Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: The Thread Without Argentino

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Kewlj I have nothing against your AP card counting at blackjack. It was your claim about counting two tables that I took issue with but ever since you explained that the count is not necessarily accurate but is close enough for your secret sauce formula I've been satisfied.

    I'm sorry for the loss of your partner and I hope your health is good.
    Thank you Alan. My health is good, as I hope yours is.

    Here's the thing about tracking two tables: It was an area you know nothing about. But yet you not only formed an opinion, which you are entitled to do, but but spent a great deal of time and energy attempting to discredit me. Even after other blackjack players, including some well know that I would qualify as 'experts' weighed in, you still refused to accept it and still engaged an agenda to discredit me.

    It is your right to not understand how that could be done. It is your right to be skeptical. I believe Dan, expressed some level of uncertainty. But he didn't state in no uncertain terms that something he knew absolutely nothing about was impossible, nor engage in a months long agenda to discredit me.

    And BTW, tracking two tables works as well as ever AND that day back in January where I lost several grand but racked up significant EV, continues to be the best day of my year. These are just things YOU don't understand.

  2. #42
    I was skeptical of tracking two tables because I've been in casinos probably going back to before you were born.

    But you've made it clear you cannot see through players, and sometimes cards are not played on schedule so you will miss certain deals, and you also have to estimate what's available at the second table"s shoe.

    That still doesn't explain why you would give up your seat at your current table where you should have a 100% accurate count?

    Why move from your own table where the count is accurate to a second table where you are using partial info? Is that an AP move?
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    That still doesn't explain why you would give up your seat at your current table where you should have a 100% accurate count?

    Why move from your own table where the count is accurate to a second table where you are using partial info? Is that an AP move?
    Yes, it IS an AP move. Partial information resulting in the strong possibility or likelihood of a significant advantage is far better than 100% knowledge of a disadvantageous situation.

    AND all information involving card counting is partial information. Unless the cards are dealt to the last card before shuffling, which hasn't been the case in decades, card counters are working with partial information. But this partial information is enough to identify both positive and negative or advantageous or did-advantageous situations. That's all we can ask for. That is the whole basis of card counting.

  4. #44
    I see kew's trying to get readers to eat his baloney sandwich again.

    That two-table dance he's doing about "partial information" now suddenly being "good enuf for a professional bj counter"? We all see right thru it.

    So kew's at a table where he now says he "never has a 100% accurate count going" that's at some kind of disadvantage, while admittedly having less accuracy at the table next door--but in some cases he's assuming the 2nd table has a more advantageous count than his. I believe this, in his lingo, is referred to as "professional guesswork"?

    So now what's he do--just jump up and move over to it like a cat?

    Not so fast Eddie. While you're cashing out your chips, how many more card reads at the table next door you gonna miss and simply pile into the "guess" Dept.? And when you rush to jump into your new seat, no one in the pit or upstairs is gonna see you....and/or they're not gonna care? Oh that's right---we're talking about a PRO here. He knows how to keep under the radar by doing all this, in a day and age where card counters are not allowed to play if they're even suspected of counting.

    You see kew, you try to feed your anonymous BS to us one too many times and all it does is get you caught in your own traps. Now use that superior "guessing" prowess of yours and tell us what you expect that would do to all your other claims around here. You tell a wild, shoot-from-the-hip story, which is why a doofus like mickey is so infatuated with you.

    And kew....no one's for one minute going to believe you pay SS taxes. Only people with an income do that.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 04-15-2018 at 06:59 AM.

  5. #45
    I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

    While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And I believe you agree--redietz is just plain weird.
    I agree...the ditz is a strange bird.

    I'm interested to know, can a player really reach the long term?

    How many hands is that, anyway?

    Is there no player ahead over their lifetime playing negative expectation VP?

    I can imagine a low denom player, losing at close to expectation over their lifetime,
    except for the once or twice when they took a shot at the $25 machine,
    and hit royals with relatively little play at that level.

    They could return to the lower level, and remain ahead until they stop playing forever.

    That doesn't seem as unlikely as surviving a 30000 foot fall.

    When I was discussing the possibility of a million-hand challenge,
    the challenger insisted that I could not change denomination during the period.

    I suspect that he considered it more likely I could end up ahead
    after a million hands of -EV VP if I was able to change denomination.
    No, I just didn't want to give you more than a 1 in a million chance of winning the bet.
    Hate crime hoaxes? The left's demand for biggots greatly exceeds the supply.

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Alan, you have some F***ing nerve!
    This is my point about APís always starting the issues here.

    Alan calls Redietz a troll with good reason. 90% of the time Redietz joins in a thread is after following Alan or Rob around whatever thread their posting in and jump all over them always looking for a fight, regardless the topic. Thatís a troll.

    You start a post and in the first sentence tell Alan he has some fucking nerve. Then you carry on with comments like clown, dishonest, shyster, scammer, sleaze ball, insecure, manipulating, Nazi.

    Do you really expect the rest of this thread to be reasonable discussion?
    Based on the content of your post, have you been sleeping with Mickey?

    Read this post I just made here https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post63507
    What's your excuse for trolling?
    Hate crime hoaxes? The left's demand for biggots greatly exceeds the supply.

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

    While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.
    Not surprising that you allowed yourself to get mesmerized by kew's bs where an "accurate" count suddenly devolved into a "not 100% accurate" count and now finally into a "partially accurate" count.

    When these bj people talk about counting cards they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate from the start of the deck or shoe until each count point--and NOT as if all cards and buried cards are a part of it.

    You watched him get caught in his own lie and attempt to wiggle his way out of it with his classic bs, which must have been very uncomfortable for you. Birds of a feather....

  9. #49
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I know nothing about blackjack (haven't played in 30 years), but it was a real "aha" moment when kewlJ mentioned the partial count at the second table. Of course all counts are partial -- why didn't I realize that before? It's one of those obvious things that frames the whole endeavor, but the value of partial counts had never occurred to me before, which is pretty stupid on my part. Basically, any count has some analytic value.

    While I cannot vouch for the mechanics of playing blackjack professionally these days, I can vouch for being able to eyeball cards at a second table.
    Not surprising that you allowed yourself to get mesmerized by kew's bs where an "accurate" count suddenly devolved into a "not 100% accurate" count and now finally into a "partially accurate" count.

    When these bj people talk about counting cards they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate from the start of the deck or shoe until each count point--and NOT as if all cards and buried cards are a part of it.

    You watched him get caught in his own lie and attempt to wiggle his way out of it with his classic bs, which must have been very uncomfortable for you. Birds of a feather....
    Actually, I have not read anything that supports your proclamation that "they ALWAYS mean their ongoing count must be 100% accurate..." I haven't read anything even remotely close to that.

    I am, of course, always interested in learning and changing my mind, so if you come up with any references from classic blackjack books that support your proclamation, that would be great.

  10. #50
    What's actual to you is always weird, because you are.

    It's just simple common sense. If 25 cards are dealt thus far from the shoe, any serious counter requires an accurate count of those cards at that point. To claim that it's "only a partial count" because all of the cards in the shoe haven't been seen is just, well, weird.

    Kew knows this as well. The "counting advantage" is predicated on keeping up with the dealt cards. It's a very tiny theoretical edge, and no counter anywhere is floating over like Peter Pan to a table that does not have a 100% accurate count going.

  11. #51
    I'm thinking that if a third of the cards are dealt and the count is +7 then five unseen cards are removed from the top of the deck that I'm not going to quit playing because I don't have a completely accurate count. I'm going to play like the count is +7.
    Hate crime hoaxes? The left's demand for biggots greatly exceeds the supply.

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    What's actual to you is always weird, because you are.

    It's just simple common sense. If 25 cards are dealt thus far from the shoe, any serious counter requires an accurate count of those cards at that point. To claim that it's "only a partial count" because all of the cards in the shoe haven't been seen is just, well, weird.

    Kew knows this as well. The "counting advantage" is predicated on keeping up with the dealt cards. It's a very tiny theoretical edge, and no counter anywhere is floating over like Peter Pan to a table that does not have a 100% accurate count going.
    I haven't read any such simple common sense in any classic blackjack book. But if you can find some appropriate references, I will of course learn and change my mind.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The WoV Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 3274
    Last Post: Yesterday, 06:18 AM
  2. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 05:29 AM
  3. The Reinstate Argentino Thread
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: 04-14-2018, 09:49 AM
  4. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 07:29 PM
  5. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 03:48 PM

Posting Permissions

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