BlackJack on Indian Reservations

Is anyone feeling like the BlackJack games at the casinos in the San Diego area are not on the up and up? My stats after 8+ years of playing seem to indicate that something might be going on. I have not been able to put any kind of real winning streak together here in town while my Vegas trips seem to be worth my time. I also noticed on my trip notes that my win rate on individual hands is right around 20% here in San Diego on the reservations and a little better than 40% in Vegas. Are the reservations regulated? If not, do you think that it would be easy enough for someone in the pit crew to trade some big cards in for some small ones to throw the balance of the cards off in the houses favor? (big cards good for player, small cards good for dealer) I use the KO system, I am having alot of fun with it in Vegas. One year I ended up $2500 up for the year, I checked my stats and figured that it would have been $7500 if I had not been playing at the Indian Casinos. Since I had only been spreading $5-$40 and doing alot of back counting, this seems to be even more significant to me. What do you guys think?

You said you have a eight year record of winning only 20% of your hands. Why didn't you stop after the first year? Eight years is a long time to keep running your head into the same wall.

and the general public hasn't even a clue. Have you noticed more positive counts on average in Indian Territory? If so, maybe they are putting more small cards in the pack. However, it's not like as if they can be made accountable for anything they do wrong or negligently. They all have the next best thing to a license to kill. Our Bureau of Indian Affairs and Dept. of Interior made it that way. Maybe they should have to be held accountable. Hmmmmm.

Funny, because Ive had the exact opposite experience at the indian reservations near san diego. The only shady thing Ive noticed is that the dealers there aren't very good, they pay when you lose and sometimes try to not pay when you win. Of course I correct them, sometimes :)

You said you have a eight year record of winning only 20% of your hands. Why didn't you stop after the first year? Eight years is a long time to keep running your head into the same wall.

Cooper (aka Coop, who lately has developed a fixation on pee-pees*) and Umm have argued to continue to play if one believes he is playing with an advantage. If you believe Cooper or Umm's arguments to continue to bang away, then you shouldn't be harsh on paranoid?'s results.

Cheers.

* In reference to Cooper's posts on pee-pees.

The games may be okay in some places. I play them now and then. However, I ask you the follow question:

If any of the following where to occur (at an Indian casino) to you or someone you care about, what would you do?:

1 Rape of a female employee.
2 Poisoning their patrons at the buffet.
3 Sexual harassment.
4 Pilfering through an old lady�s purse.
5 Physically assaulting anyone they don�t like.
6 Smashing of a patron�s car.
7 Firing of a employee because she won�t put out.
8 Running a sideline prostitution business.
9 Forcing a patron to leave the premises because they don�t like their race, religion or skin color.
10 Using surveillance cameras in their restrooms.
11 Allowing patrons to free-fall to their death in an elevator accident resulting from poor maintenance and negligence.
12 During a heavy rain storm the roof colapses injuring and killing many people.
13 + all the other usual stuff too.

Well, nice try, forking. You're quite a troll, you know that?

Normally, the way to get rid of a troll is to quit feeding it. Unfortunately, I don't have the strength of character, nor the inclination to allow others to see your trolling posts without answering them, so here's more food for you.

What I said was that when you HAVE the advantage, yes, you should keep playing. However, nowhere did I say what you claimed- that when someone *thinks* they have an advantage they should keep playing.

Indeed, I advocated that people should pay attention to their results. If someone sees, after a significant sample size, that they're consistently losing more hands than they should, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the game is crooked somehow- and they most certainly should stop playing there.

But I'll point you to the former thread, where I also mentioned to oldaggie that it's entirely possible that he should quit playing based on things *other* than the advantage- things like fatigue, getting too excited when up a lot of money, whatever. Things that can level the advantage.

You're just mad because your stupid idea, that someone makes more money when they quit when ahead, has been debunked. If the player has an advantage, and the question is "will I make more money if I kepe playing or not", all other things being equal they most definitely should keep going. Period, end of story.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic of THIS post... if someone's losing that many hands over that length of time, the game sounds crooked to me and players should avoid it.

Coop

PS for someone who claims to ignore my posts you sure seem to know a lot about what's in them. QED, forking, you're a liar.

simple formula: if the players are cheated to the extent that they can only win 20% of the hands, nobody will play, and the casino will go broke. If your win rate is that bad, it is not due to cheating. PV

> Unfortunately, I don't have the strength of character ...
yes you do; just start using it.

> nor the inclination to allow others to see your trolling posts ...
everybody sees them.

> What I said was that when you HAVE the advantage ...
everybody knows what you said, and many agree it is accurate.

> Normally, the way to get rid of a troll is to quit feeding it ...
so, quit then.

If you (and I) can keep most our posts as short and concise as DD', bigplayer, PitViper, etc. we will be getting somewhere.

I've still got a long way to go.

:)

Someone was kind enough to send me a quote from Cooper�s post where Cooper called me a liar. This is to be expected given Cooper�s bitterness and abject disposition. I suspect Cooper reached a new low is because I stated he had a fixation with pee-pees.

I don�t read Cooper�s posts. I will confess that I did see Cooper�s headlines during my conflict with Umm*. I deduced, employing a simple application of logic, that Yet another meant Cooper has written at least two posts on pee-pees, thus giving grounds to my claim Cooper has a fixation with pee-pees. I don�t equate reading headlines with reading posts.

Cooper: I can�t stop you from calling me names. I�m here on bj21.com to argue my views, which will stand or fall on its own merits. It�s clear we don�t see eye to eye on the definition of �advantage play.� If I see something I don�t agree with it, I will challenge it; a case in point is the definition of D10 under Reno rules. It is up to people to decide if my ideas have validity and no amount of your name calling can change that. I am not a doormat, if you take a pot shot at me, then it�s only fair I return a pot shot in kind. Lastly, if you can�t stand the heat, then I suggest you exit the kitchen.

Cheers.

* You would think Cooper would get the hint that I was ignoring him during my conflict with Umm. After reading Cooper�s first reply to my post in that thread, it was obvious, at least to me, Cooper wasn�t the sharpest tool in the shed.