I keep a separate set of data for my LV play vs East Coast.(AC and Ct.)
I separate out Tunica.
I am starting to see some differences in the shoe results.
I am curious if anybody else has noticed anything different about their
results in LV.
I keep a separate set of data for my LV play vs East Coast.(AC and Ct.)
I separate out Tunica.
I am starting to see some differences in the shoe results.
I am curious if anybody else has noticed anything different about their
results in LV.
I do the same thing for the same reason Profbac
in all the casinos that use the shuffler master black box the aces and 2s come out togather alot! aa2-242 22a-232 ect.
way more streaks in vegas as far as I could tell
yea,somebody I know lost a quarter million on 25+ bank run in vegas.
He probably testing how far it can run
Last edited by philipph; 12-08-2011 at 07:45 PM.
All shoes are the same there are four patterns ,chop, long run, 2 & 1 and doubles.
If you beat the patterns you beat the game.
If you need more info just ask.
I hope this helps
No more pattern just go and see,player lose 1 hand against him 1hand ,w/L leave the table
@Prof
I'll tell you something I've noticed. I can't really speak for Vegas cause i moved away from there a few years back when the economy imploded. This was before i started playing bac too and really gambling in general at all. But at the places i play at now, they all have those black box auto shufflers and i have seen way more P dominant shoes than B dominant. Occasionally the B will have a shoe he wins but I'm telling you something is up because most all of the shoes i see are either majority P dominant or very near even. Hardly ever a shoe with many more B than P. So if we have a game were supposedly more B will come than P based on math or at worst we could even say it's 50/50, then why do i see the overwhelming majority of shoes end where P wins overall? This cannot be. It should be the other way around if anything with B dominating based on everything I've ever read about the odds of the game. The only conclusion could be that the deck was stacked by the casino so that the intended outcome occurred. I'm interested what you think about this or anyone else. It just seems really unusual to me that this could occur over and over again, when the math tells me it should not.
I thought i read somewhere before that small cards grouped together benefit the Player over the course of a shoe. If this is true, that would explain my post just before this one and also prove that the shuffler does have a dramatic influence over the outcome of shoes, contrary to what the general math of the game tells us.
The auto shufflers can identify each card.....so if 8 decks are put in the shuffler and the
4 of clubs is missing, the shuffler can tell you that it is missing.
But if the shuffler is stacking the deck so that Players come out more than Bankers, Im not sure that can be proven.
Even if it was stacking the deck, it couldn't put 10 or 12 extra Players in the shoe every time............that would be too obvious.
And it couldn't stack every shoe with more Players......that would be too obvious too.
So even if the shoe was stacked, it would be hard to take advantage of the situation.
Bookmarks