Sep 10
AndrewBlog Vegas
On a recent trip to New Orleans, a friend and I went to Harrah’s casino on Canal Street to test our luck on the blackjack tables. With $100 stake at a $10 table, our results couldn’t have been more disparate. I got buried alive, lasting less than thirty minutes, missing my double downs and generally winning 1 in 3 hands. Not a formula for success or longevity. My friend did much better, survived an early rough streak, a couple of ignorant players and came away up a few hundred dollars for a couple hours worth of play.
Given the small stakes, neither of those outcomes were particularly compelling on the face of it. I sat at first base, and my friend sat in the middle of the table, with a player in-between us. Watching the man in-between us play was painful. He varied his bets at random, from $10 to $50, played without any idea of what was going on the table, doubled on a hard 12 three times against a dealer’s 10 and often hit against a bust card (but even then, seemingly at random).
Did his bad play ruin my game? Was I just unlucky? After all, my friend, just two seats away from me, played with him too (and for that matter, for a much longer period of time) and successfully managed to increase his take to a (statistically) astronomical amount. The guy in-between us was, by any measure, a terrible blackjack player, an absolute catastrophe without any real understanding of how the game is played. But I lost and my friend didn’t.
You could argue (and people do) that how the guy played his hands didn’t affect the probability of whether I won or lost my own hand. You could also argue (and people do) that blackjack is akin to a team sport. The misplay by one person can take down all the players at the table. So which one is it?
The answer is both. On the one hand, the math is indisputable. On the other hand, the probability of winning itself fluctuates based on your decisions. The purpose of optimal play is to give yourself the best possible chance of beating the dealer on every hand. But if you’re playing at a table with players who don’t understand optimal play, you’re defeating your own strategy.
In most cases, I wouldn’t have stayed at that table. But at that point, the $100 stake was what I was willing to lose and I wanted to play with my friend for as long as I could. I wanted to tell the guy what he needed to do to win, but I don’t tell people how to play -- even when they ask. (Although I will advise someone how to “play by the book”.) So instead, I will tell you.
How to be a successful gambler:
1) Choose wisely
Before you sit down at a table, watch a few hands. You should have a good vibe from the dealer and the other players. You should see the dealer bust a hand. Those are signs of a good table.
2) Stay mobile
Be prepared to leave with some money in your pocket. Don’t play down to your last dollar. If the table runs bad and you want to keep playing, find action at another table. You can lose anywhere, don’t give up without a fight.
3) Know how to play
It seems like a silly thing to insist on, but you should have a good grasp of the game before you start to play. You’d be surprised how many people don’t have a clue. I’m not talking about professional skill level, I’m talking about basic -- but complete -- understanding of the rules, the terminology and the strategy involved to increase your chances of success.
4) Stay level-headed
Okay, if you’re drinking, this one could get tossed right out the window. But in order to be successful, you need to keep your wits about you. Getting mad because you’re losing means you shouldn’t be gambling at all. It’s not just about having the right attitude (that’s a big part of it) but also making good decisions.
Of course, if the guy at our table had done all those things, the result may have been the same. I would have lost my stake, he could have thrown more money at the table in order to keep playing, and my friend would have won. But the lesson here is not to short circuit your own chances of success with your actions or your attitude.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Aug 20
AndrewMovies
The irony of The Switch, the new Jennifer Aniston film about finding her baby daddy, is the happily ever after. Maybe it’s expected for this kind of predictable romantic comedy, but the movie opens up with a lengthy voice over from Jason Bateman’s character Wally about how life is a rut. It’s a wholly sympathetic point of view that is too obviously contradicted in a flat finale.
The other irony is that Jennifer Aniston is the star vehicle pushing The Switch, but she is outshined by Bateman and their child co-star Thomas Robinson. Aniston is pitch-perfect as the anguished mom-to-be, then independent single mother Cassie who likes her best friend Wally but won’t consider him as a sperm donor. Instead she finds hunky Roland (played with a kind of crazy-Watchmen glint in his eyes by Patrick Wilson that was missing from his character in the Watchmen) whose donation is swapped with Wally’s and hilarity ensues.
The Switch is funny. It’s cute. It’s formulaic. It’s also insanely fast paced. The only time the movie slows down is scenes between Wally and Sebastian (played with adorable quirkiness by Robinson). Only then does the movie give credit to the story its pushing, and it is in those moments that makes The Switch worth watching.
But that’s the heart of the problem really. This isn’t a boy meets girl romantic comedy (see The Back-up Plan). It’s a story about a father building a relationship with his six-year old son and realizing that its the relationships in his life that gives it meaning and purpose. Even his friendship with his coworker (played by Jeff Goldblum) makes this point nicely, even if you wish you could have seen more of it during the movie. That’s why, when he eventually gets the girl (believe me, not a spoiler), it’s kind of besides the point.
Aug 19
AndrewMusic
Memo to Caleb Followill and Kings of Leon: You don’t need Glee, but that doesn’t mean you should be stupid about turning down the show.
It might be time that Kings of Leon break their “no sell out” policy for Glee considering it’s only one of the most popular shows on television. Followill’s insists he’s never seen the show, so, sir, here’s a primer. The kids turn your most popular songs into their most popular songs by arranging them in choir-esque vocal jam sessions. It’s cute, it’s quaint, and it’s typically wrapped in a bubblegum storyline package that neatly ties together that episode’s themes. It’s also watched by 8 million people which is about 4 times greater than the total number of copies you pushed of your breakthrough album Only by the Night. That means you’re looking to possibly pick up 6 million interested new fans, and don’t tell me it offends your indie sensibility. You tossed that away when you released Use Somebody as a single.
I understand you turned down Ugly Betty. Fine, nobody watches it anyway. Licensing your music to shows and movies doesn’t make you a sell out, it provides you exposure to audiences that might otherwise not know you exist. That is, people who are willing to buy tickets to your concerts and pony up money to buy magazines with your face on the cover. Your attitude is exactly the kind of nearsighted bullshit egomania that you can’t afford.
Man, I hate your band even more now. Your show, which I took a friend to as a birthday gift, was a noisy mess and altogether unenjoyable. But I respected your band for earning your credibility on the road when you’ve been largely ignored by radio before Sex on Fire, but that’s exactly why you need Glee. My respect for you is less for confusing selling out with cross-marketing, for thinking being indie-cool is better than pop giants, and for thinking licensing your music is settling when it’s exactly the kind of lift your band could use to its advantage. In the end, you want the luxury of being able to be your own band, which is exactly why you shouldn’t ignore opportunities like this whether you’ve seen the show or not. Don’t you have a new album, Come Around Sundown, coming out October 19? I’m guessing you wouldn’t say no to increased album sales, so why say no to Glee? You’re smart guys, I guess, but this move was just plain dumb.
Aug 13
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Two weeks ago, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick cockblocked a bill that would have approved resort casino development in the state as well as slot machine licensing for non-casino properties. Patrick timed his rejection of the bill for the end of legislative session, effectively killing any chance for a compromise. The legislature would had to have convened a special session to either override Patrick’s objections or redraft the bill to meet his concessions. The special session did not happen, was never expected to, and casino gambling in the state was pushed off for at least another year.
Patrick’s emphatic contention that he would not award slot machine concessions to racetracks was political posturing. The question is why would he bother at all when he trumpeted the benefits of casino development in the first place, arguing that the increase in jobs and potential gaming revenue more than made up for any potential downside. Did he gain any ground with the anti-gambling crusaders looking to save the state from itself? As recently as the end of last month, he still seemed, if not enthusiastic, at least partial to bringing resort-style gambling to the state. Additionally, his decision to block the bill (particularly at the last second) surely pissed off the labor unions to whom he promised new job creation as a result of casino development. So who’s left to be impressed by his stalemate?
To voters, does the move to block the bill mark Patrick as a decisive politician? After all, he was at least consistent in his message that he would not support outfitting racetracks with slot machines. His actions certainly mirrored his rhetoric on that point. Or does Patrick come across as a political meanderer, wandering this way and that on thorny political issues in order to appease everyone just enough to stay on his side? It doesn’t help that other states are pushing forward voraciously with new gambling facilities. New York City approved the first slot machines in city limits at a racetrack in Queens, and after Ohio voters approved gambling in the state last fall, Harrah’s Entertainment has already committed $600 million to developing casino properties in downtown Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Two weeks later, it appears the answer is simply that Patrick was trying to lay the groundwork for his reelection in the fall. It’s certainly the most believable explanation for a turnabout that looks hypocritical and politically calamitous. And as there is no doubt that the move was deliberate, it was more than a little spiteful too. Remember, this is the second time that gambling has been on the legislative agenda. The legislature failed to pass a gambling bill two years ago, and constituents across the state have been begging for someone to throw some political clout behind the issue. Patrick was claiming to be that heavyweight fighter ready to go into the ring for gambling in Massachusetts.
The question now is who was victorious after this most recent bout? It’s hard to look at this as a complete victory for opponents of gambling. It appears to have delayed gambling in the state, not a buried the issue permanently. Patrick still has a fight ahead of him, with neither side of the issue completely in his corner. Voters have a stake too because they are faced with their own prickly decision. Does reelecting Patrick give them a better chance or a worse chance to see gambling approved in the state of Massachusetts? By rejecting the bill the way he did, it’s not just Patrick’s reelection at risk, more than ever, it’s an entire Commonwealth with someone to lose.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
Aug 12
AndrewA Writer's Blog
To celebrate the release of Thank You is Implied, we asked illustrator Jennifer Cosentino to design two “Thank You” cards inspired by the book. See the images below.
Aug 03
AndrewMusic
The big question hanging over Guster is whether anyone is still listening. As a live act, the band has always been a formidably entertaining force on stage. Drummer Brian Rosenworcel alone is worth the price of admission. But their last studio release 2006′s Ganging Up on the Sun was a bit lackluster. None of the tracks really sucked, but that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement either. So today, they finally previewed new music with the release of their single Do You Love Me.
The track, being released ahead of their October 5 album Easy Wonderful, definitely hearkens back to the band’s earlier sound rather than their most recent efforts. It evokes running through a field of flowers hand in hand with your lover, as any poppy love song ought to. It even has the requisite Do do do do, do do do do bridge, which could have been yanked straight out of the seventies. Ryan Miller’s vocals are front and center on this one, but not in a bothersome way. The instrumentation, something that has always been uniquely Guster, seems to have taken a backseat, but again not in a bothersome way.
Fans will embrace this song as a glimpse of good things to come. Do You Love Me amicably questions whether anyone would welcome a little more Guster in their lives, but I think it’s pretty clear from this single that the answer is yes.
Older Entries
RSS
