Online Casino News

Blackjack basic strategy simplified

Michael Shakleford has created a simplified blackjack strategy, with a chart designed for the visually impaired but of value to anyone who doesn't want to learn complete basic strategy.

The cost of the simplification is approximately 0.14%, so if perfect basic strategy yielded an advantage to the casino of 0.5%, following this strategy it would increase to around 0.65%.

Listed also is the cost of the incorrect plays. There are 25 in total in comparison to perfect strategy, but the top four account for fully half of the 0.14% error total. The remaining 21 errors account for just 0.07%.

It seems surprisinging that so many "mistakes" can have so little overall cost.

Post a Comment

Online casino bonuses

Online casino bonuses and their inherent complexities are a perennial problem for inexperienced gamblers. Accordingly, I thought it would be useful to go through the terms of the signup bonuses offered by the six casinos on this site and outline any potential pitfalls. Problems can relate to:

• Basic wagering requirements.
• Game weightings.
• Game exclusions.
• Maximum bets.

There are relatively few pitfalls for the inexperienced player in these bonuses, but they are all clearly explained below. Since this page is quite long, I suggest you use the contents links below to navigate to the various sections.


• Ladbrokes
• 32Red
• Intercasino
• Betfair
• Totesport
• Blue Square



Ladbrokes casino

Partial information and the bonus "claim form" can be found on the welcome bonus page, and the full terms relevant to this bonus are located in the full bonus terms.

In brief summary: To claim the Ladbrokes Casino signup bonus, deposit between £5 and £200, wager your deposit once (20 times if you use either Neteller or Moneybookers to deposit) and fill in the claim form. To cashout the bonus, wager it as follows:

• Ten times if you play slots and/or keno.

• Twenty times if you play cyberstud poker games.

• One hundred times for all other games.


There's one clause in the Ladbrokes terms & conditions which, if you failed to read it, might have a negative impact on your experience:

Pontoonbet, Pokerbet, Casino Tournaments, Live Dealer Casino and Vegas Strip Blackjack are excluded from welcome bonus qualifying requirements. Play on these games will not count towards qualification of the welcome bonus or turnover.

Play on casino games through Ladbrokespoker.com and Ladbrokesgames.com does NOT count towards qualification for this promotion.

It's unclear whether play on these games / platforms would simply not contribute to the wagering required to release the bonus, or would in fact result in loss of any subsequent winnings. As such, I would recommend avoiding any doubt and steering clear of the above four games, as well as the Live Dealer Casino, poker and games platforms while the bonus is in play.


There is also this clause:

Ladbrokescasino.com reserves the right to exclude players from this and all future promotions if we have reason to believe they are abusing this promotion...the promoter reserves the right to refuse any offer to any player for any reason, or to withdraw/change an offer at any time. No correspondence will be entered into.

This entitles Ladbrokes to confiscate winnings for undisclosed reasons. However, to the best of my knowledge this has never happened, so it should not be cause for concern, particularly considering the size, reputability and longevity of Ladbrokes.


So: follow the above procedures for claiming the bonus and cashing it out, and you should be fine.

(Page top)

32Red

The information relevant to the 32red signup bonus is located on the welcome bonus and bonus terms pages.

Brief summary: deposit a minimum of £20 to receive a £32 bonus, up to a maximum of £160 for a £100 deposit; claim your bonus using the claim form before you play; after receiving the bonus, you need to wager the bonus 32 times. Bear in mind that not all games are equally weighted - here is the weightings chart:





Casino War counts at 50%, so you need to wager twice the basic (32 times) amount. On a £64 bonus, this would work out as (32 X 64) X 2 = £4096.


There's one clause in the 32Red terms & conditions which, if you failed to read it, might have a negative impact on your experience:

There is a maximum stake of 6.25 Chips (or coin equivalent) per bet until the playthrough requirement has been met. For the purposes of this rule a Bet is defined as one roulette spin or one dealer's dealt hand in any table game, or one deal in any Video or Power Poker game (this includes Multi-Hand/Play games).

As such, when a bonus is in play you may not wager more than 6.25 chips. If you make a wager exceeding this (very small!) amount, this term comes into play:

Any winnings derived from bets larger than these limits before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.

Although 32Red will not confiscate any winnings from bets that exceed the maximum allowed amount, the additional 100 times wagering penalty incurred could result in an awful lot of extra wagering before the bonus is fully released.


Apart from this potential wagering penalty, there are no disadvantageous rules in the 32Red bonus.

(Page top)

Intercasino

The information relevant to the Intercasino signup bonus is located on the first deposit bonus page.

Brief summary: before depositing, enter the Bonus Code IC250 into the box provided in the cashier section of the casino software; deposit from £10 to £250 and you'll receive a bonus matching this amount; wager deposit and bonus 12 times to release the bonus. Bear in mind that not all games are equally weighted, and some games are specifically excluded - see below.

Here is the weightings chart:





If you played roulette, which counts at 20%, you'd need to wager the total amount an additional five times. On a £250 bonus, this would work out at (500 X 12) X 5 = £30,000.


There are two clauses in the Intercasino terms & conditions which, if you failed to read them, could have rather dire consequences:

The following games are ineligible and DO NOT count towards the wagering requirements: Pontoon, Single Deck Blackjack, Superfun 21, Red Dog, Casino War, Texas Hold'Em Bonus, Solitaire, Craps, Slot Tournaments, Baccarat or Baccarat Mini.

If you break this rule and play ineligible games, the penalty is severe:

In the event a player should use bonus funds to play ineligible games PRIOR to meeting the wagering requirements on eligible games, InterCasino reserve the right to refuse withdrawals, remove bonus money and winnings without notice and lock all accounts of players found abusing this rule.

Then there is the "maximum bet" rule:

In the interests of fair gaming, players may not place individual bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.

As such, if you receive a £100 bonus, the maximum you can wager on any hand is £25. If you exceed this amount, you run the risk of incurring the following penalty:

InterCasino reserves the right to refuse withdrawals, remove bonus money and winnings without notice and lock all accounts of players found abusing this rule.

So: don't play ineligible games, and don't bet more than 25% of your bonus on any one hand, or you risk having your funds confiscated.

(Page top)

Betfair

The information relevant to the Betfair signup bonus is located on the welcome program page and in the standard casino terms.

In brief summary: open an account with Betfair and fund it; then, download the software and transfer between £25 and £100 to the casino; the matching bonus will be added to your account; wager the deposit plus bonus amount 20 times, and the bonus will be released.

You can also subsequently claim two more bonuses, between a minumum of £25 and maximum of £50, on your subsequent two deposits, making for a total of £200 in signup bonuses.

As is almost invariably the case, the games do not all count the same for release of the bonus, and some games are specifically excluded - see below.

Here is the weightings chart:





There is one additional clause in the Betfair terms & conditions which, if you failed to read them, could have consequences:

Unless otherwise stated by Betfair Casino, stakes on...Euro Roulette, Common Draw Single Zero Roulette, Craps, Baccarat, Single Deck Blackjack, Zero Roulette, Zero Baccarat, Zero Blackjack, and Zero Jacks or Better do not qualify towards the qualifying wagering requirements.

It's unclear whether play on these games would simply not contribute to the wagering required to release the bonus or would in fact result in loss of any subsequent winnings. As such, I would recommend avoiding any doubt and steering clear of these games while the bonus is in play.


There is also this rule, as imbecilic as it is commonplace in online casino terms & conditions:

If Betfair becomes aware of a customer who, in the course of participating in a promotion or offer, has become able to guarantee wins and/or profits with no or only minimal risk, and/or benefits from a promotion or offer by participating through more than one Betfair account, and/or displays irregular or unusual playing or betting patterns which Betfair deems to be abusive, Betfair may in its absolute discretion elect to do any one or more of the following: (i) close the customer's account(s); (ii) invalidate the transactions or game play which was in contravention of this term; and/or (iii) withhold the customer's winnings from such transactions or game play.

The reference to "minimal risk" and "irregular betting patterns" is a nonsense.

Since my recommendation for Betfair is the Zero Lounge games, which do not qualify for bonuses, I would suggest steering clear of the Betfair bonuses altogether on the basis of this nonsense clause. I should add that I've played many Betfair bonuses myself and have never had any problem, much less accusations of "irregular playing patterns".


So: don't touch any of the excluded games and you should be alright. However, bear in mind that Betfair carries that draconian clause, and the might invoke it at will.

(Page top)

Totesport Casino

The information relevant to the Totesport signup bonus is located on the welcome bonus page, and also in the Totesport terms.

In summary: deposit or transfer up to £100 into the casino to receive the bonus; once received, wager the bonus amount 40 times in order to withdraw it, within 14 days of the bonus being credited or it'll be removed.

Bear in mind, as usual, that games are weighted differently - here's the weightings chart:





There are no game exclusions at Totesport. Neither are there any maximum bet restrictions for bonus play.


There is, however, on very contradictory clause in the general terms:

9.10
We reserve the right to withhold the amount of the bonus from any Players withdrawal funds if the bonus is wagered in Baccarat, Roulette or Craps

This must be a mistake, as it directly contradicts the weightings chart in which these three games are allowed. However, to avoid doubt, I would avoid playing roulette, baccarat and craps when the bonus is active.


There is also the standard and non-specific "reservation of rights" clause:

We reserve the right to refuse or rescind the bonus for any reason, including, but not restricted to, player abuse.

I think it's unlikey that an operation of Totesport's long standing would invoke this clause against a legitimate player on their first deposit.


As such, with the caveat of the contradiction over roulette, craps and baccarat, there are no problematic terms here.

(Page top)

Blue Square Casino

All information relevant to the Blue Square signup bonus is located on the welcome bonus page.

In summary: deposit up to £100 to receive the bonus; then, wager your deposit amount 20 times on slots, jackpot slots and number games only in order to be able to cash it out.

Note that only the above three classes of games qualify for the wagering:

Bets on Multiplier, Punto Banco, Craps or ANY form of Roulette or ANY form of Blackjack or Video Poker or Top Trumps do not count towards the total stake.

The promotion is available on slots, jackpot slots and number games only.

There are no maximum bet restrictions.


The terms for this bonus are clear and simple, and present no problems as long as you remember that many games do not qualify for the wagering.


(Page top)

---

Next page: Online casino problems

Post a Comment

Righthaven LLC: abuse of copyright law for profit and the potential damage to the internet's single greatest asset

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company working on behalf of online publication the Las Vegas Review Journal, has found a novel way to hustle dollars. According to Wired:

Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission.

Gibson's vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act - up to $150,000 for a single infringement - to compel quick settlements.

Since Righthaven's formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who've re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.

This might seem a reasonable response to what they may perceive as theft of their intellectual property if it were not for the way they're going about it. Techdirt reports:

There were some oddities in the way RightHaven was acting, starting with the fact that it gives no warning to sites and doesn't send a DMCA takedown. It goes straight to suing...and then quickly demands a settlement fee.

Clearly, if the LV Review Journal was concerned only, or primarily, for the protection of their intellectual property, they would contact the website hosting the offending article copy and request that it be removed, followed by a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) takedown order if private contact failed to elicit a response. As a last resort, they would turn to the courts for help.


But there is no attempted contact and request for deletion of the offending content, and as such, demonstrabley no interest in the principle of protection of intellectual property. This a hustle for money, pure and simple.


American copyright law was brought in to provide for the protection of unique work. The Copyright Office's Copyright basics page is quite clear about this:

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.

There is no question that these copyright laws were created to protect the principle of intellectual ownership, and not for the purpose of enabling the kind of tacky hustle that Righthaven is indulging in, where no interest in the principle involved is blatantly demonstrated in Righthaven's failure to request removal of the copied material prior to taking legal action. As stated in the Techdirt article:

This is, clearly, a blatant abuse of copyright law, and not at all what the law intended to do.

So what are the consequences of the abuse being practised by the LVRJ and Righthaven LLC?


The blog The Armed Citizen has had the pleasure of an encounter with Righthaven:

The Armed Citizen closes – site named in infringement suit

On July 21st, The Armed Citizen received an indirect and informal notice of a lawsuit against this website and its owners, David Burnett and Clayton Cramer.

Righthaven has offered no prior contact, cease-and-desist warnings or any attempt at good-faith resolution whatsoever.

The Armed Citizen has been excerpting articles from newspaper, TV station, and radio station websites for a number of years without a single complaint or infringement notice. If any copyright holders decided that The Armed Citizen had exceeded fair use, they only needed to send us an email.

Until this matter can be resolved, and a thorough review of Armed Citizen content can be made, all updates and archives at The Armed Citizen are hereby suspended.

At this time, the future of The Armed Citizen is uncertain, and possibly in jeopardy, thanks to Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

You can also read the charmingly-worded lawsuit from Righthaven that this blogger received, apparently second hand from a journalist. I particularly like article 62:

The Defendants' acts as alleged herein, and the ongoing direct results of those acts, have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Righthaven in an amount Righthaven cannot ascertain, leaving Righthaven with no adequate remedy at law.

I wonder what the nature of the "irreparable harm to Righthaven in an amount Righthaven cannot ascertain" was, in the posting of the article in question on some penny-ante blog that few people had even heard of?

Mild nuisance, yes. But irreperable harm?


And why wasn't repair sought by means of a request for deletion?


Also engagingly overblown is:

Righthaven requests a trial by jury.

Yes, clearly nothing less will suffice for this heinous crime.


So, Righthaven's hustle has taken at least this blogger offline, possibly for good. There will be many other such cases, as Righthaven has apparently filed to date eighty one lawsuits.


The whole point of the internet is information exchange. You see a word or expression which is entirely new to you, but rather than having you get out your encyclopedia or trot off to the library, the webmaster has conveniently provided a link to another page which provides an explanation.


The internet is about linking.


Or rather: it's about linking.


Or for that matter: linking.


You cannot realistically link to another page without quoting from it, and when you want to comment on specific aspects of the linked page it is impossible to not quote - it would be tantamount to hearing only one side of a conversation. Without linking and quoting, the most valuable resource the internet has to offer is radically undermined.


But Righthaven has no interest in the finer points of education and empowerment, they want money.


So let's put it in terms they might understand:


Links to a website are some of its most valuable assets, as amongst other things they tell the major search engines that your site is good.

Conversely, lack of links is bad.


As of now, we know that quoting from the Las Vegas Review Journal is probably not a good idea, as they'll pull a copyright hustle on us.


So no more quotes.

And no more links.

And ever-decreasing weight in the search engines.

And ever-decreasing advertising revenues as a consequence.


Or, to sum it up in two easy to understand words: less money.


Regular readers of my articles, if such exist, may have been wondering why, at the top of the page, I abandoned my customary practice of linking to the subject matter when I first mention - unlinked - the Las Vegas Review Journal and Righthaven LLC.


I reckon you've got your answer now.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed