craven,how do you know about ian"'s game?
i never read his book but doesnt he say his ev is a 1000 an hour.
i never read his book but doesnt he say his ev is a 1000 an hour.
of csm latency in a significant way ?
Yes.
What kind of DI do you claim for this ?
Erm...that term is a little out of date, even Schlesinger doesn't use it anymore.
Without more specific information, such as the machine brand and generation, and possibly the setting it is on, I couldn't give an answer. As with counting some machines cannot be beaten as a practical matter at all.
Once you have clocked the machine and calculated the latency of card redistribution determining your advantage and risk is easy, since you are effectively playing at a constant point of deep penetration.
Fine. SCORE, is that better. Or did you not know the definition of DI.
"Without more specific information....I couldn't give an answer"
Just like I figured. Just pick any damn example, for Pete's sake.
I am not overly impressed.
Other example factors: necesarry bankroll (his style has low ROI IMHO), number of hours attainable, etc.
Fine. SCORE, is that better. Or did you not know the definition of DI.
I was stating a fact. Schlesinger himself has not referred to the concept for at least a year.
Just like I figured. Just pick any damn example, for Pete's sake
If you "figured" it, why didn't you specify an example yourself? You know any figure would be meaningless without specific variables.
You could make $60 per hour on a $10,000 bankroll optimally spreading 1-20 against the Shuffle Star machine commonly used in continental Europe.
"Schlesinger himself has not referred to the concept for at least a year."
Wow! I did not know you thought so highly of good ol Don S.
So now Don decides what terms are obsolete? Good to know.
Besides, SCORE and DI contain exactly the same info.
"You could make $60 per hour on a $10,000 bankroll optimally spreading 1-20 against the Shuffle Star machine commonly used in continental Europe."
Exactly what i was saying. 60 is pretty meager.
How on earth did a full-time professional who espouses high edge advantage play manage to have a losing year? That just seems inconceivable. If you practice even half of what you preach here, there is no way you should lose over the course of a year. Did you get caught up in a high-count shoe somewhere and, having a small edge, you just could not extract yourself from it before you were down tens of thousands? Or perhaps you tried playing the Royal Match with Grosjean's numbers and, without good risk of ruin and Kelly information, you found yourself losing your shirt?
Anyone with even a hint of reading comprehension can see John May is referring to "creative accounting". Why are you so disgruntled?
Anonymouse has a consistent history of posting negative messages about players that bet bigger than he does, which is a shame because most of the time he posts good advice. He has yet to say why he does this? You can check the bitterness in old threads if you feel the need. Since he reserves some of it for me, I have given up responding to his posts directly. I can see why we sadly lost Don Schlesinger on these pages.
He also has some secret max bet threshold that he thinks counters won't/don't cross, possibly because of heat from the eye or the pit, but he won't say what this magic number is.
I am only guessing, but the eerie silence on this subject from all the other posters might mean they are generally in agreement with me that counters max bets ARE usually what they are comfortable getting away with and sometimes this IS higher than the table max, which at the Venetian is about 3 x $50000.
When you are standing next to someone playing this and the count has gone through the roof and they suddenly start standing 16s v 10 and taking insurance on 16s when they haven't been insuring soft 20 all night, it doesn't take a rocket scientist... Most counters can be detected by another specifically looking for them within about a shoe...
I'm sure there is even bigger action at the MGM for example as the Venetian has never gone after the whale business. It's all by private agreement between casino/player what the max bet will be for these counters anyway. The counters at these levels aren't necessarily after an advantage while playing. They are happy just evening up the game because they have negotiated their advantage by contract before they agree to come in and play.
So there's the story...
they negotiate their advantage by contract ?
What do you mean by "private agreements", are you saying that these casinos allow high-stakes counters to play? What would be there incentive for doing this? Also, did you come by this knowledge from personal experience, or are you just assuming that no one could fool the casinos with this kind of action?
I'm sure there is even bigger action at the MGM for example as the Venetian has never gone after the whale business. It's all by private agreement between casino/player what the max bet will be for these counters anyway. The counters at these levels aren't necessarily after an advantage while playing. They are happy just evening up the game because they have negotiated their advantage by contract before they agree to come in and play.
to make a living doesn't need to worry about creative accounting.
Trust me on that one.
And there is only so much you can do with creative accounting. Usually you make like you make some reasonable fraction of what you really make. With as much as Mr. May talks, even a ridiculous amount of creative accounting wouldn't bring him under six figs.
Are you bitter ? I don't see it but mr. counter catcher swears you are bitter.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am bitter about players who bet bigger than I. If that were the case, I'd be bitter about everyone on bj21.com, as I don't really bet that much. My original contention was that you were making up a load of fiction about counters spreading to three hands of $50,000 at the Venetian to justify your useless position as a counter catcher there. I have nothing against any players, regardless of the stakes they play. What I do not like is a person who sells out to the casinos just because he probably can't cut it as a player.
It was a merry little joke that some people obviously found disturbing. Sorry.
British tax law does not require gambling winnings by punters to be taxed. On my other non-gambling dealings last year I managed to make a small loss. That is what my accountant reported. It is not a question of creative accounting, I'm quite upfront about what I do and no trickery is required. The inland revenue simply can't be bothered to chase up the half a dozen professional casino gamblers who live here.
I had a winning gambling year last year and every year before that, though I did have a losing year on count play alone.
Wow! I did not know you thought so highly of good ol Don S.
So now Don decides what terms are obsolete? Good to know.
I think the inventor of a concept should have a reasonable idea when that concept has been surpassed by other developments, yes. What is your beef here?
Exactly what i was saying. 60 is pretty meager.
Yes, it is, that is why I didn't follow up csm latency much beyond proving it could be done.
In other words, once the cards are reloaded, what is the minimum amount of cards that must come out before one from the last hand can?
In other words, once the cards are reloaded, what is the minimum amount of cards that must come out before one from the last hand can?
I played against a machine in the Kensington mint in London where the LoR was literally 100%. I'm not sure whether it was malfunctioning or not but they removed it shortly after I played there.
Last time I was in Vegas there were still machines there with 2 decks and 50% latency. 50% pen. is lousy in a handheld game, but with a machine that represents a constant 50% penetration point that is quite profitable (check TOB for gains when an extra unit is bet at each penetration point). Things seem to be getting tougher though.
The industry standard seems to be the Shufflemaster King, which has only 7-14 card latency, not really countable except with a ridiculously high spread. The King is however, theoretically beatable, if you can exploit the time-sensitive nature of the device. If noone takes a hit at a full table then the full 14 cards will be kept out of play, if everyone takes a hit the latency is closer to 0. This allows you to deviate from BS and to some extent control the composition of the pack.
The LoR method is, I should add, one of half a dozen methods you can use against these devices. The most exploitable vulnerabilities change on almost yearly basis. For example, to begin with it was LoR, then the manufacturers dramatically reducecd the latency, but forgot to tell a bunch of dealers to remember to reinsert the discards systematically. This meant you just looked around for dealers who left a bunch of fives in the discard tray one time and otherwise reinserted every card.
Now it seems that the perfect riffling of the machibes may offer an incredible opportunity to sequencing players. I guess there is always a way if you look hard enough...
Anonymouse's post below this IS a perfect example of his negative mindset on this subject! Does he dislike only counter catchers and/or floor people and/or dealers and/or all casino management etc for getting paid by casinos and not just handing him his expected ev when he shows up?
He has no idea what my motivation is for being a counter catcher!
Maybe I do it part time while I look for a good advantage table as a player?
Maybe I figured I was going to be playing tables on my lunch hour so since I've made the trip there I may as well work around this?
Maybe my act isn't good enough to get away with playing for an ev bigger than I can get from working with the casinos with zero stress and complete benefits?
Maybe the games are so crappy I make more money this way? Counting is definitely a marketable skill to casinos for those who intelligently present it after all...
In short, we all choose how to make a profit in life. If you choose to make it as an advantage player I say "Good cards to you", I certainly don't dislike anyone who tries this - it takes guts and I KNOW how hard it can be. Someone is going to get paid to locate advantage players by casinos, it may as well be me. They are running businesses and are out to maximize profits. Counters have a few advantages for casinos but generally they are taking up the seat of another ploppy who can be expected to lose a typical 2%+ of every hand they willingly pony up for. If it was your business, who would you want sitting at the table? The one who makes you the most money! Yes, at times, this includes counters, but generally it does not.
Think of the $5 player who has a free $5 blackjack match play. This is a puny contract with the casino worth a little less than $2.50 in ev. It gets you in the door, so it is an effective casino tool.
Slightly more upscale is the verbal contract you get from your trusted host that when you show up and play a hundred a hand for a few hours a day he will "take care" of your room expenses. Only the most paranoid players would want this in writing.
Top end with the whales, they demand something in writing to protect themselves. Nothing wrong with that - we aren't talking chump change here. Agreement clauses could include: free Gulfstream jet waiting to take you to the casino, discount on any losses you have after playing a certain number of hours per day at a minimum betting level, or basically anything else they can dream up that the casino finds acceptable. If you have a signed contract with a casino guaranteeing you twice what your expected loss is likely to be, playing an even game is starting to sound very attractive!
