Slashdot Mirror

Assuming your number was 1 to 100,

I think best odds you can get in craps is a little over .48 so that would be one reason people wouldn't accept it.
This seems to support that: http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/articles/30.html

From my two experiences actually playing (i.e. "throwing money into a hole"), some of the "good odds" bets are apparently socially unpopular. There is a social aspect to the table where you join a shared unreality where dice have memory and so on. I didn't totally get it but my EQ bud had done it a lot so he kept me from making a terrible faux pas.

The electronic slot machines used to be thought of as having worse odds than the mechanical machines.

http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/articles/8863.html
Not the greatest source, but it explains how this is a myth. Yes, a poor player can affect your odds on one hand, but it works both ways. Most blackjack players get miffed, not because you are affecting their hand, but because you are being an idiot.

11. Unlawful Internet Gambling Act

I realise the ratio is the same from 1 to n decks, but the number of smaller cards means there is more chance of a clump of small cards (which is good for the dealer). It doesn't make a great deal of difference the difference in the house edge is small (something like .3%) from 1 to 6 decks (see the rec.blackjack FAQ for some figures), but it does make a difference. It does also make it harder to count cards because the variations in makeup of the deck through play even out more, the more decks you add.

For the continuous shufflers (the ones in which the cards are shuffled back into the shoe while the shoe is being played), there is definately an advantage of faster play, but the main reason the casinos use them I assume is it makes it impossible to count cards, because the deck penetration is never more than something like 1/10th of the deck, which is highly unlikely to leave the count in favour of the player by even a small margin (here's an interesting article on one of the machines).

...and Blagojevich is a fuckwad.

Maybe not as much as the outgoing Republican Gov. Ryan, whose administration was nearly as corrupt as that of Richard Nixon's (selling licenses in exchange for bribes to people who can't even read English, anybody?), but he's close. Besides, this is Illinois. If it doesn't turn up that Blagojevich's administration is corrupt in some way, I'll be surprised.

Democratic Gov. Blagojevich is a governor who wanted to seize -- by force of government -- all the casinos in Illinois in order to pay down our multi-billion dollar state debt. Yes, he's such a pinko that he wanted to literally steal the casinos from their current private owners for state use. Instead, we have casino taxes high enough such that the state technically owns more of the output of the casino than the private owners do.

Blagojevich thinks letting off-duty and retired cops carry concealed weapons is OK -- but not the citizens. In fact, he wants *more* restrictions on the citizens' right to bear arms (which is codified in our state constitution even more-powerfully and clearly than the U.S. Constitution, BTW). Yeah, way to create an unequal society there "Rod". I'm just *sure* former and off-duty cops won't abuse their power. *rolls eyes*

The only thing Blagojevich has done right is not raise taxes; a considerable accomplishment for a Democrat, I admit, especially since we have merely a 3% flat income tax - one of the lower state income taxes in the nation. That, and he's defied the federal govn't and is working on getting prescription drugs reimported to the state (at least on that point, the Democrats like free trade...). I remain indifferent about his stance on flavored condoms.

But in Blagojevich is still a fan of bigger government. It doesn't surprise me that he wants to restrict the right of the people (including children) to gain access to the "distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18".

Blagojevich fails to recognize the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are not misbehaving. He wants the nanny-state to take care of our kids; not us, the individual adults who borne them.

It varies by state, and it varies by the type of gambling you're doing. In the US, casino gambling is usually 18 or 21 depending on the state you're in (Nevada is 21 btw) but lotteries and horse racing are almost always 18.

This site has more details on minimum gambling ages in different US states.

Also remember this is only the US. The minimum drinking age of 21 is extremely rare (Europe is 18 or 16 depending on the country, Canada is 18 or 19 depending on the province, Mexico is 18, Asia has various drinking ages almost always less than 21... Even Singapore (which bans importation of chewing gum) has a drinking age of 18). Gambling laws outside the US are also generally much less strict, with minimum ages of 18 (or less) and allowing gambling in many more places than in the US (in most parts of the US, you have to drive to an Indian reservation to gamble in a casino).

Interesting, that's why states pass laws to allow gambling then?

Read this pro-gambling websites listing all the laws passed and constitutional issues regarding gambling (including Indian casinos).
Strange how laws allowing Indian casinos to operate are passed...

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Casinos want you to lose. Most of the time, this means they want you to keep playing and keep betting large.

Since a good blackjack card counter can in fact make money (albeit more slowly than they probably could elsewhere - card counting can only nudge the odds of the player winning to something like 53%), casinos do want to catch them, and will get nasty about it. This makes casinos much less friendly places to people who look like they might be working with a system than places like pari-mutuel based betting parlors, where the house's cut is almost always a fixed percentage of the amount of money bet - there, the house doesn't care if you have a system that works; it's no skin off their nose. (Though they do begin to care if you demoralize other players enough so that the total amount bet goes down) Casinos, though, can get downright nasty if they suspect that your winning streak is anything other than dumb luck. (And, depending on the locality, they have the local law enforcement at their beck and call)