|
|
Reason #5 why the Wizard likes Bodog:
Intelligent Bonuses
Many online casinos offer huge signup bonuses, but there's a catch. Buried in the fine print is that play on the most popular games doesn't count towards earning the bonus. It's common for blackjack, roulette, baccarat, craps, and Jacks or Better to be excluded. Sometimes everything except slots.
And that's if you can even find the terms and conditions. Many casinos put their 100% bonus in big flaming letters but make you hunt all over the site to find the rules.
But Bodog allows play on all games to count towards the wagering requirement. It's that simple. Just no opposite betting. All casinos ought to be as easy as Bodog about this. The bonus offer itself is simple too: on your first deposit, they'll give you an extra 10%. If you deposit $100, you'll wind up with $110 in chips or tokens.
Finally, in the unlikely event that Bodog feels you've been abusing their bonuses they won't seize your winnings, like some other casinos. In the worst case scenario they will politely tell you that they will not be offering you any future bonuses but you are welcome to keep playing and keep everything you have made already. (Visit Bodog)
Try Bodog's blackjack game. One click and you're in:
 No popups, no download, no registration, no B.S., just the game.
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
Congress
goes after Internet gambling
To quote Bye Bye Birdie, "So, it's
come at last. At last it's come, the day I knew
would come at last has come, at last." For
at least the seven years I have been following
Internet gambling there has been legislation to
try to stop it. In the past such legislation got
bogged down with special interests trying to add
exemptions and consequently nothing made it all
the way through congress. However, as is often
the case in Washington, the anti-gambling act
was suddenly passed after being tacked onto a
larger, unrelated bill on port security, at the
last minute.
The bill doesn't actually ban online
gambling, it bans U.S. banks from processing the
transactions. However the effect is similar,
since as a result of the act many gaming sites
are no longer accepting U.S. players. Many of
those sites will likely go bankrupt or at least
have to fire a lot of employees, since they gave
up a lot of their customers.
I consulted with several attorneys and
they tell me it's not illegal to carry
advertising for online gambling, so we'll
continue to carry Bodog's
ads. It isn't my intention to flaunt the law, I
simply don't think I'm breaking it, because I
don't see anything in it that prohibits
advertising. Michael Bluejay talks about this in
detail below.
I stand in strong opposition to this law
and any law limiting freedom to do as you wish,
as long as you are hurting nobody but
yourself. I'm proud of Bodog for keeping
their doors open to U.S. players and am happy to
keep them on as our only advertiser.
Craps
tournament
On October 21 and 22 I participated
in the "Rolling Big Dice" craps tournament at
the Mandalay
Bay. The top prize was $175,000;
with a total prize pool of $300,000. I estimate
the number of entrants was about 72. By simple
division the average win per person is $4167.
However I noticed that about half the entrants
had no hope of winning because they played as
they probably normally played craps. When
playing in a tournament one must use
tournament-specific strategy, which generally
means putting enough money in action to have a
chance at being in the lead if you win your
bets.
Each player had three playing sessions,
starting each one with $100,000 in play chips.
There were 25 rolls, not including a 26th
"golden roll" at the end. The winner of the
tournament was determined by the sum of the
ending balance of all three sessions. In
addition there was a $1500 prize for the winner
in each of the three sessions.
I knew from past tournaments that to
finish in the money you have to be aggressive,
going for a big win or bust trying. There
were rather low limits on each bet in this
tournament so I simply bet all the points across
the board, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, hoping to
avoid sevens.
In my first session I sevened-out about
seven rolls, which mostly wiped me out.
Another seven closely followed it, which
succeeded in bankrupting me. The second session
was even worse, where I believe I was wiped out
on the third roll. However the third session
went all 25 rolls with only two sevens (the
expected total being 4.17). Fortunately these
said two sevens were not too early on so I
accumulated enough money to survive them. About
half the other players were more or less doing
what I did, but not quite as aggressively. For
example they turned off or took down bets at
times.
After the 25th roll I had $543,000 in
chips, the most at the table. However I knew
from the leader board that the top two players
from previous rounds had over $1.4 million. I
had no shot to finish first or second but could
hope for third, which paid $25,000. The 26th
roll was the "golden roll" in which you could
bet as much as you liked on either over or under
seven. In the event of a seven the dice would be
rolled again until a non-seven was rolled.
Mathematically there is no difference in
better under vs. over, but in sports I bet the
under by about a 20 to 1 ratio vs. the over,
so on habit and loyalty I went all in on under
seven. Up to $25,000 in prize money was riding
on one throw. It took a while to count all the
chips and record everyone's bet but finally the
moment had come. The shooter picked up the
special orange dice and made a very unimpressive
weak throw, with one die going into the
croupier's chips. I could see other die was a
three. It took a very long second to locate the
other die, which was also a THREE!!!
That hard six put me at least for the
moment in third place! However there were
two other tables which could have pushed other
players up as well. It took almost an hour to
certify the results but at last they started
calling names from the 10th on up. Not only did
I maintain my third place position but also won
$1,500 for finishing first in the third
session.
In addition to $26,500 in free play chips
I was given a nice crystal trophy and had my
picture taken with the Mandalay Bay showgirls
and parrots, which I hope to get a copy of.
It took a while to break down the chips into
hundreds, which I then played through in
blackjack finishing with $25,000, of which I
tipped the dealers $500. I was told it is proper
etiquette for big tournament winners to tip
generously to the dealers, who otherwise don't
get tipped during the actual play.
This is my first win in a tournament and I
was obviously very happy. I would like to
offer thank you and kudos to the Mandalay Bay
for putting on a fun and successful
tournament.
Ask
the Wizard!
Here's an excerpt from the newest
Ask
the Wizard, column
#176.
We are in a
disagreement between workers. there is a bar
down the street that has a shake a day, which is
you must throw five dice at once and all five
must end up being the same, like yahtzee. He
gives you three chances at it, but you must pick
up all the dice all three times. So the
questions is what's the odds to do it in one
shake and what's the odds to do it in the three
shakes allowed? Thanks , if you already answered
this before I am sorry but I couldn't find it.
Thanks again -- Dan and co workers at maple
island from Forest Lake
The probability of a five-of-a-kind
on one throw is 6*(1/6)5 =
1/1,296. This is because there are six
different five-of-a-kinds (one to six) and
the probability each die will be that number
is (1/6). The probability of not getting a
five-of-a-kind is 1-(1/1,296)=1,295/1,296.
The probability of going three attempts
without a three of a kind is
(1,295/1,296)3=99.77%. So the
probability of getting at least one
five-of-a-kind in three tries is 100%-99.77%
= 0.23%.
What's
new on the site
B3W
software caution. The video poker
game at a casino using B3W casino is under
investigation. I performed some statistical
tests on a yet to be named video poker game at
the Yachting Casino. The results concerned me.
After sharing them with customer support they
informed me the next day that they were very
concerned and would complete a report soon. They
have since told me they are taking this
seriously but the investigation is still
ongoing. For now I am making no official
accusations until the Yachting Casino/B3W has
had a chance to refute my findings. The reader
may wish to postpone playing video poker at any
casino using B3W software until said report is
finished.
Until next
time, set your expectations high.
From
Michael Bluejay....
Is
online gambling against the law?
The U.S. Congress recently passed an
anti-online gambling act. What does this
mean for you, the player? Not much. The bill
didn't make it against the law to gamble
online, it made it illegal for banks to
handle online gaming transactions (and
ostensibly for gaming operators to accept money
through U.S. banks). But players themselves
shouldn't expect to get into any trouble with
the feds. Now, a U.S. player might run afoul of
their individual state gambling laws, if
they live in one of those few states that has an
anti-online gambling provision. But that was
already the case even before this new act got
passed. Anyway, the main way it will affect you
as a player is that you might not be able to
play at your favorite site any more, since many
of them have stopped taking U.S. players.
Many operators (casinos, poker rooms,
sportsbooks) reacted to the legislation by
refusing to accept players from the U.S. any
more. This seems kind of curious to us,
because the act didn't make it illegal for them
to accept U.S. players. If a player deposits
with Neteller, which is based overseas, no
federal laws have been broken. Nevertheless,
many operators abandoned ship. It's interesting
to note that it's the biggest outfits who got
out of the U.S. market, and they're all
publicly-traded companies who have fearful
stockholders. The privately-held companies in
general are still accepting U.S. players. (And
yes, Bodog
is still happy to take your bets.)
What does this mean for publishers, like
the Wizard, who carries gambling ads? We
don't think it really affects us. We pored over
the legislation and consulted with a bunch of
lawyers and there doesn't seem to be anything in
the law that prohibits us from carrying
advertising. There's a longshot chance that the
feds could claim we were an accessory to the
crime by aiding & abetting, but that seems
pretty dubious. We'd also expect to get a
warning letter first, like the ones the Dept. of
Justice sent out to some big publishers in 2003.
If we get a warning letter, we'll take down our
ads, at least until we possibly sue the
government, like Casino City did. (Casino City
dropped their case, but not before a court ruled
that simply carrying advertising is not aiding
& abetting, which is one of the precedents
we're relying on.) We don't think that carrying
ads is illegal, but if the feds tell us to stop
then we have to stop at least temporarily. The
current administration has a
frightening disregard for the rule of law
(article,
video),
so if the feds say we're breaking the law even
if we're not, then there's not much we can do
unless we want to try a Casino City-style
lawsuit.
We should note that other publishers feel
differently. Our friend the Casinomeister
is automatically
removing the ads from the site when a U.S.
visitor goes there. And Casinomeister isn't even located in the U.S. Wow. We're certainly not
critical of Casinomeister for being cautious,
especially because different lawyers have
different interpretations of the legislation.
But if you're in the U.S. and didn't like the
animated ads on Casinomeister before, then
definitely go have a look-see now!
Incidentally, we're obviously not lawyers,
so god help you if you rely on this article as a
substitute for legal counsel. You'd be well
advised to check the legislation covering your
jurisdiction, and to check with a real attorney
if you want professional legal advice.
For more than you ever cared to know about
online gambling law, see my in-depth articles
Is
online gambling legal? and Is
it legal to carry ads for online
gambling?
Vote
today.
Today is election day in the
U.S. Casinomeister sent out a newsletter
listing all the U.S. reps who co-sponsored
anti-Internet gambling bills, noting that many
of those reps are up for re-election today. As a
public service we're reprinting that list,
except we combined the two different lists into
one, and we're listing the reps alphabetized by
state rather than by name, so it's easier for
you to find the legislators for your own area.
Maybe we just love you more than
Casinomeister does. (Not that they don't love
you a bunch, maybe we just love you extra.)
We'd never suggest that anyone making
their voting decisions on one issue alone,
but we think that looking at individual votes
can help you form your overall picture of a
candidate. And it's not like we think that
online gambling is the most important issue
facing America today, but gambling is our
business, so that's what we're covering
here.
|
Sponsors of anti-online gambling
bills:
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
Rep. James Leach [R-IA]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte[R-VA]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R-AL]
Rep. Robert Cramer [D-AL]
Rep. Terry Everett [R-AL]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-AL]
Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. John Hayworth [R-AZ]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R-CA]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R-CA]
Rep. William Thomas [R-CA]
Rep. Joel Hefley [R-CO]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO]
Rep. Nancy Johnson [R-CT]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Robert Simmons [R-CT]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R-FL]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
[R-FL]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Mark Foley [R-FL]
Rep. Ric Keller [R-FL]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R-FL]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
[D-FL]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]
|
Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA]
Rep. David Scott [D-GA]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R-IA]
Rep. James Nussle [R-IA]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Ray LaHood [R-IL]
Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R-IN]
Rep. John Hostettler [R-IN]
Rep. Michael Sodrel [R-IN]
Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R-KS]
Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]
Rep. Ben Chandler [D-KY]
Rep. Ron Lewis [R-KY]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Richard Baker [R-LA]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA]
Rep. Bobby Jindal [R-LA]
Rep. James McCrery [R-LA]
Rep. Steve King [R-IA]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. David Camp [R-MI]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R-MI]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI]
Rep. John Schwarz [R-MI]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI]
Rep. Gilbert Gutknecht [R-MN]
Rep. Mark Kennedy [R-MN]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN]
Rep. James Ramstad [R-MN]
|
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R-MO]
Rep. Kenny Hulshof [R-MO]
Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R-MT]
Rep. John Coble [R-NC]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D-NC]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]
Rep. Robert Hayes [R-NC]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Charles Taylor [R-NC]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry
[R-NE]
Rep. Thomas Osborne [R-NE]
Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE]
Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen
[R-NJ]
Rep. Heather Wilson [R-NM]
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert [R-NY]
Rep. Sue Kelly [R-NY]
Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY]
Rep. Thomas Reynolds [R-NY]
Rep. James Walsh [R-NY]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
Rep. David Hobson [R-OH]
Rep. Ralph Regula [R-OH]
Rep. Ernest Istook [R-OK]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R-OK]
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Melissa Hart [R-PA]
Rep. John Peterson [R-PA]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. William Shuster [R-PA]
Rep. Luis Fortuño
[?-PR]
|
Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
Rep. Henry Brown [R-SC]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]
Rep. Bob Inglis [R-SC]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D-TN]
Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]
Rep. William Jenkins [R-TN]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. Thomas DeLay [R-TX]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX]
Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. William Thornberry [R-TX]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R-WI]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV]
Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]
Sources
for HR4411
and HR4477
|
How
NOT to win a Wizard of Odds drawing
Sometimes we can't give the stuff
away. Here's what happened last month when I
tried to award the free book.
FROM:
Michael Bluejay
TO: [Wizard's News
Subscriber]
Congratulations, as
a subscriber to The Wizard's News you won our
random monthly (or so) drawing for a copy of
the Wizard's book, Gambling 102. Please send
your postal address to:
book@WizardOfOdds.com
...and we'll get
your book out to you.
Please don't reply
to me, since my account doesn't accept mail
from AOL addresses.
Congrats
again,
-MBJ-
Assistant to the Wizard of Odds
FROM: [Wizard's News
Subscriber]
TO: Michael Bluejay
I feel that being
sent to another sight to give an address to
win a "free book" and not being able to find
where to give an address on that sight is as
big a ripoff as the Wizards article on being
ripped off himself!
Was my original message unclear in some way?
I don't know how I could have made it any
easier.
Anyway, this month's lucky winner of the
Wizard's book, Gambling
102, is subscriber #5487, MadScribe. Let's
see if (s)he actually claims the book or
complains about winning. By the way, we recently
passed a special milestone: we now have over
10,000 subscribers to this newsletter. That's
more than the New York Times, I think.
Visit
WizardOfOdds.com
|
©1998-2008 Wizard Of Odds Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms & Conditions
Contact
Advertise
About Us
Links
|
|