The Thread Without Argentino

Well, Argentino was supposed to be limited to a couple of threads. As I sit here, the previous seven threads all have Argentino's brilliance on display for all to read. So is this another math issue for Argentino? Or does Dan believe Argentino's math should be in each and every thread?

Now of course I purposefully put Argentino's name in the title of this thread so he can claim he should be posting in this one because he's mentioned.

Anyway, since Argentino has infiltrated virtually every thread, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted to him not being able to post in it. It's kind of like the opposite of what kewlJ proposed. Rather than have threads that seek to contain all of the disadvantage play, maybe start one thread that's actually about advantage play.

Will anyone second the motion?

Note: Not You, Argentino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Rather than have threads that seek to contain all of the disadvantage play, maybe start one thread that's actually about advantage play.

---

Alan has hit three $100K royals since I have been a member of this forum.

I understand that Alan wants it publicly known that he has never had a winning year in the casinos.

But Alan has admitted to losing his VP winnings at the craps tables.

Alan, have you ever had a winning year at video poker, and are you ahead lifetime at video poker?

One year doesn't matter. Only lifetime results do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

One year doesn't matter. Only lifetime results do.

---

That's why I asked if he was ahead lifetime at VP.

His potential answer must terrify you.

So if Mr. Mendelson plays negative expectation video poker and is ahead lifetime after so many hands, that should terrify some people? Is that the logic here? I can see that as unsettling and a disconfirmation of advantage play principles, depending on his number of hands.

On the other hand, I have never hit a royal more than $1200, and I'm ahead about $5100 lifetime. Should that be a confirmation of advantage play principles? I've only played about half a million hands lifetime, so I'm not sure that's enough hands. I count free play winnings directly generated from the video poker towards the total. I still have a couple hundred in free play stashed, so they are not counted in the total.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I can see that as unsettling and a disconfirmation of advantage play principles, depending on his number of hands.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So if Mr. Mendelson plays negative expectation video poker and is ahead lifetime after so many hands, that should terrify some people? Is that the logic here? I can see that as unsettling and a disconfirmation of advantage play principles, depending on his number of hands.

On the other hand, I have never hit a royal more than $1200, and I'm ahead about $5100 lifetime. Should that be a confirmation of advantage play principles? I've only played about half a million hands lifetime, so I'm not sure that's enough hands. I count free play winnings directly generated from the video poker towards the total. I still have a couple hundred in free play stashed, so they are not counted in the total.

---

It shouldn't terrify anyone.

Being ahead or behind at any time has nothing to do with any sort of advantage play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Being ahead or behind at any time has nothing to do with any sort of advantage play.

---

Can a player reach the longterm?...whereby it would be mathematically impossible for him to be ahead playing negative expectation VP?

And redietz wonders why he is known for his weird posts.....

I understand the level of hurt I pounded you with red by exposing you and your sleazy "partners" for what they really do. But you are soooo corny when you try to get back.

See, the problem with the post above is that, like many by its author, it is a complete non sequitur having nothing to do with the previous posts. So now I'm supposed to respond to the usual lying personal attack by asking, "Pray tell, what is it I do that is sleazy? Pray tell, what is it you have exposed about me?" Obviously if the gentleman posting above had any evidence of sleaze or things exposed, it would be here for all to see.

And then we are off into the rabbit hole. Coach had actually asked a reasonable question, although "impossible" is a tricky word. One day, the sun will not come up, so that is not impossible. But for a pragmatist, I think a one in a billion chance is a fair definition of impossible.

The gentleman had an opportunity to stay out of one blessed thread, and he chose to not take it. And he compounded that with a personal attack sans evidence.

Red, you bring up the fact that I've exposed you for being a forum troll for your business, in almost every post you make. Clearly, you can't shake the upset stomach over it.

And I love every minute of watching you squirm for being so sleazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach had actually asked a reasonable question, although "impossible" is a tricky word.

---

I was referencing a self-proclaimed AP's assertion....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

NO betting system, progressive or otherwise can turn a negative expectation game into a winning game long-term. It is simply mathematically impossible

---

The question is...can a player reach the long-term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, you bring up the fact that I've exposed you for being a forum troll for your business, in almost every post you make. Clearly, you can't shake the upset stomach over it.

And I love every minute of watching you squirm for being so sleazy.

---

Well, I don't recall recruiting people for free lessons in Reno or Tahoe, so I must be slipping vis-à-vis trolling for customers. I'll work on that, but I am a bit rusty, never having done it. Perhaps I could find somebody to give me lessons about how to recruit people for "free lessons."

Any volunteers? I only know one bloke on this board who has any experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach had actually asked a reasonable question, although "impossible" is a tricky word.

---

I was referencing a self-proclaimed AP's assertion....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

NO betting system, progressive or otherwise can turn a negative expectation game into a winning game long-term. It is simply mathematically impossible

---

---

No, that's a different context, coach. KewlJ is talking about turning a negative game into a positive game and the mechanics of that. He's not talking about a billion-hand run. Two completely different things. If you want math theorems explained, you'll have to consult someone who teaches probability at a university level. I mean, if you really want to know, a friggin' message board isn't the place to go. If you don't want to know, then don't consult a mathematician. Your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, that's a different context, coach. KewlJ is talking about turning a negative game into a positive game and the mechanics of that. .

---

No...he said turning a negative game into a winning game.

He asserts that winning at a negative game in the long-term is impossible, no matter what the betting system.

The math theorists may insist that the long-term expectation can never be positive,
but does that matter if no player can ever reach the long-term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, that's a different context, coach. KewlJ is talking about turning a negative game into a positive game and the mechanics of that. .

---

No...he said turning a negative game into a winning game.

He asserts that winning at a negative game in the long-term is impossible, no matter what the betting system.

---

Coach, after years of this, why don't you simply go to the closest university and spend two hours asking someone who teaches probability? It's quick, elegant, and saves you time. Plus you can have some confidence in the answer. KewlJ doesn't have a math degree. I certainly do not. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino do not. Just go to an expert and get your questions answered.

If the university professor has anything to say either way, and you want to share, please do so. Math professionals are not that scary. If you really want good answers, go check them out. Most will be happy to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach, after years of this, why don't you simply go to the closest university and spend two hours asking someone who teaches probability

---

I'm interested to know if a player can win in the long-term at negative expectation VP.

My expectation is that university professors will explain that it is possible.

You know, this really comes down to too many attempted "gotcha" moments and language. But I pay attention to language, so my take is this:

1) Can "a" player win in the long term at negative expectation vp? Probably, since a player has a limited lifespan and only so many hours to devote to video poker. The odds may be ten million to one or fifty million to one, but it would not be a 0.0000000000000000 probability. For all practical purposes, it is impossible, but for all practical purposes wasn't part of the question.

2) Can a system win in the long term playing negative expectation video poker -- no.

But I have no math degree, so I defer to math professionals. I don't really discern much difference between a one in ten million chance and none, but I gamble in a real world, so I try to not get into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates that have no bearing on me. Other folks may enjoy the idea or "having a one-in-50,000,000 chance" as opposed to "no chance at all." I don't.

Why would anyone play a game wherein, in your lifetime, you have a one in fifty million chance of winning? What sense does that make? What difference should it make vis-à-vis a 0.0 chance? You do one but not the other? You advocate one but not the other?

Just ask the math professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Can "a" player win in the long term at negative expectation vp? Probably

---

So your answer is "yes"...a player can win in the long term at negative expectation VP.

Is that correct...that your answer is yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Can "a" player win in the long term at negative expectation vp? Probably

---

So your answer is "yes"...a player can win in the long term at negative expectation VP.

Is that correct...that your answer is yes?

---

You're trying too hard, coach. Consult a math professional.

Your question is exactly the same as, "Can a burst of solar radiation cause a mutation in me that allows me to grow seventy feet tall and read minds?" The answer is yes. "Can a meatball fall from an Italian restaurant patio in Venice, be carried by a small dog to the docks, and make it to the United States, where it poisons the governor of New York's cat?" The answer, again, is yes. These questions all have the same real world relevance.

I think, in fact, that I now have an answer to the question, "Can a player win long term playing negative expectation video poker?" From here on, I will answer ,"You have as much chance winning at negative expectation video poker lifetime as I do of being struck by solar radiation and mutating into one of the Fantastic Four."

I think this answer is statistically sound and, if nothing else, will drive folks to consult their local math professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Can "a" player win in the long term at negative expectation vp? Probably

---

So your answer is "yes"...a player can win in the long term at negative expectation VP.

Is that correct...that your answer is yes?

---

Your question is exactly the same as, "Can a burst of solar radiation cause a mutation in me that allows me to grow seventy feet tall and read minds?" The answer is yes. "Can a meatball fall from an Italian restaurant patio in Venice, be carried by a small dog to the docks, and make it to the United States, where it poisons the governor of New York's cat?" The answer, again, is yes.

---

No...of course the questions are not exactly the same.

When discussing negative expectation VP, you've agreed that a player can win in the long-term.

How about the short-term, can a player win in the short-term?

You have as much chance of winning long term at negative expectation video poker as I do of being struck by solar radiation and transforming into one of the Fantastic Four. The answers to the questions are the same.

So I'm glad we're in agreement that I can become one of the Fantastic Four.

Coach, you don't mind my quoting you that I can become a member of the Fantastic Four, right? You can pick which member. I'm flexible -- LOL. I guess that's a Reed Richards pun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You have as much chance of winning long term at negative expectation video poker as I do of being struck by solar radiation and transforming into one of the Fantastic Four. The answers to the questions are the same.

---

I can't comment on the Fantastic Four.

You've stipulated that a player can win in the long term.

Can a player ever reach the long term?

Can a player win in the short term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You have as much chance of winning long term at negative expectation video poker as I do of being struck by solar radiation and transforming into one of the Fantastic Four. The answers to the questions are the same.

---

I can't comment on the Fantastic Four.

You've stipulated that a player can win in the long term.

Can a player ever reach the long term?

Can a player win in the short term?

---

I've stipulated that a player has as much chance of winning in the long term as I do of becoming a member of the Fantastic Four. I can get into this -- asking "Can this happen?" regarding all kinds of questions wherein there is no provable 0.0% likelihood.

For example -- I'm thinking of asking, "Can a spaceship full of Siamese twins who all look like Raquel Welch land tomorrow?" Certainly the answer is not 0.0. So let's go with it. Coach and I are stipulating, since the probability is not a provable 0.0%, that a spaceship full of Siamese Raquel Welch twins can land tomorrow.

What's next? "Can the US government grow a James Garner clone and reboot The Rockford Files?" Clearly, the probability of this is not 0.0% It can be done. And, knowing the US Government (there are many Rockford fans in the military), this may have a better shot than winning at negative video poker lifetime.

I stipulate that one can win at negative video poker lifetime with the same confidence that one can stand outside tomorrow and wait for a spaceship with the Raquel lookalikes.

"Can this happen?" is a great question. Whenever it's asked, however, I will start with "Sure, and I can be a member of the Fantastic Four tomorrow." It's all good to know and absolutely relevant to real world gambling. Just ask coach.

A better question is, can someone "make a living playing negative EV casinos games for the rest of their lives?" The answer is a resounding NO!

Coach I'll save you the time talking to these idiots who obviously have no higher education. And I believe you agree--redietz is just plain weird.

Neither of them knows anything about whether a person playing -EV games can win over a period of time. Why? Because neither of them has any experience in it. I do. They have nothing more than not being able to comprehend the play method.....along with theory. And redietz is a proven liar as we all know, and both of them are anonymous. That says it all.

When you take these angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions and translate the odds into real life, the improbability of what you're being asked to swallow takes shape. So winning at negative expectation video poker over the course of a lifetime -- can a person do it? Sure, the odds may be a couple million to one against, but that's "not impossible," right?

There have been about 100,000 people who fell 10,000 feet or more in airline crashes since 1940. Fifty-something have survived.

Your plane comes apart at 30,000 feet, you plummet to earth and survive. Then you decide, after recovering from your injuries, you'll fly home, and the plane you take home also comes apart at 30,000 feet, and you fall and survive again -- those are what a couple million to one odds look like when applied to real life.

The "Can this happen?" questions serve no real use. It's impossible to prove I cannot become a member of the Fantastic Four, and it's impossible to prove someone cannot survive back-to-back planes coming apart at 30,000 feet. But of what use is asking, "Can a person survive back-to-back planes coming apart at 30,000 feet?" What good does that question serve?

deleted

Redietz you are a troll.

Yes, there was a year I was positive for video poker but the profit was small and did not offset the losses for craps, live poker including tournaments and other legal recreational gambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

A better question is, can someone "make a living playing negative EV casinos games for the rest of their lives?" The answer is a resounding NO!

---

An even better question is would society and these gamblers be better off if professional gamblers had other jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So winning at negative expectation video poker over the course of a lifetime -- can a person do it? Sure, the odds may be a couple million to one against, but that's "not impossible," right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm ahead about $5100 lifetime.

---

What VP games did you play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz you are a troll.

---

Alan, you have some F***ing nerve! Your buddy Singer is not only the biggest troll and nastiest person by far on this site, but he is the biggest troll I have encountered on the entire internet. And you embrace him. You have enabled him for years. And THAT is the reason this site is so fucked up and has no chance to be anything but a laughing stock.

And you Alan are the most dishonest person I have encountered because you support and have enabled this clown and then play that dishonest, all innocent game of "Oh I don't know what you are talking about". You are a shyster, a scammer and a sleazeball Alan. A very dishonest person through to your core. I suspected that the moment I heard about your infomercial "career", but you have proven it over and over. You are a sleazy man. No wonder you have connected with the likes of Harry Argentino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

An even better question is would society and these gamblers be better off if professional gamblers had other jobs?

---

And THIS tells everything anyone needs to know. Alan, Singer and their little ban of followers are anti-AP. To the point they have a very unhealthy hatred, based on jealousy.

How many times have I mentioned Alan's anti-AP bias and hatred, only to have Alan, protest no such thing. This statement unveils Alan's real feelings and agenda. These guys have such hatred and bitterness, they just are unable to contain and mask it....try as they might.

Having such hatred based on jealousy is the act of such a very small insecure person. All this lying dishonesty, manipulating the act of real sleazeball people. And that is what we have here. A group of sleazeball, bitter little "haters", lead by Alan and this Singer clown.

Good job Dan Druff. Your site is right back to where it was, a shit hole with people talking earth is flat type of complete nonsense, couple with Nazi style hatred for those who dare tell them that the earth is not flat. Dan, you have become the exact same enabler that Alan has been for years. :(

Dan Druff: you are a successful poker player, so you know the math. Why do you allow these clowns to just talk complete nonsense like this. You are supposed to be the voice of reason. Not being so, enables these nut jobs. It empowers them, while making your site look ridiculous, like some sort of looney conspiracy site.

The question of "is it possible?" also applies to the 5th card flip. According to Professor Robert Harry Argentino, any time you hold a four flush, an open end straight, or two pair, the 5th card that you throwaway will come back at the same rank an inordinate amount of times as what the math says it will. There would be only 3 out of 47 cards that would be the same rank so the math says about 6% of the time.

But, Professor Argentino reported to Alan Mendelson, in his video interview with Mr. Mendelson, that, based on actual events, it actually occurs 18% of the time. This is a statistical anomaly that Professor Argentino has found.

However, in his interview with Michael Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds, Professor Argentino reported that in the 5th card flip the probability, based on actual events, of the 5th card coming back the same rank, was 47%.

So this brings up some questions of the probability of events:

1. Was Professor Argentino lying when he told Mendelson it was 18%?

2. Was Professor Argentino lying when he told Shackleford it was 47%?

Based on the laws of probability, if your answer to the above two questions is YES, then you aced the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And I believe you agree--redietz is just plain weird.

---

I agree...the ditz is a strange bird.

I'm interested to know, can a player really reach the long term?

How many hands is that, anyway?

Is there no player ahead over their lifetime playing negative expectation VP?

I can imagine a low denom player, losing at close to expectation over their lifetime,
except for the once or twice when they took a shot at the $25 machine,
and hit royals with relatively little play at that level.

They could return to the lower level, and remain ahead until they stop playing forever.

That doesn't seem as unlikely as surviving a 30000 foot fall.

When I was discussing the possibility of a million-hand challenge,
the challenger insisted that I could not change denomination during the period.

I suspect that he considered it more likely I could end up ahead
after a million hands of -EV VP if I was able to change denomination.

The bell curve is pretty far to the left but not as far as r.e. ditz claims. Someone does win powerball too. There is a real answer to the question of odds of winning on negative vp and losing on positive vp per x number of hands played. It's probably readily available online somewhere (maybe wizard of odds?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Alan, you have some F***ing nerve!

---

This is my point about AP’s always starting the issues here.

Alan calls Redietz a troll with good reason. 90% of the time Redietz joins in a thread is after following Alan or Rob around whatever thread their posting in and jump all over them always looking for a fight, regardless the topic. That’s a troll.

You start a post and in the first sentence tell Alan he has some fucking nerve. Then you carry on with comments like clown, dishonest, shyster, scammer, sleaze ball, insecure, manipulating, Nazi.

Do you really expect the rest of this thread to be reasonable discussion?
Based on the content of your post, have you been sleeping with Mickey?

Read this post I just made here https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post63507

I'd like to know if I am now or in the future will be subsidizing or even paying in full for the health care and retirement living of today's professional gamblers? Does AP also include paying for health and retirement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackhole

Based on the content of your post, have you been sleeping with Mickey?

---

No more than you've been sleeping with Singer or Alan. (You haven't been have you?) Is that why your hole is black? :confused: I just assumed blackhole was a reference to the black hole where your heart should be. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackhole

Do you really expect the rest of this thread to be reasonable discussion?

---

There are no reasonable discussions on this site. Because the things being discussed are not opinion. They are alternate reality or as our president says "alternate facts" (of which there are no such thing).

The basis of this Singer persons claims are 1.) that he wins playing a negative expectation game and 2.) that other people like myself that are in fact playing a positive expectation game can not win. All that is missing is that the martians killed Kennedy.

Kewlj I have nothing against your AP card counting at blackjack. It was your claim about counting two tables that I took issue with but ever since you explained that the count is not necessarily accurate but is close enough for your secret sauce formula I've been satisfied.

I'm sorry for the loss of your partner and I hope your health is good.

Other than that I think you've got a toilet mouth. Or is that a toilet keyboard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'd like to know if I am now or in the future will be subsidizing or even paying in full for the health care and retirement living of today's professional gamblers? Does AP also include paying for health and retirement?

---

Is THIS the basis of your hatred Alan? I can only speak or myself and no, you are not subsidizing a damn thing for me. If anything I am subsidizing YOU, paying into social security for your retirement and that is money I am unlikely to see back. And don't even attempt to give me this shit that my money is not paying your benefits. SS is a Ponzi scheme. the money you paid in is gone, courtesy of elected officials. All that's in the SS box is an I.O.U. Your SS payments are coming from me and other 30-40 year olds paying in and we are unlikely to see a penny of that back. AND I don't HATE you for it.

But just wondering, do you have the same kind of outright hate towards the workers at dunkin donuts or the Dollar store that you may be subsidizing their healthcare and retirement? These are political issues not gambling forum issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Kewlj I have nothing against your AP card counting at blackjack. It was your claim about counting two tables that I took issue with but ever since you explained that the count is not necessarily accurate but is close enough for your secret sauce formula I've been satisfied.

I'm sorry for the loss of your partner and I hope your health is good.

---

Thank you Alan. My health is good, as I hope yours is.

Here's the thing about tracking two tables: It was an area you know nothing about. But yet you not only formed an opinion, which you are entitled to do, but but spent a great deal of time and energy attempting to discredit me. Even after other blackjack players, including some well know that I would qualify as 'experts' weighed in, you still refused to accept it and still engaged an agenda to discredit me.

It is your right to not understand how that could be done. It is your right to be skeptical. I believe Dan, expressed some level of uncertainty. But he didn't state in no uncertain terms that something he knew absolutely nothing about was impossible, nor engage in a months long agenda to discredit me.

And BTW, tracking two tables works as well as ever AND that day back in January where I lost several grand but racked up significant EV, continues to be the best day of my year. :cool: These are just things YOU don't understand. :rolleyes:

I was skeptical of tracking two tables because I've been in casinos probably going back to before you were born.

But you've made it clear you cannot see through players, and sometimes cards are not played on schedule so you will miss certain deals, and you also have to estimate what's available at the second table"s shoe.

That still doesn't explain why you would give up your seat at your current table where you should have a 100% accurate count?

Why move from your own table where the count is accurate to a second table where you are using partial info? Is that an AP move?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That still doesn't explain why you would give up your seat at your current table where you should have a 100% accurate count?

Why move from your own table where the count is accurate to a second table where you are using partial info? Is that an AP move?

---

Yes, it IS an AP move. Partial information resulting in the strong possibility or likelihood of a significant advantage is far better than 100% knowledge of a disadvantageous situation.

AND all information involving card counting is partial information. Unless the cards are dealt to the last card before shuffling, which hasn't been the case in decades, card counters are working with partial information. But this partial information is enough to identify both positive and negative or advantageous or did-advantageous situations. That's all we can ask for. That is the whole basis of card counting.

I see kew's trying to get readers to eat his baloney sandwich again.

That two-table dance he's doing about "partial information" now suddenly being "good enuf for a professional bj counter"? We all see right thru it.

So kew's at a table where he now says he "never has a 100% accurate count going" that's at some kind of disadvantage, while admittedly having less accuracy at the table next door--but in some cases he's assuming the 2nd table has a more advantageous count than his. I believe this, in his lingo, is referred to as "professional guesswork"?

So now what's he do--just jump up and move over to it like a cat?

Not so fast Eddie. While you're cashing out your chips, how many more card reads at the table next door you gonna miss and simply pile into the "guess" Dept.? And when you rush to jump into your new seat, no one in the pit or upstairs is gonna see you....and/or they're not gonna care? Oh that's right---we're talking about a PRO here. He knows how to keep under the radar by doing all this, in a day and age where card counters are not allowed to play if they're even suspected of counting.

You see kew, you try to feed your anonymous BS to us one too many times and all it does is get you caught in your own traps. Now use that superior "guessing" prowess of yours and tell us what you expect that would do to all your other claims around here. You tell a wild, shoot-from-the-hip story, which is why a doofus like mickey is so infatuated with you.

And kew....no one's for one minute going to believe you pay SS taxes. Only people with an income do that.

I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And I believe you agree--redietz is just plain weird.

---

I agree...the ditz is a strange bird.

I'm interested to know, can a player really reach the long term?

How many hands is that, anyway?

Is there no player ahead over their lifetime playing negative expectation VP?

I can imagine a low denom player, losing at close to expectation over their lifetime,
except for the once or twice when they took a shot at the $25 machine,
and hit royals with relatively little play at that level.

They could return to the lower level, and remain ahead until they stop playing forever.

That doesn't seem as unlikely as surviving a 30000 foot fall.

When I was discussing the possibility of a million-hand challenge,
the challenger insisted that I could not change denomination during the period.

I suspect that he considered it more likely I could end up ahead
after a million hands of -EV VP if I was able to change denomination.

---

No, I just didn't want to give you more than a 1 in a million chance of winning the bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackhole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Alan, you have some F***ing nerve!

---

This is my point about AP’s always starting the issues here.

Alan calls Redietz a troll with good reason. 90% of the time Redietz joins in a thread is after following Alan or Rob around whatever thread their posting in and jump all over them always looking for a fight, regardless the topic. That’s a troll.

You start a post and in the first sentence tell Alan he has some fucking nerve. Then you carry on with comments like clown, dishonest, shyster, scammer, sleaze ball, insecure, manipulating, Nazi.

Do you really expect the rest of this thread to be reasonable discussion?
Based on the content of your post, have you been sleeping with Mickey?

Read this post I just made here https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post63507

---

What's your excuse for trolling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.

---

Not surprising that you allowed yourself to get mesmerized by kew's bs where an "accurate" count suddenly devolved into a "not 100% accurate" count and now finally into a "partially accurate" count.

When these bj people talk about counting cards they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate from the start of the deck or shoe until each count point--and NOT as if all cards and buried cards are a part of it.

You watched him get caught in his own lie and attempt to wiggle his way out of it with his classic bs, which must have been very uncomfortable for you. Birds of a feather....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.

---

Not surprising that you allowed yourself to get mesmerized by kew's bs where an "accurate" count suddenly devolved into a "not 100% accurate" count and now finally into a "partially accurate" count.

When these bj people talk about counting cards they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate from the start of the deck or shoe until each count point--and NOT as if all cards and buried cards are a part of it.

You watched him get caught in his own lie and attempt to wiggle his way out of it with his classic bs, which must have been very uncomfortable for you. Birds of a feather....

---

Actually, I have not read anything that supports your proclamation that "they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate..." I haven't read anything even remotely close to that.

I am, of course, always interested in learning and changing my mind, so if you come up with any references from classic blackjack books that support your proclamation, that would be great.

What's actual to you is always weird, because you are.

It's just simple common sense. If 25 cards are dealt thus far from the shoe, any serious counter requires an accurate count of those cards at that point. To claim that it's "only a partial count" because all of the cards in the shoe haven't been seen is just, well, weird.

Kew knows this as well. The "counting advantage" is predicated on keeping up with the dealt cards. It's a very tiny theoretical edge, and no counter anywhere is floating over like Peter Pan to a table that does not have a 100% accurate count going.

I'm thinking that if a third of the cards are dealt and the count is +7 then five unseen cards are removed from the top of the deck that I'm not going to quit playing because I don't have a completely accurate count. I'm going to play like the count is +7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

What's actual to you is always weird, because you are.

It's just simple common sense. If 25 cards are dealt thus far from the shoe, any serious counter requires an accurate count of those cards at that point. To claim that it's "only a partial count" because all of the cards in the shoe haven't been seen is just, well, weird.

Kew knows this as well. The "counting advantage" is predicated on keeping up with the dealt cards. It's a very tiny theoretical edge, and no counter anywhere is floating over like Peter Pan to a table that does not have a 100% accurate count going.

---

I haven't read any such simple common sense in any classic blackjack book. But if you can find some appropriate references, I will of course learn and change my mind.