Myths surrounding off- and online casinos
The exposure, gambling and online gambling receive nowadays via the internet means that a lot of the information previously only available to a few privileged and involved people is slowly becoming public. More and more inside and previously never heard-about information surfaces on different casino games, in the “tips and tricks” and the “strategies” sections of different websites. They mostly concentrate on how the player can turn the tables on the casinos, but all of this wealth of useful tips has a downside to it as well. Many of the presented strategies and tips are bogus. They simply don’t work. They’re but website-fillers.
The task to single out useful information befalls to the player himself.
One thing that is often left unadressed or many so called experts build bogus strategies around it, is the casino myth.
I read somewhere that it is a good strategy in blackjack ( and Online blackjack) to always assume the dealer has a 10 in the hole and make decisions according to that. If the game is fair in real casinos, and if the software is fair in online ones, there’s no reason to assume the dealer indeed has a 10 in the hole. The mathematical probability of him having another card ( not a 10) is a whole lot bigger than the 10-card theory.
To select useful and reliable information is not only hindered by the authors of such bogus strategies but sometimes also by the relative ignorance of the player reading the information. Some articles on blackjack strategies are adressed to specific classes of players. Blackjack strategies that card-counters can use the great effect are simply not fit for regular ( otherwise good) blackjack players and may cause them to lose money faster than usual.
I ‘ll provide a simple example to put my case where my mouth is.
A regular blacjack player ( one who doesn’t count cards) is a sure victim of the house edge. Sure enough, the edge is not that much ( about 0.5 percent) but it is there, and the normal blacjack player will feel its effects sooner or later. This doesn’t mean of course that a player who doesn’t count cards will never be able to go on a sustained winning streak, what it means is that � theoretically- if the player kept on playing forever he would end up losing money due to the house edge. Interestingly enough, the whole structure of the game is suited to human psychology to promote exactly this type of behaviour. The more someone wins the less likely it is for that player to simply walk away with the money he’s won. Even if he does walk away he’s bound to return, as the place will be imprinted in his memory as a positive experience a place where good things happened in the past.
OK, so let us swerve back to our player wrestling the house edge. Theoretically there’s no way such a player can break ahead of the house in the longrun, so what he nees to do is try to slow down the rate the loss occurs at.
Playing at a table with few or no other players ( whether it is on or offline) will increase the number of hands dealt per division of time. That will also increase the size of the leak in the player’s piggybank.
Playing fewer hands at a crowded table will reduce it but never completely plug it up.
The situation is altogether different with card-counters. These guys start with a 0.5 to 1 percent edge also but an edge that works the other way around. These guys have managed to turn the tables on the casino and snatch the edge away from it. Fot them, to play as many hands as possible is imperative, because the faster they play the more money they win from the casino per division of time.
I suppose you can see now why the same strategy doesn’t suit both these players.
Many casinos do not realize that by adopting a card-counter friendly attitude ( regarding the depth of penetration and the sped of the play) they’d actually end up making more money. The same system that’d allow a few counters to take away the 1% edge would also have tons of regular players losing like there’s no tomorrow.