Do you know if backgammon is still a good game to play for money ? Where do people play this game is the US. I know that there is a tournament circuit but what about clubs etc ? Are the cash games legal ? As you may suspect I like poker but lately I like some diversity and maybe intereted in backgammon to cash.
Pokerbook,
I haven't played much since the early eighties but have tried to keep up with some of the reading (email me if you want the address of Bill Robertie's company for top backgammon books, supplies, and software).
If you want to tune up, download Jellyfish Light 3.5 from http://jelly.effect.no (the web site is in Norway). The free version has no tuturial or roll out capability, but it can play close to world class. There is a slightly more powerful program called Swowie or Snowbie or something like that.
Also check out the rec.gambling.backgammon newsgroup and a web site called gammon.com.
I don't think the money is as good as it used to be but Jellyfish is fun to play while the 2+2 index loads.
Regards,
Rick
I forgot to add some things about "money and backgammon". The guys in my club all seem quite enthralled with the game of chouette (shu-ette). That seems to be where most of the greenbacks are flying when we all get together - the stakes get pretty high. How high? Don't know. Don't play it. For the winner of the bg tournament - you're looking around $75-100 - usually split between 1st and 2nd. 3rd place - the place I seem to come in most frequently, is about $15-20. Maybe to a "shark" this is not enough to play. But personnally, I go to have fun. And, I like the players in the club. It's rarely "only" about money for me. Although winning is nice.
Maybe someone will pick up the thread and better explain chouette? It's backgammon - only a bunch of players against one "in the box" - a whole lotta dice are rolling, and a whole lotta betting is going on. Is this a new game?
"Chouette" is how bg is played at most money clubs. Instead of 2 players playing heads-up, 3 or more can play. One person is the'box' s/he is playing against all others. The other side has a 'captain' who has final say about all checker moves, he can recieve input from other players. The cube is another story. Some chouettes feature seperate cubes, but I think the majority have a 1 cube for all. In those with only 1 cube the captain can double against the wishes of others, but everyone gets to make their own decision if the box doubles them as to whether to taje or not.
There are other rules but this should help you get the hang of it.
Danny S
I've heard you can beat the horses by just studying the tote board. Is this possible. Is it similar to studying the tickertape in the stock market? It doesn't seem feasable to me but anything is possible I guess. Is there any literature on this subject? Is there such a thing as smart money in horse racing and how exactly is it funneled into a race? Early? Late? In the middle? Can you bet money on one horse early and then cancel the ticket and bet something else later? Is this type of manipulation common? Any horse players out there? Thanx.
Hi Tom,
This is good method for betting straight place and show bets. It leaves out the win bet which I am the most interested in. I bet keys and although I have bet some out of the place and show box mainly I bet WXX keys. Any method may win in a particular race or any day. For instance if you just bet numbers anything with a 6 in it for the Triple Crown you would of won a bundle betting say $10 to win. You would of lost $10 on the 6 in the Kentucky Derby, but you would of won on the 16, 6 Preakness, 6 Belmont. Crazy as this may sound it would of made you very rich. To win at gambling there is no way around it you have to do your homework to survive and there is still not guarantee!!!
Gitz
To all those sports and horse players...
Curious about everyone's oppinions about selection services. Are there any services that can show a consistent profit- year in and year out?
Robert Bisogno
Don't know about horse touts, but I have NEVER seen any DOCUMENTED research that proved ANY sports service ever turned a profit for its customers over the course of a season.
How ridiculous for you to think no one ever could make money in a year. A year is such a small sample of results, especially football, that even bad services are by the laws of probability bound to have a profitable year. Someone who picks 45% over 20 years probably will have at one 55% or better season at some time during that time frame. The truth is that there are a few services that do make money, not the ridiculous amounts of money claimed by the scammers, but a decent return just about every year. A few years back I was working year round at sports and decided to give myself a break by just buying a service I got good referrals on for the football season. This allowed me to make a good return on my bankroll during football and freed me up to study more basketball and hockey in season. The service I use isnt cheap, but they have pretty much been between 55-59% over the course of every year. If you aren't playing at least $500/unit with a real bankroll then it would be too expensive, but I can personally say I know consistent winning services exist.
Hi Robert,
The only way I've found to beat the horses at times is by very hard work. I follow the three year olds from January until December. You can do this by internet which is very helpful. They have separate racing forms for the Kentucky Derby Futures Pool 1,2 and 3. I will be going to the Breeders Cup so I will be searching the net for horses that I have not yet heard of. I will probably put in 500-1000 man hours of reading before I get there. I don't waste my time on 2 year old's because a friend of mine that I miss and loved Maxie told me "Any one of them could jump over the fence, but if you want to bet them Gitz bet the long shots."
As far as betting sports I only make about three bets a season. Last year Jacksonville over Carolina. I just look for trends (Jacksonville just lost two in a row) The spread was down because of that and it was in Carolina. If you bet parlays which I did on this particular game I had an AR (action reverse) J&O. I didn't bet the rest of the year on football.
The only service I know on how to win on a regular basis is to get off your butt and create your own service network.
Gitz
A number of offshore books run such specials. I remember one that ran a 5% special last football season, but only on *Tuesday* nights. I'm sure there will be several such books to do something like this again this season. Bettorsworld.com is probably the best place to keep track of such offerings.
I havent lived in Vegas for years, but it was up to last year still in effect that all Hilton properties (including Reno) took action from 8-10pm on Thursday night on all games (I cannot remember, but I think it was sides and totals) at 105-100. There was no limit to them and quite a crowd seemed to develop there. It seemed to me to be a great idea if you run a book since you might draw out some of the smart money early and not get as run over by late money. I currently play with many offshore books and I asked for this same offer and two did offer it to me provided I play $2000 minimum a bet. Thats a little above my play so I can't take advantage of it, but it did give me an idea that the offshore books are in such competition that this might become more prevalent in the near future.
Dr. Toast wrote: I have heard of people who make their living playing video poker? Are these people legit?
Yes on both counts. Some games return over 100% even without a progressive jackpot. Opportunites are not as good as they once were as there are a lot more knowledgeable players around to burn out good plays faster. Lots of the gain is found in promotional add-ons like 2x or 3x slot club points, doubling of certain 4 of a kind payouts, or paying 2x on a 2nd royal if hit within 24 hours. (see my article about this in July 2-16 Poker Digest)
If it was possible to do this, why would the Casino's still offer these games? Is it because only a small amount of people exploit these games?
Yes. Very few do play at good enough to win. The losses of the masses mask the winning of the pro players. But if too many pros gang up on the good machines the casino will be forced to remove them due to losses. This trend has increased as of late.
It seems to me that Casino's wouldn't offer any games that have a pos EV. Anyone know the scoop on Video poker?
Advertising over 100% games can be a big draw. Just as the public has it drilled to them that BJ is beatable and thus a good game, very few take the time to learn how to play well. The best software to learn about all of this is Dean Zamzow's BDPWinPoker. It will let you practice the games, warn when you make an error, and do payback analysis for paytable of your choosing. As a companion program, my VP Strategy Master will print out extremely accurate strategies so you can learn how to play like the pros. Click on the link below for more information. An excellent book on all this is Dan Paymar's "Video Poker Optimum Play" and an good website is Skip Hughes on VP at http://www.vid-poker.com There you can sign up for a free mailing list that is similar to the forum here at two + two except it is all about video poker. It has no spam either. Good Luck, TomSki
Don't forget to mention that playing VP for profit requires quite a large bankroll, not to mention mind-numbing speed. I have never undertook VP for profit, but know of a few people that did it as a hobby. Experts tell you that you need something like $5000 as a bankroll! That alone should chase most people away instantly, after all VP is thought of as a somewhat cheap diversion. Second to get the $10-15 hour expectation requires great speed at playing and making decisions without thinking about them. Sure with experience you get better, but a friend told me that its about 2 years of extensive playing before you get that good, and in the meantime you probably are getting maybe half the EV because you can't go at top speed.
I was just wondering if anyone could tell me if any place in town is offering nickel lines this year? I haven't lived in town for a few years, but last I was there Caesar's had them after Barbary Coast gave up on them.
Consider the following situation:
A betting agency comes out with its opening odds on a sport. You can pretty much assume that these odds are 'correct'.
Lets say the favourite started out at $1.40 Next, the public overbets the underdog In the interest of balancing the book the betting agency raises the return of the favourite, lets say to $1.60
If the price on the favourite was originally correct, would the new return of $1.60 be a good bet?
One would think it would be a good bet, but consider:
The same thing could happen (ie. the favourite opens at $1.40 and moves to $1.60 for example) if someone in the favourites' team was injured at training (especially if a key player was hurt).
What are your thoughts on this?
A famous journalist once said something like
No one’s ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.
Stock market notwithstanding, it’s usually sound advice.
TWIMC,
Over the weekend I went to Foxwoods (FW) on Friday nite to play LLS (Low Limit Stud). I took a break and went over to bet a horse race at RP (Rockingham Park). I was looking for Dodie Duys to see if she had a mount. She did and it was at 6:1 in the 8th race. I bet her to win and she did ending up going off at 7.5:1. I found a program just before the race went off and started figuring how much I was going to lose by not "keying" the race. If anyone would like to help me with this problem let me know because I'm not that great at math.
Background Information:
Where: RP,Sloppy,6horses
Payoffs:17w,6.4p,3.8s/7p,4.2s/5.4s--ex-225.6/tri-1224.2
bets=1-10$ keys vs straight bets
Gitz
Well the Tri Key of Your Horse/Field/Field has 20 combinations (1by5by4) so let's look at 20 $1 bets. An exacta wheel would have 5 combinations, so lets look at the same $20 or 5 $4 bets.
20 $1 Tris would have paid $612.10 5 $4 Exactas $451.20
$20 Win $170.00
Obviously, in this case you lost out by not doing the wheels. However, looking at the place and show pays of the 2nd and 3rd place horse, it is obvious that the favorite (or maybe even the top 2) didn't hit the board. The chances of this happening unless you can call the favorite a chump are pretty slim. On a fast track with 6 horses, I would avoid the exotics and bet the win which has the lower vig. Of course, all pari-mutel situations are unique.
ABBREVIATION LIST FOR THE UNADVANCED
Abbreviation - Full Definition
BB- Big Blind or Big Bet depending on how it is used in sentence. HE- Hold'em. PL- Pot Limit. NL - No Limit. HFAP - Hold'em For Advanced Players. 21C HE - Hold'em For Advanced Players 21st Century Edition 7SFAP - Seven Card Stud For Advanced Players 21C 7S -Seven Card Stud For Advanced Players 21st Century Edition UTG -Under The Gun. AS, KH -Ace of Spades, King of Hearts. K7s -Suited cards. LB -Limper Blind L2 -Limper 3rd IMO -In My Opinion EV -Expected Value (+ or -) OPP Opponent WSOP -World Series Of Poker DP-( ) BTW -By The Way BR -Bank Roll AC -Atlantic City HP -Hollywood Park LL -Lower Limit Games ML -Middle Limit Games HL -High Limit Games SD -Standard Deviation S&M's -Sklansky and Malmuth 2+2 -Publisher's EG -Example TSP-( ) PDF-( ) CP - Card Player AZ - Arizona HTML-( ) UP- ( ) OCC- ( ) SB's - Small Bets LOL -Lots of Luck, Laughing Out Loud, etc MM - Mason Malmuth POV -Point of View CC -Cha-Ching FW -Foxwoods Casino
Thank you for your help
WGAF-paul
when will the abbreviation list for the advanced come out?
when i start talking golf!!!!!!!
If anyone in this forum is looking for another out for sports,E-MAIL me at efo-iii@webtv.net I take action on all the big sports MLB,NBA,NFL,NHL,CBB,CFA,also big fights and big horse races.I have a pretty good setup with happy customers, Im fair and reasonable. Im not out to clean anybody out. With alot of problems going on with offshore I know alot of people like to bet with just a regular book. If your interested let me know. THANKS
A good friend of mine has recently started sportsbetting with a Kelly bankroll. He has offered me to buy in to this bankroll. As his "fee", he will will take 25% of any winning when I "cash out" my bankroll share.
This guy is very serious, and has proved to be a successful gambler before (at poker, and to some extent, black jack). I believe he is a winner, though I am somewhat uncertain.
Personally, I am a little reluctant about the 25%. For one thing, it seems a little weird that I should pay the same percentage regardless of how much I bet, since it is a more or less a total "freeroll" for him.
I will be very interested in comments.
--- lore
Hi Lore,
We have a couple of Kelly's Roast Beef around here and I would love there BR receipts for a year. Since I've been burned more than the "Joan Of Arch". DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THIS PERSON UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW MANY CAVITIES HE HAS IN HIS MOUTH. I left a job because my "FRIEND" offered me a deal to be his partner. He just wanted me to finish out the fall because his son had to go back to school, of course there was nothing in writing because he was a "FRIEND". This isn't the same but I left a good paying job to start a "NEW LIFE" or so I thought as a partner in a business. Take your time on saying YES. If you don't need to form this relationship I wouldn't. Thank you for bringing up an Old Resentment that needed cleansing.
Good Luck With Whatever You Decide
Paul
Thank you for warning me, but in the case, I am not that concerned about these issues.
First of all, I am not investing all my savings. My buying in to his BR would be for a small amount, mostly for fun. I would not even call it an "investment".
Although I gamble mostly for fun, my idea of fun gambling is to try to do it as seriously and skillfully as possible. I know very little about sports betting and staking. I am curious about what would be sensible if I wanted to do it. My initial reaction was that the 25 percent offered is somewhat of a joke.
--- lore
very few are able to win at sports betting. since he is a newcomer to it id book his bets rather than take a piece of his action and certainly wouldnt give him 25%. even the best only work on a couple of % edge over the books and their fluctuations are huge. you could get that deal from true experts with a track record.
The Standard and Poor's 500 Index returned at least 20% every year for the past three years and has a historic rate of return between 12%-15% with a standard deviation that's much lower than sports betting. I suggest you look into index funds (mutual funds that track the performances of the stock indexes). They don't charge that much vig (as little as 1% management fee and 0% share of profits). Obviously, this advice only stands if you haven't done so already.
Besides the points brought up already...dont overlook one important factor here. He has nothing to lose and just might bet your money accordingly. Say he loses a few bets and the bankroll that started at say 30,000 is now down to 15,000. He would have to grind his way back up to make a profit and believe me if he hasnt been a pro at this before he will get desperate in his selection methods. He might chase and try to recoup it by making parlay bets or betting too many games and not practicing the patience required of all winners, figuring if he loses the rest of your roll it doesn't make any difference to him. However, just think: would you want him blowing off 15 thousand because its only half your original investment and its going to take quite a long period of steady winners to get to a point where there is something in it for him? The biggest downfall of the Kelly bankroll system is that if you hit a bad stretch to start out, he will have to win quite a bit more than the standard 53% to just get even. So above all else, you will have to monitor his bets and make sure he doesn't do just this...and then he probably would complain about you meddling in his picks and the whole thing would blow up. Just one of the many pitfalls that could occur.
OK Ray Here You Go You Win!!!
ABBREV. LIST "FORE" THE ADVANCED
Abbreviation == Full Definition
RYP === Randomizing Your Play (pg. 65, 21C7CSFAP)
Paul
Washington state allows anyone to take over the bank after one shoe. This should mean that if you bank the game you should get you pc and make money. But, I have heard a lot of stories around the poker table that many get hurt taking the bank. There are a couple of people I play against with extensive experience in the large California card rooms who say that they often saw people take the bank at say, pai gow, who held large bank rolls and lost. I have always figured banking as a money maker, but maybe like everything associated with gambling, it is not that easy?
Any one have a clue?
Hi, Sam - I have never been in this situation, but I have read about it and thought about it. Blackjack normally has a very high house edge not by the structure of the game but because the players have no idea what they are doing. If you have the opportunity to watch the players before taking the bank, my opinion is that this is like shooting fish in a barrel. If you see some players making expert-like plays, don't take the bank. (An expert-like play here would be if you see someone hit soft 18 against a dealer's 10.) If you see some players standing on 16 against dealer's 7 because they have a hunch, go ahead and risk your bank.
Again, since I have never done this, if there is a house edge to this, similar to the banker's payment in baccarat, then I am not sure of my ground. Know what you are getting in for.
Dick
Great advice. I spent a bunch of time learning blackjack. The true count conversion, what fun. You are absolutely right, just like poker, pick the game you can beat.
When you take the bank, how does the casino make money? Do they charge a commission? If so, how?
I used to live up in the Seattle area and banked the games. It all sounds good, but there are definite problems with it. First the limits are better now, but it used to be $10 bets, now its $25, but its set by you...all you do is state what your max bet is. Everyone at the table chooses their bets, so often you will have $2 or $3 bets that you are booking so even if they are bad players, they are contributing little to your EV. These players might be giving up 4 to 5%, but thats only about 10 cents a hand. The players playing the bigger money generally play much better and I have run into a few card counters that are trying to squeeze a little profit from their play and then make more when they bank. Third problem is the rules. I dont know if they changed recently, but it used to be that BJ paid 2-1, but with dbl only on 10-11. Still that high BJ payoff negated much of the bad play against you.
I made small profits because the house only charged at the time $2/half hour, so as long as you got onto a good table with higher stakes players with some who would pass the bank, you could grind out a decent profit. Remember that much of the time you are playing against someone else who is banking so you have to either accept losing a little bit there by making small minimum bets or employ your counting skills (I usually just kept an Ace count since the BJ was so lucrative). Also these days with house banked BJ now allowed, the player banked games are drying up fast. With poker growing, house banked BJ and other casino games now widely legal, plus lots of new Indian casinos, these player banked BJ games are all but gone anyways.
With a blackjack paying 2-1, I wouldn't want to be the bank. Even with D10-11, the players could easily have a winning game unless there are some other strange rules you haven't mentioned.
I was reading "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Richard A. Epstein. One thing that suprized me was that many mathmaticians have looked at the stock market and have tried to derive fomulas for beating it. I didn't know that the mathmatician, Robert A. Levy, was the first to use "Relative-Strengh" as a way to beat the Random Investor. I also didn't know that the "Random Investor" obtained a median gain of 10%APR over a 35 year peroid. That means that any idiot should at least make money in the Stock Market, and just because you are making a profit on you capital doesn't mean that you are a smart investor.
I find this all very interesting. Is there any other books that explain the formulas that we take for Granted?
Thanks, Chris
Chris,
I'm not sure about what you mean by formula's. There is a book called "Winning On Wall Street" by Dr. Martin Zweig that you might find interesting. I would also look at a couple of books by Victor Sperandio called:
Trader Vic-Methods of a Wall Street Master Trader Vic II : Principles of Professional Speculation.
Sperandeo uses a statistical approach to eveluate his odds of success and risk reward-ratio. Zweig uses an investment model that gives him buy and sell signals. Both of these authors use a top down approach. The approaches involve evaluating overall market conditions first and then evaluating individual stocks. Although the analysis of picking individual stocks is a little weak in both books. There is also some work by various "Quants" (Quantitative Analysis) that enumerate various criteria that make up winning stock selections that beat the market. One auther that comes to mind is, James P. O'Shaughnessy.
Of course you are right about any fool who buys and holds a popular index should do well in the long run. I think the fools provide a great insight into buying stocks as their goal is to beat or tie the averages with your investment which is what most money managers are trying to do. However, I would say that the fools approach is much different than Sperandeo's or Zweig's. In fact I believe that the fools would call each a member of the wise. BTW the fools, O'Shaugnessy, Zweig, and Sperandeo all use relative strength as one of their key selection criteria.
After a fair amount of experience trying many things I have found the fool's approach to be in line with my own observations about market strategy. I like good solid well performing companies who have good relative strength too. I like to stay with them as well. At least I like doing this at the current time given the current business climate. I don't know if anyone can really evaluate the odds of success when buying a particular stock. There are a lot of reasons why I have formed this opinion. One of the major reasons is that I have my doubts about the validity of using historical data to predict future market performance which is an approach that Zweig, Sperandeo, and O'Shaugnessy use. I do think that the better you analyze fundamentals and can imagine the potential of a company and an industry the company competes in, the better you will do. Hope this helps. A couple of friends of mine and I are working on a short term trading approach using statistical data but the only way I have to test it is to use historical data which I am already skeptical of.
Tom Haley
Well don't overlook simple supply and demand leading to positive returns. While many new issues have come online in recent years, the fact remains that an unprecedented amount of money has entered the market in the form of retirement funds, savings plans, corporate investments, foreign money, and of course, just plain ole gambling on the part of many Americans. This money has to chase these limited stocks so the rules of much greater demand than supply has led to this increase. If for whatever reason the money is put somewhere else, or just dries up, then a big correction is at hand and it won't be caused by fundamentals alone and no stock picker will be able to avoid it unless he selects very few stocks and is lucky as well.
Wild Bill,
Point well taken. The sum of what you are saying IMO is that there may be better buying opportunities that become available. The other thing is that I include "business climate" as part of a fundamental analysis. In the 70's there was inflation, 80's disinflation, 90's little inflation and lower interest rates in general, an accomodative Federal govt. for mergers and acquisitions, blah, blah, blah. Were the business climate to change greatly I might be persuaded to sell more readily. Something to keep an eye on is the 2000 elections and what candidates are elected, particulary the presidential candidates.
I base my statement on observing companies whose stock price appreciation has been enormous over a span of 5-10 years. Something like MSFT, CSCO, EMC, AOL, etc. where the fundamentals have been excellent.
Tom Haley
"80's disinflation"? Inflation rates slowly fell for most of the 80's, but it can hardly be argued that much of the marketplace saw anything like deflation in the 80's.
The 90's are another story. While I don't cotton to the interests of farmers, Steve Forbes is making big hay in Iowa by accusing Greenspan of following a deflationary monetary policy vis a vis farm commodities like wheat, etc. And there certainly is some evidence too make the charge stick.
For the first several years of Greenspan's term as Fed head it looked as though he followed a strict price rule, even though he disavowed it. But for the past, oh, 4 years or so, farm prices have been on the decline and Greenspan has seemingly abandoned the goal of price stability, at least in the farming sector. This is probably due to Greenspan's concern(paranoia if you ask me) over what he believes to be an overstimulated stock market. If he lowered rates to keep farm commodities prices stable, the equities markets would skyrocket even further towards insanity, in Alan's opinion.
David,
Perhaps this may be a bit of a surprise to you but I am not a Greenspan guy either. Although I believe that part of his problem is appeasing some of the Fed who want to see more unemployment and less growth in the economy. Yes I believe that interest rates could be lowered. I personally feel that the Fed should not concern themselves with excessive valuations in stocks as a hands off approach is what I prefer. Let the markets decide. No doubt many farmers are hurting and you are correct in identifying the deflation in the grain prices especially. I know the simplistic ideas behind the following but I have often found it to be a little maddening to read and/or hear economists, fed watchers, and fed memebers themselves saying that full employment and a solid growing economy are not desirable and worry about it when it happens as it is now.
Tom Haley
Maybe its time to start a forum on stocks since that is the biggest form of gambling by far. Seems like the craze has gone too far when offshore books are taking bets on stocks and the markets when one can do that through more ordinary channels. Seems to me that points out that it will attract those who either are betting small or those that are too confused or dont really understand the market, yet want in on the gamble. As far as my opinion on it, why does anyone really care exactly how Greenspan does it? If you think he has a bias and want to make money off it, then exploit it! When it comes down to it he doesnt really care what the farmers or politicians think of him...he does the job that he feels it is his obligation to do. That is the power of the Fed and the Fed Chairman. He has no real constituency to please, and doesn't make moves for political or populist reasons. If he bowed to the pressures people put on him, then he wouldn't be doing his job and I then would say he should step down. Markets are supposed to be free of such types of criticism because despite what people think about it and its effect on everyone's lives its just coldly based on money movements and supply and demand above all else.
I wasn't looking so much to bash Greenspan as to point out that I couldn't remember any signs of deflation in the 80's, just in the '90s.
A friend of mine went down to FW to play the 25c slots. In the course of 8hrs he hit 7SF(straight flushes) and 2FOK (5 of a kinds). He ended up winning a grand for the day. He plays 5 quarters at a time. He has a method for which machine he chooses, the parameters are longer than I care to go into. This story is unbelievable to me because I can't stand slots, but he loves them and he seems to do alright. I quess if you have the right attitude towards them you have a better chance than I do which is NIL. I don't know if anyone plays slots, but this story is amazing to me just because of my distaste for them.
Paul
Your friend was actually playing video poker and not slots. A big difference. People can actually make a living playing video poker as some machines do pay over 100%. But most opportunities are only in the $6 to $15 per hour range. Some newer type slots have a wongable feature that make them worth well over 100% for short periods of time. Lots of grifters have played this angle, but the opportunites here have been dying out as well. An excellent site for video poker information is Skip Hughes' page. Click on the link below. Good Luck. TomSki
Your friend had a fortunate run. The video poker machines at Foxwoods have about 90% payback. There are no 100%+ machines, with or without time compensations.
I'll bet 5 quarters that the machines pay back WAY more than 90%, with perfect play. Even the bad machines in most casinos pay back in the range of 95% and I'm reasonably sure that you can find better than that at FW.
Danny S
The payoff tables are so drastically reduced as to make them not even worth considering. This was not the case when the casino first opened. Then you could find some reasonable machines (but still not 100%+). For example, the old standby Jacks or Better machines used to have payouts ranging from 6 through 8 for the full houses when Foxwoods first opened. There are no more 8-pay machines, they were phased out over the next four years (and you would need 9-pay to approach 100% payback anyway). Recently I have walked past some with 8-pay returned to the full houses, but only offer 1-pay for anything from pair of jacks through two pairs. Since the machine should 2-pay for any two pairs, this seems to be an even greater rip-off than before. Dan, you need to understand that the Mashantucket Pequots don't have to promote reasonable payback video machines, since they are not hurting for business. The place is packed every weekend despite one of the worst rip-offs around. Now this may have something to do with the deal the tribe made with the state of Connecticut, as it involves a percentage of slot-only revenue - but that would only be speculation on my part. Dan, bring those five quarters for me when you're up in this neck of the woods. I believe you'll find the other video games (Deuces Wild, Bonus Poker, etc.) have payback tables worse than you are imagining as well.
(1) How does the casino make money on this game?
(2) Is there an official name for this game?
(3) Are the complete rules posted anywhere on the net?
I was once skeptical about the prospect of finding money-making opportunities in new table games. It seemed to me that they would have to go through extensive testing and simulations before a casino would offer them. (In Atlantic City, they introduce a new table game about every five years.) However, that's not always the case, and errors in the game design or administration (they let you see cards that you shouldn't or they deal down far enough that favorable situations occur) create the possibility for huge advantages when games just open. (c.f. The Stanford Wong sic bo story) For instance, when one casino has a trial run of a new game, another casino might copy it with a mistake in the rules or payout table that gives a tremendous advantage to those in the know. When Let-It-Ride came out, I tried to see if it could be beaten, and of course I found a 3% house advantage with perfect play. The less regulated your local casino is, the more likely that you will be able to find and take advantage of a casino mistake. (The Atlantic City Casino Control Commission is notorious for rarely allowing new games and rule variations; many new games actually start in small tribal casinos and then move to Vegas, Foxwoods and AC.)
This happends to be a private game with no rake!
I've never seen or heard of this game so I have no idea about whether or not the game is 'fair', meaning whether or not it has any built-in advantage for player or dealer. I'm pretty sure however that there would not be a betting scheme that could change things. If you must bet before there is any 'action', then I don't see any way to change the expectation. There doesn't seem to be any strategy to it, so I'd just figure out if there was any advantage to either the player or dealer, seems to me to be the only chance, and it's probably a 'fair' game, otherwise, I wouldn't think there would be that many people playing, but then again I see full crap tables all the time, so you never know.
One question? What happens if you roll a 4-4-6 and your point is six. How does the dealer or player win? If the point is 4 then the player has to roll a 5 or 6 to win, right?
Right, If you roll a 4-4-6 you beat the dealer if his point is a 4
I'm not sure that I understand the rules completely, so I can't comment on who has the edge, player or banker.
However, given that once you place your bet there's nothing you can do but get lucky or unlucky, varying your bets won't help.
Now, let's assume that the banker has a built-in edge. What you could do is to bet the minimum as a player, and then make sure as banker that you always have enough to cover all bets. This way, you'll get to be the banker as often as anyone else, and be winning against large and small bets. While playing, you'll only be losing with small bets. If you get somone who's better than me at the statistical stuff, you might be surprised how big your bankroll has to be to play this game safely (unless the banker has a massive edge, in which case you won't need quite as much).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
with the standard rules in 456 the banker has about 2% edge as dave w says. you will have huge swings in a game that goes slow as everyone takes their time. only betting with the bank is smart for a large amount. some games other people can put in with the banker to cover big bets. its all for naught though cause most times if the game has alot of money involved it gets robbed or becomes crooked and the money goes away from you. there is no betting system that can change your expectation in a fixed % game of chance. if there was there would currently be no money left in the world.
I ran the calculated probabilities for 4-5-6 through my risk of ruin spreadsheet, and I may have slightly underestimated the required bankroll, depending on your tolerance for risk.
If you could face nothing but $100 bets as the banker, then:
With a $1000 bankroll, you would have a 60% chance of winning $1000 before losing $1000. The chance of ever losing your initial bankroll if you play forever is just under 66%. The expected number of decisions (not counting pushes) before you either win or lose $1000 is 98.6.
With a $5000 bankroll, you would have a 89% chance of winning $5000 before losing $5000. The chance of ever losing your initial bankroll if you play forever is 12.3%. The expected number of decisions (not counting pushes) before you either win or lose $5000 is 1864.
With a $7000 bankroll, you would have a 95% chance of winning $7000 before losing $7000. The chance of ever losing your initial bankroll if you play forever is 5.3%. The expected number of decisions (not counting pushes) before you either win or lose $7000 is 3006.
With a $10,000 bankroll, you would have a 98.5% chance of winning $10,000 before losing $10,000. The chance of ever losing your initial bankroll if you play forever is 1.5%. The expected number of decisions (not counting pushes) before you either win or lose $10,000 is 4635.
In real life, you will face a mixture of different bet sizes as banker. If you face different bet sizes with a $100 max, your chances of surviving with a given bankroll would be better than the above calculation would indicate. However, you then have to reduce your chances to account for the losses you take on your waiting bets as the player waiting to bank. As Ray Zee pointed out, you also need to worry about being cheated or robbed in a private game. So the preceding bankroll and probability calculations should be used as a starting point from which you then apply judgement to determine whether to play and how much bankroll you need, not as the final word. Your individual mileage may vary (and probably will).
Hey why don't you guys publish a serious sports betting book? You cover every facet of poker with your great books, but you don't give sports anything more than a short review in a few of David's books. Why is that? I had a few people say I should write a book on the subject so sure enough I finally finished this project, a 156-page manuscript that took a different approach than what I found in GBC. It covers much material I havent seen in print...especially in that I don't give mind numbing examples of how I handicapped this particular game or what have you. I gave it to a few people I respect in the gaming community and they all gave it a thumbs up, but I sent it to a few publishing concerns and they all pretty much trashed it. Give us something that goes point by point on how to pick bets is what I heard. Arent there enough books or touts out there for that? Guess thats all you book publishers want is something for lazy bettors? I really don't care anymore if anyone wants my book, I just want someone to fill the void and write something us more successful players can use to improve our thought processes and skills, much like your books do for successful poker players. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't quite understand this post. First in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING and GETTING THE BEST OF IT we do have discussions of sports betting. Second, even though other publishers have looked at your book we have not. You can send it to us for review. If it is really outstanding, then we might be interested in publishing it. But we do turn down many books.
While I know nothing of Wild Bill's prospective tome, I too would like to see more sports-related material from 2+2.
I'd guess that there are a couple of problems with publishing a volume on sports-betting. First, as a group, I believe great poker players(and therefore potential poker authors) tend to be smarter than great sports bettors, which means there is a larger talent pool from which to draw.
Second, any *detailed* explanation of how to exploit holes in betting lines will almost certainly will cause the markets to react. This ability to react is clouded by various factors in certain sports, but is quite real.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that 2+2 has not yet published any books on the securities markets.
Well I think I disagree with the idea that sports bettors are not as smart as poker players. If it didnt require as much skill as it did, sports betting would be run over by pros and as the 2+2 book does point out, sports is the best game of them all because the sky is the limit. You really can bet bigger and bigger amounts and the edge is about the same. Sports bettors need to master quite a few skills to be successful, and in reality few of them are what most people would think. I just spotted a good series of articles on Vegas Insider about being a successful bettor by Dave Malinsky and it goes along the same line as what I chose to write about. It points out that most people bet only with one edge, either a perceived numbers edge, a perceived matchup edge, or even a perceived psychological edge and they make that a reason to bet a game. The successful will look at all 3 and then make a judgement as to if the number is a fair reflection of all those inputs. I know the very best poker players are master of many disciplines, being that they are aggressive, they are patient, they know their numbers, etc...but some players I know dont really master any more than one or two and still are winners because they do that one skill very well and stay at the lower spectrum of limits. I think in the general mass of poker players against sports players, yes the poker players are in general smarter, but if you look at the solid consistent winners in each field only, the sports bettors are on average much more knowledgeable and have the higher level of intelligence.
the best and most sucessful sports bettors are champion poker players or started out playing poker. im talking about those that have made many millions.
Are you sure about that Ray? One particular person I know that has made millions betting sports shows up and probably plays against the 2+2 crowd in Bellagio. Last I heard he complained about how there was so much action at 15-30, but when he played 60-120 or 100-200 it was steal the blinds or try to rob the live one(he admitted that was him). He told me that half the people at the big game were always talking about sports and who they bet that night. Someone once asked him if he bet sports and he held in his laughter. He responded, "occasionally" to which someone who knew him better said, "what do you mean by that? you mean you occasionally take a day off and don't bet?". Granted I know of many successful poker pros that are in the sports betting game, but my estimation is that a great many of them are losers who steam off their money by betting thousands a game on something they don't really understand. I guess its usually true, the gambling pros should stick to what they know best...
While I do believe that the best poker brains as a group than the top sport betting brains, I must say I'm curious to know *why* so many good poker players are also good sports bettors.
It is my impression that successful poker-sports crossovers employ keen albeit subjective judgement to sports. While a top poker player must have a rigourous grounding in specific mathematical & logical concepts(as well as a good "intuition") I don't sense that winning crossover types(as a group) spend a lot of time in front of their computers developing similar methodologies for sports.
Am I way off base here, Ray?
Dave,
i think the best poker players and the best sports bettors tend to have great minds, like to take gambles,and enjoy the social aspects of it. this makes a crossover as you say and its logical that one might take up the other and get good at it.many of the big sports bettors may hang around the casinos so to kill time poker is there and also the people they like to talk to are also playing poker. the big bettors tend to have others do their computer work and they use their own judgement from that point on. id like to add that the majority of top poker players that bet sports also blow all their dough at it. its a small few that can do both at a profit. since there is so much more to be made at sports most winners soon give up most poker to bet just sports. then geet burned out on the sports and return to poker at some stage.
If anyone owns Jacob Kanzen's 'gamblers luck' roulette system, please email me
Thanks
if you are looking for the book as a collector good luck. if you think you can beat roulette without cheating, really good luck and it will be too bad we lose you as a poster till you can get your computer of of the pawn shop.
I don't know "Jacob Kanzen" from a hole in the wall, but roulette and other supposedly "unbeatable" games have been shown to be quite winnable.
Check out
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/greenbaize21/
for more info. And no, I'm not affiliated with the material contained therein in any way. Wish I was.......
i stand by my statements and will back it with a million dollars cash if anyone can prove mathematically or can prove it with a computer sim and show a positive expectation. but why bother with me as you could win much more at the casinos of the world.
Ed Thorp and Claude Shannon did a lot of work on Roulette back in the 60's. They developed the original computer to exploit tilted wheels and regular, non-biased wheels. While not definitely excluding the possibility that someone without a computer could manage to gain an edge over the house, they felt that it would be a near impossibility.
There are biased roulette wheels kicking around which would be exploitable if you discovered the bias, but it requires a LOT of trials to properly 'clock' a wheel, and you'll find yourself clocking a lot of non-biased wheels. And when you finally find one with a bias, you may find that you get very little time to place bets before management catches on and repairs the wheel.
Still, it's an interesting question, because there is nothing in theory that says a human being couldn't beat the wheel. The question is whether anyone is good enough to be able to calculate the velocities in his head and come up with a landing zone. Computers can do it, and Thorp reported a 44% edge with his roulette computer, but the timing issues require millisecond accuracy, and the amount of data that has to be correlated is huge. It makes counting at blackjack look like a kid's game.
in the past and some present millions and more have been won beating biased wheels with a computer. in nevada and some states its considered a felony to use one. oversees it may be worse. its considered cheating by the casinos. its a gross miscarriage of justice that nevada lets the casinos make the laws for their benefit.
Yeah. I've been thinking about an interesting 'grey area' though... Using a computer to collect data from the wheel, without ever placing a bet. Then taking the data home and setting up an accurate simulation to practice on until you can do it *without the computer.
Would any laws be broken? I'm not using the computer to place bets, and when I finally put bets down, there would be no computer.
Still, after reviewing Thorp and Shannon's data, I have to say that it might be impossible for a human to attain the accuracy required.
I have in the past attained a modicum of success at timing with my eyeballs various types of "wheels" that one finds at Vegas Night" affairs. It's a lot of fun because it can still be done while consuming large quantities of jello shots. But I haven't attempted anything of the sort inside a real casino, much less with a roulette wheel.
Ray, your off-the-cuff dismissal of the subject was uncalled for. Have my postings indicated to you that I have no more gaming knowledge than that contained in John Patrick's books? I'm well aware of what an independent trials process is.
sorry
i didnt intend to imply anything about your knowledge.
Some of the angles gbv talks about are valid but I wouldn't say you are winning "the game". For instance talking somebody into letting you take one of the positive expectation bets after they have paid the price up front is about beating people. The angles are interesting to think about but I'm not sure I'd go out trying to hustle one up.
That's a bit unfair; most of GBV's stuff does not involve such social engineering.
The baccarat stuff doesn't AFAIK and appears to be reasonable. The sampling of the otehr essays on his site that I've done does appear to be a bit heavy on what you call "social engineering". I would encourage anybody who is interested in gambling games in general to read GBV's essays for themselves. Don't just assume he is your typical craps system selling fool.
"I don't know "Jacob Kanzen" from a hole in the wall, but roulette and other supposedly "unbeatable" games have been shown to be quite winnable."
There is a big difference between table games that are inherently beatable (blackjack, certain video poker machines) and games that are only beatable when there is a flaw in their design, administration or equipment (Sic Bo, roulette, Let-It-Ride). And many of the "beatable" games are often not beatable for enough to make them worthwhile; many blackjack games have only a tiny player edge even for the expert counter and that's if you can get away with the necessary bet spread. I highly doubt that any roulette wheels in U.S. casinos have biases sufficient to give a player the advantage.
I would not rule out the possibility that some new game just introduced in a small casino in a state that just legalized gambling would have a potential large player advantage before it disappears (Atlantic City requires extensive testing before games are introduced and I presume Vegas does also), that a casino copying a popular game like "Carribean Stud" might make a mistake in the rules that might make it profitable, or that there are still biased wheels in operation somewhere in the world.
You don't necessarily need a biased wheel to beat roulette. If you are accurate enough in timing the velocity of the ball and wheel, you can predict the ball's resting place with enough accuracy to gain a 44% edge using a computer (according to Thorp). Of course, using a computer is a felony. But if a computer can do it, perhaps a human can do it without a computer. There's nothing in the theory that makes this impossible. The question is whether or not someone can be trained to do it, or whether the measurements required are outside the limits of human ability.
But humans are capable of some pretty amazing precision. I once calculated the accuracy required for a pool player to shoot a cueball from the headstring, hit a ball sitting on the foot spot, and sink it in a corner pocket. The accuracy required was simply astounding, and yet pros can make these 'spot shots' over and over again all day long.
Blackjack interests me. To me it's intriguing because it's the one casino game that a player can get an edge over the house. I've considered playing blackjack for financial gain, but after a few months of studying it I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth it.
It seems to me that the attainable edge in 21 is so small (roughly 1% in actual practice) that it's difficult to make any significant money in the game. Plus, the bankroll you need to support this slow grind is enormous in comparison to the money that you expect to make. Add that to the fact that counting cards is difficult and mentally intense. Now you're in a position that if you make 1 or 2 mistakes an hour (which I'm sure is quite easy) you don't get paid that day, week, year, or however long you continue to play anything less than a perfect game. Bytheway, I haven't even gotten into finding a good game.
There's no doubt in my mind that blackjack is not an easy game to beat. For me blackjack has become more of an academic interest than a viable source of income. Any comments?
Kam,
1 or 2 mistakes an hour shouldnt be made if you play well. also a mistake usually only costs a small fraction of a bet. if you make mistakes that cost more you dont understand the game. a 1% edge should make you a very wealthy person after a number of years. finding good games is hard but so is finding money in the street(a good analogy). counting cards is easy once you learn and practice. however most good bj players turn to poker at some time as its more fun. a person smart enough to use a computer and put a post on the correct forum should be able to win at bj. good luck.
I've studied and learned the "industry standard"--the hi-lo count. Recently I've heard good things about Arnold Snyder's Zen Count. So here's something to think about. Do you think it's worth it to take the effort to switch to Snyder's level 2 Zen Count? According to Arnold himself, the count should tack on another 0.1% to your advantage in multi-deck games. How significant is this? How difficult to learn is it?
Well first of all I dont think its 0.1% you gain, its much more, something like 0.4%. Still though as Arnold will tell you, if you are having problems making instant decisions then dont do it. It all depends on your ability to grasp the higher degree of counts and the extra decisions that you have to know. If you can't handle it then you shouldn't move up to it because the hi-lo or even Arnold's red seven count should be profitable enough in themselves. The extra percentages only matter once you are a solid winning player with the ability to avoid detection. Also remember that it depends greatly on which type of game you will play. A player who plays mostly single deck is best served by a system that is strong in playing decisions while a multi-deck player needs a strong system in betting strategy.
Unless you are in a deeply dealt game, stick to the simple high-low. This is especially true if you are playing shoe games.
I do know that many professional gamblers are beating baccarat for large amounts and that exploitable games abound.
I don't know if there is any publicly available information that would enable a player to beat baccarat.
I have used 1-level counts in blackjack, but I have no experience with shuffle tracking or other more obscure strategies.
So would you recommend "Baccarat for the Clueless"?
Oh boy...wonder how many people will jump on this one! Beatable Baccarat games abound? Where do people come up with these ideas??? Well I do have to say I met the writer of one of the books on the game out there, not this particular one though, and he will even admit his goal is to lessen the house edge. We can all argue with him that its not possible, but even he, the writer of a how to do it book, said the game gives the gambler no edge! One interesting story I have heard, and I in no way will vouch if its true or not, involved one counting system of baccarat that went along the lines of those studied by Uston and other BJ players. As many know, there are a very few circumstances where if you count the shoe you can get a profitable bet in at the end. The counting is rather tedious because according to someone who did it, the advantage only comes up about every 3 shoes and even then its about .2% at best, usually something closer to .1%. Anyways they were involved with a extremely wealthy man from Hong Kong who would gamble $15,000 on some of his bets and they talked him into a deal. Of course, being Chinese he could pass along his superstitious act well and the floor never would have noticed. The people I knew taught this one Chinese man unrelated to the big bettor but passed off as his son to count the shoe as mentioned and of course he would do some what appeared pattern creation as people in that game do just to make it all look normal. Well this player counted not only the values, he counted actual number of cards and estimated the end of the deck as they would deal it. When it got close, he would give a signal to his "father" to bet big, REALLY BIG! The "father" would then push out a huge bet...often $50,000 and talk about how he was feeling lucky at the end of this shoe. What actually was happening was these "investors" were putting up the money and settling with the bettor and giving him 2% of any wins they might have had. Their counter was part of the group so he kept an eye on the money. Well it all worked somewhat. The bankroll they kept was supposedly huge because they had 25 people chipping into the fund. The thing is that they really must have given these people a story because even at .2% edge, one $35,000 bet give an EV of $70/hand! Can you imagine the swings they must have had? Well supposedly the gig went well for over a year and they won a little more than expected, but the investors got restless at putting up five or six figures and gettting their share of the winnings in $20 bills, so it finally broke up. The counter happens to be a good friend of mine who now sticks to poker in CA...
Oh boy...wonder how many people will jump on this one! Beatable Baccarat games abound? Where do people come up with these ideas??? Well I do have to say I met the writer of one of the books on the game out there, not this particular one though, and he will even admit his goal is to lessen the house edge. We can all argue with him that its not possible, but even he, the writer of a how to do it book, said the game gives the gambler no edge!
I don't agree with that at all. I would not play baccarat unless I could win money at it, or more correctly, obtain positive expected value.
Card-counting at baccarat can certainly give you a very respectable edge, and to some extent this can be demonstrated without the aid of a computer. Try playing baccarat with a deck stripped of odd cards. You will see the tie has a huge advantage (40%). That sort of opportunity does not occur that often, but if you add up all the possible favourable opportunities and the expected gain from each you will see it can be very attractive. I once played a hand when I knew the remaining cards consisted of nothing but fives and tens, which gives me a 400% edge!
Your story is fascinating. My guess is that the story has truth in it, because the details highly approximate the neccessary ingredients of a successful baccarat coup. In particular the fact you mention each individual card was recorded, and the massive fluctuations involved. I would be very interested in contacting your source if that would at all be possible. I would also like to archive it on my website, again with you assent.
With combinatorial analysis the gain from betting ties deep in the deck is much higher than .2%, in fact in the deepest-dealt games you can win one and a half times your bankroll every hundred hands!
It's an excellent book. It basically covers everything you need to know about baccarat, and I happen to know that the author is rock solid when it comes to theory and mathematics. You won't find any snake oil there, and it's a great read.
Whether you'll make money at the baccarat tables is another matter. Beatable baccarat games aren't common, but the book covers most of the ways that baccarat can possibly be beaten.
I would also recommend LYLE STUART ON BACCARAT.He gives some pretty good insights on the game.The most profound of which is tha he has lost more money at baccarat than he won.
John May(known as Green Baize Vampire to many) is not of the same ilk with the likes of Lyle Stuart, John Patrick, et al.
For proof, check out his homepage:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/greenbaize21/
TWIMC,
Before I go broke and I cannot afford to be on this forum, I have decided to forgo my experiment with this method of key betting. My conclusion is that it is a situational bet that will work on an offtrack, stakes race, or a race where you know the winner but don't have a clue which horse will come in 2nd or 3rd. You still have to pick the winner of the race and without odds posted for Tri's your risking 20 to 40 wrong bets or more. This may be for the future when odds are given out for tri's as they are given out for ex, str bets, dd, q's, etc. So I'm back to RMB and having better luck.
Paul
Well I have received quite a few interested replies to my posting about what I wrote about sports. To give anyone who wants to read a few essays from it, I will send out an email in the next couple of days with 2 or 3 essays in it. One is very pertinent as it covers baseball, one about money management, and one that I am not sure about yet regarding football. So those that havent sent an email, just send me a request and you will be included on the list.
Just thought as an addition to the earlier comments made by Ray Zee about poker players being the big sports bettors. I just talked to a friend of mine, a professional sports bettor, who told me about what some big poker players were up to. He mentioned to me all the talk in town about the poker players running over the sports books in baseball this year and said the whole thing started a few months ago when a fellow pro casually mentioned to one of the players about how much a play he was getting down and how he was doing for the year. Well the poker player was in shock...he said what you play a game isn't much of a buy in for a high limit poker game! The poker player offered to buy his services for a very generous price, adding that if he was anything close to good. He refused to take it because he knew that the poker players would want to get in first at the board prices and he would only get in at the adjusted price and their pay wasn't as much as he expected to earn. Anyways he heard about what the poker players were up to with their betting around town and sure enough after talking to a few other players, the word was going around that the poker players were buying their picks just as insurance! Seems the grand idea of the poker players wasn't even to pick the games, but they would go out and try to move the lines and middle the books since Nevada books have become so gun-shy these days often moving the lines almost the instant any money comes in from anyone but a known sucker. Well it didnt work at first because the books didn't really respect the poker players money with big line moves so they weren't able to middle much. However, the poker players were winning big without the middles as their tout had gone on a tear so they just rode out the streak and gave up on the idea of middling. After cashing in large amounts of wagers, they began to go cold just a bit and then gave up the whole experiment. If you read Stephen Nover's column about this the books say the poker players like to come and go as they go hot and cold...well in this case it was they made a whole lot more than they expected and cashed out their winnings.
The Tulalip Casino in Marysville, Wa. where I play regularly is starting a tournament series that will qualify and pay for 3 people to play in the WOSP! It will run 30 weeks starting Aug. 3rd , It's a $20 buy in no re-buys gets T-1500. The top 2 finishers of each weekly tourney will get a birth into the championship round. The championship round will be in early Feb. There will be 60 seats open, but if you place 1st or 2nd more than once, you own the empty seats. You can sell them or not use them. The winner of the championship tourney gets a free ride at the WOSP, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $4000.00 cash. Second Place gets ½ the entry fee paid, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $2000.00 Cash 3rd place gets 1/3 of the entry fee paid, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $1000 cash.
For More Info call 360-651-1111
Walleye
Does anyone actually have kanzens roulette system? (www.kanzen.com)
If so please email me.
Thanks
I had a look at his web page, and it's complete snake oil. According to the web page, his 'system' is based on knowing when to quit, riding your 'luck', etc. Complete garbage. And, he promises a 10-unit per session win rate (with a session lasting 20 minutes). All this with a bankroll of 20 units.
My prediction is that if you lay out the $35 for this system, you're just going to get some complicated mumbo-jumbo about watching for your 10-unit 'streak' and then quitting at the end of it, or something like that.
Other Gambling Games
July 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo