 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008Road Conditions LA to Vegas?
I'm contemplating a road trip from SoCal to Vegas this weekend. However, I know there's been a lot of road construction on the 15; how are the traffic conditioons these days? Anything I should watch out for?  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > I'm contemplating a road trip from SoCal to Vegas this weekend. > However, I know there's been a lot of road construction on the 15; how > are the traffic conditioons these days? >Anything I should watch out for? Yeah, drivers coming back from Vegas who've lost everything playing those lame-a.s mindless slots and contemplating death by head-on collision. Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a Blackjack or Poker guy. Something you can have a way better chance to win some money with. I'd go for the low-stakes no-limit Texas Holdem tables, myself. Good luck if you do go! John B. >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >Blackjack or Poker guy. LOL! I don't waste my money on gambling - the odds always favor the house. I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, > either! :) Getting married is an even bigger gamble... SignatureMichael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Getting married is an even bigger gamble... If I wanted to become a bigamist, I'd be going to Utah or Texas, not Las Vegas. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > > >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > > >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Getting married is an even bigger gamble... ... and some cynics say that it's an elaborate form of prostitution. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) Strip clubs? -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >>I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) > > Strip clubs? Cheap shrimp cocktails? SignatureCheers, Bev ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No lawyering. Prosecutors will be violated. > >>I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > No lawyering. Prosecutors will be violated. http://www.searchlasvegasshows.com/lasvegasconvention.html I bet it's the Nachos, I mean NACHA. Won't comment on the May day one... jg -- @home.com is bogus. The train boss! The train! >>I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) > >Strip clubs? Plenty of those right here. One local club is called "The Library." No doubt their clientele really enjoys telling their wives "Honey, I'm going to The Library! See you later!!" Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > >>I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Dave's not here, man!" > - Tommy Chong There's a bar very close to Arizona State with the same name. Brilliant really - "I'm going to the library..." without the guilt of lying to parents/roommates/significant others. >>>I'd be going for a different purpose (and no, it's not hookers, either! :) >>Strip clubs? >Plenty of those right here. But sometimes you gotta go where nobody knows your name. -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** > >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Dave's not here, man!" > - Tommy Chong It's always amusing to see how ignorant some people really are with respect to gambling. But they always offer their opinion. And it's almost always wrong. >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > respect to gambling. But they always offer their opinion. And it's > almost always wrong. So the odds DON'T favor the house on your planet? SignatureCheers, Bev XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "Tip: Place your houseplants in front of the television during the next presidential debate and watch how leafy they get." -- Scott Adams > >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In certain games, the odds do not favor the house. Everyone with an IQ greater than 80 knows this. I'm sorry for you. > > >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > > >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry for the "IQ greater than 80" quip, I mistook you for someone else. >> > >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >> > >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sorry for the "IQ greater than 80" quip, I mistook you for someone > else. Hey, we're all allowed to be snotty sometimes! I don't gamble. Why would a casino bother with a game where they could lose? SignatureCheers, Bev 1010101010101010101010101010101010101 What do you think you're doing, Dave? -- Hal 9000 > >> > >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > >> > >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The casinos allow positive-expectation games because most people play them at a disadvantage, even when they think they are at an advantage. In the case of video poker, you memorize a set of rules to play by (the number of rules ranges from 40 to well into the 100s) and play. This might seem like the easiest way to gain an advantage. Unfortunately - and this is especially true around the Vegas area - the denominations available of such 100%+ games are small - usually no higher than quarters (Reno is slightly better). Full Pay Deuces Wild (FPDW) is probably one of the better games to play. With perfect play, it pays back 100.7%. As far as I know, it is only available in quarters in Vegas (and if it were available in dollars, as soon as it became public knowledge it would be removed). So a max bet is $1.25. So for every hand you play, you make - in the long run - $0.00875 (less than one penny). A light-speed pace of playing video poker is 800 hands/hr. To make $10,000 playing full pay deuces wild would take over 1,400 hours. This is of course, only half of the story - there are comps, cash offers, free play, and many more fringe benefits, which makes video poker - even for high denom games less than $0.25 - extremely profitable. Then there's blackjack, which enjoys possibly the greatest advantage. The casino allows it because so many people play so poorly and people expect to have it in the casino. It's an American favorite. If you play too well, you will be asked to leave the casino, or be read the trespass act (where you will be violating the law if you come back). This is legal in all American jurisdictions, except New Jersey, where they are allowed to by law change the rules of the game as they see fit. Basically, there are ways to win out there. The casino usually won't even notice unless you're raking it in. If they do catch you, or if you become too greedy, they just ask you to leave. If you come back, they read the trespass act. I've been asked to leave a casino once, but I wasn't advantage playing of course. Wouldn't dream of it. The easiest way to win money at a casino is to play live poker, and play it well. The easiest way to gain an advantage over the casino is blackjack. Other forms of advantage play like slots with high progressives or video poker is extremely difficult, yields a small edge, or both, and you will likely go unnoticed if you persue either of these. > > >> > >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a > > >> > >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an advantage, card counting is required. Normal strategy is still pretty good - the payback is like 98% (approximate number, can't remember off the top of my head). > Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an > advantage, card counting is required. To a certain extent, isn't that true of any card game? SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an > > advantage, card counting is required. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com > Geek-for-hire. Details:http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol Most of the newer generation of card-based table games, such as Pai Gow Poker, 3 Card Poker, etc. shuffle after every game. Counting cards is basically a way to use information from previous hands to make a decision about the current hand. The shuffling removes that possibility. Shuffling isn't used in blackjack because it is such a fast-paced game, especially compared to games like Pai Gow Poker. If they did shuffle it, it would ruin the flow of the game. Many blackjack games offered use many decks and they also take a good deal of time to shuffle. > Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an > advantage, card counting is required. Normal strategy is still pretty > good - the payback is like 98% (approximate number, can't remember off > the top of my head). Combine that with doubling your bet every time you lose, and you're guaranteed to come out ahead (by the amount of your initial bet) when you win, assuming you don't run out of money first. Then start over with a relatively smaller "initial" bet again. If you play well, these cycles should be quite short, and you should be able to make a decent-size initial bet without significant risk of going broke. Disclaimer: I have no first-hand knowledge of gambling, and the above statements are based on pure mathematical concepts. If I've overlooked some factor of Vegas reality, I'm sure Jason will point it out. SignatureVid the Kid "Does this font make me look fat?" >> Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an >> advantage, card counting is required. Normal strategy is still pretty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >statements are based on pure mathematical concepts. If I've overlooked >some factor of Vegas reality, I'm sure Jason will point it out. That is one of the reasons that tables in casinos generally have minimum and maximum bets. >>> Sorry I didn't mention it explicitly, but to play blackjack at an >>> advantage, card counting is required. Normal strategy is still pretty [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >That is one of the reasons that tables in casinos generally have minimum >and maximum bets. Plus, you _will_ run out of money at some point. >> >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >> >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >In certain games, the odds do not favor the house. Everyone with an IQ >greater than 80 knows this. I'm sorry for you. Please name these games. Obviously poker would be one, but the house doesn't play poker. It just collects a share for making room for the game. >>>>>> Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >>>>>> Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > doesn't play poker. It just collects a share for making room for the > game. If you are good you can tip the odds slightly in your favor with blackjack. I'm not that good, nor or most people. So for the most part the odds remain with the house. Take care, Rich God bless the USA SignaturePat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008 Even though he's dead it makes about much sense to vote for him as it does for the choices that we have who are living. At least he's not going change his position on anything. > On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:24:36 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Video poker is most common (full pay deuces wild, full pay double double bonus, full pay double bonus, full pay kings or better joker poker, full pay one eyed jacks [hardest game ever to play], and probably many more i don't know. all progressive-enabled video poker can become positive-expectation if the progressive runs high enough), blackjack, live action poker, slots if the progressive gets large enough (uncommon but it can be spotted with a bit of ingenuity), certain slot machines which i can't speak to because i haven't fully researched it, sports gambling (debatable), horse racing (debatable), and craps (extremely heavily debatable - relies on control of the dice. personally i think its bullshit). >> <jpawlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >and craps (extremely heavily debatable - relies on control of the >dice. personally i think its bullshit). Video poker and other slots have a fixed _total_ return that is positive to the house, even if there is a particular point in time that there may be a positive expectation of return for the player, same thing for lotteries with progressive jackpots. Of course the lotteries in the US still offer the worst expected return of any legal gambling in the country. The house always makes money on any parimutuel gambling, the only legal kind there is in the US. Other sports gambling may have a loss for the house on a particular game, but the house wins in the long run. The odds are for the house in craps, even with honest dice. > On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Video poker and other slots have a fixed _total_ return that is positive > to the house, Incorrect. Read what I wrote. Double Double Bonus without a progressive has a 100.2% payback. Full Pay Deuces Wild without a progressive has a 100.7%. And so forth. The other games I've listed all have a positive expectation and likely many more I left out because I am unaware of them. This is well-documented and googlable. > The house always makes money on any parimutuel gambling, the only legal > kind there is in the US. Other sports gambling may have a loss for the > house on a particular game, but the house wins in the long run. Sports gambling can be won with judicious choices of teams or prop bets. Whether it can be won in the long run is debatable, but I believe it can. > The odds are for the house in craps, even with honest dice. The theory behind beating craps is the use of dice control. Some people swear by it, a lot of people are skeptical. Like I said above, I fall into the latter category. >> <jpawlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:24:36 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >progressive has a 100.2% payback. Full Pay Deuces Wild without a >progressive has a 100.7%. And so forth. Please explain how this works. What is the incentive for the house to knowingly lose money? >The other games I've listed >all have a positive expectation and likely many more I left out >because I am unaware of them. Tell me how that works and why the house would offer a losing option. >This is well-documented and googlable. It strikes me as nonsense. You need to explain why the house offers something that loses them money if you claim that they have an inherent disadvantage. >> The house always makes money on any parimutuel gambling, the only legal >> kind there is in the US. Other sports gambling may have a loss for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >bets. Whether it can be won in the long run is debatable, but I >believe it can. But the house doesn't lose. >> The odds are for the house in craps, even with honest dice. > >The theory behind beating craps is the use of dice control. Some >people swear by it, a lot of people are skeptical. Like I said above, >I fall into the latter category. With honest dice and random results (we both question whether anyone can control dice) the house wins. > On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Please explain how this works. What is the incentive for the house to > knowingly lose money? Good GOD you are DENSE. Did you Google it? What I said is so easy to verify.. They offer this game because most people who play it will not play it at a level greater than 100%. They offer this game because they can advertise "100%+ PAYBACK ON SELECT MACHINES" all over billboards near the freeway. They offer this game because they know that the vast majority of people who play with the intention of winning in the long term aren't properly bankrolled for it. They offer this game because, even if someone does play perfectly, the loss is minimal and fails to outweigh the benefit of having the machine on the floor. You aren't going to get rich playing a 100.2% or 100.7% machine. You can get rich playing video poker though - and I'm talking about in the long run. It has to do with player's club point accumulation, promos, and cash back. I'd try to explain it to you, but given that you won't accept the existence of these machines when a simple google search will prove you wrong indicates that the concepts involved might be too difficult. I know of video poker plays in Reno that work out to about 30-40$ per hour when playing 800 hands per hour. Each of the games involved has a payback of less than 100%. I have heard of video poker plays in Reno that pay up to $100 per hour. I cannot personally verify this. By the way, occassionally games exist because of mistakes made by manufacturers. Bally used to have a game called Draw Till U Win. The mathematician miscalculated the payback and didn't realize they released a 103% game in the field. Virtually all machines are gone by now as this was many years ago. > >The other games I've listed > >all have a positive expectation and likely many more I left out > >because I am unaware of them. > > Tell me how that works and why the house would offer a losing option. Covered above. I assume you forgot that you asked that question already. > >This is well-documented and googlable. > > It strikes me as nonsense. You need to explain why the house offers > something that loses them money if you claim that they have an inherent > disadvantage. And you couldn't be bothered to take 3 seconds out of your life and become (slightly) less ignorant. The vpFree website is a volunteer-run database frequently updated to reflect availability of games by casino. Let's take a look, shall we? Starting from the top of the list and going down, for Reno, we have Atlantis first. http://members.cox.net/vp_free/R_ATLA.htm One Eyed Jacks (100.3%), Double Bonus (100.2%), Double Double Bonus (100.1%) Baldini's http://members.cox.net/vp_free/R_BALD.htm Double Bonus (100.2%) Bill's Stateline Casino http://members.cox.net/vp_free/R_BILL.htm Full Pay Deuces Wild (100.7%), Jokers Wild (100.6%), Double Bonus (100.2%), Double Double Bonus (100.1%) and so forth... > >> The house always makes money on any parimutuel gambling, the only legal > >> kind there is in the US. Other sports gambling may have a loss for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But the house doesn't lose. I wasn't clear, but I wasn't talking about parimutuel sports gambling. The house doesn't always win. Vegas, collectively, ate sh.t on this last Superbowl. I don't remember the actual figures but it was in the millions. That means "losing millions on one game." > >> The odds are for the house in craps, even with honest dice. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With honest dice and random results (we both question whether anyone can > control dice) the house wins. Agreed. >> <jpawlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >will prove you wrong indicates that the concepts involved might be too >difficult. So, its a loss leader, but people give up on it. Does Nevada actually provide confirming data about the machines? >I know of video poker plays in Reno that work out to about 30-40$ per >hour when playing 800 hands per hour. Each of the games involved has a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Covered above. I assume you forgot that you asked that question >already. Touchy. >> >This is well-documented and googlable. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And you couldn't be bothered to take 3 seconds out of your life and >become (slightly) less ignorant. You are the one who made the claim. Why is it my job to figure out if it is correct? >The vpFree website is a volunteer-run database frequently updated to >reflect availability of games by casino. Let's take a look, shall we? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >and so forth... Thanks, but confirmation from the gambling commission would be more reliable. >> >> The house always makes money on any parimutuel gambling, the only legal >> >> kind there is in the US. Other sports gambling may have a loss for the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That means "losing millions on one game." Yes, but over time, they manage to win many more millions. > On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > Yes, but over time, they manage to win many more millions. Look, I'm through dealing with you. Yes, the GCB looks very closely at all programs that come through. You can do your own research. You can even figure out for yourself why games like Bally's Draw Till U Win got through, and why that won't likely happen again. It's all Googlable. I've demonstrated that I am right, and you have been wrong about scores of points so far in this thread. You keep clinging to some hope that you're right and I'm not about to go through a "THE CASINOS ARE RIGGING MACHINES!" conversation, which is where you seem to want to take this. Do you treat people you know in real life like this? I'd feel bad for them. "In spite of insurmountable evidence you're right about this, I must be right. I mean, I just MUST be right." ... >Look, I'm through dealing with you. Yes, the GCB looks very closely at >all programs that come through. You can do your own research. You can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >RIGGING MACHINES!" conversation, which is where you seem to want to >take this. Whatever are you talking about. I asked honest questions in the middle of someone else's thread. You pointed to a website that I know little about and I asked about the state website. You got mad. Fine. >Do you treat people you know in real life like this? I'd feel bad for >them. "In spite of insurmountable evidence you're right about this, I >must be right. I mean, I just MUST be right." I'm sorry that you hate to answer questions. Your kids must hate you. >> <jpawlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > >Good GOD you are DENSE. Yeah, and no doubt we're all too DENSE to understand how, if the odds are so decidedly in your favor, why you don't make your living from gambling. With your advantage over the house, you should be a VERY rich man... Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > -- > "Dave's not here, man!" For one, I don't have the bank roll for it. For two, video poker is an especially bad way to make a living as plays that are available today may not be available tomorrow. Third, I can't play at a perfect level and fourth it's not how I want to spend my time. Enough good reasons for you? Do you dispute the accuracy about anything in my post? >> >Uhm, you don't play the slots - do you Scott?? I figure you as more of a >> >Blackjack or Poker guy. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >respect to gambling. But they always offer their opinion. And it's >almost always wrong. Has anyone ever told you that you're a jackass? Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT), Jason Pawloski > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe once or twice. But that's IT. ["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] > I'm contemplating a road trip from SoCal to Vegas this weekend. > However, I know there's been a lot of road construction on the 15; how > are the traffic conditioons these days? Anything I should watch out > for? Nothing here in the Victor Valley. I don't know about further north. http://cad.chp.ca.gov/ http://caltrans8.info/ http://thehighwaystations.com/ should have some useful info. On the CHP website, check the reports for Barstow and San Bernardino. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.] >> I'm contemplating a road trip from SoCal to Vegas this weekend. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >should have some useful info. On the CHP website, check the reports >for Barstow and San Bernardino. I went out there last month. The only construction I recall was coming into the Vegas Valley north of Sloan, around 25 miles into Nevada, but that didn't cause a jam when I went through there at around 11pm. I went on a Friday night, and was surprised the traffic, while thick in places, wasn't bad, perhaps due to the price of gas. I came back on a Monday, so I can't comment on Sunday traffic, which is usually the worst. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.