> dman wrote innews:1171879533.674429.144460@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>

>> On Feb 19, 12:18 am, Speeding biz.org> wrote:

>>> dman wrote
>>> innews:1171779455.362287.45220@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>

>>>> Gambling is a tax on the mathematically S-T-U-P-I-D.

>

>>> Or the mathematically smart, case dependant...

>

>> What I said is a general rule. Exceptions do not prove or disprove the
>> general rule of thumb.

>

>> Carding counting is one of those few rare exceptions. But the work you
>> need to put into it plus the bank roll you need to have to make it
>> even semi-worthwhile is more effort than it is worth. I've seen the
>> calculations of what I card counter could earn on average on a per
>> hour basis and it just isn't worth it for that kind of money.

>
> DING DING DING!!!!!
>
> That's why it's hard to find a serious "professional" card counter. The
> time and effort, along with the risk, makes it simply not as lucrative as
> just working part time for the local watering hole. But, for the casual
> gambler, the guy that goes on the weekend to have fun, meet people, and
> play a few games, it makes the difference between paying money for that
> night out... or letting someone else pay for it instead.
>
> And the buffet only costs between $3 (for midnight breakfast) and $18
> (for
> the "special" lobster and steak nights). All in all, a night at the
> casino
> can be a lot cheaper and more exiciting and fun than a night out on the
> town otherwise.
>

>

>>> IE:

>

>>> Sitting at a Blackjack table... 8 card deck with hidden autoshuffler.
>>> After two hours, eight deck has been played through twice. Running
>>> card count is staying at or around -10. Aces show up one in six
>>> deals. (and yes, with six players and the dealer, this means there is
>>> an ace on the table on EVERY hand) There is an average of one
>>> blackjack per 18 hands played. (one in three rounds) And the house
>>> hasn't hit a blackjack in the entire two hours.

>

>>> Is that really gambling?

>

>>> Three hours later... about 1am... in about twenty minutes of play...
>>> card count goes from -10 to +15. Only two aces have been played in
>>> that twenty minutes, both blackjack for the house.

>

>>> Is that really gambling?

>

>>> Or... another case...

>

>>> Playing Roulette... watching the wheel for about two hours... The
>>> numbers 4, 16, 23, 33 and 35 haven't hit once... the numbers 2, 6,
>>> 14, and 21 have each only hit once. The other numbers have all hit at
>>> least four times. But 3, 15, 24, 34, and 36 seem to hit a bit more
>>> commonly.

>

>> You watch the wheel for a couple of hours to learn.... nothing?!?!

>
> That's not nothing. Not by a long shot. If you look at the layout of the
> wheel, you'll quickly realize that the wheel has a clear bias towards one
> quadrant. The trick is figuring out if that bias is due to something
> temporary... like true random chance... or semi-temporary such as a leg
> or
> two that has been lifted by a millimeter or so.
>
> But, this particual bias I mentioned here shows that there is an entire
> side of the wheel that is not likely to hit at all. Or very very rarely.
> So, with a 35 to 1 odds on a single bet... you can bet on 00 - 36, but
> skip
> 5 of those numbers in relative safety. This gives you 33 to one odds on a
> 35 to one payout. And it could be better if you find a roller that
> happens
> to be "cautious" about where he drops the ball and with what spin.
>
> Basically speaking, then, your odds of winning are greater than one to
> one.
> Sure, your not going to get rich... but if you can watch the wheel while
> playing around on something else, then you can head over to that wheel
> once
> you spot the bias, play it for a few hours, and then head for something
> else.
>

> Sure, you're not going to get rich. But, if you can simply watch the
> board
> (and make sure the board is showing the winning numbers correctly... he
> he)
> then you can play something else, like blackjack or a slo... but
> occassionally glance at the board... and then have a good idea of whether
> there is a bias or not. Then take your meager winnings from the BJ table
> or
> slot... play the wheel a bit... act like a real player, tossing money
> around... and then finish up the night with a buffet meal on (or just
> past)
> the shank of evening.
>
> And with some more skill and perhaps just a bit of luck... you won't be
> leaving alone. Or, if they have a hotel... you might even try for a
> fool's mate, if the feeling is right. ;-D
>

>> The past results ideally do not predict future results. The chance of
>> it hitting any one number remains the same regardless of the previous
>> result(s).

>
> Yes... unless there is an imbalance. Much like craps. The ideal, of
> course,
> is that the next throw of the dice is completely random. But... if you
> have
> a player tossing the dice that just happens to hold the dice side by
> side... both set so that the 3's are on top and the 1's face the opposite
> table edge... and this player has practiced long and hard on his toss...
> well... unless and until the pit boss makes him stop setting his dice...
> are the odds of a 6 increased, reduced, or totally random?
>
> Then again, I'm getting out of practice on both craps and roulette. The
> casino I play has... a CARD game version??? They have a card shuffler
> and
> deal a card they skim over an optical reader. And that "picks"the winning
> number.
>
> Only I'm still really curious about both. The shuffler on the roulette
> table says it holds 36 cards. But it has the standard American layout and
> it pays 35 to 1 for single number. And the craps table shuffler shows
> that
> it has 30 cards in it. So... what are the missing cards?
>
> Someday, if I'm bored, I might check it out. Then again, there's no
> guarentee that the cards in the deck aren't getting changed around
> between
> prime time and off hours.
>
> --
> You could be a Cylon and not even know it...
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OKA_PUAs/join