![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I played pool semi-professionally for about five years and was a national champ for two sonsecutive years, played three times in European championships for the proud team of Slovenia. I have personally met Efren Reyes, Bill Incardona, Francisco Bustamante, Nick Varner, Allison Fisher, Mike Massey, Steve Davis and other champs. I played money games with a few too many of the European top guns. I think I know what I am talking about.
1) Pool and snooker are two different beasts. You have no concept of what you are talking about. The best 9-ball players will trash the best snooker players when playing 9-ball, and conversely pool shooters have no chance against them on the big snooker table. Snooker is a game of accuracy, whereas 9-ball a game of moving the cue ball across the green (because your next shot is pretty much determined, whereas in snooker you pick your own patterns). Pool players spin their cue ball in all possible ways (to move it long distance) while snooker players can't afford that. They hit their ball pretty much on the vertical center axis, as accuracy diminishes with adding left or right English.
In any case, your argument is laughable, as even the top snooker players aren't able to lag the cuebal to the rail better than the pool players. It is simply humanly impossible to attain the level of accuracy needed for a roulette stunt you are describing.
2) Now let's talk business. Do you claim there exists a human capable of casually snapping a roulette ball over a 120 feet distance with more than 0.5% accuracy (I'm being generous here)? Would you care to bet on this? I'd swim a river of shit to get some of that action. You are deluded, you dickpolisher.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
>2) Now let's talk business. Do you claim there exists >a human capable of casually snapping a roulette ball >over a 120 feet distance with more than 0.5% accuracy >(I'm being generous here)? Would you care to bet on >this? I'd swim a river of shit to get some of that >action. You are deluded, you dickpolisher.
You are exhibiting a glaring misconception about the nature of dealer's bias. There is a symbiotic relationship between the wheel and the throw. For example, a slight tilt in the wheel and a certain style of throw will result in a "forbidden zone" covering 85% of the wheel. Unless you have these variables clocked and an understanding of the mechanics involved you can't make accurate predictions about a dealer signature.
What I'm saying is you need to take the dealer out of that symbiotic relationship. You are better off observing the biased wheel only. I'm saying there is no dealer signature. You are saying there is. Let's aggree to disagree.
I'm glad we are past the namedropping, Mr. Baize ;)
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
x
The fans are what they are, gotta accept them as is. Sure you can say the good die hard fans are good for the game, but they are always there. The way baseball makes money is off the people that aren't always there. The corporations obviously put money into the game. The fan that shows up two or three times a year is bonus money to the game. The guy who hasn't been going but even shows up once is helping put money into the game. Its this crowd that has the money and the power because you already have the die hard fans and even though they might clamor for all the attention, that is not where extra revenue is really going to be made.
As for the caps, they aren't even close. Not even in the same category. The thing that even keeps them within shouting distances is the joke franchises now that are operating on $10 million dollar budgets. The A's now are no longer lowest budget going near $30 million a year if I remember right. Thats pretty close to what the NBA cap is. The NBA cap is about $29 million and most teams end up spending 30-40 million on putting a team out there, compared to some baseball teams going over $80 million now. The $25 million salaries are now pretty much limited and the number of players that will garner that kind of money will be counted on one hand within a few years. Baseball will see that level of salary very soon and with no caps on it will be powerless to stop it. Besides basketball players are much more valuable anyways. There are probably 15 guys in the league who can get fans into the seats. Baseball has maybe 3 or 4. Even more silly is all the people on here bitching about Sammy Sosa wanting big dollars when from a business perspective he is one of the few that deserve it. Think about basketball, even guys like Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, seemigly the whole Sacramento Kings team, and many more are not huge stars but will get fans interested in watching them play on TV or going to the stadium. Then you have the biggest stars, guys like Garnett, Carter, Kobe and Shaq, Duncan...these guys draw interest every game they play. How many people would go see Toronto when they come to say Golden State or Denver if Carter wasn't a Raptor? He is worth literally thousands of tickets ever game. He damn near sold out the Staples Center for a Clippers game where 6,000 is a typical crowd. The NBA players draw fans, thats why they deserve the big money.
The NBA's biggest advantage though is it plain and simple gets more money from TV because more people want to watch it. What baseball gets from TV is a joke compared to the NBA's newest agreement. Only the Yankees, Braves and Cubs get anything near what the NBA teams get in TV money. As for the farm system, well that is true, but then again thats baseball's fault. The farm system is really not needed as is, its just a relic of times gone by. No other sport has such a system as even hockey has their farm teams independently owned with the major league teams just giving the minors franchises money to operate and to develop their younger players. This cost for baseball could be quickly cut drastically as its obvious there are too many minor league players anyways, when you consider so very few will even make the show, let alone be starters in it.
Overall its quite clear to me that baseball needs to do something to the structure of the game. The quality of the game means little to a majority of fans watching it. Almost everyone complaining today about the bad pitching is a baseball purist that is still watching or listening to a game almost every day. The every now and then fan doesn't care at all, he probably finds it more interesting anyways. Once again say what you want about these types of fans, but they are the extra income it takes to make your game. I think this type of fan would greatly enjoy baseball more if it went to my idea of fewer games, say 80-100 and starting the season late April and finishing up by end of September. If the game is as great as you say it is, this should make it even better and stir more interest.
in any sport. Shortening the season won't do anything but lock in most current records. No one cares about the NBA in November, the NHL in October, or MLB in May except for bettors, but fans will still go watch. I have season tickets to the Red Wings, sometimes it is tough to swallow in November when you know they don't care because it means nothing. But you know when March comes around, everything picks up. If you want to start cutting games, just cut the entire regular season, and start the playoffs with everyone, playing one game, do or die, playoff series. That's all that really matters. Cutting games would ruin the tradition.
I think actually you made the best argument for cutting the season. I couldn't agree with you more the playoffs are another animal. I even enjoy watching the playoffs, especially if either of my two favorite teams are playing in them. I used to have season tickets to the Sharks and the regular season seemed stupid because they always have done much better in the playoffs after struggling and snagging the last playoff spot in the regular season. Problem is that in baseball tradition doesn't mean much any more. The tradition that endures is the playoffs and the World Series. Baseball could drop to the depths of unpopularity and have the Braves and Yankees playing for the Series each year and people will still watch in good numbers. Realizing that all the fans want is playoffs, why not cut down on the regular season to get to the playoffs? Baseball earns about 75% of its national TV revenue from just playoff games so it surely doesn't make much difference if they cut down the regular season. The only losers might be the Yankees and Braves as I think their endless programming being cut in half would actually cost them money. I guess the Dodgers could be included in this. I don't know how anyone running things would ever come to this conclusion, but it seems obvious to me. Instead they talk of cutting down on the number of teams, what so you can put the fear of God into the fans of the teams that are spared? Yeah the talent base would go up a bit, but you would put 10 teams on deathwatch because their fans would start thinking they were next to be eliminated. In any sport when a team is about to leave the team's revenues really go into a tailspin. The powers that be in baseball are just crackheads if you ask me with no idea of what to do. Every sport has its problems, but the other 3 sports are moving ahead and making progress in terms of fan interest even if their games themselves aren't becoming any more compelling. Baseball is just not part of this and they need to do something to get their game growing again.
The average fan doesn't care about tradition but the real die hards do, and cutting the season, as much as the average fan would like it, would drive away the real fans. The fan base may be down copmpared to where it used to be, but more people go to baseballgames than the other 3 sports. Yeah they have larger stadiums(except for football, but they only have 8 home games a year), and play more games, and they would probably draw a higher average if they cut some games off the schedule, the main attendence problem is that there are so many opportunities to watch a game(due to more games to choose from and the larger stadiums), but they would lose a lot, and that loss would be pinned on the fans(like the other sports do with their outrageous prices for the average family). I have Red Wing season tickets, if you don't have season tickets, or work for a corporation who buys blocks of season tickets, you are more than likely screwed, so if the real die hards want tickets, they are shit out of luck or they get lucky and find tickets in the upper bowl or stand along the wall in SRO. But in saying this, baseball's 6 month season is about survival, who has what left at the end. If pitching 200 innings a year was so easy, everyone would be doing it. You can't change the game because at times it looks like the inmates are running the asylum.
Can A= 40 qts.
Can b= 40 qts.
Fill 4 qt can from can A.(can A = 36 qts.)
Spill all from 4 qt into 5 qt.
Fill 4 qt can from can b.(can B = 36 qts.)
Fill 5 qt can from 4 qt can leaving three qts in 4 qt can.
Fill Can A from 5 qt can to full.(40 qts again)
Pour remaining qt in 5 qt can into can B (now has 37 qts.)
Spill the 3 qts from 4 qt. can into 5 qt. can.
Fill 4 qt can from can A. (36 qts.)
Fill 5 qt can leaving 2 qts. in 4 qt can and 5 qts. in 5 qt can.
Top off can B (37 qts) from 5 qt can leaving 2 qts in 5 qt can.
another solution
fill 5q from a... dump 5q into 4q.... refill a from 4q/
a:39q b:40q 4q:0q 5q:1q
fill 5q from b... dump 5q into 4q... refill a from 4q top off then fill b from rest of 4q
a:40 b:38 4q:0 5q:2
fill 4q from a... top off b from 4q
a:36 b:40 4q:2 5q:2
ron
Since this board has been overtaken on subjects I know NOTHING about in milkcans and billiards, thought it was time to put up my football thoughts because its been awhile since I was flamed on the internet poker board and I am kinda missing it....
The latest season wins lines I have seen, a 30 cent line. Can't anyone take a little risk anymore and give a 20 cent line??? I have come up with my expected record for each team in parenthesis and a little commentary, just like I did for baseball. Football season wins though are far different than baseball because of the numbers themselves. You wouldn't go out and say well bet the Cubs over because I think they will win 79 games exactly. However you will often say with a certain schedule a team will win no more than 8 games or say another team will win no less than 6 games. With the numbers being very "key" the safety of getting a tie adds to your edge as often you figure a probably worst case scenario is a tie for you.
Of course injuries are still possible so things could change. Most smarter minds avoid betting these until the last week for this very reason.
Note: the odds are for the over and remember its 30 cent lines. Jax 11.5 -140 (13-3) About the same as last year's record with many easy wins in this division.
Ind 11 +40(-180 for under) (10-6) I was surprised with all the hype on this team to be facing this number. The odds make is a bad bet on the under. I think they will come down a bit from last year with a first place schedule and not surprising anyone early in the year.
StL 11 +10 (12-4) Schedule hasn't really gotten that much harder as the division still is far below them. I do like the over bet here quite a bit as I don't see them winning only 10 games with their schedule.
Was 12 +40 (11-5) Price is too high to bet the under as this team should win these 11 games almost by default. The division is weak and will give them 7 or 8 wins.
Ten 10 -50 (11-5) Not quite as successful as last year but this win total is quite low. You have to figure 6 wins from the lower half of the division so just two wins from the Jags and Ravens and they are almost there. Still laying -150 worries me because if George goes down I think they could be in some trouble.
TB 10.5 -40 (14-2) I strongly believe they will easily win the Championship this year, playing on home field no less! Their offensive additions were stunning as they fit them perfectly. Their line is now one of the best and KJ is the perfect receiver for this system. While its not Montana to Rice, this team looks like a very solid West Coast offense coming into form as long as King doesn't keep dropping the ball all over the place. The defense, well everyone knows what they can do. I don't see anyone coming close to them this year after they hit their stride a few weeks into the season.
Sea 9 +20 (7-9) Worst team to make the playoffs last year and beneficiaries of a down year in the division. This year the division will be a bit tougher and the schedule will be much harder. I am not too fond of laying -150 on the under, but probably a very solid bet here.
Buf 9 +40 (11-5) My suprise pick of the year, if the injury to Flutie doesn't prove to be any worse, then they are my pick now to win the AFC. A very underrated team. They lost a few players, but they are showing confidence in their talented younger players. They had one of the better defenses last year and the offense has good balance. The QB situation I think is really a plus because the two are used to it now and do share the role fairly well. In this day and age with so many injuries to the QB, having two that can win is so valuable. They won 11 last year; with the Colts falling back a little and the other teams in the division not showing much, no reason they can't match last year's record.
Den 9.5 -40 (10-6) Tough number to bet into. They will definitely improve over last year and could win more games if things fall into place. Division has no real weak teams so every game is going to be a battle.
Miami 8.5 +60/-200 (6-10) Hard to find things to like with this team. Wannstedt never impressed me before and this squad is just average at best in most positions. Laying 2-1 is tough, but probably does offer some value as 9 wins is asking an awful lot.
Atlanta 7.5 Ev (10-6) One of the better bets here on the over. Anderson just means so much to this team, his loss last year was really devastating as you have to remember no one ever carried the ball more in a season than he did two years ago. If he stays healthy the team will return to winning form. Of course Chandler plays a key role too and if he stays healthy all season they may challenge the Rams for the division title. Defense is a bit of a concern, but I think they should revert back to beter form this year especially with the addition of Ambrose to the secondary.
KC 8 Ev (7-9) What can I say, a conservative team isn't going to win a lot, nor lose a lot. This number is just about right. The Chiefs spend every offseason trying to figure out how they can get the running game working better, do you expect much from a team like that?
Dal 8.5 +40 (6-10) I hate laying -180 on anything, but this team just looks ready to free fall. Maybe I am even being a bit generous with 6 wins, but I just see nothing there. Galloway is not as good as Irvin when he was healthy and they had losses all over the field. Jerry Jones won't be happy thats all I can say.
GB 8.5 -25 (8-8) Not much on this number, could go either way. Pack still has some talent around and any team with Favre has to be respected. The top two teams in this division though have clearly passed them.
Oak 9 -50 (9-7) I think I have figured this team out. The key is that I think they have about the worst home field advantage in the league. They win tough games on the road, but struggle and lose some games they should win at home. Stats may show that home field advantage hasn't changed much recently, but because of parity and teams being fairly close in the middle, those few points that are home field advantage are huge and the Raiders don't seem to get them. When they figure out how to win at home maybe they deserve some support to do big things, but until then they will disappoint.
Car 8 -55 (9-7) What is up with this line? Maybe they will improve, but I am not that certain of it. Not enough value to bet either way, but I could see them dropping back to 6 wins very easily.
NYJ 8 -40 (9-7) Only because the teams below them are pretty bad. They should regain some form with Vinny back, but it seems like they wanted to rebuild a bit so that can't inspire confidence.
NE 8 +20 (5-11) Easy easy under I think. Bledsoe seems to regress each year and now he lost a key receiver. Defense drops a few notches each year. Trading away draft picks that are badly needed for a so so coach also makes me wonder. Bad times in Massachusetts.
Det 7 -20 (10-6) Really surprised by this number. Lions won't have the Barry distraction this year. They also had a ton of injuries last year and ran out of gas because of depth problems. Now add in a running game and they could win even more than 10 games. I keep saying it, but watch out for Droughns, he could be a runaway rookie of the year if he stays healthy and gets to play. Easy over with this low number as they should be better than last year when they still won 8 games so I just have no clue how this number sticks.
Bal 8.5 -55 (9-7) Improving team yes, but still not expecting them to break out at least yet. They did very well in the draft so by next year it could be a team to watch. Still not thinking Banks or Dilfer are going to win that many games.
NYG 8 +40 (6-10) Why oh why do they always worry about running the ball? Just like the Chiefs, that conservative game is not getting them anywhere so maybe its time to open it up. Dayne could be good, but not great NFLer, much like Bettis is what I would guess.
Pit 6.5 -30 (5-11) Hard to think this proud franchise could fall this far, but they sure are looking up at some tough competition. I don't see them getting up to 7 wins so an under looks very attractive. They lost almost the whole second half of the year so doubt they will start the year out with much confidence.
Min 7.5 -30 (6-10) From 15-1 to losing season in two years. Yeah seems hard to believe but the losses are just staggering, to the division rival no less! Moss and Carter and going to have to find a way to get the ball from Culpepper because Smith seems to have lost effectiveness running the ball. Lots of weapons, but they are going to lose a lot of shootouts with that defense.
Chi 8 -20 (6-10) A bit of a high number. I don't see much hope for a big improvement so will call for a similar record. I don't think McNown will ever be a big success at QB and that seems to be the hope here.
SD 6.5 Ev (6-10) Played a bit over their head last year, benefitting from 5th place schedule and off year for AFC West. This year it gets tougher. Still not a terrible team and will win some tough games, but clearly not ready to move up this year.
Arz 7 -40 (10-6) Should be like two years ago where they take advantage of a weak division outside of Washington. They are losing some talent, but I expect a bounce back from Plummer and his team. The schedule does look very favorable so I do like the over here and expectations are a bit more reasonable this time out.
Phil 6 -200 (6-10) I am still looking for how this team has improved that greatly. The 5 wins last year seemed a bit lucky I mean they couldn't throw worth a damn and couldn't stop the run and still got 5 wins. Lots to work on before they will be making a run even at .500. There is value in betting the under, but not that much as with Dallas and NYG not looking too tough, they should get a few wins from there.
SF 5 -40 (6-10) Not ready to write this team down to the worst in the league. I still look and see a very top notch offense. Garcia didn't get time to be the number one man last year in camp, but will get most of the snaps and that will pay off. He showed a lot of talent last year despite horrendous OL play and little time to throw. No one has a better set of wideouts other than St. Louis and the running game is solid with Garner. The defense should improve a little as they gave it a lot of draft attention. With no wondering as to when Young will be starting, the team will come out with a little more focus and should have a respectable season.
NO 6 -30 (3-13) I don't see any improvement really. Blake is better and Ricky should be healthier, but still just an incomplete team all over. Reed is a declining player so I don't see him improving the receiving that much. All in all, its window dressing and this is a much tougher road in the NFC West this year. Same record as last year is about what I would expect.
Cin 5.5 -20 (4-12) The number is just too high. I really don't like to bet the bottom fishers under, but I am tempted here. Warrick is a big gem and will do more than Pickens did in his distracted state, but it still seems like no one really wants to be playing here. I am still shaking my head wondering how the Browns could pass on a player like Warrick, he is a once in every 4 or 5 years type of player and may be the best receiver in the game by next year. Just needs someone to get him the ball...
Cle 4.5 -30 (2-14) Alas, the worst team. Some may think back to how the Panthers and Jags did their second year, but I don't. This team is just plain bad. Doubling their win total would be quite an accomplishment. They have to remind people of the Bucs when they first started up, they might be terrible losers for three or four season, but they are going with so much youth they may be great around 2004 or so. Until then, bet the under, this team got 2 very lucky wins last year.
>>The latest season wins lines I have seen, a 30 cent line. Can't anyone take a little risk anymore and give a 20 cent line??? >>
Once again, I feel that I must stand up for the much-maligned bookmakers.
If YOU were a bookmaker, and you got killed on this bet every single year, what would you do?
A. Stop taking this bet (as most bookies have);
B. Resist that trend, but do SOMETHING to cut losses;
C. "Take a little risk and (continue to) give a 20 cent line???"
If you chose "C", then you must LIKE going down to the Unemployment Office, located downtown at 8th and Bridger.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Bobby,
Your right I talked to a bunch of places last year when I went out there and although the 30c line is high at least your offering the bet. Everybody said that they got killed on this bet that's what got me interested in it.
paul
Here's why bookies get killed with it:
When you bet a football game, like a poker hand, there is a short-term luck factor. The ball takes funny bounces.
But those bounces tend to even out over the course of a season (the "long run").
Bobby
Bobby I have been very fair to both sides of the counter. I have no doubts you guys are under pressure to avoid losses and I have stated before its not really your fault. The reality is that sports books are just not a good fit enterprise in the current gambling environment. I work for a gaming company that has made millions after millions of dollars. I haven't been there long, but its been over a decade since they even had to think about a losing quarter. Yet analysts treat us like some dead horse because IGT is the dominant player in our field so we like the leftovers. This mentality of Wall Street filters down to the sports books and the poker rooms where games that don't have high margins get squeezed. The only real way as sports book will ever succeed is if it was a stand alone operation that took big action and was funded well enough to take some risks. Of course no shareholder operation would ever fly with this because they would get pounded on by their investors every time they lost money. The only people smart enough and well capitalized enough to realize good ole 11-10 makes people rich are they types of people we all know don't have a chance in hell to get licensed in our state. Old fashioned bookmaking really works, but I don't expect you guys to be the one to do it. I was talking about offshore places since I got the lines offshore. Someone sent me an email and advised me of three books that did use the 20 cent line, one of them I have an account there I just didn't investigate enough to see the lines were up. When I compared the 30 cent lines to the 20 cent lines I came up with more bettable plays for one, and for two when I definitely wanted to take a play, the 20 cent line was better for me 6 times, the 30 cent line 2 times. Thats the bottom line and I am sure you don't blame us for shopping and taking most of our action elsewhere. I know it sucks to be a bookmaker in Las Vegas these days, I know 3 guys who used be fairly high up in this town's booking world that packed up their bags and left for Costa Rica only to be replaced by a pit guy who knew nothing about risk, only about constant positive returns....
>>When I compared the 30 cent lines to the 20 cent lines I came up with more bettable plays for one, and for two when I definitely wanted to take a play, the 20 cent line was better for me 6 times, the 30 cent line 2 times. Thats the bottom line and I am sure you don't blame us for shopping and taking most of our action elsewhere. >>
Of course I don't blame you. Naturally, I would do the same thing (and I often do!).
But when I go to make a bet, and I see that a book is using a 30-cent line when others are using a 20-cent line, I remain calm. I put my wallet back into my pocket. I quietly leave, and go find the 20-cent line.
So you can imagine my frustration when I'm berated daily by customers who don't like our 30-cent lines. I don't mind if they walk out without betting, I can respect that. But they don't have to call us names! I mean, most of these loudmouths are wearing clothes that your local Goodwill wouldn't accept as a donation, and I don't call them names!
When you guys in this forum say, "Don't bet the NFL wins at the IP, they use a 30-cent line," I don't say a word. Heck, stuff like that is the whole reason this forum exists.
It's when I hear things like, "the IP doesn't want to gamble," or "the guys at the IP are gutless scum," THAT'S when I jump in and say things like, "Is it gutless to say 'please stop hitting me over the head'??"
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Even in the days when I was at "war" with the books being a professional sports bettor, I never stooped to those levels. Its like the professional poker player that blames dealers for bad luck. It shocks and offends me because I am fully aware without the books either here or offshore, I don't have a spot to make money. A good sports bettor and sports book see each other as partners. The bettor sees the book makes it possible to make his bets and the books see a better player as someone to often balance out his books a bit or someone who helps make the line sharper. The recent trend of some sports books making it harder on smart bettors only really applies to a select crowd of syndicates. Most professional bettors I met were putting in good sized wagers, but nothing that would seriously dent the average sports book as they would spread their action out over the course of a season. The people that were in my class were betting one to two dimes a game and shopping vigorously. No one book probably would lose more than 20 dimes to a player and only in the rarest of cases. That certainly isn't enough to make a book close up their shop to a sharp player.
Before I give some of my thoughts, I must ask, have these lines moved a lot since they came out? Wow, I liked Philly over and Dallas under but I don't remember seeing prices like these. I think these bets are pretty simple to win (my baseball future big plays are 3-0 presuming no breakdown) but I think you have to bet them early, because a lot of people see the same things I do. When do they first come out?
Anyhow, brief thoughts...
INDY-- I like the under, but not at that price. Figure the league is going to take them seriously this year. Still have D holes.
STL-- How can anyone not like the over. Only problem may be new coach. Their YPP was so ridiculous last year, either they were the biggest fluke ever or they are good. 8-0 in the division.
WAS-- I like the under, just cause this team may take awhile to gel and may be under too much pressure to dominate in the regular season.
JAX-- You had no analysis of them, but I like the over 11, if that's what it is. They are a regular season team and should be on a mission after last year's disaster.
TEN-- Over is good against the number, but being super bowl team makes them marked on every opponent's schedule. May not go all out in reg. season again.
TB-- I love this team, but have to lean under. Reason is because defense wins championships, but offense wins regular season games. Very possibly go 10-6, win the division, win the super bowl. They aren't the 85 Bears.
SEA-- Very parody driven conference. I like Holmgren and I bet they've gotten better, so I would pass.
BUF-- Yeah, I like the Bills too. They just win games and are clearly second best in the division. Should be a good bet, especially cause of the plus number.
DEN-- I gotta lean under cause Griese sucks, IMO and Davis is somewhat of a question mark. Even if he's healthy, they won't dominate with a bad QB.
MIA-- I like the under, but the price is pretty high. Wannstedt sucks, Huard does too, but -200 is insane, anything can happen.
ATL-- I have to disagree here. I thought they were a fluke in SB year and would regress last year. I don't think they'd have made the playoffs if Anderson had been healthy. He's not 100% and D is bad. Under.
KC-- I hate this boring team. They will not go over .500, but I don't love the under either. Have to pass.
DAL-- I like the under too. They could finish last in the division. Of the stars they have left, how many can actually care now that they suck. Always have pressure and they will fold. I'll lay -180.
GB-- I have to pass. If injuries heal and everything gels (new coach-- Holmgren disciple) they could go 10-6, if not, it could be ugly.
OAK-- I like the under here. Rich Gannon is not a QB to go 10-6. Janikowski may win them a game, but I don't like the coaches or talent. Tough division.
NYJ-- I would go under. They have heart, but without Parcells it would be iffy. I don't like Vinny that much and Keyshawn loss hurts.
NE-- I would go pass, but lean under. Bledsoe is regressing, but they do win games they shouldn't sometimes. Tough to figure over .500, but it wouldn't be that big of a shock.
DET-- I like the over too. Look at some of the quality squads this team beat LY. Without injuries, they would have been damn tough. Could win the division.
BAL-- I love, repeat, love the under. This team had a strong finish against some really weak teams. No one was trying against them and they got a little hot. Tony Banks is as good an NFL QB as I am a poker player.
NYG-- I like the under because, again, it's tough to figure an over 500 year. I mean, they have no clue.
PIT-- Could go over with some breaks and intelligent Kordell play. Unlikely, but I don't see Cowher allowing a complete meltdown again. Pass.
MIN-- I have to pass. If K. Warner can step in and do it, Culpepper can. He has the weapons, so if he plays well they are tough. The D still sucks though.
CHI-- My Bears are favored to go .500? They are improving, but I don't love the running game. New D additions are good, but it's a tough division. Hope they go over, but won't bet on it.
SD-- This team sucks in a tough division. I wouldn't bet heavy under, but I would make a small play. The D can't keep carrying this team.
ARZ-- I like the over too. This team has heart and is in a weak division. They have less pressure and made some good moves.
PHI-- I like the over a lot, but -200 is too high. They improved because all their good young players (D'Nabb Staley, etc.) have another year and will try hard all year.
SF-- Tough to bet this line. They really don't have the talent, but new Prez and many distractions behind them may benefit. problem is that the stars may not be ready to try hard in a year where they are clearly going nowhere.
NO-- No, I wouldn't bet this either. Offense should be better, but coach is a question and it could be a tough year. I wouldn't bet the over because they are weakest team in the division. I wouldn't bet under cause they have some talent.
CAR-- I like the under for the same reason I took BAL under. Won a lot of games against teams that quit. Division is weak, but so is this team. Beuerlein is not a star QB. Their D is much weaker than Baltimore's too.
CIN-- I wouldn't touch this line. If Dillon tries, Akili matures, and Warrick does what's expected, they could be explosive. Their D is getting better too. They have a bad coach. New stadium means they should try harder. I am not laying -120, butI would lean over.
CLE-- Yeah, under is good. The only thing against you is that they should try all year cause they are young. Working for you is their lack of talent. Offense has improved, maybe enough to get 4-5 wins.
Thoughts...
Wow, most people are agreeing with me for the most part...how boring!!! Oh well, its ok. My personal bets so far is that I got down on Tampa because I think that number is going to get tested very soon once people realize how much the improved line will make them this year. I really think they will surprise with their offense this year because its got a great balance for a west coast offense. All that has to happen is that King needs to be a bit more agressive with his throws and step into them. Not dropping the ball occasionally would help too. With that many weapons and starting the preseason as the clear starter though will make a world of difference. Look at all the stud QBs that were highly touted in recent years. King has showed more than most of them so far and I think he will develop quite a bit with more time to throw.
I guess when it comes down to it when I pick teams now days I tend to look for a very similar profile. Last year I thought the Titans defense would really step up and the combination of George and McNair would be a big surprise and they rewarded my bet on them to win the conference very nicely. I bet Tampa to win the conference and I was oh so close, basically backing a strong defense and a good running game. This year I think the 3 strongest teams will be Tampa, Buffalo and Denver come playoff time because they all have that similar setup, a solid defense and a balanced offense with a solid running threat. The Rams in a way offered that last year but everyone got caught up in their bombing abilities. However it all really came into place when Faulk showed up and made their opponents respect the run and the runner coming out of the backfield for the pass.
On some of your other notes, amen to someone agreeing Banks and/or Dilfer aint gonna get it done. The Chiefs have a team that could be fairly good if they ever sacked the whole coaching staff and the GMs and got someone in there that remembered the pro set offense. I watched the Chiefs a couple times last year and it was like watching Nebraska play. Off tackle to the left, off tackle to the right. Once in a while for deception throw the ball to a wide open receiver because there were 9 guys up biting on the play action. The Niners are a team I think will do much better than expected. After all they still have fan support, they still have a very loaded offense providing the line can step it up just a bit. Their defense was terrible last year, but they made some strides in the draft. The main thing I saw though last year was they didn't quit when it would have been real easy to down the stretch. They almost beat the Redskins charging for the playoffs, they made a miracle comeback during the last game of the year against the Falcons to cost me a bet where they were down a ton of points and covered when they had absolutely no reason to be trying hard. The character on the team showed the guys still cared and that the coaches were respected. When all they have to do is better their record by one win I think thats a very positive situation.
I could have written a lot more but I didn't want to write 50 pages worth of stuff. Most of the times I didn't write much is because I had reviewed all the facts and determined that it was a toss up. If I felt a strong play could be had I wrote about the factors I liked. If anyone wants one or two specific teams to be analyzed I would be glad to do it.
If you want flamed on the poker board, try posting this on the Hold 'em forum.
You might also try restarting the "Half Time Lines" fray.
Can 5.5 be too high for the Bengals? They have 4 easy division games (they have the Steelers #) and may be playing other teams with key injuries late in the year. It's hard to say the Bengals can have key injuries, for obvious reasons...
I agree with you on the Bucs and Cards, they look like the best overs on that page.
Sorry this wasn't more abusive.
Believe me I already get more than my share of flames from the idiots on the internet poker board trying to defend everyone's rights to offshore gaming. Hell Sklansky calls me an extremist and many think I have nothing of value to offer, but I would hope most on this board would think differently.
This is great - although I disagree with a couple of these numbers, I must compliment you for all the work.
One question : did you take strength of schedule into affect? The reason I was asking is because of Oakland (granted, I am a Radiers fan, so I am a bit biased). They have the #4 easiest schedule.
I took a look at the schedule to come up with my prediction. I went down each one and marked off most games to the team I thought would win. Most teams schedules then only had 3 or 4 tossup games and I tended to give each team half a win for them. Obviously its not perfectly scientific, but I think most people put too much value into strength of schedule before a year starts. I could make an assessment of teams' schedules but remember any number that you might hear such as 4th easiest is based on last year's records which are really not much of an indication. The AFC west gets the boost this year playing the NFC west as the NFC west had a lot of bad teams and only one good one, a very good one. The NFC west figures to be tougher this year and make that 4th easiest schedule play more like the 10th easiest. Also who knows what teams develop? Yeah I think I know, but I had no idea the Rams were going to be even near .500 last year, let alone Champs. If you judged a teams schedule and they played the Rams last year, your ratings would have been changed rather drastically from that one team. They added 8 wins to their record I think it was...that alone can skew an opponents W/L percentage by itself.
For optimal (Kelly) growth, the fraction of your bankroll to bet on n independent, simultaneous wagers with identical win probabilities p is approximately (p-q)/(4pq+n(p-q)^2), where q is 1-p of course, according to Peter Griffin in Extra Stuff: Gambling Ramblings. Ad hoc sports handicapping without knowing your edge is not worth much, since then you cannot grow your bankroll optimally.
Streaks in blackjack and sports betting are statistically inevitable and essentially unpredictable. If anything, blackjack is anti-streaky, since the result of one hand in a shoe is ever so slightly negative correlated to the other hands dealt from the same shoe.
-Abdul
Blackjack is probably more volatile because you are not flat betting or doing close to it as you would in sports. Anyone who bets a 1 to 8 spread on their sports bets would be labeled a fool really fast. All bets are important to the sports bettor, while the blackjack player is playing lots of statistically insignificant hands where he has one or even two units out. He could win those all day and then lose 3 biggest bets and be stuck. That being the case its imperative for the blackjack player to at least not be unlucky with his biggest bets, whereas the sports bettor doesn't have this situation, he just needs to be not unlucky over a course of many unspecific bets.
Also don't forget while a sports bettor might occasionally be betting into a negative situation, he really doesn't know it. A good sports bettor should be facing each trial with the best of it, while a blackjack player that doesn't leave the table at a 0 or lower count is clearly playing with the worst of it at least in those bets. As for streaks though, you might be right, I would think it would be hard to quantify exactly which game is more streak prone. For volatility though hands down blackjack is much higher. After all even a player spreading 1 to 2 on a single decker has much higher bankroll requirements than the sports bettor.
Roxy wrote in his daily column Sports Book Insider two years ago, teams that have a recent history of success may spend preseason evaluating new talent and protecting veterans than racking up victories. On the other hand,teams coming off bad year may need to re-establish a winning attitude. This year after five games teams that had better record last year went 1-4 ATS. He also wrote new coaches had gone 86-50-1 ATS from 1990-1997 and some coaches have good preseason point-spread record,some poor. Ncsports.com has coaches preseason records in newsletter,check out it's free.
Mike Lee also wrote in Vegas Insider,teams that lose their first two games are good bet-on props,he consider it a 57 percent ATS in the long run and teams at home coming off two losses went 40-21 ATS from 1990-1997. He also like teams that score three or fewer points in thier last game and home teams that allow 30 points or more in their last game went 33-14 ATS from 1990-1997. Their also some angle in newsletter above.
Well, college football is 3 weeks from this Saturday. If you aren't prepared, shame on you. I will offer my initial analysis, conference by conference. If you have something of interest to add, please do so. I'll do one conference a day. I am not giving in-depth analysis, but rather my general thoughts on who is underrated and overrated. That of course is the most important part of handicapping.
Atlantic Coast Conference
1. Florida St. They are favored to be in the hunt for the national title this year. This team lost a lot of talent. Weinke is back, but most of the rest of the skill people are young. Of course they still have as much pure talent as anyone, but I see them as overrated. The lines will very high and I think they will struggle a little bit ATS. Still, you don't make a fortune constantly going against one oof the best teams, so tread lightly.
2. Clemson. This is an improving team. They made big strides last year and have a lot of people back. The offense will really start to click in Bowden's second year. They have a run n shoot that should do well against the weaker defenses on their schedule. The defense will be good too. The public doesn't have too many expectations for them, so they should be a good value.
3. Maryland. Here is a very underrated team. The offense should really start to flow this year. They have flaws, but they are a lot better than people think. People think RB Jordan is a possible Heisman candidate. The defense has some holes, but they should suffice. Vanderlinden should finally have a bowl season.
4. North Carolina. Assuming they are healed, this team should be very underrated. Yes, Torbush is a sucky coach, but they should be better. Curry is good and the defense has a lot of people back. If they can get things together offensively, they could be back in a bowl game in my opinion. They definitely will be underrated off last year's disaster. Torbush's job is on the line, so they should put out effort if they care.
5. Virginia. This is a team that I feel is a little overrated. QB Ellis is solid, but they lost a lot of offense. They could finish as high as 3rd, but I think they won't. The D is pretty good. Welsh is a good coach, but the conference has improved enough to magnify their lack of talent. Public expectations are usually pretty high. They probably won't be able to live up to that.
6. Georgia Tech. This is a team that I didn't love last year, when they had a lot of talent. The offense has to break in a lot of new people. QB is a big ?. The D has a lot of people back, but I don't think they will be great. The conference is improved, so they should finish in the bottom half. They are slightly overrated. 5-6 to 6-5 is the best we can expect.
7. NC State. Well, the only new coach in the conference is Amato. NCS has always been a poorly coached, out of sync, team, so I think a new coach will help but not right away. A new system is tough, especially for an inexperienced team. They lost a lot of offense. The defense is also nothing special. They also are pretty highly rated, usually, by the public. They look like probably the best play against in the conference.
8. Duke. Here is a team that never really has expectations put on them, for good reasons. The offense is not exactly loaded and they lost one of the best kickers in the country. The defense is weaker too. The lines are typically high against them, but I think there will be some good value going against the Dookies. Another thing in their favor is that it's year 2 in coach Franks' regime.
9. Wake Forest. This team won a bowl game (proving there are too many bowl games) and should finish in the bottom of the conference. QB Leak should be eventually good, but they have so many losses that they will struggle early. The defense is not great too. I would play against this team because they are young and some people will remember that they were decent last year.
Thanks, comments please...
Good ACC post. I agree, Clemson, Maryland, and North Carolina should provide pretty good ATS value.
I should share a bad experience I had with Bowman's International Sports Book that everyone should know about:
Towards the latter half of last years NBA/NHL season, Bowmans started to take countermeasures against the strategy I was using against them and it effectively rendered them unplayable causing me to close my account this past May.
My strategy took advantage of the relatively big line moves that took place in the last hour or so before game time. The typical player makes 3 or more team parlays consisting of mostly favorites. As a result the underdog prices get quite attractive close to game time. I made many plays on them by snipping off these fat lines for usually $500 but sometimes up to $2000 when I had a good insurance bet elsewhere.
I did this for the first half of the NHL and NBA seasons until one day they started quoting me a different line than what was posted on the internet. They didn't even make a secret of the fact that the line was tailor made for me and players who adopt a similar strategy. Basically the line I got never reflected action moves, or in cases of big action moves, it reflected only a portion of the move.
They explained to me that they have 3 categories of players and the lines on the internet are only for the general category. Of course they only tell this to the sharpshooters. Nowhere is this policy published.
What this amounts to is selective pricing. Imagine a department store advertising a TV for $99. But if your past buying record shows that you have bought mainly low-margin products, then your price is $119. Surely no business could get away with this practice in the western world. I view Bowman's policy as exactly the same. The only reason they get away with it is because they are based on a small island with no effective control, even though the majority of their clients are from USA and Canada.
If anyone doesn't believe me, try it with MLB -- that is bet $200 or more just before game time on an underdog whose line moved up in the last hour before the game. By the third time you do this you will notice that the line you get quoted is less than what is published on the internet. If you ask for an explanation, they will explain their category system.
I just want as many people as possible to know about this so they don't make the same mistake I did and maybe Bowmans will lose a little business for their unethical practices.
Darryl Parsons
A Bowman's employee really said they quote different lines to different grades of players?!
Bowman's Internet lines are very often different than the current lines Bowman's gives over the phone. However, sometimes a line is better over the phone than on the Internet. So if they are screwing with the lines, at least they're offering you just one line and not changing the line when you say what you want to bet. I had always assumed that the Internet lines were just time-delayed 30 minutes or so.
"Bowman's is based on a small island..." Great Britain is a rather large island.
-Abdul
Well it is on a small island actually Abdul, if they were really based in the UK we would have to pay an absolutely exorbitant tax of 10% on all our winnings. They are based on Mauritius, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean with sales offices in the UK, but I digress...
I would tend to agree though that the lines probably are just getting moved as game time comes close. I don't have a Bowman's account so I don't know for sure. One thing that a few places tend to do is if they tend to get lots of one way action as a game approaches they won't adjust both side of a number screwing over the bettor. In other words say a line is Dodgers -153 and Phillies +143, the book may get a large bet on the Dodgers and make it Dodgers -157 and Phillies still at +143, in other words making it no longer a 10 cent line. Books will do it as long as they can get away with it. In this case they figure to get away with it if they get lots of late one sided action because few are going to be looking to bet the Phillies. The Phillies line could be +173 and they may not get action, but just in case some sucker wants them, they leave the line as it is and screw him out of a few cents. This is terrible bookmaking procedure because it costs the house a chance to get some two way action. However if they don't get much two way action their rationale is probably why mess with it.
In the end though thats something I wouldn't worry much about. If a book screws you over like this don't get mad, just don't give them action on this game. If you don't like the number keep shopping until you find the number you want or pass, its quite common sense. You can bitch about it being unethical, but its just that bookmaker's chosen course of action. He costs himself bets from you, so he doesn't really win in this case either. This person's mistake though was to close his account because he feels slighted. In cases like this the best thing to do is just take some money out and add another book to your roster.
They may act like they are against you, but here is a little secret that I know and will share with everyone. Most of the biggest offshore books have software that tracks a bunch of stats you probably are not aware of. They do obvious things such as track your average wager and wagers per call, but they go further than that. They also look at the bets you do make and your bankroll to try to figure out what an average bet is for you. When you call up and ask for specific numbers on games, they keep track of that too. So if you call up and ask for the numbers on say 5 games and bet $200 on one side, thats a stat of $40/request. If you ask for rundowns the numbers don't work as well, but very few people call for rundowns I am told. This stat can be HUGELY important for a book. They often figure out how good a player you are with this stat. The Joe Blow handicapper calls up and asks for 5 numbers and makes 4 or 5 bets. The mediocre guy asks for 5 and makes 2 or 3 bets. The guy they worry about makes about 1 bet per 10-15 games, in other words a lot of times he calls up and says "pass". They know this guy is a shopper and also has a lot of accounts to work with. This is how they generally figure out who they give the tighter coverage too, a probable winning player. However if this guys' stats are really horrible, then they also know they might have to give him a better deal to get his action. Its really a two way street. Yeah you may not want tracking, but tracking might just help you. I was told this is the true reason why they want the bigger bettors to call in bets. I mean think about it, how stupid is it that they limit bets on the internet when thats the best way for them to get bets. Very low cost if enough people are doing it and the tracking is just as instant as the phone call methods. Yeah maybe you can get away with a few more bets in a coordinated move, but every serious syndicate has more than enough beards to get bets down in coordinated fashion. The truth is that internet betting foils a lot of things that books like to do to you. Some books shade numbers on you based on how you ask for the game. I know this from past experience as two books I quickly got out of this. You would call up and the line would seem bad. Then I figured I would ask for the team I didn't like and bet into that number and wouldn't you know it worked! I would say, "give me the line on the Yankees" and proceed to bet the Twins. A couple of times the clerks growled at me for this, but hey they weren't going to go too far in stopping me from betting. So you have to realize that the internet is a far bettor way to bet offshore. I use the phone to call them up only when I have to and I ask for the game by number only to avoid tipping my hand.
There are a lot more tricks that the books use, but just be aware that this is a business and they are free to do whatever they want to shoot themselves in the foot. If you had what you described with the TV happen to you I am sure you wouldn't buy from that store and they screwed themselves out of a sale. Same goes for sportsbooks. Keep a lot of outlets and you will find that most of your action goes to only a few of them. Above all else though I wouldn't suggest Bowman though to anyone due to their lack of an online side. Never bet with anyone that doesn't do it both ways is my rule and even if you never intend to bet on the phone or on the internet, still the best books offer it both ways and you should insist on that.
Abdul,
Thanks for the response. I should clarify a couple of points though...
1) Bowman's is based in Mauritius, not the UK. They have an office in the Isle of Man but that is not their HQ. I looked into this when I thought of taking legal action.
2) If you are getting a different line than what's on the net, then you too, my friend, are in their "sharp player" category and are having selective pricing exercised against you. To see that I am right, have a friend open an account and have him phone in for a line at the same time as you. You will notice that he will be quoted the lines on the internet and you will be quoted a different line. Oh sure, yours is a 20 cent line as well, but it is adjusted to reflect your betting preferences.
Just so you can be sure it's not due to the few seconds between the two quotes (doing it simultaneously to the second is quite hard), try it a few times at hourly intervals, say, but make sure your friend does not place a bet that you believe is advantageous, because he will only be able to do this once or twice before they start giving him the same line as you.
Ever notice that you are unpleasantly surprised more often than you are pleasantly surprised on the times you get a different line from the internet line? They know when their lines go astray but instead of adjusting the whole line for everyone, they only adjust it for those who take advantage, leaving the line as is for all the suckers who don't have the saavy to take advantage of it.
While I didn't record the conversation verbatim when I asked about their system, it went something like this:
DP: "Why am I getting a different line from your other customers?"
Bowmans Line Manager: (I think his name was Joel): "You see we have a new system where we have tailored made lines for the players depending on their betting patterns. You are what we call a "sharp" player who tends to go for line moves and you bet fairly big and since the lines move so fast we either have to take a long time to give approval for your bet or we give you the special line. This way you get the fast service you want and we don't have to worry about the lines being off."
You see he tried to pitch it as if he were doing me a favor. In fact it appeared to me as if he really believed it himself. He was just following orders from above and working at 90 miles a minute so he probably never gave the issue much thought - at least the ethical side. It probably also helped that I asked right at the beginning when they introduced the system - so maybe I was the first to pose the question. I'm not sure they would be so candid if someone asked the same question today, but if it were done politely it might still get results.
Good luck,
Darryl Parsons
Bowman's are a UK bookmaker who have chosen to operate an offshore internet service. Abdul is correct, they are based in the UK, but have to operate the internet service abroad to dodge tax and gambling laws.
it is well known, that british bookmakers are only interested in mugs. they think nothing of refusing bets,closing acconts etc.
Darryl: stuff like this is posted on the bulletin boards at bettorsworld, talksport, and others all the time. Criticizing Bowmans is preaching to the choir. Bowmans will neither deny nor hide the fact that they give out different odds to callers based on their "profile."
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to hear that this has been publicized already as it eliminates any nagging thoughts that maybe I'm crazy for being the only one with these beefs. I'm also glad to have read on another post that Bowman's has lost a lot of business lately -- they deserve it.
I guess I'm not up on the major sports betting forums, but I'm still glad I posted here since at least one new person (Abdul) got enlightened and possibly more.
Darryl Parsons
First and foremost, we DO NOT do anything like this in Las Vegas sportsbooks.
Now, I won't win any popularity contests in this forum with the following opinion:
--I may be a pretty good pool shooter, but if you keep beating me and taking my money, I'm going to have to change something about our arrangement.
--If I own a casino, and you are a skilled blackjack player, and you keep beating me and taking my money, I'm going to have to change something.
That's all that Bowmans is doing. If they "lose your business", that means that they are no longer losing money to you. I don't think that they mind losing that kind of "business".
Don't get mad. You're under no obligation to bet with them, and they're under no obligation to gamble with you if they feel that they don't have a big enough edge.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
I'm afraid you're missing something in that opinion of yours. It would be totally valid if both I and the bookie were similar entities, ie. both indivudals or both corporations since the deals between us would have symmetrical parameters (anything that applies to me applies to you and vice versa)
But I am a consumer and a bookmaker is a company offering a product (or service depending on how you look at it) to the public. They also publish the prices of the product to be viewed by the public. As in any business these prices must be the actual prices offered or the company is guilty of false advertising. If they didn't advertise the prices and said instead "call for a personal quotation" then I would have no problem, but they don't do that, do they? They say "our price is X" and then they say "no it isnt its Y" If you accept this then you should also accept them to advertise "We've never failed to pay a winning wager" and then when you go to cash out they say "oh did we publish that? Well for you it doesn't apply because we have a special category for you so we're keeping your money." Ethically these two scenarios have an important similarity in that they say one thing publicly and then do not live up to it. Legally of course they are different -- one is false advertising the other is theft.
In any case I'd like to see any other business get away with 1) Advertising one price (at one time) and 2) Actually offering a higher price to some consumers
without having serious PR problems if not legal problems. Bookmakers can get away with it because the field of bookmaking being shady as it is diverts public interest to the point of apathy towards the finer points. Nonetheless my parallel is a valid one.
But even if you agree with me that this is a bit unethical you could argue that the bookies shouldn't care because of the lack of negative consequences. If so, fair enough, but I am sure going to make strides to make this practice more widely known so that those customers who consider themselves "sharp players" but whose action Bowmans wants badly may decide to side with me on the issue. And I can tell you for certain - there are at least 20 wannabies for every real sharpie. If the information gets out (as it must inevitably) is the bookie really better off this way, or does he lose less by tolerating my action and focusing efforts on keeping the line solid , managing betting limits, and reacting quickly to information to minimize the effects of sharpies like me? If it were my joint I would choose the latter even in a no-holds-barred legal environment.
Ever notice that the world's most successful companies maintain the highest ethical standards towards their customers even in jurisdictions where they are not required to do so? It pays in the long run and every farsighted intelligent businessman knows this.
So it's not just ethics for ethics sake so we can all go around feeling warm and fuzzy. It's my interest, it's the interested of those like me (and those who think they are like me but are not), and to the greatest extent, it is in the bookie's long term interest to adhere to what they advertise.
Darryl Parsons
I spent a lot of time writing it and the point seems to be missed. Just don't give them action, but don't cut them off either. In this game, the lines will always come to you. If you look at it in your way then you aren't playing the sports betting game right...PERIOD! Find a number you think you can bet and bet it...thats what its all about. If they don't give you what you think is a fair line, you pass, no matter what reason you come up with. Its not false advertising because no one with a posted bettable line out there says no that line isn't for you. Bowman's lists a line that they can change because the number you are given for action is the line for you, no matter what anyone else gives you. If they made that line available to bet on the internet then they better give you the chance to bet into and no doubt you would get that opportunity. False advertising would be if Bowman's said the line is Mets +128, you put in your bet and they said, ok here is your final bet Mets +116. Now that would be fraud and no book does that, not even the shadiest New York bookie will do that to you...after all he worries about it more than you and spends thousands of dollars on top notch phone equipment and recording devices to make sure there is no cheating on the lines. I agree completely with Bobby's words and he probably would completely agree with my post. He knows with higher lines he is going to attract less action. The cynics might say well he is only getting suckers, but it doesn't matter, to Bobby its what he has to live with in terms of his business. Believe me by offering a 20 cent line when a dime line is available as some offshore books are doing now, or offering 30 cent lines when a 20 cent is available costs a book a lot more business than anyone thinks. Basically its the books way of saying, we really don't want action that much on this, but we will let you take your shot as long as we give ourselves a bigger cushion. Don't knock Bobby or any other book, just don't give them action when they don't give you a competitive number or a number you don't like, it really is that simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "shadiness" of the business.
Bill,
I did read both your posts and I found them very interesting and I agree with most of what you said. However, your posts address many more issues than the one I am discussing, for example...
You say that the best strategy is to deal with many books and pick and choose your numbers -- I AGREE
You say that books sometimes move one side of a line and not the other and that they have every right to do this even though it's not always smart -- I AGREE
You say that books keep all kinds of statistics about everyone's betting patterns and that this is widespread and you can't stop it and that it's also within their rights -- I AGREE
You say bookies have every right to give 20 cent or even 30 cent lines if they don't want too much one sided action -- I AGREE
You say that all these things do not make the bookmaking business shady -- I AGREE
The part I disagree on is what constitutes false advertising -- you say false advertising is when they change a number after you've placed a bet. I think you used the word "fraud" yourself and I agree that this is fraud -- a much more serious issue than merely false advertising. I consider false advertising to be when they publish on the internet "THIS IS OUR LINE" and if you are on the phone with them the same instant they say "NO THIS IS NOT OUR LINE"
Even if they give selective lines based on your betting patterns (ie. they give me line x but my friend gets line y at the same time) I would accept it IF THEY SAY UP FRONT that this is what they do and IF THEY DON'T MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE THERE IS ONLY ONE LINE by posting a number on the internet. Remember I am talking about one point in time so the fact that the numbers change with time doesn't affect what I'm saying.
Also I should clarify that I never said I thought bookmaking was shady. I personally think the business deserves A LOT more respect from society than it does. I said that since SOCIETY considers it shady, the laws are either nonexistent or not enforced in protecting the consumer as compared to other businesses. I also certainly did not say that I thought Bobby was shady or that he was a bad bookie. I simply disagree with him on this one point.
Same goes for you. I enjoyed reading your posts and got a lot out of them in that it gives me more insight into how bookies operate, so I am grateful and to me it also seems like you know what you're doing in this business. Again, I disagree with you on this one point about this one element of Bowman's practices but that is all.
Darryl Parsons
The one overwhelming fact you are ignoring.... is that if you did business with someone.... and consistantly lost money on the deals.... you would stop trading with them..... this is what Bowmans are doing with you.
I work for an internet bookmaker..... while we dont change lines for individual clients..... we do alter the limits a bettor can stake on a game.
If you regularly beat us..... we might allow you to bet only 5% of what a losing high roller could expect to be able to place.
We do not offer a service...... we are in business..... and if a business transaction is unprofitable...... we cease it...... simple as that.
You are right that I did not mention what I think a bookie should do if they run up against a sharpshooter. I only mentioned what they should not do. On second thought, I did say in my last post that if they give selective lines to different players, but state this up front, then it's perfectly acceptable to me.
The solution you mention about giving different players different limits is also acceptable. Bookies are not under obligation to take my action if they don't want to. In fact, if they politely tell me that they don't want ANY of my action, I would probably get upset, but I would not accuse them of being unethical.
They are, however, expected not to knowingly post false lines, or post false information about their lines. This has been my beef all along. I can accept bookies protecting themselves and taking action selectively, but they have to do it in an open and honest manner.
As an additional note, I think there are areas of potential co-operation between bookies and sharp players even though it seems like they are always playing cat and mouse with one another...
I'm sure it happens quite often that a bookie gets heavy one-sided action on some games that, in total, might exceed the comfort point, even though the odds are in their favor. Here is an opportunity for a win-win situation. If a bookie has good relations with a couple of sharp players, he could offer to unload some of this action at a good price. This is good for the bettor since he gets the type of edge he is looking for, and good for the bookie since he can unload a bit when things get too heavy. Presumably bookies are either already doing this or else do it amongst themselves to an extent. In any case, the few sharp bettors that I know have never been involved in any such deals so maybe there is an untapped opportunity!?
Darryl Parsons
Well if Bowman's is getting a lot of bad publicity I didn't know about it. All my books are Costa Rican or Antiguan since they tend to have the most developed organizations. Not that they are consumer protection groups or anything, but it tends to figure that where there are many organizations up and running so there are more people in the area working those organizations. I have a couple of former Vegas book employee friends working in Costa Rica so I know that most are ethical and competitive there. Bowman's just seems to draw from a different crowd as it would seem all his claim to fame is that he has been in the business the longest. Bowman's started out as the King of offshore, but now his refusal to have an online component seems to drag him down. Its not that you have to bet online, its just you have to wonder why any sports book wouldn't have one. A couple have had some pretty bogus sounding claims about they don't have them because they are illegal, but it doesn't seem like the phone only books are operating with any more legality. In any case a book not having an online component just seems strange. I mean it saves the books a ton of costs, after all these allow the books to allow you all the way down to $5 minimum bets creating a huge extra market. After all Vegas seems to live off of two bit players that play parlays and $10 wagers. This is a market only a stupid business would overlook and yet Bowman's seems to do that. Posting your lines on the net is plain worthless as this thread has proven. If you are avoiding one of the best tools sportsbooks has ever had, it has to make potential customers wonder about you and your business acumen. If I were in your situation Darryl I would keep Bowman's but put them at the bottom of my list. Keep just a small amount of money there to make 3 or 4 plays and get other books if you don't have them. Call them up only when you have time and make calls to them early on just to see if you can get a bargain. Basically give them no action except when they offer up a really juicy line. They will see you are wasting their money as a customer and if enough people do it they will shape up. If not well who gives a damn, you give your action to the people that give you the best deal. If you ask me thats the best way to do it because if most players respond by cancelling their accounts they don't lose much, they just have a stable of suckers. Make them pay for being idiots and maybe you will have more flexible management.
Bill,
Thanks again for your insights.
I think it will be hard to re-join Bowman's after the bad experience and the slamming, not to mention the lack of internet service, but these postings have enabled me to cool off somewhat about the issue so maybe in a couple of weeks I'll muster up the energy to get back with them - but only for very selective betting as you say - I'd like to be a permanent thorn in their foot!
Darryl
NE + 3
CIN + 3.5
STL - 4.5 PHI + 3 NOR + 5
I went out to the Strip today and stopped off at the MGM and picked up some odds. They have 20 cent lines of season wins up. Nothing really catches my eye here, but the extra value may in the end bring me into betting an extra play or two. Generally I like to "beat the crowd" here as right about two weeks we start seeing moves on this, especially after the last exhibitions are played. With these numbers being so tight with only 16 games, the bigger players want to make sure they know all injuries before taking a side where their money is locked away for a long time. On the other hand this is consistently noted by a lot of people I know to be extremely beatable. I tend to stick with baseball since I know it better but I do take my shots at it. Now if they had hockey points over/under I probably would make the Hall of Fame for that, find me a book that puts those up and I would be very happy.
Current lines as of this afternoon, 20 cent line for every number, the odds are for the over.
Was 11.5 -10 Jax 11.5 +15 Stl 11 +05 Ind 10.5 +10 Ten 10.5 +05 TB 10.5 +05 Den 9.5 -45 Bal 9 -30 GB 8.5 Ev Oak 9 -10 Sea 8.5 +15 Buf 8.5 Ev Car 8 Ev NYJ 8 -10 Mia 7.5 -25 Dal 7.5 -35 Chi 8 -35 Min 7.5 -10 Atl 7.5 -05 KC 8 Ev NE 7.5 -10 Arz 7.5 +15 NYG 7.5 -05 Phi 7.5 +25 Det 6.5 -55 SD 6.5 +05 Pit 6.5 -15 NO 6.5 -10 Cin 5.5 -05 (big move over 5 days was 6 Ev) SF 5.5 +05 Cle 4.5 -10
One thing I noticed is that the Bears got bet out like crazy. They are down to 12/1 to win the Super Bowl!!! Maybe its in reaction to a huge bet by a sucker, but no way in hell anyone should accept 12/1 on that team winning it all. Did I miss something? I mean look they are now favored to be an above .500 team and they have been moved to solid second favorite to win the division at 5/2 so it makes me think that it isn't the cause of one bettor to move all these lines down. Maybe some people have caught Rams syndrome and think this is a worst to first type team since they do have some weapons, but I certainly think these numbers have made them bettable on the under side. I have to think the upside at best for this team is .500 and in that worst case spot for this bet you push.
They had lines to win each division but I am too lazy to post them. You should all know who the favorites are and most of them are prohibitive such as Was 2/7 and Stl 2/5. Considering the NFC West has had 3 champions in three years maybe there is some value to take the Falcons to bounce back and avoid too many injuries at 4/1 odds. Other than that they look like a lot of house vig built into the numbers. If a sports book really wanted good business on these they should put up matchup odds for each of the favorites where it could be bet will they win the division with odds for yes and no. Many years ago when I first started out a very highly respected bettor in this town taught me that if you want to bet these, think in those terms. In other words the Rams are -250, so the rest of the division should be +250. If you can come up with a scenario where a dog is almost certainly going to be the likely team to upset the favorite, take them if you are getting fair overlay on that 2.5-1 price. Well Atlanta is borderline, at 5-1 I would probably bet it. Only other team I would consider is Detroit at 10-1, but I just think TB is too strong to really have much value here.
They have posted week one lines (no totals). I don't know when they were put up at first but they really got pounded. I will list the current first, then open.
Arz NYG -4 (opened at 5.5)
Bal -2.5 (1.5) Pit
Car Wash -9.5 (NC)
Chi Min -3.5 (6)
Det -1.5 (2.5) NO
Ind -2.5 (NC) KC
Jax -10 (11) Cle
SF Atl -7.5 (7)
TB -3.5 (2) NE
Phi Dal -5.5 (7)
SD Oak -7 (NC)
Sea Mia -1 (NC)
NYJ GB -4 (3.5)
Ten Buf -2 (3)
Den Stl -7 (NC)
I usually avoid betting much early in the year for NFL. I see a lot of attractive prices though so maybe I will be a bunch of games for smaller units. Going down the list I like Arizona because they know they have to get off to a faster start than in past years and this is the team to do it against. The Giants shouldn't be backed as favorites of this size as their style is too conducive to FG wins or less. I like the Ravens because I think they will be excited to get things started off quickly unlike last year and Pittsburgh is just plain going downhill. I am going to back Detroit early because I think the Batch injury is being far overcompensated for. I think Tomczak will put up fairly comparable numbers since he will get all the snaps in the preseason. I am slightly leaning towards playing Dallas because they are a lack of depth team. They will run out of gas like last year down the stretch but early on in the heat of Texas this should be a good spot for them to wear out a young team, just that number might be a bit high. I like San Diego because I think they are going in a bit underrated this year. I don't respect the home field of Oakland and what looks like an easy start could be a disaster because I think their run defense will be down a bit this year and Fazande will ball control the game and keep it low scoring. I like Buffalo in the obvious revenge situation. The Titans are changing things up a bit while the Bills just promoted a lot of youngsters that were already playing. Bills have the best run defense in the league and that was a role Bruce Smith played no role in so they should shut down George and force McNair to use his near weapon Pickens maybe a bit earlier than he is comfortable with him. Lastly Denver on Monday night looks real strong as I stated before. Physical battles don't especially bode well for the Rams and the Denver secondary is shaping up to be fairly good even without Carter.
Lastly a few things in some other sports. First of all the PGA championship has Woods at around even money. I know he is on fire, but I don't think thats realistic here. He had not won the last two majors and set out to take care of business there. This one he won last year and I don't think he will be as dominating. Its also the least desirable of the majors so if he doesn't put out his A or even B game I wouldn't be surprised. Sergio Garcia handled the pressure well at last years PGA and at 28-1 seems like a good shot at these odds. With everyone over 15-1, just pick a golfer or two and take your shot is what I say. As for the NBA, I was shocked to see the Magic bet down to 12-1. At this price they are given a better shot than Phoenix or Indiana, two teams that figure to be much better next year. Grant Hill is never going to win a title without a solid supporting cast and McGrady isn't it. I wish I could bet against this one. And lastly for those that really like to bet for the moon, in hockey the two expansion teams are listed at 1500 and 2000 to one. Now I know its almost a joke at this price, but hockey is the one sport where an expansion team just may once win their first year out. Hockey playoffs are totally unpredictable as teams that enter the playoffs seeded 5-8 regularly make runs and even sometimes crack into the finals. With so few goals scored its all about the goalie and if one of these teams got lucky and put up a top notch goalie...well ok its dreaming quite a bit, but these prices are far too high. The worst team in hockey is at most 500-1 to win it all just because of the nature of the game and the playoffs. The worst NBA team is 5000-1 in my opinion and only the Clippers were listed at 1000-1. I am just thinking if there was an expansion team for 500 seasons, one would win it all and shock the world. No other sport could it happen in. Just think if you won $15,000 or $20,000 off a $10 bet the papers would probably be writing about you!
>>Now if they had hockey points over/under I probably would make the Hall of Fame for that, find me a book that puts those up and I would be very happy. >>
Bill, Bill, Bill.....
How could you not know that the IP has always put up NHL reg. season point totals??
I know, I know, 30-cent line. But that shouldn't be too tough for a Hall of Famer to overcome (grinning widely).
And to make it even easier, I won't be there to help them make their numbers (hockey is my strong suit, too).
BTW, they also put up a future book on player to score the most regular season goals. Last season, I had Pavel Bure as the favorite, but was overruled by the Sportsbook Manager (a VERY sharp guy named Ed Salmons), who was sure that Bure would suffer some catastrophic injury or another. Even when Bure had a huge lead early on, he wouldn't lower the odds, despite my protests. It was the first time we lost money on that prop.
They didn't have these up when I left, but I'm sure that once the NFL kicks off and the season wins betting is closed, then they'll have room on the board for the hockey season bets.
Don't ask me who I like this year. I haven't done any studying, and haven't even followed sports since quitting the IP.
However, I can tell you that we took a ton of money on the NY Rangers Over every year, no matter how bad they were, and no matter how high we made the number in anticipation of this "dumb money". Especially last year when they went on that spending spree that only resulted in one quality player (Theo), and HE had an off year. There will definitely be value on NYR Under.
If you live in Las Vegas, and you're sharp with hockey, you've got to attend Hockey Wednesdays at the IP. Props on every game, and "Chaser" betting (like a halftime bet). Two seasons ago, I made the lines for the chasers, and the book did quite well. Last season, my days off changed, and a less experienced guy (who knows nothing about hockey) made the numbers. He got smoked.
Now, you've got that 30-cent line again, and they only take $500 on the side, $200 or $300 on the totals. And if you start roughing them up, they may lower those limits. But if I lived in Las Vegas....
Bobby Choquette
Southaven, MS
(that signature just doesn't have the same ring to it)
Thanks to Wild Bill & others here's 2000 futures at MGM Hopefully I didn't make too many mistakes.
O/U 2000 LINES
TWIMC,
As Of Today 8/7/00. 2000 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE OVER UNDERS
TEAM --------------------GAMES--OVER--PRICE
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS-----11.5---OV (-115)
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS--------7.5----OV (-110)
3)DENVER BRONCOS------------9.5---OV (-145)
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS---------8.5----(EVEN)
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers------5.5---OV (105)
6)NEW YORK JETS----------8---OV (-110)
7)ATLANTA FALCONS---------7.5----OV (-105)
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS----------7.5----OV (-125)
9)TENNESSEE TITANS--------10.5---OV (105)
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS------7.5---OV (-115)
11)DALLAS COWBOYS---------7.5----OV (-135)
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS--------10.5---OV (105)
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS-------8.5----OV (115)
14)BUFFALO BILLS--------8.5----(EVEN)
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS-------7.5-----OV (-110)
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS-------7.5-----OV (115)
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS--------8----(EVEN)
18)NEW YORK GIANTS--------7.5----OV (-105)
19)DETROIT LIONS-------6.5-----OV (-155)
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS-------9-----OV (-130)
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS-------11.5----OV (-110)
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS--------6.5-----OV (-110)
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS--------11----OV (115)
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS-------9----OV (-110)
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS--------10.5------OV (110)
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS-------6.5-----OV (105)
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS------8----(EVEN)
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS-------5.5-----OV (-105)
29)CHICAGO BEARS-------8------OV (-135)
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES-------7.5------OV (125)
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS-------4.5-----OV (105)
Hi guys!
What is the best way to bet in horse racing?? Kelly or 1-5% of your bankroll?? My handicapping is pretty good so I don´t need any of advive on that area. I´am winning already but I want to make the best of it!! I tought that I could use Kelly/5. Is that a bad way to make a bet?? Thanks a lot
I don't see how Kelly(congruent fixed fraction betting) would be of much use in parimutual wagering.
Get a copy of GAMBLING FOR A LIVING by DS and MM, page 274 has some bet sizing advice you might find useful.
Good Luck
Howard
The pro horse bettors I know mostly use a strategy somewhat similar to what is listed in Gambling for a Living for sports bets. They bet an amount they estimate will return a set amount of money. Their bankrolls are in the neighborhood of 30-50 times that return amount. For example if you had a horse you liked that was going off at 1-1 or Even, then you would bet that set amount. If you were expecting 8-1 you bet 1/8 of that amount. Its hard to be precise unless you bet very late and even then some last minute moves come in on big favorites. This is for bettors that rarely touch very short favorites. I know others that bet the short prices often, in place and show pools usually. In this case you can't really up your bet size too much. Twice the even money bet is what has been suggested, but from someone with close to 100 bets in the bankroll.
I think the best method is to bet 1% (or possibly 2%) max, of your bankroll.
If you are a winning player then earn the right to bet more money. Your bank roll will grow, although slowly at first, and pretty soon 1 or 2% will be a lot of money.
Isn't this a bit simplistic? What if you best bet as dictated by the odds is an exacta? Betting 1% is far too risky as you are looking at something that could be 50-1. You might have value but it wouldn't take much of a bad run to see losing off half your starting bankroll before finally having this one come in. Then look at the other extreme. Often the biggest values in betting horses is taking advantage of place and show pools. In these cases you can make a pretty certain case for 20-30% in value. On these bets 1% would be far too conservative. On a heavy favorite that you bet to show, you figure to lose maybe 1 in 10 bets, if that. If you had $10,000 bankroll, you would only be betting $100 bet and thats not enough to make much money over the long term.
Can anyone tell me for certain what the dollar amount is on the quarter Deuces Wild Poker Progressive Jackpot machine when it becomes an overlay.These are by the poker room at the Bellagio and Im sure throughout the casino.I think that its $1700.00 or less but whats the bottom $ amount.Also ,when its a large overlay,say 1800,is it best to play any Royal draw such as holding 10s ,Ks,and discarding an Ac in a board such as 10s,Ks,Ac,Ad,Jh,or 10s,Ks,Ac,9c,8c.In other words how agressivly should you chase the Royal?Thanks.
Depends on the pay table of the machine.
Assuming the pay table is 25, 15, 9, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1 the progressive would have to be $3707.25 to be 100%.
With the more liberal pay table of 25, 15, 10, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1 the break even point is $2535.25.
Note that these numbers assume perfect play of a strategy specifically designed for that particular situation.
Terry,is this for the 1.00 machines or the.25 cent machines?Thank You.
Get the pay table written down and put it here and I am sure someone can run it on a computer for you. They have programs that can spit out a perfect strategy with just a listing of the pay table. I do know that Deuces Wild strategy is very difficult to perfect compared to many of the other VP games in the casinos.
I think this is probably a very standard Deuces Wild machine with no strange variations. You probably can easily find a strategy card for it. Considering its Bellagio I wouldn't expect a very good return on this game so you probably won't play it all that much.
The figures Terry quotes are for the quarter version of the game, with a "base" value of $1000 for the royal. If it was a dollar game then the base value would be $4000.
Given that even the non-progressive versions of Deuces you find at the Bellagio are 94% return, the progressive are probably even worse. I would venture a guess that these progressives don't reach breakeven until the royal is in the $4000 range (we're talking the .25 game here).
If you post the paytable I or someone else can give you the exact numbers. But personally, I wouldn't give a dime of my action to this overpriced, overhyped, ripoff megatoilet of a casino. Despite its earnest attempts, it only resembles Italy in the high number of pickpockets present.
The figures are for quarters. Multiply by 4 for dollars.
I also would not expect to find any good video poker at Bellagio unless things have changed dramatically in the past year or so.
Deuces Wild is actually probably the easiest game game to learn to play at a winning level.
Bob Dancer's WinPoker and Tomski's VP Strategy Master (available on the ConJelCo site and at Gamblers Book Club) are both excellent tools for a video poker player. With them, you can analyze the games to find beatable machines, print out the correct strategy, and practice your game without losing money. When you make an error, your computer will say "Error... you should have held XX." The machine in the casino will say "Insert Coin."
Hey gang,
I quit the i.p. sportsbook "to pursue other interests", as they say.
No, not because they use 30-cent lines. :-)
I'm taking the wife and kids to a different part of the country, to be closer to family.
I've enjoyed participating in this forum with you guys (especially Abdul and Wildbill), but I can no longer chime in as the "expert from las vegas".
But i can still rant in the poker forums, though.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
(oops, I need to change the last part of that sig)
$$$
Thanks Bobby for you input and good luck with your family.
paul
I am sure your knowledge won't be left in Las Vegas Bobby, best of luck. At least you didn't get forced into going to Costa Rica or Antigua like a handful of book managers I know.
From an online sportsbook:
Any Comments?
Alabama Over 9 (+120) Under 9 (-150)
Clemson Over 8.5 (+135) Under 8.5 (-170)
Florida Over 9 (Even) Under 9 (-130)
Florida State Over 11 (-180) Under 11 (+140)
Georgia Over 8.5 (+115) Under 8.5 (-145)
Kansas State Over 10 (-150) Under 10 (+120)
Miami Florida Over 9 (+120) Under 9 (-150)
Michigan Over 9 (+120) Under 9 (-150)
Michigan St Over 6.5 (Even) Under 6.5 (-130)
Nebraska Over 10 (-200) Under 10 (+150)
Notre Dame Over 7 (-135) Under 7 (+105)
Ohio State Over 8 (+110) Under 8 (-140)
Oklahoma Over 7 (-130) Under 7 (Even)
Penn State Over 8.5 (-160) Under 8.5 (+130)
Purdue Over 7 (-160) Under 7 (+130)
Tennessee Over 8 (-120) Under 8 (-110)
Texas Over 9 (-140) Under 9 (+110)
Texas A&M Over 8 (+120) Under 8 (-150)
UCLA Over 6.5 (-135) Under 6.5 (+105)
USC Over 8.5 (-155) Under 8.5 (+125)
Virginia Over 7.5 (+130) Under 7.5 (-160)
Virginia Tech Over 10 (-115) Under 10 (-115)
Washington Over 8 (+135) Under 8 (-170)
Wisconsin Over 10 (-150) Under 10 (+120)
Do these include conference championship games? This is a very very important point that you must find out before analyzing. I know that I have seen a few that specially stated no conference championship games, but almost all of them specifically denote no bowl games.
If they do include the conference championships, then I would definitely bet on Alabama considering their fairly week schedule with no Florida and a Tennessee team that should be down a bit this year. Also they get UCLA early in the season and Bama has the experience edge on them with 18 returning starters. Could possibly go undefeated this year.
I would go over on Florida considering the price is fairly nice and I don't see them losing 3 games. They probably will win 9 games, but there is upside potential for more. Once again if they get the conference championship game added then you get even more potential value with them.
The best bet on the board is easily Kansas State over. They could win 11 or 12 games, but very unlikely to win 9 games or less. Conference championship won't matter here because they will almost certainly have won 12 games if they get that far. Only games they would seem to be in any danger in is Colorado and Nebraska, and if they lose both you still get a push. CU doesn't figure to matchup and they might beat Nebraska. I am surprised this number isn't 10.5 considering they have the 12th game this year.
For all the Big 10 teams, I really don't know what to do. This conference just looks so tough from top to bottom. I don't know if I accept the common wisdom that Michigan is best. Wisconsin has won 2 in a row and I think they might get number 3. Remember they lost to Michigan last year and still got there. Wisconsin with Hawaii on the schedule gets 12 games, but 10 wins seems high. That Hawaii game could be dangerous at that point since everything will be decided for them by that point. Maybe the best strategy is just to bet every Big 10 team listed under and hope the savage competition gets you more wins than losses.
Maybe the second best bet is Virg Tech over. Their defense will be revamped with only 3 starters, but the offense should put up a ton of points. The early season games shouldn't be that tough giving their young defenders a chance to get going. The defense is always good so I would guess by the time the real battles begin around the middle of October, they should be able to get it done. Only a battle at Miami figures to be tough, the rest of the games are definitely winnable. With the extra 12th game, two losses would just be a push so once again upside on the win or just get the refund.
Due to so many potential ties, what I always suggest on college totals is to bet a parlay if allowed. That way you don't have to risk all that much money for 3 or 4 months just to get it back. Unlike the pros, I tend to bet mostly overs on college teams. College teams get so many throwaway games that they don't have to worry about that their seasons come down to a few games. Only Big 10 teams really have to worry about being prepared to win each and every week. When teams don't get the over they often collapse and lose a lot more games. In other words say I take a team over 9 and they lose a key game early. Falling out of conference and national races seem to kill their will and they lose a bunch of games and end up 6-5. In that case its not a big deal, a loss is a loss to me. However as long as a team keeps in a race, they keep their intensity in those games they have to fight to win and that gets you the money. Its just a different mentality than the NFL, where teams not only have to be prepared for every game, they have to be prepared to accept a loss.
From the list, I like Texas and Miami FL both over.
Is there a good book on video poker - when I say good, I mean info that is accurate as far as the odds and payouts and correct mathematical correct plays are concerned. I don't envision myself playing much, but I do have some deadtime every now and then.
"Professional Video Poker" by Stanford Wong.
It gives all the information needed to play optimally for most of the machines found in today's casinos.
Darryl Parsons
I suggest "Video Poker--Optimum Play" by Dan Paymar. This is a thorough treatment of advantage play in video poker. ($19.95)
Also valuable are the individual game analyses by Bob Dancer on 9/6 Jacks or Better, 10/7 Double Bonus, and Deuces Wild ($10 each).
The book mentioned in this thread by Stanford Wong is of limited value since it is quite dated. Its primary focus is on exploiting progressives when they turn positive (when he wrote this book Jacks-or-Better machines were about all that were available). Nowadays, the way to beat VP is to learn the strategies for inherently 100%+ payback maachines, and to learn to exploit promotions and slot clubs.
Also see "The Frugal Gambler" by Jean Scott--a classic.
I can second Paymar's book "VP Optimum Play" as a good choice. Paymar also makes strategy cards. For info click here. Skip Hughes also makes cards. For info click here. Jazbo Burns makes cards and has other good info at his website. Click here.
Also one can use my strategy making software. For info. click here. TomSki
The following are intended to be 50-50 propositions, so if I get exactly 5 right, that's a perfect score...
1. Ron Dayne will rush for more yards than Emmitt Smith.
2. Ryan Leaf will have a higher quarterback rating than Brett Favre, or Leaf will never make a pass attempt.
3. Trent Green will start one game and then also start the rest of the games for the season afterwards, except when injured, ousting Kurt Warner.
4. Jim Miller will start one game and then also start the rest of the games for the season afterwards, except when injured, ousting Cade McNown.
5. Danny Kannell will start at least one game in place of Chris Chandler, and Danny will have a quarterback rating of at least .95 for at least one of the games he starts.
6. The Eagles will win at least one more game than the Cowboys.
7. With regards to defense (yards given up), at least one of the following teams that finished in the bottom 7 for 1999 will finish in the top 7 in 2000: the Browns, the Panthers, the Bengals, or the Vikings.
8. Of the quarterbacks who start in the first game of the season, Charlie Batch will have the highest quarterback rating for that game or one of the top 3 quarterback ratings for the season.
9. One of the following players will be named Superbowl MVP: Jim Miller, Daunte Culpepper, Tony Banks, Steve McNair, Peyton Manning, Charlie Batch, Trent Green, Steve Beuerlein, Tim Biakabatuka, James Stewart, Jamal Anderson, Edgerrin James, Stephen Davis, Marshall Faulk, or Keyshawn Johnson.
10. The Superbowl will be won by the Rams, the Ravens, the Panthers, or the Colts.
-Abdul
I will set the line on this...
Number of Abdul's propositions to be true
Over 4.5 +120 Under 4.5 -140
They will be hard to judge though considering somewhat ambiguous language in some of them, especially "replacing as a starter". Also what is the result if Batch doesn't start game one? My personal prediction as I read the questions now is only 3 or 4 true, maybe less.
Yes, I know, my language was vague in spots. How can I claim to be the next Nostradamus if you pin me down to unambiguous predictions?
If Batch doesn't start the first week, he is still in the running for top 3 quarterback rating for the season, competing against those who do start the first week. Akili Smith is excluded, since he has a bye first week.
"Trent Green will start one game and then also start the rest of the games for the season afterwards, except when injured, ousting Kurt Warner." Let's make it simpler, "Trent Green will be the starting quarterback for the last three games of the Rams' regular season, or Trent Green will be starting quarterback in the last Rams game for which he was not on the official injury list." It doesn't say exactly the same thing, but it's less ambiguous. (Also change the other prediction with the same format.)
-Abdul
Thats getting there Abdul, but here is a really easy to imagine situation. Kurt Warner goes out in week 16 and bruises his arm. The Rams already having locked up home field throughout the playoffs summon Trent Green to start the game saying Warner is fine, they just want to rest him and not risk any further injury. Technically Trent Green gets the nod in your bet, but in reality if the game meant anything Warner is the starter. In other words, do you give this particular situation as a "freeroll" to those who would have bet on this (obviously a moot point since there won't be betting). From this definition plus your update on the Batch question, I will change it to:
Over 4.5 +105 Under 4.5 -125
Before I was calculating to myself the chances of those guys getting injured period forcing the starter out, but in this case the last game wording makes it a bit easy for these 3 QBs to get the nod for just the final game of the season as they very well could be in nothing to play for situations.
Just reading into what you are writing and not looking at the betting standpoint. I think these things:
I don't like any of your teams to win the Super Bowl. I think I have written enough about who I like, enough said, there will always be differences of opinion. One thing is that I really don't think the Panthers will do much other than go sideways this year. I see a fairly old team there and thats not the situation you want to have a team make an upswing. I mean they went out and "improved" their team by getting washed up Means. Their defense added a few minor impact players, but nothing to suggest improving a pretty bad squad that has been bad for a few years. And god what made you love Tim B so much? He is hurt half the time!
As for Trent Green, no way will he "win" the job from Warner. The Rams have it too easy for Warner to fall under pressure to win more and he is just a more talented passer I think than Green. Green got some gaudy end of season stats his ONE season that he has played in the NFL and early in the year he couldn't do much as the Skins were an embarassment. Only an injury takes Warner out of the top spot and I think Green gets traded for draft picks at the end of the season.
Charlie Batch has a long way to go to being that good. Fact is that there are just so many proficient passers right now and if Testaverde can return to form he will make it tougher. Not that the guys are that good, but the short passing game makes for big passer ratings and the Lions passing game is a bit more vertical than most. High completion rates and number of completions skew the ratings and thats why Steve Young was such a highly rated QB despite his lack of really being a big game winner. He finally won it all when he was on the clearly dominant team of the league that year...aided by Prime Time and Ken Norton on defense and the incredible skills of Ricky Watters when he was on top of his game. Batch is a good one for the future, but he may never show it in passer ratings just as Elway was rarely highly rated as a passer yet few ever would have picked anyone other than Montana to be their QB during his prime playing years.
One last thing about the defenses you mentioned. The yards stat is obviously fairly worthless. Yes a team that allowed as many yards as Cleveland clearly sucks, but its not very useful. Since I have to use this stat, I don't think there is much chance any team will be improved this year outside of Cle. They however would be lucky to get to 28th in this stat considering just how far behind they were from the league last year. There were teams that gave up fewer yards passing a game than the Browns did against the rush last year and that should only happen on rare occurences considering the offensive style of today. Minnesota downgraded their offense which will hurt this stat for their defense as their opponents will have more plays to run up yards and Cincy went almost all offense in their offseason moves showing where they are concentrating this year.
TB - 1.5
Does anyone know a good place to play any good places to play dollar and higher video poker in Las Vegas?
ATL - 3
NYG + 6
NE + 6
NYJ+2
DET-2.5
Hello,
Just wondering, does anyone here bet sports via internet? It would seem that having a multitude of lines to choose from could be a huge advantage. I sampled the "Sports Tracker" software which gives lines for around fifteen different books. Some lines differed by up to three points. Im interested in your general impression of these operations. Is it too risky?.
Thanks, Leonid
Hi,
I have had accounts at six different online sportsbooks in the last 2 years (usually 3 at any given time, though, because of financial limitations and laziness mainly) and they have been totally reliable.
There was never a fear of not getting paid, although some take their sweet time. Once I had a dispute over a soccer game that got officially called in the 83rd minute and the result got officially declared that my team won, but the book didn't pay me because their rules say the game has to go 90 minutes. After appealing and threatening them I was able to get half of my winnings credited as a compromise solution. Other than that, I must have made over 1000 bets with no problems.
In my opinion, if the book looks serious and reliable, it is.
You mentioned "Sports Tracker". How does one get access to this?
Darryl Parsons
as well please let me know where you get this software.
kb
Go to www.jimfeist.com. Click "betting lines" on the left hand column. Its a very expensive program, but you can try it for three days free. He also has something called "offshore connection" which is similar and cheaper. I was kinda hoping somebody new of this kind of thing for free, guess not.
The main difference in the two programs is that the paid one has Nevada books included, the free one does not. The free one I have looked at from time to time has 7 or 8 books, but you can only have 5 showing at once. They also have the Feist line which is a LV consensus line. Its great for a free product though, basically putting together what you could get if you surfed the net to each of the books individual sites and checked their live lines. The Nevada information is tightly regulated and there is some question as to if Feist really has "live" lines. Supposedly he has no right to display them, but all he probably does is gets the real live feed and then updates his feed with them. Supposedly DBC's service Casino Odds is the only offical one hooked up into the books direct line systems. Casino Odds costs $300/month though so hardly anyone is going to pay that amount except syndicates or very serious bettors. With the coming soon of very limited phone bets to Nevada books I think this service will go out of business or drop its rate quite drastically. Don Best and Feist both have their own services claiming live lines, Best is $150/month, Feist is 99/month. As Nevada just about nails the last coffin in their preeminent spot as sports betting capital, these services will lose value to anyone but bookies.
Don Best also has a Caribbean service, or whatever he calls it. Same as Feist, just lines you can get offshore from the books' websites. My only complaint is that I have avoided almost all these books for the most part because I didn't like their rules or setup. Most of them have 20 cent baseball lines an instant disqualifier in my book. Alas we shall see what shakes out after the phone bet limits go into effect. After that lines for Caribbean sources will go way up in value and Nevada line info will be relatively worthless on a pay basis as only small bettors who won't pay for the information will want to use those services.
Hello,
Im interested in what you guys think are the best sports betting books. What do you guys think of Sklansky's material on the subject?
Thanks, Leonid
There are no great sports betting books out there,IMHO.
Having said that,here are a few rambling thoughts:
1)Lem Banker's BOOK OF SPORTS BETTING (1986)is good,written by a legend,and an 8 on the Malmuth book scale.
2)Kevin O'Neil has written FOOTBALL BETTING:STRATEGIES FOR THE SMART PLAYER (1996) and FOOTBALL BETTING'S CUTTING EDGE (1999).Although I don't agree with eveything he writes,I realy like these two books.
3)J.R. Miller's stuff is worth a look.
4)I'm not the biggest Jim Feist fan,but Kelso Sturgeon gave me some great advice many years ago.Out of respect for Kelso I bought FOOTBALL BETTING (1997) by Jim Feist and Kelso Sturgeon.I was surprised to find a rather interesting book.I was also surprised when they did not agree on the usefulness of power ratings,that it was Feist and not Sturgeon who shared my opinion that there are too many factors that can neutralize the power in power ratings.There are a few things printed in this book that you will not find anywhere else.
5)Phil Steele's College Football Scorebook and Pro Football Scorebook Have a lot of useful material.They also have a few errors every year.They list a phone # to tell them of errors so they will not be in next year's edition.For five straight years I told them about a blunder and it's still there.It would not bother me if not for the fact that they have that page that says they want to fix errors for next year.
6)Although not intended for the sports better,Stat Inc.has a lot of good books for baseball,football basketball and hockey.
7)One of the best things in life is the BLUE RIBBON COLLEGE BASKETBALL YEARBOOK
8)MTi(yes,thats how they spell it) puts out some printed NBA analysis every year that is pretty good.
9)THE BEST OF SONNY REIZNER (1997) is a good light read.
10)There are a lot very bad books on sports betting.Let the buyer beware.
I may have failed to mention some worthy products,but the above is what first came to mind.
Good Luck
Howard
About D.S.:
Anything he writes that is not about Barbara Yoon or S.A.T.'s is must reading!
#
Few more books,THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LAS VEGAS STYE SPORTS BETTING by late Marty Mendelson,good if you're new to sports betting. SPORTS BETTING 101 by ARNE K. LANG and RACE AND SPORTS BOOK MANAGEMENT by Michael ROXY Roxborough.
Without a doubt my book if anyone would ever publish it would be the best thing out there. I have read them all and really I think most have some valid things to say. When people ask me this question though, there is only one answer in my mind...
His stuff is a bit dated and he sometimes sways from getting to the point, but no one has put out better material than Bob McCune. He made some recent updates that improved his work a bit and cut it down to more manageable reads. I "grew up" in sports betting when I read his stuff. Very enlightening in that its not all about picking games or things like that. He does give some very useful formulas, but as I always say its much more important to understand the mindset and the things a winner do aside from just picking the games. He gives a lot of coverage to money management which is undoubtedly the key to being a long term winner in sports. I owe him a great deal and much of what I know is because he taught me how to think about the games and the activity of betting and being in it for the long haul. The other books are more about here is what to look for in a winner. Useful at times, but believe me I speak as someone who has fought the long-term war with the line and the other books might make you win for this week or next, but they won't necessarily make you win for the long run.
Another writer I respect a lot is Robert Ross and his books on hockey and baseball. I don't really follow his advice on baseball as I have my own successful method, but it would be very useful to a novice. His hockey book is second to none. Really few hockey books out there, but his is an excellent resource. Just like McCune, he doesn't necessarily give out a lot of formulas or methods, but more he tries to train your mindset and tell you what you need to be paying attention to.
As for DS/MM writings, their coverage is far from complete. Then again they are poker writers and they have never had an exclusively sports book and I doubt they ever will. Most of their stuff though was pretty damn worthless in Gambling for a Living. They went into saying sports betting is the place to be (which it is without a doubt), but then went on to give almost no advice other than "your line has to be better than the bookie" which is two things bad to me. One its gross oversimplification. Two its really not good advice. It focuses on sports betting in the completely wrong way. There is a reason why computer nerds and guys from MIT haven't completely taken over the sports betting world. Yeah the Computer Boys made quite a splash, but if you believed a lot of people, beating sports would be as easy as crunching millions of numbers and getting a winner. Its not even like that. So tend to stay away from books that are heavy on numbers or formulas as these things will change on you faster than you can imagine. Further I NEVER look at trends like most people do. Trend handicapping is just not very successful, yet I would say half the books and magazines on sports have heavy trend analysis as their focus or at least as a pillar of their publication. There are a few other books out there that are somewhat worthy, but the bottom line is that indeed there is a dearth of good writing. Much of it comes from the nature of sports. Sports betting isn't so much to win money, its to keep people in action. It makes uninteresting games interesting for many. Think about poker as a foil. Poker is a game that is nothing but money. Few people would watch a poker game from the sidelines. Few people would play it if there was no financial consideration involved. Hence there are many many more poker books and this imbalance shall never end...
DEN-4.5
KC-5.5
I was watching a Discovery Channel special last week on casinos and their history. The end of the show focused around a casino in Connetticut. It was supposedly the world's largest casino, and they were showing it off as the future of the gaming industry. The chips all had microchips embedded in them with unique identifiers, the tables had little scanners under the felt that could read the chips when you put them in the betting circle, and the shoes had little cameras that scanned the cards as they came out. Everything was stored on a huge computer network, enabling management to look up specific hands if there were disputes, etc.
This is all fine and good. The part where it turned sinister is when the started showing how every player had their own ID card, and would be scanned when they sat down at a table. Their play would be tracked both over the long haul and at a particular session. The pit boss could read stats for each table on little screens that were attached to them. The computer was programmed to look for patterns associated with counters, etc. and would color code players on the screen if they were beating the game. Management could then take appropriate action.
My question at this point is: Will this kill winning blackjack players? When some suit takes a look at your record when you sit down after being forced to swipe your card and identify yourself, notices that you're a winner who's been exhibiting counter-like behaviors over the past 500 hours and asks you to leave, what are you going to do? It stands to reason that eventually most if not all casinos are going to be wired up like this. What's to do?
Wow. I live near Foxwoods, the largest casino in the world, and play poker there regularly. We do have Wampum cards, and they use these to track players and dispense comps. We do have new chips, also. However, I have not heard anything, even a peep of a rumor, that these chips have microchips embedded in them.
We use the same chips in the poker room as they do in the pits, so that's not the answer. Maybe I'll have to take home a new $1 or $5 chip and break it open, just to see.
I'd be VERY interested to hear about this from anyone else. It just surprises me that this information could be on TV and yet no one in the poker room has discussed it. AC, are you sure they reported that this was the present situation at the casino, and not just a future plan? Or that they did a poor segue from the Foxwoods coverage to a distinct story about new chip-tracking technology, and it just gave the impression that Foxwoods was using it?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These tables have been around for a while, and have been discussed over on bj21.com.
The consensus is that they are certainly dangerous, but not quite the complete counter-killer the manufacturer would have you believe. First, they are very expensive. That means they won't get 100% market penetration. Second, from what I've heard they are a bit unreliable at this point. Third, I don't think anyone FORCES you to swipe an ID card to play - the ID cards are more like the comp cards for slots players.
Still, they do have the potential for making it easier for the casinos to catch card counters.
Now HERE is a disturbing technology: I've heard of some pattern-matching software that can run simply by feeding the security camera output through a computer. It will watch all the cards coming out in a shoe game, and know instantly what the count is. If a player is seen moving his bets with the count, an alarm will go off so a human can verify the information and take appropriate action. This has the same effect as the fancy table, for a tiny fraction of the cost.
Everything posted is correct. The stuff on Foxwoods was on a History Channel show about Casino technology. They are just testing the stuff now, but as it is they are using it to as they put it "enhance the customer experience" but then later added they could snuff out undesirable activity and counting and cheating were given as undesirable activities. I think its inevitable though that counting is going to be going away as a viable job. They have the counter shoes now and I know for a fact they are not all that expensive. As many blackjack experts have deeply argued, this technology need not be aimed only at counters. If an alert goes off anytime a deck or shoe is even moderately positive and its time to shuffle, the house can easily increase their winning percentage on EVERYONE! The casinos will forget the tracking of players and just deal games that change the basic math in their favor. If the casino refused to ever deal a game that was more than say 1% advantage to the player the games would see a HUGE increase in hold. Counters wouldn't beat the games and the average players would lose even more because they would miss out on playing in positive situations even without their knowledge.
Many experts have gone to the Nevada gaming board about this, but the gaming board is just a shill of the casinos. The experts have pretty correctly claimed that the casinos are blatantly cheating here, but they get no sympathy. I mean think about this situation. A player is cheating if he just uses his mind and counting skills to beat the game, but the casino isn't cheating when they use a computer to decide how to alter the odds of a game more in favor of themselves than they would be in a standard untracked game. Its an outrage, but its coming soon. I would think the only saving point here is that some casinos might actually advertise that they don't shuffle up or use these machines. If people ever figure out how bad your odds are at blackjack facing the tracked deck(s), they will never play anywhere that uses it.
The did mention that the costs right now for the computerized chips is quite high but expressed the point that with mass production and use their costs will eventually be reasonable. Its just amazing with how much money casinos make off blackjack now that they even try to squeeze more coin out of it. At some point one has to figure that even the dumb players will figure it out and the casinos will have to spread a reasonable game again.
Also did you know that a new invention is in the casinos now, digital 21? It uses digital screen to show you your cards. I don't know if this will catch on anytime soon, but it allows for a freshly shuffled deck each time, no shuffle tracking, and no tells of any kind. This too would obviously kill off counting. Every year its amazing companies come up with so many inventions aimed at counters when its obvious they pose little threat to the bottom line. I mean anyone betting big enough to be a threat should be spotted in time by a skilled staff and the rest of the people...well how do they matter to casinos bringing in billions?
I know it's early but I like Unshaded to win and Graeme Hall for second. The distance is the determining factor 1 1/4m.
Paul
I read Dave Johnson's article on ESPN, and he likes Unshaded also (so that's one strike against him). Johnson said Nafzger has been pointing him toward the Travers since he was shut out of the Derby field.
I like Unshaded also. I think he's got more talent than most 3 year olds such as Impeachment and Postponed. More Than Ready should try sprinting, not a mile and a quarter. Graeme Hall may be a late bloomer, but I don't like his chances at the Travers
Is Red Bullet running in the Travers?
Where is Fusaichi Pegasus???? (Did you hear Regis butcher his name on Millionaire Sunday night?)
Red Bullet is running and seems to be over his virus according to his trainer. FP is running in the BC and then retiring. Dixie is also running.
paul
FuPeg has to have at least one, preferably 2 prep races to win the Classic.
I think Red Bullett also needs a race.
Unshaded is the early pick.
TEN-2
I had a disgreement a while back with an anonymous friend who also posts on this forum. We'll call him scott.
My position is that a lottery ticket is never +EV. He argues that sometimes the jackpot grows bigger than your odds of winning, making it +EV. I pointed out than when the jackpots get this big, way more people enter, increasing the chances that you'll split the jackpot, thereby effectively decreasing the prize money. He argues that sometimes the jackpots are several times your odds of winning and that you don't get enough people entering to bring the chances of a split up enough to nullify the huge prize.
Obviously, neither one of us knows what we're talking about, so would someone who does please jump in? Can you ever buy a lotto ticket with positive expectation, and if so, why wouldn't you just buy all the tickets you can?
Yes, you can occasionally find a jackpot so big that you can play with +EV. However, I've never calculated how high the jackpot must be for any state I've lived in. The real problem isn't the size of the jackpot per se. If the size of the jackpot and the chances of splitting were all there was, you'd find +EV bets all the time. But, not only must the jackpot exceed the odds of winning, it must exceed by a lot more, because you only get about half that amount if you get paid lump sum. Then, you pay taxes, which cuts out another 30-40% (depending upon your state of residence and other personal factors). By the time you factor all of these in, the jackpot probably has to exceed the odds of winning by a factor of 10:1 or so (I've never done all the math, so don't trust my numbers here).
I saw a TV magazine a few years ago that told the story of a consortium of folks who were tracking various state lotteries and waiting for one to get big enough that they could come in, buy millions of tickets designed to cover each number combination once, and thereby guarantee a win. Whether or not they profited would depend upon if too many people split with them. The state would not sell them the tickets in a lump like that, so they had to arrange for hundreds of agents to buy specific number combos for them at local vendors around the state. They ended up only covering something like 90% of the numbers, but they got lucky and won without a split. They could afford to split it with 1 other and still come out ahead, but splitting with 2 or more would have made them losers.
I buy lottery tickets, 1 per drawing if the jackpot is big, just for the fun of dreaming about what if? I don't concern myself that I made a $1 bet with -EV. $1 bets that cost me $0.20 in EV, that take place about 20 times a year, just aren't worth worrying about. And, if you're going to make a play because the jackpot is so big that it's +EV, then it's still not a worthwhile bet unless you're going to make the big play and buy every ticket.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I never understood why so many people buy tickets when the jackpot is $100 million +.
Do they think that say, $50,000,000 is chump change?
n/t
I came upon a site last night which was just great. I have been playing blackjack for some time and counting cards has always seem to delude me. It seemed so confusing, but this site explains all the points of beating blackjack consistantly, and it does it in very easy to understand terms. Takes you step by step, from basic strategy, counting cards, money management, it's all here. You guys have got to check it out.
The address is
http://members.tripod.com/casinoblackjack/index.htm
I guess the Arizona Cardinals didn't give him a very good signing bonus.
-Abdul
Now all you have to do is find somewhere to play.
Good luck.
Ok I'm new (understatement) to blackjack. I checked out this sight, and have a couple of questions.
About the count:
The author explains the "high-low" count, and says he uses it to determine the "true" count. In other words, if there have been 9 more low cards exposed than high cards, the high-low count would be +9. To determine the true count, he divides this number by the "estimated" number of decks remaining. So if there are around 4 decks left in the shoe, the true count would be between 2 & 3. He says it doesn't matter if you round up or down, as long as you are consistant and always go the same direction.
This brings us to my first question. We are estimating the number of decks remaining (the author does not suggest that we keep track of exactly how many cards have been dealt), and then rounding either up or down. So, I might say there are ~2 decks left, and you say there are ~3. The high-low count is at +7. So you say the true count is 2-3 and round down, and I say the true count is 3-4 and round up. My "true" count is 4, and yours is 2, and we're both counting the same deck!! Does counting cards really allow for such a large margin of error? I know in poker the correct play often "depends", but I assumed blackjack was a more exact science.
About money management:
The author provides two systems for varying our bets. Here I will refer to the "aggressive" system, as opposed to the "conservative. The author assumes a $5 minimum table. His bet is the true count times the minimum bet, up to 2% of his bankroll. In my example above, you would bet $10, and I would bet $20. Perhaps this is reasonable, since we both have an advantage. The main point is that we should increase our bet, but how much we increase it by is more subjective.
However, if the count is zero, or negative, the chart says "no play", not $5. (the minimum bet at the table). Perhaps the main question then, is where he plays where he is allowed to only place a bet when the count is favorable. Assuming that the player always places a $5 bet, and increases it with a true count of +2 or more, will this system still show a profit? How unfavorable does the count have to be before the player is better off leaving the table than playing the rest of the shoe? This might even mean going to another casino, since we don't want to be blatant about what we are doing.
Perhaps this post reflects my ingorence (sp?) of blackjack, or some flawed thinking behind the system given on this website. I wrote this hoping that the information I am referring to is accurate, and someone here can help me understand.
Thanks, B$
PS I would have liked to send a copy of this post to the author/webmaster, but there is no contact info, just some banner ads. Should I be suspicious? I guess I was anyway.
I'm going to try to answer some of Big Slick's question but forgive me if I'm not exactly right since I've only read a couple blackjack books and have only counted for about 6 months.
About the count question:
Blackjack is very much like Poker in that it is a long grind for you to make money. Taking your example, the true count could be 2 or 4, it is most important to be consistant, simply because in the long run it will even out. What I mean by that is at times your estimate might be right on, or you might be a little off, but in the long run these little discreptancies will average out. So if you look at it in the long run perspective it doesn't matter if you are completely right or not because sometimes you will be close to the actual true count, sometimes not as close, but it will average out in the long run.
Money Management question: I was surprised about this statement too. I checked out the site and found his email on the "Insurance" page (bmboy888@hotmail.com). So I emailed him to ask. What the author meant by saying "no play" neg. count is that after going through half a shoe and the count is neg. then "no play". Because those particular shoes are simply not for the players, the casino makes big on those shoes. You are better off waiting for a shoe which gives the players the advantage. The author also mentioned a technique called "wonging" where you would go to a casino when there wasn't very much people. Watch a shoe play out till at least half has been played and place a moderate size bet if the count became favourable. Use caution when doing this because many casinos watch out for this, you can't keep on doing it all day to the same casino, they'll catch on.
I personally liked his site and he answered my email pretty quickly. I learned a bit from him, he seems pretty knowledgable.
Hoped this helped you, if not then maybe you can email him directly. His email is on his site (if you still can't find it) bmboy888@hotmail.com
I'm not sure that Wonging means exactly what you describe. However, whatever it means is irrelevant, the concept is important. Try not to play at all when the count is negative.
If the shoe is partially over and negative, sitting back and not playing would cause suspicion. Also, many casinos either don't allow, or closely watch, the play of entering a game mid-shoe by someone who has been observing. So, this is also a potentially bad play to make (I believe that this practice is usually called back-counting a shoe).
I would recommend that you leave a table and move to another table if the count goes negative. Pick a new table that has just started a new shoe, or is about to. Pick up from the beginning of the shoe where the count is neutral. This way, you can significantly increase your earn. Another option is to go to the Men's room when the shoe goes negative. Or, go to the gift shop and buy a candy bar, or whatever else serves as a good, unsuspicious reason to leave for the rest of that shoe.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you are really interested in counting, go to the rge publishing site (search Blakjack Forum) run by Arnold Snyder, and the bj21 site 9search Blackajck Page) run by Stanford Wong. I didn't take the time to visit the site in question, so I am not commenting one way or another regarding its credibility, but both of the sites I have listed have a long list of the best books and counting systems available. Also, there are a number of very knowledgeable players that post on both sites.
To quickly answer your inquiry regarding running count and true count conversions, how accurately you make these conversions makes a helluva difference in what you advantage may be. While it is true that you are only making an estimate, the accuracy of this estimate is vital. A number of authors have pointed out that the best counting system in the world can be undoen by poor or sloppy true count conversions.
Always round DOWN to get the true count. +8 / 3 decks remaining = true count +2. You must accurately estimate decks remaining to within 1/2 deck. Any finer estimate doesn't gain more that .1% Someone estimating 3 decks remaining and someone else estimating 4 is way off. It is either 3, 3 1/2, or 4. Both should agree. Buy some decks of cards and eyeball stacks of cards in 1/2 deck increments until you are accurate. Backcount tables and enter in when true count is +2 or more. Leave the table (bathroom break, go to another table, etc) when the true count is -2. For shoe games I use a 1:12 spread. Less than +1 1 unit , >+1 2 unit, +2 4 unit, +3 6 unit, +4 12 unit. This yields approx $50 per hour with $5 unit at 6 deck, doa, das, s17, rsa, late surr game.
You can put it much simpler by thinking of it this way. Most bankroll methods are optimized for their particular methods. Any time you don't have sufficient bankroll you are running a risk of overbetting and eventually going broke. Wong did a very good analysis of this factor. Now the only thing is this analysis only works if you were to always keep your bankroll fixed at that amount or less where you would take off any winnings and just continue on with any losses. In reality all this talk is oversimplific. Its just like investing in stocks, you should have a bankroll that corresponds with your needs, risk tolerance, and advantage. Its pretty obvious that the more risk you have, the better your potential award. If you always rounded UP, you would probably make more money in this case, but be risking a bankroll loss more. In this example you would be increasing your bets when you have an edge so you would make more total money, but overbetting increases your risk too. Underbetting reduces risk, but reduces total won as well. Money management concerns are rarely best advised on by mathematicians. Basically what should be given is an absolute minimum amount where you should have less than say 10% chance of busting, but then leaving the specific amount to each individual. I say have 50-70 units for sports betting, but that is only so your risk of ruin is extremely low. One could very possibly survive a long time on 30 units, but I wouldn't suggest it unless its a small roll that can easily be replaced.
As for Wonging, that is quite simply wandering the casino and finding positive counts. Its not suggested though for shoe games because it generally takes a few hands before its even possible to have a positive situation. Single decks are the main focus here where after each hand its very likely the deck has gone to a definite edge one way or the other. Also its not necessary to only count from the start of decks. Just count the cards you see and pretend the rest of the cards already dealt don't exist. The theory still remains that the deck is positive for you. In any event, when you count a positive edge you make a bet (or two) and play out that hand. If the count is still positive you stick around for another hand. When they shuffle or the count is neutral or negative you take off. Always playing into positive counts is very effective for small bankrolls. You get in fewer hands but you edge is bigger because you are always playing with the best of it. Wonging used to be very possible but now most casinos won't let you enter mid-sequence unless you are betting small. Further few places have single decks now outside northern Nevada and a few joints in downtown LV.
A trivial clarification:
"Just count the cards you see and pretend the rest of the cards already dealt don't exist."
You don't want to "pretend" those cards don't exist. You simply make your TC adjustments as if those cards were in the dealers hand still to be dealt. The TC is the RC divided by the number of unseen decks. Cards in the discard tray that weren't seen, are no different from the cards remaining to be dealt.
Thanks everyone for your replies. It makes much more sense now.
I also got as far as the blackjack chapter in Getting The Best Of It, and checked out some info at www.thewizardofodds.com. The latter offers some very detailed info, leading me to start a new thread above. I have some questions there that some of you may be able to help me with, and am interested in any other comments you might have.
B$
By all means the simplest way to get all the info and get all that you will need to start on the road to winning is buying one of the three "bibles" of counting. I personally advise on Snyder's "Blackbelt in BJ" which has the red seven count which I have used often to easily beat one deck downtown Vegas games. I never bet big money so heat wasn't much of an issue. This count is by far the easiest to use as an overall program since the indices are much easier than most counting methods. He has other more advanced methods in there too along with a complete review of counting in the current atmosphere. Other good books include stuff written by Schlesinger and Wong, especially Wong's "Professional BJ" an excellent book, but a bit more involved than Snyder's. I fully suggest starting with the red seven because its something you will make fewer mistakes with and really get to see what counting is like. You will see the swings involved and the heat you might face provided you bet quarters and try to get away with much of a spread. In any event counting is really a tough tough way to make money in the casinos. I really don't suggest it for anything other than what Snyder has often proposed, just a recreational activity where you choose to play the game that challenges your intelligence and gives you a slight edge. Playing it for rent money is asking for a whole lot of trouble where you realize being able to count cards is just one of many skills you have to have. Best of luck....
TEAM --------------------GAMES--OVER--PRICE---MY PICK
1)JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS-----11.5---OV (-115) ---UNDER
2)MINNESOTA VIKINGS--------7.5----OV (-110) ---UNDER
3)DENVER BRONCOS------------9.5---OV (-145) ----UNDER
4)GREEN BAY PACKERS---------8.5----(EVEN)----UNDER
5)SAN FRANCISCO 49ers------5.5---OV (105)---UNDER
6)NEW YORK JETS----------8---OV (-110)----NO PICK
7)ATLANTA FALCONS---------7.5----OV (-105)----OVER
8)MIAMI DOLPHINS----------7.5----OV (-125)----UNDER
9)TENNESSEE TITANS--------10.5---OV (105)---OVER
10)PITTSBURGH STEELERS------7.5---OV (-115)----UNDER
11)DALLAS COWBOYS---------7.5----OV (-135)---UNDER
12)TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS--------10.5---OV (105)---UNDER
13)SEATTLE SEAHAWKS-------8.5----OV (115)----OVER
14)BUFFALO BILLS--------8.5----(EVEN)---OVER
15)NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS-------7.5-----OV (-110)---UNDER
16)ARIZONA CARDINALS-------7.5-----OV (115)---OVER
17)KANSAS CITY CHIEFS--------8----(EVEN)---NO PICK
18)NEW YORK GIANTS--------7.5----OV (-105)---UNDER
19)DETROIT LIONS-------6.5-----OV (-155)---OVER
20)BALTIMORE RAVENS-------9-----OV (-130)---UNDER
21)WASHINGTON REDSKINS-------11.5----OV (-110)---UNDER
22)NEW ORLEANS SAINTS--------6.5-----OV (-110)---OVER
23)ST. LOUIS RAMS--------11----OV (115)---UNDER
24)OAKLAND RAIDERS-------9----OV (-110)---UNDER
25)INDIANAPOLIS COLTS--------10.5------OV (110)---OVER
26)SAN DIEGO CHARGERS-------6.5-----OV (105)---OVER
27)CAROLINA PANTHERS------8----(EVEN)--NO PICK
28)CINCINNATI BENGALS-------5.5-----OV (-105)---UNDER
29)CHICAGO BEARS-------8------OV (-135)---UNDER
30)PHILADELPHIA EAGLES-------7.5------OV (125)---OVER
31)CLEVELAND BROWNS-------4.5-----OV (105)---UNDER
I will be in New Orleans over Labor Day weekend and I understand Harrah's has opened downtown. Doe anyone know if they have a poker room and if they do what is the biggest game they have?
Thanks,
Bruce
Harrah's has a nicely set up poker room. They deal low limit (4-8)HE, stud and high Omaha, as well as 10-20 HE and 10-20 Omaha. I think they spread 20-40 HE if there are enough players that want it. They also spread a couple games of 1/2 HE and 1/2 Omaha.
I was just in New Orleans this week and saw no evidence of a poker room.
I was there awhile back and didn't see one either but was assured later on that there is one. It is not out in plain sight, at least where I was walking through.
On a side note, their craps rules are crappy. No pun intended. After getting used to the liberal rules in MS, New Orleans is the pits for craps(ok, pun inteneded that time.)
other than the fact that you are guaranteed to loose every cent you put down the six sided drain, what is wrong with thier craps games?
The story of Computer Group can be read at thedailyspread.com
I heard a rumor that there was a Video Poker scouting page somewhere with contributions from the public, but for the life of me I can't find it. Anyone have an idea?
-Oz-
You can try the vegas progressives list at egroups.com by clicking here.
There is a chance it might be a private list. If this is true, then one must belong the Skip Hughes' VP site by clicking here.
TomSki
NYJ OVER 35.5
WAS-7.5
IND-3.5
STL OVER 41
I just saw this game at Foxwoods this weekend, I've never seen it before. From what I saw of it, player gets a card, dealer gets a card, if player's card is higher, they win. Where is the casino edge in this? I didn't get to watch it very long or see the rules of it. If anyone is familiar with casino war, please enlighten me. Thanks a lot.
JCG
The edge comes into play on ties. I looked at the rules once (as I usually do for any new game, sometimes the casinos screw up), and this is my best recollection.
If you tie, you have an option. You can surrender your bet, or you can double your bet and go to war. When going to war, you basically just deal another high card winner scenario. But, if you go to war and win, you only win a single bet from the house, while you lose your double bet when you lose.
Hey, it's a shitty game, but it's better than chuck-a-luck and the Big Six wheel (and these games are both actually played a lot at Foxwoods, which gives you a clue as to the savvy nature of the customers).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg has it right. What makes this game even worse is the "sleight of hand" the casino uses on ties. When you place a bet at a table game you put the money in the circle. When a tie occurs you put up another bet and the casino puts up a bet from the try so there are now three bets in the betting area. Whoever gets the higher card gets the three bets, so the casino gives the impression that it is "matching" your bet.
Randy Refeld
MIA-3
I would like opinions on Dr Pramod Shankar's "How To Win at Gin Rummy, Playing for Fun and Profit". I'm new to Gin, and the book has improved my game a great deal. Is every piece of advice correct?
Post positions for the Travers will be drawn Thursday morning,and the field is expected to include Albert the Great, Commendable, Country Coast, Curule, Dixie Union, Impeachment, Postponed, and Unshaded
Red Bullet and Graeme Hall have injuries and will not run.
Will stay with Unshaded and try to find 2nd and 3rd out of this mess.
Good Luck Paul
Listen, I don't have the knowledge or talent to handicap football successfully. Is there any honest service who historically actually wins whose advice I can pay a reasonable fee for? I have heard good things about Axcis.com. Anyone else? All comments are greatly appreciated. -Dan
Is spam allowed on the twoplustwo.com posting forums?
A good service just depends on how much you are willing to spend. I have used North Coast quite a bit, but they are probably out of most people's price league. Basically though I have never heard of a good reputable service that won't cost you under a dime. The ones on the net are notorious for being scams or just some amateur that is hoping to get lucky.
Price has nothing to do with quality when it comes to tout services. I know of plenty of good services that charge less than a dime for a football season.
This is not at all an attempt to spam. I promise you that. I am seriously looking for responses concerning reliable honest handicappers. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Dan
SportsMaster from Axcis is not really a tout service, per se. For about $150 a season you get a big weekly download of data, from box scores, to pointspread info, injuries, and some other handicapping aids.
Axcis *does* make available selections from a small coterie of handicappers for an extra fee(s). Michael Gibbons is one of them. He's a pretty good guy.
Dan,
Here's a guy in the Boston Herald who I have been following for a few years and he does well. His service does cost but you can check it out at
http://www.picktowin.com
good luck paul
In my quest for Black Jack info, I came across www.thewizardofodds.com (highly recommended).
Among many other things, he offers basic strategy tables for each of many online blackjack programs. The one I've chosen for my first conquest is Unified Gaming (a.k.a. Perplexa), a software used by many online casinos. They use a single deck, shuffled every hand, heads up against the dealer. Detailed rules, along with a "casino" list are on the site.
According to the wizard, the player has an edge of .57% using basic strategy. He also offers exceptions based on exposed cards, adding .043% player advantage. There are surrender exceptions as well, but he doesn't tell us what they are worth. Add the 10-25% bonus offered on your first deposit by many of these sites, and it sounds like real easy money. (not as good as poker, but variety is the spice of life, and I can drink cocktails here) I can even keep the charts in front of me, so it should be a good way to memorize the basic strategy as I play.
My main concern is bankroll. The bankroll suggestions I have heard are:
1) Have 1000 betting units
2) Never place more than 2% of your bankroll on a single bet
This seems to refer to playing against a shoe, and varying your bets. For example, at a $5 (1 unit)table, one should have a $5k br, and never bet more than $100 (2%, or 20 units) on any one hand, no matter how favorable the count is. Perhaps my interpretation is off.
What about a single deck, with a constant bet? Per $1k br, should I bet $1 a hand (1000 units) or $20 a hand (2%)?
I also wonder if these online games have anything equivelant to being barred. If they know players can have an edge using perfect strategy, and I play with perfect strategy, should I expect trouble?
If there is anything I've overlooked here that you think I should be aware of, please, let me know.
Thanks B$
Since it is shuffled after every hand, counting is useless. If the game rules are such that you actually have an advantage off the top by playing basic strategy, the mathematically optimal way to bet for quickest bankroll growth is to flat bet an amount that is the % of your bankroll equal to your % of advantage. So with a $10,000 bankroll if you flat bet $55 bucks you will have about a 13% chance Risk Of Ruin.
You better watch it Big Slick. I find this claim to be pretty outrageous to tell you the truth, whatever this guy is saying about getting an edge in an online casino. The best games you can find in the land casino world are offered in downtown LV. This game is single deck with dealer hitting soft 17. According to expert charts, this game yields approximately a dead even game at a player disadvantage of -0.17%. Even if the dealer stood on s17 then your edge would be a mere +0.02%. That is obviously a HUGE difference than +0.57%. I really highly doubt any online casino offers rules that make the game beatable by basic strategy as this would invite a lot of play by bots and really astute players. After all if you had a half percent edge on every hand that would be a very good game since you could easily get in 200 hands an hour playing online provided the server was fast and your connection is good. At that rate you should win about 1 bet an hour. Believe me that is not happening. You can gain a slight edge in counting exposed cards if it was a regular game with other players at the table, but with 3 or 4 exposed cards there would be very little change in your strategy except for your play dealing with hard 16 and hard 12. That can't add much edge to your return. As for surrender, its almost worthless in edge to a player except when counting. To the basic strategy player its worth about +0.02%. All my numbers I get from Snyder's book. Read some quality BJ books and in the future you will see how some of these claims are downright impossible.
As for bankroll, 1000 units is awfully high. Most counting systems suggest around 200 big bets and since here you would be flat bettting you would need less. In any case you are not playing into a positive situation really so I would just forget about it. The only way you win here is to be a bonus player and take the free additions to your account, play as long as needed to earn them, then cash and bail. A few casinos also have comp programs, but I know nothing about them. They are probably going to give you just enough to make the game break even provided you like their comps.
In any case, if I remember right you told me you were in AC right Big Slick? That area is a sure grind on any money you put out there so if you really want to play BJ, you would actually do better online with a near breakeven game, but don't expect to earn anything long term on it unless you play the bonus game with a whole bunch of online casinos. After all lets face it the way most people lose gambling even being down a tiny bit over a lifetime would be a huge victory!
Bill! Did you say "...being down a tiny bit over a lifetime would be a huge victory!"?
I'm dissapointed... And thanks for the heads up. Thought I'd give you some more detailed info, and see what you make of it.
These are the rules for the software I was talking about: (from http://www.thewizardofodds.com/game/bsperplexa.html)
Single deck Dealer stands on soft 17 Double on any first two cards Double after a split Resplit once U.S. hole card rule on dealer 10 European hole card rule on dealer ace No drawing to split aces Early surrender against dealer ace! Late surrender on all other dealer cards
and here's the wizard's table of house edge as it varies by software company: (from http://www.thewizardofodds.com/game/onlinecasinoapx.html)
House Edge Unified Gaming -0.57% Starnet +0.56% Microgaming +0.12% Cryptologic +0.49% BossMedia: single player -0.11% BossMedia: multi-player +0.46% Real Time Gaming +0.41%
Any thoughts?
btw, I am in AC. What did you mean by "That area is a sure grind on any money you put out there ..."? Do AC bj rules make the games tougher? Is counting more difficult to pull off here?
B$
Ok, a bunch of things to answer...yes I remember you are in AC and there is almost no way to make money counting there. They cut off 2 to 3 decks and have been known to reshuffle on a bet made by an expected counter. Remember AC cannot bar counters so they just make it impossible to beat their games with any counting. About the only way to beat it I hear is either to play a ridiculous spread risking tens of thousands of dollars to win literally $20/hour or team play. I saw the math on it, something like a 1-40 spread can beat the game for approximately $18.50/hour with a bankroll of $27,000! Not good math can you imagine if the 1 in 200 chance came up and you lost 27 dimes in hunting for less than 20 an hour?? The team play angle could work except they are pretty good at spotting it and/or they just have no mid-shoe entry bets over an arbitrary amount say $25. If you can get away with it team play with a player sitting down only at positive counts is about all you can expect to win with, and you won't get away with much doing that.
As for the game you mentioned, I still doubt its up in the +.57% range. From my math I come up with approximately +.25% which obviously isn't bad. I don't have the calculation for the early surrender against Ace, but I see that only against a 10 its only worth +.19% and you will get far fewer chances to surrender to an A versus a 10. I estimate it at +.08% which might be generous. Also I have no idea how to value the changing hole card rules although the european rule is obviously a negative. Therefore add in the +.14% for DAS and you probably are somewhere between +.2-+.4%. Not exactly something you should get too excited about, but when you add on the bonuses obviously not a bad deal either.
My comment on being a little behind was meant more at the vast majority of people. After all I lose a little gambling on craps, but I don't mind. Its entertainment. Most gambling games to me are challenges to beat. There is little fun in playing poker solidly. There is little fun in playing hours and hours of blackjack trying to win a bet an hour. The only fun is realizing you have beaten the game and even that wears off in time. Gambling to most people is done for fun and enjoyment and I think all of us pros or semi-pros tend to forget that. If you do something for fun and you are slightly down, then no harm done.
wildbill,
Thanks for the info on AC. I won't bother learning to beat a shoe if its really that hard to do here...
I emailed The Wizard, asking him to look at this thread. Here is an excerpt from his reply:
"It is the early surrender against an ace that is of huge value. According to Stanford Wong's Casino Edge software it adds 0.43% to the player's advantage. Early surrender against an ace [I guess he means "a ten" here] only adds 0.19%. His rationale that the ace should be less because there are fewer aces than tens is ridiculous. When the dealer has an ace showing there is roughly a 4/13 chance of blackjack. To get out of the hand before checking is a huge benefit. With a ten showing there is only roughly a 1/13 chance of blackjack.
Any thoughts on this? At least we're all in agreement that the game is beatable... I think I'll give it a whirl, and let you know how it works out. Maybe I'll find time next week.
btw, the remark about being "a little behind" was just poking fun, although the enjoyment of gambling for me definately comes from "getting the best of it". I'm not against spending money for entertainment, but if I know I'm going to come out behind, I'd rather play pinball, or go bowling, or whatever. Not to say that I don't understand the other side... hey, if you play for small stakes, you're craps money may last longer than my bowling money! But once I have a feel for the machine, my pinball money definately lasts longer :)
Big $lick
I really don't know, but think about it how many times does the dealer have A showing and the player have a 16? According to Snyder that is the only time you surrender. Maybe it would change slightly with that surrender rule, but still its not all that common and then you have to consider that when you surrender, its only slightly more advantageous to you. After all you are giving up 50% of your bet and you still could win some hands in that situation. My guess is that surrendering only gives you at most 5% more value over playing the hand out. Take that in consideration with the lack of times the situation will present itself and I am still very skeptical of his figure. After all the best surrender rules in the world are only worth 0.70% to you and they are rules you almost never will see. Taking the most common situations out of surrender, namely the 15 and 16 versus a 10 makes it seem that you will have very little edge left from that perfect world 7 tenths of a percent.
In the end I am sure you will make much more playing poker in the long run. I suppose BJ will just be a diversion if anything. When you are ready to make the real money, get into sports...
MIN+6
CAR+5.5
A little something that I haven't heard anyone else reveal. I guess I am in a good mood giving this one away because this can be quite profitable. Most people will tell you that preseason games are meaningless and you should ignore them come regular season. Why I tend to think this is true for the most part, there is something that is very false about it. Preseason games can actually give you a very nice edge to start out with. Heres how:
First if you can watch the games or get a very detailed writeup story on the games. Figure out when a majority of the first string left the game. If it was early just jot down the 1st quarter total score and multiply it by 4. If it was in the second quarter jot down the halftime total score and multiply by 2. Now on occasion a starter goes longer, but they are often mixed in with guys lower on the depth chart so I never look past halftime. Now figure out for the 4 or 5 games what total score this would yield by adding up each games "adjusted" score and dividing by games played. When done there are two approaches you can take.
First of all if there is a definite skew of lots of scoring (as there has been this preseason) over last years averages, look to bet lots of overs the first 2 or 3 weeks of the NFL season. A few years back I saw lots of unders developing and bet the board under for 3 weeks. My results were 27-16 unders so I won about 10 net units off of it! This year I might consider an over bet on the board pending some last review of the stats. Simply put everyone ignores preseason but it can show some tendencies. Teams that struggle on offense are unlikely to start firing away pointswise. The coaches sense this and are likely to play a more defensive game the first few weeks trying to get the offense on track. Since the coach can't just play the 1st team in preseason, they aren't getting the full motion of practice and game play they get regular season so they are bound to take more time to gel. The opposite goes for teams either giving up a lot of points or scoring them. The coaches know that its going to take time until they can pull out the tight defensive struggles so they will go to the track meet until they can get a solid effort from the defense or they will unload their potent offense on opponents who will be still settling in on the defensive side. You would be amazed how such a simple method gives you a powerful ally. One last thing I also tend to look at is that I will greatly discount this weekend or any last weekend. Fear of injuries permeate the game plans so the tendency is to play very little of the starters unless they really need work. Therefore you get a lot of "bad" matchups with first string QB going against second or third stringers. This is a terrible misstatement for stats because you are getting a bad player or offense racking up good numbers and you know they are bad because the coaches don't have enough faith in them to let them just play a series or two and sit down as common logic would dictate.
If you don't want to bet the board, just take last years average points scored per game for each team and compare it to this years preseason adjusted numbers. Take the top 4 or 5 improvements and bet them over and take the bottom 4 or 5 teams that went down and bet them under. A team could have had an average of 44 a game last year and your adjusted number could say 20 points a game, this happens occasionally. I guarantee this though the opening week the lines will be set reflecting a team that is expected to have 44 points. Here is where you have a nice edge and bet the under. I still though prefer to bet the board just because the board will have a lot of mistakes on it and you can capitalize over a series of bets. Further things tend to come in bunches as the public plays cat and mouse moving the overall totals up and down each week depending on expectations from last year coupled with new results coming in this year. By week 4 its all about this year's results so don't push this method anything past week 3.
Has there been discussion on the special, either on Discovery or TLC, about cheating in Vegas? It covered 21, roulette, craps, etc., but I was specifically very interested in their discussion of Keno. Apparently, a member of the Nevada Gaming Commission went into Atlantic City with a number cruncher on a laptop, watched the Keno board from his room, and was able to successfully predict the outcome of the next Keno game, hitting 8/8 numbers. How can this be if it is a completely random game? Anyone up on this whole story?
For any of you not familiar with it, the only reason he got caught was because his accomplice, who bet the numbers, had them send the winnings up to the room.
thanks,
brad
This sounds wrong.
I've never seen keno in AC, but in LV, the keno numbers are drawn in an analogous manner to the state Lotto drawings you may have seen on TV. They literally have numbered balls that are mechanically mixed and physically selected. As such, the randomness that is introduced into the system is much too great for anyone (including any computer) to predict based upon past results, IMO. Now, if the AC games are done on a computer with a random number generator, and the RNG is faulty (not truly random), then maybe this could be done.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
From Snyder's Blackjack Wisdom, there was a case in Montreal where a math student won I beleive $600k in two days on Keno. Said he used chaos theory to predict the results.
What really happened was a procedural problem with the random number generator, or RNG (kudos to Greg Raymer for his observation). Seems the RNG in the system used to generate the numbers uses an intial value to generate the sequence, and away it goes. Elsewhere, this would not present a problem, as the system isn't turned off; it just chugs away happily for 24 hours a day, churning out ever new sequences of numbers. In the Montreal casino in question, Keno wasn't a 24/7 operation. They turned the machine off daily, and when they turned it back on, it started from the same point, generating the exact same sequence. Seems our bright math student figured this out before the casino did.
People unfamiliar with the casino industry would find it impossible to believe that casino management would be so dull as to not realize this. Based onmy observations, it is very easy to believe.
One other observation -- this could be an urban myth, but Snyder is pretty credible, and I'm fairly confident he would have checked the facts before publishing. But you never know!
The keno scam did involved an electronic keno game. Ron Harris, who worked in the testing lab of the Nevada gaming commission, was the one with the computer in the hotel room. He had knowledge of the workings of the RNG. If given a set of number he could crunch where they were in the string. When found, he then would know what would come up in the next game. He is now serving time in jail.
TomSki
Why is he in jail? All he did was use his knowledge to predict the keno numbers? That does not sound inherently illegal. Or, did he use confidential knowledge gained in his position with the Nevada Gaming Commission in violation of their laws?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
many years ago there was alot of cheating in keno. they used helium in some balls so that they rose up faster and also sometimes they weighted some so they wouldnt show. then inside people came in and won. it happened but ofcourse its only hearsay. two of my good friends long gone now helped get their starts that way.
I forgot to mention that apparently someone cracked an online casino as well, it sounds like the same way... only they took advantage of a random card generator, or something.... anyway, they broke the code and were able to see everyone's cards. The quote/paraphrase from the show was: 'A popular online casino was hit in a similar fashion...'
I checked, and the show was on TLC, and it's called, "the Secret World of Gambling." It focussed on the surveillance equipment, which included searching the casino for certain radio frequencies, and showed what casinos were up against. It showed people cheating blackjack by using a camera under the sleeve, which was wired back to a van, where the tech could see the dealer's down card... no magic there. Then they got into Roulette, where people took pictures of the wheel to predict where the ball would land, and then a team of 5 would post their bets on the board cooresponding with that section of the wheel. they also showed past posting... nothing magical there. Slots were also covered, insiders changing the computer chip, an accomplice hitting, and the chip being changed out before it was discovered.
Then they got into the Keno and online gambling... I didn't understand the connection, but now do.
Anyway, a fascinating piece... someday I'm going to discover a number cruncher that simultaneously predicts the CA lottery, the New York Lotto and Powerball all on the same weekend, without raising suspisions.... it could happen...
brad
Also, was wondering if anyone knew which online casino was compromised...
I can't name the casino because this is private information that I was told about a year ago. It might be another case, but this is what happened at one online casino. I heard that the casino was compromised partially out of stupidity on the part of the guy taking advantage. Turns out the RNG was resetting itself in a "somewhat" predicatable way. Basically it was a lousy program and the reason why the RNG wasn't working properly was because they were using an older program with potential Y2K problems. Their quick Y2K fix caused a very slight programming problem that led to this situation. The Y2K problems were known to some staff members and one of them apparently told his programming friend to investigate it and maybe make something off of it. The friend created a bot to play the free version of the game looking for patterns. Their records turned up players playing under different names, yet the same IP address playing for something like 1700 hours. They didn't think much of it considering it was the free game and who was the nut who would go out of his way to change his name every 10-15 minutes, yet then immediately resume play. The address given during the free registration was bogus it turned out. The "nut" then suddenly stopped playing for awhile, presumably to do the math to see what he found. He re-emerged although from a different IP. The only reason why he was caught was that he once again followed the same pattern, playing endless hours, yet with a twist. He would bet consistently $2 hand and then suddenly for 4 bet sequences bet $300 hand (the table max), then resume play at $2 hand. What an idiot basically was the thinking because he could have slipped under radar quite a long time, but his obvious play cost him because after 4 days, he got cut off because he was winning and management realized something very suspicious was going on. The casino went out and hired a specialist to investigate why this 4 bet sequence was so special. He realized what happened was after a certain series of events which the casino never revealed, a series of 12 cards would come out every time, down to the same suit. The only wildcard so to speak was where the 12 cards would start specifically. It came out that if they started at most times then the cards would yield 4 winners for the bettor. If he knew they would come out in two specific spots, something like starting with the 3 card dealt in a hand, then the house would win 3 of 4 hands. Therefore he did incredible things to get the cards set right. In reviewing the records they realized he one time hit on 18 against a dealer 5. If he busted he would be safe for sure, otherwise if the dealer took 2 cards after his one he would lose his progression of cards in his favor. In this one example he got screwed as he drew a 3 giving him 21 which automatically was a stand on the program, but then the dealer flipped over a 4 and then a 5 and a 10, meaning he lost his progression whereas normal play would have yielded a push on 18 and the situation would have been intact. The casino in question lost over $8000 to the player before figuring it out as he had taken two western union cashouts. My understanding is this casino is still in business today.
The story that went around in Atlantic City (I was living in New Jersey at the time) was that the source code for the computer had a back door. Specific sets of numbers were picked for a sequence of games that would then trigger the RNG to generate the a priori numbers for the win ($250,000). We heard that the perpetrators were in phone contact with one of the programmers. The beat was at Balley's and the newpapers were quite guarded about the details. I knew some of the poker dealers there, but no-one was willing to discuss anything about it. It was mentioned briefly on local TV news.
RFR
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 9:45 p.m.
Posted by: brad (basdel@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: brad (basdel@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: RFR (richr@worldshare.net)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 8:23 p.m.
I've created a computer program that plays blackjack according to a known basic strategy, and tallies the results. What I want to do is modify it to be able to independently generate 'the' basic strategy for itself.
There a couple of ways, but all of them are flawed. Can someone help me?
I could go through each strategy question (eg 2,2 versus a 2) and try each permutation (hit, stand, double, surrender, etc), but the computer can't go on playing the hand past the first card unless it already knows the 'perfect' basic strategy from that point on.
So I've tried generating EVERY possible basic strategy and comparing them all one by one. But I end up with ten to the power 20 different strategies to try, and if I run a million hands for each, it will take years to process.
I have also thought of starting with the known basic strategy, and trying a genetic algorithm (randomly modify it and test the new one against the old one).
How do I do a combinatorial analysis?
What I then want to do is to manually remove cards from the deck and run the basic strategy generator again, for obvious reasons.
Can anyone who's ever compiled a BJ basic strategy help me?
Go to the appropriate Blackjack Mathematics page :
CIN UNDER 39
WAS UNDER 40
BAL+3
TEN-2.5
I know one or two myterious guys in Vegas who bet huge and win year in year out. But for the average joe, can you seriously think you can beat the wig ?
Point - my very good friend is a trader and long time commodities player. He is also a fanatic sports bettor. I have a feel the sports betting along with craps and other games were invented for the self flogging, self destructing person. My friend knows how to make money betting on futures yet he choses sports as if he wants to lose hence be self-destructive. He of course lost a small fortune in Vegas betting lines and other goofy activities, he also a good card counter and plays anything that get his juices flowing. On average he loses except in futures which he plays for the long term.
There is no question sports can be beaten, its just that most people do exactly what your friend do. Just think of all the day traders. They all are convinced that they can beat the game because there are some very big winners, but most turn out to lose. Every successful day trader says its about keeping your cool, having discipline, understanding the market psychology, but most importantly having a sufficient bankroll. I couldn't put it any better for how to beat sports. Very few people approach sports in the right manner to do all this and thats why so few succeed.
Other Gambling Games
August 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo