The GEICO Cuck Commercials

Have you seen them? I'm sure you have. There are two of them thus far. I suppose the first one was testing the waters. The second one went straight into misandry land. Let's recap.

In the first commercial a guy is with some girl. They appear to have been out on a date. He discovers that his battery is dead. Been there. Not a nice feeling. As he is about to say something to the woman, he is shushed.

That's the first problem. Where does a woman get off shushing a grown ass man? In HIS car? Well I assume the latter part.

Bitch you better put that hand down.

That's just the beginning. I wish a chick would shush me. But this is 2017 where manliness is in the direct line of fire. So apparently chick has the GEICO app. This app apparently allows her to call GEICO to arrange for a jump or new battery.

Ummm so this guy is unprepared? Really? OK, not all of us carry a jumper battery in the trunk. But he can't call for a jump? He doesn't have GEICO? He is THAT unprepared? What the fuck?

Not content to cast men in this light, the next GEICO commercial goes for the jugular.

In this commercial a man and his family are on the side of the road with a flat. Now lets assume that the car is not running run-flats that went past the 50 miles recommended by the manufacturer or had a sidewall blowout. This car has a spare.

Once again, this man turns to his wife and is immediately shushed. Again, What. The. Fuck? She then shushes the child in the back. Children get shushed. Grown ass men don't. Period. But it gets worse.

So the wife brings up the GEICO app to declare that they have a flat. A man with tools shows up and changes the flat.

What. The. Fuck? Who are these men who are incapable of changing a flat? No seriously? Forget for a moment that apparently he too, doesn't have the GEICO app to call his damn self. Since when do grown ass men not know how, or have the strength to change a tire?

And what is worse is that this wife gets to call another man to do the stuff her husband is supposed to be able to do.

So lets review all that's wrong with these GEICO commercials:

1) Grown man is shushed by the woman he's with.

2) Man is unprepared for automobile emergencies.

3) Man is apparently incapable of basic automotive fixes.

4) Wife/Girlfriend has another, more capable man on call to do what "her" man should be able to do.

And people wonder why Trump was elected.

BlackJack: Play What You Can Beat

If you listen to podcasts and watch videos and read books you'll come across a line that says:

Never play 6:5 BlackJack

Why?

Because 3:2 Blackjack pays more. The math is easy. you bet $10. Get Blackjack and you get back 25 (original bet plus $15).

In 6:5 Blackjack you bet $10, get Blackjack you get back $22 (original bet plus $12).
I have been known to play a game that pays 2:1 on all pays, including BlackJack. Why? Because it pays.

Question:

Which is the better way to risk your bankroll:

1) A 3:2 game, H17, Resplit Aces, DAS, Surrender, Split any pair,Double any hand No peek, continuous shuffle, 8 decks where you are losing money.

2) a 2:1 game, S17, D 10-11, No Surrender, 1 Deck, continuous shuffle and you are making money. A lot of money. If you answered "1", then you must like giving your bank away. Yes you could think that every time you get Blackjack the casino is "taking" 30% of "your" money. But would you rather the casino take 30% of your BlackJack wins or take your bankroll?

I know what I'd do.

Here's what I've discovered. If a table has HORRIBLE rules, there is usually a reason for it and that reason is the game is very beatable and the casino doesn't want to be wiped out by those who figure it out. A beatable game is a game worth playing. A game that takes your bank is not. Period.

This Is Not BlackJack

This is a followup to my post about Electronic Table Games. You should probably read that first.

Let's Talk Pushes

A lot of times when you read (or watch) people talk about losing at BlackJack they are talking about actually losing a hand by either breaking or being out drawn by the dealer. But the push can equally be a money drainer if it rears its head often enough.

As I showed in previous postings, pushes happen relatively rarely in the game but there are times where pushes will cost you your bankroll (or session-roll) if it shows up at inopportune times. Card counters know that when the deck is rich in high cards that they are likely to get more 20s and blackjacks. It also means that the dealer is more likely to get more 20s and blackjacks. The problem discussed here is when that happens frequently enough to cost you many high bets.

My method of play involves betting high when there is a higher statistical likelihood of winning and conversely betting low when it is less likely but it is NOT card counting. Due to my method, I have a relatively high exposure to situations in which pushes are likely to happen. This can, and has presented problems on occasions. Let me paraphrase something I read online some months ago about surrender.

I read that the problem with surrender is that obviously if done each and every time, results in situations where you surrender where you would have won. In such a case not only do you lose the half-bet that you "recovered" but you also lost the money you would have won had you not surrendered. If you look at basic strategy for a game that allows late surrender you'll note that they tell you to surrender or HIT. Have you seen a surrender or STAND? No, neither have I. Personally, when I play in places where surrender is not an option, I have chosen to stand where Basic has called for surrender or hit. I'f I'm going to lose the money, I'm going to lose the money. You should do whatever you're comfortable with though. I'd rather lose the bet than the bet and a half.

So yes, wrong surrenders could cost you money. I'm sure mathematicians will point out that long term this may not be the case but most people are not going to be playing billion of hands, so there's that.

Similarly pushes that happen when you have high bets out cost you money because you're betting low when your losing and the high bets are how you overcome these losses, but each time you raise you lose or get pushed and there goes your bankroll.

I haven't quite figured out how to deal with this situation since you have no idea that you're in a push-hole until you've had a number of your high bets nullified. I have noticed though that these high number of pushes occur with numerous long losing streaks (6 or greater). Fortunately I have not seen this occur on consecutive shoe games. Continuous shufflers are a different thing altogether.

So this note is just to make the budding player aware of the roll that pushes have on your gambling income. Yeah, you didn't lose, but if you can't make your high bets (and you'll certainly lose a few high bets), pushes will allow the house to 'nickel and dime" you out of your money.

More BlackJack Life

BlackJack Life

p />

Stadium BlackJack

So you're a beginner of don't have a lot of bank so you roll into one of those casinos that has a low limit table. Odds are it is some form of stadium Blackjack like "ShaqJack". That is there is a dealer at the head of a number of tables and every player gets the same exact hand. Essentially you get to play "head up" against the dealer. If you know basic strategy you know when someone has done something "foolish" because they'll hit a hand where BS says to stand (classic variability). But there's a very, and I mean VERY, nice thing about stadium Blackjack:

You don't have to bet any money and still be in the game.

Here's the thing about stadium type games: As far as I've seen, so long as there is at least ONE player, the dealer must continue to deal hands. Unlike a standard table where if you don't bet, you don't get cards, in stadium games, the hands you don't bet on are still play out and are subject to the statistics I covered in earlier posts. You do realize what this means right?

If you understand that Blackjack is beaten by betting high (some would say extremely high) when the odds are in your favor, then you know that you bet the table minimum when odds are not in your favor. You don't expect to make money at these times. In stadium BJ the table minimum is effectively $0.

Some people would call this Wonging. I'd call it modified Wonging. Usually one would back count a table (or whatever model your using) and then jump in when the odds are good for a win. The problem IMO is that when you jump into a table you affect the flow of cards (a counter may not care about that, but other methods are definitely affected by a player entering and exiting a game). However in stadium BJ your entering and exiting by way of not betting, in no way affects the card flow since the cards you would have gotten would be played out in that order anyway.

So for example, in my last trip to a casino that has stadium style BJ with $5 minimum, I had an epic 16 hand losing streak. once I hit loss 8 I simply stopped betting and waited for the dealer to lose a hand before entering again. I "saved" $45 in losses. When you are playing with small bank $45 is a lot of money. That 16 hand losing streak broke a lot of other players and they exited the table one after the other as their money evaporated to negative variance.

I'm not telling anyone how to play, but if you are going to play a stadium type game, you may want to consider not betting whenever you are in the situation. Mind you, this is not an invite to ignore the cards. For example, if on a 'non-bet" some player makes a bad basic strategy call that leads to a bust but that hand would have won, you should consider that a dealer bust because your hand would have been unaffected by other player's bad call.

Good luck y'all.