Blackjack variance by the numbers

The whole attack on me by former member Moses and current sockpuppet member UCFX stems from the discussion involving the 29k losing week that I had last September or October.

I want to say this about Moses. I have known for quite a while that he could not be the professional blackjack player that he claimed. Not playing a small rotation, home base of Reno and the limits they will allow, especially to a regular or frequent player. I just never felt the need to call him out as his claim wasn't really hurting anyone. Until he started attacking me, with his complete lack of understanding about blackjack variance. THAT is the point that his attacks about my variance became misleading to other players and I have a problem with that same as I did with T3 misleading other players with phony math on Norm's Site and Singer misleading video poker players with alternative or phony math on this site.

The math is the math. There is no grey area or alternative math. Impossible mathematical claims should be called out....PERIOD. 18 y.o's in row. Earning a million dollars over 10 years playing -EV video poker, using progressions and stop limits. T3's ridiculously mathematical impossible blackjack claims and now Moses misleading and false statements about variance, designed only to discredit me.


So let's talk about blackjack variance. Every blackjack player and team using the method of card counting experiences variance, sometime pretty extreme. The larger the spread a player/team uses the larger the variance and actually the better conditions, especially penetration, the larger the variance. That last statement may seem odd but it is very true. Deeper penetration will result in a higher win rate (higher EV rate) but at the expense of higher variance.

Let's look at some of the better known teams and some of their variance issues. One of the MIT teams suffered $200,000 losses before they turned it around and won over half a million. One of the other pretty well known teams (I think the church team) was at one time 60 grand in the hole, before variation turned in their favor and the caught up to EV (expectation) and make 6 figures and broke the bank. Both Tommy Hyland and one of his players who used to participate on various forums used to talk about their extreme variance on losing 10's, even 100k before things turn. THAT IS JUST THE WAY THE GAME OF BLACKJACK WORKS. A big spread equals large (short-term) variance. Eventually as you play enough rounds and get through the short term, the math will take over and results will come in line with expectation, but in the short term variance is a bitch. This is EXACTLY why blackjack card counting requires a significant bankroll of 100's of times your largest or max bet. Not your unit bet, your MAX bet!

And this variance isn't anything that is guessed at. There is a mathematical formula, having to do with your average bet and square root of number of hands played. This formula will result in a number known as standard deviation. Results for any number of rounds played should be within 1 standard deviation 67% of the time, within 2 standard deviations 95% of the time and within 3 standard deviations 99. something percent of the time.

So I want to go back to my week last fall where I lost 29k, that one of the ex-members here, a ploppie, who has no clue, began attacking me about and Moses, who appears also to have no clue of this math or discussion despite his claims of professional blackjack play, jumped on and continued.

Ok so back to my results for my worst week ever in 750 week (15 years). Using my average bet of about $200 and 2000 rounds played for the week (I average 80-100 thousand rounds a year, I get 1 standard deviation of $10,285. That means my results should be within (1 standard deviation) $10,285 of expectation 67% of the time for that amount of play. My results should be within (2 standard deviations) $20,570 of expectation 95% of the time for that amount of play. And within (3 standard deviations) or within $30,855 of expectation over 99% of the time for that amount of play.

So again, my results: My expectation was roughly $2000 and my results were -$29,000. That is almost exactly 3 standard deviations below expectation, which should occur less than 1% of the time. This is the second time I have been 3 standard deviations below expectation in 750 weeks, which is less than the 1% expectation for this occurrence.

In other words, my results while disappointing (obviously) were not that unusual for my level of play. A player playing my limits is going to have a week like that 1% of the time or so. THAT is the road to reaching expectation and maximum profits.

So I don't know what Moses big thing with this result was about, other than clearly showing he has little or no understanding about variance as it relates to professional blackjack play.

You people that seem to dislike me based on all sorts of things...that is fine. But the math is the math. Let's not pervert the math, because there is no such thing as alternative math.

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried. Moses now has 6 out of the top 11 channels on this site. I’m sure redietz is steaming because he hasn’t been able to get even one channel started in his honor.

Kj’s obsession with Moses is obvious. It wasn’t till I went back and read some old threads on BJTF from before my time that I realized just how far back these two went. Anyway, should be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried. Moses now has 6 out of the top 11 channels on this site. I’m sure redietz is steaming because he hasn’t been able to get even one channel started in his honor.

Kj’s obsession with Moses is obvious. It wasn’t till I went back and read some old threads on BJTF from before my time that I realized just how far back these two went. Anyway, should be interesting.

---

Funny how you glossed over the important fact that your hero, the guy you worship and get so excited about his trolling, has gone on this months long agenda to discredit me based on phony or alternative math, and the obvious fact that he just doesn't understand the math involved about what he is attacking, proving what I have known all along but didn't bother calling him out on.

Your hero, that you have your nose so far up his ass...is a fraud about his claims of professional blackjack play. He doesn't understand basic math involved. He likely is a fraud as far as his claims about sports-betting for a living as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide as it isn't my arena.

You turning a blind eye and supporting him as enthusiastically as you do, exposed you as well. You are either an complete idiot or somehow tied in.

I don't know much about blackjack variance, but I know a little about gambling variance, and what kewlJ reported is not really outlier stuff. Results that have a 1% chance happen all of the time. I've lost eight games in a row on multiple occasions. I had the good fortune to win 17 in a row once while in a public competition. The odds against that are ostensibly two to the 17th, which yields roughly the same odds (according to actuarial tables) as "death by reptile." I made public note of my goal to match "death by reptile" after I'd won the 13th in a row.

If you participate in enough events, you get to see the occasional seemingly impossible. Two such events that make kewlj's story seem tame happened this week. Golden State blew a 31 point lead in a playoff game, a third-quarter lead no less. This had never occurred in the NBA playoffs before. And the Tampa Bay Lightning, with the best regular season record in many years in the NHL, were swept in a first round playoff series. Such a sweep had never occurred before.

Kewlj's variance event report is mild in comparison. Not freakish at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The whole attack on me by former member Moses and current sockpuppet member UCFX stems from the discussion involving the 29k losing week that I had last September or October.

I want to say this about Moses.

You people that seem to dislike me based on all sorts of things...that is fine. But the math is the math. Let's not pervert the math, because there is no such thing as alternative math.

---

KJ rant. Who gives a rip? This is all that was read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried.

---

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

---

No doubt. Here is the interesting thing. You just signed on here and Moses signed on at ZZ 1 minute apart. But you are not the same person. lol

Go ahead give us an excuse. the two of you went out to dinner and upon returning home went to opposite corners of the card board box to post at the same time. ;)


I mean you are not even good at this sock puppet troll thing. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

---

And here is Moses response to the discussion on blackjack variance, in it's entirety, word for word:

"I'm only speaking to the single deck straight up game. I know now or care about the rest. But I do KNOW THIS GAME.

It was derived from my basketball background was spanned over 4 decades of playing, coaching, officiating.

High school. Suppose you win a game 100-88. There are several runs positive and negative during the course of that game. Plus most games are played on Friday and Saturday nights. So tired legs become a problem on the 2nd game. A 50-38 win achieves the same objective. The idea is ball control which reduces negative runs significantly. Keeping the other team on defense make it easy on the offense. Suppose you have a clear 20 foot jumper at the 7.13 mark. A high percentage shot for a good shooter. However, suppose you have a layup at the 6.05 mark. Almost a slam dunk by any player on the floor. Plus PLUS we kept the pressure on the defense for an additional 1.08. That is a long time to be playing man to man defense. Now, the opponent rushes their offense".


I gave you mathematical formulas generated by the top blackjack math guys with the use of computers to back up everything I said and my results. Moses responded with a story of some high school basketball player taking a jump shot at the 7 minute mark of a basketball game. Nonsense from the twilight zone that has nothing to do with nothing. ;)

UCFX: please thank your friend Moses for the wisdom he shared and someone please share with Moses THE clip from Billy Madison, because we are all dumber now thanks to Moses.

I am done with you now Moses and all your sock puppets, alter-egos and various multiple personalities. Enjoy your life and all your ahhh...friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I am done with you now Moses and all your sock puppets, alter-egos and various multiple personalities. Enjoy your life and all your ahhh...friends.

---

Kj, I think I’ve seen these exact words from you 254 times. Question: Do you type this out each time; or do you have it saved on your commuter where you can just hit one key and it populates the end of your post?

Second question: When are you going to start your next Moses thread? I hope you wait more than a day. Right now there’s quite a few Moses channels going on here. I’m having a hard time keeping up on all of them.

I’ve noticed redietz likes these channels too since he’s always posting on them. And to think, he wanted to get them moved to their own section.

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!

Just finished up my coffee and was reading this nutjobs latest rant over at the Cuckoos Nest...looks like he had a pretty bad night...could be he lost $4.77 on a basketball game or snagged his lip on Tater’s zipper again...either way, a very bad night indeed lol

I see the total meltdown post by UCFX that was made late last night after I posted Moses response word for word, was deleted. Smart move UCFX. :cool:

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

---

Bob21, you can NOT reduce variance from the blackjack card counting game by any significant measure. There are thing a player can do that will help a tiny bit, but nothing significant. The facts are that blackjack card counting gains the player the very tiniest of edges. Even at the high, max bet counts the player is only playing with a very slim edge. That means he is going to lose almost as many max bet opportunities as he wins. Actually even at those high counts the card counter will lose more hands than he wins. The edge comes from slightly more blackjacks at the 3-2 payout.

And anytime a player is going to lose just as many or more of his largest bets, there is going to be huge variance, because there will be little streaks that these losses occur in bunches. These are the facts of the game as it relates to card counting. No advanced count, column count or other is going to change that, No stop limits will change that. No one, not the greatest math minds and certainly not the likes of Moses can change that. Anyone that doesn't understand the variance should not be attempting to card count. PERIOD!

I don't play single deck. The reason is it is unplayable. I have been to Reno. I have friends that play Reno more than I do. Reno is almost unplayable at the green chip and higher level except for a very short time, during crowded weekends. If a regular tries to play green to black for more than a day or two, he is done in Reno...ALL of Reno. Reno is too small of a rotation to play as any kind of home base. Best you can do is roll into town for a couple days, maybe twice a year.

As a matter of fact, similarly to how double deck is a counter trap in Vegas, and serious players avoid double deck or play very sparingly, Single deck is the counter trap in Reno. If a player is going to attempt to play any serious money in Reno he has to avoid the single deck. These are the facts. And Moses can't change them by his wishing.

If a player really wants to play blackjack with any kind of significantly less variance, he needs to find much larger edges than card counting.

So spare us with you bullshit that you have no clue about. And spare us the nonsense that you are an aspiring card counter. Everything you say and do proves you are not. If you were you would learn the mathematics of the game and ground yourself in the reality of the game and stop the hero worship of someone that is full of bullshit. Anyone new player who is serious about card counting aligns himself with real players who play the game and are successful and soaks up everything they have to say. That's what I did and those relationships continue to be beneficial today. Because that is how you really learn from experiences shared from real players, not from books, not from boot camps...real players sharing their experiences and most tend to be somewhat tight lipped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

---

Bob21, you can NOT reduce variance from the blackjack card counting game by any significant measure. There are thing a player can do that will help a tiny bit, but nothing significant. The facts are that blackjack card counting gains the player the very tiniest of edges. Even at the high, max bet counts the player is only playing with a very slim edge. That means he is going to lose almost as many max bet opportunities as he wins. Actually even at those high counts the card counter will lose more hands than he wins. The edge comes from slightly more blackjacks at the 3-2 payout.

And anytime a player is going to lose just as many or more of his largest bets, there is going to be huge variance, because there will be little streaks that these losses occur in bunches. These are the facts of the game as it relates to card counting. No advanced count, column count or other is going to change that, No stop limits will change that. No one, not the greatest math minds and certainly not the likes of Moses can change that. Anyone that doesn't understand the variance should not be attempting to card count. PERIOD!

I don't play single deck. The reason is it is unplayable. I have been to Reno. I have friends that play Reno more than I do. Reno is almost unplayable at the green chip and higher level except for a very short time, during crowded weekends. If a regular tries to play green to black for more than a day or two, he is done in Reno...ALL of Reno. Reno is too small of a rotation to play as any kind of home base. Best you can do is roll into town for a couple days, maybe twice a year.

As a matter of fact, similarly to how double deck is a counter trap in Vegas, and serious players avoid double deck or play very sparingly, Single deck is the counter trap in Reno. If a player is going to attempt to play any serious money in Reno he has to avoid the single deck. These are the facts. And Moses can't change them by his wishing.

If a player really wants to play blackjack with any kind of significantly less variance, he needs to find much larger edges than card counting.

So spare us with you bullshit that you have no clue about. And spare us the nonsense that you are an aspiring card counter. Everything you say and do proves you are not. If you were you would learn the mathematics of the game and ground yourself in the reality of the game and stop the hero worship of someone that is full of bullshit. Anyone new player who is serious about card counting aligns himself with real players who play the game and are successful and soaks up everything they have to say. That's what I did and those relationships continue to be beneficial today. Because that is how you really learn from experiences shared from real players, not from books, not from boot camps...real players sharing their experiences and most tend to be somewhat tight lipped.

---

Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

Yeah, I think there may be a reason Bob21 doesn't go into much detail regarding gambling or math. The last few posts pretty much exposed him. He sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about.

Maybe the real Bob21 has been kidnapped and an imposter is posting in his place. As president of his fan club, I can only hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

No doubt. Here is the interesting thing. You just signed on here and Moses signed on at ZZ 1 minute apart. But you are not the same person. lol

Go ahead give us an excuse. the two of you went out to dinner and upon returning home went to opposite corners of the card board box to post at the same time. ;):

---

As a matter of fact, I did have dinner with both of them. So what's your point? Moses said to write slow because it's clear you're simple minded and uneducated.

Dan doesn't give a fuck about your accusations anymore. You leave and the forum air smells fresher without your ranting bullshit. Few even now your gone not why the air is of better quality. Moses gets getting and is still the main topic on interest TWO months later. He doesn't want to be. So don't say it's him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I mean you are not even good at this sock puppet troll thing. :rolleyes:

---

In the words of Monet. Shut up queer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I see the total meltdown post by UCFX that was made late last night after I posted Moses response word for word, was deleted. Smart move UCFX. :cool:

---

Dumbass. HE wanted to be sure you read it. HE's in your head that early in the morning? LOL You two are pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

1) Blackjack is not basketball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.

---

You could, maybe should have stopped with these first 4 words of point #1. Seriously. :rolleyes:

But #5 is somewhat relevant because it is not only wrong, it is completely 180 degrees wrong and backwards. Card counting is a grind. A player is grinding out the slimmest of edges. So slim that most advantage players want nothing to do with it.

Any kind of game where the player is grinding out a paper thin edge it is about volume. You have to get to the long-term, whatever than math says it is for that venture. Literally the more play you put in, the more you will win in the end, the longterm. So anything a player does that shortens his play or number of trials is only reducing his overall win in the end.

This is something non-AP's simply don't, won't or can't understand....I don't know which. Not to pick on Alan, but he is the perfect non-AP mentality and that is why I could not get through to him. Bob21 and Moses arguing these ploppie points is just proof of who they are.

Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". :D.

I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.

Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision". :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

1) Blackjack is not basketball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.

---

You could, maybe should have stopped with these first 4 words of point #1. Seriously. :rolleyes:

But #5 is somewhat relevant because it is not only wrong, it is completely 180 degrees wrong and backwards. Card counting is a grind. A player is grinding out the slimmest of edges. So slim that most advantage players want nothing to do with it.

Any kind of game where the player is grinding out a paper thin edge it is about volume. You have to get to the long-term, whatever than math says it is for that venture. Literally the more play you put in, the more you will win in the end, the longterm. So anything a player does that shortens his play or number of trials is only reducing his overall win in the end.

This is something non-AP's simply don't, won't or can't understand....I don't know which. Not to pick on Alan, but he is the perfect non-AP mentality and that is why I could not get through to him. Bob21 and Moses arguing these ploppie points is just proof of who they are.

Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". :D.

I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.

Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision". :rolleyes:

---

Here’s the thing kj. You missed the whole point of Moses analogy. You said: “ Moses responded with the story of some high school basketball player taking a shot at the 7 minute mark of a basketball game.” That’s incorrect. Please reread Moses post.

That guy passed up this shot (it was a jump shot) at the 7 minute mark to get a better one (a layup) at the 6 minute mark.

You thought the key part of the basketball game was at the 7 minute mark, when it was really at the 6 minute mark. Now that I clued you in on your mistake, does that change your view on how this basketball analogy relates to blackjack?

Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

---

Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely..

---

Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".

---

Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs off a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

IF the point guard runs off the pick to the left? It changes the entire dynamic off the motion offense. IF PG passes to the Center? Wing pick and rolls off ball into corner. IF that doesn't work. PG goes off Center pick and into corner if layup doesn't work. Point is you turn it and turn it and turn until YOU get the shot YOU want NOT what the defense gives. BIG difference in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

---

I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .

---

Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..

---

Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...

---

I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

---

That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..

---

Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

My point is for every action there is a reaction and a purpose. I'm taking what their giving me and they don't even know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.

---

You have not only the right, but the duty to, RS remain silent. It will cut down on your Really Stupid comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". :D. :

---

Basketball or blackjack, you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Does Moses need to find Don S comments at blackjack info? You sure backed off that one is a big damn hurry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.:

---

...And every time you say it you look like a total idiot, because you won't play him. You're like a booing fan. Different game on the floor or at the table. Okay, here comes the excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.

---

Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision". :rolleyes:

---

It isn't difficult to see you. A ranting queer who has lost all credibility. Go cry to Dan again. Maybe he will listen today? NOT. Cry some more. Maybe tomorrow.

Now would you PLEASE STOP making threads about Moses. Queer fucker.

We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth

Moses/UCFX and yes they are clearly one and the same, has resorted to the usual troll thing of just attacks and name calling when the facts and math isn't in their favor. Same as Singer does. Same as almost all these trolls do.

Moses/UCFX and who ever else is in there is clearly even worse. I mean Singer was in an alternative reality, but I am not so sure it wasn't all a game with him, a prank. Moses/UCFX and all his other personalities clearly has mental issue. You can almost see the different times he is on and off his meds.

And Bob21, you aren't doing him any favors by encouraging his sickness. This is really a shame. It shouldn't have come to this. And it shouldn't be allowed to go any further. It really shouldn't. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses/UCFX and yes they are clearly one and the same, has resorted to the usual troll thing of just attacks and name calling when the facts and math isn't in their favor. Same as Singer does. Same as almost all these trolls do.:(

---

Who cares? Who the fuck cares. IT's not true and you don't have the nuts or the guts to prove it. You've just fuck up yet another day of chasing variance because Moses IS IN YOUR HEAD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I mean Singer was in an alternative reality, but I am not so sure it wasn't all a game with him, a prank. Moses/UCFX and all his other personalities clearly has mental issue. You can almost see the different times he is on and off his meds.:(

---

Singer hasn't posted in weeks and he is still in your head. You weak stupid shit. No one give a shit about your GED analogy on mental stability. You can't Fix Stupid. You're living proof. You repeat the same thing over and over again. Like a chatty Kathy doll. Just pull KJs string and he goes off an a rant about Moses, Singer, or Trolls. Don S doesn't even agree with you. Is he a troll too? You're pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

And Bob21, you aren't doing him any favors by encouraging his sickness. This is really a shame. It shouldn't have come to this. And it shouldn't be allowed to go any further. It really shouldn't. :(

---

Monet, let all say it in unison. SHUT UP QUEER!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".

---

Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs of a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

---

I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .

---

Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..

---

Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...

---

I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

---

That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..

---

Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

---

UCFX, You are all over the place here, half of the time making some sense, half of the time not knowing what you're talking about.

Moses' coaching record is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think it's relevant. It has nothing to do with anything.

There is no question that reducing number of possessions increases variance for an event outcome, in this case a basketball game. This is a fundamental aspect of reality. If Moses or I play Michael Jordan one on one to three baskets, we have a chance. Not much of one, maybe, but a chance. If we play him to 100 baskets, we effectively have no chance unless he keels over of a heart attack mid-game. That is the same as number of possessions.

If you box Mike Tyson for 20 seconds, Moses or I have a chance...at least to survive. If we box him for 200 seconds, not likely. That is the same as number of possessions.

The higher the number of possessions, the less the variance in the outcome. The team/player/boxer with the edge increases his likelihood of winning as the possessions rise.

This is a clear-cut fundamental aspect of reality. If you think otherwise, you are either misunderstanding variance or dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!

---

Ok, one more thing I want to address here. I posted Moses response in it's entirety, word for word. I even waited almost an hour after his post to be sure he was done. There was NO "rest of his variance post". His entire response was this nonsense about basketball, that has no correlation to blackjack card counting.

The "rest of his post" that you are talking about is several paragraphs that was added hours later, after Moses realized how stupid he looked. Added 2 hours and 11 minutes later to be exact, because ZZ notes the edit times.

This practice of changing things and editing hours later is flat out dishonest. That is why most sites, like this one put a short time limit on edits, because trolls like Moses abuse the edit process as he just did.

I mean Dan Druff likes to post his picks about sports. Suppose at 3pm he picks 2 games. And then at 9pm after games are complete he goes back and edits his post and picks to include games not originally picked. Dan would not do that, but this is exactly what Moses did and exactly why it is not allowed on most sites. It is dishonest and Moses just us showed a window into who he really is.

Bob 21 you are as bad as Moses for supporting/defending/enabling this freak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.

---

Your advice has been accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.

---

Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

---

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!

---

Ok, one more thing I want to address here. I posted Moses response in it's entirety, word for word. I even waited almost an hour after his post to be sure he was done. There was NO "rest of his variance post". His entire response was this nonsense about basketball, that has no correlation to blackjack card counting.

The "rest of his post" that you are talking about is several paragraphs that was added hours later, after Moses realized how stupid he looked. Added 2 hours and 11 minutes later to be exact, because ZZ notes the edit times.

This practice of changing things and editing hours later is flat out dishonest. That is why most sites, like this one put a short time limit on edits, because trolls like Moses abuse the edit process as he just did.

I mean Dan Druff likes to post his picks about sports. Suppose at 3pm he picks 2 games. And then at 9pm after games are complete he goes back and edits his post and picks to include games not originally picked. Dan would not do that, but this is exactly what Moses did and exactly why it is not allowed on most sites. It is dishonest and Moses just us showed a window into who he really is.

Bob 21 you are as bad as Moses for supporting/defending/enabling this freak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

---

THIS is exactly what makes these guys trolls. Not because they have a different opinion than me, Redietz or whoever they are discussing, but because they lie, twist, manipulate, and just flat out mis-represent what was said. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.

---

Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

---

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

---

Okay you’re right and I’m wrong on this. The way you worded your sentences was confusing. But now going back through your post very carefully I see how you stated it is correct. My bad. We’re on the same page on this one.

Obviously, the fewer the number of possessions, the more the variance in the outcome of the game.

I still think the NCAA mostly put in the shot clock to make the games more enjoyable to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".

---

Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs off a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

IF the point guard runs off the pick to the left? It changes the entire dynamic off the motion offense. IF PG passes to the Center? Wing pick and rolls off ball into corner. IF that doesn't work. PG goes off Center pick and into corner if layup doesn't work. Point is you turn it and turn it and turn until YOU get the shot YOU want NOT what the defense gives. BIG difference in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

---

I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .

---

Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..

---

Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...

---

I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

---

That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..

---

Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

My point is for every action there is a reaction and a purpose. I'm taking what their giving me and they don't even know it.

---

UCFX, for a woman you seen to know a lot about basketball. Enough of your and Moses's shit. I just went to zenzone and marked all the threads read. I had enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keystone

We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth

---

I'm Lou and I'm 82 years old. I lived 6 miles from where Moses when to school his junior and senior year. I could still kick your little narrow ass just for sport. Now, I see why Moses is pissed off. You're exhausting. A little queer with nothing to prove except he's a little queer.

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.

---

Your advice has been accepted.

---

Thank goodness. Fuck off Remain silent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keystone

We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth

---

I'm Lou and I'm 82 years old. I lived 6 miles from where Moses when to school his junior and senior year. I could still kick your little narrow ass just for sport. Now, I see why Moses is pissed off. You're exhausting. A little queer with nothing to prove except he's a little queer.

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

---

Hi Lou...is that short for Louise or Louann?...another 80 yr old guy that thinks he’s Chuck Norris lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

UCFX, You are all over the place here, half of the time making some sense, half of the time not knowing what you're talking about..

---

Well fuck, who the hell ever tried to explain a motion offense in typing. We went over it for hours in practice and coaches meetings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Moses' coaching record is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think it's relevant. It has nothing to do with anything..

---

Of course not, I was using an analogy to blackjack. You don't get it because you either can't or don't want to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

There is no question that reducing number of possessions increases variance for an event outcome, in this case a basketball game. This is a fundamental aspect of reality. If Moses or I play Michael Jordan one on one to three baskets, we have a chance. Not much of one, maybe, but a chance. If we play him to 100 baskets, we effectively have no chance unless he keels over of a heart attack mid-game. That is the same as number of possessions..

---

Now your changing the equations. I already went over the take quality shots sequence. I have you ever played tight man to man defense for 2 straight minutes, offense for 15 seconds, and then back on defense for another two. IF doesn't take but about 3 quarters for the oppositions tongue to be dragging on the floor. Then go 4 corners and let them chase some more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

This is a clear-cut fundamental aspect of reality. If you think otherwise, you are either misunderstanding variance or dead wrong.

---

You play Moses then. The possessions are in the dealers hands. Not Moses. HE take what the defense will give him. IF they don't go 6 rounds? No game. HE explained that already. What part didn't you get? Wait please don't answer that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

---

Bob21, you can NOT reduce variance from the blackjack card counting game by any significant measure. There are thing a player can do that will help a tiny bit, but nothing significant. The facts are that blackjack card counting gains the player the very tiniest of edges. Even at the high, max bet counts the player is only playing with a very slim edge. That means he is going to lose almost as many max bet opportunities as he wins. Actually even at those high counts the card counter will lose more hands than he wins. The edge comes from slightly more blackjacks at the 3-2 payout.

And anytime a player is going to lose just as many or more of his largest bets, there is going to be huge variance, because there will be little streaks that these losses occur in bunches. These are the facts of the game as it relates to card counting. No advanced count, column count or other is going to change that, No stop limits will change that. No one, not the greatest math minds and certainly not the likes of Moses can change that. Anyone that doesn't understand the variance should not be attempting to card count. PERIOD!

I don't play single deck. The reason is it is unplayable. I have been to Reno. I have friends that play Reno more than I do. Reno is almost unplayable at the green chip and higher level except for a very short time, during crowded weekends. If a regular tries to play green to black for more than a day or two, he is done in Reno...ALL of Reno. Reno is too small of a rotation to play as any kind of home base. Best you can do is roll into town for a couple days, maybe twice a year.

As a matter of fact, similarly to how double deck is a counter trap in Vegas, and serious players avoid double deck or play very sparingly, Single deck is the counter trap in Reno. If a player is going to attempt to play any serious money in Reno he has to avoid the single deck. These are the facts. And Moses can't change them by his wishing.

If a player really wants to play blackjack with any kind of significantly less variance, he needs to find much larger edges than card counting.

So spare us with you bullshit that you have no clue about. And spare us the nonsense that you are an aspiring card counter. Everything you say and do proves you are not. If you were you would learn the mathematics of the game and ground yourself in the reality of the game and stop the hero worship of someone that is full of bullshit. Anyone new player who is serious about card counting aligns himself with real players who play the game and are successful and soaks up everything they have to say. That's what I did and those relationships continue to be beneficial today. Because that is how you really learn from experiences shared from real players, not from books, not from boot camps...real players sharing their experiences and most tend to be somewhat tight lipped.

---

Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

---

UCFX, you just wrote in another thread:

"I don't actually play much blackjack. But I would assume one would have to actually play in order to experience variance."


Why are you saying Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. on a subject that you know little about? Oh I get it you are really Moses.

Oh yes. Keystone. KJs guy friend. Moses told me about you. What you are going to do? Have your Amsterdam puppet come kick my ass too? Friggin ploppy. You don't know shit. Why are you posting in this thread? You don't know shit about blackjack or basketball? Still trying "unsuccessfully" to get in KJs pants I see. I know, I know, you'll come back with a stupid circle jerk slur. You're so predictable. If I want any lip off you, I will scrap it off my zipper. IF you think you want some of me? I'll show you my nuts and then beat you senseless with my dick. As if that is even possible. You already dumb as a fuckin wood pole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Oh yes. Keystone. KJs guy friend. Moses told me about you. What you are going to do? Have your Amsterdam puppet come kick my ass too? Friggin ploppy. You don't know shit. Why are you posting in this thread? You don't know shit about blackjack or basketball? Still trying "unsuccessfully" to get in KJs pants I see. I know, I know, you'll come back with a stupid circle jerk slur. You're so predictable. If I want any lip off you, I will scrap it off my zipper. IF you think you want some of me? I'll show you my nuts and then beat you senseless with my dick. As if that is even possible. You already dumb as a fuckin wood pole.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

UCFX, you just wrote in another thread:

"I don't actually play much blackjack. But I would assume one would have to actually play in order to experience variance."


Why are you saying Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. on a subject that you know little about? Oh I get it you are really Moses.

---

Great job detective dick wad. I play blackjack. Others in our group do not. I've had many conversation with Moses about blackjack and basketball. It's not all that difficult for someone with half a brain. Btw, Bob. I'm sure the U can't fix stupid phase will go on for most of the day as these friggin losers got nothing else better to do than to try to catch Moses in lie that Dan doesn't care about in the first place. lol What a bunch of dipshits!

I look forward to meeting you on your trip. However, is lady friend is liable to shove a mop straight up your travel companions hind parts. Might want to leave him at home.

Anymore questions detective dumbass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

---

Of course, in blackjack, the more they reduce pen the more your game is limited. In basketball, you take the easy shot and wear down the defense. High school ball. no shot clock. no 3 point line.

In blackjack, you take what the defense gives you. It's 6 rounds 7 at best. So you'd better take quality shots. The best way to get and stay ahead is not to fall to far behind in the first place. Moses explain this already at Zen Zone. Why? Casino Tolerance. Norm's products will allow you to design your game to compete within tolerance. Streamlined efficiency. But most are too lazy to do the work necessary to compete at the highest level. They'd rather sit around some forum to boast and brag about the wins and bitch about the loss or fear of losing.

C'mon redietz, you're a professional handicapper. According to Moses, not one of those dime a dozen ones like we have around here. Do I really I need to tell you about research? No, I doubt it. I mean shit, you know when a line of -6 get reversed and you accidentally get +6, that's a bargain 9 times out of 10. Same thing in blackjack. You seek advantages, not thresholds. My point is, you'd go nuts listening to some of the handicapping shit here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

---

A complete lie. I haven't had any heart attacks. I had a bad valve that needed to be replaced. I am healthy and active. Ran a half marathon last fall. Skied several times over the winter, have a surfing trip to Cali coming up.

I mean really why do you people have to lie about such things?

And btw, suppose I had a heart attack? You need that to make your point or argument? What the fuck kind of person are you Moses? Never mind. You repeatedly show just what kind of person you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

---

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

---

Okay you’re right and I’m wrong on this. The way you worded your sentences was confusing. But now going back through your post very carefully I see how you stated it is correct. My bad. We’re on the same page on this one.

Obviously, the fewer the number of possessions, the more the variance in the outcome of the game.

I still think the NCAA mostly put in the shot clock to make the games more enjoyable to watch.

---

That's why I wrote, "This is why, in part...." The "in part" means this is one reason. Not necessarily the most important, but a significant reason. The shot clock prevented games from being history once one team had a 14 or 15 point lead. So it kept the outcome in doubt, which helped massage television ratings. That would be the primary reason, in my mind. Close behind would be the need to ass-kiss the established ratings getters, the brand names like UNC or Duke, because those brand names are necessary to ratings, also.

Instead of writing "This is why, in part," I should have written "This is one reason." That would have been superior writing, but it is a junk forum, so I usually post without editing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

---

A complete lie. I haven't had any heart attacks. I had a bad valve that needed to be replaced. I am healthy and active. Ran a half marathon last fall. Skied several times over the winter, have a surfing trip to Cali coming up.

I mean really why do you people have to lie about such things?

And btw, suppose I had a heart attack? You need that to make your point or argument? What the fuck kind of person are you Moses? Never mind. You repeatedly show just what kind of person you are.

---

You come up with so much bullshit we never know, or care, wtf your talking about. From fake deaths, to leaving, staying, to blowing your new boyfriend. Steve was reading that one out loud. He had to stop because we were laughing so hard. But it embarrassed him and he is a senior level cocks man. A waitress can't walk by without him making some comment. Embarrassing Steve ain't easy. You will meet him also Bob and you'll see what I mean.

Told you dipshit. I'm not Moses. I'm Lou. I meaner than fucking Moses by a long shot. My complaint with Moses is he's too nice of a guy. You talk about lunatics and crazies? You don't know shit, so shut the fuck up, and I will tell you from someone who has been here over 30 years. If word gets out you're fair game? You are fair game. That's how it works in the real world Keystone. If you're vulnerable, if you're weak, you're a target. Most are targets and don't even know it.

So you want to play a war of words with me? You're in the ring with the wrong mother fucker...mother fucker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

---

A complete lie. I haven't had any heart attacks. I had a bad valve that needed to be replaced. I am healthy and active. Ran a half marathon last fall. Skied several times over the winter, have a surfing trip to Cali coming up.

I mean really why do you people have to lie about such things?

And btw, suppose I had a heart attack? You need that to make your point or argument? What the fuck kind of person are you Moses? Never mind. You repeatedly show just what kind of person you are.

---

I wouldn't be blaming him for all this kew. You're the idiot who just had to present the story about how you have infected blood, a defective heart, and crossed wires upstairs to go along with your "Hey everybody look at me!--I'm a bona fide BJ pro who has been outsmarting casino managers better than anyone else on earth for more than 15 years now!!" load of internet crap.

You're the world's biggest pussy, that's for sure. You claim whatever you want and whatever makes you "feel good" under anonymity, and whenever anybody questions you or calls your bluff, you jump up and down crying foul like a whiny-ass baby.

You made your bed, your "partner" you made up escaped from you. Now keep tossing and turning in it. And yes, I DO know who you are, where you now live, and why you had to leave the old house you lived in....and I know you have a part time job. You're such a phoney.

Wait?! You are Lou now!

Didn't you tell us you were Mises's girlfriend or wife?

Now you are Lou?

Not a word you said is true Singer. Not a single word. I don't know who you are looking up but it's not me. Lol.

Just gets weirder and weirder. Lol

So what? Are you going to leave again? Hello Rob. No Keystone we are not ganging up on poor poor KJ. Just sick of the bullshit, the bragging, and the bitching is all. You must be in one helluva frame of mind to play blackjack today. Must be Variance.

"Singer" likes to take wild stabs at people, kind of like fortune tellers trying to do a cold reading. The only thing is, "Singer" is really, truly bad at it. I mean, like terrible. Not close. About five light years off course, usually. He said I had a sexual relationship with a guy who's like the straightest, pinnacle-of-business person ever with a classic nuclear family and top security clearances. It was a sad effort.

I don't know kewlJ from Adam. I don't know, as I've said in the past, whether he's a short order cook or Heidi Fleiss's assistant. But I mean, 'c'mon, "Singer" is so anti-kewlJ. Does anybody really believe if "Singer" knew who kewlJ was, "Singer" wouldn't just spill the beans immediately and lay out everything he knew and blow kewlJ's blackjack career out of the water if he could? I mean, what would Singer's motive be for keeping the "secrets of kewlJ" under wraps for years? Makes zero sense, unless you believe "Singer" has some grand plan. Yeah, right.

And the whole nonsense about me soliciting "Singer?" C'mon, man, get real. Anybody on these forums could, at any time under any name, try to hire me. Anybody could report on me "soliciting them." But zero confirmations after eight years and lots of anti-APers. And "Singer" just couldn't or didn't hang onto whatever phone number or text message or email or PM did the soliciting. Ever.

C'mon, man. Do better. Put some of that 200K from the jackpot to use and hire a couple of decent PIs and get some stuff right, for once. You can do it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

UCFX, you just wrote in another thread:

"I don't actually play much blackjack. But I would assume one would have to actually play in order to experience variance."


Why are you saying Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. on a subject that you know little about? Oh I get it you are really Moses.

---

Great job detective dick wad. I play blackjack. Others in our group do not. I've had many conversation with Moses about blackjack and basketball. It's not all that difficult for someone with half a brain. Btw, Bob. I'm sure the U can't fix stupid phase will go on for most of the day as these friggin losers got nothing else better to do than to try to catch Moses in lie that Dan doesn't care about in the first place. lol What a bunch of dipshits!

I look forward to meeting you on your trip. However, is lady friend is liable to shove a mop straight up your travel companions hind parts. Might want to leave him at home.

Anymore questions detective dumbass?

---

As a matter of fact I do have another question as in inquiring minds would like too know this one. We know that you have split personalities and that you also work as some sort of hospice representive a commendable position for a normal type of person. When you are with your boyfriend in a intimate moment and you are about to have an orgasm are you looking at your boyfriend, or are you thinking about the 93 year old man who you saw closing his eyes for the last time that afternoon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

As a matter of fact I do have another question as in inquiring minds would like too know this one. We know that you have split personalities and that you also work as some sort of hospice representive a commendable position for a normal type of person. When you are with your boyfriend in a intimate moment and you are about to have an orgasm are you looking at your boyfriend, or are you thinking about the 93 year old man who you saw closing his eyes for the last time that afternoon?

---

Oh look Steve a joke by For Um Dumbass Detective. FUDD. Elmer, I can't even follow what the flip you're saying. The sign said, No Dogs Allowed, so blind assed Bosox walked into a bar, then a table, then the wrong restroom, and the out the back door sayin "where the hell is my dog"? Lou doesn't have a boyfriend. What are you whacking off or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

---

Okay you’re right and I’m wrong on this. The way you worded your sentences was confusing. But now going back through your post very carefully I see how you stated it is correct. My bad. We’re on the same page on this one.

Obviously, the fewer the number of possessions, the more the variance in the outcome of the game.

I still think the NCAA mostly put in the shot clock to make the games more enjoyable to watch.

---

That's why I wrote, "This is why, in part...." The "in part" means this is one reason. Not necessarily the most important, but a significant reason. The shot clock prevented games from being history once one team had a 14 or 15 point lead. So it kept the outcome in doubt, which helped massage television ratings. That would be the primary reason, in my mind. Close behind would be the need to ass-kiss the established ratings getters, the brand names like UNC or Duke, because those brand names are necessary to ratings, also.

Instead of writing "This is why, in part," I should have written "This is one reason." That would have been superior writing, but it is a junk forum, so I usually post without editing.

---

Agreed! We’re on the same page. I hate when someone tries to catch me on some minor spelling, grammar or sentence structure error so I don’t want to do the same thing to you. My bad.

And going back through your original post on this thread again, I see where you’re going with less possessions increases variance, in terms of the outcome of the game.

But I also kind of get where Moses was going with his basketball analogy. His point was less possessions, or a better thought out possession, helps defeat a stronger foe. And that’s definitely true.

And blackjack aside, I agree it’s best to take the layup at 6 mins, rather than the jump shot at 7 mins. This is the point I think Kj missed. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UCFX

Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

---

A complete lie. I haven't had any heart attacks. I had a bad valve that needed to be replaced. I am healthy and active. Ran a half marathon last fall. Skied several times over the winter, have a surfing trip to Cali coming up.

I mean really why do you people have to lie about such things?

And btw, suppose I had a heart attack? You need that to make your point or argument? What the fuck kind of person are you Moses? Never mind. You repeatedly show just what kind of person you are.

---

I wouldn't be blaming him for all this kew. You're the idiot who just had to present the story about how you have infected blood, a defective heart, and crossed wires upstairs to go along with your "Hey everybody look at me!--I'm a bona fide BJ pro who has been outsmarting casino managers better than anyone else on earth for more than 15 years now!!" load of internet crap.

You're the world's biggest pussy, that's for sure. You claim whatever you want and whatever makes you "feel good" under anonymity, and whenever anybody questions you or calls your bluff, you jump up and down crying foul like a whiny-ass baby.

You made your bed, your "partner" you made up escaped from you. Now keep tossing and turning in it. And yes, I DO know who you are, where you now live, and why you had to leave the old house you lived in....and I know you have a part time job. You're such a phoney.

---

Robocchio, why don't you regale us with stories of how you outsmarted casino managers for ten years and made a million bucks. How were you able to get away with it while KJ couldn't have possibly gotten away with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Robocchio, why don't you regale us with stories of how you outsmarted casino managers for ten years and made a million bucks. How were you able to get away with it while KJ couldn't have possibly gotten away with it?

---

Outsmarted casino managers? I want to hear more of how he outsmarted the mathematics. ;) I want to hear more about stop limits and how stopping today somehow changes your future results whenever you play again? I want to hear about progression betting and how chasing previous losses guarantees future winnings and other such voodoo concepts such as "being due".

What exactly and I mean exactly is it that one must due to win against the mathematics of the game. Is there some sort of magical incantation that needs be said, or other voodoo ritual. Is it some special combination of rabbits feet and lucky charms that allows one special person to overcome the mathematics involved? And do these tricks also allow you to defy gravity?

Because THAT is where we are with Singer and have been for quite some time. His claims are mathematically impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Robocchio, why don't you regale us with stories of how you outsmarted casino managers for ten years and made a million bucks. How were you able to get away with it while KJ couldn't have possibly gotten away with it?

---

Outsmarted casino managers? I want to hear more of how he outsmarted the mathematics. ;) I want to hear more about stop limits and how stopping today somehow changes your future results whenever you play again? I want to hear about progression betting and how chasing previous losses guarantees future winnings and other such voodoo concepts such as "being due".

What exactly and I mean exactly is it that one must due to win against the mathematics of the game. Is there some sort of magical incantation that needs be said, or other voodoo ritual. Is it some special combination of rabbits feet and lucky charms that allows one special person to overcome the mathematics involved? And do these tricks also allow you to defy gravity?

Because THAT is where we are with Singer and have been for quite some time. His claims are mathematically impossible.

---

By definition, he has paranormal abilities. That's why I tried to convince him to take a stab at the Randi Million Dollar Challenge while it was available.

For most of my time here Singer was the biggest Joke on the forum. Special plays. Soft Profits and other voodoo nonsense that simply goes against the math.

But Now Singer isn't even in the top 2 crazies of the forum. Moses/Moses girlfriend/Tater/82 year old Lou and I don't know who else all posting under the handle of UCFX and we are supposed to guess which personality is posting at any given time.

And then there is Bob21. It took me a while to figure Bob out but he is basically Alan. That is the role he plays. He lies, twists, manipulates everything said. If he gets caught with something he can't answer, he just goes radio silent.

It is a good thing these clowns are posting 50 times a day, 24/7 to make up for Axel, MaxPen, RS_, and many other members that have all but curtailed their participation here. Even guys like Slingshot and coach belly, regnis, seem to have all but disappeared. So many more. We lost quality, but we are maintaining quantity and that is what Dan Druff cares about.

I'd like to throw it open to coach belly and slingshot. Two guys that aren't exactly in my corner...ever. What do you guys think of the forum under Bob21, and Moses and his many personalities seemingly running the show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

A complete lie. I haven't had any heart attacks. I had a bad valve that needed to be replaced. I am healthy and active. Ran a half marathon last fall. Skied several times over the winter, have a surfing trip to Cali coming up.

I mean really why do you people have to lie about such things?

And btw, suppose I had a heart attack? You need that to make your point or argument? What the fuck kind of person are you Moses? Never mind. You repeatedly show just what kind of person you are.

---

I wouldn't be blaming him for all this kew. You're the idiot who just had to present the story about how you have infected blood, a defective heart, and crossed wires upstairs to go along with your "Hey everybody look at me!--I'm a bona fide BJ pro who has been outsmarting casino managers better than anyone else on earth for more than 15 years now!!" load of internet crap.

You're the world's biggest pussy, that's for sure. You claim whatever you want and whatever makes you "feel good" under anonymity, and whenever anybody questions you or calls your bluff, you jump up and down crying foul like a whiny-ass baby.

You made your bed, your "partner" you made up escaped from you. Now keep tossing and turning in it. And yes, I DO know who you are, where you now live, and why you had to leave the old house you lived in....and I know you have a part time job. You're such a phoney.

---

Robocchio, why don't you regale us with stories of how you outsmarted casino managers for ten years and made a million bucks. How were you able to get away with it while KJ couldn't have possibly gotten away with it?

---

Rob was able to pull it off because he tips better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

For most of my time here Singer was the biggest Joke on the forum. Special plays. Soft Profits and other voodoo nonsense that simply goes against the math.

But Now Singer isn't even in the top 2 crazies of the forum. Moses/Moses girlfriend/Tater/82 year old Lou and I don't know who else all posting under the handle of UCFX and we are supposed to guess which personality is posting at any given time.

And then there is Bob21. It took me a while to figure Bob out but he is basically Alan. That is the role he plays. He lies, twists, manipulates everything said. If he gets caught with something he can't answer, he just goes radio silent.

It is a good thing these clowns are posting 50 times a day, 24/7 to make up for Axel, MaxPen, RS_, and many other members that have all but curtailed their participation here. Even guys like Slingshot and coach belly, regnis, seem to have all but disappeared. So many more. We lost quality, but we are maintaining quantity and that is what Dan Druff cares about.

I'd like to throw it open to coach belly and slingshot. Two guys that aren't exactly in my corner...ever. What do you guys think of the forum under Bob21, and Moses and his many personalities seemingly running the show?

---

...And then we have KJ who thinks he is Mr Perfect sitting in judgement. He is perfect alright. Perfectly queer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

For most of my time here Singer was the biggest Joke on the forum. Special plays. Soft Profits and other voodoo nonsense that simply goes against the math.

But Now Singer isn't even in the top 2 crazies of the forum. Moses/Moses girlfriend/Tater/82 year old Lou and I don't know who else all posting under the handle of UCFX and we are supposed to guess which personality is posting at any given time.

And then there is Bob21. It took me a while to figure Bob out but he is basically Alan. That is the role he plays. He lies, twists, manipulates everything said. If he gets caught with something he can't answer, he just goes radio silent.

It is a good thing these clowns are posting 50 times a day, 24/7 to make up for Axel, MaxPen, RS_, and many other members that have all but curtailed their participation here. Even guys like Slingshot and coach belly, regnis, seem to have all but disappeared. So many more. We lost quality, but we are maintaining quantity and that is what Dan Druff cares about.

I'd like to throw it open to coach belly and slingshot. Two guys that aren't exactly in my corner...ever. What do you guys think of the forum under Bob21, and Moses and his many personalities seemingly running the show?

---

You’re out of control Kj. Take a deep breath. If Dan cared about quality, he’d have kicked you off here a long time ago. All you do is come on here everyday and rant, and whine, and try to troll someone. I went back and read some of your posts on BJTF and see you did the same thing there until Norm finally banned you.

You’re the one trolling Moses. It’s not the other way around. You just don’t have the brain power to stay with him, and it eats you up. So everyday you try again....and it’s usually the same result. He makes you look silly.

And silly - and whiny - are some good words for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

For most of my time here Singer was the biggest Joke on the forum. Special plays. Soft Profits and other voodoo nonsense that simply goes against the math.

But Now Singer isn't even in the top 2 crazies of the forum. Moses/Moses girlfriend/Tater/82 year old Lou and I don't know who else all posting under the handle of UCFX and we are supposed to guess which personality is posting at any given time.

And then there is Bob21. It took me a while to figure Bob out but he is basically Alan. That is the role he plays. He lies, twists, manipulates everything said. If he gets caught with something he can't answer, he just goes radio silent.

It is a good thing these clowns are posting 50 times a day, 24/7 to make up for Axel, MaxPen, RS_, and many other members that have all but curtailed their participation here. Even guys like Slingshot and coach belly, regnis, seem to have all but disappeared. So many more. We lost quality, but we are maintaining quantity and that is what Dan Druff cares about.

I'd like to throw it open to coach belly and slingshot. Two guys that aren't exactly in my corner...ever. What do you guys think of the forum under Bob21, and Moses and his many personalities seemingly running the show?

---

You’re out of control Kj. Take a deep breath. If Dan cared about quality, he’d have kicked you off here a long time ago. All you do is come on here everyday and rant, and whine, and try to troll someone. I went back and read some of your posts on BJTF and see you did the same thing there until Norm finally banned you.

You’re the one trolling Moses. It’s not the other way around. You just don’t have the brain power to stay with him, and it eats you up. So everyday you try again....and it’s usually the same result. He makes you look silly.

And silly - and whiny - are some good words for you!

---

:) Something tells me that if kew doesn't relax and take the beating several members are doling out to him, we may have a suicide in the making.

Oh dear....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

For most of my time here Singer was the biggest Joke on the forum. Special plays. Soft Profits and other voodoo nonsense that simply goes against the math.

But Now Singer isn't even in the top 2 crazies of the forum. Moses/Moses girlfriend/Tater/82 year old Lou and I don't know who else all posting under the handle of UCFX and we are supposed to guess which personality is posting at any given time.

And then there is Bob21. It took me a while to figure Bob out but he is basically Alan. That is the role he plays. He lies, twists, manipulates everything said. If he gets caught with something he can't answer, he just goes radio silent.

It is a good thing these clowns are posting 50 times a day, 24/7 to make up for Axel, MaxPen, RS_, and many other members that have all but curtailed their participation here. Even guys like Slingshot and coach belly, regnis, seem to have all but disappeared. So many more. We lost quality, but we are maintaining quantity and that is what Dan Druff cares about.

I'd like to throw it open to coach belly and slingshot. Two guys that aren't exactly in my corner...ever. What do you guys think of the forum under Bob21, and Moses and his many personalities seemingly running the show?

---

You’re out of control Kj. Take a deep breath. If Dan cared about quality, he’d have kicked you off here a long time ago. All you do is come on here everyday and rant, and whine, and try to troll someone. I went back and read some of your posts on BJTF and see you did the same thing there until Norm finally banned you.

You’re the one trolling Moses. It’s not the other way around. You just don’t have the brain power to stay with him, and it eats you up. So everyday you try again....and it’s usually the same result. He makes you look silly.

And silly - and whiny - are some good words for you!

---

:) Something tells me that if kew doesn't relax and take the beating several members are doling out to him, we may have a suicide in the making.

Oh dear....

---

History repeats. I think Bob. He loses and the goes plum off his rocker.