Originally Posted by
BoSox
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.
Don't buy into all that column count hype. There could be some advantage, especially at single deck (if it is dealt deeply), but Reno isn't dealt that deeply, especially if a player starts winning.
The original claims that T3 made and now moses seems to be going with, were and remain mathematically impossible. T3 said gains of 500% over traditional card counting. Traditional card counting yields and advantage in the neighborhood of 1%, so 500% gain would be playing to a 5% advantage. Completely impossible from card counting.
You need to be hole-carding to achieve that kind of advantage....right jbjb?
Even if you sat at a table with your computer on the felt, you aren't going to get a 5% advantage from card counting.
And guess what, even the nut job T3 backed away from that when Don Schlesinger was finally allowed to challenge him. T3 said his early small sample size research showed 5%, but with a larger sample size it came down much closer to what we all get.
The bottom line is these guys with their specialized super-duper counts, greatly exaggerate any benefit of such a count, while
always completely ignoring any sort of higher error rate that will cut into or even wipe out any small benefit. There is no magic pill. There is no magic count.
And except for moses, and Reno, there aren't many decent single deck games remaining that could benefit slightly from such a method and even if you are moses (god forbid, I wouldn't wish that on anyone) and had access to those games, they just aren't going to tolerate it for long except maybe spreading $5-$15 and even then, Reno doesn't tolerate that.
This is just not how you win at today's games. OK, gotta go to work. Spending way to much time here arguing with a nickel player spreading $5-$15.