Until last night's finals were in, the only good news to come my way on the betting front was that my little local casino has re-opened its table games.
The old wide-open single deck blackjack rules have gone, though, and double-deck is the new take it or leave it option.
Doubledown on any two cards is still allowed, but local purists who were so proud that our tinpot town had the best 21 layouts in northern Nevada are not happy punters.
Me, I'd rather take multiple decks than a single-deck game any day.
I avoid double decks usually because in Reno and Stateline, they add insult to injury by restricting doubles and splits.
Single deck is a definite no-no because almost everywhere these days, the payback on a natural has been slashed by more than half to 6 to 5, and there will be ice-skating in hell before I accept that rip-off.
Funny, but there seem to be more and more people who don't bother to do the math when it comes to insurance or the 6 to 5 trend.
They take even money on a natural without thinking twice when the dealer has a fat card showing, so maybe they don't care that the bonus has dropped from 50% to 20% without a single added incentive to enjoy the game.
I don't buck the consensus just to be ornery: I have been playing blackjack for 45 years now (in spite of the fact that I am not yet middle-aged!) and I know for sure that I make more money against shoes than at single-deck.
This blog saw a recent flurry of interest from baccarat players thanks to a friendly post on a website created for that august fraternity, and that's another table game that I play somewhat unconventionally.
My general rule is not to put money on Banker, especially when the stakes are high, and that gets me into all kinds of trouble with the "experts" out there.
The commission, they say, is "only 5%" and they are entitled to delude themselves if it floats their boats.
The commission is relatively negligible for players who bet a tight spread, but a target bettor can see overall wins become losses thanks to the "five percent" vig.
Bet $1,000 on Banker and lose, then repeat the bet and win, and you didn't break even: You're out $50 because you always lose 100% of your bet and win only 95%.
That's bad, bad math in my book.
I will chase a streak on Banker if the bet level per the rules is low, but otherwise I keep plugging away on Player and take my lumps, or take my money to another game.
There is a way to modify the target betting rules to cover the gouge, but in all honesty, I have to say I can't be bothered.
Alas, the flurry of baccarat-lovin' readers departed like quail in a gale after a few days, probably because of late this blog has been firmly focused on sports book betting.
Speaking of which...
Yesterday's showing grabbed back two days worth of losses and then some for 5x, and the 50x column did better still in spite of the fact that there are now three series betting well into four figures every day, and one of those biggies went belly up.
Here's what's new:
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_
