Decent Limits on Caribbean 21

[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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(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]

Restated a different way.

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

 

[Simmo!]

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

Don't listen to him guys. Clearly a newbie

By the way, sort of on topic, went to see Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Not a patch on the first, way to long, and absolutely no tips on how to win - most disappointing

 

[liquidsoap]

By the way, sort of on topic, went to see Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Not a patch on the first, way to long, and absolutely no tips on how to win - most disappointing

Amazing, and to think I figured the wizard of odds produced that movie...

 

[franklin]

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

Right, but as you said you have no idea when either a "winning streak" or a "losing streak" will occur. Nor, after winning or losing X hands in a row do you have any idea whether you're going to or lose the next one. Chance has "no memory". What happenned before with the spin if a roulette wheel (or with the deal of a BJ hand, shuffling after every deal) does not impact what will happen next.

As such if you're betting at a $1 - $500 "spread" table your chances of winning the $500 hands and losing the $1 hands are exactly the same as winning the $1 hands and losing the $500. Sure, if you could successfully predict when a streak were more likely to occur you could certainly take advantage of the spread (that's what card counters do), but the sad fact is you can't. No one can. Therefore whether you play at a $1-$10,000 with a $5K average or at $4,901-$5,100 table with a $5K average bet, your expected loss is precisely the same in both cases.

I have to say, though, you all seem like really nice guys, which is all too rare on forums. But you just happen to be 100% wrong here -- not 99% not 99.9%, not 99.999999% -- but 100%. As I've said, it's called the Gambler's Fallacy, and you're hardly the first to have fallen for it, and certainly won't be the last. (But then again your $1.3MM win does provide a nice cushion.)

Franklin.

 

[Pirateofc21]

Missing the Forest thru the Trees

Right, but as you said you have no idea when either a "winning streak" or a "losing streak" will occur. Nor, after winning or losing X hands in a row do you have any idea whether you're going to or lose the next one. Chance has "no memory". What happenned before with the spin if a roulette wheel (or with the deal of a BJ hand, shuffling after every deal) does not impact what will happen next.

Question: Who said otherwise? According to your first sentence I didn't.

As such if you're betting at a $1 - $500 "spread" table your chances of winning the $500 hands and losing the $1 hands are exactly the same as winning the $1 hands and losing the $500.

OK. You're right. They are exactly the same.
Question: Who said otherwise?

Sure, if you could successfully predict when a streak were more likely to occur you could certainly take advantage of the spread (that's what card counters do), but the sad fact is you can't. No one can.

OK. You're right. No one can.
Question: Who said otherwise?
According to your first sentence you know I can't successfully predict when a streak is more likely to occur.

Therefore whether you play at a $1-$10,000 with a $5K average or at $4,901-$5,100 table with a $5K average bet, your expected loss is precisely the same in both cases.

Yes, You're right, expected loss is precisely the same in both cases.
Question: Who said otherwise? What does average betting have to do with limit betting?

I have to say, though, you all seem like really nice guys, which is all too rare on forums. But you just happen to be 100% wrong here -- not 99% not 99.9%, not 99.999999% -- but 100%. As I've said, it's called the Gambler's Fallacy, and you're hardly the first to have fallen for it, and certainly won't be the last. (But then again your $1.3MM win does provide a nice cushion.)

I have to say that your examples have nothing to do with the spread we are referring to and you just happen to be 100% Missing the Forest thru the Trees here -- not 99% not 99.9%, not 99.999999% -- but 100%. As I've said, it's called Missing the Forest thru the Trees and you're hardly the first to miss it and certainly won't be the last.

(But then again your $1.3MM win does provide a nice cushion.)


I Tell you what. Give me a call before you intend to land and I'll provide a nice cushion.

 

[winbig]

Amazing, and to think I figured the wizard of odds produced that movie...

Here in PA there's a instant lotto ticket named "Wizard of odds"...lol

[/derail]

 

[franklin]

Right, but as you said you have no idea when either a "winning streak" or a "losing streak" will occur. Nor, after winning or losing X hands in a row do you have any idea whether you're going to or lose the next one. Chance has "no memory". What happenned before with the spin if a roulette wheel (or with the deal of a BJ hand, shuffling after every deal) does not impact what will happen next.

Question: Who said otherwise? According to your first sentence I didn't.

As such if you're betting at a $1 - $500 "spread" table your chances of winning the $500 hands and losing the $1 hands are exactly the same as winning the $1 hands and losing the $500.

OK. You're right. They are exactly the same.
Question: Who said otherwise?

Sure, if you could successfully predict when a streak were more likely to occur you could certainly take advantage of the spread (that's what card counters do), but the sad fact is you can't. No one can.

OK. You're right. No one can.
Question: Who said otherwise?
According to your first sentence you know I can't successfully predict when a streak is more likely to occur.

Therefore whether you play at a $1-$10,000 with a $5K average or at $4,901-$5,100 table with a $5K average bet, your expected loss is precisely the same in both cases.

Yes, You're right, expected loss is precisely the same in both cases.
Question: Who said otherwise? What does average betting have to do with limit betting?

I have to say, though, you all seem like really nice guys, which is all too rare on forums. But you just happen to be 100% wrong here -- not 99% not 99.9%, not 99.999999% -- but 100%. As I've said, it's called the Gambler's Fallacy, and you're hardly the first to have fallen for it, and certainly won't be the last.

I have to say that your examples have nothing to do with the spread we are referring to and you just happen to be 100% Missing the Forest thru the Trees here -- not 99% not 99.9%, not 99.999999% -- but 100%. As I've said, it's called Missing the Forest thru the Trees and you're hardly the first to miss it and certainly won't be the last.

(But then again your $1.3MM win does provide a nice cushion.)

I Tell you what. Give me a call before you intend to land and I'll provide a nice cushion.

OK. I intend to land as soon as possible. It seems I must have misunderstood stood you.

So perhaps we can go over what you've said?

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

Ok I'm with you here.

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

OK. Still with you.

in both cases the total you could win is the same at $5,000

OK. I'm starting to lose you here. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by both cases. What I think you mean is that over ten hands at a $1-$500 or a $400-$500 table then ignoring splits and double (and I'll assume we're ignoring splits and double throughout) the most you could possibly win is $5,000. Am I understanding correctly?

400 - 500 you net profit at best is $1000
1 - 500 your net profit at best is $4,990

OK. Now I'm getting a bit more lost. Is all you're saying that at a $400-$500 if you bet hand 10 hands at $400 and lose them all and bet 10 hand at $500 and lose them all then your net profit would be $1,000; and that at the $1-$500 table if you lose all ten $1 hands and win all ten $500 hands your net profit would be $4,900? Is that what you're saying? That's readily apparent, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the monetary advantage to finding a table with a large spread. When winbig writes:

Yea, they could definately lose their ass with a 1-500 spread on any game. This would also raise a flag for them....why have a high limit if you're going to play $1 hands at times? Smart by the player, but definately bad for the casino.

I'm totally lost. Why is a $1-500 spread bad for a casino? Why does this make it more likely for a casino to "lose its ass"? Why is this "smart by the player but .. bad for the casino"?

Obviously it's nice to be able to bet a wider spread depending upon how the mood strikes but I'd fail to see any monetary or risk advantage to do ding so. If maximizing your return were your only consideration then you'd choose simply to refrain from betting at. If minimizing your risk were your only consideration, then flat betting, with no deviation in bet size would be the way to go.

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

I'm assuming that this is the crux of the matter, but I just don't understand it at all. You always have the ability to risk zero, how is risking $1 somehow less risky? What if you lose all your max bets and win all your min bets? Wouldn't you have rather risked more on the losing bets? As such wouldn't the large spread in that case be hurting you?

I'm just trying to understand here.

 

[Pirateofc21]

will do

just got your response. IMO we are not on the same train of thought. Give me some time to review it and I'll see what I can do to get us to the same station.

 

[Pirateofc21]

Start 1

OK. I intend to land as soon as possible. It seems I must have misunderstood stood you.

So perhaps we can go over what you've said?

Ok I'm with you here.

OK. Still with you.

OK. I'm starting to lose you here. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by both cases. What I think you mean is that over ten hands at a $1-$500 or a $400-$500 table then ignoring splits and double (and I'll assume we're ignoring splits and double throughout) the most you could possibly win is $5,000. Am I understanding correctly?

Yes, I think we are at the same station but took different trains to get there.

There are a few things going on. First there are 2 Casinos you are looking to play at.
The first offers table limits of $1-$500 and the other $400-$500.
Second you are going to play at both.
Third you are going to play 10 hands at both Casinos.
Assume we're ignoring splits and doubles all the time.
Assume you're betting the max all the time.
Assume you win all 10 hands at both tables.

The most you could possibly win at either is $5,000 because the table max is $500 at each table and you are going to play exactly ten hands. So the end result is the same at both casinos.

END 1.

 

[Pirateofc21]

Start 2

OK. Now I'm getting a bit more lost. Is all you're saying that at a $400-$500 if you bet hand 10 hands at $400 and lose them all and bet 10 hand at $500 and lose them all then your net profit would be $1,000;

NO, there is no profit in the above example because you lost all 10 hands in both cases.

and that at the $1-$500 table if you lose all ten $1 hands and win all ten $500 hands your net profit would be $4,900? Is that what you're saying?

No. if you lose all 10 $1 hands you lost $10. there is no profit.
if you win all 10 $500 hands your net profit is $5000

From this point on Franklin don't try to interpret what I post. let me finish posting and I promise I will take you threw it from start to finish. I will do my best to get you to understand What we are trying to say. Let me work with what has already been posted and I'll come up with something you will understand.

I apoligize for the Forest post for it was I who misunderstood you.

END 2

 

[Simmo!]

Amazing, and to think I figured the wizard of odds produced that movie...

Yeah I can see where the confusion lies. In Pirates II, he still has a Scarecrow in a leading role and Dorothy's equally as wooden in both...oh wait...you said "Odds"...sorry.

 

[bpb]

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.

When discussing beliefs and systems with a gambler, facts have no place in the conversation.

 

[franklin]

From this point on Franklin don't try to interpret what I post. let me finish posting and I promise I will take you threw it from start to finish. I will do my best to get you to understand What we are trying to say. Let me work with what has already been posted and I'll come up with something you will understand.

Great. I look forward to it.