And kewlj I am not going to let up on you. You can change the subject all you want to but the FACT remains you don't have super vision, you don't have Xray vision. You are NOT Clark Kent or Superman.
And after all these weeks NO ONE ON THIS FORUM has said they went to Mirage or Bellagio and was able to sit at one table and see the cards at an adjoining table.
Oh... excuse me... we do have RS__ who claims he has done it, but he's really not that good at it.
Rob Singer = wingnut
Exactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
What if the count was +15 before you walked by?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
You continue to demonstrate what a really sick individual you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Still wrong! You can make the same point over and over a hundred times and it will sill be wrong! That is the definition of insanity BTW,....I am not surprised you have latched on to it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I don't count cards, and I don't even play blackjack. So, do you extrapolate the rest of the shoe based on a small sample of cards you have seen? Isn't that a leap of faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJExactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfWhat if the count was +15 before you walked by?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Called and got the recording...it said no one is ever there, you guys just pay rent on it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson818-264-1555 Call and ask for Tony. If he's there, ask him about the package.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Alan's world of alternative reality: Yeah, this is a forum of a hundred participating members, all whom live in Vegas, so the fact that no one went to Bellagio or Mirage and issued an opinion is proof of Alan's claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Actual reality: There are about 10 members that participate regularly and I think 4 live in Vegas. Two of the four (RS and myself) did visit one or both of the Casinos and concluded the layout was fine for this technique, if other conditions were present, like fairly uncrowded conditions, which was not the case on Fight night when I visited.
I clearly indicated from day one that this was a technique that I employed when I could. It isn't always available for a variety of reasons. I employ this technique when I can and it is significantly profitable when I can and that is fairly regularly. You have always chose to ignore that.
But regardless, I am tired of going over and over the same thing with you. There is no benefit to that for me.
This seems like an admission of your intent to keep trolling me, simply because YOU can't or don't want to understand (I am not sure which) the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You are NOT going to bully me like you did redietz and others before my time here. I have tried hard to be respectful of you, and have attempted to have a respectful dialogue even after you have been dishonest with me at every turn. But I am done. I will not engage with a person who announces his intent to troll and bully me. I am again blocking you and will not respond even if I see something you post in a quote. You have lost the privilege to have me respond to anything you utter.
Then just stop talking about something you know nothing about!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Under these circumstances, a normal person would have stated "While I don't count cards, or even play blackjack, tracking two tables seems difficult".
And here was your response. You jumped up at 3am and ran out to a casino, sat in a chair with your back to the table next to you (not where I said I sit), took blurry pictures of the table next to you and declared that your 67 years old eyes would not be able to make out the cards at the next table. Everything you did was designed to prove your pre-determined opinion. Again that is known as 'bias confirmation'.
What you have proved is that 67 year old Alan Mendelson can not count cards at two tables....or maybe more precisely....that he don't want to.
This is like if I say I can run a mile in...I don't know 5 minutes. I actually have no idea how fast I can run a mile these days, but lets assume I could do so in 5 minutes and said so. Then you, Alan Mendelson, jump up, head down to the track and run a mile in 18 minutes and exclaim "see it can't be done". :rolleyes: That's all you have done is prove that YOU can not track multiple tables. Well I can and I do it nearly every day. And many experienced players also can and do.
So just bug off with your threats of continued trolling. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself.
Boy he is! I have seen some trolling, bitter old dudes on a few site. Seems every site has one or two these days. But this dude is severely ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
My condolences, Dan. I imagine it's going to feel like herding cats around here soon. 🙀
kewlj I'm not trolling you. I do not question card counting or advantage play. In fact, I know one GOOD card counter. In fact I've known him for years because he was one of my co-workers at KCAL-TV and I was with him years ago and saw his ability and then saw him get backed off because he made the mistake of going from $10 bets to $100 bets. (Silly him.)
What I am questioning is your claim that you can see the cards at other tables. I am not questioning your skill as a card counter. It is this one, and only one claim of ability that I am questioning.
Now, I am sure there are some casinos where the tables are scrunched together that it might be possible. But you mentioned casinos on the west side of the Vegas Strip. I've seen the tables at Caesars and I know the layout. So I went to Mirage and you can't see the cards at the next table unless you have some super ability. Then I went to Bellagio and again, you can't see the cards without some super ability.
There are other factors too: other players, drinks, dealing time and sequence, cocktail waitresses, onlookers, people walking by, the time you are watching your own hand and keeping count at your own table.
Look, I'm sure you are a nice guy and I am sure you are a good counter, and I am sure you are a good advantage player, but this claim about counting at another table is a stretch.
And now, as regnis has also pointed out, and Rob, and I am sure others question, you claim to have an accurate count while missing cards?
Huh? Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes, I seem to have missed that. So, what percentage of the time are you able to count a second table? 90% of the time? 70% of the time? 40% of the time? 5% of the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
By the way, I figure I have a good, controlled shot at craps about 5% of the time.
kewlj you don't have to be a blackjack player or a card counter to be able to sit at a blackjack table and ascertain if you have a view of the cards at the next table. Nor do you have to be a card counter or a blackjack player to know what happens when two games at two tables are running simultaneously creating the difficulties of seeing cards dealt at both tables. Age is not a factor and I am sure the managers who run and set up the casinos you play at are much older than you are.
Also, I don't bully redietz. I told him from the beginning and I posted it here that I believe who he is and what he says. I also told him there was no need to send me anything, but I also said to him if he really wanted to make his point that he should POST THE DAMN PHOTOS HERE. Instead, he came up with some excuse that the copyright laws would be violated and I informed him that under "fair use" he would not be violating any law.
And regarding my 3am visit to the Mirage. That happened when I was staying at my girlfriend's who lives about five minutes from the Mirage. And I also stopped to get a milkshake at Jack In The Box (open 24 hours) on Flamingo and to get my gas tank filled at the Chevron on Flamingo. I also walked her dog just before I jumped in the car.
Kewl--I am not making any assumptions and I am not saying this as a means of attacking you. I am questioning whether it is prudent for you, or anyone, to make an assumption when you really don't know the full count of the shoe. I am not saying this as a means of attacking you or any other AP. I am asking a legitimate question for which I would like to see a reasonable explanation. Again, whether I agree with the explanation or not is a moot point. I would like to know your reasoning and thoughts on this, without all the residual garbage that goes on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJExactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfWhat if the count was +15 before you walked by?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
You may recall that I was the first to question the 2 table ability. I haven't in any way attacked you on this. While I may not believe that you can do it, you feel that you can so that ended it for me. In the same way, it seems risky to me to see 7 cards in the middle of a shoe and deem the shoe to be positive. If you can explain it to me I appreciate it.
Missing some cards is like having worse penetration into the shoe. It's like going from 1 deck cut off to 1.5-1.75 cut off.
I understand JB, but what if those missed cards were a -15? Those 7 cards gave a false sense to the player that could be detrimental. Are you saying that is ok? Am I looking for a more perfect count than you feel is needed?
You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.
To put this into easy to understand terms: you wake up one morning and after five minutes of trading you decide to invest $1,000 in the stock market without knowing what happened the day before?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
JB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Actually, this works well in craps: the next roll of the dice is not affected by the previous roll(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
But that's not how I thought you play blackjack???
Look Alan, as I stated this is nothing new or ground-breaking. When I posted I had no idea it would create this much controversy because I just assumed it was widely known that many experienced, professional level players do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Below are quotes from another site blackjackinfo, of several well known long-time blackjack card counters, 21forme, and Don Schlesinger, author of Blackjack Attack 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSchles, post: 493272, member: 8811
I realize these names (handles) may not mean much to you Alan, but these are two well know, card counters, 21forme a professional AP for several decades and Don , while never a 'professional' player to my knowledge, a very well known mathematician and long-time 'serious' player, as well as author. In AP circles, these guys have a stellar reputation (although I am sure a whack job like Singer will belittle them).Quote:
Originally Posted by 21forme, post: 493216, member: 1293
Note the highlighted phrase from 21forme's post referencing pips and paint from 20 feet away. Almost exact terminology that I used a month ago.
I don't participate at BJ21 any longer (my choice), but that is a site where there are many such long-term experienced players post and participate, both professional and not. I know if I posted there asking who tracks multiple tables there would be a dozen replies.
Again, Alan tracking a second table is NOT anything new. Experienced players having been doing so since before I was born. I recognize this seems like a new concept to you, and as such, you find it hard to believe, but that is your dilemma, not mine.
And while I can produce probably a dozen experienced card counters, professional, semi-professional and even recreational, I can guarantee not one would be willing to put on a demonstration, for some "journalist" from an anonymous message board. You even thinking that, shows a clear lack of understanding of AP's and the AP mentality.
kewlj it doesn't surprise me that there are others who claim they can count two tables. Do you know how many dice shooters there are who claim they can influence the dice? Ever go to one of those DI conventions? There are hundreds of them. And in my life I've only seen three who I think have the ability.
A lot of people make claims about casino gambling. It makes you wonder how they stay in business.
Of course, what we don't know... and what you don't know... is just how effective this second table counting really is?
I leave regnis' discussion to answer this.
I suppose. I don't know squat about the stock market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonTo put this into easy to understand terms: you wake up one morning and after five minutes of trading you decide to invest $1,000 in the stock market without knowing what happened the day before?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
An inaccurate count--which not seeing ALL of the cards obviously is--is as useless to a bj counter as a condom with a tiny hole in it is to a stud. And since a counter's theoretical edge creeps downward the higher the # of decks that are being used, the more meaningless it is if a player does not see every card. This is one of those mathematical facts that the ap community is always harping about. Now suddenly, there's no need for accuracy in a game where "grinding it out" is as tough as it gets in a casino game.
Kew just didn't think through what he was saying, and now he's caught between a rock and a hard place....and his apologists are sinking fast as they try so hard to help him save face.
If this isn't another true, blistering example of why "AP" is nothing more than a state-of-mind, it would be impossible to find anything more apropos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonActually, this works well in craps: the next roll of the dice is not affected by the previous roll(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
But that's not how I thought you play blackjack???
Dice rolls in craps are independent trials. Rolling a 7 is 1 in 6. Rolling it again is still 1 in 6 as you well know. Dealing blackjack without shuffling are dependent trials. What's been dealt DOES affect what will be dealt on subsequent rounds. Using a single deck, dealing all of the aces in the first round makes a blackjack on the next round impossible. Dealing all of the 5's in the first round makes a blackjack EASIER to get on the next round. Not only that, barring it's a 6:5 game, it gives the player a large advantage over the house. I'm sure you already knew all of this though.
As for whether counting a second table can be done or not, I'm staying out of that. I know that while standing behind one table, I can see cards on adjacent tables without obstructions.
They may be positive, negative or neutral. All in all it'll be a wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisJB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Let's take a poker hand. You have aces and I have kings. The flop is AKK. The turn is a 4. We go all in and flip the cards over. We see a total of 8 cards and two unknowns (the burn cards) and the dealer is holding 42 (44 total unseen cards). What are your odds of hitting the last ace? 1 in 44 or the 42 that the dealer is holding?
I still have a pair of those x-ray glasses we used to order from the back of comic books. Would that help? It didn't actually let me see through Melanie G's dress in 8th grade. Damn it!!!!
Is kewlj talking about a single deck game?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
regnis, were you under the impression kewlj was talking about a single deck game?
JB--then why jump in if it's a wash. So there is no advantage. Kewl--maybe you can better explain this please.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbThey may be positive, negative or neutral. All in all it'll be a wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisJB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I think we are talking multi-deck.
Don't be absurd! I know how effective the second table is because like all professional players, I keep detailed records.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There are so few real AP's that what they take are a drop in the bucket. And of that miniscule amount, most of that 'damage' is done by well financed teams, especially in regards to blackjack, but true of other AP as well. Solo type players, like myself (although technically I have a couple partners), or a mickeycrimm, or some of the other solo type players are zero threat to the casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Casinos would be better off to almost ignore such players and focus on well financed teams and players playing to a much larger advantage and/or even cheating. Several well known and respected consultants, like a Bill Zender have advised this, but the casino industry has a hard on about Advantage play. In many cases they end up spending a dollar for each penny they save by thwarting AP's who are no threat.
I am going to try to be very clear here. In a new shoe, you see the first 10 cards and you know with 100% certainty that the shoe is +6. If you come up to a table in the middle of a shoe and see the next 10 cards and those 10 cards are +6, you still have no idea what the status of the shoe is? It could be +10, it could be -15, it could be anything.
So my question in simple terms is how can you jump in to the table in the middle of the shoe based upon those 10 cards without any certainty of the overall status of that shoe?
I don't care if you explain it mathematically or otherwise. Logically, it seems wrong to me. So no dancing around this--explain please.
It could be both. Again though, you can't assume it's either one. You can only go off of the information you have. I'm sure you've read many times where counters keep losing hand after hand after hand into a rising count then the cut card comes out. This means all of the "good" cards are behind the cut card and they were actually at a disadvantage. The opposite also happens at the beginning of a shoe where the tens and aces spill out and you're min betting but you actually had a substantial advantage. I'm sure if Kewlj isn't getting "enough" counting information, he wouldn't bother with it.
I personally like all information. I don't even play a half assed hole card game with partial information. Too easy to make mistakes and just becomes frustrating. The "upside down 7" can be a problem in a good blackjack game.
regnis, I am backing off this until kewlj responds to YOU.
I am an easy target for kewlj. His responses to me are well-rehearsed.
jbjb back off too.
In a sense, you are correct, regnis. Ok, does that make you feel better? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Lets go back to the example that I used yesterday. You walk by a 6 deck table, with 2 decks having been played. You see those 7 small cards I mentioned on the felt, which represent a running count of +7. So what if in the 2 decks already played, there were seven more 10 value and aces. The actual running count would be zero, instead of the +7 you can see.
On the other hand, perhaps the running count of those two decks you didn't see if +5, making your actual running count +12, rather than +7 (and subsequently true count and advantage). Sometimes less, sometimes more. But guess what the average will be? Yep....running count of +7, because that is the definitive information that you can see.
So when you walk by a table in progress, and see a running count of +7, the actual count could be less than that or it could be more than that. But the average over many trial will be......+7. And THAT is an advantageous or favorable position for the player.
Here's another example. Let's go back to playing off the top of a fresh shuffle, so the card counter sees every card. Two decks in running count of +12. That is 4 decks remaining, so a true count of +3. That is better than a 1% advantage. That better than 1% advantage is based on more 10 value and aces left in the remaining unplayed cards. But suppose over the next two decks, those "extra 10's and aces, don't come out? Suppose even more small cards and neutral cards come out? And all those "extra" 10's and aces are behind the cut card and never get to be played?
In this scenario the counter will have played all those rounds at disadvantage rather than the advantage he though he had, because the "extra" 10's and aces never came out. Of course he wouldn't know that until after the fact (hindsight). And THAT is what card counting is....trying to identify situations that are favorable and betting more money on those favorable situations. And in the long-run, you will win more than you lose. And this is precisely why a card counter has to deal with huge variance and wild swings.
kewlj I just read your explanation to regnis and it sounds very much like the guy who walks up to a roulette wheel after the last ten spins have been red and he bets on black.
Thank you for your explanation--and I wasn't looking to feel better or have you say I was correct (in a sense). I personally would not feel comfortable with this, but I also do not play BJ anymore and have not counted for many many years. So if you are able to make this work I commend you.
Stop trying to bully me Alan. Suppose I said I am backing off until you stop dragging your feet and respond to the redietz situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nothing is rehearsed Alan. I don't know what game you are playing, but obviously this trolling is what you do....it's what you are about, since long before I came here. These games that you like to play, are not what I am about. I am happy to discuss some things that I do, if someone is respectful and has a genuine interest in knowing and if I can do so without putting myself in jeopardy and that is strictly my call.
But I am NOT on trial here and will not be subject to or respond to your bullying, so just grow up and stop it.
The difference Alan is that in Roulette the spins are independent. In BJ, those prior deals matter. Again, I would not be comfortable, but I don't even play the game anymore. I hate BJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It may seem that way, but it's not. The difference is the math. Regardless of the last 10 spins, the odds of the next spin remain the same and it never favors the player, because each spin is an independent trial. In blackjack each spin is not an independent trial. The remaining cards are directly based on what cards have already been played. And sometimes, the remaining cards favor the player. Card counting is simply trying to identify those times and betting more on those occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am not a math guy, like a Schlesinger or a Shackleford, so explaining the math isn't my strong point. It takes me out of my comfort level. Hell, I don't even understand some of the math. :confused: I also don't know in great detail how an automobile engine works, but I am capable of driving a car, if I desire. (I prefer to be driven). :)
edit: sorry regnis, I was typing and didn't see your post or I would not have basically said the same thing.
And now I am off to work. :rolleyes: Good day gentlemen.
Oh and for the record, most of my comments are in reference to 6 deck "shoe" games, because that is mostly what I play for a variety of reasons. One being that it works better with this tracking a second table. I don't want to go to the trouble of tracking a second table and "jumping" only to get a round or two before the shuffle.
But even more importantly for me, with longevity as my top priority, is that shoe games are generally less scrutinized than single and double deck. Here in Vegas, I go as far to say many, maybe even most double deck games are "counter traps".
I was giving an analogy with the roulette wheel and my analogy stands. You are looking at a tiny percentage of a six deck shoe and making a judgment? Like regnis said if this works for you then continued good luck.
But if I had said it, I wonder?
And I'm sorry you find me to be such a brute.
LOL @ Bills comment.
Aks your card counter friend what affect missing cards have. Then let us know what he tells you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I dont think anyone is claiming the count will be 100% accurate.
A good question might be along the lines of this.
When you miss cards, it's true the one you missed could help the count or hurt the count, but you don't know either way. If the count is super negitive you have -EV. If the count went way more positive than you think, you wouldn't be using the optimum strategy since you are assuming the count is lower than it is. Thats two things working agiant you. No doubt you would still have an advantage since the count is so high, but how much extra EV is one giveing up playing this method?
I tingle at watching the self-proclaimed, "AP" math brutes here scramble around trying desperately to talk themselves out of the pickle they find themselves in after painting themselves into the proverbial corner by claiming they can count two tables simultaneously as well as saying it doesn't need to be that accurate.
It's also enjoyable seeing kew keep peeing his pants every time he claims he's too superior to ever come back here. I'm betting this stuff stays in his head 24/7, which is obviously why he ramble-posts so very often. Maybe he should call Anderson Cooper for some of that special "comfort"?
This stuff is just too funny....and it could never even be made up.
As far as any blackjack card-counting system that has TC conversion, the formula is:
Running_Count_Of_Cards_Seen / Number_Of_Unseen_Decks
Missing a bunch of high cards coming out -- sure it hurts you, but just the same if those high cards are at the very end of the shoe where they're not going to be in play. To disagree with this is to say card counting doesn't work or is flawed. A reasonable discussion on card counting can't be had if someone thinks it doesn't work or the theory is flawed.
NOTE: Some systems divide by half decks or quarter decks, AFAIK.
Why would he do that when red was hot? He should have stuck with red. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson