Card counting blackjack, internet poker for real money, etc. Straight-talking analyses of gambling for a second income. - "PAPER-SCISSORS-ROCK"----click here for a new Poker strategy. - Internet

Our sponsor:

<br> <a href="http://leader.linkexchange.com/14/X1053408/clickle" target="_top"><img width=468 height=60 border=0 ismap alt="" src="http://leader.linkexchange.com/14/X1053408/showle?"></a>

FOR A LIST OF TOP OPPORTUNITIES, don't miss our home page.

CAUTION: Please note that the use of "Internet Casinos" is illegal for minors and may be restricted in certain states and countries.

Here is a summary of the pros and cons of "advantaged gambling," which was posted on a leading "advantaged gambling" forum:

1) The main problem with Internet poker is that it is currently much slower than real life poker.

2) The only reason I am sticking with Internet poker is because I do not live near a casino and do put some value on my health. Lung cancer or getting just plain sick from all that gunk-in-the-bloodstream is no joke and there are no "non smoking" tables at home games. Tobacco, alcohol, and the typical "gambler" go together. These are all "no win" scenarios in which the true "advantage gambler" does not fit. If not for such stupidity there would of course be no gambling to begin with and no suckers to take advantage of. And the world would be better off.

3) I suspect that "collusion" in real life poker is almost as easy as in Internet poker. How does anyone less than a super-pro like Sklansky know when a raised eyebrow or a slightly turned cup is not in fact a secret code? This is why Sklansky gives bad advice when he says Blackjack and poker are the same in that you should always stay at a "good game" whether you are winning or losing. In Blackjack at a reputable casino this is acceptable advice, but in poker there is no definitive way to tell whether your opponents are not in fact either (a) better than you or (b) cheating.

4) Correct me if I am wrong, but collusion is of much greater value in Hold'em than in Stud--and Hold'em is currently the only variation with an adequate player pool on the Internet. On the other hand, in Internet play, there is the advantage that the card room knows precisely who is and who is not a "phenomenal winner." I do believe that sophisticated "entrapment" programs can thus be added to catch such "cheaters," thus making Internet play actually safer than real life. But these would be expensive to develop and (unlike in Blackjack) there is limited incentive for the establishment to expell the poker cheats.

5) The application of mathematical logic in poker is way behind Blackjack. Therefore, even the best poker books must be taken with a large grain of salt. In the first place, it is not possible to make a totally accurate "computer analysis" of all the poker variables. If you study the "expert advice" on Blackjack before the era of computer analysis, you will see that even the "expert" can be very wrong. The fact is that it is not possible for the human mind to accurately track whether or not a given protocol is in the long run winning or losing. In the second place: even what uses the computer does have in poker are not yet exploited. I do believe that anyone who cares to take the time can "get a jump" on the poker competition by computer analysis--but the time spent will be significant. Existing programs can do it, but are not directly set up to do it, so that many of the "finishing touches" must be done by hand. But of course the fact that it is "hard to do" is also your guarantee that you will be ahead of the competition.

6) In my opinion, it is foolish to play Blackjack without first learning the ropes via the extensive use of simulation, and likewise to play Poker without first learning to beat the best robots. Therefore I do not believe that the possiblity of someone putting a robot into an online game is a significant concern (unless it is a colluding robot).

7) It seems to me that "short" games are on the contrary more dangerous than full tables. When there are few players, any two who are colluding will thus control an outrageously high percentage of the cards, with the result that you will be pinched like a bug in a vice. Even if they are not cheating but only better than you, you are equally doomed. Whereas in a full table, you do not even need to be the best player to win but only better than average. This ought to be attractive to any Blackjack afficianado who has spent so many hours sitting next to the "average player" who not only does not count, but does not double down on eleven against seven! And worst of all: the casino, not you, gets that boob's money.

8) After several years of intensive research and experimentation in the sphere of so-called "advantaged gambling," I have come to the conclusion that there are only 2 reasonable possibilities: (a) Play as a hobby for which you begin with a "maximum loss" budget of $1,000 per year, or (b) Play as a semi-professional with a "maximum loss" budget of at least $10,000 per year. The second option really does not make sense. For example, six months ago I put $10,000 into the Pimco Innovation Fund, and it is now worth $16,000. It is almost impossible for this to have instead dipped to $5,000--as opposed to this being quite common in Blackjack. Think about it. Unless you are very, very good, you are in fact much better off to work at MacDonald's in your spare time and put that money in the stock market than to "count cards." Now the first option: "as a hobby," is much more sensible. You could easily spend $1,000 per year in tennis, skiing, or golf, with no possiblity of a financial return, not to mention the free lunches from comps. The only problem is you must be totally disciplined. If you smoke or drink AT ALL while playing, goodbye to the "healthy hobby" such as tennis, skiing, or golf which normally prevents you from smoking or drinking for significant periods. When you lose that $1,000 you must stop playing for the year, because contrary to what some writers imply, there is no guarantee it will come back. (A computer simulation of less than 1,000,000 rounds is considered "meaningless." Over your lifetime, the serious amateur is likely to play only 100,000 rounds. Think about it.) Last and not least: in Blackjack you must leave the table the moment that the pit boss starts looking at you the wrong way, and in Poker you must leave the table the moment that your bankroll has dropped to a pre-set quota (to prevent excessive losses to sharks and cheaters).

9) Writing books on "advantaged gambling" is in fact one of the more lucrative fields. There are two drawbacks to this: (a) if you really have such a great idea that "everyone will start winning," the only result can be that the casinos who can also read books will change the rules so that no one can win, or (b) even if your system is "good," you are ultimately colluding with the casino in getting more suckers to play.

I myself have lately declared a personal moratorium on gambling. It was making money but taking up too much time. I expect to get back to gambling again. But strictly as a "profitable hobby."

************
The above is of course just one opinion. A reply to this posting went something like, "Number 8 makes no sense because in Blackjack you can increase your income by playing more hours." This is also a valid perspective. Which perspective becomes more or less valid depends on your skill level, proximity to a casino, and the playing conditions of that casino.

WE LOVE TO HEAR FROM READERS. We will publish your comments both pro and con, and even give you free advertising space, if you so desire. Please find contact information on our FEEDBACK page.

This page and every page in MoneyData: copyright 1999 by Christopher Oey, all rights reserved.

Visitors: 03089

Page Updated Sat Oct 7, 2000 11:21pm EDT