 |
FRONT PAGE - Back to THE ADVISOR PAGE GameMaster,
Thanks for the help. It would be a pleasure to watch someone like you play sometime.
Dear Lucky,
Yours for winning, Gamemaster: Nothing - lose your bet
High Pair (J or better) - 2 X (your bet)
Two Pair - 4 X
Three of a Kind - 6 X
Straight - 8 X
Flush - 10 X
Full House - 12 X
Four of a Kind - 30 X
Straight Flush - 50 X
Royal Flush - 400 X
(not strictly relevant, but you may want to note that if you win, your winnings are added to your current score, unlike regular video poker where the bet is first deducted before the winnings are added.) Each player receives the same initial 5 cards, but (supposedly) each one gets different cards on the draw. No where do they state that this is a 52-card deck, nor do they make any claims to randomness. Anyway...I've now played at least 40 games (close to 700 hands), and have these observations: * While the initial deal will often be a High Pair or Two Pair, I have never seen anything better than that * I have gotten a few straights and flushes, but in at least 20 hands where I've been dealt 4 cards to a flush on the initial deal, I have been unable to complete the flush. Similar stats for the straights * In all those nearly 700 hands, I have never gotten a four of a kind (using the strategy indicated by BDPWP, these should occur about every 420 hands or so) * In one game, the cards dealt included the A, K, Q and Ten of hearts (plus, I believe, a 9 of diamonds). There were over 1000 people playing the game at the time, and while it's possible that I was the only one who kept the hearts and bet the full amount, I don't find that very likely. No one won this game. (I sent Gamesville an email after this game, but they have never responded) * In another game, the deal was the 6, 7, 8 and 9 of diamonds (don't remember the off card). Again, no one won, even though over 1000 people were in the game * This may be completely off the wall, and totally in keeping with normal statistics, but in at least half the hands, at least one of the cards (two is not all that uncommon) dealt in the new hand is one of the cards dealt to me in the draw for the previous hand Now, I realize that we humans have a penchant for finding patterns (and
wanting to cast blame on others for our mistakes But maybe you can assure me that my suspicions are all wet.
Dear George, - You stated that you had not, in 700 hands of play, ever received a hand of Three-of-a-Kind. The probability is to get a 3K dealt to you, on average, once every 33.8 hands. In a 700-hand sample, the 'expectation' is to get about 21 of them on the initial deal. The standard deviation is 4.55, so getting none is a 4+ SD event. Highly unlikely. - In the Royal Flush (and Straight Flush) example, the probability of getting the correct fifth card is 1 in 47 and, in the case of 1000 trials, the probability is 2.12% which means that, on average, 21 people should get a Royal. Using those numbers, the SD is about 4.5, so getting none is almost a 5 SD event. Extremely unlikely. I could go on and on, but the numbers speak for themselves. This site wants your 'eyeballs' in order to sell advertising and they are offering a fun time to get you and others there. They are not, however, offering a game which parallels that of the average casino.
Yours for winning,
GameMaster,
Dear R.F.,
Yours for winning,
Gamemaster
Dear C.L.,
Yours for winning,
GameMaster, I frankly fail to see what is so much better about VP, when the 97.xx% at the machine I have available to me, takes into account the RF, which by all estimates is not going to be a part of my playing time. Therefore, that reduces the actual machine down to probably 93 or 94%, and that isn't that much better than the $1 slot machines. Even if I had a 100.7% machine available to me, it would still involve the RF in that percentage, and unless I am willing to play $35,000 into that machine... I don't see the big advantage over the $1 slots. I have played over 80,000 hands of Jacks or Better on the Dancer Tutorial by ZamZow software, and I don't make that many mistakes anymore. I like playing VP, but I lose just as much money playing VP as I do at the Nickel Slots. What am I missing here? What am I doing wrong? Seems like if you don't have $35,000 to spend on it, and unlimited time, you don't have any better chance than the slots.
Just my observation, after a year of playing at the Casino, and
thousands of hands on a simulator.
Dear Sam, For some more thoughts on this, please see Part 3 of my "Video Poker Primer" where I've outlined a plan for a 5-day trip to Vegas.
Yours for winning,
Dear GameMaster: Thanks for the compliments; we're all glad that we've been able to help you. Even though I've been using the high/low count, I'm curious about the progressive betting technique of doubling your bet on every loss. A friend of mine argues that you will always be up by one unit after you finally stop losing hands and win one on any given streak. My argument is that it would be disastrous to your bankroll for the times when you lose all of your bets up to the table max and can no longer double your bet. For example, when playing a $10 min to $3000 max table, it would only take 9 consecutive losing hands if you start at $10 before you hit the ceiling at a $2560 wager and can no longer double the bet size. After those 9 losing hands, you are at a whopping loss of $5110. It seems that these occasional enormous losses make the progressive bettor a loser, especially when considering that he will only make $10 each time the streak works and he wins before reaching the table max. Is this what makes progressive betting a loser and would it work if you played in a gambling paradise with no table maxes? You hit the nail on the head; the big drawback is that you may be betting thousands in order to win $10. Yes, it would work if there was a casino with no limits, but there aren't any. Do you have any simulation results for a given set of conditions that gives the house edge for a progressive bettor? There is no progressive betting 'system' that will overcome the casino's edge. Also, my friend and I frequently play as a team with one player betting $5 table minimums and calling the other in for spreads from $50-250 or, when we travel to play and need more cash to justify the trip expenses, $100-400. Even though we keep the spread down to a 1:4 or 1:5, the size of the variation is enough to receive a decent amount of attention from the pit crew. Of course, wer're also not popular because we're hopping around and not mindlessly sitting at one table all night. Our biggest problem (next to trying to find reasons to leave hot shoes after the cut-card) is when the higher bettor is sitting around waiting for the small bettor to find a hot deck. I'm sure most crews know about team games and you draw suspicion by not playing constantly but hanging around to watch your friend. I've noticed that most of the casinos we play at are marvelously designed to make it tough to loiter immediately around the tables (bars and other reasonable distractions are not close to any pits). My question is whether it looks better to hang around and wait for your partner to find hot decks or for the big bettor to also play shoes (so that you are constantly playing) at a reduced unit, even though the jumps to high bets will be a bigger spread and will break the pattern of relative flat-betting. It wouldn't be much fun to bet $25 on cold decks or, even worse, make cover bets of $100 on new shoes, but jumping from $5 or $10 to $250 if the shoe goes hot seems like it would be a dead giveaway. Any other tips you have on covering up team play would be greatly appreciated. My recommendation is for the 'big' player to bet only big $$$, so that means he has to stay away from the table. We did a lot of this in the past and it works best if you have 5 or 6 counters who 'call-in' the big player and in that way s/he keeps busy. But with only one counter, consider having the big player stand behind a different table, even one in a different pit, or on the other side of the pit the 'counter' is playing in. Then use a signal of some sort (taking off the eye glasses, lighting a cigarette, etc.) to call in the big player. As you said, this attracts some attention (anyone betting $100+ per hand is going to attract attention in almost any casino, whether they're counting or not), so mix it up a bit. A good trick is to have your counter get up from his or her seat and whisper the running count to the big player as s/he takes that seat. By doing this, the 'pit critters' won't always see the two of you at the same table at the same time. The counter can then wander off to find another table as the big player is milking the first one. Don't ever hesitate to leave a table once the shuffle card comes out or if the count drops; it's just too costly and it really isn't all that unusual to see someone get up and walk, but do it only after you lose a hand. "Gamblers" don't leave after winning a hand. Try to have the 'big' player develop an 'act' of someone who doesn't really care about $$$; make it seem like it's the 'action' that counts. If they ask you why you move around so much, tell them about that horrible shoe you had recently where you were up $5000, then you got comfortable and dumped it all back before the shoe ended. Pit critters can relate to that, because they see it all the time. But your best defense is to play no more than an hour in each casino, if that's possible.
Thank you,
Yours for winning,
GameMaster,
Dear R.K.
Yours for winning,
Hello Gamemaster, First of all, what are the "standard rules" (if there is such a thing) or most common rules for a BJ game in Vegas? I want to make sure that I'm memorizing the correct chart. There is no absolute standard, but you'll be okay if you learn the Basic Strategy for a 6-deck game with double on any first two cards, the dealer stands on A-6 and no double is allowed after splitting pairs. Also figure that resplitting of pairs is permitted, except Aces and split Aces receive only one card as a 'hit'. Next, does playing basic strategy with the count based variations statistically even out the odds on average? The most important function of a counting system in a multi-deck game is to tell you how much to bet. That is what will give you the edge over the casino. Varying the play of a hand according to the count adds only about .2% to your gain. I noticed that you like the Ace/ Five counting system for beginners, but is it nearly as effective as the Hi/ Lo? No, it isn't. I recommend the Ace/5 count to people who aren't willing to put in the time to learn the Hi/Lo. You appear to be willing to put in the time, so go with the Hi/Lo. When you count cards, do you count the other player's cards or only yours and the dealer's? You count all cards that you see and that includes all the other players' cards, the dealer's cards, your own and any others, like 'burn' cards which you may see. And if you do count the cards of the other players, how do you do so without making it obvious? It's just a natural reaction for everyone at the table to see what cards others have received, so you won't look unusual as you're following the action. Just don't move your lips as you count! Do the pit guys really watch THAT closely? Not really, no. But the first time you play as a counter, you'll feel like you have a red "C" on your forehead, but you don't. In over 20 years of play, I've never been 'barred'. Exactly how careful do you have to be about being caught counting, and if you are caught, do they have any legal right to do anything other than kicking you out of the casino? Read my lesson called "Casino Playing Tactics" for some insight into being careful, but remember that counting cards is completely legal and all they can do is ask you to leave. Thank you very much. Your time is appreciated. Mike You're welcome, Mike.
Yours for winning, Hi Gamemaster, First, a little background: I know about counting and believe that it's the only way to beat blackjack in the long run. However, I also know that there is a certain amount of 'luck' or (more scientifically) variance involved. So you need a pretty big bankroll, and lots and lots of hands played (unless of course, you plan on being on the good side of variance) to be reasonably certain of getting the $$$. The swings, of course, can be, and usually are, pretty violent. This volatility is caused by the need to range one's bets. Because of this, I believe that for someone who plays just about 500 hands a year (like me), counting isn't really very viable. The way I see it, I could play 20 years (or 10,000 hands) and still not be in the long run. In other words, there's a pretty wide range under which my results could fall. This uncertainty, I feel, doesn't justify the volatility that comes with ranging my bets. So I usually just flat bet on perfect basic strategy. This, of course, doesn't make me a winner; theoretically, it just makes me a 'slower loser', if you know what I mean. But since I figure for the number of total hands I'm going to play in the next 20 years, I'm still going to be significantly at the mercy of variance, I might as well just classify myself as a recreational player and give the casinos my 2 cents on the dollar. (I get a pretty good game here in the Philippines, about -0.2% off the top). I get to play (which I enjoy) for an acceptable fee and I don't have to deal with the emotional ups and downs as much. In fact, with a little 'luck' I might even come out ahead, agree? Anyway, it was this philosophy that led to a recent experiment. I decided to try and play all seven spots (I also hate playing with others because I think we (counters included) all get upset when we lose because someone else at the table doesn't play the way we play, so I can sympathize with the way they feel when I bust hitting a 16, in the process taking the ten that would be perfect for their dd 11.) The main reason was, I felt, this would further decrease the volatility of my sessions and keep me on an even more even keel. (Does this part make sense?) But my real question is this (sorry for taking so long): After playing this way on my computer (Sage blackjack simulator) for a LOT of hours, I'm coming up with an interesting trend: I can't seem to lose. I know this doesn't make sense because negative expectations are still negative expectations - but I'm just curious if any simulations have been done with someone playing perfect basic strategy on all 7 spots? Sorry for the "New Blackjack-ish" question. :-) Solomon
Dear Solomon, As for your Blackjack experiences, there would be a lot more validity to it if you were at a single-deck game, since the last hand to play there has the benefit of a lot more information. But in the case of a six-deck game, this so-called "depth-charging" (explained very well in Arnold Snyder's book "Blackbelt in Blackjack") has much less of an effect. I believe that as your sample size gets larger, the casino's edge will show itself. I am not aware of any such simulations, primarily because we all expect the result to be a .5% or so loss, assuming the cards are dealt in a random fashion. That will eventually be your result as well.
Yours for winning, Dear Gamemaster:
Unfortunately, all that came up was a blank page. Do you have any other suggestions or addresses where I can go to start learning? Please let me know.
Dear Jeff,
Yours for winning, GameMaster, You can find some Hold 'Em games here: http://www.planetpoker.com/
Yours for winning, |