I have been watching developments on the gambling front in Florida with some interest lately, not because I plan to waste money on a trip down there but because the fuss and palaver provides clues about the way state legislators think.
After much self-righteous huffing and puffing, lawmakers basically caved to all the Seminole tribe's demands, swallowing whole the bait that 45,000 new jobs will be created and $4 billion will be added to state revenues by game expansions at the tribe's seven casinos.
Today's news item reflects the immediate impact of Florida's concessions to its Native Americans: a blatant attempt by the Indian casinos to gouge players at their blackjack tables.
The deal's publicity push promised $5 blackjack and baccarat, plus no-limit poker and sundry other gambling options, but when it came down to it, low-limit blackjack tables were nowhere to be found.
Worse than that, $25 players suddenly found their tables being switched up to a $100 minimum.
And unlike in Nevada, where low-limit players are allowed to keep playing at low stakes when the table minimum is hiked, anyone attempting to bet below the new limits was told to take a hike.
What amazes me is that none of the stories I have read makes any attempt to address the question of what table limits are all about.
Or why state pols invariably cave to casinos' demands, sucked in by promises of huge revenues that save them from the politically dangerous responsibility of funding services from legitimate sources untainted by moral murk.
Countless studies have shown that wherever it gets the nod (including in Nevada and New Jersey) legalized gambling costs more jobs than it creates and more money than it generates.
But somehow legislators never read those things, or are persuaded not to believe them.
Back to table limits: We can all guess that minimums are bumped up on weekends when demand increases because casinos are crowded, and we can grudgingly accept it as good business.
But the reality is that higher minimums reduce player's spreads, and that's where extra house profits lie.
A $5 player might spread all the way up to (gasp) $50, and even if he chooses his bet values more or less randomly, his 1-10 spread gives him a marginally better shot at staying ahead of the game than if he were to flat-bet at $5.
If the same player with the same limited budget is coerced into opening at $25, his spread will likely still cap out at or near $50, making him a more likely loser.
Of course higher minimums mean more moolah in the house's coffers, but tighter spreads make player losses that much more certain.
There's no good news about spreads in any of my models, that's for sure.
It is absolutely possible to win for a while with a spread as tight as 1-5 or 1-10, and if that were not so, no one would play table games and folks like the Florida Seminoles would lose their Native American shirts.
But the longer you play with a limited spread, the more likely it is that the prevailing house edge will gobble up your bankroll, especially if, like most gamblers, you are challenging the negative odds with inadequate funding.
Whatever your maximum, you will need many multiples of that amount in the bank to enable you to ride out rough spots and come out the other side ahead of the game.
And the narrower the spread, the larger the multiple, with a decreasing chance of success proportionate to the value of the "max." That's because the sooner you hit that green ceiling, the more you will be at the mercy of the house edge.
Overall, with a mere half-million or so mixed-game outcomes in my data set, a spread tighter than 1-2,500 will always lose in the end. It will do nicely for very long stretches, but will ultimately fail.
That assumes, of course, that you follow the dictates of computer simulations and take no defensive action whatsoever when a house spike hits and suddenly you can't win a bet to save your life.
A spread that wide is out of the reach of almost everyone, I realize.
But the harsh truth about gambling games is that they cannot be beaten without a disciplined plan with big bucks behind it.
Then again, a fat bankroll alone won't win in the end, so money is not everything.
Spread is the key, and evidently, those wily Florida Seminoles (whose casinos are actually being run by even wilier pros from Las Vegas and Atlantic City) know it.
Blackjack is far and away the best table game for target betting, because of its doubles, splits and naturals.
But variations on the traditional game, especially Royal Match, should always be avoided like the plague, along with layouts where the pay-out on a natural has been cut from 3-2 to 6-5.
Baccarat lags behind blackjack because wins never pay more than 1-1 (forget Ties and other distractions...they're a rip-off!), and the only sensible way to bet is to back Player only.
I know, I know, Banker wins more often than Player by an infinitesimal percentage. But the tiny edge it offers is blown to bits and then some by the 5% commission on Banker payouts.
The great advantage of baccarat is that it's a high rollers' game offering table limits that are generally far higher than for blackjack.
So when a recovery series drags on and bet values are weighed down with multiple zeroes, baccarat may be the best option for target betting.
Camouflage is a critical element in target betting, and full size baccarat layouts with all manner of high-value chips in play can provide it like no other game.
There are several target betting options that can be profitable when bet values in a new series are relatively low, but because the house edge is much higher (five times higher or more) you should figure to head back to blackjack or baccarat the moment the going gets tough.
Personally, I enjoy field bets at craps in spite of a house edge that ranges from around 2.6% to above 5.0%, depending on the payout for 6,6 (go for 3x tables whenever possible).
As in blackjack, a turnaround bet on the field can hit an x2 or x3 payout, greatly adding to the EOS profit.
I like 3-card poker for the same reason, although target betting has to be modified to accommodate the ante/raise procedure.
An important rule: never, ever bet on "Pair Plus"!
It is very rare indeed to see a player who doesn't put money in that innocent-looking drain-hole, and it is the reason most 3-card poker players are losers.
Bet only the ante, raise only on a Q,6 or better, and when figuring your LTD+ values, you should HALVE your current loss to date, rounding up in appropriate increments (-$275 calls for an ante bet of $150, for example).
The house edge for the game is around 4.0%, or at least 4x that for blackjack. But as long as bet values are at the low end of your sliding scale, the game's ante bonuses (up to 6x!) can make for profitable play for a while.
Again, never waste money on Pair-plus and ignore whatever sales pitches you may hear from dealers and even other players.
Pair-plus makes about as much sense as a Tie bet in baccarat, and in effect it requires you to constantly bet against yourself!
Roulette has its charms when seats at blackjack and baccarat layouts are hard to find, but the house edge of 5.26% makes it a short-term option at best.
Put your money on 1-1 options only (black/red, odd/even, first/last), although I confess that often I do well picking a 2-1 column (usually the first on the left), sticking with it every time, and applying the same LTD/2 rule as for 3-card poker.
Those are the only table games I will ever play in a casino.
My ranking: blackjack, baccarat, craps field, 3-card poker, roulette.
And when the going gets tough, blackjack is always #1, backed up by baccarat when table limits become a problem.
Table limits are, of course, much lower at craps, 3CP and roulette than at blackjack and baccarat, so that is another solid reason to limit your play against games with higher (or should that be lower?) negative expectation.
Follow the target betting rules consistently and you will win consistently too, which always becomes a problem after a while.
Losers get nothing from casino personnel other than forced sympathy and encouragement to lose some more.
Winners are welcome, as long as they eventually become losers - if they keep on winning, they are assumed to be cheats, and hell hath no fury like pit boss who suspects illegal shenanigans.
As a frequent winner, expect to be scrutinized and sometimes even gently harassed.
But don't expect the treatment to let up even after you have been proved honest and upright...winning is itself a sin in the house's book.
Your best allies are the dealers. Treat them well, and they will be less inclined to clue in their bosses on how you are managing to reverse the expected direction of the "chip flow."
Dealers who know you and can rely on you for steady tokes will usually tip you off when they are on a hot streak, a concept that academic mathematicians insist can have no bearing on overall odds but every player knows to be a very real part of gambling life.
You will win steadily and reliably, sometimes attracting the attention of other players even before the dealer takes notice (although dealers are mostly much quicker and smarter than they are given credit for!).
In spite of that, never run away with the idea that you are invincible. You have standard negative expectation whacked, for sure, but sometimes the house edge can go dangerously haywire before it settles back to the norm, and you need to be ready for that.
Pit staff will want to get to know you, but never be flattered by their attention.
Winners attract "comps" because the house wants them to stay where the money was won until it gets lost again, which is how the script plays out for most punters.
Never angle for comps. You don't need them, and their price is too high.
(Losers are sometimes "comped" too, but only the ones who keep returning for more punishment, demonstrating that they have money to burn and are looking for a light!).
You will be tracked during play once the spotlight is on you, but you do not have to make the house's job easier by giving them your name.
If you can, shrug off overtures from glad-handing pit personnel and say you are just passing through and no thanks, you don't want a Privileged Player's Premium card, or whatever.
Anonymity is a much better way to go, although it gets harder to achieve the longer you keep winning.
Play quietly and politely, keep your head down, and resist the temptation to tell wayward players how to improve their game, even if they ask for your advice (and they will).
Just remember that losers make the games possible. You need them as much as the house does.
In spite of negative expectation, you really do have the math on your side.
Although each bet theoretically faces the same negative odds, there are other numbers at work in a gambling game that work in your favor.
Among them is the demonstrable fact that for both sides in a game, more wins are isolated than are followed by a second win.
That's bad for you when you are bumping your NB value in response to a mid-recovery win. But, more often, you are betting (with the OL, 2L, 3L and MSL target betting rules) that the house will comply with expectation and lose on the heels of a win.
It is a fact that you will lose more potential turnaround bets than you win, thanks to the house edge.
It is also a fact that because you keep adjusting your NB values to match and exceed the loss to date right after a mid-series win, that small disadvantage will only very rarely be a problem.
You know you are going to lose more bets than you win.
It follows both logically and mathematically that in that case, you must ensure that over the long haul, you win more when you win than you lose when you lose.
Have I said that before?
Blackjack players will often tell you that the house advantage lies in the fact that you, the player, have to decide the fate of your hand before the dealer does. So if you draw a "stiff" (two cards that have to be hit) and then bust, the dealer wins even if he turns out to have had a worse starter hand than yours.
The "bust first" rule is a factor, certainly, and it bolsters the house edge significantly. But not nearly as substantively as the simple fact that the dealer has a lot more money to back him than you do.
The house can take a licking for an awfully long time, and will probably be rescued by its flimsy numerical edge long before it has to cry Uncle.
All a flat or random bettor can do is soldier on when times are tough, and pray for a miracle.
The target player needs neither prayers nor miracles.
As a target strategist, your best weapon lies in the fact that you set bet values, not the house.
The house will always, in the end, win more often than you. But you get to determine how much it wins when it wins and how much it loses when it loses.
That is true for every player, but it consistently makes the difference between winning and losing only when target betting is part of the picture.
Target betting shows you how and when to exploit control that most players don't know they have.
Random players hit their personal limits very quickly, and from then on will usually need to win more often than they lose because the odds are that that is the only way they can hope to win more money than they lose.
Your bets freeze in a downturn but will, when appropriate, keep rising to stay one step ahead of the LTD.
And that makes it really difficult for the house to beat you in the end.
In the good old days, pit bosses often used index cards on a chest-level desktop to track the activity of players who were either regulars requesting a rating, or of special interest for some other reason (an excess of "luck" for example).
One column of cards would track losers, and the column beside it would be for winners.
Usually, a card moved into the losers column would never move out of it, making it easy for the pit staffer to mentally tally one set of cards against the other and guess the current state of the house's bottom line.
What they would rather not do was move a card from lose to win, then lose, then win, which is what will happen again and again to a target player who stays in the same blackjack pit for too long.
Keyboard clicks have mostly taken over from squiggles on index cards, but either way, the moral of this tale is: Keep moving.
Most of the time, recoveries will come in six bets or fewer, and profits will accrue at a gentle pace that does not attract much attention.
Paired wins are less frequent than isolated wins, for sure, but on average they are rarely more than a handful of bets apart.
However, when a series drags on for ten or more rounds and the bets begin to look like real money, never be tempted to show the pit how clever you are by achieving EOS under the watchful eyes of the same crew that saw you place your piddling opening bet.
Betting from $5 to $500 in the same general vicinity is a bad idea.
I did that several times too often before I determined that profits and a low profile mattered more than demonstrating how deep a hole I could get out of.
Cash, not kudos...that's the rule!
If you really want empathy (especially when alternate layouts are temporarily hard to find) it is best to suspend play against a challenging series that would usually require a move, keep the LTD/NB numbers in your head, and drop back to a minimum bet.
You can accumulate several "deferred" series if you choose, saving them for another casino or another day, and your (temporary) losses will keep at least one pit crew happy for a while.
The folks in the next pit you visit will likely have a lot less to smile about.
The screenshot composite above is from the current BST blackjack session, which as I type this is a little over half done (I don't play as often or as long as I used to, on the grounds that my point was made long ago!). The numbers you see are not "proof" of anything, just an example of what can be achieved with target betting. Three of the four sessions had more losses than wins, and the other was a virtual break-even. In each case, the state of the bankroll after the last hand belies those numbers (and unlike many no-dough apps, BST does not permit players to alter their bankrolls!). I suppose it's possible that similar results might be seen if a simple Martingale were used against Ken Smith's elegant little app, but I have my doubts. I also suppose that cheating is an option. But it isn't for me. As I always say: What for? Target betting is easier and more reliable than cheating could ever be!
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.
_
