A recent article in a prestigious magazine is typical of so many books and articles on gambling, offering some good advice mixed with myths and outright garbage.
The writer started out with some excellent advice on choosing a casino. Nearly all casinos offer basically the same table games, so if you're a table game player you should select your favorite casinos primarily for what they offer in comps at your level of action. If you're a high roller, all of the big casinos will want your action, and they will offer food, lodging, limo service, air fare, and perhaps more to get you in the door and keep you there. Most of us aren't that high rated, however, so we must look more carefully at the casino's comp policies. Another good bit of advice from the writer is to find a good host, and always deal with him/her for comps. Ask ahead of time what level of action is required for the comps you would like. Finding out about comps is generally easier for slot and video poker players than for table game players because most slot clubs publish a flyer that gives exact details, but a few slot clubs are still of the "don't ask, won't tell" variety. A good slot host can sometimes offer more than what the slot club specifies.
Next, the writer recommended playing only craps, baccarat, blackjack or roulette. Apparently he is oblivious to the possibility of gaining a real edge over the house on video poker. If you don't like video poker, then I'll go along with his first three, provided:
* In craps, you stick with the Pass, Come, Don't Pass or Don't Come bets and take (or lay) odds to reduce the effective house edge.
* In baccarat, you avoid the tie bet.
* In blackjack, you learn the complete basic strategy, follow it, and avoid hunch plays.
No matter which game you play, you get rated for comps. All of these hold the house edge to less than 1.5% in most cases.
In roulette, however, there's no way to cut the house edge to less than 5.2% (2.6% if you find a rare single-zero wheel). The chances are almost zero that you can find a biased wheel or a dealer that's consistent enough to predict even which quadrant of the wheel will hit. The next bit of advice is to determine ahead of time how much you are willing to risk, then size your bets for at least a 200-unit bankroll. For example, if you go to the casino with a $1,000 gambling bankroll, your maximum bet size should be $1,000 divided by 200, or $5.00. This is good advice, and as you can see, most players grossly overplay their bankroll. But then the writer states that the more betting units you have, the less your risk of ruin; that is, the probability of losing your entire bankroll. This is true if you are playing at an advantage (as on some video poker games), but on anything else this conventional wisdom is misleading. If you play long enough against a house edge, your risk of ruin in very close to certainty regardless of how you subdivide your bankroll.
The only thing gained by making smaller bets is to extend your playing time. So what do you find more exciting and entertaining; losing your money on a few big bets or losing it on lots of small bets? If you're there only for the excitement of playing, knowing that you will probably lose, then the small bets are probably better because you get to play longer. On the other hand, if you can be satisfied with going home a winner regardless of how short your playing session, you might want to make just a few big bets, and quit immediately if you happen to get ahead. Personally, I don't like either option.
As with most gamblers, the writer next goes into table selection, in effect recommending that you search for a "hot" table by looking to see how much money the players have in front of them, whether they look excited or morose, etc. This is pure myth. There is no such thing as a "hot" or "cold" table in a random game. What has happened in the past is no indication of what to expect in the future. Instead, look for the best rules, odds and comps.
Then, of course, come the ridiculous betting progressions. Increasing your bet size against a house edge is just a way to lose faster. A better tactic is to reduce your bet size if you've been losing, keeping it in line with the current balance in your gambling bankroll.
And finally comes the old stop loss tactic. Your chances of winning on the next play are the same, regardless of whether you've been winning or losing. Still, a stop loss may be helpful to avoid the psychological letdown when you lose back all your winnings. Actually, the best stop loss tactic is to stop before you place even one bet against a house edge.
But the author never gets into the best way to maximize your chances of going home a winner. That is, to play only in situations where you have an advantage. My recommendation obviously would be certain video poker games, such as full pay Deuces Wild, All American Poker or Double Bonus Poker. For a moderate to high roller, however, it could be 9/6 Jacks or Better, Not So Ugly Deuces, or even one of the low house edge table games, provided the expected comps exceed your expected loss on the game.
Remember, video poker is unique in being the only casino game where a player can have an advantage on every play. Why play against a house edge, no matter how small, when you can have the edge?
|
