Hatred on this Forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Gambling forums, no matter which, really are stuff of no heart, no courage, and no brain.

---

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I'll give you a little example from real life experiences, but I am not going to use my numbers as for some reason, I get attacked for that. :confused:

My younger brother. This was before we became partners. His first year, I set him up with a small bankroll so he could play low stakes $5 and $10 games for experience. Not really about making money. It was part of the learning process.

So I set him up with a 10k rankroll to play red chip. I didn't track his EV precisely as I do my own or my teammates play, but for the level he was playing and the time he was putting in I estimated his EV to be roughly $800 a month. I figured his expected win for the year to be in the $8000 - $10,000 range. (maybe less with a new player making mistakes).

So to use a horseracing term, my brother gets out of the gate fast. Starts winning way above accumulated EV, for the first few months. This was actually the last thing I wanted to see happen. So after 6 months, he has won like 10 grand. That is well over the projected (accumulated EV) amount of 4-5 grand.

So he wants to start spending his winnings. I tried to tell him he can only spend accumulated EV, (better to only spend a portion of accumulated EV to allow for BR growth) but just like Alan, none of this was registering. So I let him go and spend what he wanted. Part of the learning experience.

So second half of the year, he isn't winning at all. Not losing but his second half of the year is pretty flat as tends to happen for sometimes even months at a time in blackjack. I think he won just a little bit that second half of the year. Like under $1000.

So for the total year, he had won like $11,000. Above expectation or accumulated EV, but pretty close. BUT he had spend about 13-14 thousand dollars because he spent all his winning while winning above expectation. So at years end, despite winning above "accumulated EV", his bankroll was now like $7600.


Spending winnings without knowing where you are and your winnings are in relationship to expectation, is flat out a recipe for disaster. It is almost a certainty that this will lead to your bankroll disappearing at some point. This is precisely why we track expectation and accumulated EV is the vehicle for doing that.

---

I'm going to be gentle with you kewlj. I don't think anyone understands what the heck you just wrote here.

The one thing that was clear is that you included an insult for me.

Now, what you wrote might be clear to you so I'm not going to criticize it. In fact, I can't criticize it because I just don't understand what you wrote.

So please try again.

Kewlj stop insulting me and look what you wrote in your response to regnis:

Accumulated EV, which is the term I use (others may use different terminology) is how professional blackjack players, team and solo players, track their play.

This is your problem kewlj. You need to use terminology the rest of the world is using. No one is going to understand you otherwise. It is not hate. It is not trolling. It is communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm going to be gentle with you kewlj. I don't think anyone understands what the heck you just wrote here.

---

I understand what he wrote.

To summarize: A prudent AP spends only those portion of his winnings attributable to the calculated EV; otherewise your bankroll will suffer.

There, why is that so hard for you to understand?

alan, free your mind and your ass will follow, the key to gambling is within ( *with apologies to Funkadelic* )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm going to be gentle with you kewlj. I don't think anyone understands what the heck you just wrote here.

---

I understand what he wrote.

To summarize: A prudent AP spends only those portion of his winnings attributable to the calculated EV; otherewise your bankroll will suffer.

There, why is that so hard for you to understand?

alan, free your mind and your ass will follow, the key to gambling is within ( *with apologies to Funkadelic* )

---

No you picked what you wanted to understand which is typical of the AP mafia. Kewlj still hasn't explained accumulating EV or how it's used. In fact he even confessed to regnis that accumulated EV is a term that he uses that others don't.

This is simply too much gobbledygook.

Now, again, I'm asking kewlj to explain it again, and this time use language we all understand and I personally would appreciate it if he didn't insult me again.

By the way I have low expectations here. A week or so ago these forum members couldn't even agree on a definition of "free play."

The above post is just tongue-in-cheek, undoubtedly designed to get a few guffaws.

Might I suggest this? I'll have some sites up and running after football. Those people wishing to discuss advantage play and such will be invited to hang out. You'll have to show your math if you have some theories, however. No inane speculating. And if you're going to go on bizarre philosophical spiels, that's fine, but you'll have to give your real name.

I have no interest in forums, but the sheer inanity of this place needs to end. I think the thing to do here is simply make up stories that agree with Mendelson and Singer. You know, fill this forum with, "Yeah, I used win goals and stop losses, hit five royals in a day, and bought a yacht to park in my yard. Never mind that Tennessee is land-locked; it'll look good being towed by my RV." Stuff like that. Just make stuff up. "I'm not sure what AART is exactly, but I used it to get banned from three offshores and my neighborhood laundromat yesterday. Singer's progression worked so well with video poker, I started using it at the local Hooters. If my waitress turned down my offer of a date, I just walked to the wait station and asked two at the same time. When that didn't work, I whipped out my bullhorn, and voila--menage a quatro. Talk about a double bonus!"

Everybody just do one sarcastic story a day. Make these guys the heroes they deserve to be.

Alan. I think KJ is saying to invest more as ones bankroll accumulates which is a prudent logical course. That's fine but you need a sizeable backroll in the first place. It's unlikely to assume the newbie is going to acquire growth. Most couldn't spell DOG is you spotted them the D and the O. Few can endure the manure because they expect/demand instant rewards and have entitlement issues. IMO KJ is the exception and not the rule.

Norm rarely has a good thing to say about anyone, especially KJ. But the one thing I remember Norm saying, even in the midst, in their battle was you HAVE to believe. KJ believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I'll give you a little example from real life experiences, but I am not going to use my numbers as for some reason, I get attacked for that. :confused:

My younger brother. This was before we became partners. His first year, I set him up with a small bankroll so he could play low stakes $5 and $10 games for experience. Not really about making money. It was part of the learning process.

So I set him up with a 10k rankroll to play red chip. I didn't track his EV precisely as I do my own or my teammates play, but for the level he was playing and the time he was putting in I estimated his EV to be roughly $800 a month. I figured his expected win for the year to be in the $8000 - $10,000 range. (maybe less with a new player making mistakes).

So to use a horseracing term, my brother gets out of the gate fast. Starts winning way above accumulated EV, for the first few months. This was actually the last thing I wanted to see happen. So after 6 months, he has won like 10 grand. That is well over the projected (accumulated EV) amount of 4-5 grand.

So he wants to start spending his winnings. I tried to tell him he can only spend accumulated EV, (better to only spend a portion of accumulated EV to allow for BR growth) but just like Alan, none of this was registering. So I let him go and spend what he wanted. Part of the learning experience.

So second half of the year, he isn't winning at all. Not losing but his second half of the year is pretty flat as tends to happen for sometimes even months at a time in blackjack. I think he won just a little bit that second half of the year. Like under $1000.

So for the total year, he had won like $11,000. Above expectation or accumulated EV, but pretty close. BUT he had spend about 13-14 thousand dollars because he spent all his winning while winning above expectation. So at years end, despite winning above "accumulated EV", his bankroll was now like $7600.


Spending winnings without knowing where you are and your winnings are in relationship to expectation, is flat out a recipe for disaster. It is almost a certainty that this will lead to your bankroll disappearing at some point. This is precisely why we track expectation and accumulated EV is the vehicle for doing that.

---

I'm going to be gentle with you kewlj. I don't think anyone understands what the heck you just wrote here.

The one thing that was clear is that you included an insult for me.

Now, what you wrote might be clear to you so I'm not going to criticize it. In fact, I can't criticize it because I just don't understand what you wrote.

So please try again.

---

I understood kewlJ perfectly. Now I sometimes conflate my IQ with my best bowling average, but I don't think it took that many neurons.

Moses yes I understood what kewlj wrote but I don't understand what that has to do with accumulating EV. Do you? Because the question was about how accumulating EV effects play. And frankly I don't need to be concerned with EV to tell anyone not to blow their profits.

I also understand KJ's last response to me. It is not necessary that I agree with all of it. But I do believe I got an honest answer.

And my IQ is probably closer to my golf average--and I was a pretty good golfer.

Oh boy...back to tracking two tables. Do these challenges and attempts to discredit never end?:confused:

Moses, I wouldn't expect you to know much about or have even thought much about tracking two tables. It most definitely is not a technique that would be beneficial to players that primarily play single or even double deck. In best used in 6 and 8 deck shoe games where there is an enormous advantage to jumping from one game with a negative and neutral count to the next with a positive count for many rounds. As someone who only plays single deck games, I suspect there are things you do or apply that are specifically advantageous to single deck that I would not consider. Actually from reading your posts I know there are! Higher level and specialty counts for example. Benefical at single deck, but much less so (a waste of time IMO) at shoe games.


Anyone familiar with the term "wonging" There are two parts to "wonging" Wonging IN involves back counting a table and jumping in when the count turns advantageous. Wonging OUT involves exiting negative counts or situations. Tracking two tables simply incorporates both techniques.

I didn't learn this technique from anyone in particular, although, I do know that I remember Richard Munchin mentioned it. Perhaps that influenced me. Munchkin has no doubt influenced me as I have read and listened to just about anything he has to say, including private conversations.

But after I began to incorporate tracking a second table, I was not surprised to find out that numerous professional and top notch players did so or have done so during their careers, Munchkins, Don Schlesinger and Bigplayer and 21forme (for those that participate on blackjack forums) among them. And surely many more professional and top notch player.


And for the hundredth time, no the count at that second table doesn't have to be completely accurate. Just enough to know it is more advantageous that the table you are currently playing.

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

The answer to both questions is yes. Proven by Stanford Wong (John Ferguson) who is credited with the wonging technique.

So anyway, wonging both in and out are mathematically proven techniques and tracking two tables simply incorporates both.

One final comment. I don't know if your mirror comment was in reference to my statement that I once tracked a second game in Atlantic City by looking at the mirror above the pit which provided a clear view (upside down) of a table directly across the pit. This was one location, a long time ago that if conditions were right, I was able to do this and did so a handful of times. Just kind of a "you never know what advantageous situation might pop of that you can use to your benefit" kind of thing. And the really amazing thing: upon my mention of this I received an email from a long-time professional player, one of those mentioned in this post, informing me that he had also at times been able to track a second game through that mirror. So we had a good laugh about "the good old days". :)

And you know what's really funny about that limited experience and opportunity? Those mirrors above were not just for decoration. They had a purpose. They hid the cameras behind them and in the case of this older property probably the catwalk behind the mirror that were used in an attempt to stop card counters and they ended up providing a whole extra opportunity. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Alan. I think KJ is saying to invest more as ones bankroll accumulates which is a prudent logical course. That's fine but you need a sizeable backroll in the first place. It's unlikely to assume the newbie is going to acquire growth. Most couldn't spell DOG is you spotted them the D and the O. Few can endure the manure because they expect/demand instant rewards and have entitlement issues. IMO KJ is the exception and not the rule.

Norm rarely has a good thing to say about anyone, especially KJ. But the one thing I remember Norm saying, even in the midst, in their battle was you HAVE to believe. KJ believes.

---

That's a very nice interpretation but what does it have to do with accumulating EV?

What kewlj wrote is close to something he's criticized me for which is setting win goals and loss limits.

Wonder what the accumulated EV was when the buyers paid Mike S. 2.3 million for a site worth only 85K?

Kewlj’s explanations sound no different than the fairy tale about the sale of the site for 2.3 million. BULLSHIT

[QUOTE=kewlJ;75567]Oh boy...back to tracking two tables. Do these challenges and attempts to discredit never end?:confused:

Tracking 2 tables in BJ is nothing. Try throwing dice with DI at 2 tables at once. Now that is a challenge!!!

Alan deserves no further responses. KJ can try and try again and Alan will still never understand. A Tard is gonna Tard. King of the Short Bus, what a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's a very nice interpretation but what does it have to do with accumulating EV?

---

Alan, my explanations have EVERYTHING to do with "accumulating EV". I can't help it if you can't, don't or don't want to understand. THAT is your issue not mine. And for what it is worth this issue of you not understanding has everything to do with you being and thinking like a gambler, a losing player. THAT is the barrier here. That is not meant as an attack....it is just a fact. You have a mentality and thought process that is just completely opposite from an AP or professional player, so it is no real surprise that you don't understand these concepts. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What kewlj wrote is close to something he's criticized me for which is setting win goals and loss limits.

---

And now YOU have lost ME because nothing I said has anything to do with or is even remotely close to the topic of win goals and stop limits.

But I have to go to work now, so please don't explain what you are thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Alan deserves no further responses. KJ can try and try again and Alan will still never understand. A Tard is gonna Tard. King of the Short Bus, what a waste.

---

You are proven right again MaxPen. I try though. I really try. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Alan deserves no further responses. KJ can try and try again and Alan will still never understand. A Tard is gonna Tard. King of the Short Bus, what a waste.

---

MaxPen I expect nothing different from you. Fortunately the rest of the world can read the nonsense for themselves.

Again I'm asking kewlj to explain himself again. If he chooses not to then so be it and the discussion is done just like the mysterious shuffling machines that disappeared before the cheating could be confirmed.

While you guys are arguing, we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half, dealer is on break for a few more minutes. Carry on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Again I'm asking kewlj to explain himself again. If he chooses not to then so be it and the discussion is done just like the mysterious shuffling machines that disappeared before the cheating could be confirmed.

---

Alan, I think you are aware of the shuffle machine situation. I have ceased discussion of this situation because I was asked to and it created problems with fellow AP that were exploiting that play.

But I think I can say this. That particular location and the particular shuffle machines were in use for months before I brought the situation to light and for almost a full month after I initiated discussion, not once but twice on multiple forums with carryover discussion to forums that I couldn't even participate at.

This situation was more than confirmed believe me. It was confirmed and known by many before I made it so public. :D And even more after I did so.


I suspect you are referring to your buddy Michael Shackelford :confused: Mike decided (and announced) that he was going to look into the situation about a week after the machines had been pulled and about 5 weeks after I brought the situation to light. 5 weeks!?! Given our relationship I did him the courtesy of informing him through a third party that the situation had changed. Again I say Five weeks! I mean Mike is an AP. Would he read of an AP play on an open forum....wait five weeks to take a look....and then be surprised that the play was no longer there? :rolleyes::D:confused:

Obviously, I have again said too much and will get some STFU communications from my AP family, but I will say the situation in question worked out well for me. My actions got those particular machines at those particular tables replaced. Tables that I couldn't win at with standard card counting and now I can again and have. And that has contributed to my really nice year (so far).

And one other place that I shouldn't go. My discussion got those particular machines at that particular location removed and replaced. But Las Vegas is a big city with many casinos. Oh yeah...I am definitely going to hear from some people. :rolleyes:

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

---

I want to know if anyone here believes you can accumulate EV? And what exactly does that mean?

Let us say a nickel VP AP gets into a one-time situation (perhaps a drawing) where he has 5 million in value/EV with a 95% chance of winning, however, he whiffs on the drawing. Did he just accumulate/bank 5 million and EV? Assuming he stays the course playing nickels I can't imagine he will come close to ever making 5 Million. Meanwhile, some other dude buys a single lottery ticket and hits for 300 mill. I think everything averages out, however, I dont think an individual can ACCUMULATE/BANK EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

While you guys are arguing, we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half, dealer is on break for a few more minutes. Carry on....

---

You ass hole, you just stole KJ's accumulated EV. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Oh boy...back to tracking two tables. And for the hundredth time, no the count at that second table doesn't have to be completely accurate. Just enough to know it is more advantageous that the table you are currently playing.

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

The answer to both questions is yes. Proven by Stanford Wong (John Ferguson) who is credited with the wonging technique. :

---

Probably not. But I get what you are saying. How often does this happen? Daily, Hourly, Weekly? There is a guy that told me to follow a certain jockey. He is not in the standings. But he gets mounts with the idea of the owner really wanting to win a race. His record is exceptional compared to the jockey at the top of the standings. But he might only compete 5 to 10 races a week. Actually, I don't take advantage of this opportunity and I should. My mind is in other places.

KJ. If what you decribe is a frequent occurance, I'd be afraid of the EITS. Especially jumping back and forth between two tables. I'm from the school of "what you see is what you get, what you haven't seen is what remains, and what you didn't see can get you burned."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

They hid the cameras behind them and in the case of this older property probably the catwalk behind the mirror that were used in an attempt to stop card counters and they ended up providing a whole extra opportunity. :cool:

---

I knew I'd read about mirrors somewhere. Great story.

I'm about as conservative and rigid as one gets. But my method (percentage/column count) appears unorthodox. Inconsistent from a conventional standpoint. But very consistent within itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

---

It's impossible for to to stay out of the boys locker room fantasizing about them. Fuck off ok you useless pedophile!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

---

It's impossible for to to stay out of the boys locker room fantasizing about them. Fuck off ok you useless pedophile!!

---

Jbjb it's time to grow up.

Kewlj thanks for the info on the shuffle machines. Now... get back to accumulating EV. What term would help us understand this better? You told regnis there might be another term others use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Moses yes I understood what kewlj wrote but I don't understand what that has to do with accumulating EV. Do you? Because the question was about how accumulating EV effects play. And frankly I don't need to be concerned with EV to tell anyone not to blow their profits.

---

Alan. KJ has a mindset which I coined "uncommon valor" years ago. Sometimes it makes me wince and want to cover up as I read his posts. Maybe I'm tripping over this term accumulating EV. For me, it's about MONEY and if I ain't makin it then I ain't playin. So IMO.

If a person is a playing at a $10 table, he should have $10k devoted to the game. However, he should have $100k in earnings/savings.
Logic being, if one has enough energy and savvy to make/save $100K they've probably already overcome entitlement issues which is a major downfall. This game will humble ones ass in a big damn hurry...and that's not what I'm reading. I'm reading about the ease of this venture as a start up. IF it were that easy? We'd all be standing in a line just to get a seat at the table. Goober is in the pit and Gomer is the EITS.

As one progress to a $25 table, $25k devotion, $250k savings. Of course, even better if you can do it with blackjack earnings.

If I were to lose $20k in a night of play. First thing is everyone should stay out of my way. But I would think the $100 table, $100k devotion, and $1mil savings should be the notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

---

---

He seems to post only during or after a win. Sort of kinky, but you have to wonder what he's doing the other times. Not losing, of course? Hahaha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I understand what he wrote.

To summarize: A prudent AP spends only those portion of his winnings attributable to the calculated EV; otherwise your bankroll will suffer.

---

No such thing as a prudent AP, evidenced by such "thinking".

The conversations going on here make this bit fit perfectly. This is just as funny as everything being said.

At 2:14 it really starts to fit here perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8

LMAO; George Carlin. One of my favorites. Stupid, full of shit, and nuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igsb3ejgbL8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

regnis, when someone who obviously concocts much of what he says about his "bj pro" life is asked the tough questions, two things go into motion after the initial incoherent response. First, his apologists come scrambling in, in an attempt to help him save face. Then and at the same time, kew is sitting there biting his nails desperately hoping you buy what they're selling. He will eventually come back on, after spending nervous hours trying to wordsmith another shifty answer that will somehow get rid of you and hopefully make him look "OK" to his cheering anonymous AP fan base.

I've watched this type of AP behavior for many years, and wrote about it for 8 of them.
The public LOVED it.

---

Rob-I'm not trying to make him look bad or put him in that position. I just don't understand the whole concept. I'm willing to learn if my simple questions are answered. I actually never questioned or doubted that he makes a living at BJ. I just don't get how any of this effects how he plays his next hand.

---

Regnis, before kewlj responded several other forum members gave their interpretation of what kewlj said. Among them Half Smoke and redietz and mickeycrimm and NONE of them was correct.

Rob is on to something when he says "his apologists come scrambling in, in an attempt to help him save face."

Both you, regnis and Coach, have asked kewlj to explain how his accumulating EV when losing changes or effects his game. Kewlj has not responded. I doubt he will.

Rob has suggested that kewlj's "accumulating EV" just means that kewlj believes he's "due" to break out of his slump and win. I've asked kewlj to comment. Isn't that the gambler's fallacy?

---

Idiot. You've jumped in hundreds of times and given stupid answers to questions directed at Argentino. You cant fix stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I'll give you a little example from real life experiences, but I am not going to use my numbers as for some reason, I get attacked for that. :confused:

My younger brother. This was before we became partners. His first year, I set him up with a small bankroll so he could play low stakes $5 and $10 games for experience. Not really about making money. It was part of the learning process.

So I set him up with a 10k rankroll to play red chip. I didn't track his EV precisely as I do my own or my teammates play, but for the level he was playing and the time he was putting in I estimated his EV to be roughly $800 a month. I figured his expected win for the year to be in the $8000 - $10,000 range. (maybe less with a new player making mistakes).

So to use a horseracing term, my brother gets out of the gate fast. Starts winning way above accumulated EV, for the first few months. This was actually the last thing I wanted to see happen. So after 6 months, he has won like 10 grand. That is well over the projected (accumulated EV) amount of 4-5 grand.

So he wants to start spending his winnings. I tried to tell him he can only spend accumulated EV, (better to only spend a portion of accumulated EV to allow for BR growth) but just like Alan, none of this was registering. So I let him go and spend what he wanted. Part of the learning experience.

So second half of the year, he isn't winning at all. Not losing but his second half of the year is pretty flat as tends to happen for sometimes even months at a time in blackjack. I think he won just a little bit that second half of the year. Like under $1000.

So for the total year, he had won like $11,000. Above expectation or accumulated EV, but pretty close. BUT he had spend about 13-14 thousand dollars because he spent all his winning while winning above expectation. So at years end, despite winning above "accumulated EV", his bankroll was now like $7600.


Spending winnings without knowing where you are and your winnings are in relationship to expectation, is flat out a recipe for disaster. It is almost a certainty that this will lead to your bankroll disappearing at some point. This is precisely why we track expectation and accumulated EV is the vehicle for doing that.

---

I'm going to be gentle with you kewlj. I don't think anyone understands what the heck you just wrote here.

The one thing that was clear is that you included an insult for me.

Now, what you wrote might be clear to you so I'm not going to criticize it. In fact, I can't criticize it because I just don't understand what you wrote.

So please try again.

---

I'm going to be gentle with you, Alan. You're a moron that will never get it if its explained to you a thousand times. There's no cure for stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

KJ. I set my son up in biz a few years ago. Gave him my truck and spent a month helping him launch. As I told him, sometimes success comes from what you don't do. It's like a bottleneck. He's doing great but now he spends about as much time in customer service and he does selling. Thus his growth has become stagnent. There are certain clients that drain a person. In order to maximize growth he needs to recognize that client and walk away or not get involved in the first place. As he puts it "Dad, you're addicted to efficiency." That may be but I never much liked working for free or pennies.

I see many of the same qualities in you. You are young, amibtious, and setting the world on fire. But man, if you could just learn to duck. I'd say your growth from a time standpoint is close to the max. No? As you "accumulate growth" you will also "gain attention."

My rule of thumb is table minimum. If you're playing $25 tables you should be making $25k a year. If not, there is something wrong in your game. So, if $100K is the goal? Play $100 tables. The further you go up the ladder the more difficult it is to play within casino tolerance.

---

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

---

---

He seems to post only during or after a win. Sort of kinky, but you have to wonder what he's doing the other times. Not losing, of course? Hahaha.

---

Its hard to lose hole carding. But your dumb ass dont know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I'm going to be gentle with you, Alan. You're a moron that will never get it if its explained to you a thousand times. There's no cure for stupid.

---

Then you must be the disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

KJ. I set my son up in biz a few years ago. Gave him my truck and spent a month helping him launch. As I told him, sometimes success comes from what you don't do. It's like a bottleneck. He's doing great but now he spends about as much time in customer service and he does selling. Thus his growth has become stagnent. There are certain clients that drain a person. In order to maximize growth he needs to recognize that client and walk away or not get involved in the first place. As he puts it "Dad, you're addicted to efficiency." That may be but I never much liked working for free or pennies.

I see many of the same qualities in you. You are young, amibtious, and setting the world on fire. But man, if you could just learn to duck. I'd say your growth from a time standpoint is close to the max. No? As you "accumulate growth" you will also "gain attention."

My rule of thumb is table minimum. If you're playing $25 tables you should be making $25k a year. If not, there is something wrong in your game. So, if $100K is the goal? Play $100 tables. The further you go up the ladder the more difficult it is to play within casino tolerance.

---

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

---

Good point. I don't gamble.;)

Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Gambling forums, no matter which, really are stuff of no heart, no courage, and no brain.

---

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

---

Hey, well, a good time to point out that while Mike was building the boat (ark?), to sail the boat, to catch the fish, to bring them home to Liza, I was busy with trying to tell the systems and other players to save their breath and money. Years ago, I wrote that if I had a nickel for every player who told me to stuff it, and, later, vanished broke from the gambling forums, then I would've been rich. I was more persistent with some of the scammers in gambling. It was a lot of fun all to go along with the stuff people wrote on those forums. So, not surprisingly, the username Garnabby became fairly well associated with all manner of gripes and bannings across the internet. It was easy for the likes of the Wizard and his JB to wrongly seize upon those things, too, without any clarification, to summarily ban Garnabby from their forum. That's fine, but there really are some unwritten rules that we shouldn't just cast to the ditch. One person pissed on is still one person pissed on. Rules that really do make us better people. Somewhere along the line, the Wizard stopped growing into a better person, and, others crowded around to shelter and reassure him. Nothing new there, either. It's his life and forum.

To your question of judging others, well, it depends on what we are as people, and, what you think we are beyond that. If you believe, know, etc, that it's all about probabilities, as Shackleford wrote, then it's only consistent to say go judge everyone/thing, because we are all just things (in the form of chemicals, etc). But, if you believe that there is something more to life, then it's also only consistent to realize that we shouldn't judge everything/one, let alone in the manner of the Wizard, because there is no way to sum up the eternal. My thinking leads me to somewhere in the middle, with to what we are in this world completely left behind upon our death, which is everything we know we are, experience, etc, but our essence or "signature" to move "forward" waits ahead of us. There is no connection between what we are/were here to what we will become. Only an underlying "signature" of the "random" sequence of lives that is the sum total of each of us. In this way, we all lose all that we are, but, at the same time, continue on none-the-wiser. The universe's solution to the (torturer's) paradox of parading the dead.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot to answer your question in freestyle. Last shall be first. So, why not act like it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

---

---

It's about the only thing jbjb has ever proven....that his stories and proclamations eventually always come back to bite him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Gambling forums, no matter which, really are stuff of no heart, no courage, and no brain.

---

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

---

Hey, well, a good time to point out that while Mike was building the boat (ark?), to sail the boat, to catch the fish, to bring them home to Liza, I was busy with trying to tell the systems and other players to save their breath and money. Years ago, I wrote that if I had a nickel for every player who told me to stuff it, and, later, vanished broke from the gambling forums, then I would've been rich. I was more persistent with some of the scammers in gambling. It was a lot of fun all to go along with the stuff people wrote on those forums. So, not surprisingly, the username Garnabby became fairly well associated with all manner of gripes and bannings across the internet. It was easy for the likes of the Wizard and his JB to wrongly seize upon those things, too, without any clarification, to summarily ban Garnabby from their forum. That's fine, but there really are some unwritten rules that we shouldn't just cast to the ditch. One person pissed on is still one person pissed on. Rules that really do make us better people. Somewhere along the line, the Wizard stopped growing into a better person, and, others crowded around to shelter and reassure him. Nothing new there, either. It's his life and forum.

To your question of judging others, well, it depends on what we are as people, and, what you think we are beyond that. If you believe, know, etc, that it's all about probabilities, as Shackleford wrote, then it's only consistent to say go judge everyone/thing, because we are all just things (in the form of chemicals, etc). But, if you believe that there is something more to life, then it's also only consistent to realize that we shouldn't judge everything/one, let alone in the manner of the Wizard, because there is no way to sum up the eternal. My thinking leads me to somewhere in the middle, with to what we are in this world completely left behind upon our death, which is everything we know we are, experience, etc, but our essence or "signature" to move "forward" waits ahead of us. There is no connection between what we are/were here to what we will become. Only an underlying "signature" of the "random" sequence of lives that is the sum total of each of us. In this way, we all lose all that we are, but, at the same time, continue on none-the-wiser. The universe's solution to the (torturer's) paradox of parading the dead.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot to answer your question in freestyle. Last shall be first. So, why not act like it?

---

Or, conversely (and more succinctly), the answer is 42.

I lean to 42. But that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

---

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

I don't play that silly game, but wouldn't the no. of decks play an important role....or is that one of the inaccuracies that counters couldn't care less about? Sort of like our resident virtual bj pro kew not knowing how to add up 7+6+5 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

---

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

---

The dealer showed 7, 6, 5. KewlJ did not discuss the dealers down card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

---

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

---

The dealer showed 7, 6, 5. KewlJ did not discuss the dealers down card.

---

Dealer always shows the down card second so it had to be one of those mentioned. The dealer either had to draw another card and bust or thought he busted and paid the table.

You are correct. I should stay in the bleachers. Damn, I want to talk about the EV argument but I feel like the Astro fan interfering with the Red Sox outfielder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

---

Hey, well, a good time to point out that while Mike was building the boat (ark?), to sail the boat, to catch the fish, to bring them home to Liza, I was busy with trying to tell the systems and other players to save their breath and money. Years ago, I wrote that if I had a nickel for every player who told me to stuff it, and, later, vanished broke from the gambling forums, then I would've been rich. I was more persistent with some of the scammers in gambling. It was a lot of fun all to go along with the stuff people wrote on those forums. So, not surprisingly, the username Garnabby became fairly well associated with all manner of gripes and bannings across the internet. It was easy for the likes of the Wizard and his JB to wrongly seize upon those things, too, without any clarification, to summarily ban Garnabby from their forum. That's fine, but there really are some unwritten rules that we shouldn't just cast to the ditch. One person pissed on is still one person pissed on. Rules that really do make us better people. Somewhere along the line, the Wizard stopped growing into a better person, and, others crowded around to shelter and reassure him. Nothing new there, either. It's his life and forum.

To your question of judging others, well, it depends on what we are as people, and, what you think we are beyond that. If you believe, know, etc, that it's all about probabilities, as Shackleford wrote, then it's only consistent to say go judge everyone/thing, because we are all just things (in the form of chemicals, etc). But, if you believe that there is something more to life, then it's also only consistent to realize that we shouldn't judge everything/one, let alone in the manner of the Wizard, because there is no way to sum up the eternal. My thinking leads me to somewhere in the middle, with to what we are in this world completely left behind upon our death, which is everything we know we are, experience, etc, but our essence or "signature" to move "forward" waits ahead of us. There is no connection between what we are/were here to what we will become. Only an underlying "signature" of the "random" sequence of lives that is the sum total of each of us. In this way, we all lose all that we are, but, at the same time, continue on none-the-wiser. The universe's solution to the (torturer's) paradox of parading the dead.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot to answer your question in freestyle. Last shall be first. So, why not act like it?

---

Or, conversely (and more succinctly), the answer is 42.

I lean to 42. But that's just me.

---

It's actually all of the dimensions, however many. How could the answer be any particular one, or sum? My thinking leans to our universe having 42. There are two main methods that are used to arrive at numbers like this. Mine is a combination of those. But I will continue with that per se at the other forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

---

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5.

---

True, Midwest. My mistake. Here is what happened and Dan can attest to this: Originally I had the dealer hand at 7,6,10, which was a bust. But the true count (Hi-lo) was only +6 for this example, which for a 6 deck game would be a TC of +1 and about a break even proposition. I wanted to create a +EV situation for the question "would you jump in", so I changed the 10 to a 5, making the running count+8 but forgot to remove the notation that the dealer busted.

So I made a mistake. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion. BUT in true form to fashion, that is what the anti-AP guys focus on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

KJ. I set my son up in biz a few years ago. Gave him my truck and spent a month helping him launch. As I told him, sometimes success comes from what you don't do. It's like a bottleneck. He's doing great but now he spends about as much time in customer service and he does selling. Thus his growth has become stagnent. There are certain clients that drain a person. In order to maximize growth he needs to recognize that client and walk away or not get involved in the first place. As he puts it "Dad, you're addicted to efficiency." That may be but I never much liked working for free or pennies.

I see many of the same qualities in you. You are young, amibtious, and setting the world on fire. But man, if you could just learn to duck. I'd say your growth from a time standpoint is close to the max. No? As you "accumulate growth" you will also "gain attention."

My rule of thumb is table minimum. If you're playing $25 tables you should be making $25k a year. If not, there is something wrong in your game. So, if $100K is the goal? Play $100 tables. The further you go up the ladder the more difficult it is to play within casino tolerance.

---

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

---

Good point. I don't gamble.;)

---

Exactly.

But nature abhors certainty as much as a vacuum. Didn't any of your teachers tell you that it's easy to study to get 50%, a little harder to get 60%, a little harder still to get 70%, and, beyond this, that you really have to buckle down, but study "forever" (and miss out on the remainder of your life) to get into the 95% range? The casinos start the AP's off in the 95% range? The self-employed "shill" range?

Look at it this way. On the one side are the systems players, who try to force or "buy" a win with a negative betting progression. On the other side are the AP's, who try to force or make "certain" a win with grinding out the minutia. In the middle, are the casinos and "recreational" gamblers, who play by a set of vig's, they accept the anonymous long-term results on each side of their middle, although things are unfairly unfairly tipped in the casinos' favor. The players on either side both try to force a win. The ones in the middle go with "the flow".

If the casinos were fair or non-profit, with their vig's set to almost nothing, who of the "flow" guys would go? You would win one night, and lose the next. And then win it back, again. There would be no plank to walk, and dangle around on. Nothing to tease on either side of the middle. This is the reason that "recreational" gambling is still a matter of addiction.

Does it matter how a win is forced? Aren't either group of players who do that captive of the casinos? The narrow and otherwise restricted lives of those who seek certainty in everything. Versus the ones who think that a looser lifestyle is the answer. I mean, give up all of your time or all of your space(money) to the casinos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

---

---

You still don't know what he makes.

But we all know how bitter and out-of-touch he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

But we all know how bitter and out-of-touch he is.

---

No. He just knows bullshit when he see's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You still don't know what he makes.

---

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays? :confused: Why does the anti-AP crowd get so bent out of shape over this? Just more weirdness from these goofballs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You still don't know what he makes.

---

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays? :confused: Why does the anti-AP crowd get so bent out of shape over this? Just more weirdness from these goofballs.

---

Jealousy. It's just a hard kick in their gut that we constantly profit and make a living from casino games whereas they show a $100,000 royal flush and are STILL IN THE HOLE.

[QUOTE=Bill Yung;75610]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

---

Good point. I don't gamble.;)

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

But nature abhors certainty as much as a vacuum. Didn't any of your teachers tell you that it's easy to study to get 50%, a little harder to get 60%, a little harder still to get 70%, and, beyond this, that you really have to buckle down, but study "forever" (and miss out on the remainder of your life) to get into the 95% range? The casinos start the AP's off in the 95% range? The self-employed "shill" range?.

---

The words said to me were "stay eligible." I look at it as 5% of the people will leave the casino a winner and 95% a loser. There will be many losers of large amounts and few winners with not nearly as much as the losers. In blackjack, the odds based on the game rules and casino tolerance are tilted greatly in my favor 6% of the time. This means I must survive 94%. However, because I have the tools and maximize them, I know I will win 60% of my sessions on average. But 40% will be lost. The key is I dictate the sessions. Everything I do is in my control. So, at 20 sessions per week, I make 4 more sessions of $500 than I lose. Well, you do the math from that point. But to lose $20k would take two straight weeks of session losses and no wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Look at it this way. On the one side are the systems players, who try to force or "buy" a win with a negative betting progression. On the other side are the AP's, who try to force or make "certain" a win with grinding out the minutia. In the middle, are the casinos and "recreational" gamblers, who play by a set of vig's, they accept the anonymous long-term results on each side of their middle, although things are unfairly unfairly tipped in the casinos' favor. The players on either side both try to force a win. The ones in the middle go with "the flow".

---

Yes, I see all of this in the course of my week...and worse, far worse. But it's not my circus and they are not my monkeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

If the casinos were fair or non-profit, with their vig's set to almost nothing, who of the "flow" guys would go? You would win one night, and lose the next. And then win it back, again. There would be no plank to walk, and dangle around on. Nothing to tease on either side of the middle. This is the reason that "recreational" gambling is still a matter of addiction.

---

Keep the dream alive and they will come in bunches. There is no two ways about it, the casinos are designed to separate folks from their money. The quicker the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Does it matter how a win is forced? Aren't either group of players who do that captive of the casinos? The narrow and otherwise restricted lives of those who seek certainty in everything. Versus the ones who think that a looser lifestyle is the answer. I mean, give up all of your time or all of your space(money) to the casinos?

---

Balance is the key. Long term? Well, Joe WAS a good AP and finished his life in the black. Trouble is, he forgot to live his life because he spent it chasing the elusive EV.

An "AP" can make all the correct +EV plays and still never come out ahead... However, in the eyes of an AP to justify their additions will use the +EV play they made being correct as an excuse to justify the loss blaming it on variance... And in the AP's eye since the play was +EV they made the correct +EV decision so win or lose they are ahead...

Yes some win.
Yes some lose.
The difference is with most AP's, they know when to stop, and hopefully stop before the variance kicks in to book a session win.

This is an example of a Poker EV chart based on winning 2.5BB over 100 hands based on 100000 hands. The dark middle line is "EV", the others are best and worst case scenarios... The same thing can be looked at in other games as well... So what this shows is, if you are playing at +EV you can still lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Jealousy. It's just a hard kick in their gut that we constantly profit and make a living from casino games whereas they show a $100,000 royal flush and are STILL IN THE HOLE.

---

If by "they" you a singling out alan, do not forget that his entire body of work on this board, include all claims made by him is now suspect, as he recently posted to the effect that there is no proof that he is in fact a loser, the implication being that he could have been pulling our collective chain all this time.

Yes, I know, what kind of idiot would claim to be a lifetime loser, then out of the blue say "Hey, maybe I'm just kidding?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays?

---

Are you disagreeing with the quote below?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadBeet

Yes some win.
Yes some lose.
The difference is with most AP's, they know when to stop, and hopefully stop before the variance kicks in to book a session win.

---

Wow, I don't know any AP's that "stop" in order to book a session win. :confused: This kind of stop limits thinking is voodoo to most AP's, myself included, because AP results are about the long run, not a session. :rolleyes:

I do employ "exit triggers" which I am sure the goofball crowd would label stop limits, but they have nothing to do with booking a winning session. Most are about avoiding heat by exiting at strategic times.

I no longer play blackjack rated very often, but I used to and when I did, I would at times do the complete opposite of what you said. If I had a losing session, I would stop in order to book a loss! If you are playing rated, book a loss and get it on your record. Nothing worse than when the pit pulls up your account they see nothing but winning sessions. :(

In addition to the negative optics of that, there is a very...very big danger of digging out from a loss back to even or a small win. This is the type of thing that to a losing gambler feels great. How many times have you heard someone say something along the lines of "I broke even but it feels like a win because I dug out of a big hole"? There are severe dangers in doing that for an AP, especially a card counter blackjack player. That digging out process probably means you showed way too much. You showed your spread and max bet, probably numerous times. Danger! Danger! Will Robinson.

For an AP who does this, the result can often be a back off almost immediately on your next visit. All need happen is for someone to review your play (often after you are gone) and it becomes very obvious. It takes but 1 or 2 of these backoffs very early on the return visit to learn this lesson.

So let's move on to your chart. I don't play poker, but I see poker and blackjack (what I do) as 2 very different things. In poker, somebody at the table has to lose! Your chart reflects such losing players. In blackjack AP, no one has to lose and in the long run, if everyone plays a strong game, there won't be losers like in your chart.

Key words: Long run. For a blackjack AP, 100,000 rounds is not a lifetime. I play 60-70,000 rounds annually and I used to play even more when I was playing lower stakes and really grinding. I'll bet I have had years of 100,000 rounds played. :rolleyes:

I would say it is possible to have 100,000 rounds and be behind. It has never happened to me, but I know players that have had losing years. I personally have had 4 different 6 month periods of losing play, that would be 30-40 thousand rounds, and a couple of those were probably closer to 50,000 rounds.

But a lifetime of blackjack play for an AP is millions of rounds. Notice the plural. And if someone is behind after that amount of play there is something else going on. It is not a case of they are on the lower end of the bell curve....it is a case of holes in their game or chasing losses or some other non-AP issues creeping into their game. One one of the popular blackjack sites, there is a frequent poster who has mentioned that sometimes he is hesitant to throw out his max bet, especially after a loss or two. THAT is the kind of thing that can lead to a losing so-called blackjack AP....holes in your game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadBeet

Yes some win.
Yes some lose.
The difference is with most AP's, they know when to stop, and hopefully stop before the variance kicks in to book a session win.

---

Wow, I don't know any AP's that "stop" in order to book a session win. :confused: This kind of stop limits thinking is voodoo to most AP's, myself included, because AP results are about the long run, not a session. :rolleyes:

I do employ "exit triggers" which I am sure the goofball crowd would label stop limits, but they have nothing to do with booking a winning session. Most are about avoiding heat by exiting at strategic times.

I no longer play blackjack rated very often, but I used to and when I did, I would at times do the complete opposite of what you said. If I had a losing session, I would stop in order to book a loss! If you are playing rated, book a loss and get it on your record. Nothing worse than when the pit pulls up your account they see nothing but winning sessions. :(

In addition to the negative optics of that, there is a very...very big danger of digging out from a loss back to even or a small win. This is the type of thing that to a losing gambler feels great. How many times have you heard someone say something along the lines of "I broke even but it feels like a win because I dug out of a big hole"? There are severe dangers in doing that for an AP, especially a card counter blackjack player. That digging out process probably means you showed way too much. You showed your spread and max bet, probably numerous times. Danger! Danger! Will Robinson.

For an AP who does this, the result can often be a back off almost immediately on your next visit. All need happen is for someone to review your play (often after you are gone) and it becomes very obvious. It takes but 1 or 2 of these backoffs very early on the return visit to learn this lesson.

---

These post should be quoted, and re-read. Such baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

But a lifetime of blackjack play for an AP is millions of rounds. Notice the plural. And if someone is behind after that amount of play there is something else going on. It is not a case of they are on the lower end of the bell curve....it is a case of holes in their game or chasing losses or some other non-AP issues creeping into their game. One one of the popular blackjack sites, there is a frequent poster who has mentioned that sometimes he is hesitant to throw out his max bet, especially after a loss or two. THAT is the kind of thing that can lead to a losing so-called blackjack AP....holes in your game.

---

KJ. It takes 10 years at 100k rounds annually just to get to 1 mil. Just one year at 100k is a load of blackjack. We've both been on that treadmill.

Can you imagine in your wildest dreams of driving 4 to 6 hours just to get to a table and then only staying for 2 or 3 days? And exit or fail to take advantage of a max based on money earned/lost? That is playing scared. I can't see anyone making money playing scared. But I can see a person protecting with a large bankroll playing goofy. Also, a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

So let's move on to your chart. I don't play poker, but I see poker and blackjack (what I do) as 2 very different things. In poker, somebody at the table has to lose! Your chart reflects such losing players. In blackjack AP, no one has to lose and in the long run, if everyone plays a strong game, there won't be losers like in your chart.

Key words: Long run. For a blackjack AP, 100,000 rounds is not a lifetime. I play 60-70,000 rounds annually and I used to play even more when I was playing lower stakes and really grinding. I'll bet I have had years of 100,000 rounds played. :rolleyes:

I would say it is possible to have 100,000 rounds and be behind. It has never happened to me, but I know players that have had losing years. I personally have had 4 different 6 month periods of losing play, that would be 30-40 thousand rounds, and a couple of those were probably closer to 50,000 rounds.

But a lifetime of blackjack play for an AP is millions of rounds. Notice the plural. And if someone is behind after that amount of play there is something else going on. It is not a case of they are on the lower end of the bell curve....it is a case of holes in their game or chasing losses or some other non-AP issues creeping into their game. One one of the popular blackjack sites, there is a frequent poster who has mentioned that sometimes he is hesitant to throw out his max bet, especially after a loss or two. THAT is the kind of thing that can lead to a losing so-called blackjack AP....holes in your game.

---

To be commented on, later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays?

---

Are you disagreeing with the quote below?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

---

---

You're just pointing out even more of kew's inconsistencies and contradictory statements coach---valid points that will receive no reply. Charlatans have no interest when it comes to clarifying bad statements, and only use their long-winded posts to appease their "fans" while they build up their own self-perceived images in the background.

For instance: Kew tried to perpetrate his bait and switch methodology about using a ceiling mirror to count second tables. Two glaring problems with that made-up lie. First, mirrors diminish views, and the cards will be confusing because they're backwards. And, HELLO KEW MCFLY!...all that does is make the cards DOUBLE THE DISTANCE AWAY.

Sure, there's a few AP's who'll buy his nonsense because they live out virtual theory on these forums. But he knows the BS he's flinging doesn't get by actual educated people.

So speaking of the haters on this site (thread title), last night I ended my workday downtown and had dinner with my brother, who is my blackjack business partner. Afterwards we watched the gay pride parade wind it's way through downtown Vegas. Like all gay pride events, including likely this afternoons festival at Sunset park, there were a handful of protester and haters. I counted 9 that the police had roped off like they were in a cage.

Almost every activity has it's haters. Remember those idiots protesting at the funerals of fallen solders during the Iraq war? :mad:

And the gambling community of forums is no different. We have our AP haters that have found asylum on this site. :(

Makes me wonder, why people are consumed with such hate and anger. That is a sad way to go through life. Get out and enjoy life instead of voicing your bitter jealousy towards others.

And yes, I will be at the festival today, escorted by my straight brother, who is hellbent on fixing me up with someone. So if you are in the Sunset Park area, stop buy and have a beer. Enjoy life. Celebrate diversity. Looking forward to seeing you there Axelwolf. ;) First beer is on you.

I stopped reading at the word hater. Look, you invite those with the meaningless (to us) crap about your life. Rather, you should post up charts and other actual proof. Don't say just that, "I would say... ." It will force you to think more carefully or clearly.

KJ. You're a riot! lmao

KJ is also a very confused and misguided individual. He is unable to recognize that he is very likely the biggest hater on the forum. He makes outlandish claims that he says we HAVE TO believe while asserting that proof "isn't necessary". Subsequently, he badmouths, lies about and hates anybody who asks him the tough questions, then he goes into his babbling rants.

And what's the point about announcing that a few loose screws are pushing their corrupted agenda downtown? The entire country has less than 1.5% who choose to live against proven and known physiological, psychological, and biological laws of nature. So what makes him think any normal person would ever want to be there for some meaningless "diversity"? All I can think of is how embarrassed mommy must be, and how she isn't so supportive of trying to force baby bro into making the same mistakes.

Wise up.

Rob. You're hilarious. LMAO I have a brother 10 years my senior. He was one helluva football player in his day. I'm trying to picture me walking him in a parade and trying to set him up with a dude. There are many birds in this world.

Quick funny story: A buddy of mine was telling me he was hurrying through a casino the other day. He comes around a corner and runs smack into Bill Gay. He was a defensive lineman for the Detroit Lions. My buddy qoutes, "it knocked me backwards about 3 steps and flat on my ass. I just layed there like I was paralyzed." Bill reached down and picked him up like he was a small child.

Whenever kewlj starts in that there are AP haters on this forum this is the episode from The Twilight Zone that comes to mind...

https://youtu.be/l6vfa1SPu5g

Hmmm. Reminds of this huge guy in the sportbook with a small hat size. So one day I ask him, "Pete, how is it such a big dude wears such small hat"?

Well, I tell ya Moses. I was an Astronaut when I was younger. I was at the beach one day. This bottle washes up on shore. I pick it up and rub it. I'll be damned if Barbara Eden doesn't come out with a big puff of smoke. She was so happy to get out of that bottle she was willing to grant me any wish. I said "but Barbara, I have everything I could possibly want, I'm an astronaut, I'm good looking, I have money, nice car, and a big house." She replied "alright, but you can have anything, I mean ANYTHING you want." I looked at her and ask ANYTHING. She replied "O yes MAster ANYTHING!

I said, "alright, how bout a little head."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Whenever kewlj starts in that there are AP haters on this forum this is the episode from The Twilight Zone that comes to mind...

https://youtu.be/l6vfa1SPu5g

---

Uh-oh....another direct hit with the truth.

Oh I agree with the not stopping to book a win... it's a long term thing. I get that completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You're just pointing out even more of kew's inconsistencies and contradictory statements coach---valid points that will receive no reply. Charlatans have no interest when it comes to clarifying bad statements, and only use their long-winded posts to appease their "fans" while they build up their own self-perceived images in the background.

For instance: Kew tried to perpetrate his bait and switch methodology about using a ceiling mirror to count second tables. Two glaring problems with that made-up lie. First, mirrors diminish views, and the cards will be confusing because they're backwards. And, HELLO KEW MCFLY!...all that does is make the cards DOUBLE THE DISTANCE AWAY.

Sure, there's a few AP's who'll buy his nonsense because they live out virtual theory on these forums. But he knows the BS he's flinging doesn't get by actual educated people.

---

Inspector Robert Harry Clouseau.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Rob. You're hilarious. LMAO I have a brother 10 years my senior. He was one helluva football player in his day. I'm trying to picture me walking him in a parade and trying to set him up with a dude. There are many birds in this world.

Quick funny story: A buddy of mine was telling me he was hurrying through a casino the other day. He comes around a corner and runs smack into Bill Gay. He was a defensive lineman for the Detroit Lions. My buddy qoutes, "it knocked me backwards about 3 steps and flat on my ass. I just layed there like I was paralyzed." Bill reached down and picked him up like he was a small child.

---

That's one type of "gay". Did you ever get a gander at the types of weirdos, wimps, and woeful individuals who show up for these "festivals, marches and parades"? You couldn't find a more despicable group of "people" in a dungeon on another planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

That's one type of "gay". Did you ever get a gander at the types of weirdos, wimps, and woeful individuals who show up for these "festivals, marches and parades"? You couldn't find a more despicable group of "people" in a dungeon on another planet.

---

Burning Man? If you haven't heard of that one, ask your friend at Pmill. He'll give you a good laugh.

50 years went by pretty much normal. But in the last 8 years, there is rarely a day goes by where I don't say to myself "whoa, never saw that before." :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

So let's move on to your chart. I don't play poker, but I see poker and blackjack (what I do) as 2 very different things. In poker, somebody at the table has to lose! Your chart reflects such losing players. In blackjack AP, no one has to lose and in the long run, if everyone plays a strong game, there won't be losers like in your chart.

---

Let's take the poker stuff, first.

That chart posted by BB really says just that if your EV is less than it appears on the surface, and low enough, and, your variance with just the amount you bet is higher than you think, and high enough, then there may be a lot less difference than was initially just suspected, in the long run, between a winner's and loser's results. I conclude with the long run because what sort of loser will fight through another year of that crap, after a year of crap? Computer simulations with perfect input really have very little to do with what you will find in the casino field. Ha, the opposite is so very different with real areas of study such as engineering. You can't throw a building off the street as soon as it starts to make a little more money than you are comfortable with. That chart doesn't speak to an actual closed poker session, with someone up at the end of it.

You neglected to mention that poker has a rake. So does blackjack. I would just look to the baccarat commission on winning banker bets of 5% to compare the banker edge of 1.36% (over player) to the poker rakes of 3, 4, or 5%. The house ends up with a 1.17% edge over the banker (after the commission). The poker player requires at least a 2 percent edge.

But, I would rather play the poker, were I a professional gambler, because only one or two players lose each hand, as the antes are relatively small compared to the action, when it happens, but the whole table of blackjack experts lose more than every other hand to the house. Poker players don't really play against the house (the biggest difference), they can better control (reduce) their own variance, play against players they can consistently profit from, play much richer and more rewarding strategies (that don't lock the other player into set losses), they can come and go with much more strategic precision, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

That's one type of "gay". Did you ever get a gander at the types of weirdos, wimps, and woeful individuals who show up for these "festivals, marches and parades"? You couldn't find a more despicable group of "people" in a dungeon on another planet.

---

Burning Man? If you haven't heard of that one, ask your friend at Pmill. He'll give you a good laugh.

50 years went by pretty much normal. But in the last 8 years, there is rarely a day goes by where I don't say to myself "whoa, never saw that before." :cool:

---

Oh yes I know much about the type of "people" who go to Burning Man. After it's over, every weirdo hippie, faggot, transgender nut job, and unemployed beggar combs the parking lots at GSR panhandling for successful/normal people's money. If an A-bomb went off at that gathering of mostly low-lifes, you might get 2 or 3 people come out of the woodwork around the country crying "he was such a GOOD boy" or "she was such a CARING individual who would give anybody the shirt off her back". The rest would just harmlessly fade away into the world of useless nobodys.

Saw on the news last nite- two people shot- one killed on level 3 parking lot at Horseshoe Bossier, LA.