Printable View
I wanted to find the exact reference but I couldn't but the point about "free odds" not being really free is summed up in this paragraph on Wikipedia:
The only exception is the "odds" bet that the player is allowed to make after a point is established on a pass/come don't pass/don't come bet (the odds portion of the bet has a long-term expected value of 0). However, this "free odds" bet cannot be made independently, so the expected value of the entire bet, including odds, is still negative.
If I recall right, In Exhibit CAA, even James Grosjean advises against making the odds bet. I'll recheck that soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
“The expected value of the entire bet is still negative.”
Alan loses every year.
The odds bet is good on the numbers more likely to hit which are 6 and 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbIf I recall right, In Exhibit CAA, even James Grosjean advises against making the odds bet. I'll recheck that soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm amazed by one player at Red Rock who comes to the tables with about five thousand per visit. Red Rock has 10X odds. He will make a $100 passline bet and regardless of the point established by the shooter he always makes a $1000 odds bet.
He always leaves busted. But if he limited his odds on the outside numbers (4, 5, 9, 10) I think he'd have better results.
Ironically if he used some of his money placing 6 and 8 I know he'd do better. Shooters have thrown multiple sixes and eights without making a pass.
I think players get suckered by the phrase "the odds have no house advantage."
If I had a choice of either just a pass/don't bet or just being able to bet odds, I'll take odds all day. But since they're tied together, I'll just pass, pardon the pun, on both.
Let’s follow Alan’s voodoo craps strategy. His VP special plays work so well, I just can’t wait to see him show us how to play baccarat.
It's funny: Alan has "special plays". Singer has "special plays". In both cases, these "special plays" go against the mathematics of optimal play. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
To Alan's credit he doesn't claim the "special plays" makes him a winning player. But Singer does. Somehow in Singer's case the "special plays" acts as a magic wand, changing reality. :rolleyes:
I have known that member Arcimede$ pretty clearly exposed Singer, before I came on board here, but I never bothered to go back and read some of it until today. Arcimede$ ran simulations, that definitively disprove Singer's claims, and definitively prove Singer's play is not only negative EV but very sub-optimal.
I sort of wish I had read Arcimede$ posts before I ever interacted with Singer. There would have been no need for me to have ever even responded to Singer or his ridiculous claims. It has been proven beyond contestation, except by Singer and a few other characters that seem to reside outside of reality.
Start at the 24:00 MarkQuote:
Originally Posted by MosesI suppose the next thing you are going to tell me Maiden races are for horses that have not yet been poodled. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Or Just buy the DVD or watch the Free Youtube Movie
---------------------------------------------
My new life didn't sit well with Jan. She was used to her four fucks a day and also used to seeing me poor and humble.
Jan: Mr. Horseplayer. Mr. Big Horseplayer...
Don't give me any shit about plumbers Jan...
Jan: Your Mr. Big Time Horseplayer...
By the way I am the Worlds Greatest Horseplayer...
Jan: Horseshit!!
No... Horseplayer!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ0vCwy3MXM
Rob never covered up his sub optimal play. Why is that even discussed? He admits it. But that isn't what he claims made him win. I hope Rob explains that.
Craps is a losing game. The only way to come out ahead is with some kind of jackpot like the Fire Bet or Bonus Craps that delivers a big payoff.
Second $50 of the week.
https://youtu.be/duAAF9pMInE
Stick to what you know like Big Jeff and Bread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vTzf7UxohM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtJXVZjt0M
Couldn't help but laugh. After I played my free play, I thought I had the dealt straight locked in, but when I hit the last button the last card didn't hold and I missed the straight. And when I saw you ALMOST do the same, I mentally said "wait!"Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Alan, why did you hold 3 high cards which were not suited and not consecutive at 3:12 (copy link below) instead of holding the JK ? Is this one of Singer's special plays ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
https://youtu.be/duAAF9pMInE?t=192
AKJ rainbow... you know it is the variance and he wants the best way to get his dollar and a quarter back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayAlan, why did you hold 3 high cards which were not suited and not consecutive at 3:12 (copy link below) instead of holding the JK ? Is this one of Singer's special plays ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"https://youtu.be/duAAF9pMInE?t=192"
Or get the dollar and a quarter from Red Rock Casino.
I guess that is a Book Play!?
----------------------------
Also, we have our answer after the 1 minute mark (1:35) that he holds AJ offsuit over the lone Ace or the correct J 10 Suited.
He fooled me. I thought he would just hold the Lone Ace For Sure.
I guess that is a Book Play!? Jon Ho used to tell me all the time: I read Book, I know Book Play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
But wait, Alan plays 8/5 bonus perfectly!
Yes I guessed wrong about the lone Ace too. He needs to burn the Grochowski book IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
AKJ offsuit... you know it is the variance and he wants the best way to get his dollar and a quarter back.
Or get the dollar and a quarter from Red Rock Casino.
I guess that is a Book Play!?
----------------------------
Also, we have our answer after the 1 minute mark (1:35) that he holds AJ offsuit over the lone Ace or the correct J 10 Suited.
He fooled me. I thought he would just hold the Lone Ace For Sure.
I guess that is a Book Play!? Jon Ho used to tell me all the time: I read Book, I know Book Play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
I was looking up that AKJ Rainbow play, just cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYes I guessed wrong about the lone Ace too. He needs to burn the Grochowski book IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I found it funny that the Lone Jack beats AKJ Rainbow when you have no penalties against the Jack it seems!!
So in his hand he had an 8 and that is a straight penalty so he played it correct over just playing the Lone Jack this time!
I skipped right to the end, because after all the actual results are what matter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
and I see that you cashed out +$57.50 in 5 minutes.
Doesn't that mean that this play is worth $690 per hour?
You just moved to LV and already you are accumulating some nice EV,
will you rathole it away somewhere?
Yep, only results matter. As a MATTER of fact, Alan's results lifetime, are him losing hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos. Yep, only the results matter!Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI skipped right to the end, because after all the actual results are what matter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
and I see that you cashed out +$57.50 in 5 minutes.
Doesn't that mean that this play is worth $690 per hour?
You just moved to LV and already you are accumulating some nice EV.
He will have all his debts paid in no time!Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI skipped right to the end, because after all the actual results are what matter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
and I see that you cashed out +$57.50 in 5 minutes.
Doesn't that mean that this play is worth $690 per hour?
You just moved to LV and already you are accumulating some nice EV,
will you rathole it away somewhere?
I am happy for his children and anyone else who can benefit from his windfall.
Hopefully this will be the first year that he shows a profit!
Have you ever considered that Alan's public claimQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
may be meant to thwart the efforts of ex-wives and their attorneys?
When are you meeting Singer for his bet?
Wow everything you stated or speculated sounds very unethical for a guy who made a living off of investigative journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHave you ever considered that Alan's public claimQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
may be meant to thwart the efforts of ex-wives and their attorneys?
When are you meeting Singer for his bet?
I guess guys like coach belly and mendlebread aren't as ethical as they appear.
Singer would never pay off if he lost.
How about you? When are you meeting Singer for his bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Maybe you can get your kids something nice with that windfall,
or maybe pick up a bunch of those juicers and give them out to the homeless
on the street.
That would be a nice gesture, and would give you something different to write about.
And their attorneys can just as easily subpoena all of his financial information from casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHave you ever considered that Alan's public claimQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
may be meant to thwart the efforts of ex-wives and their attorneys?
When are you meeting Singer for his bet?
As for Singer, I want idiots to believe his bullshit. Same goes for any other stupid system gambler.
What's funny is that the KJ hold actually has a slightly higher chance of being non-losing than the rainbow JAK (37.23% versus 37.00%) - so not only is it a worse play EV-wise, but also avoiding-a-loss-wise. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by monetI was looking up that AKJ Rainbow play, just cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYes I guessed wrong about the lone Ace too. He needs to burn the Grochowski book IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I found it funny that the Lone Jack beats AKJ Rainbow when you have no penalties against the Jack it seems!!
So in his hand he had an 8 and that is a straight penalty so he played it correct over just playing the Lone Jack this time!
Basically, Alan has no clue what he is doing, even after he said he knows the game 99% perfect. When he is called on it he just makes up some BS about it being in Grochowski's book to play that way. Again it's just Alan getting caught in a lie and then doing whatever he can to cover up the truth. Can anyone confirm that bullshit Alan is claiming is even in Grochowski's book? I would guess that Alan misunderstood what was being said in the book. Even then, it seems as if he isn't even using a "best chance of a pay" strategy correctly either.
Also take note to how long it took him(a guy who has been playing VP for years) to notice there was no hold when he had nothing but a few card that looked ast if they might have a str8 possibility, this is the same guy that claimed 18 yo's in a row happend. I can't imagine he could accuratly count them himself after seeing that. He claims the dealers counted but perhaps he miss heard what they were saying and he was confused. Na, he just made the shit up like he is making up the fact that he knew BP VP strategy 99% perfect.
I think two high cards has the best chance of being resolved as a winning hand. I always play that in multi strike on the bottom regardless of the other cards on a non paying hand.
Everywhere you look on the internet it says the house has a 1.4% advantage on an even money passline bet. That means the player is at 98.6%. For every $100 the player puts in action the house is also putting $100 into action. That's a combined wager of $200.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat is not nonsense. The chance of a passline bet winning is 64%. And that includes the odds portion of the bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Somehow I didn't realize this was a new thread, figured it was an old thread because it jumped me to page 5 or whatever...so I thought this was an old thread. I'm surprised no one caught this, though:
Where do you come up with this nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You were a craps dealer, right? You know that the chance of winning is different from the house edge, right? The house edge on the "odds portion" is zero, but the house still has a greater chance of winning each and every time.
98.6/200 = 49.3%
So the player's chance of winning each individual passline bet is 49.3%
yes that's right (obviously I am assuming you are referring to non-wild card draw poker derivatives).Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
The next time you play Multi-Strike, if you have the volume on, when you get the Free Ride and you hear the music, keep saying this...Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayyes that's right (obviously I am assuming you are referring to non-wild card draw poker derivatives).Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
You Can't Win.
That Chant goes right along with the music.
You could change the words to something more positive but this is a personal inside joke when that game first came out and a pal I know loved to play it.
One funny story is that his father used to play it on his own and didn't know the Strategy.
He ended up making a Royal on the top line for 8 grand.
After that night he used to tell me that he was going to go play "Strike it Rich!"
He never called it Multi-Strike again!! LOL... Strike it Rich!
Just to keep things real and in perspective, that old man passed away of a Brain Tumor around the age of 72 in 2007.
He went into the Microwave and didn't make it much longer after that.
His Son was busy running up 200k in Reno and Mesquite at the same time.
OK, so now you have something to talk about and a legit reason why someone might want to learn a "most likely to get your money back strategy"Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Even then, there is a correct play given the paytable and game feature. No doubt Alan would fuck up any strategy no matter what the main goal was.
Another crazy thing about Multi-Strike is that Larry Demar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_DeMar), who is an extraordinary pinball software programmer (The Addam's Family sold over 20000 units) and designer founded LED (Leading Edge Design) and through this company, he invented Multi-Strike vp which so many people love to play. I had no idea that Larry was behind LED and multistrike when I first encountered Multi-strike. I have played thousands of games on The Addam's Family pinball and it was quite funny and coincidental to find out he also made multi-strike. I believe LED also is his initials in addition to the company name.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetThe next time you play Multi-Strike, if you have the volume on, when you get the Free Ride and you hear the music, keep saying this...Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayyes that's right (obviously I am assuming you are referring to non-wild card draw poker derivatives).Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
You Can't Win.
That Chant goes right along with the music.
You could change the words to something more positive but this is a personal inside joke when that game first came out and a pal I know loved to play it.
One funny story is that his father used to play it on his own and didn't know the Strategy.
He ended up making a Royal on the top line for 8 grand.
After that night he used to tell me that he was going to go play "Strike it Rich!"
He never called it Multi-Strike again!! LOL... Strike it Rich!
Just to keep things real and in perspective, that old man passed away of a Brain Tumor around the age of 72 in 2007.
He went into the Microwave and didn't make it much longer after that.
His Son was busy running up 200k in Reno and Mesquite at the same time.
Standing versus hitting on a 16 versus a T, without knowledge of the count, is essentially a toss-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI can't see how you are wrong... No reason to really try to talk or teach these guys anything. They don't give a shit and they just like to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
When a guy doesn't want to change the incorrect strategy because he learned the wrong strategy how can you help him?
Even after he knows the math and how bad it is he isn't going to change it because that isn't the way he learned it!
This is like how those BJ players stand on 16 all the time vs a 10 and they say I don't want to bust.
I want to give the dealer the chance to bust.
So that's a bad example.
You should have said a 14 versus a T.
Dan is correct. 16 vs 10 is a bad example.
I stand on all 16 vs 10's. :cool: It's called card counter's basic strategy.
So in ANY positive count it is correct to stand on 16 vs 10, no?
That is correct. Standing is the correct play on all positive counts , including all counts with anything larger than minimum wager out. It is the incorrect play on negative counts, all of which only the minimum wager is out. Since I do not even play many negative counts standing is the correct play most of the rounds that I play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
In addition, 16 vs 10 is one of the bigger tells of a card counter, being that CC's play it differently depending on the count. Because it is a common hand, it is rather easy to see. So standing all the time is very inexpensive cover.
Many ploppy type players stand on the hand too, in fact they waver over it trying to decide what to do. It does seem to come up quite often.
I think Bryce Carlson’s book says to always stand as a cover play, now that I think through it that makes sense if you are standing with bigger bets out in positive counts.
Most of you say that God does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I believe that this proves that God does exist.
It only took over a year but Dan and kewlJ taught me something I didn't know.
This is why I usually don't get out of my depth and Pit Play is out of my depth.
I shall return back to the shallow end of the Pool now.
Thanks to kewlJ for another tidbit as well that he posted on the Stations Casinos.
Since it has been a long time since I played at Wild Fire, Barleys or Wild Wild West I forgot or didn't realize they send separate mailers.
The last time I was in those places they had some progressives that were set wrong and an advantage to the players.
Perhaps I should check in on them. The last time I checked they did have progressives that could be playable eventually.
Thanks for the kind words monet. But I am afraid I must correct you again. Card counting is the shallow end of the pool. What you and some of the other machine guys do is the deep end.
Playing "feelings" in blackjack is idiotic, and will cost you money in the long run.
However, if you want to play by feeling, and you're not a card counter, then you can choose any of the following spots, and it basically won't cost you any money:
16 versus 10
13 versus 2
12 versus 4
Odds bets are 0 EV, so betting them has a negligible effect on your bottom line, assuming exactly average luck. Of course, the higher the odds bets, the greater variance introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The advice of "don't take odds bets" comes from the school of thought that you're just introducing a lot of extra variance to gain exactly 0 EV, so why bother?
I partially agree. However, if in a situation where you're trying to run up coin-in (such as a craps machine which somehow comps, for example), then it's better to throw the odds bets out there.
The odds bets are also better if you can use them to mostly replace your pass line bets.
So if you typically like betting $100/hand on the pass line, and you're at a place with 100x odds, then you're better off doing $1 on the pass line and $100 on odds.
But since most places don't offer 100x odds -- and if they did, they minimum bet usually is far higher than $1 -- this typically isn't feasible.
Just separated out three discussions from this thread:
Auto-hold flaw of VP machines: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...play-optimally
Discussion of limping with AA in poker: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...t-with-it-once
Rob's $25k challenge: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...-25k-challenge
I'm not a blackjack expert. But I did the IGT fullpay video blackjack (100.03%) extensively. A great low low variance game when you are getting same day cashback/freeplay. Great for drawings to when tickets are based on action. It was single deck first hand off the top everytime. I gleaned the single deck compositional strategy off the Wizard of Odds. The 12 v. the 4 was one of the trickier hands. The answer to whether you hit, stand or split depends on the composition of the 12:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
10,2 = hit
9,3 = hit
8,4 = stand
7,5 = stand
6,6 = split
This comes from faded memory. Haven't played the game in years so hopefully I got it right.
Sorry Dan but this is absolutely wrong: "Odds bets are 0 EV, so betting them has a negligible effect on your bottom line,"
Optimists at craps pour on their odds bets because of the payout. And when they're wrong they get creamed. Odds bets with zero house advantage also have zero players advantage, but for the right-way passline player the house is always more likely to win.
The figure of 64% that I've been looking for I still can't find. It was in reference to the chances that a number will repeat. In order to win your odds bet that are attached to the flat bet the number must repeat.
KJ. I get maybe $500 to $600 a month in free play. Some are in the form of chips. Most are for machine play. Some blackjack machines allow DAS. Others are crappy rules. But I've been playing a progressive approach. Lose 1 bet 2. Lose 2 bet 3. Lose 3 bet 4. Win 4 bet 3. etc etc. I usually get all my free play and then some. I read somewhere that losing 7 hands in a row is unusual. So I will go max after 7 losses until I get 1 win ahead.
Any other ideas?
I said that odds bets have a lot of variance. They are still 0 EV, and you need to be properly bankrolled to make them, but they are just as likely to win big as they are to lose big.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In the long run, odds bets will have a negligible effect on your bottom line if you're properly bankrolled and you make enough of them.
But yes, they do introduce a lot of extra variance, unless you bet smaller on the pass line so your odds bet ends up equivalent to what you would have otherwise bet on the pass line anyway.
But still, they can induce extra variance if you bet on numbers other than 6 or 8, due to the feast-for-famine nature of those less-likely-to-hit bets.