Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
You're right.
Simulcast contracts - and who gets what of what - is an area I have absolutely no experience with. And it would be a gigantic waste of time for me to research that aspect.
However - generally speaking - bridgejump bettors are nothing like card counters. If anything they probably lose at a rate close to or above takeout. When they lose - some entity is gaining a lot of added handle... and over the long haul ... it's going to be enough to offset the liabilty of negative pools here and there.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
The analogy was stupid....that goes without saying.
|
The analogy was not stupid at all. Bridgejumpers like Meadow are very much like cardcounters, and kasept's analogy is on the mark. There are a lot of blackjack players who know enough to to call themselves cardcounters, but who do not play with an edge. That doesn't mean cardcounting doesn't work.
Meadow is an expert card counter. He's used to finding opportunities where he has an edge. I'm confident that he would not be making these show bets without having done a lot broader study of it than trying to draw conclusions from a few recent races.
In both cases, bridgejumping and cardcounting, the "house" is trying to keep someone from making perfectly legal bets, because the "house" does not like situations where it thinks a player has the advantage.
If skill-less bridgejumpers are also being backed off, there's a cardcounting precedent for that, too. Casinos will occasionally jump the gun and ask a semi-skilled player to not play anymore. Collateral damage.
--Dunbar