Getting tired of the trolling here -- please read this thread -- NEW RULES

[kewlJ]

kewlj you don't have to be a blackjack player or a card counter to be able to sit at a blackjack table and ascertain if you have a view of the cards at the next table. Nor do you have to be a card counter or a blackjack player to know what happens when two games at two tables are running simultaneously creating the difficulties of seeing cards dealt at both tables.

Look Alan, as I stated this is nothing new or ground-breaking. When I posted I had no idea it would create this much controversy because I just assumed it was widely known that many experienced, professional level players do this.

Below are quotes from another site blackjackinfo, of several well known long-time blackjack card counters, 21forme, and Don Schlesinger, author of Blackjack Attack 3.

I have backcounted two tables at a time and also glanced at one to my right or left while actively playing for 40 years.
Don

KJ - I do it, and also backcount two tables at the same time. Perhaps I'm taking credit I don't deserve, but I seem to recall introducing you to the technique via discussions we had many years ago.

Tables have to be positioned just right, and if someone sits in the wrong chair, that's the end of viewing the other table. Regarding seeing the cards on the next table while seated, having some HC experience is very helpful in being able to recognize the card values by pips, allowing identification from over 20 feet away.

This may have been before your time, but at the old Sands in AC, there was a balcony overlooking the table games. Some people had spotters up there to count down tables and point their players in the right direction.

I realize these names (handles) may not mean much to you Alan, but these are two well know, card counters, 21forme a professional AP for several decades and Don , while never a 'professional' player to my knowledge, a very well known mathematician and long-time 'serious' player, as well as author. In AP circles, these guys have a stellar reputation (although I am sure a whack job like Singer will belittle them).

Note the highlighted phrase from 21forme's post referencing pips and paint from 20 feet away. Almost exact terminology that I used a month ago.

I don't participate at BJ21 any longer (my choice), but that is a site where there are many such long-term experienced players post and participate, both professional and not. I know if I posted there asking who tracks multiple tables there would be a dozen replies.

Again, Alan tracking a second table is NOT anything new. Experienced players having been doing so since before I was born. I recognize this seems like a new concept to you, and as such, you find it hard to believe, but that is your dilemma, not mine.

And while I can produce probably a dozen experienced card counters, professional, semi-professional and even recreational, I can guarantee not one would be willing to put on a demonstration, for some "journalist" from an anonymous message board. You even thinking that, shows a clear lack of understanding of AP's and the AP mentality.

[Alan Mendelson]

kewlj it doesn't surprise me that there are others who claim they can count two tables. Do you know how many dice shooters there are who claim they can influence the dice? Ever go to one of those DI conventions? There are hundreds of them. And in my life I've only seen three who I think have the ability.

A lot of people make claims about casino gambling. It makes you wonder how they stay in business.

Of course, what we don't know... and what you don't know... is just how effective this second table counting really is?

I leave regnis' discussion to answer this.

[jbjb]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

To put this into easy to understand terms: you wake up one morning and after five minutes of trading you decide to invest $1,000 in the stock market without knowing what happened the day before?

I suppose. I don't know squat about the stock market.

[Rob.Singer]

An inaccurate count--which not seeing ALL of the cards obviously is--is as useless to a bj counter as a condom with a tiny hole in it is to a stud. And since a counter's theoretical edge creeps downward the higher the # of decks that are being used, the more meaningless it is if a player does not see every card. This is one of those mathematical facts that the ap community is always harping about. Now suddenly, there's no need for accuracy in a game where "grinding it out" is as tough as it gets in a casino game.

Kew just didn't think through what he was saying, and now he's caught between a rock and a hard place....and his apologists are sinking fast as they try so hard to help him save face.

If this isn't another true, blistering example of why "AP" is nothing more than a state-of-mind, it would be impossible to find anything more apropos.

[jbjb]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

Actually, this works well in craps: the next roll of the dice is not affected by the previous roll(s).

But that's not how I thought you play blackjack???

Dice rolls in craps are independent trials. Rolling a 7 is 1 in 6. Rolling it again is still 1 in 6 as you well know. Dealing blackjack without shuffling are dependent trials. What's been dealt DOES affect what will be dealt on subsequent rounds. Using a single deck, dealing all of the aces in the first round makes a blackjack on the next round impossible. Dealing all of the 5's in the first round makes a blackjack EASIER to get on the next round. Not only that, barring it's a 6:5 game, it gives the player a large advantage over the house. I'm sure you already knew all of this though.

As for whether counting a second table can be done or not, I'm staying out of that. I know that while standing behind one table, I can see cards on adjacent tables without obstructions.

[jbjb]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

JB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.

They may be positive, negative or neutral. All in all it'll be a wash.

Let's take a poker hand. You have aces and I have kings. The flop is AKK. The turn is a 4. We go all in and flip the cards over. We see a total of 8 cards and two unknowns (the burn cards) and the dealer is holding 42 (44 total unseen cards). What are your odds of hitting the last ace? 1 in 44 or the 42 that the dealer is holding?

[regnis]

I still have a pair of those x-ray glasses we used to order from the back of comic books. Would that help? It didn't actually let me see through Melanie G's dress in 8th grade. Damn it!!!!

[Alan Mendelson]

What's been dealt DOES affect what will be dealt on subsequent rounds. Using a single deck, dealing all of the aces in the first round makes a blackjack on the next round impossible. Dealing all of the 5's in the first round makes a blackjack EASIER to get on the next round.

Is kewlj talking about a single deck game?

regnis, were you under the impression kewlj was talking about a single deck game?

[regnis]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

JB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.

They may be positive, negative or neutral. All in all it'll be a wash.

JB--then why jump in if it's a wash. So there is no advantage. Kewl--maybe you can better explain this please.


I think we are talking multi-deck.

[kewlJ]

Of course, what we don't know... and what you don't know... is just how effective this second table counting really is?

Don't be absurd! I know how effective the second table is because like all professional players, I keep detailed records.

A lot of people make claims about casino gambling. It makes you wonder how they stay in business.

There are so few real AP's that what they take are a drop in the bucket. And of that miniscule amount, most of that 'damage' is done by well financed teams, especially in regards to blackjack, but true of other AP as well. Solo type players, like myself (although technically I have a couple partners), or a mickeycrimm, or some of the other solo type players are zero threat to the casinos.

Casinos would be better off to almost ignore such players and focus on well financed teams and players playing to a much larger advantage and/or even cheating. Several well known and respected consultants, like a Bill Zender have advised this, but the casino industry has a hard on about Advantage play. In many cases they end up spending a dollar for each penny they save by thwarting AP's who are no threat.

[regnis]

I am going to try to be very clear here. In a new shoe, you see the first 10 cards and you know with 100% certainty that the shoe is +6. If you come up to a table in the middle of a shoe and see the next 10 cards and those 10 cards are +6, you still have no idea what the status of the shoe is? It could be +10, it could be -15, it could be anything.

So my question in simple terms is how can you jump in to the table in the middle of the shoe based upon those 10 cards without any certainty of the overall status of that shoe?

I don't care if you explain it mathematically or otherwise. Logically, it seems wrong to me. So no dancing around this--explain please.

[jbjb]

It could be both. Again though, you can't assume it's either one. You can only go off of the information you have. I'm sure you've read many times where counters keep losing hand after hand after hand into a rising count then the cut card comes out. This means all of the "good" cards are behind the cut card and they were actually at a disadvantage. The opposite also happens at the beginning of a shoe where the tens and aces spill out and you're min betting but you actually had a substantial advantage. I'm sure if Kewlj isn't getting "enough" counting information, he wouldn't bother with it.

I personally like all information. I don't even play a half assed hole card game with partial information. Too easy to make mistakes and just becomes frustrating. The "upside down 7" can be a problem in a good blackjack game.

[Alan Mendelson]

regnis, I am backing off this until kewlj responds to YOU.

I am an easy target for kewlj. His responses to me are well-rehearsed.

jbjb back off too.

[kewlJ]

I am going to try to be very clear here. In a new shoe, you see the first 10 cards and you know with 100% certainty that the shoe is +6. If you come up to a table in the middle of a shoe and see the next 10 cards and those 10 cards are +6, you still have no idea what the status of the shoe is? It could be +10, it could be -15, it could be anything.

So my question in simple terms is how can you jump in to the table in the middle of the shoe based upon those 10 cards without any certainty of the overall status of that shoe?

I don't care if you explain it mathematically or otherwise. Logically, it seems wrong to me. So no dancing around this--explain please.

In a sense, you are correct, regnis. Ok, does that make you feel better?

Lets go back to the example that I used yesterday. You walk by a 6 deck table, with 2 decks having been played. You see those 7 small cards I mentioned on the felt, which represent a running count of +7. So what if in the 2 decks already played, there were seven more 10 value and aces. The actual running count would be zero, instead of the +7 you can see.

On the other hand, perhaps the running count of those two decks you didn't see if +5, making your actual running count +12, rather than +7 (and subsequently true count and advantage). Sometimes less, sometimes more. But guess what the average will be? Yep....running count of +7, because that is the definitive information that you can see.

So when you walk by a table in progress, and see a running count of +7, the actual count could be less than that or it could be more than that. But the average over many trial will be......+7. And THAT is an advantageous or favorable position for the player.

Here's another example. Let's go back to playing off the top of a fresh shuffle, so the card counter sees every card. Two decks in running count of +12. That is 4 decks remaining, so a true count of +3. That is better than a 1% advantage. That better than 1% advantage is based on more 10 value and aces left in the remaining unplayed cards. But suppose over the next two decks, those "extra 10's and aces, don't come out? Suppose even more small cards and neutral cards come out? And all those "extra" 10's and aces are behind the cut card and never get to be played?

In this scenario the counter will have played all those rounds at disadvantage rather than the advantage he though he had, because the "extra" 10's and aces never came out. Of course he wouldn't know that until after the fact (hindsight). And THAT is what card counting is....trying to identify situations that are favorable and betting more money on those favorable situations. And in the long-run, you will win more than you lose. And this is precisely why a card counter has to deal with huge variance and wild swings.

[Alan Mendelson]

kewlj I just read your explanation to regnis and it sounds very much like the guy who walks up to a roulette wheel after the last ten spins have been red and he bets on black.

[regnis]

Thank you for your explanation--and I wasn't looking to feel better or have you say I was correct (in a sense). I personally would not feel comfortable with this, but I also do not play BJ anymore and have not counted for many many years. So if you are able to make this work I commend you.

[kewlJ]

regnis, I am backing off this until kewlj responds to YOU.

I am an easy target for kewlj. His responses to me are well-rehearsed.

Stop trying to bully me Alan. Suppose I said I am backing off until you stop dragging your feet and respond to the redietz situation.

Nothing is rehearsed Alan. I don't know what game you are playing, but obviously this trolling is what you do....it's what you are about, since long before I came here. These games that you like to play, are not what I am about. I am happy to discuss some things that I do, if someone is respectful and has a genuine interest in knowing and if I can do so without putting myself in jeopardy and that is strictly my call.

But I am NOT on trial here and will not be subject to or respond to your bullying, so just grow up and stop it.

[regnis]

kewlj I just read your explanation to regnis and it sounds very much like the guy who walks up to a roulette wheel after the last ten spins have been red and he bets on black.

The difference Alan is that in Roulette the spins are independent. In BJ, those prior deals matter. Again, I would not be comfortable, but I don't even play the game anymore. I hate BJ.

[kewlJ]

kewlj I just read your explanation to regnis and it sounds very much like the guy who walks up to a roulette wheel after the last ten spins have been red and he bets on black.

It may seem that way, but it's not. The difference is the math. Regardless of the last 10 spins, the odds of the next spin remain the same and it never favors the player, because each spin is an independent trial. In blackjack each spin is not an independent trial. The remaining cards are directly based on what cards have already been played. And sometimes, the remaining cards favor the player. Card counting is simply trying to identify those times and betting more on those occasions.

I am not a math guy, like a Schlesinger or a Shackleford, so explaining the math isn't my strong point. It takes me out of my comfort level. Hell, I don't even understand some of the math. I also don't know in great detail how an automobile engine works, but I am capable of driving a car, if I desire. (I prefer to be driven).

edit: sorry regnis, I was typing and didn't see your post or I would not have basically said the same thing.

And now I am off to work. Good day gentlemen.

[kewlJ]

Oh and for the record, most of my comments are in reference to 6 deck "shoe" games, because that is mostly what I play for a variety of reasons. One being that it works better with this tracking a second table. I don't want to go to the trouble of tracking a second table and "jumping" only to get a round or two before the shuffle.

But even more importantly for me, with longevity as my top priority, is that shoe games are generally less scrutinized than single and double deck. Here in Vegas, I go as far to say many, maybe even most double deck games are "counter traps".