Sunday, April 17, 2011

Working tactics

The tactic shown in the video below is a good unbeatable one,proven mathematicly and in practice.But there-s one problem,the casinos knows about it and fights it by two metods:First of all they impose a high minimum bet and second they impose a low maximum bet.So,even if you have enough money to double the loses every time,if you loose too many times you won't be able to double the bet.
Anyway,if you find a roulette table with a low minimum bet and a high maximum bet,it worth trying.But be aware of the risc of loosing money!

> >

Amateur casino to accommodate an anticipated compliance advantage to the casino, or "House", while alms the amateur of the feasibility of a concise payment ample. Some Bank amateur accept an element of the performance, the amateur area makes decisions; This amateur would have "random with a suitable element." Although it is accessible by the game done to shorten the advantage of residence, it is acute attenuate that an amateur has achievement acceptable to absolutely annihilate his law-abiding inherent disadvantage (residence bend or levied residence) in a game of Bank. One such set of accomplishments absorb years of training, an amazing history and numeracy and (or) saw clever or even aural observation, as in the case of caster synchronization in Roulette.
The disadvantage of the player is an aftereffect of the Bank not paying acceptable updates according to "true odds of the game", which are services which would be accepted because that allocation of action neither acceptable nor losing. For example, if a bold is played by wagering on the bulk that would have the aftereffect of the cycle of one die, precise allocation would 6 times the big bet back there is a 1 in 6 adventitia of any individual in bulk appearing. However, the Bank can pay only 5 times the big bet for an acceptable bet.The bend residence (he) or allowance is authentic as the accumulation of Bank to bid as an attribution of indigenous bet for the player.
The addition of the abode bend wheel was an atomic exercise; This is not generally the case for added games. Simulation assay or Combinatorial computer is very important to perform this task.
Amateur accept an element of achievements, such as Blackjack or Spanish 21, the elbow of residence is authentic as the benefit of the optimal residence of game (without the use of technologies such as the counting of the order of the day)on the native Duke of footwear (alembic holding cards). The set of the optimal plays for all accessible easily are accepted as "basic strategy" and is debased terrible on the specific rules and even the major part of used bridges. Good amateur of Blackjack and Spanish 21 accept abode edges below 0.5%.
View the original article here

Friday, April 15, 2011

Use of the Casino

> >
Money is exchanged for tokens in a bank to Bank cage, at the gaming tables or an accountant position. Tokens are editable with money at the casino. They on accept none in bulk alfresco of the casino, in Las Vegas, admitting some capacity account [citation needed] added Casino chips Casino and dynamic enterprises (such as taxis or waiters†"especially for advice") in the cities of the Bank can explain informally.
Tokens are active for several reasons. They are added acceptable to use the currency and aswell accomplish the annexation and counterfeiting said difficult. Consistent size and regularity of the endless of chips, they are easier to calculate in endless from Bill if acclimated cardboard on a table. This aswell aspect allows the bang-up or aegis pit bound check the bulk being paid, abbreviation the adventitia that a capacity of distant banker pays a client. Consistent weight of tokens official casino allows their balances make ample endless or bags of chips instead of their account (though counting AIDS such as tooth trays is added common) Furthermore, it is empirical consumer action added to good use with backup that cash currencies.[citation needed]
Finally, the chips are invited to be a grant of basic environment of the Bank, and replacing them with some bill alternating would be unpopular.
Many casinos accept only the use of metal tokens (and parts), in their machines for opening, for cardboard or receipts of prepaid, cards, while costs of acute abundant basement to install, offset the costs of administration of bread and interference problems encountered in machines that took the Bill or tokens. While some casinos (such as the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas), which installed the cancellation arrangement had retained $1 tokens on to use $1 chips, many adding application casinos receipts had ingenuement demolished entirely tokens. Many recipes of application for casinos accept automatic machines at which barter may redeem receipts, eliminating windows counting workload and to shorten the activity of bread costs.
A set of 300 accepted section of Injection plastic chips generally awash as "composite of clay" chips
Casino tooth is an attribution of numismatics, added exactly as specialized exonumia collecting. This attraction is more accepted with Bank Chips & Gaming tokens Collectors Club formed in 1988. Some chips are up to $100,000 and the many way accepted for aggregate and barter is on eBay. Several casinos announce sets custom-built chips and one or two decks of cards with the name of the Bank on them. Each game is independent in a box or a baby attached.
View the original article here

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Online casino strategy

> >
Alpha is your online bank experience, the original affair, which you accept to accept a plan of attack. What to do, playing what game and are as abundant money to place for to spend? I hope that you will be a winner, but if you accept a band of bad luck have, would you don't lose all your savings. Their  mission is to purchase of an online bank, apparel that your wishes.It is celebrated and secure? The Blazon of the software use it? It does the amateur action you are completely with? They offer what affectionate bonuses do? Is it user friendly? You should purchase of this message on this Web site may be.
Now, that you in, afore you play, get with the Casino used. You can disregard what what does accept and if you accept problems met of the hip post for help. You ability aswell acquisition, that is a lure for exhortation and admonition of additional actors in the babble of voices Bank acceptable idea allowance. You are the acquisition, the players are blessed, exhortation and adore added a nice chat.
As soon as they are with the online casino, you will accept the bold that you (i.e. Blackjack, slots) want to play. Who is tired in our online bank amateur area best reminder that we accept for you, is that you accept to playing bold and apperceive above enable you, for you to play. You will purchase, that your Affairs of acceptable abundant College if you if taken apperceive or stand, turn or play 3 Bill 1 instead. It aswell pays a message area adjacent to of accumulate your remuneration and/or best available next plays outlines (similar to the blackjack table in our online bank start bonus section).
Finally, the best action you can use is to play with a light head. If you of are tired, in a vile affection or possibly a little intoxicated, you are not to Cerebration Beeline and will achieve errors. And keep in mind, online casinos are your audience out there for absorbing accept fun, anticipate, the Aftereffect you will accept at atomic absolute and no amount you are during this acquaintance and hopefully bigger your action for the next time enjoyed.
View the original article here

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Bet-sizing, Part IIb: Making Decisions Easy

> >
Somewhat belatedly, I give you the second of three examples on sizing bets or raises in a way to make the potential decision on whether or not to fold to a re-raise easy. The belatedness of this post has to do with planning and executing a close friend’s bachelor event (or stag , if you prefer) which took place last night. Great fun, but this post isn’t about men drinking beer and bonding in a sauna.
The main consideration when deciding on the size of a bet is the effective stack. With very deep stacks, the preflop raise decides how big the pot will (or can) eventually become. With very small stacks, you must instead focus on avoiding the trap of being committed with a hand that you don’t want to continue with. Today’s example illustrates the importance of planning the future betting already preflop:
$25NL, 6-max. It’s folded to you on the button, and you hold ace-queen. You would (or at least should) normally open with a very wide range here, so raising with AQ is a no-brainer. But before you raise, make sure to check how big the effective stack is between you and the blinds! If you have a loose big blind with a small stack, you should usually not raise to 3-4 times the big blind (the typical standard opening raise) but instead make a smaller raise. Look:
If the effective stack between you and the big blind is, say, 30BB, and you raise to four times the BB preflop and he calls, the pot will be 8BB with 27BB left behind. If he checks to you and you make any kind of continuation bet, you’re committed with your ace-high. Even if you only bet half the pot, you are more or less forced to call if he checkraises all-in, as the pot would be laying you about 2:1. In fact, even if he doesn’t checkraise all-in but to a smaller amount, you’re still committed. He’ll have so few chips left that if you’re calling that checkraise now, you can not fold at any future point in the hand anyway.
The hand plays out very differently if you instead raise to, say, 2.5BBs preflop. Yes, close to a minraise, but let’s leave dogma at the door. Suddenly, the same postflop scenario would become a 5BB pot on the flop, into which you bet 2.5BBs. If he checkraises you now, the effective odds you’re getting are 34:22, and while the difference in required chance to win “only” goes up by a paltry 10 percentage points, that’s really all it takes to make a close call into a clear fold.
It’s perhaps strange that I suggest raising to a smaller amount with a hand like A-Q preflop, given that it seems clear that that’s where you have your edge. Why not raise a lot preflop and create what is essentially a situation where HE’s the one who’s committed. That’s actually not a terrible idea; if you can somehow make him committed with your preflop raise, you’ve created a situation in which you get your chips in with an edge. If you raise to, say, 9 or 10BBs preflop and he calls, you can go ahead and push on the flop and he will almost have to call regardless of his holding. The trouble area for you, is when the pot isn’t so small that you can easily fold or so big that you can easily shove, but just in between. And that’s what you should try to avoid.
So, action point for next session: When you’re on the button, check the effective stack size between you and the blinds. If the stacks are somewhat deep, go ahead and make a regularly sized raise. Otherwise, make sure to raise less.
View the original article here

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Bet-sizing, Part IIa: Making Decisions Easy

I ended the first post with the teaser of this post being about “sizing your bets and raises in a way that makes folding to a re-raise much easier.” This is only half the truth, really. I should have said, “sizing your bets and raises in a way that makes the decision of whether or not to fold to a re-raise much easier.”
No-limit, by and large, is centered around the big bluff. “Moving In.” “Pushing.” “Shoving.” “Going all-in.” It’s centered around it in the sense that the threat of the all-in bluff looms as a possibility at all times when you play no-limit. That threat, for instance, is what causes people to check behind on the river with decent hands because they fear their opponent might check/raise all-in, leaving them with a horribly difficult decision. So instead, they save (or lose?) a few bucks and just check.
It’s always there. And it’s how to take the edge of it by being smarter about bet sizing that’s the topic. And I want to do this with a couple of examples, starting today with one - potentially on my part grossly misplayed - hand, where I size my bet on the turn in such a way as to stop my opponent from bluffing me off. The example is very verbose, because I think it contains a few other interesting situations besides the actual problem of bet sizing; hopefully you will find it interesting as well. I played this hand a week or two ago:
6-max $50NL on PokerStars. I have 66 in the cut-off seat. It’s folded to me and I open to $2. This raise is half steal, half value raise. Most hands that would call that raise have me at either a coin toss or severely dominated, but I have some great fold equity to capitalize on post flop, as well as huge implied odds versus some hands when I flop a set.
Unfortunately, the button calls my raise, but at least both blinds folds. I say unfortunately, because now I’m out of position with a very marginal hand. What I know about the button so far is that he’s very loose, very aggressive and likes to bluff. He’s not “bad” necessarily, just very tricky, but he does seem to have some method to his madness. Also, his stack is a bit short.
The flop comes A-K-K. The effective stack at this time is $25, and the pot is $4.50.
Now, I could have given up on this flop, but I wasn’t too happy about that outcome. My equity wasn’t great, admittedly, but I should have had some decent fold-equity lined up here. Specifically, I thought I could get him to fold pocket pairs and overcards to my sixes, which (take my word for it, or play around with Stove yourself to find out) constitute 30% of his holdings. I think he will continue with all aces, all kings and all QJ/QT/JT combos.
You can perhaps see why giving up wouldn’t have been such a bad idea after all; continuing out of position is a recipe for disaster. However, I didn’t have time to Stove these things at the table, so I went with my (incorrect) gut feeling that I had a good case for betting here, and did. I bet $3 into the $4.50 pot. He calls. He didn’t snap call, and he didn’t tank either. He just called with the normal flow of the game, for what’s worth to the timing-tells people out there.
But what does it mean? It means he’s either slowplaying or floating. It means that I can’t win this hand without getting him to fold, because if we go to showdown, I’ve lost (as he’s not going to call down with QJ). This ties in with the topic how?
… because on the turn, the pot is $10.50, and remaining in his stack (the smaller one) is $20. If I check, I expect him to bet almost every time. And I can’t call if he does, because his equity is better than mine, after all. So I have to bet myself, but how much do I bet? “As little as possible” is really the key phrase, here. For all intents and purposes, my bet is a bluff - I want him to fold! I should bet the smallest amount that gets the job done. But, and this is important, there are two factors to take into account for the minimum size of the bet as well, and they are:
1. When he’s drawing, I should prevent him from drawing profitably (he will have 10 outs when that happens).
2. Don’t bet so little that he will be enticed to move all-in as a bluff.
… and it’s really #2 that’s the key problem here, and what this topic is all about. I want to bet enough on the turn that he will realize that there’s no point in bluffing, while simultaneously not so much that folding makes no sense if he re-raises. Let’s look at some different bet sizes:
$3: He will be getting about 4:1 on calling here, or about break-even for his 10-out draw, but it’s not calling that I’m worried about. He will also have another $17 left behind, for a pot-sized all-in raise, laying me about 1.7:1 - not good for me.
$6: Offering him a little less than 3:1 is better for when he draws. He still has a little power left in moving in because in doing so he’d lay me odds of about 2:1.
$10: Betting the pot. He’d only have $15 behind, and if he raises me, it will be another $15 in a $30 pot. This will discourage most thinking opponents from trying to bluff with air. He’d be laying me about 3:1.
Differently put, because it’d be so easy for me to call a re-raise, I don’t have to call the re-raise. If he pushes now, he expects me to call. Therefore I don’t have to. As you can see, I’m thinking on the second level here (what does my opponent think I have/will do) and that of course requires an opponent who thinks on the first level. But still.
If it’s not clear enough, let me just restate that I probably botched the 66-hand. Continuing past the flop (I think bet/folding the flop is fine) is probably a mistake. Letting him have it on the turn is probably better than bluffing. But what matters isn’t whether I played it perfectly or not on the turn, it’s the thought process: Trying to size my bet in a way as to stop him from bluffing. And I think my thinking around that was fine, in my defense.
More examples on simplifying your upcoming decision will be coming throughout this week - but I need to keep the posts to some kind of sane length to not risk losing everyone halfway through. :)
View the original article here

Bet-sizing, Part III: Bluffing

> >

The lesson about sizing bluffs learned from No-limit Hold’em - Theory and Practise is that we should bet enough to “get the job done” but not much more. In theory, I could end this post on sizing bluffs on that note, because there really isn’t that much more to say. If you decide to bluff, make a bet that’s big enough, but not too big. For instance, if I want to bet into an opponent who will fold everything but the nuts to a bet that’s at least half the pot, then clearly betting more than just a little over half the pot is just wasting money. Every dollar that goes in over that ideal amount is a loss, of varying degrees.
Really, there’s not much more to say about how to size your bets when bluffing - except this:
Don’t go and get yourself committed.
I use “except this” kind of slyly here, because this is really a very big deal. A very easy-to-grasp example of this idea - that I’ve touched on earlier in this series of posts when dealing with “easy decisions” - is when you’re on the button and it’s folded to you. You should normally open with a very wide range, but now let’s say the big blind has a very short stack left - let’s say 10BB. If you raise to 4BB with 7-5 offsuit, and he pushes all-in, you might end up having to call because of the pot odds. See?
A slightly more complex, but really a version of the same theme, example comes fresh off the presses from this morning, when I played a little $50NL before work. In this particular example, I’m dealing with a semi-bluff:
100BB effective stacks, 6-max.
I raised to $2 under-the-gun. Only the big blind called, and he called with A-3 of hearts.
Flop comes Q-T-3, two spades, one heart. He checks, I bet $4, and he calls with bottom pair, top kicker. The pot is now $12.
The turn is the king of hearts, giving him bottom pair, top kicker and the nut flush draw. Again, he checks and I bet $8. Here, he decides to fire a semibluff, which is actually a fairly decent time to try it. I often bet two barrels and will fold a lot of my range here, and if he can get me off any hand at all, it’s a great victory for him. But here is where he went wrong: He raised to $25, leaving him committed to calling when I pushed all-in, because by then, the pot was $81 and it was only $19 more for him to call with a pair and a flushdraw. A better move on his part would have been to checkraise to a smaller amount - maybe even close to a min-raise - in order to give himself the option of folding. Instead, he was forced to put in $36 on the turn with what realistically was only about a 20% chance to win.
And at this point, I want to kill a potential misunderstanding before it spreads: Giving yourself future odds to call a bet is not a good thing. I believe this faulty logic is common enough to warrant a reminder in this post, despite me having talked about it before. Him raising to an amount where he’s forced to call a push isn’t, as some people have put it, “two +EV decisions in a row, and as long as I make +EV decisions, I’m OK!”
And that’s really at the heart of it. Bluffing an amount that will make you committed is to be avoided.
View the original article here