Hatred on this Forum

[Rob.Singer]

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

It's about the only thing jbjb has ever proven....that his stories and proclamations eventually always come back to bite him.

[redietz]

Gambling forums, no matter which, really are stuff of no heart, no courage, and no brain.

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

Hey, well, a good time to point out that while Mike was building the boat (ark?), to sail the boat, to catch the fish, to bring them home to Liza, I was busy with trying to tell the systems and other players to save their breath and money. Years ago, I wrote that if I had a nickel for every player who told me to stuff it, and, later, vanished broke from the gambling forums, then I would've been rich. I was more persistent with some of the scammers in gambling. It was a lot of fun all to go along with the stuff people wrote on those forums. So, not surprisingly, the username Garnabby became fairly well associated with all manner of gripes and bannings across the internet. It was easy for the likes of the Wizard and his JB to wrongly seize upon those things, too, without any clarification, to summarily ban Garnabby from their forum. That's fine, but there really are some unwritten rules that we shouldn't just cast to the ditch. One person pissed on is still one person pissed on. Rules that really do make us better people. Somewhere along the line, the Wizard stopped growing into a better person, and, others crowded around to shelter and reassure him. Nothing new there, either. It's his life and forum.

To your question of judging others, well, it depends on what we are as people, and, what you think we are beyond that. If you believe, know, etc, that it's all about probabilities, as Shackleford wrote, then it's only consistent to say go judge everyone/thing, because we are all just things (in the form of chemicals, etc). But, if you believe that there is something more to life, then it's also only consistent to realize that we shouldn't judge everything/one, let alone in the manner of the Wizard, because there is no way to sum up the eternal. My thinking leads me to somewhere in the middle, with to what we are in this world completely left behind upon our death, which is everything we know we are, experience, etc, but our essence or "signature" to move "forward" waits ahead of us. There is no connection between what we are/were here to what we will become. Only an underlying "signature" of the "random" sequence of lives that is the sum total of each of us. In this way, we all lose all that we are, but, at the same time, continue on none-the-wiser. The universe's solution to the (torturer's) paradox of parading the dead.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot to answer your question in freestyle. Last shall be first. So, why not act like it?

Or, conversely (and more succinctly), the answer is 42.

I lean to 42. But that's just me.

[Midwest Player]

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

[Rob.Singer]

I don't play that silly game, but wouldn't the no. of decks play an important role....or is that one of the inaccuracies that counters couldn't care less about? Sort of like our resident virtual bj pro kew not knowing how to add up 7+6+5

[Deech]

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

The dealer showed 7, 6, 5. KewlJ did not discuss the dealers down card.

[Midwest Player]

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5. Anyway, if you are using the "halves count" in the above example the running count is actually +10.5 indicating a better situation then what hi-lo indicates.

The dealer showed 7, 6, 5. KewlJ did not discuss the dealers down card.

Dealer always shows the down card second so it had to be one of those mentioned. The dealer either had to draw another card and bust or thought he busted and paid the table.

[Deech]

You are correct. I should stay in the bleachers. Damn, I want to talk about the EV argument but I feel like the Astro fan interfering with the Red Sox outfielder.

[Bill Yung]

you're a megalomaniac who thinks you're capable of judging people
you obviously think you're really somebody
allow me to correct you there
you're nobody

yeah, I know what it feels like to be a nobody
I'm a nobody too

but I'm in better shape than you
I'm a nobody who knows that he's a nobody

you're a nobody walking around like a fool thinking you're really somebody

Hey, well, a good time to point out that while Mike was building the boat (ark?), to sail the boat, to catch the fish, to bring them home to Liza, I was busy with trying to tell the systems and other players to save their breath and money. Years ago, I wrote that if I had a nickel for every player who told me to stuff it, and, later, vanished broke from the gambling forums, then I would've been rich. I was more persistent with some of the scammers in gambling. It was a lot of fun all to go along with the stuff people wrote on those forums. So, not surprisingly, the username Garnabby became fairly well associated with all manner of gripes and bannings across the internet. It was easy for the likes of the Wizard and his JB to wrongly seize upon those things, too, without any clarification, to summarily ban Garnabby from their forum. That's fine, but there really are some unwritten rules that we shouldn't just cast to the ditch. One person pissed on is still one person pissed on. Rules that really do make us better people. Somewhere along the line, the Wizard stopped growing into a better person, and, others crowded around to shelter and reassure him. Nothing new there, either. It's his life and forum.

To your question of judging others, well, it depends on what we are as people, and, what you think we are beyond that. If you believe, know, etc, that it's all about probabilities, as Shackleford wrote, then it's only consistent to say go judge everyone/thing, because we are all just things (in the form of chemicals, etc). But, if you believe that there is something more to life, then it's also only consistent to realize that we shouldn't judge everything/one, let alone in the manner of the Wizard, because there is no way to sum up the eternal. My thinking leads me to somewhere in the middle, with to what we are in this world completely left behind upon our death, which is everything we know we are, experience, etc, but our essence or "signature" to move "forward" waits ahead of us. There is no connection between what we are/were here to what we will become. Only an underlying "signature" of the "random" sequence of lives that is the sum total of each of us. In this way, we all lose all that we are, but, at the same time, continue on none-the-wiser. The universe's solution to the (torturer's) paradox of parading the dead.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot to answer your question in freestyle. Last shall be first. So, why not act like it?

Or, conversely (and more succinctly), the answer is 42.

I lean to 42. But that's just me.

It's actually all of the dimensions, however many. How could the answer be any particular one, or sum? My thinking leans to our universe having 42. There are two main methods that are used to arrive at numbers like this. Mine is a combination of those. But I will continue with that per se at the other forum.

[kewlJ]

Moses, here is a question for you. Wonging in. You walk by a table. 3 players and the dealer. Glancing at the felt, you see the following hands. 3,6,10; 5,5,8; 4,6,3,7 and the dealer 7,6,5. (dealer busted) That is a running count of +8 for you non counters. Moses would you jump into that game? Would you jump in knowing that was several rounds played that you did not see?

Nice example KJ, but the dealer doesn't bust with a 7,6,5.

True, Midwest. My mistake. Here is what happened and Dan can attest to this: Originally I had the dealer hand at 7,6,10, which was a bust. But the true count (Hi-lo) was only +6 for this example, which for a 6 deck game would be a TC of +1 and about a break even proposition. I wanted to create a +EV situation for the question "would you jump in", so I changed the 10 to a 5, making the running count+8 but forgot to remove the notation that the dealer busted.

So I made a mistake. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion. BUT in true form to fashion, that is what the anti-AP guys focus on.

[Bill Yung]

KJ. I set my son up in biz a few years ago. Gave him my truck and spent a month helping him launch. As I told him, sometimes success comes from what you don't do. It's like a bottleneck. He's doing great but now he spends about as much time in customer service and he does selling. Thus his growth has become stagnent. There are certain clients that drain a person. In order to maximize growth he needs to recognize that client and walk away or not get involved in the first place. As he puts it "Dad, you're addicted to efficiency." That may be but I never much liked working for free or pennies.

I see many of the same qualities in you. You are young, amibtious, and setting the world on fire. But man, if you could just learn to duck. I'd say your growth from a time standpoint is close to the max. No? As you "accumulate growth" you will also "gain attention."

My rule of thumb is table minimum. If you're playing $25 tables you should be making $25k a year. If not, there is something wrong in your game. So, if $100K is the goal? Play $100 tables. The further you go up the ladder the more difficult it is to play within casino tolerance.

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

Good point. I don't gamble.

Exactly.

But nature abhors certainty as much as a vacuum. Didn't any of your teachers tell you that it's easy to study to get 50%, a little harder to get 60%, a little harder still to get 70%, and, beyond this, that you really have to buckle down, but study "forever" (and miss out on the remainder of your life) to get into the 95% range? The casinos start the AP's off in the 95% range? The self-employed "shill" range?

Look at it this way. On the one side are the systems players, who try to force or "buy" a win with a negative betting progression. On the other side are the AP's, who try to force or make "certain" a win with grinding out the minutia. In the middle, are the casinos and "recreational" gamblers, who play by a set of vig's, they accept the anonymous long-term results on each side of their middle, although things are unfairly unfairly tipped in the casinos' favor. The players on either side both try to force a win. The ones in the middle go with "the flow".

If the casinos were fair or non-profit, with their vig's set to almost nothing, who of the "flow" guys would go? You would win one night, and lose the next. And then win it back, again. There would be no plank to walk, and dangle around on. Nothing to tease on either side of the middle. This is the reason that "recreational" gambling is still a matter of addiction.

Does it matter how a win is forced? Aren't either group of players who do that captive of the casinos? The narrow and otherwise restricted lives of those who seek certainty in everything. Versus the ones who think that a looser lifestyle is the answer. I mean, give up all of your time or all of your space(money) to the casinos?

[mickeycrimm]

It's just impossible for this imbecile to keep his story straight...

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

we're up $7800 after only an hour and a half

You still don't know what he makes.

[Bill Yung]

But we all know how bitter and out-of-touch he is.

[mickeycrimm]

But we all know how bitter and out-of-touch he is.

No. He just knows bullshit when he see's it.

[kewlJ]

You still don't know what he makes.

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays? Why does the anti-AP crowd get so bent out of shape over this? Just more weirdness from these goofballs.

[jbjb]

You still don't know what he makes.

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays? Why does the anti-AP crowd get so bent out of shape over this? Just more weirdness from these goofballs.

Jealousy. It's just a hard kick in their gut that we constantly profit and make a living from casino games whereas they show a $100,000 royal flush and are STILL IN THE HOLE.

[Moses]

[QUOTE=Bill Yung;75610]

It's amazing how much more coherent your posts are when you don't talk about gambling. As soon as people start to talk about gambling, it's game over.

Good point. I don't gamble.

Exactly.

But nature abhors certainty as much as a vacuum. Didn't any of your teachers tell you that it's easy to study to get 50%, a little harder to get 60%, a little harder still to get 70%, and, beyond this, that you really have to buckle down, but study "forever" (and miss out on the remainder of your life) to get into the 95% range? The casinos start the AP's off in the 95% range? The self-employed "shill" range?.

The words said to me were "stay eligible." I look at it as 5% of the people will leave the casino a winner and 95% a loser. There will be many losers of large amounts and few winners with not nearly as much as the losers. In blackjack, the odds based on the game rules and casino tolerance are tilted greatly in my favor 6% of the time. This means I must survive 94%. However, because I have the tools and maximize them, I know I will win 60% of my sessions on average. But 40% will be lost. The key is I dictate the sessions. Everything I do is in my control. So, at 20 sessions per week, I make 4 more sessions of $500 than I lose. Well, you do the math from that point. But to lose $20k would take two straight weeks of session losses and no wins.

Look at it this way. On the one side are the systems players, who try to force or "buy" a win with a negative betting progression. On the other side are the AP's, who try to force or make "certain" a win with grinding out the minutia. In the middle, are the casinos and "recreational" gamblers, who play by a set of vig's, they accept the anonymous long-term results on each side of their middle, although things are unfairly unfairly tipped in the casinos' favor. The players on either side both try to force a win. The ones in the middle go with "the flow".

Yes, I see all of this in the course of my week...and worse, far worse. But it's not my circus and they are not my monkeys.

If the casinos were fair or non-profit, with their vig's set to almost nothing, who of the "flow" guys would go? You would win one night, and lose the next. And then win it back, again. There would be no plank to walk, and dangle around on. Nothing to tease on either side of the middle. This is the reason that "recreational" gambling is still a matter of addiction.

Keep the dream alive and they will come in bunches. There is no two ways about it, the casinos are designed to separate folks from their money. The quicker the better.

Does it matter how a win is forced? Aren't either group of players who do that captive of the casinos? The narrow and otherwise restricted lives of those who seek certainty in everything. Versus the ones who think that a looser lifestyle is the answer. I mean, give up all of your time or all of your space(money) to the casinos?

Balance is the key. Long term? Well, Joe WAS a good AP and finished his life in the black. Trouble is, he forgot to live his life because he spent it chasing the elusive EV.

[BadBeet]

An "AP" can make all the correct +EV plays and still never come out ahead... However, in the eyes of an AP to justify their additions will use the +EV play they made being correct as an excuse to justify the loss blaming it on variance... And in the AP's eye since the play was +EV they made the correct +EV decision so win or lose they are ahead...

Yes some win.
Yes some lose.
The difference is with most AP's, they know when to stop, and hopefully stop before the variance kicks in to book a session win.

This is an example of a Poker EV chart based on winning 2.5BB over 100 hands based on 100000 hands. The dark middle line is "EV", the others are best and worst case scenarios... The same thing can be looked at in other games as well... So what this shows is, if you are playing at +EV you can still lose.

[MisterV]

Jealousy. It's just a hard kick in their gut that we constantly profit and make a living from casino games whereas they show a $100,000 royal flush and are STILL IN THE HOLE.

If by "they" you a singling out alan, do not forget that his entire body of work on this board, include all claims made by him is now suspect, as he recently posted to the effect that there is no proof that he is in fact a loser, the implication being that he could have been pulling our collective chain all this time.

Yes, I know, what kind of idiot would claim to be a lifetime loser, then out of the blue say "Hey, maybe I'm just kidding?"

[coach belly]

How can you have legitimate discussions of advantage players and particular AP plays without discussion what players make and value of plays?

Are you disagreeing with the quote below?

There's no point in telling these people how much we make.

[kewlJ]

Yes some win.
Yes some lose.
The difference is with most AP's, they know when to stop, and hopefully stop before the variance kicks in to book a session win.

Wow, I don't know any AP's that "stop" in order to book a session win. This kind of stop limits thinking is voodoo to most AP's, myself included, because AP results are about the long run, not a session.

I do employ "exit triggers" which I am sure the goofball crowd would label stop limits, but they have nothing to do with booking a winning session. Most are about avoiding heat by exiting at strategic times.

I no longer play blackjack rated very often, but I used to and when I did, I would at times do the complete opposite of what you said. If I had a losing session, I would stop in order to book a loss! If you are playing rated, book a loss and get it on your record. Nothing worse than when the pit pulls up your account they see nothing but winning sessions.

In addition to the negative optics of that, there is a very...very big danger of digging out from a loss back to even or a small win. This is the type of thing that to a losing gambler feels great. How many times have you heard someone say something along the lines of "I broke even but it feels like a win because I dug out of a big hole"? There are severe dangers in doing that for an AP, especially a card counter blackjack player. That digging out process probably means you showed way too much. You showed your spread and max bet, probably numerous times. Danger! Danger! Will Robinson.

For an AP who does this, the result can often be a back off almost immediately on your next visit. All need happen is for someone to review your play (often after you are gone) and it becomes very obvious. It takes but 1 or 2 of these backoffs very early on the return visit to learn this lesson.