[frogsrangers]

That is why you have never won and never will win at Blackjack Ghenghis.

Play basic strategy and you WILL LOSE. Here's your tables:
<center> </center>

You're out of your mind

I'll take the word of UNLV Math/Stats professor Mike Shackleford over anyone else any day of the week

[Doughboy22]

Doughboy........I would beak or chirp jj. There will undoubtedly be consequences in the future!

Beak or chirp??

[Garnabby]

You're out of your mind

I'll take the word of UNLV Math/Stats professor Mike Shackleford over anyone else any day of the week

Hardly.

It's my own considered opinion that Shackleford is merely another scammer of many in the gambling industry as a whole.

In fact, i recently issued a "challenge" to him to talk about this, at http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/...ral_Discussion . Still no response from him.

[Garnabby]

Actually Baccarat's best bet (banker) still has a little over 1% house edge. Anybody willing to put some time into learning basic strategy (or wiling to use a basic strategy card) and finding a BJ game with good rules can play at well under 1% house advantage.

Most baccarat-players choose to play every third "hand", or fewer. That puts the casino's basic effective edge at less than 0.4% . Second, you can't get those good %'s on blackjack without a lot of doubles, and splits, ie, without betting much more, on average, than your own minimum, starting bet-size.

Also, baccarat's edge can't be reduced by player skill. If you learn to count cards, and other tricks you can very well be playing BJ close to even and maybe even on the + side.

Well, i would much rather have the pleasure of looking into this while in the comfort of my home, and be called a "quack" by the Wizard of Vegas, then to be him (, again in my opinion,) peddling broken dreams to "born suckers" at the casinos, all courtesy of his "advertiser", US- felon and fugitive Bodog.

[Cheme82]

Most baccarat-players choose to play every third "hand", or fewer. That put's the casino's basic effective edge at less than 0.4% . Second, you can't get those good %'s on blackjack without a lot of doubles, and splits, ie, without betting much more, on average, than your own minimum, starting bet-size.


Well, i would much rather have the pleasure of looking into this while in the comfort of my home, and be called a "quack" by the Wizard of Vegas, then to be him (, again in my opinion,) peddling broken dreams to "born suckers" at the casinos, all courtesy of his "advertiser", US- felon and fugitive Bodog.

It doesn't matter if you only play every tenth hand, the house edge is the same per bet made. So if you bet $100 on the banker, the house keeps a little over a dollar in the long run. So if most baccarat players only play every third hand like you say, then they are only losing a little over 1% of what they bet every third hand. The house % doesn't change.

Could you elaborate on which broken dreams he is peddling? Also what challenge did you issue him?

[BigDaddy]

Internet / 0 CASINO BlackJack Singlehand
CasinoGame -1156.00

[Garnabby]

Hi, Cheme82, i have a bit more time today to elaborate a bit to your questions.

The house % doesn't change.

Ironically, and as i pointed out at also the Wizard of Vegas site, it's Shackleford, for one, who wants to thusly pretend that the HE on the banker's bet is about 1.06% instead of 1.17%. His "reasoning" is that, and according to the blackjack specialists, it's just better to factor the ties into the overall time-line of the standard decided "action". (Because the amount that the casinos will "earn" on such inherently-unfair "bets" increases in direct proportion to those rate of "action".) The problem with that approach, of course, is that the player must overcome the 1.17%, not just 1.06%, to begin to win something, the variances, etc, notwithstanding. One more, albeit tiny, example of what i call pervasive attempts to "sugarcoat" the true HE, its variances; and of his "convenient" omissions regarding the casinos' effective edge, especially in light of even the common counter-measures put on the players. You know, there must be a lot of new millionaires from the casinos if even a bit of what all the so-called A(dvantage)P(layers) are peddling were really as touted.

In my last reply, i meant that the "effective" edge of a casino may be voluntarily reduced by less play, strategically, or not. Effective or actual edge, as opposed to the HE in terms of a theoretical or nominal edge. At most casinos, the regular, persistent players may occasionally sit out only a few "hands" of blackjack before being asked to leave the table, but i have rarely encountered a baccarat-pit which has turned away a player "waiting" of tens of minutes before placing another minimum bet, even at the busy tables. Imagine the former player's possible effective advantage were he allowed to sit out at-will.

Could you elaborate on which broken dreams he is peddling? Also what challenge did you issue him?

Well, let's call it, "Garnabby's open challenge to the Wizard of Vegas". Shortly before banning me, Shackleford asked me, "Have you nothing good to say?" Therefore, i must assume that he neither agrees, nor "agrees to agree" in principle, with anything i have already said. Which was quite a bit over my four years here, and there, on the internet gambling message-boards, going on about gambling issues in general, and baccarat in specific. Where then, to begin?

He DOES stand in several uncontested professional conflicts-of-interest,
not the least of which is his clear and emphatic paid endorsement of US- felon and fugitive Bodog. In layman's terms, conflict-of-interest law is about "being above suspicion" in the first place, and throughout. It doesn't matter that someone later might say, "Oh, yes, he does do this, or that, but not to any harm." Doesn't matter.

He DOES portray, or avail himself of, the field of mathematics, among others, in a somewhat disrespectful manner. As far as i know, or as likely as anyone can say with certainty, the ancient Greek mathematicians chose to ignore the gambling "math". They had all the necessary mathematical tools to tackle it, along with many of the various contexts of today's gambling themes in which to begin to apply it. But low and behold, no one made "much to do of nothing" of it, of which gambling "math" essentially is, until after the establishment of modern-day scientific probablility and statistics in the 16oo's (?), and after the early predecessors of today's casinos began to take hold around the world. Shackleford is unlike any professor, or adjunct prof, of mathematics, including the branch of statistics, whom i have ever met, or studied under. I intentionally put out a few "feeler" questions there, at his main site, and i can assure you that he's no such academic. (A real mathematician, ie, someone who practises it daily, and does new work in one, or more, of its branches, simple knows that, eg, the term "indeterminant form" doesn't in any way refer to some body of work so far left unsolved by the mathematicians. A math problem may be labeled indeterminant because it has an infinity of solutions, whether the form of those solutions is exhausted, but that doesn't mean that it has been left unattended to, or unanswered. Fermat's Last Theorem was once an unsolved puzzle, but never was it an indeterminant one.) And my point, that's the logical result of trying to justify gambling with real mathematics, and one such other gimmick after another... you end up another victim of it all save by a different, "fancy" route. Shackleford, et al, want us to think a bit, enough to gain some sort of "finger hold" on that "yellow brick road", but to not think a lot about where it will really lead any of us.

He DOES try to perpetuate some sort of gambling mystique across the masses. "Be a player" hovers prominently atop his main site, with a brightly-colored woman looking back over her shoulder, as i recall. The about-the-ad link there appears to have been written by Bodog, not Shackleford... it practically screams out for customers. Mike seems to do a lot of other similarly-tacit "advertising", nay, outright promoting of the gambling industry. Even when he "takes issue" with a few elements of it, but continues to effect little real change for the good, he comes around to "sing some more praises" for all involved. Has he advised any one to just stop gambling, even a die-hard addict? Not that i know of. His main advice seems to revolve around the notion, that if you're going to gamble, anyway, do it at Bodog; and try to lose less to make it last longer. Well, sir, if i may specifically address yourself here, then like your politically-conflicted statements in support of legalizing on-line gambling in many of the United states, it's not then possible to, let alone practical to, "join 'em, if you can't beat 'em". Casinos, especially casinos, aren't in business to join any one else, or to brighten up any one's days. They go to great lengths, believe me, to separate every "loyal customer" from his last few pennies. Like any other "street drug", there IS NO safe amount. Any amount is an over-dose. Losing less at the casino is still losing, at least in the sense that you will lose it all in short-enough order anyway. Just that you might never "learn that lesson", and waste so much more of your valuable time in the process. Show me a such a drug from which the "high" is worth the downside, and i'll be the first in line for it. Even seasoned, licensed traders don't trade for the "fun of it". Those emotions of phoney "self-empowerment" have so much more to do with the psychological mechanics of the poor, and otherwise utterly-unequipped persons, most targeted by the casinos. The ones who, month after month, quickly, or not-so-quickly, lose their social-assistance cheques, and later tell themselves, "Man that was "fun", and a few meal-comps to boot. Sure beats sitting in my small room all day."

He DOES, in a strange dissociatively-polite manner, occasionally engage, and afterwards call, some of the others who are trying to have their own brands of "fun", vermin and quacks. I mean, which innate right has he to comment on anothers' "fun", especially in light of the fact that he preaches, and strongly tries to defend, his own vein of it over there, at the Wizard of Vegas? Where everyone seems to want to let on that all there would gladly go the casinos even if they knew they were all going to lose their usual stakes in advance of their next session. (Of course, all will over time, but try to explain that to such addicts, the "intellectual" ones.)

His "webmaster" DOES make up quotes of persons with whom he strongly disagrees. In fact, regarding my few serious such queries of the Wizard over there, he went so far as to fraudulently start an entire thread under my username. He agreed that there ought to be room for my voice there, the next day i was given a two-week ban, and the next week a permanent ban for only having been banned elsewhere. All in very-bad taste, to say the least.

In conclusion, Shackleford's irresponsible and irratic behaviors; his biased and imbalanced reporting, and dishonest policies, together reflect badly on the gambling industry, and augur worse for any expectations of fair treatment within it. (I know from a lot of casino-experience, eg, from having succussfully sued a major one.)

G.

[LordVodka]

I never hit on 16 if the dealer is showing a 8,9 or 10.

[Cheme82]

So what is your background and if you could make Shackleford do whatever you wanted, what would you have him do differently?

[Garnabby]

So what is your background?

Well, apparently i know quite a bit more about science, both in specific and general, than the "resident science expert", Doc, at the Wizard of Vegas site. It took me about 4 replies to fully reveal him for the complete fraud that also he is.

Not to be trite with you, Cheme82, but i decided four years ago to not trade off on my own professional and private lives with any aspect of the gambling industry.

Nothing i write, or otherwise do, within it has been, or ever will be, for some visibly-gainful profit, or any other such purpose. There are a lot of good reasons for this, which i will not elaborate here.

I do intend to finish writing a short book about beating baccarat, modestly-priced at $10-$20 to cover costs, and only after some considerable number of on-line, screen-sharing demonstrations of the clear and present viability.

And if you could make Shackleford do whatever you wanted, what would you have him do differently?

Back to focusing on the issue at-hand.

For starters, he could drop the "Wizard of Vegas" stuff. I have yet to meet up with a Mr. Legend, Gold, Gr8player, (famous mathematician) Bayes - you name it- who in any way lives up to those self-styled images.

No one is, or ever will be, a "Wizard of Vegas". Let's get over it! The "village idiot" of a few carnival pieces of plastic and cardboard, maybe.

Just too bad that he feels so-compelled to continue to "bastardize" the true spirit of academic mathematics, freedom of speech, etc, for another "cheap buck" in the process. Thankfully, the majority of us know better.

[The Wizard]

Can't we all just get along? Have to go now, I have some fraud to commit at my site.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

I don't split aces anymore. It never works out for me.

Last time I did it, got 2 more aces.

[homerbush]

The key to Blackjack in my opinion is to keep your cards on the table. In other words, play light. Dealer has 8 showing let's say. You have 16. STAY, don't hit. Remember, you have 100% more chance of winning the hand if your cards are on the table. You have 0% chance of winning if you bust. My take.

Sadly enough 9/10 people I observe play this never bust strategy it drives me nuts if you cannot hit a 16 when statistically it is the right play you should not be gambling. It is not for you. But hey the casino's love you. I would make sure the drink person comes by extra for these people and keep them around as long as possible.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

Sadly enough 9/10 people I observe play this never bust strategy it drives me nuts if you cannot hit a 16 when statistically it is the right play you should not be gambling. It is not for you. But hey the casino's love you. I would make sure the drink person comes by extra for these people and keep them around as long as possible.

I did a $1000 blackjack bet once in vegas. Had 18, the girl to the left of me doesn't hit on 13 with a dealer showing a 7 and it ends up costing the whole table as dealer hits 21 instead of busting. Infuriating. Just play like the book says.

[Garnabby]

Can't we all just get along? Have to go now, I have some fraud to commit at my site.

Hehehehe, Ken, but we're still waiting for the "unreal" Wiz to, for once in his life, take something seriously when "the fix isn't in".

For the record here, have posted a link to also this thread in my formally-stated challenge to him, at the proboard's board which i admin.

[The Wizard]

Hey guys, its me Michael. Just wanted to let everyone know I am a complete fraud and for this, I apologize. I am a terrible host at my gambling site (Wizard of Vegas). I have lied to many of the members regarding success stories when in fact, I owe back taxes in the amount of 86K. I am awaiting trial for the 2010 charge of grand larceny, I have a pretty good attorney so I should beat it. After the trial, I'll head back home and beat it again (in private). Talk to you guys later.

Michael 'bias with rules' Shackleford