Well, I might have posted a picture of my little buddy here a few years back.  Actually misplaced him and never really searched for him.  Came across him under a pile of clothes in a drawer the other night.

I bring him in my pocket to the casino and occasionally when I or the entire table are calling for a monkey, pull him out.  Yes, he is solid gold and about the size of a thumbnail. 

Call it superstitious or quackery, it does bring smiles and pats on the back when it works. 

"An arrest warrant has been reissued for a Massachusetts millionaire who failed to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges he wrote two bad checks to Bellagio totalling $1.5 million."

Click on the following link to read the story as detailed out in the Las Vegas Review Journal:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/warrant-issued-for-millionaire-accused-of-writing-1-5m-in-bad-checks-to-bellagio-3187092/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=latest&utm_source=crime&utm_term=Warrant%20issued%20for%20millionaire%20accused%20of%20writing%20%241.5M%20in%20bad%20checks%20to%20Bellagio

The following is an article I came across about professional gamblers and others in reference to the Dragon 7 or the Fortune 7 exploitation bet.  The article was written by Max Rubin with references to Dr. Elliot Jacobson, with that misinformation article a while back that was published on the Wizard of Odds forum.

I will put my two cents in here before I copy and paste the article. One side of wagering for a Fortune 7 also known as the Dragon 7, 40:1 wagers is the following.  IMO, experience and knowledge about the wager-for myself and my protocols of wagering for it, is that I like it.  Although I do not wager constantly and repetitiously for it. I have a greater than 50% rate on it and have profited from it quite well in the past several years. Like everything in the game a baccarat, if you wager on anything repetitiously you will eventually be ground down and lose all your buy-ins as well as your bank roll.

The simple fact that is indisputable reality, concrete solid reality is most will only talk about, is that the game of baccarat can be counted down along with several of its side bets. But as Max Rubin says, within this article, is the huge $100,000 plus bank roll a player will need to have for a possible return of somewhere around $25 an hour. Go figure.  Well said! 

In theory, talkers are great but the bottom line is, in theory and not at the tables in reality. In reality the game is presented completely different than the math and the theory it appears to have.

START ARTICLE.  On the Friday before G2E, Dr. Elliot Jacobson published a short paper at wizardofodds, which illustrated how a card counter could theoretically exploit the Dragon 7 wager on EZ Baccarat and win a quarter of a betting unit per hour.

By the time the show was in full swing, the article had convinced a number of table game operators that the Dragon 7 wager was so dangerous that the now-popular EZ Baccarat side bet should be modified or removed. 

This is a perfect example of how a little bit of (published) information can be a dangerous thing. The reality is that offering players EZ Baccarat—with the Dragon 7 wager—is one of the easiest—and smartest—decisions a table game manager can make, for one simple reason:

Professional advantage players simply will not play EZ Baccarat and count down the Dragon 7 wager. Why? It's one of the least profitable advantage plays a competent professional can (or will) make.

To understand why, let's look at the math, as proposed by Dr. Jacobson. In a perfect world, assuming that the casino were to deal a full eight-deck shoe every hour (which they don't), if the player were to wager $100 on the side wager every time there was a slight advantage, the player could harvest a whopping $25 an hour.

And that's if the conditions were perfect. By perfect, I mean that they would be able to sit on the game for hours on end without making a single Player or Banker wager (impossible) and that they would also be assured of getting a full 80 hands an hour (nearly impossible, as well) and have no need to tip (after hitting a $4,000 bonus—highly unlikely).

If that weren't enough to dissuade the pros or wanna-be pros from tackling the game, in order to make that near-impossible $25 an hour, they would also have to be willing to risk a $100,000 bankroll on the high-volatility $100 wager to avoid an unacceptable risk of ruin. And then they'd have to factor in expenses (travel, lodging, etc.).

In fact, it would be much easier for a seasoned pro (or even a novice counter) to grind out an easy $25 an hour earn—with a much smaller bankroll and a limited risk of exposure—by simply playing existing blackjack games (shoes, 6/5 or Superfun, you name it), the same games they've been exploiting for years. Or they could play some other games/side bets that are more easily exploitable, including Caribbean Stud (which can be played at a 2.3 percent advantage on every hand with shared information and miniscule bankrolls), Mississippi Stud (at more than 3 percent) with shared information and Shuffle Master's "Margin of Victory" Dragon Bonus, which can return a 10th of a betting unit each shoe with a very small risk of bankroll ruin. Yet none of these games has been assaulted by the pros; they're just not worth the time or effort. 

There are two kinds of advantage players—those who talk about it and those that make a living at it—and I don't know a single professional advantage player worth his salt who would even think about sitting on a game on which he would make that measly $25 an hour. But I digress.

The proof that savvy table game operators should continue to offer EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wagers is indisputable; long before Dr. Jacobson released his paper, the pros were aware that game could be counted down, yet none of them played it and in virtually every instance in which an EZ Baccarat game has replaced a conventional baccarat game, the EZ game has made the casino more money.

To further clear up any confusion, check out what Jacobson himself said following the show:

"For the record, I don't believe the Dragon is vulnerable in a significant way. The typically low house limit as well as the high variance of the wager will make it unappealing to professional players. I don't think any changes need to be made to the game to protect it."

Jacobson further explained, "The potential earnings are small and the volatility is enormous. It would require an immense amount of time and a huge bankroll to yield a very small long-term profit. Any casino that removes the Dragon 7 wagers from EZ Baccarat based on my article is making a mistake. No competent advantage player will attack it. Like blackjack, the fact that it can be counted in theory is more likely to draw valuable customers. However, unlike blackjack, no undue measures need to be taken to protect it. I strongly believe my analysis will help those casinos that place EZ Baccarat make more income from the game, not less."

I've known about the theoretical possibilities of beating the Dragon 7 wager for almost a year, yet as a consultant for Barona casino, I have urged them to continue offering EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wager—which they have, with great success.

Should table game operators fear professional Dragon hunters? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren't any.

The following is an article written by Roger Gros, IMO a fantastic and super intelligent casino expert. 

Ethical actions versus unethical actions by casino executives exists, in the past as well as today.  The difference is, in the past it was blatant and today it is, "let's see how we can manipulate and still be within the rules and regulations we have to abide by". 

Anyway, what Roger Gros is referring to in Atlantic City, is where I got my start in gaming and introduction to high limit baccarat.  I have written about it before.  OMG, the baccarat rooms and pits were ungodly busy with stacks of money being thrown up on the tables and exchanged for chips.  Although Roger highlights the movie, 'Owning Mahowny' (which by the way is worth watching) the majority of the money back then brought in by players, was from their businesses in the New York City, Northern New Jersey and Philadelphia markets.  Legal money as well as illegal was brought in and accepted, no background checks of course and only federal CTR's when the $10k limit within 24 hours was hit.  No SAR's or anything of the type.  $10k - $50k was really not out of the norm by any means whatsoever. 

Side Note.  The casino hosts were the front line defense as well as the offense for their employers, the casinos.  The hosts would alert their players when they approached certain levels of play and how to avoid being CTR'd, etc.  As well, a large amount of players would play under fictitious names and their hosts would check them in to the hotel, obtain their room keys, all without the player ever being ID'd. 


Start Article.  When I was a dealer in Atlantic City in the late 1970s and early '80s, I saw a lot of unethical behavior by casino executives. After spending some time as a blackjack dealer (a long time!), I became a baccarat dealer and was promoted to deal in the busiest pit in the city at the time. In those days, Atlantic City was a boomtown. Millions of dollars crossed the tables in that pit every day, and some of it was what we'll call ill-gotten gains.

Now, the baccarat pit was dark, and had many columns creating different segments. Back in its recesses stood a phalanx of blackjack tables that were usually busy, but in the daytime, it was quiet. It was during those times certain characters, escorted by top-level casino executives, would show up with small suitcases. They would be filled with money and the process of a "buy in" would begin. I remember, one day I counted out $500,000, and passed the chips off to the player, who played one hand (for $500) and cashed in.

Now, to be clear, while I think this was clearly unethical, at the time, it was not illegal. It was the days before money laundering laws were put into place, or the "$10,000 rule" as we called it then, which required casinos to record and obtain identification of players who engaged in transactions in excess of that figure.

In another event, I was brought in specifically to deal to a "rich" Canadian gambler. He didn't look rich, wearing a flannel shirt and jeans. But he was the fastest baccarat player I ever saw, and there were only a few dealers who could keep up with him, playing $10,000 to $50,000 a hand. It turns out, he was a bank clerk from Toronto who was embezzling money from his bank and gambling at the casino. The incident was later made famous by a movie, Owning Mahowny, which I haven't seen yet. I wonder who played my part. But because the casino failed to investigate the source of his funds, a severe penalty was charged, with the casino forced to close for two days.

Neither of these events was technically illegal, but they were certainly unethical and no doubt, 30 years later, are today illegal.

These days, there are enough rules and regulations to control these kinds of things, but there are still many ethical issues that need to be addressed.

We have many examples, some of which are emanating from Macau these days. Questions about the VIP operators, the effectiveness of the Macau regulations and the commitment to anti-money laundering programs abound. Are background checks even conducted there? In many ways, Macau regulations are like Nevada regulations in the 1950s and '60s. While many jurisdictions understand and accept that Macau is going through these regulatory growing pains, others won't wait.

In many areas of the world, gaming regulations are being scaled back because of the economy. While the casino industry applauds this move for the most part, there needs to be a combined effort between the industry and government to ensure that while unnecessary regulations are eliminated, integrity does not suffer.

And of course it's in the casino industry's best interests to focus on integrity. If the games aren't secure and the operators aren't squeaky clean, the industry is at risk.

And as we move into the legalization of online gaming, ethics become that much more important. There is so much potential for abuse (which we've seen clearly by the illegal operators), if major licensed casino companies become involved, it's important that the operations and regulations are transparent and fair.

Now, I don't mean to suggest there's an absence of ethics in the gaming industry today. There's not. In fact, most of the gaming executives I know are completely ethical, almost to a fault. But we're entering a new phase in the industry, by inviting in online partners and operating in a financially depressed market. The pressures to do something that may be considered unethical are growing, and hard to resist sometimes if the payoff seems acceptable.

In my view, however, there is no payoff to conducting yourself unethically. You wouldn't sell your soul, and in a sense, that's what you're doing when you lack ethics. Let's keep gaming on the straight and narrow so we never have any questions about whether we're doing our best for our customers, our employees and the shareholders in the enterprise.

Will table-game discounting be the downfall of the casino industry?

The following is a great article I ran across from 2011 written by gaming expert, Roger Gros.  It highlights what Don Johnson did mostly with baccarat and his multi million dollar wins, etc. 

START ARTICLE:  Everybody loves a winner, and Don Johnson seems to be a favorite of all casino gamblers. Although he built a very successful horse-race handicapping business and managed Philadelphia Park racetrack for a time, Johnson's fame has risen from his proficiency in playing blackjack at Atlantic City casinos.

Over the past year, Johnson has won $4 million from Caesars Atlantic City, more than $5 million from the Borgata. But his biggest "score" to date—and the one that attracted most of the media attention—was a $5.8 million win at Atlantic City's Tropicana in April. While Johnson admits to some losing sessions, his success, he says, is due to one key concession from the casinos where he plays: a discount on his losses.

Johnson's consistent wins made some suspect that he may have been cheating or manipulating the cards, but others knew better. He was merely taking advantage of a situation that the casinos themselves agreed to. Johnson understands numbers and proposed set game rules, betting spreads and limits, and discounts on losses, which he says was crucial.

Discounting History

Table game discounts are hardly a new development in the gaming industry. They've been going on for at least 30 years. Jim Kilby, a casino consultant, former executive and author of Casino Operations Management, the "Bible" of any gaming operation, is critical of how casinos offer these discounts and claims to have been there at the beginning of the trend.

"I'm sorry to say I may have been partially responsible for this when I worked at the Trop (Las Vegas) in the early '80s," he says.

According to Kilby, the competition for high rollers was reaching a peak at that time.

"We had a group of high-rolling gamblers who would come in and play for 50 or 60 hours each trip," he explains. "They'd lose around $1 million and take months to pay it off. So our casino and others made a deal with them. If they paid off their markers before they left, they'd give them a 5 percent or 10 percent discount."

While it seemed like a rational offer at the time, Kilby said discounting began to spread like wildfire.

"It began to spread as executives moved around," he says. "If a baccarat pit manager wanted to move down the street, that casino would want him to bring players with him, so they would agree to deepen the discounts. It became a vicious circle. It's insidious."

The problem, says Kilby, is that the discounting isn't as simple as it appears.

"It looks like the discount only costs you 10 percent," he says, "but it's usually more costly. We discovered that for the average discount player, we just broke even. And that was without the expenses of actually operating the marketing department."

Kilby shudders when he hears an executive talk about how his casino "beat" a particular player, explaining that there is no such thing.

"I hate that term 'beat' because you do not keep what losing players lose; you only keep the difference between what losing players lose and what winning players win," he explains. "So they ask me, 'If a player loses $500,000 and we refund $100,000, haven't we just won $400,000?' No, because you're going to have another player or another group of players that comes in and wins, and you won't get that $100,000 you discounted to the first player back from them."

Making the Choice

Casinos have to evaluate their risk when competing for the big players. Max Rubin, a former casino executive and author of Comp City: A Guide to Free Casino Vacations, believes discounting has a place in the industry, but executives have to evaluate it very carefully.

"Today's casino operators are very savvy," he says. "They understand the business, particularly the big companies like MGM, Caesars and the Sands. They know what they're doing and who they can offer those discounts to and who they can't. There is a professional here and there who will slip through the cracks, but by and large it makes the casino money. And those companies get enough business so they can overcome the deep discounts and the wins that some players make. But you don't see a Gaughan or any mid-tier operators in Vegas getting into that game because they understand that they don't understand it. That's really a crucial point to grasp."

Kilby believes the small margins make it a loser for every casino but the largest corporations.

"The good thing about premium play is that there is a high profit margin," he says. "The bad thing about premium play is the extreme volatility. When we invented the discount, we kept the bad—the volatility—but we've done away with the good—the profits."

Rubin says the big companies can still make profits even with a narrow margin.

"Unquestionably it is a small-margin business, always has been," he says. "But it's a small margin on a huge amount of money, so they can still make a lot of money."

But the smaller casinos had better beware, he says.

"If you're a single, stand-alone property and you don't have an appetite for volatility, it might not be the way to go," he says. "The Tropicana (Atlantic City), probably given the nature of where they stood with the markets and ownership, probably should not embrace these players as much as a Wynn Resorts would or one of the other big companies."

The bad economy probably influences the decision these days, says Rubin.

"Casinos get so desperate to get a big win given the erosion of profits, they are gambling," he explains. "And that's the trap that some of these smaller and stand-alone casinos get caught in. This often offsets all of the other business you take in. For example, it's highly probable that Don Johnson was betting more on one hand than all the other players in the casino were betting at the same time. It's impossible to offset. And they just ran unlucky. Had they had a war chest like an MGM would have, they could have withstood those kinds of hits. But I don't think its good business for a small casino to take the chance they'll take a hit like that."

All casinos have owners, whether they are individuals, boards of directors or Indian tribes. Rubin says the decision to pursue this action should take place at that level.

"From an operator's standpoint, there are other implications to whether you should take the bet simply because you have the edge," he says. "Some of those implications are what does it do to your quarterly earnings, what does it do to the longevity of your management team or CEO. In Indian Country, you have to answer to a tribe that may not want to embrace this volatility. An MGM, on the other hand, isn't going to worry about a player that beats them for $5 million or more. They know they'll get it back."

And there are other reasons that would preclude taking the action that have nothing to do with volatility.

"It takes all the energy out of your company," says Rubin. "If you start focusing on this player or this small group of players, everything else becomes secondary. You lose focus on the larger pool of players who are really providing the foundation for your organization. Most casinos are much better served not trying to get this business, not trying to play the game. They'd be much better served trying to get the $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 credit-line players in action rather than pursue this often unrealistic group, where the margins are much slimmer. Those smaller players won't affect your bottom line as much, and won't threaten your career longevity either."

Aaron Gomes, the vice president of casino operations at Resorts Atlantic City, turned down Johnson when he proposed a similar deal to the one accepted by the Tropicana.

"It wasn't a smart offer, and common sense told us that it wouldn't work for us," he says.

Tony Rodio, the recently appointed president of the Tropicana in Atlantic City, says his casino's goal is simply to increase business.

"Our strategy is to offer higher limits," he told Global Gaming Business. "And the more you allow them to bet, the more they can win. When you allow a player to bet $100,000 a spot on blackjack, they can win quickly. For the first eight or nine months of the program, the Tropicana played lucky. Just my luck, when I arrive it swings back the other way."

Setting Limits

A report in Blackjack Insider said that Johnson's deal was hard to beat. In addition to his 20 percent discount, he set the rules of the game—a hand-shuffled six-deck show, standing on soft 17, splitting up to four times were just some of the rules—and the betting limits. He reportedly had the option to bet $15,000 on three spots, $25,000 on two or $100,000 on one spot.

Kilby says that was just playing into his hands.

"The casino was just encouraging more volatility," he says. "This player knew that he'd much rather bet $100,000 on one hand than smaller amounts on two or three hands."

It's the deal that makes discounting so bad, says Kilby, not the rules of the game.

"If a player can make a discounting deal with a casino and really understand how it works, he can lower the house edge on any game," he says. "There's one dice player in Las Vegas who shops deals that turn the game in his favor. The last one I looked at, he had a positive expectation of about $20,000 an hour."

Johnson's deal required him to buy in for $1 million and he'd get the 20 percent discount after he lost $500,000. But Johnson said he'd never lose the million.

"If you got to minus-five hands, you would stop and take your 20 percent discount," he told Blackjack Insider. "You'd only owe them $400,000."

It's that discount that caused Resorts to refuse his play on his terms.

"When you think about discounts, a 20 percent discount is really a 40 percent discount," says Gomes. "We'll assume that there is no edge, since the numbers are so small, so the player will win half the time and lose half the time. You'd be crazy to give them a 20 percent discount because you don't get a discount when you lose! So there's their 40 percent discount. And when you add show-up money, match play, airfare, comps, they player has the edge. It's nuts!"

Kilby says craps is even worse.

"Forget about discounts on dice," he says. "The fluctuations are too great."

Rodio found that out the hard way when a second player beat the Tropicana for $5 million at the craps table.

"We allowed a player to bet $10,000 on the line at craps," he says. "It doesn't sound like a lot, but when you throw in five-times odds; he's buying all the numbers and prop bets; he's got $180,000 on the table for every roll. If he holds the dice for 15 minutes he can win hundreds of thousands of dollars. That said, over time, it's going to swing back."

Rubin agrees about the math.

"The math will catch up," he says. "It always catches up. But if the math is in the player's favor, then you have to expect that it will catch up big time."

If you're going to offer a discounting program, you have to set reasonable parameters. Gomes says Resorts has done just that.

"We do have a discount policy, but it's a quarterly program with at least three trips during that period," he explains.

The long time period and a requirement for time played will avoid the problems encountered by creating short "trips," says Gomes.

"If you have a customer who comes in one day and loses $200,000 with a 20 percent discount, and then comes in the next day and wins $200,000, he's even gaming-wise, but he's up 40 grand! How does that makes sense?" he asks.

Kilby says the numbers will tell the story.

"Casinos have requirements on how long a customer has to play, but then have a provision for a quick loss, which is silly," he says. "Mr. Johnson in Atlantic City would be done after losing five hands, so how does that work? You have to develop an objective system.

"It cannot be based about how much a player loses. It has to be based on how many hands he plays and the volatility of his betting. And then of course you have your administrative costs."

Rubin says that it takes more than just a computer program to determine if a casino should accept action from a particular player.

"If you know your players, you'll know that some will just play as long as possible until they've lost their money," he explains. "That's just who they are. You have to know your players, and that's why you rely on your director of player development when you decide whether or not to take this action. Blackjack isn't simply about the math; it's about the people and their behavior. If you have a brand new player coming in requesting these things, the alarms should go off. But if you have a player who has a record of playing in different places with a long track record of being a profitable guest, the math won't help. You do it. That's a good decision."

The following link will bring you directly to The Office Of Public Affairs, United States Department of Justice.

It is about The Tran Organization and its gambling cheats at casinos across the United States. In the plea agreement, Van Thu Tran also admitted that she and her co-conspirators unlawfully obtained up to $7 million during card cheats.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/co-founder-casino-cheating-criminal-enterprise-sentenced-36-months-prison-targeting-casinos

And another member of the organization's Press Release:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/twentieth-member-casino-cheating-criminal-enterprise-pleads-guilty-racketeering-conspiracy

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Guam.

It is about a press release concerning the operation of an illegal gambling business, by operating baccarat and poker games at the former MGM Spa.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-gu/pr/jimmy-hsieh-william-perez-and-pauline-perez-sentenced-today

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Hawaii.

It is a press release about the operation of illegal gaming machines, an illegal baccarat gaming room and police corruption to protect the illegal operations.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-hi/pr/oahu-men-charged-operating-gambling-business

The follow link will bring you directly to a press release of the United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California.

It is in reference to The Bicycle Casino, which is a huge casino property in the Los Angeles area offering baccarat. 

The Bicycle Casini admitted that a "high roller" Chinese national gambled at the casino approximately 100 times over an eight-month period in 2016, playing high-limit baccarat in a VIP room with huge sums of cash that on some occasions he transported to and from the casino in duffle bags.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/bicycle-casino-agrees-pay-500000-settlement-and-submit-increased-review-anti-money

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorneys Office, District of Maryland. 

It is a press release concerning a, Former Casino Dealer Sentenced to Federal Prison for Participating in a Cheating Scheme in baccarat. 


https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-casino-dealer-sentenced-federal-prison-participating-cheating-scheme

Very interesting article about a tiny tribe is getting pushback for betting big on a $600M casino in California's wine country.

The Koi Nation's chances of owning a Las Vegas-style casino seemed impossible until a federal court ruling in 2019 cleared the way for the tiny tribe to find a financial partner to buy land and place it into a trust to make it eligible for a casino.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tiny-tribe-getting-pushback-betting-040604600.html

Ron Paolucci, whose Loooch Racing Stable won multiple leading owner titles in Ohio and ranked second nationally by wins in 2017 and 2018, was sentenced on Sept. 16 to 52 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $38.9 million in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.


https://paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/paolucci-who-gambled-and-lost-with-irs-gets-52-month-jail-sentence-ordered-to-repay-38-9-million

Totally unbelievable!!

But on the other hand, why not??

https://nypost.com/2024/09/08/us-news/atlantic-city-dismantles-homeless-encampment-apartments-beneath-boardwalk-where-beer-was-on-tap-and-pizzas-were-delivered/

"Wynn Las Vegas, a subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, on Friday signed a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Department of Justice to end an investigation. Wynn agreed to forfeit $130.1 million in funds involved in the transactions in exchange for not being prosecuted, the company said."


https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/wynn-resorts-to-forfeit-130m-in-deal-with-feds-over-illegal-transactions-3164522/

"I would gamble until I exhausted our family's savings, my law firm's profits; all the while avoiding reality and any type of feeling (which is the only way I can explain not fearing the consequences of my irrational and immoral behavior)," the letter says. "And then, once I received more money, I would gamble and lose those monies."



https://www.theledger.com/story/news/local/2024/09/04/lawsuit-owner-of-polk-law-firm-stole-1-8m-lost-it-all-gambling/75053949007/

A San Diego couple thought they'd invested in gold. Instead, they and hundreds of others say they were scammed.

Oxford Gold told clients their assets would be deposited with Equity Trust Co., an Ohio firm specializing in so-called self-directed investment accounts focused on precious metals, cryptocurrency and other alternative assets.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/08/19/a-san-diego-couple-thought-theyd-invested-in-gold-instead-they-and-hundreds-of-others-say-they-were-scammed/

Interesting that the state Gaming Authority mandates background checks for wins above a certain amount.


https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/rapper-nelly-arrested-in-maryland-heights-wednesday-morning/

OUTSIDE OF THE CASINO ENTERTAINMENT.
       

IMO these are spot on and great scenes!

Two from Die Hard:

BAG IT, BIG TIME!  Gotta love it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncqyBPVxwfg&pp=ygUfQW1QbSBnYXMgc3RhdGlvbiBzY2VuZSBkaWUgaGFyZA%3D%3D

WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL!  Come the frick on, can't get much better than this, no?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I6wRZCV7naE&pp=ygUhRGllIGhhcmQgdGhyb3dpbmcgb3V0IHRoZSB3aW5kb3cg

INSPECTOR CALLAHAN,  OH YEAH!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqgGihIfq5U&pp=ygUac2lkZXdhbGsgc2NlbmUgZGlydHkgaGFycnk%3D

HEAT.  2 of the BEST!  Deniro and Pacino.  What a scene!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUy2Wx_r0_w&t=60s&pp=ygUVaGVhdCByZXN0YXVyYW50IHNjZW5l

Black Mass. Cop Pull Over scene. 

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=black+mass+cop+pull+over+scene+

NYPD BLUE.  GOTTA LOVE SIPOWICZ!  He was a real person.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdT3qs-jFo&pp=ygUaTnlwZCBibHVlIHRoaXMgaXMgYSB3b3JraW4%3D

SICARIO.  THE OPENING SCENE.  I SAW THAT AND WAS HOOKED.  PERIOD.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTwbMMO_VI&t=299s&pp=ygUVb3BlbmluZyBzY2VuZSBzaWNhcmlv

BEVERLY HILLS COP.  Come on man, this was acting, look at their eyes, their faces.  Many great scenes from the original movie, but gotta love this one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKE3zh_Hxqw&pp=ygUeQmV2ZXJseSBoaWxscyBjb3AgZm91bCBtb3V0aGVk

SCARFACE.  Man, once again, so many great scenes, but gotta love this one!  You want a job Ernie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjLd8V_B9eg&pp=ygUXU2NhcmZhY2UgeW91IHdhbnQgYSBqb2I%3D

STEVEN SEAGAL.  Love this one!  Anybody Seen Richie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zu1YIukylw&pp=ygUiU3RldmVuIFNlYWdhbCBhbnliaWR5IHNlZW4gcml0Y2hpZQ%3D%3D

THE BLUES BROTHERS.  SHI*T, Rollers.  No.  Yes.  SHI*T.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Abmwmg_tx0A&pp=ygUYYmx1ZSBicm90aGVycyBtYWxsIGNoYXNl

A BRONX TALE.  Gotta include this one, even though it not a cop scene.  "Now youse can't leave". 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UBXTC24T8g&t=23s&pp=ygUhQnJvbnggdGFsZS4gTm93IHlvdXJzZSBjYW50IGxlYXZl

LETHAL WEAPON.  "I'm too old for this stuff".  Man, so many great scenes in that movie, but this one has a few within a couple of minutes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxEgyiu16Q&pp=ygUiTGV0aGFsIHdlYXBvbm1lZXQgeW91ciBuZXcgcGFydG5lcg%3D%3D

AMERICAN MADE. THE LIFE OF BARRY SEAL.  "I'm gonna walk out of here and there isn't nothing anyone of you can do".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h6XCQUuZQU4

AND MY FINAL ONE. 

MIAMI VICE.  THE FINAL SCENE OF THE FINAL SHOW.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0BJ8baUkA&pp=ygUWbWlhbWkgdmljZSBmaW5hbCBzY2VuZQ%3D%3D

Well, I don't know what to say.  Every once in awhile I email Gizmotron (Mark) and ask if he is okay.  Awhile back I got a short answer of yes, but not writing any longer on forums. 

I have not heard from him in quite awhile so this morning I emailed him and received this back:

"Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to g1234567@...........com because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail."

I called his cell phone number and it says, "I'm sorry the person you called has a voice mail box not set up yet", with no ring tones.  My experience is those are phone numbers either out of order or not assigned yet by the cellular company that controls them. 

Anyways, we had our share of drama and fights for well over a decade plus between the two of us.  Mark is a great guy 24/7!  Hope all is well!

There's not a single book, not a single research paper, not a detailed audited video of a series, etc., etc.,  that will show guaranteed and systematic wins.  PERIOD.  There is none, never have been—never will be, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada!

There are numerous clowns and goons that say, post and attempt to sell systems pretending that they repeatedly prevail winning within the game. And there are just as many that will post garbage and attempt to sidetrack any reasonable factual and truthful people posting. Sad but true. 

What I said is all easily searchable but the Internet is the Internet and countless will be overtaken by the virtual lies and made up fairytales that people tell and the ones on YouTube are pretty darn attractive I will admit.

There most certainly is opportunity on the baccarat table. Not one doubt, but you must have some kind of knowledge of the game, common sense and have the stomach to risk money. But you must understand there is winning and losing and have a concrete money management method that will work for you and give you an advantage.

And let's all remember those countless people posting, "wait for this or that" and then "wager so-and-so on such and such". LOL, guaranteed losing propositions, but once again, the Internet is the Internet.

What about all those with their triggers, they are claiming nearly 100% or even 80-90%.  And all with their justification so systematically laid out. Looks like research, looks like experienced and advantaged secretive play, and so many other things to the person stumbling upon it. My response?  Fantasy and fallacy. 

And those that say to watch and watch and wager only a wager or two or three with some kind of small stop loss amount.  My response?  Well here it is. Uneventful failure is not a success. Because you do not lose you cannot justify not winning with success, it is a catastrophic failure of play. 

Do you want to do something to give yourself some type of advantage? You have to focus on winning. Realizing your buy-in is risk and understand how to turn your risk into profit.

Be Careful, Be Smart, Be Advantaged!

I caught a rare glimpse of Waldo at a gas station near the casino he works at early this morning.  Told me he just got off pulling 2 shifts straight. 

Here is a pic of his truck!  Gotta Love It!

The table is the stage! Not one doubt about it-not one! No fancy gimmicks, no light show, no name brands. Nothing phenomenally materialistic, No pyrotechnics, no strobe or neon lights.

Just the dealer, the chip rack and the shoe. The green felt is the ocean of effortless greatness. The ocean is your place where you basically jump in, splash and wind up swimming to success or sinking to failure. 

Buy-in, sitting at the table and looking at our chip stacks separated by colors directly in front of us.  Then continuously looking at the rack and imagining how many of the dealers chips we can manage to win. The words of the Talking Heads song, 'Burning Down The House', running through some of our heads. "Ah, watch out, you might get what you're after. Cool babies, strange but not a stranger. I'm an ordinary guy. Burning down the house".................. OMG, seriously so fitting!

Great moments and real bad moments and all kinds of in between ones form at the table. Great memories stick, bad memories most of us wipe out pretty darn quick. Real quick in fact.

Lots of players-lots of thoughts.  A few players-no less thoughts indeed.  Thinking to the max. Thinking the average person that doesn't play baccarat would never imagine happens within our heads.  The cards change the way most of us think for whatever reason. We attempt to follow the cards and the only one really thinking about everything is us, not the dealer, not the floor people, not the cards, not the chips and definitely not the table. But the table sure brings lots of drama and reaction out in every single one of us.

Funny how even after a bad session or two or three, we go right back to that same table with complete open arms and a new handshake once again. Really not very rational but in the mind of a baccarat player, 100% normal and expected as well as never really given a second thought at all.

Before you can truly win, you must be able to compound positive results at the table and manage those results into profits. It goes a little bit further beyond winning a few hands or a bunch of hands, but how you schedule and plan what you are going to do with your win money while you are winning. And that is not easy because of the psychological affects winning has on all of us. 

How much-how long-decision making skill or hot lucky streaks-following others winning, and so many more will come in to play. Wins are wins, no matter how you arrived at your win. Money from the dealers rack into your buy-in stack. Once it hits your stack, it is yours, of course. But, you have to give yourself positive profits you can apply a concrete Money Management Method (MMM) to.

We all have different goals and beliefs at the table. No matter how you win, when you win, you must hold portions of your wins and be able to get psychological and visual physical positiveness out of your wins. That will give you all good advantage over most anything else.

I have found that the highest majority of all baccarat players will wager more when they are losing than when they are winning. Cutting a long and complex explanation of the above statement, you must engage in a reversal of exactly that. Wagering smaller and then bigger. However the 'bigger' must not be your buy-in or stacked money. I will attempt to explain this as simple as I can.

You must also understand and be able to separate decision making for your bets and how to handle your winning wagers to give you advantaged winning.

AT A MINIMUM, BUT NOT OPTIMIZED:
* Holding portions of your win amounts religiously.
* Able to hold partial wins and use partial wins.
* Applying protocol.

THE ABSOLUTE OPTIMAL:
* Using only your winnings not your buy-in funds at some point.
* Applying protocol.

Use Winnings With Protocol:  Mine are, winning in excess of my buy-in gets divided up into 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd amounts. 1/3rd back into my buy-in stack, 1/3rd locked up for anything but gaming and 1/3rd into reserve. When certain amounts are won, those amounts are further divided up. I am governed by the losses of winnings, or simply in other words, not wining after winning according to protocol. 

So I am governed by the losses of the wins, rather than always relying on my buy-in and stacked chips with really no protocols. Thus I refrain from believing my wins won't stop or really getting 'sucked in' and giving it all back and losing my buy-in as well.

I am writing this from years (decades) of brick and mortar casino experience. I constantly witness experienced Players, friends and those that have extremely great BetSelection and Decision ability and other positive traits.  However most all have little or no MMM and that is what is killing their ability to win more sessions by far than what they lose.

Explaining what I mean by wagering smaller than bigger and how to handle your winning wagers to give you advantaged winning.  A realistic example and on the side of seriousness is a $180 base wager. Instead of a flat betting, pull down, add a partial unit of win or two and then wager again, etc., etc., I have found a solid and quickly aggressive strategy would be the following:

$180 Base wager.  If won, move to second;
$360 Second wager.  If won, move to third;
$720 Third wager.  If won, STOP. 

$1,440  $180 Back into buy-in.  $1,260 play money.

Or Another Example Would Be:

$300 Base wager.  If won, move to second;
$600 Second wager.  If won, move to third;
$1,200 Third wager.  If won, STOP. 

$2,400  $300 Back into buy-in.  $2,100 play money.

NOTE:  Replenish buy-in with whatever drawdown might have occurred prior to the, 'STOP'.

(Below I will post a couple of pictures of actual chip stacks of mine at the table and maybe you can imagine the psychological and visual physical advantages they give me).  I separate my chips, I know why and how I earned them as well the representation of drawdown or win, and the amounts by protocol with a quick glance. 

Back To Protocol.  You get the idea. Two wins past your base wager, with your risk money is not far-fetched and dreaming at all. I've done quite well at it and although I do not keep session by session records, I know I am up overall since I started to employ that several years back. And it helps me extremely well over just grinding it down or betting blindly and not having any outcome planned for the win money except to win more. Again you should get the idea. 

The protocol you must stick to, is that of the base wager, your first wager. If you lose, you are losing the wager from your buy-in amount. Yes that is your risk money, at least it is mine. If you win, you are governed by your win and you are allowing your winnings to earn you more winnings and within a short period of time you will apply your MMM to the wins by strict protocol.  Within my protocol is, that of my further win and generally I am governed by losing a buy-in worth of winnings, is my tap on the shoulder to wait or stop the session.

The reason I choose to wager and draw down on my buy-in, is because it gives me a greater alertness to wagering as well as a greater consciousness to make fewer and quicker wagers especially when winning. I have found that reserving win money and only increasing a small percentage of my base wager, works against me from my goal of base wager +2 additional wins before reverting back to my base wager.

The hardest, the most difficult and the greatest notorious killer of most all baccarat players as I said, is their inability to apply a solid concrete MMM to their winnings. But also, their inability to understand a flat betting grind and its adverse affect on the player. As well, the player winning a few and believing in the continuation of a hot streak or skilled decision making trend, etc., and then a few losses occur with the players quick attempt to recover what they just so foolishly gave back.

Sure it's hard not to continuously wager larger and larger bets, but with my way I am risking minimal base wagers and reaching out for three wins, two after a base win and then scaling back to my minimal base risk again. No matter if I am drawing down on my buy-in or if I am using my base wager from sole winnings.

Baccarat is probably the easiest game in the casino to win as well as lose. But, if you win you better learn how to handle it and what advantage you can easily employ to hold it.  Be Smarter-Be Better. Realize the power of winning-realize the power that losing has over most everyone as well. If you really do, you will become a better player, a more successful player and much happier. I promise you that.

Totally Unbelievable!  "Dear Judge, I was a police officer but I have a gambling addiction.  Please don't give me too many years in prison because I used to serve our community".  Yeah, Right. What a total menace to society that was a Gun assigned law enforcement officer.  IMO, put him in general population at a hard core prison and not some low level prison camp either.

"A Las Vegas police officer was sentenced Tuesday to 12 years in federal prison for stealing nearly $165,000 in a trio of casino heists, including one in which he was found guilty of brandishing a department-issued weapon."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/las-vegas-officer-gets-12-years-role-3-casino-heists-stealing-165k

I know it will never happen again , never ever.  But I sure do miss the old school Baccarat rooms and the high limit rooms—ran and patronized the way they used to be, which also held the original bac tables. 

The tables were all two-sided with a capacity of 7 people each side, having their own plenty of space area.  No back betting, no handing money to another, no capping wagers, etc., etc.  There was one dealer standing that would call the cards, once the person that had the shoe slid the cards to the dealer standing.  Yes, each person physically had possession of the shoe and dealt the cards.  The person kept the shoe as long as that person made Banker winning hands, when the person made a players winning hand the shoe was passed to their right.  The person having the shoe could wager for Bankers or Players.

It was considered bad luck and uncool by all means to pass and not take the shoe, or pass the shoe if you made a Banker and didn't desire to deal additional hands.  If you were wagering for Banker, you would slide a card out of the shoe and to the dealer standing face down.  Then you would put the next card under the corner of the shoe face down.  Then you slide the next card for the players to the dealer face down, as well as another card for the banker under the corner of the shoe.  If you were wagering on Players side, you would slide the 2 face down Bankers cards under the shoe to the dealer and the dealer would slide you the Players two cards.

If no one was on players you could tell the dealer standing to flip the cards or hold them face down.  Then you would look at the bankers side cards you had wedged under the shoe.  On rare occasions at certain casinos, one could ask permission to pass the Bankers cards to another person.  If anyone was wager on the players side, then the dealer would slide them face down to whomever had the highest wager or whomever several said to pass them to.  Then you would expose the bankers side cards.

If needed, the dealer standing would call for a third card for the P or B or both.  Those would also go to whomever turned over the first two.

Shoe started in Seat 1 and travelled counterclockwise.  Where the shoe ended, the next shoe would begin in the next spot.  New cards of course each shuffle.  But a real shuffle, unwrap the new cards, mix-wash-shuffle. A true 20-30 mins between shoes easily.  Old cards put in a zip lock bag, marked, tagged and taken away. 

There were no electronic scoreboards.  Most all kept their score and notes on a house provided scorecard and decent pen.  Usually a two color pen at most places, blue and red ink.  Also, no side bets at all.  Only B, P and Tie. 

Most people were not playing a few hands by any means.  Sure a very limited amount of people would come on and play a small amount of hands, then leave, but not many.  Most of those type were frequenting the mini bac lower limit tables on the main floor.  Virtually no one dressed as the majority does today or should I say post late 90's.  Meaning no ripped jeans, no hoodies, no sweatshirts, no shorts, no ultra casual errand running clothes.  Guys had on slacks, dress shirts, Tommy Bahama style shirts, etc.  Women had on dresses, pants suit outfits, skirts and blouses, etc. 

Besides the dealer standing that would call and handle the cards, there would be two banker dealers seated with 2 completely independent chip racks.  One for each side of the table.  There would also be one floor person standing behind each side of the table, the entire shoe.  All dealers and floor people had 20-30 min breaks and got tapped out, etc. 

And as long as the person with the shoe was making Banker winning hands, no dealer or floor could go on break until the next winning player hand.  Same thing with a chip fill arriving at the table, shoe could not be brought in until the next winning player hand was made. 

Before the highest majority of all big bac tables were removed and replaced with minis, midi-Macau style tables, the people playing had the option of playing the big table mini style, where as one of the two seated chip rack dealers would deal the shoe and flip the cards, etc. 

But all in all, the whole atmosphere and level of camaraderie were heads and tails over what it is today.