n
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...26#post1070326
Printable View
After reading your pokerfraudalert post Mickey, I would like to add that this technique really helped me too in general (physics,chemistry,probability and on and on) over the years. That is, I would just get a bunch of different books on a particular topic and then, almost always, at least one of the books would make that particular topic crystal clear.
J-Stat posted about Scarne yesterday at GF, as well, Mickey. I withheld any comments about the system itself because I didn't want to get into a fight with Jstat about something that is not applicable in today's blackjack games, and only spoke about the part where he purchased extra chips to aid in his counting of blackjack.
The counting system he described for blackjack, like a lot of other advanced and what I call specialty counts, including what Moses was proposing and a proponent of, where only applicable on those long-gone single deck games, dealt very deep. Being that those games were not in AC when I started and now are gone from everywhere except Reno and a few small towns in Vegas where you can't get any real money or spread down, I just saw no reason to read all that much or form an opinion, so I will go with my general opinion that was the basis for a decade of arguments with Moses. I am sure the math works and probably stronger than anything I am doing counting, but those games are gone. What good is something that works with no games to apply it to. And if you try to apply that to 6 deck games it doesn't translate or work. For 6 deck games, it really is about simplicity. Trying to go beyond that you get into very diminishing return and more errors.
As per the math itself, I am sure it is above my head. I am not smart with math beyond fairly simple concepts. I got into blackjack when I did because you could win using simple math concepts that I understood.
But based on what Jstat wrote at GF and I replied to, the "method" Scarne used to keep track of all the moving parts was buying 40 some extra chips so he could have 4 stacks with different amounts of chips and rotating chips to represent the different counts and moving parts. Using gaming chips is actually illegal under the device law. And I would think what was described about the 4 stacks would be fairly obvious. I find that absolutely ridiculous that using casino chips is a device, but it has been proven and accepted (I guess) as such.
As for poker, I don't play. Never played a single hand, so I can't even begin to comprehend the complicated math Scarne discussed. It is just above my head.
John Scarne finally admitted that he had a card casing system in his book "Scarne's Complete Guide To Gambling"(1986). On page 370, Scarne explains his COUNTOWN SYSTEM. This method did not fit into computer programs and more importantly wins.
Scarne was the first counter to barred at Bugsy Siegel's Flamingo in the 40's. Subsequently, he was barred from all Las Vegas casinos. Scarne was rebuked by the casino sponsored gurus because he had the guts to reveal a valid winning blackjack method. This system is by far, the best single deck method ever devised.
In a nutshell, this system requires you to buy 20 additional chips to be used for the "countdown". Take four chips off this stack and place it next to the remaining 16 chips. The four chips represent aces while the 16 chips represent tens, jacks, queens and kings. As you go through the deck, take off the chips from these stacks as they are played. If, for example, 1/2 of a deck remains and 8 chips are left from the ten's pile and four chips remain on the aces pile. Since this situation has produced a 2-1 ratio from the normal 4-1 ratio of ten cards to aces, we will get blackjacks 9.6% of the time instead of 4.8% of the time. You will NEVER find and exploit this advantage with Stanford Wong's or Arnold Snyder's counts.
John Scarne was the ultimate insider who sought to reveal the truth of this great game. But as usual, you suckers will believe in people who can manipulate computer simulated outcomes better than they can handle cards.
John Scarne's "Countdown System" also works perfectly regarding insurance. While ALL the "recognized" experts can only offer approximations, Scarne's method will give you the EXACT percentage of the insurance bet. When the ratio of tens and aces is under 2-1, then it is favorable to take insurance. You can also do this with double- deck and beyond if you wish. In the double deck, just adjust your stacks of chips to 32 and 8, for tens and aces respectively. When over the 2-1 ratio, don't take insurance.
He could have lied too. Scarne was a known scammer and cheater.
Also, nobody here but Kewlj works for peanuts and counts cards, so none of us give a flying fuck about it either.
That's right. Also the bankroll requirements when dealing with such a thin edge are absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
JSTAT, you are misrepresenting the facts. The blackjack community didn't rebuke Scarne, he rebuked them. He made the first move. It is well documented that he tried to discredit Thorp.Quote:
Originally Posted by JSTAT
Yeah well Jstat has also spent years trying to discredit Thorp.
Isn't Thorpe credited with hi-lo? How do you discredit hi-lo lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I forget the exact details but there is a very minor error in Thorp's Beat the Dealer, that was discovered years later and Thorp acknowledged. It is very, very minor and changes nothing. But JStat has been harping on it ever since I encountered him attempting to discredit Thorp.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerIsn't Thorpe credited with hi-lo? How do you discredit hi-lo lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That's exactly what he's still trying to do here.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is true that Thorp didn't discover card counting. He only mathematically proved it with computers and exposed it.
https://youtu.be/MLtT8fzQsTcQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerIsn't Thorpe credited with hi-lo? How do you discredit hi-lo lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Oh My God. Do I even want to get into this AGAIN? Yeah why not. Sunday night, nothing else to do.
My favorite two parts are the first and last minutes of the video. (no, I didn't waste 8 minutes, but did waste 8 minutes on a prior occasion)
First minute Jstat says the casinos "helped with the book". Just to be clear he is alleging that the casino industry colluded with Thorp to write a book with strategies that don't work.
In the last minute, he says something like "If you want to lose, drink the kool-aid".
It all boils down to Jstat has for years claimed hi-lo is not a valid winning strategy, even calling it a "hoax".
I have made going on 2 million dollars in my AP career and 1.5 million of that is from card counting and playing hi-lo. Don't anyone give me shit about bragging, I am not. In my 20th year those numbers are less than almost every other AP makes these days. In addition, my brother has made nearly half a million in his 6 years of counting, all playing hi-lo.
But don't take my word for it. there are thousands, probably ten of thousands of players that have made good money, professional or professional level money for decades, all playing hi-lo including:
100's of members of 50+ years of MIT blackjack teams.
Dozens of members of the long running Tommy Hyland teams.
Members of Ken Uston / Al Fransesco teams.
I don't know how many members of the teams made popular by documentaries like the "Holy Rollers".
The Chech and other European Teams that invaded the US in the 80, 90, 2000's
Plus many more that are escaping me at the moment.
And God knows how many solo players like myself.
That would be one hell of a lot of people conspiring on this "hoax" about hi-lo.
So all those people vs one or two people claiming hi-lo doesn't work so they can promote something else, like "the JStat count".
Draw your own conclusions.
Edit: Let me get an emoji, so you all know it is me. :cool:
Now, what IS true about hi-lo or even other counts in card counting is that they were written for a different time, different games, different condition back in the 70's, 80, 90's. The most devastating of these rule changes was the dealer hit soft 17 rule. This is much more devasting than the two tenths of a percent it adds to the house edge, because it changes all the true count frequencies, reducing the better counts somewhat significantly, making the cost is much, greater to a card counter.
So if you play hi-lo, or again, any other count as the books from 70's, 80's and 90's advise, raising one unit at a time, per true count, you can't get the bigger bets out frequently enough to overcome all the negative and neutral counts. You have to ramp up your bets much more aggressively, getting your top wager out by a TC of +4 at the latest. +3 even better.
So if Jstat, or anyone else was playing as recommended in any one of these books, lets take Wong's professional blackjack as an example, and ramping up $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, $80 according to corresponding true counts, yeah you probably are playing a break even or just barely winning game. You would need to ramp up say $10, $30, $60, $100 to show a good profit in todays world. So Jstat or anyone else ramping up according to those books, might conclude hi-lo or any other count doesn't work.
I will even share a bet spread that I actually use. One of several different ones.
6 deck game. Spread $100-$800. My First wager off the top (neutral count) is $300, but only for the first round or two while pit might take notice. After that all my neutral wager bets are $200. If the count drops to negative, I will drop to $100 and exit aggressively at between -1.5 to -2 TC.
Now when the count goes positive to +2, I go from my neutral wager of $200 to $400, and when it hits TC +3 or more, I double to $800. I only have two different jumps from neutral to max bets and all the increases are doubling amounts, which can be done using only winning chips from a single hand.
To fully see the 1-8 spread pit would need to see a negative count $100 and max bet count in the same shoe, which doesn't happen often. The much greater occurrence is they see a $300 bet (my first wager) up to $800 (max bet) which no casino or pit is concerned with such a spread. I call this spreading both directions and it is a key to longevity. I can play even known sweaty places without them having much concern.
Now again, if you were using the $100-$800 spread from not just beat the dealer, but any of those books from the 70's, 80's 90's, you would wager $100 off the top, $200 at tc +2, $300 @ Tc +3 and so on so forth. And those largest of bets aren't out frequently enough to win any money.
So yeah, if you are reading and applying from those books of yesteryear, not only will hi-lo not win you any money, but no count will. But that is a function of the application of spread and ramp, not the count. My guess is this is how Jstat applied hi-lo and decided it doesn't work.
Edit: oh boy....sorry, forgot an emoji. :)
Now Mr. Video Maker, JSTAT. If you were to make a video of what I just wrote, let's call it KJ's Blackjack for the 2020's, you would really have something. You could probably put a price tag on and make yourself some money. :) Of course that is the generic version of Chapter 1. I have left out most of the good stuff, for obvious reasons.
Sorry for calling you Shirley, but surely (movie airplane reference) there were players using any number of counts back in the 50's and 60's. Even something as simple as A-5 would work on a good single deck game. Just imagine these players when Thorp spilled the beans. Screaming WTF! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbThat's exactly what he's still trying to do here.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is true that Thorp didn't discover card counting. He only mathematically proved it with computers and exposed it.