Decent Limits on Caribbean 21

[Westland Bowl]

All things considered they made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

Aaarrrrgh!! Must have been some mighty fine booty!!! (er, not the female kind, I mean! ....though that would be nice too, ya know! ) Ahoy! (before I run out of some plank to walk on!)

[Pirateofc21]

Thanks Pir8. My thinking was along the same line and I'm glad to see others share the same views on it.

I'm definately humble enough to sit there and play $5 at a B&M casino, then jump up to $100-500. I've had dealers comment "You're playing $100 at a $5 table?" and seem flabbergasted. I just have to roll my eyes and snicker But, you definately have to sit at the table for awhile and make sure people are playing like they actually have a clue before you start pushing the bets.

This is very true of the multiplayer tables at Online casinos. Most that I know of also have the option to create a "Private Room" or table where you and your buddies share a password to access that table. This is a great way to protect yourself and your balance from the clueless. As far as being humble goes it has definate benefits IMHO. Spreads tend to narrow as the max goes up so the larger spreads tend to be at the "humble" tables.

[Pirateofc21]

Aaarrrrgh!! Must have been some mighty fine booty!!! (er, not the female kind, I mean! ....though that would be nice too, ya know! ) Ahoy! (before I run out of some plank to walk on!)

Yo Ho, once they threw in a case of the finest Rum I said where do I sign, AAARRRGGHH!

[franklin]

Thanks Pir8. My thinking was along the same line and I'm glad to see others share the same views on it.

I'm definately humble enough to sit there and play $5 at a B&M casino, then jump up to $100-500. I've had dealers comment "You're playing $100 at a $5 table?" and seem flabbergasted. I just have to roll my eyes and snicker

While it certainly might be nice to be able to bet as much or as little as you like, there's certainly no monetary advantage to doing so. You with me?

But, you definately have to sit at the table for awhile and make sure people are playing like they actually have a clue before you start pushing the bets.

You do realize that unless you're counting cards, other players' play won't your affect your own results, right?

[franklin]

Yea, they could definately lose their ass with a 1-500 spread on any game.

How? Why is that more true of a 1-500 spread than a 400-500 spread?

[winbig]

Re: Other players play:

I for one am a firm believer in streaks, and I cannot count how many times I've been on a long (overall) winning streak, only to have someone jump in and start splitting paint. Judging from my past experiences with this, it all goes downhill from there, and you need to get up ASAP and find another table.

I have to disagree that it has anything to do with card counting.

How? Why is that more true of a 1-500 spread than a 400-500 spread?

If you're a grinder with an average size BR, then you can sit there and bet table minimum during the bad streaks, instead of being forced to play $400 a hand. Unless you have an enourmous BR, you're going to go broke in no time.

The small difference between min. and max. bet also plays a factor. Say you go on a streak where you're winning a above average amt. of hands.....you're capped at 125% of your original bet, and can't maximize your winnings.

[franklin]

Re: Other players play:

I for one am a firm believer in streaks, and I cannot count how many times I've been on a long (overall) winning streak, only to have someone jump in and start splitting paint. Judging from my past experiences with this, it all goes downhill from there, and you need to get up ASAP and find another table.

I have to disagree that it has anything to do with card counting.


If you're a grinder with an average size BR, then you can sit there and bet table minimum during the bad streaks, instead of being forced to play $400 a hand. Unless you have an enourmous BR, you're going to go broke in no time.

The small difference between min. and max. bet also plays a factor. Say you go on a streak where you're winning a above average amt. of hands.....you're capped at 125% of your original bet, and can't maximize your winnings.

Gotcha. Well you're certainly allowed to believe in the predictive value of streaks if you like, but the mathematical fact is you're no more or less likely to win after a string of wins than after a string of losses.

Belief to the contrary is what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Gambling's a hell of a lot of fun. (That's certainly why I do it.) But absent counting cards, no change in betting methodology is going to cause you to lose any more or less on average (percentage wise) than any other.

[winbig]

Gotcha. Well you're certainly allowed to believe in the predictive value of streaks if you like, but the mathematical fact is you're no more or less likely to win after a string of wins than after a string of losses.

Belief to the contrary is what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

Gambling's a hell of a lot of fun. (That's certainly why I do it.) But absent counting cards, no change in betting methodology is going to cause you to lose any more or less on average (percentage wise) than any other.

I'm not trying to predict actual events. IE: Going to lose after 3 wins and vise versa. I've seen over the years more times than not (Not 100%, but a high %) when a player comes in and starts playing badly, it will turn that winning streak into a losing streak faster than you can say 'hit me'.

You just have to remember not to rely 100% on these streaks, and when you're pushing your bet, of course there's going to be one big one that you lose at the end of it, but the profit that's made over the previous course more than makes up for it.

The most memorable (and shortest) streak I ever had was a $700 profit in 3 hands. Couldn't press the $800 though, was a $500 max table

100, win - $200
200, win - $400
400, win - $800



[edit]In all, I'm not talking about letting your bet+winnings ride on every streak, but there are times when things are definately going great and you pull a bet size you're comfortable with out of your hat and decide to let it ride for a few hands and go from there.

[franklin]

I'm not trying to predict actual events. IE: Going to lose after 3 wins and vise versa. I've seen over the years more times than not (Not 100%, but a high %) when a player comes in and starts playing badly, it will turn that winning streak into a losing streak faster than you can say 'hit me'.[/QUOT
[edit]In all, I'm not talking about letting your bet+winnings ride on every streak, but there are times when things are definately going great and you pull a bet size you're comfortable with out of your hat and decide to let it ride for a few hands and go from there.

All that's the way you might choose to remember these types of situations, the mathematical fact is that on average the new player has no impact whatsoever on whether or not your "streak" continues.)

Realize I'm not saying the player's entry has only a small amount or a negligible amount -- I'm saying that on average his entry has precisely zero impact. It's not a question of opinion either. It's a question of demonstrable fact.

I understand that many gamblers might disagree with this -- but anyone who does is simply dead wrong. This has been the downfall of many a gambler over the course of human history. That, after all, is why it's known as THE Gambler's Fallacy (not A Gambler's Fallacy, or ONE Gambler's Fallacy, but THE Gambler's Fallacy.

Anyway, if you disagree with this, I invite you to come up with a hypothesis and we can then test it out.

[Pirateofc21]

Re: Other players play:

I for one am a firm believer in streaks, and I cannot count how many times I've been on a long (overall) winning streak, only to have someone jump in and start splitting paint. Judging from my past experiences with this, it all goes downhill from there, and you need to get up ASAP and find another table.

I have to disagree that it has anything to do with card counting.





If you're a grinder with an average size BR, then you can sit there and bet table minimum during the bad streaks, instead of being forced to play $400 a hand. Unless you have an enourmous BR, you're going to go broke in no time.

The small difference between min. and max. bet also plays a factor. Say you go on a streak where you're winning a above average amt. of hands.....you're capped at 125% of your original bet, and can't maximize your winnings.

IMHO I see it like this....In life *!#? happens. *!#? is bad. We want to avoid it. I cannot predict when *!#? is going to happen nor when it will stop but I know it when It's happening. In Gambling streaks happen. A winnign streak is good. We want to get on one. I cannot predict when one will happen nor when it will stop but I know it when I'm on one. In both cases they don't tell you when they are coming, if they will continue or when they will stop. In both cases the better the shape your are in before they happen the further ahead you will be when they stop.

When you (anyone) talk about a bad or loosing streak I think of the phrase House Edge. You will loose most hands because there is a House Edge.


To loose 10 hands at $400 per hand will cost you $4,000.
Loose 10 hands at $1 per hand it will cost you $10

win 10 hands at $400 you get $4,000
win 10 hands at $500 you get$5,000

in both cases the total you could win is the same at $5,000
400 - 500 you net profit at best is $1000
1 - 500 your net profit at best is $4,990

I'd rather cash out $4,990

The bigger the spread the more you can make more while risking/spending/loosing less