*ahem* .. clears throat, belts out:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep"
Printable View
*ahem* .. clears throat, belts out:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep"
I have covered this many times. It isn't like I am playing some singular local casino, where I will see the same dealers and pit every week. That is the primary reason I moved to Vegas. Many many games, many casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Both when I played the local circuit and with what I do now, I spread it around. For example, last weekend I only played 1 night, because it just wasn't going to be a great weekend for what I do. I knew it wouldn't be crowded enough with the right kind of crowd. Saturday night turned out better than I anticipated because the NBA basketball tournament was in town that I had forgotten about, and that sort of is the right kind of crowd.
But anyway, I played 6 sessions last Saturday at 4 casinos. Even though none were really all that eventful, I will not play any of those casinos this coming weekend.
Now lets say I do play a certain casino 2 even 3 times during a month. I might see same pit or dealer two of those times. Big deal. About 40% of my sessions end in a loss, so they aren't drawing much attention. And of the remaining most end up with a relatively minor win which equates to a max bet or so. (or less) Only a few will be the kind of win that anyone would even notice. So why yeah, some dealer or pit person may say yeah I have seen that guy before, it isn't standing out like you seem to think.
And remember I am seeking tables with players betting at limits equal to or greater than my MAX bet. My Max bet is only out about 5% of the time, so most of the time I am still way below, what others at the table are betting.
I will give you an example because I think examples explain it better. $100 min table. My first bet is $200. This is what I call my base bet. I may drop to $100 is the count goes negative. So here I am betting $200, at a $100 min table when EVERYONE is betting at least $100. some players betting $200, $300, $500 and a few betting larger. Those few are the ones providing cover. So even when I jump my bet the first level to say $300 or $400, I am still right there in the mix of most betters and well below the bigger bettors.
So what exactly do you think there is that makes me stand out at a $100 table full of $100-and larger bettors on a Saturday night?
And the next Saturday night I will be at a different strip casinos doing the same. There are many strip casinos you know. I could probably space it out to where I don't hit the same casino more than once every two months, but I don't need to do that.
I probably blend in more now than when I played the locals circuit with a $400 max bet.
How many hours do you get in per year again?
(And remember you have given us enough info to estimate your average session length, your top bet, and your annual income, so put some thought into this.)
While my play is a little bit different now, it really isn't. It is about short sessions. Those short sessions take a little bit longer in time (minutes) but are really the same length in rounds played.
And short sessions, which I am still playing, eliminates most of the problem areas of card counting. It will result in both smaller wins and losses (which draw less attention), and when the count does rise, you don't show all that much information compared to playing longer sessions where the player sits there for a couple hours (10 hours right Mdawg, playing double deck :D) showing his spread over and over.
Short sessions is a card counters best friend. Unfortunately for some counters if you live somewhere that the nearest casino is an hour away, the short sessions strategy becomes problematic. But in vegas, any card counter NOT playing short sessions is missing the boat.
I just skimmed but I don't think I saw a number in there?
Then you figure it out. What do you need me to answer for coach belly2?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I don't play anywhere near the hours I used to 1 or 2 nights a week for 5-7 hours usually and if Friday isn't crowded enough or the right kind of crowed, it might be shorter. or I might skip Friday altogether. That isn't all table time though.
I actually wish I could put in more hours, but if you are playing crowded times, there are only so many crowded type hours.
BUT on the bright side, it leaves me plenty of time for VCT. :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThen you figure it out. What do you need me to answer for coach belly2?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I don't play anywhere near the hours I used to 1 or 2 nights a week for 5-7 hours usually. That isn't all table time though. I actually wish I could put in more hours, but if you are playing crowded times, there are only so many crowded type hours.
BUT on the bright side, it leaves me plenty of time for VCT. :cool:
Interesting that after all of that detail you are suddenly reticent about the one detail you are actually asked about.
Yeah, MrV conveniently ignores that kewlJ's brother has posted as KewlJ, admittedly according to Kewlj, and KewlJ has posted as "Kim Lee" -- but jog my memory -- was Kewlj-as-Kim-Lee admitted or just the conclusion of an analyzer?
Now kewlJ has to consult his notes regarding session lengths and top bets. He should tattoo this stuff somewhere.
Meanwhile, let me remind everyone that KewlJ's reported bonus whoring at Oddsmaker.ag, where I have had an account forever and bet maybe half a million, is something they would not tolerate more than twice. Once they correlate betting patterns, no aliases are going to hold up. Unless he was betting a sawbuck a game, which seems likely.
WTF dude?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Saturday night I went out about 8:30 pm and got home a little after 4am, maybe 4:30 but I stopped for breakfast. So maybe 7 hours devoted to BL play which includes traveling between sessions. Other weekend I might play 6 hours two nights. probably average close to 10 hours a week. My EV is over $200/per 100 rounds played. That is how you figure EV, per round or per 100/rds for easy record keeping, NOT by the hour. Playing this way an hour is less than 100 rounds. Probably 75-80 on average.
There I just gave you all the numbers. so you do the math. And it will come out to somewhere between 60-80k a year in EV at roughly 10 hours a week.
Anything else CB2?
KewlJ posting as Kim Lee was a troll conspiracy theory by YOU and others that was disproven by Dan Druff. Are you calling Druff a liar?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Fucktard, YOU spoke to Kim Lee on the Phone didn't you? he lives on the East coast where he works. I live in Las Vegas, verified by Dan Druff.
Have you lost your fucking mind?
I am begging you dude, wear a freaking hat this winter. You are losing brain cells. Happens at your age, but no need to hasten it.
Estimating EV by rounds rather than hours sounds like something someone who doesn't actually play would do.
Not sure what kind of Ap you are, but you don't play blackjack do you? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
We get a number for our EV by running simulations based on the rules and no decks of the game we are playing. That answer comes out as $xxx /per 100 rounds.
depending on if you can get 100 rounds and hour or less or more, then your EV will be adjusted to that lessor or greater amount. Unfortunately playing crowded conditions, it is less. Less rounds per hour but a higher average bet and ultimately higher EV. That is the trade off I have made the last 4 years.
How can I get you to stop this silliness. Do you want me to do a rough version of the math? Lets say I get 75 rounds per hours average. maybe that is a tad high. I know I said 75-80 a few minutes ago, but lets say 70 rounds an hour to allow for walking between games.
@ $200 per 100 rounds, 70 rounds would be $140 an hour ($2 per round) (<-THAT is actually the way I do EV). So $140/hr x 10 hours a week. hold on...carry the 1,....$1400 EV per week. Times 50 weeks whoala... $70k EV. a year, which is about what I have hit the last few years from BJ. Last year was like 48k because we worked on a different out of town BJ machine play for about 9-10 weeks.
How does that work for you CB2?
Now these numbers are EV remember. expected value. My actual results can be +/- from there. Thats called variance. So happens last year and this have been pretty darn close. But I have had years that are as much as 50% over or under expectation.
Now do you want to go back and say, well wait those aren't numbers you previously used? That would be correct. Playing the local circuit, 5 days a week 6-7 hours a day the numbers were entirely different. And those numbers are different from when I first moved to Vegas and was killing it 6 days a week at 10-12 hours a day. Different styles, limits of play result in different hours played.
Come on what else ya got CB2? Must be something?
Of course for the purpose of assessing a game itself you use rounds. We were discussing your annual workload.
We are?? :confused: I didn't know that was a topic for discussion. But ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I thought it was kind of common knowledge that I have only been playing blackjack 1-2 nights a week here in Vegas the past 4 years or so. More when on a trip. BUT I also have been doing something else, sports betting that I can do from home that fills some of the time.
Can I ask what YOU share about what you do, that would even make you think you have the right to question me like you are? I mean I don't mind because I do share some of what I do. It just seems kind of fucked up that some of you people that share nothing, think it is ok to grill me like I am on trial, very apparently looking for some sort of inconsistency or "gottch ya" moment. :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJWe are?? :confused: I didn't know that was a topic for discussion. But ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I thought it was kind of common knowledge that I have only been playing blackjack 1-2 nights a week here in Vegas the past 4 years or so. More when on a trip. BUT I also have been doing something else, sports betting that I can do from home that fills some of the time.
Can I ask what YOU share about what you do, that would even make you think you have the right to question me like you are? I mean I don't mind because I do share some of what I do. It just seems kind of fucked up that some of you people that share nothing, think it is ok to grill me like I am on trial, very apparently looking for some sort of inconsistency or "gottch ya" moment. :cool:
No. Or rather you can but I won't bother to answer you.
This example has a base bet of 200 or 100 when negative. Then you raise it to 300 or 400? I don't know much about spreads but I know about math but it is hard for me to make that out as working. Hmmm. A spread of 1 to 4?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI have covered this many times. It isn't like I am playing some singular local casino, where I will see the same dealers and pit every week. That is the primary reason I moved to Vegas. Many many games, many casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Both when I played the local circuit and with what I do now, I spread it around. For example, last weekend I only played 1 night, because it just wasn't going to be a great weekend for what I do. I knew it wouldn't be crowded enough with the right kind of crowd. Saturday night turned out better than I anticipated because the NBA basketball tournament was in town that I had forgotten about, and that sort of is the right kind of crowd.
But anyway, I played 6 sessions last Saturday at 4 casinos. Even though none were really all that eventful, I will not play any of those casinos this coming weekend.
Now lets say I do play a certain casino 2 even 3 times during a month. I might see same pit or dealer two of those times. Big deal. About 40% of my sessions end in a loss, so they aren't drawing much attention. And of the remaining most end up with a relatively minor win which equates to a max bet or so. (or less) Only a few will be the kind of win that anyone would even notice. So why yeah, some dealer or pit person may say yeah I have seen that guy before, it isn't standing out like you seem to think.
And remember I am seeking tables with players betting at limits equal to or greater than my MAX bet. My Max bet is only out about 5% of the time, so most of the time I am still way below, what others at the table are betting.
I will give you an example because I think examples explain it better. $100 min table. My first bet is $200. This is what I call my base bet. I may drop to $100 is the count goes negative. So here I am betting $200, at a $100 min table when EVERYONE is betting at least $100. some players betting $200, $300, $500 and a few betting larger. Those few are the ones providing cover. So even when I jump my bet the first level to say $300 or $400, I am still right there in the mix of most betters and well below the bigger bettors.
So what exactly do you think there is that makes me stand out at a $100 table full of $100-and larger bettors on a Saturday night?
And the next Saturday night I will be at a different strip casinos doing the same. There are many strip casinos you know. I could probably space it out to where I don't hit the same casino more than once every two months, but I don't need to do that.
I probably blend in more now than when I played the locals circuit with a $400 max bet.
$300 or $400 is only my first jump mate. I have said elsewhere what my max bet currently is. It is much larger than that isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Now lets define bet spread. If a player's smallest bet is $100 and his max bet is $800, that is a 1-8 spread. Simple enough right.
Now if I sit down and my first bet is $200, but I drop to $100 during negative counts and jump to $300/$400 and eventually to $800, what is my spread? is it 1-4? ($200-$800), 1-8? ($100-$800)
Answer: it is 1-8, the smallest wager you make to the largest wager you make. That is what spread is. the $200 initial bet, instead of the very smallest $100 bet is what is known as spreading BOTH ways. there is a little bit of a cost to it as opposed from a strict 1-8 spread, but it makes it more difficult to see the entire spread. they have to see both a negative count and positive max bet count in the same shoe to see the full spread. This is a major factor in longevity. because if they only see half, it looks like a 1-4 spread and you wont even be backed off with that at a 6 deck game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
10 hours per week x $200 per hour x 52 weeks per year = $104K per yearQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So you have been running from 23% - 43+% over your estimated EV.
How is that possible?
Good for you coach belly. You got me. [slow clap]. I did indeed say hourly when you and everyone knew I mean per 100 rounds (/100) which is how blackjack EV is universally measured.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
10 hours per week x $200 per hour x 52 weeks per year = $104K per yearQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So you have been running from 23% - 43+% over your estimated EV.
How is that possible?
And when you do the calculations using /100 rds like you and everyone knows I meant to say it comes out exactly where I claim.
Gotta love the "gottch ya" moment...don't ya? :rolleyes:
the reason blackjack results and EV are universally measured by 100 rounds (/100) as opposed to hourly rate, is because the fluctuation can be so great. You get a heads up game where you book 400 rounds in an hour and the average skyrockets. But using rounds, a round played is a round played whether it is part of a fast moving heads up game or a slow moving full table on a Saturday night. A round is a round and 100 rounds a 100 rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxfan
Yes, but it is isn't a 1:8 spread either. The way you are teaching what the spread is will send people down the wrong answer if they take what you say as correct. I don't know how often you bet 200 vs 100 but when other background sims and such let you input the "spread". your 1:8 is simply not correct and it seems misleading to teach it like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ$300 or $400 is only my first jump mate. I have said elsewhere what my max bet currently is. It is much larger than that isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Now lets define bet spread. If a player's smallest bet is $100 and his max bet is $800, that is a 1-8 spread. Simple enough right.
Now if I sit down and my first bet is $200, but I drop to $100 during negative counts and jump to $300/$400 and eventually to $800, what is my spread? is it 1-4? ($200-$800), 1-8? ($100-$800)
Answer: it is 1-8, the smallest wager you make to the largest wager you make. That is what spread is. the $200 initial bet, instead of the very smallest $100 bet is what is known as spreading BOTH ways. there is a little bit of a cost to it as opposed from a strict 1-8 spread, but it makes it more difficult to see the entire spread. they have to see both a negative count and positive max bet count in the same shoe to see the full spread. This is a major factor in longevity. because if they only see half, it looks like a 1-4 spread and you wont even be backed off with that at a 6 deck game.
I assume somewhere someone has talked about something likely called an 'effective spread'. Your effective spread is going to be more like 1:6. I don't know how often you stay at 200 vs 100 but ultimately with AI it could determine really quickly in a way that your countermeasures would do nothing against. Just overall correlation.
Next time I'm in LV I'm going to walk around looking for how many are betting $400+ a hand. I guess the real quesiton I'd ask is - how many pits have the games available?
Seems best to me to
There ya go account, you posted your question in the right place so as not to hijack Druff. Was THAT so hard?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You are confusing bet spread and bet ramp. Spread is simply a ratio between the smallest wager and the highest wager. It is NOT a ratio between the zero count wager and the highest wager. Exactly what amount is bet at what count or advantage is defined as the bet ramp.
As mentioned there is a little bit of a cost for not placing your smallest wager at zero, but instead dropping to it in negative counts. But that cost is worth it. It really makes your spread look much less. I am going to go back to the example of the 6 deck game spread $100 to $800.
If you bet $100 at a count of zero and max bet $800 at a count of true 4, that 1-8 spread would be very easy to see. And while not a huge spread, it is big enough to possible concern someone that notices.
Now if you use the same $100-$800 spread, $100 in negative counts, $200 at zero, $800 max bet at TC +4, they will only see a $200-$800 (1-4) spread unless the count goes both negative and positive in the same shoe. And a 1-4 spread, just doesn't concern many people. If someone saw it they probably won't even to take any action against you on what looks like a 1-4 spread
What is important about the smallest wager is that you are betting that in the negative counts to minimize negative EV. You can fudge it at zero and it doesn't have much effect. A little bit, but not much. You can even be creative and bounce back and forth between $100 and $200 at zero.
I post in the same threads that have the messages I am replying to. Is that hard to understand?
My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.
You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.
If you are reading blackjack books and looking at charts, then you are stuck in the last century. Don Schlesinger, author of like THE book on blackjack, Blackjack Attack which is just full of charts, graphs, numbers, was one of the biggest influences on me and my career. And I have had the pleasure of communicating privately with him often, although not recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
But as good as that book is, if someone is using the charts from that book or any book, they are doing it all wrong. Today and for a while now, professional players get their information from computer software simulation. Some of the top players write their own, but Norm's software (Qfit products) is as good as any and more than adequate.
And the best part is you can spend hours tinking with bet spread, ramp, shutdown points (negative counts) until you find what works and is acceptable to you for a win rate without compromising everything else. then you look at the RoR for whatever you have come up with and see if that works for your bankroll.
So when tinkering one of the things you will find is there are some things that don't cost nearly what conventional wisdom says it does. Spreading both ways is one of them. Another is playing card counter basic strategy (CCBS). the old books liked to tell you that playing index plays, Don's 18, or 20, or 25 was worth about 25% of the total you can win. It just is NOT. If you set the simulation for CCBS, you will see you lose like 5%. And that 5% loss for eliminating one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently at different times is well worth in longevity.
Then is you do something that has a little cost like spreading both ways or betting $200 at zero instead of $100 and you feel that is too much a cost for you and your target win rate, you can further tinker and see where you can make some of that up. Maybe Max Bets slightly earlier at TC +3.5 instead of 4. Maybe exit the game at TC of -2 instead of -3, or maybe in between at -2.5.
There is hundreds of combinations you can tinker with until you find what works for you, and results in the EV you are looking for. That is the beauty of software simulations vs the old charts. The possibilities are endless. You can't do that with the "canned simulations" in books.
If someone is getting into card counting, whether having dreams to play for a living, or just recreational for decent money (more than red chip), simulation software should be their very first purchase. It will pay for itself 100 times over, thousands of times if you do make a career of it.
AS far as 1-8 spread, I don't know how to tell you any more than I have. 1-8 spread means your smallest bet is x and your largest is 8x. Where the different amounts are doesn't change it from being a 1-8 spread.
The reason this is effective is because casino mark down your first wager, or first couple wagers (even when playing unrated). So if that first wager is $100 and they later see you betting $800, that is an easy to detect 1-8 spread. If they mark down that first wager as $200 and later see an $800 wager they think 1-4 spread.
And if they mark down the first wager as $200, and later see a $100 bet, that is nothing. Completely normal. No one would think anything of it as far as what your spread is.
And as long as you have the minimum out at the negative counts, you aren't losing much. In the benefit/cost analysis it is well worth it in longevity.
This completes KJ's BJ 103. Asmuch as I enjoy talking blackjack, I can't give EVERYTHING away. :cool:
Most people who are starting to look into blackjack and just starting to evaluate it are not going to be using simulations. They're going to be using books/articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIf you are reading blackjack books and looking at charts, then you are stuck in the last century. Don Schlesinger, author of like THE book on blackjack, Blackjack Attack which is just full of charts, graphs, numbers, was one of the biggest influences on me and my career. And I have had the pleasure of communicating privately with him often, although not recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
But as good as that book is, if someone is using the charts from that book or any book, they are doing it all wrong. Today and for a while now, professional players get their information from computer software simulation. Some of the top players write their own, but Norm's software (Qfit products) is as good as any and more than adequate.
And the best part is you can spend hours tinking with bet spread, ramp, shutdown points (negative counts) until you find what works and is acceptable to you for a win rate without compromising everything else. then you look at the RoR for whatever you have come up with and see if that works for your bankroll.
So when tinkering one of the things you will find is there are some things that don't cost nearly what conventional wisdom says it does. Spreading both ways is one of them. Another is playing card counter basic strategy (CCBS). the old books liked to tell you that playing index plays, Don's 18, or 20, or 25 was worth about 25% of the total you can win. It just is NOT. If you set the simulation for CCBS, you will see you lose like 5%. And that 5% loss for eliminating one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently at different times is well worth in longevity.
Then is you do something that has a little cost like betting $200 at zero instead of $100 and you feel that is too much a cost for you and your target win rate, you can further tinker and see where you can make some of that up. Maybe Max Bets slightly earlier at TC +3.5 instead of 4. Maybe exit the game at TC of -2 instead of -3, or maybe in between at -2.5.
There is hundreds of combinations you can tinker with until you find what works for you, and results in the Ev you are looking for. That is the beauty of software simulations vs the old charts. The possibilities are endless. You can't do that with the "canned simulations" in books.
If someone is getting into card counting, whether having dreams to play for a living, or just recreational for decent money (more than red chip), simulation software should be their very first purchase. It will pay for itself 100 times over, thousands of times if you do make a career of it.
Your bet spread is not 1:8 in the same way meant in the books.
So if someone was going to see "oh this is the kewl one's way of doing it I am going to follow in his foosteps" they need to at least understand that your 1:8 spread is just not the same.
It is interesting for a guy who uses sims so much and such that you don't know how much the spreading both ways costs you. You give me paragraphs of the different things you can and can't do but ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
This retard is a closeted homosexual.
You continue to be completely wrong about the 1-8 spread. here is anolther 1-8 spread. A bit extreme but still a 1-8 spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
any negative count you bet $100 or one unit. At TC +4 you bet max bet or $800. At counts in between, 0, 1, 2, 3, You can bet anything you like between those two wagers. bet $500 at +1, Bet $300 at +3, Next time at +1 bet $100, then at +2, bet $600. Just randomly (the more random, the better) you wager at the intermediate counts between minimum wager and max wager. This is a form of opposition betting. But all that really matters is your top wager and your minimum wagers are placed correctly. all those intermediate wagers even out. The variance would increase, but the Ev wouldn't change all that much...only mildly.
THIS, kind of extreme as it is, would be a 1-8 bet spread.
Now as for KewlJ's way and someone following in my footstep, if I had the chance to respond to someone wanting to follow in my footsteps, my response would be don't. I have done exactly that many times. Zenking goes back with me a long time on many forums, and even read some forums after I was gone. I bet he has read where my advice to someone wanting or saying they were going to follow in my footsteps, was don't!
Look, as a professional player, I can share some of my experiences and the way I do things without it meaning I am encouraging anyone to do anything. So don't lay that on me.
Coach belly, You are a real sleezeball. 5 different times today, I said my EV was $200/100 rounds. 1 time I mistakenly used the word hour instead of /100 round. And you jumped on that like I made some major blunder. And then do some equations that make no sense based on me making a simple mistake 1 time, when everyone knew exactly what I was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
10 hours per week x $200 per hour x 52 weeks per year = $104K per yearQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So you have been running from 23% - 43+% over your estimated EV.
How is that possible?
You are just ridiculous with you petty little "gottch ya" bullshit, when it was crystal clear what I was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Here's a question. If Person A posts multiple times that what Person B did was impossible and putting MDawg and Rob to shame with its far-fetched narrative, and Person B already posted proof of what he had done, then what is one to make of person A?
a) Dumb as a rock?
b) Serious memory issues?
c) A "sleazebag" to outdo all other sleazebags?
d) Just some dude purposefully fucking up a forum and having a chuckle?
e) Some grifter trying to funnel any readers' money into his own pockets by debunking EVERY OTHER gambler on the forum?
I think these are logical, reasonable questions.
Obviously, Person A has no interest in educating people about how Las Vegas actually works because he goes out of his way to lie about what other people have provably done IN LAS VEGAS. So what the hell is his real purpose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
This retard is a closeted homosexual.
I like how you admit to it costing more but you don't know the actual value. You talk of how sim software pays for itself 1000x over but you minimize the results. When the average house edge is when you're paying 2 units it seems like it would make a difference. And regardless of what you say you are wrong. I don't know the distribution of various counts so I can't begin to estimate. Anyway I'm not going to argue with someone who is only book./internet learned and can't think beyond that. You admit it is different and costs more.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou continue to be completely wrong about the 1-8 spread. here is anolther 1-8 spread. A bit extreme but still a 1-8 spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
any negative count you bet $100 or one unit. At TC +4 you bet max bet or $800. At counts in between, 0, 1, 2, 3, You can bet anything you like between those two wagers. bet $500 at +1, Bet $300 at +3, Next time at +1 bet $100, then at +2, bet $600. Just randomly (the more random, the better) you wager at the intermediate counts between minimum wager and max wager. This is a form of opposition betting. But all that really matters is your top wager and your minimum wagers are placed correctly. all those intermediate wagers even out. The variance would increase, but the Ev wouldn't change all that much...only mildly.
THIS, kind of extreme as it is, would be a 1-8 bet spread.
Now as for KewlJ's way and someone following in my footstep, if I had the chance to respond to someone wanting to follow in my footsteps, my response would be don't. I have done exactly that many times. Zenking goes back with me a long time on many forums, and even read some forums after I was gone. I bet he has read where my advice to someone wanting or saying they were going to follow in my footsteps, was don't!
Look, as a professional player, I can share some of my experiences and the way I do things without it meaning I am encouraging anyone to do anything. So don't lay that on me.
I've never said that you don't have an actual 1:8 spread just that it is significantly different from what you'd see results for if looking at some chart and what they mean by their results. Maybe it isn't at 200 for very long and the difference and the cost is minimized.
I don't think too many peopl4 are following in your foot steps but just like you correcting singer and dawg I feel the need to do it for you.
Kewl did they teach the word semantics at Villanova?
And I am not going to argue with someone who says "what do I know" "Maybe it is/maybe it isn't", "I don't think this or that....well maybe" and "seems to me". Account you clearly don't know about what you are arguing......but yet you still argue. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
AccountinQ, YOU have called me an expert in BJ card counting. You downplay that by saying something like it doesn't take much to be an expert, but you on several occasions now have said that you believe I am one. And at the same time you have numerous times now made reference that you are not and don't know much about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
So my question is: Why does a guy that repeatedly has said he doesn't know much about the subject, continue to argue with the guy he has called an expert numerous times? And I think we all know the answer. YOU just want to argue with me. with everything I say. :rolleyes:
Do you see yourself more as forum mascot or more of the forum clown?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnd I am not going to argue with someone who says "what do I know" "Maybe it is/maybe it isn't", "I don't think this or that....well maybe" and "seems to me". Account you clearly don't know about what you are arguing......but yet you still argue. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
You have repeated mcap 6 times now. You trying to emulate mdawg now?
I am neither the forum mascot, nor the clown. The later title belongs to Rob Singer, but several are you seem to want to take it from him. I am a blackjack player who plays for a living on a gambling forum that likes to share some of my experiences. Unfortuantly there isn't a lot of sharing of real experiences on this forum anymore. Trolls, like you have taken over and do nothing but troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I repeated Mcaps quote for a reason. Mcap is no fan of mine. Have you ever seen him defend me? No. Have you ever seen him be critical of me? yes.
So I though maybe you hearing from a guy (as many times as it takes) that has a lot of real blackjack experience and knowledge, but isn't a fan of mine, might have an impact on you, more than me just telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. But apparently it doesn't. You will say "I don't know what I am talking about, but you are wrong" almost in the same sentence.
"Our President" (<- :rolleyes:) and his supporters talk about people having Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Probably is in some cases. Well you, Dawg and other trolls have KJ Derangement Syndrome. You are obsessed and will argue with me about anything and everything I say, regardless that you acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
becaause my basic story isn't about how much free play we accumulated and played throughout the years. My basic story is an has always been about blackjack. So when discussing some side topic like free play, I had to think about it and estimate a number on the fly. It isn't something I could even go back and look. And then when you think about it a little more, you think well maybe that number is not quite right. Maybe a little high or low. So you say that. And the trolls like you jump!
And people like you repeating this troll exercise is why so many real APs have left this forum and those that remain, rarely share anything. Because your life is sitting there waiting to pounce with some "gottch ya" moment that is completely irrelevant.
My basic story and the details about blackjack NEVER changes! So much so that people have said stupid shit, like I have "worn it smooth".
Some of you trolls say it is worn smooth, while others say it changes. Which the fuck is it? The fact is you clowns with say and do anything and then say the opposite a day later. That is called throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what if any sticks. :cool:
The difference between us is I know a lot of stuff and clearly understand the distinction when I know what is fact vs what are my assumptions. I also am willing to admit to operating off assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI am neither the forum mascot, nor the clown. The later title belongs to Rob Singer, but several are you seem to want to take it from him. I am a blackjack player who plays for a living on a gambling forum that likes to share some of my experiences. Unfortuantly there isn't a lot of sharing of real experiences on this forum anymore. Trolls, like you have taken over and do nothing but troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I repeated Mcaps quote for a reason. Mcap is no fan of mine. Have you ever seen him defend me? No. Have you ever seen him be critical of me? yes.
So I though maybe you hearing from a guy (as many times as it takes) that has a lot of real blackjack experience and knowledge, but isn't a fan of mine, might have an impact on you, more than me just telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. But apparently it doesn't. You will say "I don't know what I am talking about, but you are wrong" almost in the same sentence.
"Our President" (<- :rolleyes:) and his supporters talk about people having Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Probably is in some cases. Well you, Dawg and other trolls have KJ Derangement Syndrome. You are obsessed and will argue with me about anything and everything I say, regardless that you acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about.
You on the other hand when confronted with something you don't know - you just go off on wild-ass incredibly unlikely stories.
Why do you think that is? Could it be that when it comes down to it some of us are actually interested in real AP talk and some of are far more interested in conveying the impression that they're an expert.
I'm just saying you repeated mcaps post many times now. Lol. Thats the best you can do and even Mcap said something about me not being able to determine who is an expert in sports betting. Which is far from anything I claimed as I only claimed Redietz to be an expert in cfb. His response wasn't even directly relevant and most likely driven from the fact that I don't think counting bj to be some great AP angle if you're doing it longterm professionally as your dominant source of income. A guy who goes to LV a few times a year? Sure great - have at it.
Doing it full time every week of your life? Intense concentration and all the other various issues? Concentration on something that will become incredibly mundane and repetitive if you do it full time for years on end.
lol ok we can agree Singer is clown. I still think you're our lovable mascot. When shit is down and the posters are hiding out, you come out on the field waving your hands sashaying about. 'Mmmmmmmmm-daaawg how dare you!'
The "basic story"Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Unlikely shit does happen in gambling. Especially if you play as much as I have for a living for 22 years. Sometimes unlikely bad, sometime unlikely good. I once saw a dealer at a 6 deck blackjack game pull 6 straight aces and then a 5 for a 21. I forget what my hand was but it was not a 21 and I had my max bet out and lost. Imagine that, the count was so +, indicating many 10's and aces, and then you see all those aces. But in a pattern that was like WTF!!!! I can only imagine the odds the math dudes would come up with A, A, A, A, A, A, 5. probably 18 y.o. in a row territory.
As far as Mdawg, forget for a minute that there is no way in hell Las Vegas casinos which are pretty sharp, would allow a player to win 10's of millions of dollars at any table game, for 7 years now, playing rated, while not 86ing him. He tells the opposite that they love him and comp him out the ass. That is a bigger fantasy-fiction than anything that has ever been told on any gambling forum. It is bigger fantasy that any non gambling story like jack and the beanstalk, or Cinderella.
But forget that for a moment. When he says some specific things about blackjack, like that he played a 1-50 spread ($100-$5000) for 10 straight hours, playing double deck (sweatiest game) at the sweatiest casino on the strip, I a real player have EVERY right to call bullshit. That is not real. And you know who else said he didn't believe it when Dawg repeated it on his site? Michael Shackleford. mawgs friend and protector. Wizard said he didn't believe that and then Dawg started backtracking, "well maybe it wasn't 10 hours, maybe it was 8 and a half. maybe it wasn't this, but that instead. (STILL DIDN'T HAPPEN).
But as a guy who has played millions of rounds of blackjack in Las Vegas and supported myself for 22 years, 16 in Las Vegas, I have every right to say, that is bullshit about Mdawg, Rob Singer or any other person that comes along telling a bullshit story. Mdawg is a guy writing or telling a fiction story. he came from a forum that he owns or is associated with that he promotes that is a forum for people writing stories. Thats all well and good, but you can NOt come to a gambling forum telling those stories and expect no pushback from real players that know how things work.
You can't continue to confront other members and expect no pushback...that's not how things work.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are not the definitive authority on what is bullshit.
You haven't investigated anyone else's adventures and experiences, or provided any evidence you've uncovered to contradict their stories...even when you've been invited and encouraged to do so.
So your expertise and authority doesn't extend beyond what you think.
I am not sure who else I have been "invited or encouraged" to investigate?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
But this is a fair point. I don't challenge everybody. If someone is making a claim that is mathematically possible and falls within the way things actually work (reality), I don't challenge them even if I may not believe the claim or think they have embellished. It is only when what is being claimed is just complete bullshit....fairytale shit, that I call bullshit. And that means most AP's that are claiming something possible, I wont challenge, even if I don't believe their story or parts or amounts.
The exception would be Moses. Moses was an AP. Turns out not exactly at the level he claimed, but he was an AP. Moses claims were possible of the amounts of money won playing blackjack. BUT those amounts were not possible for the length of time he claimed in Reno. THAT is what I challenged, that he could have done what he claimed in Reno.
Wow & Goody!....another opportunity to toss a few zingers at kew!Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou can't continue to confront other members and expect no pushback...that's not how things work.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are not the definitive authority on what is bullshit.
You haven't investigated anyone else's adventures and experiences, or provided any evidence you've uncovered to contradict their stories...even when you've been invited and encouraged to do so.
So your expertise and authority doesn't extend beyond what you think.
The key coach is kew likes to lie about others' reports because he HAS to. In his crossed-wires-upstairs rules, whatever he claims just has to be true. Remember, he's coming from a position of incredible weakness, and his choice to be a homo is easily traced back to that. And if he did accept what those who have always had him pegged have said, he'd become just another high-rise jumper in LV. Do you believe he could ever sleep at night if he doesn't keep repeating the same lies in the hope that he's convincing others of them?
If you want evidence whenever kew makes his claims--about himself or anybody else--you're barking up the wrong tree. He's the Gavin Newsome of the gambling forums world: "Required of thee but not of me". Again, in his twisted low-income/non-productive world, he has never gotten it right with his "I know how casinos & LV works, and that is not the way it works". He desperately needs and wants to be the final authority on his allegations and assertions of that which he does not agree with or understand, but he regularly comes up short.
The biggest phony on the internet likes to rail against everything mdawg, yet (and you are spot on about this) he continually refuses to accept any of mdawg's challenges of proof. The same with a few others, which is why he calls his critics "trolls"--a sissified word for keyboard warriors like him if there ever was one. Not having proof when it's available is a sacred trait of online trolls. That way they can safely, albeit stupidly in the eyes of others, continue to lie in order to makes themselves feel good. He stays clear of mdawg's challenges, just as he chickened out of coming to AZ. to see our Newell when I posted the address, in person like he claimed he would
With me he likes to define me by loose interpretations, fantasy, a poorly thought out set of ěnside rv pics, and a rejection of all that is real, simply because he's upset that I score so many wonderful direct hits on the him, and because he knows I know most real things about him. And him knowing he's the king of lies over the years only serves for him to be compelled to keep on telling the same old lies over and over again.
I see he just started ANOTHER thread about himself, in which it looks like redietz sliced and diced him up in minutes. Kew has never been accused of carefully writing and double-checking what he posts, and he rightfully pays for it time after time.
But be gentle on the gay concocter. It's fun watching him constantly get chopped down, only to go on another posting blitz as he tries so hard to convince people he's something he's not. :)
Even statements like this, while almost irrelevent, with little real meaning toward any discussion, shows how little you know about what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You think card counters have to sit there concentrating on what they are doing. :D
Think back to when you were a kid learning to ride a bike. For a couple weeks you had to really concentrate on what you were doing. Peddling and steering and shifting your weight just the right way so as to stay balanced.
Fast forward a couple months and you are cruising down the street, no hands on handlebar, unwrapping a piece of bubble gum barely even noticing where you are going.
THAT my friend (mate) is how card counting works after a very short time. You are on auto-pilot. And if you are smart, that frees you up to do other things than can be beneficial. Notice what pit is doing and any heat that may be coming. Check out a nearby table and see if there might be some opportunity there.
Only a person with very little experience would think and/or say something about sitting there, concertation on the cards. And then double down on their wrong assumptions.
Welcome to February everyone and the Rob Singer who "will NEVER toss another insult towards anyone again".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
LOL
Whats the word on Newsome? I knew very little about him but he's been running a train on Trump. All the other dems are basically a different version of Kewl but in national politics. Before he started pointing out who and what Trump is .. he was just another governor to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I didn't know you live in Cali btw. Or do you just take in your news from fake news and they have nothing real to write about... so they go on and on repeating stories about how Newsome is bad. (Trump is good)
Anyway.. serious question, whats the story on Newsome? Is this some fucking mask reference from 5 years ago? More to it? Whats he got hiding in his closet that isn't known?
Yea, I know.. your brain breaks into 2 things and you sit around thinking about life why the sub-brain just counts magically. It is also why you can count 3 tables at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJEven statements like this, while almost irrelevent, with little real meaning toward any discussion, shows how little you know about what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You think card counters have to sit there concentrating on what they are doing. :D
Think back to when you were a kid learning to ride a bike. For a couple weeks you had to really concentrate on what you were doing. Peddling and steering and shifting your weight just the right way so as to stay balanced.
Fast forward a couple months and you are cruising down the street, no hands on handlebar, unwrapping a piece of bubble gum barely even noticing where you are going.
THAT my friend (mate) is how card counting works after a very short time. You are on auto-pilot. And if you are smart, that frees you up to do other things than can be beneficial. Notice what pit is doing and any heat that may be coming. Check out a nearby table and see if there might be some opportunity there.
Only a person with very little experience would think and/or say something about sitting there, concertation on the cards. And then double down on their wrong assumptions.
While I'm sure it becomes a lot easier with time and second nature (duh, obviously) - you still have to occupy your mind constantly with the count. You can sit there and tell us how easy it is for Mr BJ-master but whatevers. I doubt you can count just fine and think 100% on other things.
THink what you want but find us another blackjack player who has written about doing that for years and how they like to count and keep up with it. It is mundane and repetitive as fuck. You can say I don't know what I'm talking about and while I have never gotten good at counting the fact remains. Yea, you can look around and glance at the pitboss and everything else. I'd like to see you have a really indepth convo that wasn't surface-level small talk and maintain the count.. maybe.. but very doubtful just like you counting 3 tables at once.
My low income/non-productive world hun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob which of us has:
Bankruptcies, evictions, legal judgements against us?
Lived in a trailer Park in Pahrump during the very period he claimed to have been winning millions of dollars?
Was kicked off the foodstamp program in Nevada at that same time he claimed he was winning millions of dollars? (since removed or dropped off his record)
And now, his retirement play is mooching off his children?
I don't like to talk politics too much because it is so divisive, when it should not be. You discover someone with some different political view, and all of the sudden they are your enemy. You can't have a decent conversation with them about anything. It shouldn't be THAT way. (BTW, Rob Sneider and James Woods, both big Trump supporters, both expressed similar thoughts in the recent days following Rob Riener and his Wife's death).Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
But if we are goingb to talk politics. Gavin Newsome CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose. Kamala Harris who has been looking like she intends to run, CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose. Pete Buttigieg CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose.
Dems need to look and find a moderate, younger 50's/60s' white man if they want to win. And repubs should do the same. Moderate.
I actually have someone in mind right now on the republican side that I could support. Glenn Younkin. he is not Maga (which is never what people think it was) and he is not extreme.
You've been invited to take the MDawg challenge, and encouraged to reveal whatever your investigations have revealed regarding anyone that upsets you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But hearsay doesn't qualify as evidence, so go fuck yourself.
This is you doubling/tripling down on something you know absolutely nothing about. AinQ, you really have KJ derangement syndrome mentioned earlier. If I say something you will fight me on it, no matter what it is, no matter how little you know about what is being discussed. hell, I think we are to the point that you will fight me when you know 100% you are wrong. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Take the tracking of a second table that you just mentioned (just about a thing of the past now, as there are few situations where it would work). YOU and others continue to mock this. But when this discussion came about several other blackjack players weighed in at different places that they too had done some form of this. Richard Munchkin, Don Schlesinger, A known BJ player that was here for a short while, and has asked me not to use his name on this forum and I believe a couple more. I think RS_ the known blackjack player from WOV and here (shortly) said he had done so. (RS_ used to go by rolling stoned. Don't confuse him with Rob Singer). If Kim Lee shows up again, I will ask him. I will bet he did some version of this.
So numerous other real and experienced blackjack players have done this also. And I didn't copy anything from anyone, because we didn't even know of anyone else until discussion after I had mentioned it. :rolleyes:
AinQ, can you really not see how KJ obsessive you have become (just like a few others) If I say the grass is green, you will fight me.
And so what about Newsome that makes him not moderate and unable to win? Are you suggesting he is too young?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI don't like to talk politics too much because it is so divisive, when it should not be. You discover someone with some different political view, and all of the sudden they are your enemy. You can't have a decent conversation with them about anything. It shouldn't be THAT way. (BTW, Rob Sneider and James Woods, both big Trump supporters, both expressed similar thoughts in the recent days following Rob Riener and his Wife's death).Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
But if we are goingb to talk politics. Gavin Newsome CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose. Kamala Harris who has been looking like she intends to run, CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose. Pete Buttigieg CANNOT be the democratic nominee or they will lose.
Dems need to look and find a moderate, younger 50's/60s' white man if they want to win. And repubs should do the same. Moderate.
I actually have someone in mind right now on the republican side that I could support. Glenn Younkin. he is not Maga (which is never what people think it was) and he is not extreme.
The Mdawg challenge is NOT a real thing. THAT is why no one has accepted. In the wording of the challenge Mdawg states or stated if he has changed it) that he would prove to my satisfaction. Well he canNOT prove to my satisfaction. records can be doctored, altered, AI generated. So I will not accept that. So by default I win the challenge, as he can't prove anything to my satisfaction. I'll bet he won't pay up. :D I don't want his money so he can make a donation to NPHY (Nevada Partnership for homeless youth). Let me know when you have done so Dawg.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou've been invited to take the MDawg challenge, and encouraged to reveal whatever your investigations have revealed regarding anyone that upsets you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But hearsay doesn't qualify as evidence, so go fuck yourself.
Now here is what I would accept as a challenge. Dawg has claimed he has won, about 90-95% of his sessions for years now, totaling tens of millions of dollars. He has NEVER reported a losing trip. He has NEVER reported a losing month. So he should be able to duplicate that for a month or so. We can compensate someone to follow Dawg for a month recording his play. he can play as often and long as he wants. But every session needs to be recorded by the independent monitor. None of this, I played a couple big winning sessions that weren't included.
And at the end of the month period, we will just see if the monitored recorded sessions come anywhere close to the winning percentage and amounts he claims and has claimed for years now.
Oh, this is just something that can never be proven nor can you demonstrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThis is you doubling/tripling down on something you know absolutely nothing about. AinQ, you really have KJ derangement syndrome mentioned earlier. If I say something you will fight me on it, no matter what it is, no matter how little you know about what is being discussed. hell, I think we are to the point that you will fight me when you know 100% you are wrong. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Take the tracking of a second table that you just mentioned (just about a thing of the past now, as there are few situations where it would work). YOU and others continue to mock this. But when this discussion came about several other blackjack players weighed in at different places that they too had done some form of this. Richard Munchkin, Don Schlesinger, A known BJ player that was here for a short while, and has asked me not to use his name on this forum and I believe a couple more. I think RS_ the known blackjack player from WOV and here (shortly) said he had done so. (RS_ used to go by rolling stoned. Don't confuse him with Rob Singer). If Kim Lee shows up again, I will ask him. I will bet he did some version of this.
So numerous other real and experienced blackjack players have done this also. And I didn't copy anything from anyone, because we didn't even know of anyone else until discussion after I had mentioned it. :rolleyes:
AinQ, can you really not see how KJ obsessive you have become (just like a few others) If I say the grass is green, you will fight me.
Just like you counting 3 tables. You can insist you are superman counter or whatever the fuck but it doesn't mean you're more right. Of COURSE you'll fight for whatever you claimed and never back down. You have something no one else can prove. Even when it can be demonstrated you made it up and everyone else is laughing - you don't back down.
Come'on Kewl. No one takes you seriously and very few will. ZenKing?
I have seen nothing to suggest you even have the capability of being honest to yourself as far as your mental ability while keeping a running count.
There is no derangement here, we just know you're full of shit about so much. Not too bright. etc etc. Counting Cards seems like it'd really blow as far as a longterm profession. For many many reasons - many of which are the same reasons people don't believe your story as a whole.
I NEVER mocked tracking a second table. At some point you suggested you could and did on occasion track 3.. I'm not why you keep switching it around but it is like everything with you - disengenious and only meant to try and reinforce this life narrative you present. Reality has no value to you when on the forums. You went with 2 then upped it to 3 and people were like wtf lol. Same pattern you've demonstrated repeatedly. Now when I bring it up and say 3 tables, you respond as if I said 2 when it is very clear. You live in fantasyland. Sorry.
Newsome is too liberal for main stream America. And even if he weren't too liberal, and was moderate enough, he is perceived as a California liberal and can't win in main stream, main street America. Same as Bernie sanders, OAC, Elizabeth warren could never win.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
To be honest, I don't think a female can win in main stream, main street American. Nor a gay guy. Even if their politics were right to do so.
Stop with the 3 tables. That is just you trying to make something out of nothing. The technique was about tracking a second table while playing one. But when you can do that as many real and experienced card counters have, then yes you could track a 3rd table for a very short time under the perfect conditions. And THAT is what I said. I think I did it maybe twice, maybe 3 times. the other two tables one on each side had to be starting (after shuffle point) about the same time. You could track for a round, possibly two and then you drop the worse of the tables and continue tracking only the second until you decide which is the better opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionOh, this is just something that can never be proven nor can you demonstrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThis is you doubling/tripling down on something you know absolutely nothing about. AinQ, you really have KJ derangement syndrome mentioned earlier. If I say something you will fight me on it, no matter what it is, no matter how little you know about what is being discussed. hell, I think we are to the point that you will fight me when you know 100% you are wrong. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Take the tracking of a second table that you just mentioned (just about a thing of the past now, as there are few situations where it would work). YOU and others continue to mock this. But when this discussion came about several other blackjack players weighed in at different places that they too had done some form of this. Richard Munchkin, Don Schlesinger, A known BJ player that was here for a short while, and has asked me not to use his name on this forum and I believe a couple more. I think RS_ the known blackjack player from WOV and here (shortly) said he had done so. (RS_ used to go by rolling stoned. Don't confuse him with Rob Singer). If Kim Lee shows up again, I will ask him. I will bet he did some version of this.
So numerous other real and experienced blackjack players have done this also. And I didn't copy anything from anyone, because we didn't even know of anyone else until discussion after I had mentioned it. :rolleyes:
AinQ, can you really not see how KJ obsessive you have become (just like a few others) If I say the grass is green, you will fight me.
Just like you counting 3 tables. You can insist you are superman counter or whatever the fuck but it doesn't mean you're more right. Of COURSE you'll fight for whatever you claimed and never back down. You have something no one else can prove. Even when it can be demonstrated you made it up and everyone else is laughing - you don't back down.
Come'on Kewl. No one takes you seriously and very few will. ZenKing?
I have seen nothing to suggest you even have the capability of being honest to yourself as far as your mental ability while keeping a running count.
There is no derangement here, we just know you're full of shit about so much. Not too bright. etc etc. Counting Cards seems like it'd really blow as far as a longterm profession. For many many reasons - many of which are the same reasons people don't believe your story as a whole.
I NEVER mocked tracking a second table. At some point you suggested you could and did on occasion track 3.. I'm not why you keep switching it around but it is like everything with you - disengenious and only meant to try and reinforce this life narrative you present. Reality has no value to you when on the forums. You went with 2 then upped it to 3 and people were like wtf lol. Same pattern you've demonstrated repeatedly. Now when I bring it up and say 3 tables, you respond as if I said 2 when it is very clear. You live in fantasyland. Sorry.
Account, even non-card counters are familiar with the MIT story and movie aren't they? That "spotter/call in approach" used by the MIT team and many teams dating back to ken Uston and AL Francesco, who is credited with the play. You have heard of this right? Well the spotters were tracking as much as 4-5 tables at one time, looking for that favorable count to call in a player. You don't even need the specific count! You just need to be sure it is enough that the table is significantly +EV.
Well playing one table and tracking a second is nothing compared to tracking 4-5 tables. A real and experienced player can do this in his sleep almost.
This is the laughable point in any argument about this topic. I am not a superman counter. I am a good card counter just because I have been at it so long and have kept to a simpler count minimizing mistakes. But you simply do not have to be a superman counter (whatever that is) to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
And no! No one is going to prove it to you. Alan wanted to film me. Like I, an anonymous card counter, trying to stay that way would do that.
Do you think any AP, trying to stay anonymous is going to come to you and prove something to you? What world do you live in?
If that is true, then you cannot lose the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
The challenge presents the opportunity to collect and present evidence, but you refuse to participate in that endeavor.
If you don't take the challenge, then you can't legitimately claim what he can or cannot do....because you're only willing to limit your authority to what you think...not what you have observed that he can or cannot do.
There can be no challenge dip shit! Therefore there is no opportunity to collect anything. It is just another Mdawg troll game.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIf that is true, then you cannot lose the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
The challenge presents the opportunity to collect and present evidence, but you refuse to participate in that endeavor.
If you don't take the challenge, then you can't legitimately claim what he can or cannot do....because you're only willing to limit your authority to what you think...not what you have observed that he can or cannot do.
The only reason you insist that there can be no challenge is because you won't participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That's not legit. Follow up on the challenge and try to prove MDawg is bullshitting.
Or work out a darkoz-type challenge.
I'll bet that if you and MDawg had a contest to see who could win (or win more) over a period of time, MDawg would win.
Over what period of time do you think you could win more playing BJ, than MDawg could win playing Bac?
Since you think that you have the mathematical edge, name your terms.
Dude, I am not having some pissing gambling contest with someone. Shades of Moses wanting to play me one on one in blackjack. :D THAT is NOT what I do. I am a professional player who beats the casinos in blackjack.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
The darkoz challenge was not a challenge really. It was a free roll for Mdawg. But I have offered a completely fair challenge to both parties where Dawg would be monitored for a reasonable length of time and trials (1 month) and see if his results match what he has claimed for 7 years now. I don't know how much more fair you can get. And I am willing to put up a good amount of money on this fair wager. If dawg has some magical method to win month after month after month after month, like he has claimed for 7 years now, it would be a layup win for him.
Coach loves challenges.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJDude, I am not having some pissing gambling contest with someone. Shades of Moses wanting to play me one on one in blackjack. :D THAT is NOT what I do. I am a professional player who beats the casinos in blackjack.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
The darkoz challenge was not a challenge really. It was a free roll for Mdawg. But I have offered a completely fair challenge to both parties where Dawg would be monitored for a reasonable length of time and trials (1 month) and see if his results math what he has claimed for 7 years now. I don't know how much more fair you can get. And I am willing to put up a good amount of money on this fair wager. If dawg has some magical method to win month after month after month after month, like he has claimed for 7 years now, it would be a layup win for him.
Everyone that was here at the time remembers when he eagerly volunteered to fly to Vegas to be a judge in the Boz-Singer 9-1/2” cock challenge
My guess is that he would have been a real “hands-on” judge :rolleyes:
I'm certain that I asked you to name your terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It seems like you have something in mind...so don't be so vague...name your terms.
Sklansky recommended disguising your minimum bet on your first bet decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionMost people who are starting to look into blackjack and just starting to evaluate it are not going to be using simulations. They're going to be using books/articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIf you are reading blackjack books and looking at charts, then you are stuck in the last century. Don Schlesinger, author of like THE book on blackjack, Blackjack Attack which is just full of charts, graphs, numbers, was one of the biggest influences on me and my career. And I have had the pleasure of communicating privately with him often, although not recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
But as good as that book is, if someone is using the charts from that book or any book, they are doing it all wrong. Today and for a while now, professional players get their information from computer software simulation. Some of the top players write their own, but Norm's software (Qfit products) is as good as any and more than adequate.
And the best part is you can spend hours tinking with bet spread, ramp, shutdown points (negative counts) until you find what works and is acceptable to you for a win rate without compromising everything else. then you look at the RoR for whatever you have come up with and see if that works for your bankroll.
So when tinkering one of the things you will find is there are some things that don't cost nearly what conventional wisdom says it does. Spreading both ways is one of them. Another is playing card counter basic strategy (CCBS). the old books liked to tell you that playing index plays, Don's 18, or 20, or 25 was worth about 25% of the total you can win. It just is NOT. If you set the simulation for CCBS, you will see you lose like 5%. And that 5% loss for eliminating one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently at different times is well worth in longevity.
Then is you do something that has a little cost like betting $200 at zero instead of $100 and you feel that is too much a cost for you and your target win rate, you can further tinker and see where you can make some of that up. Maybe Max Bets slightly earlier at TC +3.5 instead of 4. Maybe exit the game at TC of -2 instead of -3, or maybe in between at -2.5.
There is hundreds of combinations you can tinker with until you find what works for you, and results in the Ev you are looking for. That is the beauty of software simulations vs the old charts. The possibilities are endless. You can't do that with the "canned simulations" in books.
If someone is getting into card counting, whether having dreams to play for a living, or just recreational for decent money (more than red chip), simulation software should be their very first purchase. It will pay for itself 100 times over, thousands of times if you do make a career of it.
Your bet spread is not 1:8 in the same way meant in the books.
So if someone was going to see "oh this is the kewl one's way of doing it I am going to follow in his foosteps" they need to at least understand that your 1:8 spread is just not the same.
It is interesting for a guy who uses sims so much and such that you don't know how much the spreading both ways costs you. You give me paragraphs of the different things you can and can't do but ..
This homosexual is a closeted retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
You are a blowhard blabbermouth who has refused to verify anything about your gaming results, while insisting that others are lying about their results.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When presented with the opportunity to verify your results, you refuse to participate.
But you are anxious to examine the results of other members under your conditions.
That's not how things work. How about you go fuck yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
Something I have noticed about CB. Whenever some challenge pops up, whether me or dawg or Singer or anyone else, belly is right there interjecting himself into it, setting terms ect. You feel like you are negotiating with someone's rep or something when he has nothing to do with it.
I remember Singer claiming 9 1/2. But I don't really remember a challenge with Boz. Don't doubt it, just don't remember and have zero interest in looking it up.
But here is something about that. I doubt many people know this but I am a gay guy. :D So most gay dudes have pretty good gaydar, as discussed recently. I think mine is pretty good. Works best when you are in person and can hear the person talk and see mannerism, but you can get a reading from pictures and written word, what they talk about and how they talk. So I have already expressed my opinion on Singer in that regard.
But another thing we have is the ability to know what someone is packing. Mostly it is in the hands. the hands almost never lie. You almost never see a guy with small hands that has a big dick. (sorry Mr. Trump but it is true). Well I have seen Robs hands on a couple of these videos and that dude in NOT packing 9+. He would be lucky is he ever had 6 on a good day. But now, proabbly a 2.5 inch turtle that he can't get hard.
Your gaydar must have gotten a hit on Keystone.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Who would care about, or even think about this, unless they were gay?
Newsome has forced the closure of two refineries. One already down and the other will go down next spring. It's causing a 20% reduction in fuel being produced. They already have the highest price in the nation but it's going to skyrocket next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhats the word on Newsome? I knew very little about him but he's been running a train on Trump. All the other dems are basically a different version of Kewl but in national politics. Before he started pointing out who and what Trump is .. he was just another governor to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I didn't know you live in Cali btw. Or do you just take in your news from fake news and they have nothing real to write about... so they go on and on repeating stories about how Newsome is bad. (Trump is good)
Anyway.. serious question, whats the story on Newsome? Is this some fucking mask reference from 5 years ago? More to it? Whats he got hiding in his closet that isn't known?
Oregon has no refineries. They will be totally dependent on Washington which already has the 3rd highest gas. The Portland area is scared shitless that their economy will implode. And those Washington refineries are under pressure to close too.
I pay attention to this shit because of where I live.
California gas in $4.33
Washington gas is $3.97
Oregon gas is $3.57
Idaho gas is $2.94
Montana gas is $2.87
We have two refineries in Montana so gas prices aren't so bad. But if they start shipping the gas elsewhere because of Newsome's bullshit then those of us in the northwest will suffer paying more. Newsome's actions affect more than just his state.
Interesting. I know of him, but never read much of his work or thoughts. But not surprised. When you sit down the first bet is the bet they mark down. Sometimes the first couple bets. And then they compare later bets to that first bet. So anything you can do to disguise that first bet is going to pay big dividends. Almost makes me wonder if you opened up with your max bet or maybe 1/2 max bet what THAT would buy you? Wow! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSklansky recommended disguising your minimum bet on your first bet decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionMost people who are starting to look into blackjack and just starting to evaluate it are not going to be using simulations. They're going to be using books/articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Your bet spread is not 1:8 in the same way meant in the books.
So if someone was going to see "oh this is the kewl one's way of doing it I am going to follow in his foosteps" they need to at least understand that your 1:8 spread is just not the same.
It is interesting for a guy who uses sims so much and such that you don't know how much the spreading both ways costs you. You give me paragraphs of the different things you can and can't do but ..
Mickey, do you know of Zengrifter? I don't think he wrote a book (could be wrong). A lot of people don't like him because he did some white-collar shit outside of BJ that landed him in Country club Fed prison for a bit. But he was a pretty clever blackjack player. I always got along well with him, although he labeled me "young whippersnapper" when I first hit the forums because I was younger and newer than everyone else at the time. Last I saw of him, he was occasionally posting at GF.
Anyway, ZG was responsible for some of my "cover" thinking with disguising wagers, including one I talked about this morning. Min wager, Max wager and random Kaos in between. I don't know if he advocated a complete spreading of both ways like I do, but he definitely talked about not playing you minimum wager at zero counts or at least all zero counts.
Now the thing about that, is conventical thinking was just the conclusion that acctinQ came to, that because of the higher frequency of the Zero count (bucket) that not playing minimum has too high of a cost. But you have to remember that zero count "bucket" also has a very small house advantage. Towards the + end of the bucket it may even be close to break even. So the cost isn't as much as you might initially think. And just like I told acctinQ today, you start playing around with the software and you discover a whole bunch of stuff that isn't as bad (or as good) as conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Not lecturing you Crimm. I know you know all of this. just having a good conversation that maybe someone else can take something from.
Question though Mick? You have more card counting experience that you have let on over the years don't you? probably long ago now, but it is more than you have told us isn't it? :D
What is the alternative to suffering by paying more?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The alternative is being happy by paying lessQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat is the alternative to suffering by paying more?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
This retard doesn't gamble.
Well of course he does Jdaewoo. Can you not read. This guy has reported wins totaling $870,000 in just the last 2 weeks. What are you having a problem with that such a high- end player, would immediately run over to VCT a forum 10 people to troll someone? Isn't that what all the wealthy folks do? Doesn't Buffet go to a stock forum with 10 members each night to troll someone. :D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
You want to know the absolute best part of the $870k won in the last 2 weeks by dawg (in this fantasy)? It was the day he reported 3 sessions. -$800k, +$130k, +720k. Surprise, surprise, even THAT day ended up a winner. :cool:
Dude is the greatest EVER. Never had a losing month. Never had a losing trip. :cool: