The rollercoaster that is professional card counting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I am done with this though. I don't know why Moses felt the need to expand this basically single discussion to 2 threads and have me running back and forth. I don't have some goal to humiliate Moses. He has done that to himself.

No variance. :rolleyes: Complete voodoo!

---

It's just words KJ. You don't have the guts to back anything up. You humiliated yourself when you showed your weakness, lack of discipline, and absolute iconic idiocy by losing $29K in a week. Only a moron would do this. What's worse is you talk about it and need comforting. Sick man. Very sick.

Prove me wrong KJ. PROVE ME WRONG!

---

Completely idiotic Moses. More of a complete lack of understanding how card counting and the long-term works. I'll try to explain it to you, knowing that you will not accept it.

At my level of play, I experience about 12-14 "five figure" days a year. That is combined, winning and losing. Without going back and looking, maybe 5-7 losing Five figure days and 7-9 winning five figure days. So they are routine. So on a Monday, I experience a five figure losing day and by the way a five-figure losing day doesn't mean that I sit down at a table and lose 10 grand. It's over 4 or 5 sessions.

So anyway, I lose five figures on a Monday. What would you have me do? Stop playing for the week? For the month? what? That's not going to help me get to the 80,000 rounds I need to get to for the year if I stop playing because of some artificial "stop loss limit".

And it is not going to change a damn thing. Whatever is going to happen next is going to happen next whether I next play the following day (Tuesday), or the next week or the next month. All that you do by stopping for a day, week or however long is reduce the total that I will play for the year and THAT reduces what I will win for the year. Long-term Moses. It's all about Long-term. :rolleyes:

Why does it feel like I have had this conversation with someone else that used to participate here that also had no clue about the long-term? :confused:

I'm a complete civilian when it comes to blackjack -- haven't played a hand in 30 years. So bear with me here.


Let me get this straight. Moses accepts kewlJ's word that kewlJ lost 29K in a week. He accepts that as fact. But he refuses to accept that kewlJ won the 29K back over a much longer time. He does not accept that as fact. Yet both pieces of information have the same source and the same evidence (none, pretty much). What sense does that make?

So, let me move on. What Moses has an issue with is that kewlJ reports a large loss, then reports making up for that loss? So Moses has an issue with the reported variance? If other people can do the math regarding likely variance, and the variance fits the stakes and the story, then what is the problem? Is the problem that it sets kewlJ up as heroic or something? So the issue is that kewlJ reporting a loss and then earning it back is likely a fiction? What if kewlJ reported a big win, and then reported losses over five months that negated the win? For Moses to be consistent, then that would also have to be disbelieved. Right? Or am I missing something?

Why is 29K a big deal? It's just a number. How is losing 29K in a week a sign of anything?

Strange stuff. But carry on. I'm not going to ask any questions about the alleged sports betting. No need, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

What the fuck Moses?!? I won just under 100k from blackjack last year! :rolleyes: And yes, that includes a number of losing weeks, including the single worst week of my 15 year carreer. That is exactly how professional blackjack play works!

---

I did it without the horrendous losses. I think in my 34 years, I maybe a $3k lost week. IT's not something I fret about or need consoling. I simply move on to the next session, day, or week etc etc. There were some $10k weeks in sports bets and that $20k loss on Black Monday, waaay before your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So, let me move on. What Moses has an issue with is that kewlJ reports a large loss, then reports making up for that loss? So Moses has an issue with the reported variance? If other people can do the math regarding likely variance, and the variance fits the stakes and the story, then what is the problem? Is the problem that it sets kewlJ up as heroic or something? So the issue is that kewlJ reporting a loss and then earning it back is likely a fiction? What if kewlJ reported a big win, and then reported losses over five months that negated the win? For Moses to be consistent, then that would also have to be disbelieved. Right? Or am I missing something?

---

Whoa nelly. "Heroic"? Really? I am heroic because I experience variance playing blackjack?

I share my experiences in just that hope that it will show the variance that is involved and maybe, just maybe better prepare some player that hasn't gone through that kind of thing yet. Better prepare them and impress the fact that for blackjack card counting you need to be properly funded....Because there IS variance and it can be extreme at times.

But anyway. :rolleyes:

As for your sportsbook questions for Moses: Just like you aren't an expert at blackjack, I am not an expert (my results say far from it) with sportsbetting. If you have some questions of or about Moses concerning things he has said or eluded to regarding sportsbetting…..Jump in Redietz. The water's not too cold. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm a complete civilian when it comes to blackjack -- haven't played a hand in 30 years. So bear with me here.


Let me get this straight. Moses accepts kewlJ's word that kewlJ lost 29K in a week. He accepts that as fact. But he refuses to accept that kewlJ won the 29K back over a much longer time. He does not accept that as fact. Yet both pieces of information have the same source and the same evidence (none, pretty much). What sense does that make?

So, let me move on. What Moses has an issue with is that kewlJ reports a large loss, then reports making up for that loss? So Moses has an issue with the reported variance? If other people can do the math regarding likely variance, and the variance fits the stakes and the story, then what is the problem? Is the problem that it sets kewlJ up as heroic or something? So the issue is that kewlJ reporting a loss and then earning it back is likely a fiction? What if kewlJ reported a big win, and then reported losses over five months that negated the win? For Moses to be consistent, then that would also have to be disbelieved. Right? Or am I missing something?

Why is 29K a big deal? It's just a number. How is losing 29K in a week a sign of anything?

Strange stuff. But carry on. I'm not going to ask any questions about the alleged sports betting. No need, really.

---

I don't believe either. The loss. Therefore, a comeback wouldn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Completely idiotic Moses. More of a complete lack of understanding how card counting and the long-term works.:

---

Whatever. Play me black chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

At my level of play, I experience about 12-14 "five figure" days a year. That is combined, winning and losing. Without going back and looking, maybe 5-7 losing Five figure days and 7-9 winning five figure days. So they are routine. So on a Monday, I experience a five figure losing day and by the way a five-figure losing day doesn't mean that I sit down at a table and lose 10 grand. It's over 4 or 5 sessions.

So anyway, I lose five figures on a Monday. What would you have me do? Stop playing for the week? For the month? what? That's not going to help me get to the 80,000 rounds I need to get to for the year if I stop playing because of some artificial "stop loss limit". :

---

No. You select better games. Put yourself in a better position to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Long-term Moses. It's all about Long-term. :rolleyes::

---

Lots of losers talking about long term. Get game. Let the game come to you.

The deer doesn't just jump in the truck and say "shoot me, right here."

The only adequate response to this ramblings, would be the Billy Madison "we are now all dumber" clip, but that has been overdone, so I will refrain.

I think it is time for bed. Sleep well Moses. I know you won't. You will be consumed with this and thinking up new attacks, threats and challenges, and probably posting to yourself in half dozen different threads here and elsewhere tomorrow. Have fun. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The only adequate response to this ramblings, would be the Billy Madison "we are now all dumber" clip, but that has been overdone, so I will refrain.

I think it is time for bed. Sleep well Moses. I know you won't. You will be consumed with this and thinking up new attacks, threats and challenges, and probably posting to yourself in half dozen different threads here and elsewhere tomorrow. Have fun. :)

---

Not really. You'll be on with another panty rant about your losses followed by a success story where the non believers will be doomed. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

About 800 weeks and a 1 million dollar win. One of those weeks there was a 29K loss. What is there to make up for? You are still 971,000 dollars ahead.

The Moses, and KewlJ debate:

Listening to both of you, all I see is a huge communication problem. Neither of you are even remotely talking about the same game. I hope you both realize they are completely different, and so far apart.


Example: On the east coast two strangers on a bus start a conversation on bowling, and one guy says my average is 210 the other guy says he is 104 one guy was talking about ten pin and the other was talking about candlepin. You guys are at an even worse common ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The only adequate response to this ramblings, would be the Billy Madison "we are now all dumber" clip, but that has been overdone, so I will refrain.

I think it is time for bed. Sleep well Moses. I know you won't. You will be consumed with this and thinking up new attacks, threats and challenges, and probably posting to yourself in half dozen different threads here and elsewhere tomorrow. Have fun. :)

---

Not really. You'll be on with another panty rant about your losses followed by a success story where the non believers will be doomed. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

---

Moses, so your issue is with the amounts kewlJ claims to bet per hand? Is that what this is about? Why didn't you just say so? The way I read it, you don't believe anything he writes. Okay -- just say that, if that's the case.

You have to realize that there are odd similarities in your description of what you do that resonate with this site's other voodoo practitioners. The emphasis on session wins as meaningful. I think you had a post about you not having to keep track of this or that daily in terms of financial details. The disbelief in storylines that feature a significant loss followed by a slow climb back.


You and I are probably the same age or thereabouts, so I'm surprised you have such a jaded eye regarding reports of variance. Sports I know something about. Have you never lost a number of weeks in a row? Months in a row? Losing for a year? Have you lost seven, eight, nine games in a row on occasion?


The site's original founder used to cringe when people reported losing five digits in a day or week. He valued session wins. It was all strangeness.

Sorry Bosox. I'd love to chat with you. But I've got a huge day ahead of me. I need to lose another $28,200 so I can turn pro...and I've only got 4 days left to do it in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

The Moses, and KewlJ debate:

Listening to both of you, all I see is a huge communication problem. Neither of you are even remotely talking about the same game. I hope you both realize they are completely different, and so far apart.


Example: On the east coast two strangers on a bus start a conversation on bowling, and one guy says my average is 210 the other guy says he is 104 one guy was talking about ten pin and the other was talking about candlepin. You guys are at an even worse common ground.

---

Bosox, I don’t know if I agree with you. I don’t think your comparison works. Both KewlJ and Moses are taking about the same game, bj. There is not that much difference between single, double and shoes.

It appears to me the disagreement is with variance. How much is reasonable? Based on the little I know, I’m on KewlJ’s side. I recently watched the documentary “Holly Rollers”, a story about card counting Christians. At the end of the movie, Ben and Colin went on a bj trip and dropped something like $50,000 (I might have the amount wrong, but it was a lot) in the first week. But by the end of the trip (they didn’t say how long it was), they recovered and were up $15,000. They must have been betting pretty big to have these type of swings, but it just goes to show you the variance in this game we need to be prepared to handle.

This is the main message I believe kwelJ is trying to convey. As kwelJ said, you’ll see the same story told in most bj books. Ken Uston experienced such bad variance over a three month period that he thought of quitting. This was in his book “Million Dollar Blackjack”. He talks about some bj pros who were down $70,000 and recovered before the end of the year since they were adequately bankrolled.

Btw, I’ve leaned a lot from this thread, and it’s one of the more entertaining ones. I read it last night before going to bed and found myself laughing out loud. There were some high class put downs in this post. Neither side backed down, which made it entertaining.

The good news is at the end of the day nobody got banned. This means there should be more entertainment going forward.

There's a HUGE difference between SD and shoe games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

The Moses, and KewlJ debate:

Listening to both of you, all I see is a huge communication problem. Neither of you are even remotely talking about the same game. I hope you both realize they are completely different, and so far apart.

---

There is truth in this. I have acknowledged probably 100 times that Moses plays Reno and has access to decent Single deck games, real single deck games, not 6:5, and that makes him unique. 99.9% of blackjack card counters do not.

But there is a little more to it that that. I have played Reno. And I have spoken to other counters who have played or tried to play Reno. You just can't, not for any real money for any length of time. And before anyone links to LVBears Reno article, understand that he is talking about a counter that rolls into Reno a couple times a year. He advises of a couple places that will take some action, especially on weekends for a short time. Just trying showing up as a regular and getting that action down, week after week, let alone day after day. Not going to happen.

So, knowing that Moses plays Reno, I tried to cut him a break and not call him out, because I figured his claims weren't really hurting anyone.

But come on Bosox, you are a member at BJTF (for how much longer I don't know ;)). Does Moses's "column count" and now his claims of playing and winning with no variance not sound familiar to you? :confused: Whether he knows it of not or whether he did so intentionally or not, Moses has basically adopted T3's claims. :rolleyes:

Again, I don't care as much as I did back in the day with T3, because Moses is not able to pull it off as convincingly as T3 was able to, at least for a while, so as to mislead as many. Most people that come in contact with Moses determine pretty quickly that he is a fool. So, again, I let Moses go and blow his own horn.

But his insistence of no variance, winning steadily with no swings over the past few days, has started to bother me. Completely impossible. Blackjack is a game of swings, of variance. You know that. I know that. The guys that wrote the books as far back as the 80's knew that. That is why they all talked about large bankrolls needed. And guess what? Back in the 80's, most games were single deck or double deck. And the rule still was that you needed a big bankroll because again.....blackjack card counting is a game of high variance, and big swings!

So yeah, we are talking about different games, but that doesn't change the fact that Moses has now crossed that line, where he is completely detached from reality and making claims (no variance) that are impossible.

I don't think there is too much need to continue because like I said, I don't think too many people take him seriously. But then you come along, and give him a little credibility, when you know this is much more than Moses and I playing different games. What is up with THAT BoSox? :confused: You just stirring the pot a little? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Okay. Here is the math. 20 sessions a week of your game and your control. Win 60%. A win is $500. A loss is $500. Play 50 weeks a year. The averages and percentages work themselves out. Voila - $100k annually without the volatility.

But to lose $29k in a week only to recover it all 3 months? Hard for a grown man able to drive a car, practice/play blackjack, and run sims to believe. Control your game or their game controls you.

---

That is the math? :confused: Where are you getting your math....The Rob Singer school of alternative math? ;) I mean seriously 60% win...where did that come from? A win of $500 and losses of $500? Only number you posted that looks close to right to me is about 50 weeks in a year.


Let me share my math with you. Real blackjack math!

I play 70,000 to 100,000 rounds of blackjack a year. Lets say 80,000 to make it easy. Since I play almost exclusively one spot, no need to add anything there. so 80,000 rounds. My average bet is a bit complicated because I use different spreads, ramps and top bets, but lets make it real easy and say average bet of $100. It is really somewhat more than that. So 80,000 rounds at average bet of $100 = $8,000,000. I put roughly 8 million dollars into play a year.

---

KJ, dumb question. Do you use a players card at any stores in your rotation or would that just be like hanging a big target on your back? You probably already stated this long ago, but that's a lot of play to not get any PC benefits.

And let me tell you one other thing about variance. I know a little about reducing variance. I played Atlantic City for 5 and a half years. The first 3 were on a very small bankroll, starting with $4300 and working up to 10,000 by year 3. And I didn't tap out. I now know I didn't for dumb luck. I played a very small spread and that reduced variance. But you know what else it does? It reduces win rate. I was barely playing a break even game back them because I was trying not to tap out. That is why it took me 3 F***ing years to really get going.

And you know what, I suspect that is what Moses is really doing. He retired, with some sort of retirement income and sits around the sportsbook chatting and arguing with his buddy's. And every once in a while when he gets tired of arguing with them, he sits down at a blackjack table and probably spreads $5-$15 and makes a few dollars. MaxPen called it lunch money. ;) That small spread at that very low limit is probably tolerated, especially if they know him and know he gambles in other things. AND such a small spread would come with less variance. A big losing day would be $100, a huge losing day would be $200.

THAT is where I think we are in this discussion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Moses is doing. But there becomes a problem when he starts talking about real variance, of which he knows absolutely nothing about. I'll say this one more time. Real blackjack card counting play involves real variance and wild swings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

KJ, dumb question. Do you use a players card at any stores in your rotation or would that just be like hanging a big target on your back? You probably already stated this long ago, but that's a lot of play to not get any PC benefits.

---

Short answer no dannyj. I play blackjack unrated. The downside of playing rated is much greater than any benefit of points and offers. For one thing, reducing points and offers is usually the very first counter measure against a card counter who is a regular at a property. You know the pit rates players by skill level in addition to how much they win or lose and buy in for and cash out. Once the pit rates you as a skilled player, what you earn playing blackjack (in points and offers) becomes almost nothing, and it wasn't much to begin with.

There is exactly 1 place that I play rated playing blackjack. I play a break even game and a very small amount of play generates weekly free play and match play coupons, which is where my small amount of EV comes from. It is actually probably my lowest continuing weekly play (in terms of EV), but I just like the place, and the coffee shop (oh yeah, that small play also generates a free meal weekly), so I still hit it up. It worked better when my partner was alive and there were two of us, but I still hit it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

There's a HUGE difference between SD and shoe games.

---

I get that there is a difference between SD and shoes, but do you think it is as large as the two different bowling games Bosox is referring too?

And besides that isn’t even what the augment is about. It’s about variance in Bj. There is variance in blackjack regardless if you play SD or shoe games. What reduces variance is your bet spread, not the number of decks.

KewlJ wrote:

" But then you come along, and give him a little credibility, when you know thisis much more than Moses and I playing different games. What is up with THAT BoSox? You just stirring the pot a little? "

I am not stirring up anything. First I have not played single deck games for a very long time now. I also have no knowledge at all on the column counts that Moses and Three use, so I do not feel I have a right to opine. Last we do know that Moses plays to short sessions using "and this is important" very small spreads. How do we know this? Because he has told us numerious times that he was formally kicked out of many places and needed to cut his already small spread in single deck and change his game arround with much more emphasis on playing efficiency to get the job done. What do you get out of all that? A very controlled game with much, much smaller variance swings that you and I are accostomed to seeing. By the way those books going back to the 80's knew nothing about column counts. Both of you are completely blind to what each other is doing, and I stand firm to what I wrote in my first post above.