+ Register

[RouletteGhost]

Nothin is as ridiculous as Vince armenti betting B and P at same time

[Nathan Detroit5]

Now, who is Vince Armenti ? There  must be a good reason to play B and P at the same time. . Nothing unusual about that under certain circumstances.

[alrelax]

I play at two of the local casinos around me, 1 place has unlimited free hands, the other will not do a free hand.  People wager the same on B and P to move the game all the time.

[RouletteGhost]

They allow you to bet p and b at the same time and they deal the cards?

[alrelax]

They allow you to bet p and b at the same time and they deal the cards?

Every casino I every been to will, one form or another.  Especially the ones that do not allow 'free-hands'.  They always allow the same money from one player on both sides.  Some do it just to wager less on the side bets as well without wagering the min, Ex. $25 on B, $25 on P and $5 or $10 on Tie or Fortune or Panda.  At a $25 min, table.

Some casinos will only allow up to a certain amount on one side, such as $200 on B and $100 on P, up to 50% on one side max for example if wagering both.  However, a lot of properties of moved away from that rule.  Varies property to property. 

[RouletteGhost]

Oh ok

I did not know that

I guess placing the same chip size on b and p is good if you are waiting for a trigger??

By the way this is who I meant:
https://youtu.be/re3BBJ3GOB4

[Mr J]

I'm a roulette CAT

So pardon my ignorance


But can you play tie bet only with a progression safely in a shoe?

Answer is probably no. Can't be that easy

Is there anything you don't do which requires a PROGRESSION? (jeez) Still a rookie.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

Is there anything you don't do which requires a PROGRESSION? (jeez) Still a rookie.

Ken

Cool.

There's actually a conversation going on here

Much better off without your attacks. You child

Hopefully the mods seal your fate here as well you blabbering bafoon

[Mr J]

Cool.

There's actually a conversation going on here

Much better off without your attacks. You child

First you post....cool. I read it and you think, I move on. Then......you added to it.

That's old school RG, try it on someone else.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

You just attacked me for no reason out of nowhere

Then you play that pathetic card

With the roulette money you claim to make go see a psychiatrist



You're dismissed

[RouletteGhost]

I'm not gonna derail this thread

And I'm not gonna cause trouble on this forum

So get the last word then get the hell out of here

[Mr J]

You just attacked me for no reason out of nowhere

Then you play that pathetic card

With the roulette money you claim to make go see a psychiatrist



You're dismissed

May 27th, I'm looking forward to it. I need a PO box # (address) from you so I can send an anniversary card to you.

Ken

[owenslv]

"Hi Mike;

Thank you for your response.

What I was attempting to learn from your study is the average amount of ties in all of the hands you considered, not just the last shoe.

So, would it be correct to assume that in your study, of 1,000 shoes that one would, on average, encounter 7.89 ties (83640 X 0.0944524) ?

Sincerely,

Garry Owens"

"No.  The probability of a tie is 9.5156%, not 9.44%."

So, according to Mike Shackelford, Wizard of Odds, in his example of 1,000, 8-deck shoes you can expect an average of 9.5% ties.

Hope that helps everybody.

[alrelax]

So, I came off the wall with 8-11 and got challenged and then some 'expert' claims about 9.5%, which should translate according to his figures, right at 8 ties per shoe.

Maybe he can explain Plateaus and Turning Points??

Why do I even answer posts?