Are you banned now? (I'm assuming you didn't give the money back.)

Not only am I not banned, they actually sent someone else to apologize for the inconvenience. I kept it.

Believe it or not, I hit a $3500 wheel flush later they day.

They’re not giving up. Got a letter today with a corrected w2g and a threat of legal action. This should be fun.

popcorn.gif

That is pretty crazy... I am curious how this ends too...

You really got a W2G for this though? I hit a royal on Mississippi Stud with $600 bet. Max payout was $20K, the win should have been $300K. They handed me two racks of $100's and we kept playing, no paperwork.

In the US, you should get a tax form if a single bet on tables pays at least 300 to 1 and is at least a payout of $600 or more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah they withheld $6000 immediately.

It's not a mistake, it's based on the ante bet just like everyone computes the edge of a game.

Can you please cite this? In all of his material on the subject I didn't see where he specified it.

And LOL at everyone computing the edge of a game in relation to the ante. What are you basing this on?

It’s under the “Analysis” portion...

https://wizardofodds.com/games/ultimate-texas-hold-em/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In Tukwila WA they are taking $3 for the jackpot but the payouts are the same!
So a full house gets $10 or 7 to 3.
And a community royal is not 10%. It’s a flat $3000 or something dumb.
You’re better off buying 3 lotto tickets.

I don't think we're having the same conversation at all. I am referring to Eliot Jacobson's analysis of the game playing with full knowledge of others' cards and computer perfect decisions based on that information. He says that his simulation shows a 2.5% edge for the player. But he does not specify whether this is 2.5% of the ante wager, or all action wagered.

I asked you to show me where he does specify.

I'm guessing it's the edge on the ante since I'm pretty sure that's standard.

Anyone know a safe, free VPN I can use to access Jacobson's work? I can not access 888casino at all.

A net 2.5% edge for the player on the game would cause every casino to outright toss the game from their casino floor. Like I said, there is still one local casino that deals this game faceup for all players. The net edge that the player gains from seeing other players card is very minimal. It is only a small handful of scenarios that you will run into where it will give you a preflop decision changing opportunity. K-5 off is already a borderline hand, but you are supposed to 4x it bc you lose less in the long run by doing so. It’s still a losing hand, you just lose less by 4x-ing...in the long run. You can easily inquire if your Kings are live without openly seeing for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But 90% of the players play so awfully bad.

If 10% of players can exploit a game with a net player edge of 2.5%, that would be a big deal and a huge problem for the casino.

I can see a 2.5% improvement in the player’s favor, but def not a 2.5% net edge for the player...much less any net positive edge for the player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, if Jacobson says the game has a 2.5% edge on the ante for the player, he's most likely correct.

Secondly, 10% is an insanely high figure and of course the casino would worry about that. In reality the percentage of players who achieve this edge is several orders of magnitude less than 10%.

Blackjack is a game that has a player edge. Casinos still offer it and monitor the games, booting anybody they think is beating it. Card counting is much, much more widely known than some UTH collusion strategy and yet it's still very rare to encounter players capable of performing it properly. Casinos don't seem too worried about card counters. The effect card counters have on their profits is a drop of water in a pond.

Why are you so convinced that a casino wouldn't offer a player edge game? They likely don't realize the potential for the game to be exploited, or if they do they have protections in place or simply think Advantage play opportunities do exist in casinos even greater than 2.5% player edge. I've seen one that was over 10% edge in theory although not that easy to achieve in practice, and it was available due to a weakness in casino procedures.

Honestly, I doubt many casinos are even aware that this game could offer a player edge.

I’m merely debating whether or not one can get a net, which means overall, edge on the game from simply seeing all players card. I believe Jacobson, shackleford, and how all agree on “no”.

Sure a game might inadvertently provide a 10% edge somehow through some kind of exploitation, but that exploit would eventually get closed down. I’ve seen a player banned from a local on UTH, for exploiting careless dealers flashing their hole cards. Players cards alone will not give a big enough edge to the player to make the game bearable.

As far as card counting...yes, casinos do still care. Even if you go on a hot streak without counting, you run the risk of being backed off...I know people who this has happened to. They just assume you are counting and since they can back off anyone, they err on the safe side.

Back to UTH...this game has been in casinos long enough that they catch up to countering exploits pretty quickly. I’ve the past 7-8 years I have played this game...almost my exclusive table game of choice...I have seen all sorts of procedural changes to the game, in addition to change in table limits and aggregate payouts. This game used to be highly susceptible to cheating and exploiting careless dealers. Venetian has gone so far as to program their shufflers to shuffle in cut cards under the dealers cards, the flop, and turn/river, so there is no chance of flashing the more important exploitable cards. If you want a player edge in UTH, it’s the dealer hole cards and the board cards that you need to see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You believe incorrectly. As I said before, Jacobson ran a simulation and found that with computer perfect play, the player has a 2.5% edge.

However, his sample size was incredibly small (500 hands), and he did not elaborate on the real world edge achieved based on a human having to make the decisions, nor did he bother to attempt to create a simplified and practical strategy.

Alright, I just reread the article and see exactly where he states the player will get an overall edge of 2.5% (from a sample size of 500 hands). I will admit being wrong and eat my own foot. He is way more qualified than me and def way smarter, so I can’t argue with his numbers. However, until someone can actually prove me wrong with real money results, I’ll save my other foot for eating later lol.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to ask again for assistance to see Jacobson's blog. Your links do not work for me. Literally just copy/pasting the text and PMing it to me would be very helpful, or if there are important images, screenshot it.

I don't think it's really 500 "hands." I think he solved 500 starting deals. It seems like a small sample, but it's large enough that edge is likely pretty accurate.

I'm pretty sure I read the article while it was still on APheat.net, but that was a long time ago and my memory is fuzzy.

I posted some screenshots in my posts. As far as 500 hands...that is extremely small sample size regarding anything gambling. However, that’s all he could feasibly simulate, given the time and resources he had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will copy and paste to you later tonight.

Yeah, thanks for giving me an idea. Double Down also sent me the full article.

Jacobson said he thinks 100,000 hands are needed to get an accurate representation. I'm not sure what he considers "accurate," though. I'm going to guess that the 2.5% figure is close enough to the true value for most purposes. I doubt the standard deviation of the player edge per hand is very high.

Merry Christmas to me

Maybe I can now quit this infernal game