I have seen references made to some conditions with a positive EV being a "waste of time", presumably because the EV is so close to zero, or the STD so high because of the large spread required.
My question is, at what point would most of you consider a game a waste of time?
EV of less than 1/2%, for example?
Or is it based on time to double bankroll?
Or is it a combination of factors, best represented by DI or SCORE?
Thanks.
> My question is, at what point would most of
> you consider a game a waste of time?
> EV of less than 1/2%, for example?
Not the best indicator.
> Or is it based on time to double bankroll?
N0 is fine; it's really DI in disguise! :-)
> Or is it a combination of factors, best
> represented by DI or SCORE?
Now you're talkin'! :-)
Don
At what DI would you consider a game to be a waste of time?
Thanks again!
> Now you're talkin'! :-)
> Don
> At what DI would you consider a game to be
> a waste of time?
I have suggested that SCOREs of around 50 or so might be the limit of acceptability for "good" games, which would be a DI of 7.1. That said, I think that the number is highly subjective.
If a game offers you only 2/3 that amount, but it's the only game in town, are you better off sitting at home, doing nothing? I really can't answer that question for you. The concept of whether a particular investment offers sufficient reward for the risk you're asked to take in order to achieve that objective is not written in stone.
Hope this helps, if only a little.
Don
For me it is based on expected $ per hour and degree of heat.
There are many internet casinos where you can snag bonuses of $25 to $100 with no heat but it just isn't worth my time.
On the other hand - if I had a situation where I could log tons of hours with a small edge but bet a few thousand a hand, it would not be a waste of time.
Once you determine what is a good game, you are wasting your time playing the other games. I'm beginning to think that the No. 1 rule in this game is to go where the good games are and forget the rest.
Within the last year I have taken the time to analyze my play and I have eliminated the poor games and my earnings have increased considerably. This means forgetting the local places and buying plane tickets to good games. It certainly has been worth it. If I want to practice I just turn on casino verite.
Regards, Jimmy B
> I have suggested that SCOREs of around 50
> or so might be the limit of acceptability
> for "good" games, which would be a
> DI of 7.1. That said, I think that the
> number is highly subjective.
> If a game offers you only 2/3 that amount,
> but it's the only game in town, are you
> better off sitting at home, doing nothing? I
> really can't answer that question for you.
> The concept of whether a particular
> investment offers sufficient reward for the
> risk you're asked to take in order to
> achieve that objective is not written in
> stone.
> Hope this helps, if only a little.
> Don
what you say also applies to finding the "good" TABLES once committed to a given casino. The value of moving around is a simple linear calculation, but people tend to get the units wrong. The parameters are inexact -- based on experience, not hard data -- yet the conclusions are so compelling, and so profitable, that I dare not post to an open board.
ETF
> Once you determine what is a good game, you
> are wasting your time playing the other
> games. I'm beginning to think that the No. 1
> rule in this game is to go where the good
> games are and forget the rest.
> Within the last year I have taken the time
> to analyze my play and I have eliminated the
> poor games and my earnings have increased
> considerably. This means forgetting the
> local places and buying plane tickets to
> good games. It certainly has been worth it.
> If I want to practice I just turn on casino
> verite.
> Regards, Jimmy B
I just want to add a few points to what has been said earlier. The primary indicator of game quality is Certainty Equivalent per hour. If you are bet optimally, then this will be proportional to SCORE. However, some guys do not permit us to bet optimally: table limits may interfere. Your big bets may be above or the table max, or just more than a casino can tolerate, so you under-bet. On the other hand, sometimes the best games are at the high limit tables, and you may have to over-bet to play them. Each of these will be reflected in CE.
What games to play, you should also factor in comps where appropriate. Don't just look at the face value of them, but estimate how much they are actually worth to you. A mediocre game with good comps may be worth playing for the comps.
There are some who take an almost religious stand "I never play poor games ... I never play games with a certain SCORE. " Frankly, I suggest a more flexible approach. I would not travel to a casino with a poor game,. But once you are at a casino, most games will have some value.
Cover and Longevity are considerations. I use more cover in good games; I don't want to get blown out there. But in more game, there isn't much point. You are not going to play that much there, so don't worry about cover.
Last week I played a casino that has a "poor game". If I posted the name, people would say "Why do you play there." I was actually there to play the casino next door to it, but at that particular time fo day it not convenient to do so. SO I walked into the other place.
I played the game without cover. In one hour, I played 5 tabels, and back-counted 3 more. Now if this was one of my regular places, I would have been much better behaved : )
This raises my last point: crowd conditions. The quality of a game depends very much a crowd conditions. When many players evaluate a game, they look only at penetration and rules. Crowd conditions are just as important. In the example I discussed above, I entered the casino and decided that the crowd conditions were just about ideal for back-counting. If they had not been, I would have just left.
In the same vein as your comment on crowd conditions, I think getting a one-on-one game with the dealer is just as important, maybe more so. Most of my biggest winning sessions have been at such a table. Of course, this is never easy. Invariably, as soon as you sit down at an empty table, it quickly fills up with ploppies, even before the dealer completes his shuffle. I like those situations when everyone at the table is getting killed as the count moves up. They leave in disgust just when it reachs plus ev, and I have the whole table to myself for the rest of the shoe!
Neko
> I just want to add a few points to what has
> been said earlier. The primary indicator of
> game quality is Certainty Equivalent per
> hour. If you are bet optimally, then this
> will be proportional to SCORE. However, some
> guys do not permit us to bet optimally:
> table limits may interfere. Your big bets
> may be above or the table max, or just more
> than a casino can tolerate, so you
> under-bet. On the other hand, sometimes the
> best games are at the high limit tables, and
> you may have to over-bet to play them. Each
> of these will be reflected in CE.
> What games to play, you should also factor
> in comps where appropriate. Don't just look
> at the face value of them, but estimate how
> much they are actually worth to you. A
> mediocre game with good comps may be worth
> playing for the comps.
> There are some who take an almost religious
> stand "I never play poor games ... I
> never play games with a certain SCORE.
> " Frankly, I suggest a more flexible
> approach. I would not travel to a casino
> with a poor game,. But once you are at a
> casino, most games will have some value.
> Cover and Longevity are considerations. I
> use more cover in good games; I don't want
> to get blown out there. But in more game,
> there isn't much point. You are not going to
> play that much there, so don't worry about
> cover.
> Last week I played a casino that has a
> "poor game". If I posted the name,
> people would say "Why do you play
> there." I was actually there to play
> the casino next door to it, but at that
> particular time fo day it not convenient to
> do so. SO I walked into the other place.
> I played the game without cover. In one
> hour, I played 5 tabels, and back-counted 3
> more. Now if this was one of my regular
> places, I would have been much better
> behaved : )
> This raises my last point: crowd
> conditions. The quality of a game depends
> very much a crowd conditions. When many
> players evaluate a game, they look only at
> penetration and rules. Crowd conditions are
> just as important. In the example I
> discussed above, I entered the casino and
> decided that the crowd conditions were just
> about ideal for back-counting. If they had
> not been, I would have just left.
"Crowd Control for Counters"!
ETF
> In the same vein as your comment on crowd
> conditions, I think getting a one-on-one
> game with the dealer is just as important,
> maybe more so. Most of my biggest winning
> sessions have been at such a table. Of
> course, this is never easy. Invariably, as
> soon as you sit down at an empty table, it
> quickly fills up with ploppies, even before
> the dealer completes his shuffle. I like
> those situations when everyone at the table
> is getting killed as the count moves up.
> They leave in disgust just when it reachs
> plus ev, and I have the whole table to
> myself for the rest of the shoe!
> Neko
> In the same vein as your comment on crowd
> conditions, I think getting a one-on-one
> game with the dealer is just as important,
> maybe more so. Most of my biggest winning
> sessions have been at such a table. Of
> course, this is never easy. Invariably, as
> soon as you sit down at an empty table, it
> quickly fills up with ploppies, even before
> the dealer completes his shuffle. I like
> those situations when everyone at the table
> is getting killed as the count moves up.
> They leave in disgust just when it reachs
> plus ev, and I have the whole table to
> myself for the rest of the shoe!
This is very true. Some people are quite surprised at some of the casinos I play frequently. These tend to be low roller joints that, for some reason, elect to keep a $25 min table open. Most of these places simply do not draw a $25 min clientele, so it is often possible to get heads-up play, even on a Friday or Saturday evening. Thus, an otherwise mediocre game becomes quite playable. For example, a game with a SCORE of 35 might be quite playable if you can get 200 hands/hour or more.
> This is very true. Some people are quite
> surprised at some of the casinos I play
> frequently. These tend to be low roller
> joints that, for some reason, elect to keep
> a $25 min table open. Most of these places
> simply do not draw a $25 min clientele, so
> it is often possible to get heads-up play,
> even on a Friday or Saturday evening. Thus,
> an otherwise mediocre game becomes quite
> playable. For example, a game with a SCORE
> of 35 might be quite playable if you can get
> 200 hands/hour or more.
People with small bankrolls can take solace in crowded games, with superior rules and low minimums. The hourly wage will be the pits, but long term, it will be a (relatively) steady, confidence-building climb to the next level.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks