The Chinese have a game called Fan Tan, or "buttons", which involves a dealer cutting into a pile of lacquer-coated beans. The gamblers bet on 
the how many will be left. Apparently Korean legend associates a man's reproductive competence with the ability to win successive games of 
Fan Tan. 


That such players can be of interest to the professional gambler is somewhat controversial. Many serious gamblers think these individuals are 
best ignored. Often this is the case since these individuals often have little to contribute beyond tediously stating and re-stating their erroneous 
position. However, sometimes they may discover something of value purely by accident, partly because they are not bound by the rules of 
scientific discovery. 

For example, many players believe that the shuffle has some kind of mystical properties which change player advantage. This is nonsense, but it 
leads on to the mathematically valid theory of shuffle-tracking, which is tracking clumps of aces and tens through the shuffle in the hopes of cutting 
them into play and betting big through these segments. 

Also, voodoo players may inadvertently create methods Online Casinos which are excellent cover for a true professional. For example some progressive betting 
systems such as the D'alembert make excellent cover for the professional gambler who is using a technique that does not depend upon altering 
his bet size (for example, by playing online for bonuses). Such methods are associated with unsophisticated players but do not cost anything in 
terms of advantage. As such, they may make casino personnel think you are no threat. 
One of the most important principles to remember is that you can learn something useful from everyone, including those who don't share your 
moral code or those who you may consider less intelligent than yourself. 


Undoubtedly, the weirdest bet Hills ever took was a wager that the world would end at 12:50PM on the 11th August 1999. Hills gave miserly odds 
of 1,000,000 to 1. 

Amusing as all this is, these bets are not always quite as silly as they sound. Hills offered a 1,000 to win against a man landing on the moon 
before 1971. Hills were forced to pay out ten thousand pounds sterling (roughly $1500) to David Threlfal of Preston, Lancashire when Neil 
Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969. Doubtless Threlfall's wager would have seemed less credible at the time it was placed than many of the 
above bets do now. 

If you are looking to place a crazy bet with Hills, you can do worse than the 33-1 offered against the discovery of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. 
That sounds crazy, until, in the words of Arthur C Clarke, you consider the alternative, that we are completely alone in the universe. The latter 
possibility seems more fantastic still.

Online Casinos | Best Online Casinos | Online Poker | Online Casinos All | Top Online Casinos | Online Gambling | Online Casinos Directory | Online Casino | High Roller Online Casinos | Online Casinos |

If you find that concept interesting, God help you. I would find it more interesting to hear about someone winning $50,000. This book was a 
commercial success, which I find deeply disturbing. One thing compulsive gamblers don't need is a poster boy to make their petty and 
debilitating addiction glamourous. 

The book is written in that affected, everything-happening-at-once sensory overload prose that seems fashionable at the moment. It becomes 
grating quickly. 

The information in this book is of no use to a serious gambler. There are no insights of any value about gambling or gambling theory. The book is 
aimed at the mass-market and it panders to popular prejudices about casino gambling. 

Random House keep pulling this stunt. (A few years back they did the same thing in England with a clueless gambler called Jonathan Rendall 12
who also lost all the money he was given). They seem to be wagering some kind of puritanical war against the gambling industry.