Page 103 of 501 FirstFirst ... 3539399100101102103104105106107113153203 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,060 of 10013

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #2041
    Devil's advocate here.

    Somewhere up above we were playing a 51.5% game. We had a bad day and lost a sizeable amount. But each spin, flip, roll, whatever is an independent event at 51.5%. So when the loss was incurred, we were quite a bit below the 51.5. We may have to hit at 62.5 or some larger amount to recoup the loss. But the game is a 51.5% game. You make it sound like we can expect to outperform the 51.5% by virtue of the loss previously incurred, although each spin, flip, roll etc. is 51.5%.

    That is where this theory of accumulated EV is questioned by some. You make it sound like having lost we must now win because of all the EV we have accumulated. So should you now double or triple your bets since you have all that EV and you may as well cash it in at a higher level? Almost a Martingale.

  2. #2042
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    I ain’t reading all this shit. Idk if y’all are even on this topic anymore, but I’ll give a (hopefully) quick answer that’s easy to understand and no weird formulas so you can see how it works....if anyone’s actually interested (I doubt coach is, he usually just looks for a “gotcha!” moment and hopes 2 APs disagree on something or don’t explain themselves well). Without further ado...


    Let’s say the game is a 50/50 coin flip. You bet $100 and either win $102 or lose $100. The advantage is 1% and the EV per play is $1.

    If after 100 flips there have been 60 losers and 40 winners, the player would be down $1,920. (Btw a 60-40 outcome after 100 flips is fairly unlikely.) The player has made $100 in EV at this point. His actual win/loss % is 1,920/10,000 = -19.2%.

    The next 100 flips, you would expect 50 winners and 50 losers, for another $100 in EV. At this point, your expectation would be -1820/20,000 = -9.1%.

    Another 100 flips and you’d expect another $100 in EV to put him at -1720, for an actual win/loss percentage of -1,720/30,000 = -5.73%.

    As you can see, his % win/loss is getting closer and closer to his EV %. The EV in terms of $$$, going forward, is constant ($1/round).

    After another 9,700 games, he’d expect to make $9700 on those games, leaving him at +7980. That’d be $1M in action. 7980/1,000,000 = +0.798%.

    After 90,000 more games, he’d expect to be up $97,980, for a total of $10M in action. 97,980/10,000,000 = 0.9798%.

    The more you play, the %’s should get closer and closer. The dollar amount, from an expectation point of view, won’t change. You’ll still be down $2,020 in $$$ terms in EV.


    You’re never due to win nor due to lose. Slight caveat is if a change in the game is made (EG: blackjack, cards get removed). If you’re playing something like FPDW, even if you hit 3 royals your first session, your future EV going forward is still going to be 0.76% of your FUTURE action; whatever you won or lost earlier today, yesterday, or last year — has no bearing on your future EV (in terms of $$$, NOT %).


    There are obviously different ways to look at it, but IMO the healthiest way to look at it is to see it as a success if you generated EV and didn’t make mistakes and view it as a failure or bad if you made mistakes or gave up EV.

    Here’s an example, kinda. I was on a play a while back where we had done a few million coin in at this casino (over a period of time) and getting cash back / freeplay. One day I hit dealt four deuces for $2.5k. It bumped up our actual return on the coin in from something like 99.1% to 99.25%. At that point you realize, the day-to-day small wins and losses don’t really have an impact on a play, if you put in enough time on the game. And eventually those royals or big dealt hands....or those “terrible” losses, hardly even put a dent in the overall return.
    Good illustration RS. I especially appreciate the part about being mistake free. It all hinges on optimal play. I don't play blackjack and i don't imagine a pro like KJ making any mistakes when he plays. But, VP is a different animal. I can comfortably play 1000 hands an hour but i'm sure i occasionally make a mistake or the button sticks or have had too many beers, etc., that causes an erosion to the EV.

    P.S.

    KJ, this may be a dumb question, but, do you ever make a sub optimal hit or stand just on a hunch or some other reason? Do you ever make a mistake?

  3. #2043
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    It seems like you are asking if a year the long-term?
    I'm not asking if a year is the long-term.

    I understand that while a year's time is constant, the number of trials during the year would be variable.

    I'm using the year-by-year results because that's what has been reported by the full-time players, and as you pointed out "that is a good measure to pick."

  4. #2044
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    P.S.

    KJ, this may be a dumb question, but, do you ever make a sub optimal hit or stand just on a hunch or some other reason? Do you ever make a mistake?
    I don't play hunches or gut feeling...NO. That I can definitively say.

    I do make some plays that are sub optimal, but that is preplanned. For example I play what is called "counter's basic strategy". Counter's basic strategy will have a player making a sub optimal play at times at minimum bet, but at higher counts, when the players has a much larger wager that same play is correct. This removes the 'tell' of playing the same hand differently at different counts.

    An example would be 16 vs 10. Basic strategy says to hit. Hi-lo index table says to hit at 0 or negative counts and stand at plus counts. But, "counter's basic strategy" says to always stand. So by always standing you are playing the hand optimally at all the counts where the player has bigger wagers and playing just slightly sub optimal at zero and negative counts. And since I wong out of negative counts very aggressively the number of times I am playing sub optimally (all at minimum wager) are reduced even further.

    Some people would call this 'cover' and I suppose it is a form of cover, but generally with cover a player is making wildly sub optimal plays at a pretty significant cost. Counters basic strategy is very minor sub optimal plays, costing very, very little, but remove one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently. So yeah, I make some pre-calculated sub optimal plays.

    And finally mistakes. I am quite sure I make some mistakes in the actual counting of cards. I am human. Everyone makes mistakes. But that is precisely why I am a proponent of simple counts vs higher lever more complex counts. I want to make as few mistakes as possible. Players play these more complex counts that on paper show like a 10% increase in performance, but just one or two extra mistakes an hour wipes away that extra increase AND MORE.

  5. #2045
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Devil's advocate here.

    Somewhere up above we were playing a 51.5% game. We had a bad day and lost a sizeable amount. But each spin, flip, roll, whatever is an independent event at 51.5%. So when the loss was incurred, we were quite a bit below the 51.5. We may have to hit at 62.5 or some larger amount to recoup the loss. But the game is a 51.5% game. You make it sound like we can expect to outperform the 51.5% by virtue of the loss previously incurred, although each spin, flip, roll etc. is 51.5%.

    That is where this theory of accumulated EV is questioned by some. You make it sound like having lost we must now win because of all the EV we have accumulated. So should you now double or triple your bets since you have all that EV and you may as well cash it in at a higher level? Almost a Martingale.
    Playing a game like video poker with a 2% edge each hand has an expectation of 102%. Lose the current hand, the expectation on the next hand is 102%. Win the current hand, the expectation on the next hand is 102%. Have a losing day today, tomorrow the expectation on each hand you play is 102%. Have a winning day today, tomorrow the expectation on each hand you play is 102%.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  6. #2046
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    I ain’t reading all this shit. Idk if y’all are even on this topic anymore, but I’ll give a (hopefully) quick answer that’s easy to understand and no weird formulas so you can see how it works....if anyone’s actually interested (I doubt coach is, he usually just looks for a “gotcha!” moment and hopes 2 APs disagree on something or don’t explain themselves well). Without further ado...


    Let’s say the game is a 50/50 coin flip. You bet $100 and either win $102 or lose $100. The advantage is 1% and the EV per play is $1.

    If after 100 flips there have been 60 losers and 40 winners, the player would be down $1,920. (Btw a 60-40 outcome after 100 flips is fairly unlikely.) The player has made $100 in EV at this point. His actual win/loss % is 1,920/10,000 = -19.2%.

    The next 100 flips, you would expect 50 winners and 50 losers, for another $100 in EV. At this point, your expectation would be -1820/20,000 = -9.1%.

    Another 100 flips and you’d expect another $100 in EV to put him at -1720, for an actual win/loss percentage of -1,720/30,000 = -5.73%.

    As you can see, his % win/loss is getting closer and closer to his EV %. The EV in terms of $$$, going forward, is constant ($1/round).

    After another 9,700 games, he’d expect to make $9700 on those games, leaving him at +7980. That’d be $1M in action. 7980/1,000,000 = +0.798%.

    After 90,000 more games, he’d expect to be up $97,980, for a total of $10M in action. 97,980/10,000,000 = 0.9798%.

    The more you play, the %’s should get closer and closer. The dollar amount, from an expectation point of view, won’t change. You’ll still be down $2,020 in $$$ terms in EV.


    You’re never due to win nor due to lose. Slight caveat is if a change in the game is made (EG: blackjack, cards get removed). If you’re playing something like FPDW, even if you hit 3 royals your first session, your future EV going forward is still going to be 0.76% of your FUTURE action; whatever you won or lost earlier today, yesterday, or last year — has no bearing on your future EV (in terms of $$$, NOT %).


    There are obviously different ways to look at it, but IMO the healthiest way to look at it is to see it as a success if you generated EV and didn’t make mistakes and view it as a failure or bad if you made mistakes or gave up EV.

    Here’s an example, kinda. I was on a play a while back where we had done a few million coin in at this casino (over a period of time) and getting cash back / freeplay. One day I hit dealt four deuces for $2.5k. It bumped up our actual return on the coin in from something like 99.1% to 99.25%. At that point you realize, the day-to-day small wins and losses don’t really have an impact on a play, if you put in enough time on the game. And eventually those royals or big dealt hands....or those “terrible” losses, hardly even put a dent in the overall return.
    Ok I have a devils advocate type question and keep in mind I am not a mathoby so it may seem impossible or silly.

    But what if you flip[ a coin and get 60/40 heads/tails with you being on the losing end. Is it possible that from that point on, putting that sequence aside......the outcomes are 50/50 and when you play the coinflip game.....you never make up that 60/40 . The 60/40 is an outlier and from that point on you are in the 50/50 range. Is that possible? And if that is possible....take it another step further. What if you have a bad 6 months of 10,000 spins, rolls, flips........where you are on the bad end of the "expectations". Couldnt that 6 month period just be the utlier and going forward you get the mathmatical expections....and that 6 month period is like it never existed in the math universe...it happened but it is never "made up" when you play.

    Is it possible that someone gets a "bad" 6 months....and it never "evens out(assuming perfect play) or never evens out ver the next 10 years? I mean that I guess things could even out over a time had we lived long enough or had we played long enough without stopping.

    But who is to say when the positive EV accumulated will kick in.

  7. #2047
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    That is where this theory of accumulated EV is questioned by some. You make it sound like having lost we must now win because of all the EV we have accumulated. So should you now double or triple your bets since you have all that EV and you may as well cash it in at a higher level? Almost a Martingale.
    If I make $1,000,000 worth of bets at video poker with a 2% edge I've accumulated $20,000 worth of positive EV. Will the results be exactly a $20,000 win. Not likely. Usually it's a little below or a little above. Sometimes it can be well below or well above. Calculating EV is a measuring stick on what you stand to make. Then you compare your actual results to it. With the games I play today the results come in right around where the EV says it should.

    But if I take a shellacking today there is nothing in the calculation that says I'm now due to run above expectation for X number of hands. If I book a big win today there is nothing in the calculation that says I'm due to run below expectation for X number of hands. The EV is the same for every hand I play.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  8. #2048
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    You’re never due to win nor due to lose.
    The expectation after mX hands = Y, where Y is a positive number, and after X hands the results are negative...is that a bogus premise?

    In order to reach expectation for mX hands, then the results for the next (m-1)X hands must make up the loss, and move into the positive.

    If the game must converge to expectation for mX hands, then the results must be greater than expectation for the next (m-1)X hands.

    What other way could that happen?

    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The answer to your question (by the central limit theorem) is yes

  9. #2049
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    P.S.

    KJ, this may be a dumb question, but, do you ever make a sub optimal hit or stand just on a hunch or some other reason? Do you ever make a mistake?
    I don't play hunches or gut feeling...NO. That I can definitively say.

    I do make some plays that are sub optimal, but that is preplanned. For example I play what is called "counter's basic strategy". Counter's basic strategy will have a player making a sub optimal play at times at minimum bet, but at higher counts, when the players has a much larger wager that same play is correct. This removes the 'tell' of playing the same hand differently at different counts.

    An example would be 16 vs 10. Basic strategy says to hit. Hi-lo index table says to hit at 0 or negative counts and stand at plus counts. But, "counter's basic strategy" says to always stand. So by always standing you are playing the hand optimally at all the counts where the player has bigger wagers and playing just slightly sub optimal at zero and negative counts. And since I wong out of negative counts very aggressively the number of times I am playing sub optimally (all at minimum wager) are reduced even further.

    Some people would call this 'cover' and I suppose it is a form of cover, but generally with cover a player is making wildly sub optimal plays at a pretty significant cost. Counters basic strategy is very minor sub optimal plays, costing very, very little, but remove one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently. So yeah, I make some pre-calculated sub optimal plays.

    And finally mistakes. I am quite sure I make some mistakes in the actual counting of cards. I am human. Everyone makes mistakes. But that is precisely why I am a proponent of simple counts vs higher lever more complex counts. I want to make as few mistakes as possible. Players play these more complex counts that on paper show like a 10% increase in performance, but just one or two extra mistakes an hour wipes away that extra increase AND MORE.

    KJ, for myself, this is one of the more insightful posts I have read about blackjack. I had no idea that playing the same hand differently, at higher wagers, was a tell. I guess the dealer, or the eye in the sky, remembers everything. I am an occasional blackjack player that slaps his home made laminated strategy card on the table and banters with the rest of the players. Damn, learned a few things today on your post. Thanks.

  10. #2050
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    But if I take a shellacking today there is nothing in the calculation that says I'm now due to run above expectation for X number of hands.
    If your results so far are negative, and the game must converge to expectation, then how can that happen without running above expectation?

  11. #2051
    There are two types of convergence with these random outcomes. The multiplicative, and the additive. You don't have to recoup lost hands additively to converge to a multiplicative EV.

    Eg, you will win, on average, very nearly half of, say, 10,000,000 hands in an even contest, multiplicatively speaking; but could still be behind a thousand or two, additively. As the number of outcomes is increased, so too, likely, this additive "variation".
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  12. #2052
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    KJ, for myself, this is one of the more insightful posts I have read about blackjack. I had no idea that playing the same hand differently, at higher wagers, was a tell. I guess the dealer, or the eye in the sky, remembers everything. I am an occasional blackjack player that slaps his home made laminated strategy card on the table and banters with the rest of the players. Damn, learned a few things today on your post. Thanks.
    Hi Deech. Thanks for the kind words. I guess I should clarify my use of the term "tell". When I say something is a tell, I am not saying if a player does this they will immediately be identified as a card counter. Not at all! In the case of 16 vs 10, many players play that hand differently at different times. Even something as big as splitting 10's don't identify you as a card counter alone.

    But if you are counting there will come a time when someone, whether pit or surveillance decides to run an "evaluation" of your play. It is usually bet spread that will trigger an evaluation but it can be registering a big win or even accumulated win, if it is a casino you play regularly. So once you get to the point that someone is evaluating your play, if they see several of these "tells" that card counters frequently do, that helps confirm the suspicions and identify you as a card counter.

    So the thing is, if you are counting, you should try to eliminate or remove some of these tells if you can. Especially the ones that can be eliminated at relatively minor cost. It will preserve longevity.

    Of course the biggest tell of all is bet spread. And that is one that is a little more difficult to eliminate or remove. But even with bet spread there are two parts to that tell....when the player raises bets...and when he lowers back to minimum wager. Particularly when a player goes back to minimum wager at the shuffle after betting bigger before the shuffle. That is a huge "tell"....the biggest. And that can be eliminated by simply moving on at the shuffle after showing your bigger bets.

    Basically 'tells' are a cumulative thing, so the fewer you show, the better off you are in terms of longevity.

  13. #2053
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    KJ, for myself, this is one of the more insightful posts I have read about blackjack. I had no idea that playing the same hand differently, at higher wagers, was a tell. I guess the dealer, or the eye in the sky, remembers everything. I am an occasional blackjack player that slaps his home made laminated strategy card on the table and banters with the rest of the players. Damn, learned a few things today on your post. Thanks.
    If the casinos go to that length, then you have to ask yourself to which other lengths, and then to conclude that they already know all about the KJ's and MC's, the guys who claim to "go under the radar", etc.

    Little wonder there is never any proof or demonstration of the stuff they awkwardly "claim" here.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  14. #2054
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Basically 'tells' are a cumulative thing, so the fewer you show, the better off you are in terms of longevity.
    How you play a hand isn't a tell. That's analytical fodder. And if you never play a better than par game, you will not profit.

    As for tells. No, it's just that you would have to randomize your tells so that the other guy can't glean any information from your attempts to evoke information from him, assuming that your opponent plays well. But then, why bother?
    Last edited by Bill Yung; 05-17-2018 at 11:05 AM.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  15. #2055
    Bill Yung, I know you have an agenda here to challenge, attack, put down, poo-poo every single thing any one of the AP's here says. But you just come across as a complete idiot, someone who doesn't have a clue about what he speaks of most of the time. I am not saying that to be mean...it is just fact. Just stop your anti-AP agenda for whatever reason your are so angry and bitter. Life is too short.

  16. #2056
    Oh, my mistake, I thought that I was talking to gambling experts here about gambling. Sounds like you and MC want to troll the place down, again.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  17. #2057
    Let's get the troll on, mother fuckers. Hehehe.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  18. #2058
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    But if I take a shellacking today there is nothing in the calculation that says I'm now due to run above expectation for X number of hands.
    If your results so far are negative, and the game must converge to expectation, then how can that happen without running above expectation?
    The "must" you used in your sentence is a false premise.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  19. #2059
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    P.S.

    KJ, this may be a dumb question, but, do you ever make a sub optimal hit or stand just on a hunch or some other reason? Do you ever make a mistake?
    I don't play hunches or gut feeling...NO. That I can definitively say.

    I do make some plays that are sub optimal, but that is preplanned. For example I play what is called "counter's basic strategy". Counter's basic strategy will have a player making a sub optimal play at times at minimum bet, but at higher counts, when the players has a much larger wager that same play is correct. This removes the 'tell' of playing the same hand differently at different counts.

    An example would be 16 vs 10. Basic strategy says to hit. Hi-lo index table says to hit at 0 or negative counts and stand at plus counts. But, "counter's basic strategy" says to always stand. So by always standing you are playing the hand optimally at all the counts where the player has bigger wagers and playing just slightly sub optimal at zero and negative counts. And since I wong out of negative counts very aggressively the number of times I am playing sub optimally (all at minimum wager) are reduced even further.

    Some people would call this 'cover' and I suppose it is a form of cover, but generally with cover a player is making wildly sub optimal plays at a pretty significant cost. Counters basic strategy is very minor sub optimal plays, costing very, very little, but remove one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently. So yeah, I make some pre-calculated sub optimal plays.

    And finally mistakes. I am quite sure I make some mistakes in the actual counting of cards. I am human. Everyone makes mistakes. But that is precisely why I am a proponent of simple counts vs higher lever more complex counts. I want to make as few mistakes as possible. Players play these more complex counts that on paper show like a 10% increase in performance, but just one or two extra mistakes an hour wipes away that extra increase AND MORE.
    Thanks KJ

  20. #2060
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Of course the biggest tell of all is bet spread. And that is one that is a little more difficult to eliminate or remove. But even with bet spread there are two parts to that tell....when the player raises bets...and when he lowers back to minimum wager. Particularly when a player goes back to minimum wager at the shuffle after betting bigger before the shuffle. That is a huge "tell"....the biggest. And that can be eliminated by simply moving on at the shuffle after showing your bigger bets.
    This makes sense, and it helps to answer my unasked question about you: "How can this guy survive as a card counter in Las Vegas these days, given the counter-measures used by casinos?"

    The answer: you play very short sessions, probably just one shoe, then move on; you make smaller bets unless the count is favorable, then go for it til the shoe is done or the count is unfavorable.

    Is it rare for you to play more than one complete shoe?
    What, Me Worry?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 79 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 79 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •