Assuming they
flash to what is going on, of course. But they would not be acting
irrationally to be upset by this technique.

>Scott Lackey



--
Mike Van Emmerik        \ Slots can have a positive expectation.
Telecom Australia       \ The jackpot has to be high enough, and
emmerik@titan.trl.oz.au \ you have to know how to pull optimally
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Betting both sides to get Comps
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:53:45 GMT
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division

In article <JACOBS.92Aug13113351@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.162035.16529@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:

>>Michael Hall            \ Variance... can't make money with it, can't make
>>NASA Ames Research Center\ money without it.
>>hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ 
>
>Very cute, but show me a game with positive e.v. for the player and zero
>variance, and I'll show you how to generate a huge bankroll very quickly.
>Variance does nothing but impede the optimal growth rate of your bankroll.

There aren't any good investment opportunities with positive expected
value and zero variance that I can think of.  To make significant money
you have to take a significant risk (of losing money at least in the short
run).  It's one of those laws of life.  You just can't have your cake
(big expected value) and eat it too (zero variance).  That's what I
meant by "can't make money without [variance]."

But there is at least one game with a positive expected value for the
player and no chance of losing money even in the short run.  The game
is called "savings account up to $100,000 at a Federally insured banking
institution".  It is easy to play, has a positive expected value, and
if you want zero variance you can always give yourself just 1% annual
interest and light cigars with the variable amount above that.  Now
show me how to generate a huge bankroll very quickly with this game :-)

-- 
Michael Hall            \ Variance... can't make money with it, can't make
NASA Ames Research Center\ money without it.
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ 
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: jack@freezer.cns.udel.edu (Jack Seltzer)
Subject: Increasing Bets behind Wins Only
Reply-To: jack@freezer.cns.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:28:37 GMT

Although they can't bar you in AC for counting, there are counter
measures they can take to make playing fairly unpleasant.  So, while
you optimize your wins if you bet strictly according to the count, the 
jumps are a dead give away, as we all know.  For a some time now I've
been following Revere's suggestion of increasing your bets after
wins which is what typical gamblers do and what I have found is that
my winning sessions are following the pattern that Revere describes in his
book.  Now, I've only been doing this for the last 13-15 sessions, but 
thus far I've won about 4 out of 5 sessions and the loss sessions were small ones.
I limit my jumpt bets to 2 units only.  That is, I will increase my bet
after a loss to a max of 2 units if the count calls for an increase of 2 or 
more units.  In order for my bet to go beyond 2 units, I must have been betting
2 and won. Also, if I have a bet greater than 2 unis up, and lose, I drop down,
also, like many gamblers would do. The pattern looks something like this...

         True Count     Bet   Win  Lose

             1           1          1
             2           2          2
             3           2          2
             4           2     2
             4           4     4
             2           2     2
             3           3          3
             4           2     2


I figure that I am reducing my winning rate by doing this, but the fact that 
I am winning so often seems to conpensate the reduced winnings.  It 
especially feels good when the count is going thru the roof and I have been
betting only 2 units per hand and losing hand after hand.  If I had been
betting strictly according to the count, I would have lost a ton.  Playing this
way, I have done better than I have ever done in the past.  I realize however,
I have only done this for about 14 sessions, where each session I would say is
an average of about 7-8 hours (I call a day trip a session as well as
playing for a couple of days on an overnighter).
From: Eugene M. Shekhtman <unknown@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Increasing Bets behind Wins Only
Date: 20 Aug 1992 04:02:39 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gpb1mac13.berkeley.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1a2

In an article of 18 Aug 92 Jack Seltzer wrote:

>also, like many gamblers would do. The pattern looks something like
this...
>
>         True Count     Bet   Win  Lose
>
>             1           1          1
>             2           2          2
>             3           2          2
>             4           2     2
>             4           4     4
>             2           2     2
>             3           3          3
>             4           2     2

I looked and looked and looked at this table, and I must say that
couldn't understand it at all.  Luckily, I do know Revere's betting
suggestions, so I knew what Jack Seltzer meant, but no thanks to that
table.

                                     Eugene.
From: hallyb@globbo.enet.dec.com (John Hallyburton)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: VP MATH:  Any analog to the BJ strategy tables?
Summary: Not VP SPELLING, that's entirely different
Keywords: video, poker
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:21:51 GMT
Organization: Twin Peaks Municipal Software Works


Sorry I won't be at the BARGE this weekend; I'll be doing Dallas.  Ahh, I mean,
nevermind.

But I do have a VP playing strategy question.  Are there any guidelines for how
to change playing strategy depending on jackpot size?

Assume you are playing an 8/5 progressive jackpot (for royal flush) machine.
You are playing MaxBets and are dealt K Q K Q 10, the last 3 cards suited.
It seems obvious to me that one discards the first K/Q and draws 2 to the
big jackpot.  What about K K K Q 10?  K Q K Q 9?  K K K Q Q?  K K K K Q?

Isn't it true that for each *winning* pat hand dealt there is a certain 
jackpot size that makes it worthwhile to pitch the winner and draw to the
royal flush?

Consider getting dealt K K K Q Q.  You can stand pat for a payoff of 8, or
draw 3 to a suited K Q in hopes of pulling a royal flush.  By my math (not
always correct) you have 1 chance in C(47,3) = 16215 of getting a royal flush,
therefore if the jackpot is greater than 16215 * 8 = 129720 MaxBets (unlikely) 
then you should draw to the royal.  Of course one really should consider the
effect of other draws and payoffs that could happen -- you might draw trips,
a straight, flush, full house (!) or other hands that pay off, thereby 
reducing the minimum jackpot required to play for the royal flush.

It seems such a strategy table would be a tedious but straightforward job to
produce.  Ultimately you should be able to use the results to tell you when a
progressive VP game is positive expectation.  Then you could start work on the
player's variance and bankroll requirements.  That would be something new! :-)
--
						"The Smart Money was on Goliath"
						John Hallyburton 43 55'N 71 45'W
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Vegas Info
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:13:55 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

----------------

In response to those looking for nice but inexpensive accomodations in
Vegas, I can recommend two places:

  Downtown:  The Odgen House  - Freemont Street  
             I don't have their number, but some friends stayed there in
             June for $18 per night, and found it clean and comfortable.

  Strip:  King Alburt Motel

  It's behind the Flamingo Hilton/Imperial Palace/Barbary Coast area. Every unit 
  is furnished with a kitchen, tv, and private bath, with simple but clean 
  furnishings. Their location is ideal, and they quoted me day rates of $25/wk 
  $40/wkend  per night for a single. And these prices were for March,('92) -
  usually a busy and high priced season. And you can do even better than these 
  rates for a weekly rental. They are happy to negotiate! I don't believe they 
  have a toll-free number, but I'm not sure. 
 
  Their regular number is:

  (702) 732- 1555 


  For deals at most hotels, casinos, air, etc, a wholesaler which several
  rec.gamblers have used with success can be reached at:

         (800) 345-7177

  I've already posted most of this info, but the data on the Odgen House has
  never been posted or given to the FAQ-administrator@jacobs.edu before.
  Perhaps in FAQ 2 (rumored to being created anytime now!) we'll see this stuff!

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: fair bet/ intelligent gamblers
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:24:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.201122.29445@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 8702@kronos.arc.nasa.gov, hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
>>IF you
>>were to keep your unit size constant, and played a decent single deck game,
>>you'd have to play 200 hours to "typically" (one standard deviation) show
>>a profit or 800 hours to "very often" (two standard deviations) show a
>>profit.  How many rec.gamblers.counters.whining.losers have even played
>>800 hours?!  But you *shouldn't* keep your unit size constant, you
>>should adjust it according to your bankroll, which means you have to
>>play *considerably* longer than 200 or 800 hours to be fairly confident
>>of showing a profit in terms of dollars.  (And I shudder to think how
>>long it would take on shoes rather than single deck.)
>
>Just curious.  How many hours/year do you manage to get in?  Even 100
>hours of play is alot.

Close to 200 hours just for this summer so far, and that's less than
I planned to get in so far.  Yearly, it's hard to say, since it varies,
but at least 1000 hours.  (For those rec.gamblers whose jaws are dropping,
think "team play"... I'm counting the hours that other players work my
money.)

-- 
Michael Hall            \ Variance... can't make money with it, can't make
NASA Ames Research Center\ money without it.
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ 
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: BJ: Shuffles (was Re: Vegas trip report, 8/7-8/9)
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.233432.26937@ultra.com> howard@ultra.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.004644.27709@kronos.arc.nasa.gov>, hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
>|> 
>|> Almost all published blackjack strategies assume the cards are randomly
>|> ordered.  (The only exception I can think of is Patterson's New Blackjack,
>|> which is almost certainly bogus anyway.)  My computer studies of simulated
>|> shuffles indicate that real world shuffles are not random.  For shoes,
>|> there is sufficient like-card clumping to be detectable with correlation
>|> tests.  For single deck with a small (6 or less) number of riffs, the
>|> cards do not have an equal probability of winding up at each location.
>
>OK, so I'm happily playing (and winning) and Mr. Pitboss comes on over with
>a fresh deck(s) and out go those nice clumped cards.  At least it seems that
>way.  Given a "standard" shuffle by a particular casino with a new deck in
>hand, can some predictability of the cards be derived?

Yes, I said that there was one rare way that card clumping is exploitable,
and this is it.  For new cards, most casinos "wash" the cards (randomly mix
flat on the table), and then perform the standard casino shuffle *twice* or
more.  But some simply do the standard shuffle once, with no wash beforehand.

>Single or multiple decks?

It takes exponentially more shuffles to randomize the cards the more decks
you use.  For single deck, I doubt if you'd ever see cards stay in new card
order, but for shoes it's possible.

>Do fresh decks tend to spell bad news for a player?

Cards in (partial) new deck order spell BAD news for a player, according to
simulations run by Arnold Snyder.  The effects depend upon seat position,
with the first seat being the best.  For shoes, I recommend being cautious
during the first shoe after new decks are introduced, especially if the
shuffle is grossly incomplete.  On the other hand, this new card order, or
the sort of similar-card clumping that occurs after decks have been in play,
could potentially could be turned against the casinos, by coming up with a
strategy which alters betting and playing according to the immediately
previous card dealt.

-- 
Michael Hall            \"...the physicist is often in the same position as the
NASA Ames Research Center\ gambler... Every time that he reasons by induction,
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \he requires the calculus of probabilities"-Poincare'
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Blackjack in San Diego
Date: 20 Aug 1992 22:50:38 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
: This game is completely unbeatable as a player, with a house edge of 3+%
: for the basic strategy player.  A $10 bet gives the house a 6+% edge, and
: a $3 bet gives the house a whopping 17+% edge.  Leave it to California
: to come up with a scheme to adopt their robbery system from the poker
: tables at the BJ tables as well.

Is it a goldmine for the banker?
: --
: Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
: "Never teach a card counter to sing.  It wastes your time and gets the card
:  counter barred."

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: twhalen@nunki.usc.edu (Timothy Whalen)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Big August rec.gambling excursion
Date: 13 Aug 1992 16:26:01 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.usc.edu
Summary: by coincidence, me too

There will be Tim Whalens attending the BARGE fests, through the
courtesy of the Trop "new gamblers" special.  Play 4 hours at
the tables +=or the slots=+, and you get two nights, weekend or
weekday, comped, even for that stay, as well as introductory stay
rate of $59.40 per night, S/D occup.  Cool.
I'll bring a corkboard so Steve Jacobs can post incessantly during
the party, so he doesn't suffer withdrawal.
I say we have to check out the Main Street Sta-  er, the Palace Sta-
no, I mean the main Street's craps tables, if they reopen.
TW "Money- can't make bets without it!" TW

Newsgroups: rec.gambling
From: why@kpc.com (Will Hyde)
Subject: HOLD'EM TOURNAMENT Standings...
Summary: after 62 hands 
Organization: no 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:29:08 GMT


 ...after 62 hands in the finals game, it looks like this:

 Watch this space, for info re tournament 2...

 -will

X.62**************Playing $60.00 MINIMUM (NO-LIMIT)******************
*********************************************************************
#1: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (steve jacobs)         (850.00)        (30.00) 
#2: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (bharat rao)          (2630.00)        (30.00) 
#3: butler@tartan.com (ken butler)           (1480.00)        (60.00) 
#5: hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (michael hall)  (600.00)        *FIRST* 
#6: slaven@iastate.edu (dave slaven)          (320.00)       
________________________________ 
Player #5 (540.00)               CALL  60.00                  180.00
________________________________ 
Player #6 (320.00)               FOLD
________________________________ 
Player #1 (850.00)(30.00)        FOLD
________________________________
Player #2 (2600.00)(30.00)       CALL  60.00 (30.00)          210.00
________________________________ 
Player #3 (1480.00)(60.00)       CALL  60.00 (Blind)          210.00      
________________________________ 
THE FLOP:              AS 8S KH
________________________________
Player #2                        CHECK
________________________________
Player #3                        CHECK
________________________________
Player #5 (330.00)               BET: 210.00                  420.00
________________________________
Player #2                        PASS
________________________________
Player #3                        PASS
________________________________

 ...michael

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
___ why@kpc.com   LADY LUCK IS A FICKLE BITCH, AND HER NAME IS KARMA ___
___ -** --- * ***   -* --- -   *** *- -*--   -* --- - **** ** -* --* ___
___ JUSTINCASE:  Guest acct. This writer does not work/speak for kpc ___
Newsgroups: rec.gambling