But your point is based on a false premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
But yurQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungIsn't that a type of Gambler's Fallacy?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Exactly my point Bill
Printable View
But your point is based on a false premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisBut yurQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungIsn't that a type of Gambler's Fallacy?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Exactly my point Bill
You should be done with this topic. You should have been done before you even opened your mouth, using Singer's talking points to prove your ignorance on a topic you haven't a clue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI think I had the measles when they taught this lesson in math: losing dollars is okay because you thought you should be winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I promise I am done with this. No one ever told me EV DOLLARS is what it's all about.
No, you go answer a call of nature whether you actually have to answer one or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
How can you get into a high positive count heads-up situation without playing negative or marginal counts?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayNo, you go answer a call of nature whether you actually have to answer one or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Didn't poker player David Sklansky write if you lose then you weren't playing optimally?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou should be done with this topic. You should have been done before you even opened your mouth, using Singer's talking points to prove your ignorance on a topic you haven't a clue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI think I had the measles when they taught this lesson in math: losing dollars is okay because you thought you should be winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I promise I am done with this. No one ever told me EV DOLLARS is what it's all about.
Maybe, you should take some time off, and look at ways to improve your game. Over the next 30 years, say, of staring at multiple tables to count cards, and posting on gambling forums to make sure that the WoV et al doesn't forget you, a small improvement in tact or technique might go a long way.
Losing is a good thing? Then improve upon it.
Assuming you're taking out one thousand a week in addition to maintaining your bankroll, cutting ev in half (by betting at a lower level) doesn't sound quite right. What am I missing?
You play the neutral count - the high negative count is abandoned with a bathroom break.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHow can you get into a high positive count heads-up situation without playing negative or marginal counts?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayNo, you go answer a call of nature whether you actually have to answer one or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Don't play the Singer card because Singer has nothing to do with this. Now I am not going to debate you anymore, because others are starting to do a good job of it now. You are using, what Lane Kirkland (Google him) once called "voodoo economics." I have never in my life seen so much bullshit before. You lost $8800 and you have the nerve to tell us it was "my best day of the year"? WTF kid????Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou should be done with this topic. You should have been done before you even opened your mouth, using Singer's talking points to prove your ignorance on a topic you haven't a clue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI think I had the measles when they taught this lesson in math: losing dollars is okay because you thought you should be winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I promise I am done with this. No one ever told me EV DOLLARS is what it's all about.
Try counting cards at a $25 minimum game with a $100 bankroll compared to a $50,000 one. That's why you resize.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisWhat risk. You have all that accumulated EV to cash in on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbTo keep your Risk of Ruin next to nil.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
But seriously, as KEWL answered, you can't recoup if you decrease too much. Also, if you do believe in the math and the accumulated EV, you will have decreased at a time that you should be winning. Just seems a slight dichotomy.
You missed it, jbjb. We're starting to giggle at all this "accumulated EV." The emperor has no clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbTry counting cards at a $25 minimum game with a $100 bankroll compared to a $50,000 one. That's why you resize.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisWhat risk. You have all that accumulated EV to cash in on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
But seriously, as KEWL answered, you can't recoup if you decrease too much. Also, if you do believe in the math and the accumulated EV, you will have decreased at a time that you should be winning. Just seems a slight dichotomy.
That is fine you old fossil! I'll return your disrespect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
A for the rest of you blabbering, you really just proving your ignorance. Just like numerous other topic, everyone that actually has a clue is just laughing at your stupidity.
kewlj you live in a fantasy world. I'm done with you. And say what you want. I'm not going to respond. You're dead to me, too.
His best day EVwise but his results were off. Alan, with the stop win/stop loss, you are the voodoo gambler. You like to stick a pin in it. Like that is going to do any good. All that stop loss you did after you hit those big royals didn't do you a bit of good because you wound up blowing all the money back anyway. It just prolonged your misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDon't play the Singer card because Singer has nothing to do with this. Now I am not going to debate you anymore, because others are starting to do a good job of it now. You are using, what Lane Kirkland (Google him) once called "voodoo economics." I have never in my life seen so much bullshit before. You lost $8800 and you have the nerve to tell us it was "my best day of the year"? WTF kid????Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou should be done with this topic. You should have been done before you even opened your mouth, using Singer's talking points to prove your ignorance on a topic you haven't a clue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The problem with losing to conceal winning is the always coming back. Persons who lose keep on losing. Not losing doesn't equal not winning.
And it's what you do and don't do at the blackjack tables that gets you into trouble. Not what you do in the washrooms.
No, he wrote that if you aren't taking a lot of variance, both positive and negative, you aren't playing optimally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
I believe it was in his relatively short, thirty pages or so, soft cover book on Razz poker, but he may have mentioned it in others. And that he meant it strictly in the context of actually knowing the others' cards. How ones strategy ultimately differs from that. To play perfect poker would be to know the others' cards. Ie, optimal strategy. Sort of like "running through the finish line". Trying to do the impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmNo, he wrote that if you aren't taking a lot of variance, both positive and negative, you aren't playing optimally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
There is no such thing as a stop win, so you stop. The voodoo is telling me that that a fantasy win with EV is equal to real dollars. Wake up call: it's not. Quit the bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmHis best day EVwise but his results were off. Alan, with the stop win/stop loss, you are the voodoo gambler. You like to stick a pin in it. Like that is going to do any good. All that stop loss you did after you hit those big royals didn't do you a bit of good because you wound up blowing all the money back anyway. It just prolonged your misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDon't play the Singer card because Singer has nothing to do with this. Now I am not going to debate you anymore, because others are starting to do a good job of it now. You are using, what Lane Kirkland (Google him) once called "voodoo economics." I have never in my life seen so much bullshit before. You lost $8800 and you have the nerve to tell us it was "my best day of the year"? WTF kid????Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
"His best day EVwise but his results were off"? Give me a friggin break. What planet do you live on?
You haven't a clue what you are talking about and you are making yourself look extremely stupid to the people lurking this forum. But if you don't care then I don't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Blackjack is a thin edge game. If your bankroll size allows you to play though $100,000 dollars of expectation (EV) a year then you are going to have winning days and losing days. But your results at the end of the year should be pretty close to expectation. It could be more or less. If you insert a stop loss in your play, say $2000 a day, then you won't get very close to running the 100K in expectation in a year because of the loss of hours of play. If you go $2000 stuck sometime during the day it doesn't mean you will continue to lose for the rest of the day.
Mickey, Mickey, Mickey. EV is one thing. Winning is one thing. Losing is one thing. To tell me you had positive EV but you lost $8800 and you had the best day is a far reach.
Now, I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't drink. So you're going to have a hard time --- a very hard time --- feeding me this kind of BS.
Adios to you, too. Go back to posting photos of casinos.
Here's what this is really about. Alan has a hard-on about discrediting me. He has tried to from the day I joined this site, every chance he got. So he challenges everything I say. What he doesn't realize is none of what I say or do I stuff that I have come up with. These are mathematically proven techniques utilizes by many, many professional players and teams that have won 10's, even hundreds of millions of dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou haven't a clue what you are talking about and you are making yourself look extremely stupid to the people lurking this forum. But if you don't care then I don't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So Alan hears some concept about EV that he has no clue about because he is a degenerative gambler, NOT an AP and he thinks it's bullshit. But it is all mathematically proven stuff. I take no credit for it. I am not even a math guy. I just benefit from learning these math concepts from other people who are much smarter 'math' guys.
So Alan isn't really challenging me as he thinks and gets a hard-on about. He is challenging the mathematics, the proven mathematics....proven by many, many professional players that have make millions and millions of dollars.
Alan is just a degenerative gambler, completely ignorant of winning play, advantage play. Hell, he doesn't even realize how much he is embarrassing himself.