Craps Competition at Mandalay Bay - November 7, 2006

The Wizard's News

From the Wizard..

Legislators Target Online Gambling

As famously stated in Bye Bye Birdie, \"So, it has finally arrived. The long-awaited moment has finally come, and it is here at last!\" Throughout at least the past seven years that I've been observing online gambling, there have been various legislative efforts aimed at curbing it. Previously, such initiatives tended to get tangled up due to special interest groups pushing for exemptions, which often resulted in nothing passing through Congress. However, in a typical twist of fate in Washington, an anti-gambling bill was unexpectedly approved after being attached last-minute to an unrelated port security legislation.

This legislation doesn’t explicitly outlaw online gambling; rather, it prohibits U.S. banks from processing any transactions related to it. The outcome, however, is quite similar, as many gaming websites have ceased accepting players from the United States due to this law. As a result, numerous sites may face bankruptcy or at the very least, have to let go of a significant number of their staff, since they’ve lost a large portion of their clientele.

I have sought advice from multiple legal experts who confirmed that advertising for online gambling is not illegal, so we will continue to feature advertisements from Bodog. I have no intention of flouting the law; I genuinely believe I am not violating anything, as I see no clauses that prohibit advertising. Michael Bluejay elaborates on this matter in the text below.

I am firmly against this legislation as well as any laws that restrict personal freedom, as long as one isn’t harming others. I take pride in Bodog for remaining accessible to U.S. players and I'm pleased to have them as our sole advertiser.

Craps tournament

On October 21 and 22, I took part in the 'Rolling Big Dice' craps tournament at the Mandalay Bay . The grand prize was set at $175,000, contributing to a total prize pool of $300,000. I estimate that around 72 participants joined the tournament. Simply dividing the prize pool suggests that the average return per player should be about $4167. However, I observed that nearly half of the participants were unlikely to win because they played as they typically would in casual craps games. In tournament scenarios, it’s essential to adopt strategies tailored to tournaments, which generally involves wagering sufficient amounts to maintain a competitive chance for the lead if bets are won.

Each contestant enjoyed three separate playing sessions, beginning each with $100,000 in play chips. Every session consisted of 25 rolls, excluding a special 26th 'golden roll' at the end. The final standings were based on the accumulated balance across all three sessions. Additionally, each of the three sessions had a $1500 prize for the session winner.

From past experiences in tournaments, I understood that aggressive play is necessary to secure a winning spot. The betting limits for this tournament were rather low, prompting me to place maximum bets across all possible points—4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, while hoping to avoid rolling a seven.

In my opening session, I encountered a series of sevens, which nearly depleted my funds. Shortly after, another seven followed, ultimately resulting in my bankruptcy. The next session was even more devastating, as I was eliminated after the third roll. However, during the final session, I managed to complete all 25 rolls while only rolling two sevens (the expected amount would be 4.17). Fortunately, those two sevens came later in the session, allowing me to build enough of a bankroll to withstand them. Many of the other competitors played similarly to me, though perhaps less aggressively, often choosing to turn off or withdraw their bets at various points.

After completing the 25th roll, I ended up with $543,000 in chips, which was the highest amount at my table. Still, based on the leaderboard, I was aware that the top two players from previous sessions had amassed over $1.4 million. My chances of finishing in first or second place were thwarted, but I aimed for third place, as it offered a $25,000 reward. The 26th roll, dubbed the 'golden roll,' allowed unlimited betting on either the over or under for seven. Should a seven be rolled, the dice would be rolled again until a non-seven outcome occurred.

Statistically, betting on under or over makes no difference, yet in sports betting, I typically favor the under at a ratio of 20 to 1 compared to over, so based on my habits and loyalty, I decided to go all in on under seven. The outcome was significant, as up to $25,000 in prize money hinged on this single throw. Counting the chips and recording each person's bets took some time, but finally, we reached the pivotal moment. The shooter picked up the distinctive orange dice and made a rather unimpressive throw, causing one die to collide with the croupier’s chips. I spotted one die showing a three, and it took longer than anticipated to locate the other one, which also turned out to be a THREE!!!

This fortunate roll of six positioned me, at least temporarily, in third place! However, I was mindful that two other tables could potentially elevate players' standings. The results took almost an hour to validate, but finally, they began announcing names from the tenth position upward. Not only did I retain my third place position, but I also secured $1,500 for being the winner in the third session.

Apart from $26,500 in complimentary play chips, I was honored with a lovely crystal trophy and had the opportunity to take pictures alongside the Mandalay Bay showgirls and parrots, from which I hope to obtain a copy. It took a considerable amount of time to break down the chips into hundreds, after which I played through it all in blackjack, concluding with $25,000, from which I tipped the dealers $500. I learned that it's customary for major tournament winners to tip generously, as dealers typically don't receive tips during live play.

This victory marks my first win in a tournament, and I couldn't be happier. I want to extend my gratitude and praise to Mandalay Bay for organizing such an enjoyable and successful tournament.

We find ourselves in a debate among coworkers. There’s a bar down the street that has a game called 'shake a day'; you must roll five dice simultaneously, and all five must show the same number, much like yahtzee. You get three attempts, but you need to pick up the dice after each roll. So the question is about the odds of achieving this in one roll versus across the three allowed attempts. Thank you; if this has been addressed before, I apologize for not finding it. Thanks again. -- Dan and team at Maple Island from Forest Lake

The odds of rolling five identical numbers in a single throw are calculated as 6*(1/6),⁵= 1/1,296. This reflects that there are six combinations of five-of-a-kinds (one to six), while the probability for each die to show that specific number is (1/6). The chances of not rolling five-of-a-kind are 1-(1/1,296)=1,295/1,296. The probability of failing to roll a five-of-a-kind after three attempts stands at (1,295/1,296),³= 99.77%. Hence, the likelihood of achieving at least one five-of-a-kind within three attempts is 100%-99.77% = 0.23%.

What's new on the site

B3W software caution . Currently, the video poker game at certain B3W casinos is under scrutiny. I conducted statistical analyses on a video poker game that has yet to be named at Yachting Casino, and the results raised some red flags. After I shared my findings with customer service, they notified me the following day that they were also very concerned and would compile a report promptly. They have indicated they’re taking this matter seriously, but the investigation remains active. Until the Yachting Casino/B3W has had the opportunity to address my concerns, I am refraining from making any formal accusations. Readers might want to hold off on playing video poker at any casino that uses B3W software until this report concludes.

Until we meet again, aspire for the best.

From Michael Bluejay..

Is online gambling against the law?

The U.S. Congress has recently approved legislation aimed at curbing online gambling. So, what implications does this have for you as a player? Surprisingly, not many. The legislation does not criminalize online gambling; instead, it renders it illegal for banks to process transactions related to online gaming (and effectively for gaming operators to receive money through U.S. banks). As players, you are not likely to encounter legal trouble with federal authorities. However, a U.S. player might potentially conflict with their respective state gambling laws, particularly if residing in one of the few states with prohibitions on online gambling. This scenario was already a concern even prior to the introduction of this new legislation. Ultimately, the principal impact for you as a player is that you might find yourself unable to engage with your preferred gaming sites, as many have decided to stop accepting players from the U.S.

Following the new law, a considerable number of operators (casinos, poker rooms, sportsbooks) opted to stop accepting players from the U.S. This decision raises some eyebrows since the legislation didn't actually make it illegal for them to continue taking U.S. players. If players deposit their funds via Neteller, a service based overseas, no federal laws would be breached. Nonetheless, numerous operators chose to withdraw from the U.S. market. Notably, it's primarily the largest companies that have exited, many of which are publicly traded and likely worried about their shareholders. Conversely, smaller private companies are generally still welcoming U.S. players. (And yes, Bodog is still ready to accept your bets.)

What implications does this hold for publishers, such as the Wizard, who feature gambling advertisements? We believe that our operations will not be significantly impacted. After carefully reviewing the legislation and consulting multiple legal experts, it appears that there are no restrictions in the law that prevent us from displaying advertisements. While there's a very slim chance that federal authorities could argue that we are complicit in illegal activities by supporting them, this reasoning seems rather far-fetched. We anticipate that if any issues arise, we would receive a warning letter first—similar to those sent by the Department of Justice to some major publishers back in 2003. Should we receive such a letter, we would comply by removing our ads, at least until we explore potential legal action against the government, reminiscent of Casino City’s experience. (Though Casino City eventually withdrew their lawsuit, it’s worth noting that a court ruled that merely hosting ads does not equate to aiding and abetting, a precedent we are considering.) We don't believe that running these ads is illegal, but if federal officials demand that we cease, we will have to comply temporarily. The current administration seems to have a troubling tendency to disregard legal protocols, so if federal authorities claim we’re at fault—even if we aren’t—our options may be limited unless we opt for litigation similar to Casino City’s case.

It's important to highlight that opinions among other publishers vary. Our acquaintance, the Casinomeister automatically takes down the ads from their site when a user from the U.S. accesses it. Interestingly, Casinomeister isn't even based in the United States. That's quite remarkable. We certainly respect Casinomeister’s cautious approach, particularly as legal interpretations of the legislation can differ among attorneys. However, if you happen to be in the U.S. and previously found the animated ads on Casinomeister unappealing, now would be a good time to take a closer look!

On a side note, we fully acknowledge that we’re not legal professionals, so please don't depend on this article as a replacement for legal counsel. It would be prudent to review the laws applicable to your jurisdiction and consult a qualified attorney if you seek specialized legal guidance.

For a comprehensive overview of online gambling law that surpasses what you might have previously noticed, check out my detailed article. Is it permissible to run advertisements for online gambling?

Vote today

Today marks election day in the U.S. Casinomeister distributed a newsletter highlighting the U.S. representatives who co-sponsored legislation against online gambling. Notably, many of these representatives are seeking re-election today. As a courtesy, we’re sharing that list, but we've merged two separate lists into one and organized the representatives alphabetically by state for your convenience in finding your local lawmakers. Perhaps we cherish you even more than Casinomeister does. (Not to suggest they don't have affection for you, maybe we just show a little extra.)

We would never imply that anyone should base their voting choices solely on one issue, but we believe that evaluating individual votes can help shape your overall impression of a candidate. While we don’t consider online gambling to be the most pressing concern for America at this time, it’s our area of expertise, and that’s why we focus on it here.

The wrong way to win a Wizard of Odds drawing.

At times, it feels like we can't even give things away. Here’s a recap of what transpired last month when I attempted to distribute a free book.

FROM: Michael Bluejay
TO: [Wizard's News Subscriber]

Congratulations! As a subscriber of The Wizard’s News, you’ve won our random drawing (held monthly or so) for a copy of the Wizard’s book, Gambling 102. Please provide your mailing address to:

book@Wnternetradiomercedes.com

..and we'll get your book out to you.

Kindly refrain from replying to me, as my account is unable to receive emails from AOL addresses.

Congrats again,

-MBJ-
Assistant to the Wizard of Odds

---

FROM: [Wizard's News Subscriber]
TO: Michael Bluejay

I believe that being redirected to another site to submit an address for a \"free book,\" only to struggle to locate where to enter that information, feels as much of a scam as the Wizard's commentary on being taken advantage of!

---

Was my initial message somehow unclear? I’m not sure how I could have made it any more straightforward.

In any case, this month’s fortunate winner of the Wizard’s book, Gambling 102 , is subscriber #5487, MadScribe. We’ll see if they actually claim the book or voice complaints about their win. By the way, we recently reached an important milestone: our newsletter now boasts over 10,000 subscribers. That surely surpasses the New York Times, if I'm not mistaken.

Written by: Michael Shackleford