Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: Blackjack variance by the numbers

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

    Let's go through it:
    Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely..
    Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".
    Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs off a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

    IF the point guard runs off the pick to the left? It changes the entire dynamic off the motion offense. IF PG passes to the Center? Wing pick and rolls off ball into corner. IF that doesn't work. PG goes off Center pick and into corner if layup doesn't work. Point is you turn it and turn it and turn until YOU get the shot YOU want NOT what the defense gives. BIG difference in that.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.
    I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

    Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .
    Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..
    Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...
    I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.
    That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..
    Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

    As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

    Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

    My point is for every action there is a reaction and a purpose. I'm taking what their giving me and they don't even know it.
    Last edited by UCFX; 04-17-2019 at 10:48 AM.

  2. #22
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.
    You have not only the right, but the duty to, RS remain silent. It will cut down on your Really Stupid comments.
    Last edited by UCFX; 04-17-2019 at 10:29 AM.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". . :
    Basketball or blackjack, you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Does Moses need to find Don S comments at blackjack info? You sure backed off that one is a big damn hurry.
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.:
    ...And every time you say it you look like a total idiot, because you won't play him. You're like a booing fan. Different game on the floor or at the table. Okay, here comes the excuses.

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

    Let's go through it:

    1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


    I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.
    Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

    That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

    I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

    Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

    Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision".
    It isn't difficult to see you. A ranting queer who has lost all credibility. Go cry to Dan again. Maybe he will listen today? NOT. Cry some more. Maybe tomorrow.

    Now would you PLEASE STOP making threads about Moses. Queer fucker.
    Last edited by UCFX; 04-17-2019 at 10:37 AM.

  6. #26
    We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth Name:  B9606D4C-CC09-49A1-BC5F-0895BA1E23FF.gif
Views: 524
Size:  328 Bytes

  7. #27
    Moses/UCFX and yes they are clearly one and the same, has resorted to the usual troll thing of just attacks and name calling when the facts and math isn't in their favor. Same as Singer does. Same as almost all these trolls do.

    Moses/UCFX and who ever else is in there is clearly even worse. I mean Singer was in an alternative reality, but I am not so sure it wasn't all a game with him, a prank. Moses/UCFX and all his other personalities clearly has mental issue. You can almost see the different times he is on and off his meds.

    And Bob21, you aren't doing him any favors by encouraging his sickness. This is really a shame. It shouldn't have come to this. And it shouldn't be allowed to go any further. It really shouldn't.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Moses/UCFX and yes they are clearly one and the same, has resorted to the usual troll thing of just attacks and name calling when the facts and math isn't in their favor. Same as Singer does. Same as almost all these trolls do.
    Who cares? Who the fuck cares. IT's not true and you don't have the nuts or the guts to prove it. You've just fuck up yet another day of chasing variance because Moses IS IN YOUR HEAD.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I mean Singer was in an alternative reality, but I am not so sure it wasn't all a game with him, a prank. Moses/UCFX and all his other personalities clearly has mental issue. You can almost see the different times he is on and off his meds.
    Singer hasn't posted in weeks and he is still in your head. You weak stupid shit. No one give a shit about your GED analogy on mental stability. You can't Fix Stupid. You're living proof. You repeat the same thing over and over again. Like a chatty Kathy doll. Just pull KJs string and he goes off an a rant about Moses, Singer, or Trolls. Don S doesn't even agree with you. Is he a troll too? You're pathetic.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    And Bob21, you aren't doing him any favors by encouraging his sickness. This is really a shame. It shouldn't have come to this. And it shouldn't be allowed to go any further. It really shouldn't.
    Monet, let all say it in unison. SHUT UP QUEER!

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by UCFX View Post
    Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

    Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".
    Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs of a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.
    I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

    Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .
    Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..
    Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...
    I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.
    That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..
    Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

    As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

    Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

    UCFX, You are all over the place here, half of the time making some sense, half of the time not knowing what you're talking about.

    Moses' coaching record is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think it's relevant. It has nothing to do with anything.

    There is no question that reducing number of possessions increases variance for an event outcome, in this case a basketball game. This is a fundamental aspect of reality. If Moses or I play Michael Jordan one on one to three baskets, we have a chance. Not much of one, maybe, but a chance. If we play him to 100 baskets, we effectively have no chance unless he keels over of a heart attack mid-game. That is the same as number of possessions.

    If you box Mike Tyson for 20 seconds, Moses or I have a chance...at least to survive. If we box him for 200 seconds, not likely. That is the same as number of possessions.

    The higher the number of possessions, the less the variance in the outcome. The team/player/boxer with the edge increases his likelihood of winning as the possessions rise.

    This is a clear-cut fundamental aspect of reality. If you think otherwise, you are either misunderstanding variance or dead wrong.

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!
    Ok, one more thing I want to address here. I posted Moses response in it's entirety, word for word. I even waited almost an hour after his post to be sure he was done. There was NO "rest of his variance post". His entire response was this nonsense about basketball, that has no correlation to blackjack card counting.

    The "rest of his post" that you are talking about is several paragraphs that was added hours later, after Moses realized how stupid he looked. Added 2 hours and 11 minutes later to be exact, because ZZ notes the edit times.

    This practice of changing things and editing hours later is flat out dishonest. That is why most sites, like this one put a short time limit on edits, because trolls like Moses abuse the edit process as he just did.

    I mean Dan Druff likes to post his picks about sports. Suppose at 3pm he picks 2 games. And then at 9pm after games are complete he goes back and edits his post and picks to include games not originally picked. Dan would not do that, but this is exactly what Moses did and exactly why it is not allowed on most sites. It is dishonest and Moses just us showed a window into who he really is.

    Bob 21 you are as bad as Moses for supporting/defending/enabling this freak.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.
    Your advice has been accepted.

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

    Let's go through it:

    1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


    I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.
    Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

    That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

    I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

    Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

    Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
    Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!
    Ok, one more thing I want to address here. I posted Moses response in it's entirety, word for word. I even waited almost an hour after his post to be sure he was done. There was NO "rest of his variance post". His entire response was this nonsense about basketball, that has no correlation to blackjack card counting.

    The "rest of his post" that you are talking about is several paragraphs that was added hours later, after Moses realized how stupid he looked. Added 2 hours and 11 minutes later to be exact, because ZZ notes the edit times.

    This practice of changing things and editing hours later is flat out dishonest. That is why most sites, like this one put a short time limit on edits, because trolls like Moses abuse the edit process as he just did.

    I mean Dan Druff likes to post his picks about sports. Suppose at 3pm he picks 2 games. And then at 9pm after games are complete he goes back and edits his post and picks to include games not originally picked. Dan would not do that, but this is exactly what Moses did and exactly why it is not allowed on most sites. It is dishonest and Moses just us showed a window into who he really is.

    Bob 21 you are as bad as Moses for supporting/defending/enabling this freak.
    Name:  24B6B2B9-58C1-488D-9DEC-1E690388F226.gif
Views: 481
Size:  328 Bytes

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?
    THIS is exactly what makes these guys trolls. Not because they have a different opinion than me, Redietz or whoever they are discussing, but because they lie, twist, manipulate, and just flat out mis-represent what was said.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

    Let's go through it:

    1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


    I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.
    Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

    That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

    I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

    Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

    Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
    Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?
    Okay you’re right and I’m wrong on this. The way you worded your sentences was confusing. But now going back through your post very carefully I see how you stated it is correct. My bad. We’re on the same page on this one.

    Obviously, the fewer the number of possessions, the more the variance in the outcome of the game.

    I still think the NCAA mostly put in the shot clock to make the games more enjoyable to watch.

  16. #36
    Originally Posted by UCFX View Post
    Finally, someone with some intelligence and not more KJ rants and Keystone tough guy shit. Yes let's do.

    Of course, it isn't. Moses was using it as a frame of reference. Because you guys are strictly about books and math. Moses is talking about a strategy before the 3-point shot and shot clock was introduced into the game. And the high school level of play because it's far different from college. It's still a game and there is a winner and a loser. The difference the player loses by forfeit in blackjack. The team wins in basketball by forfeit.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge.".
    Moses isn't talking stall ball here. It is a motion offense. For every action there is a reaction. The Center could end up at the top of the key. Suppose the point guard passes to the wing on his right and then runs off a pick to the right of the Center at the free throw line. The indicate the Center sets a pick backside to the wing man on the opposite side. Point goes to corner. Corner goes to wing. Opposite wing either gets a layup or wing passes to corner on his side. The opposite wing sets a pick and roll in corner and wing move to the point at the top of the key. THAT is just a bring example. But you get the idea of 5 men constantly in motion. This serves two purposes. 1.) it gets the best shot possible. 2.) it wears down the defense from fighting around pick and switching men. Hence, pressure on the defense long enough and they become lax and too impatient of offense.

    IF the point guard runs off the pick to the left? It changes the entire dynamic off the motion offense. IF PG passes to the Center? Wing pick and rolls off ball into corner. IF that doesn't work. PG goes off Center pick and into corner if layup doesn't work. Point is you turn it and turn it and turn until YOU get the shot YOU want NOT what the defense gives. BIG difference in that.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.
    I agree. It was for the fans. Otherwise, teams with dominate big men were dominating the game. Everyone sees the 3 pointer and yes that definitely add to the momentum swings of a game. But without it, to keys to beating superior talented teams came from defense. Not offense. You step down and take a charge. Two points taken away and your team regains possession and puts the offense more talented team back on defense. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes considerably. Dive on the hardwoods for a loose ball going out of bounds. That fuckin smarts. But you've avoided a turnover. Do that 5 times in a game and the gap closes.

    Point is, if the superior team is constantly playing defense they can't be scoring on offense.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. .
    Silly? No one uses the would silly in basketball. I tell you what. Let's go to the park and you shoot 20 footers and I'll shoot layups and we'll see who makes a higher percentage. IF you make 50%, you're a very good shooter. I guarantee you I will make 90% or more. EASY. Now, running around playing defense, take a charge or two, dive for a loose ball. The 20 foot jumper percentage will drop but the layup percentage will not.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over..
    Clearly, you don't understand the motion offense. The 5 players are equally skilled or close to it. THAT comes from a constructive practice. Every 30 seconds is planned for two hours everyday.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it...
    I agree. However, two guards don't just come down and throw the ball around 4 times and shoot. There is a purpose, picks, backside screens, pick and rolls etc, etc.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.
    That is stall ball which is primarily why rules were changed. WC implemented to control the tempo of the game. Make a team come out of their zone defense so we could go into our motion offense...and wear their asses out.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards..
    Nope. Moses was 20-2 his Senior year with a far less talented team than a far more talented teams was 10-10 my sophomore year. Btw, both the JV and Varsity coach are in the HS Hall of fame and the player who followed Moses is still a DI coach. And yes, I saw him play. I still give him shit over the loss at the buzzer in the State semi's. 61-60. Damn Moses.

    As Moses said, college is different because the talent level rises to scholarship athletes.

    Now, getting back to blackjack. Moses already describe many moves at Zen Zone. But here is one more. 26 cards in. Count is 59% high remaining and 41% low. You have a decision to make and THAT decision depends on knowing the dealer tendencies. If they are going to shuffle after that hand, then play two hands. IF they are going to give that 7th round, then play one hand and two on the next. IF high cards come out? Great, that is what you wanted. But if low cards come out on round 6, then you are in an even stronger percentage of high cards to low cards remaining in round 7. Hence, layups vs 20 foot jumpers.

    My point is for every action there is a reaction and a purpose. I'm taking what their giving me and they don't even know it.
    UCFX, for a woman you seen to know a lot about basketball. Enough of your and Moses's shit. I just went to zenzone and marked all the threads read. I had enough.

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
    We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth Name:  B9606D4C-CC09-49A1-BC5F-0895BA1E23FF.gif
Views: 524
Size:  328 Bytes
    I'm Lou and I'm 82 years old. I lived 6 miles from where Moses when to school his junior and senior year. I could still kick your little narrow ass just for sport. Now, I see why Moses is pissed off. You're exhausting. A little queer with nothing to prove except he's a little queer.

    Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.
    Your advice has been accepted.
    Thank goodness. Fuck off Remain silent.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by UCFX View Post
    Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
    We need to all get real here...Moses sucks at blackjack, never played any sort of organized sport in his life, and couldn’t punch his way out of a Hefty bag...that’s why he talks about all 3 so much...those that can,do, and those that can’t post hissy fits at 2AM on forums LOL....basically a loser since birth Name:  B9606D4C-CC09-49A1-BC5F-0895BA1E23FF.gif
Views: 524
Size:  328 Bytes
    I'm Lou and I'm 82 years old. I lived 6 miles from where Moses when to school his junior and senior year. I could still kick your little narrow ass just for sport. Now, I see why Moses is pissed off. You're exhausting. A little queer with nothing to prove except he's a little queer.

    Two hearts attacks and your in your mid 30s? I will still be a fucker, fighter, and wild horse rider while your doing the horizontal flop in and turn a shade of grey in some queer brothel.
    Hi Lou...is that short for Louise or Louann?...another 80 yr old guy that thinks he’s Chuck Norris lol

    Name:  9AC2D5F9-5E56-47C5-8475-6A5330D6FC13.gif
Views: 376
Size:  641.2 KB

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    UCFX, You are all over the place here, half of the time making some sense, half of the time not knowing what you're talking about..
    Well fuck, who the hell ever tried to explain a motion offense in typing. We went over it for hours in practice and coaches meetings.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Moses' coaching record is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think it's relevant. It has nothing to do with anything..
    Of course not, I was using an analogy to blackjack. You don't get it because you either can't or don't want to get it.


    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    There is no question that reducing number of possessions increases variance for an event outcome, in this case a basketball game. This is a fundamental aspect of reality. If Moses or I play Michael Jordan one on one to three baskets, we have a chance. Not much of one, maybe, but a chance. If we play him to 100 baskets, we effectively have no chance unless he keels over of a heart attack mid-game. That is the same as number of possessions..
    Now your changing the equations. I already went over the take quality shots sequence. I have you ever played tight man to man defense for 2 straight minutes, offense for 15 seconds, and then back on defense for another two. IF doesn't take but about 3 quarters for the oppositions tongue to be dragging on the floor. Then go 4 corners and let them chase some more.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    This is a clear-cut fundamental aspect of reality. If you think otherwise, you are either misunderstanding variance or dead wrong.
    You play Moses then. The possessions are in the dealers hands. Not Moses. HE take what the defense will give him. IF they don't go 6 rounds? No game. HE explained that already. What part didn't you get? Wait please don't answer that question.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Does Moses Really Know Much About Blackjack
    By Midwest Player in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-15-2019, 08:33 AM
  2. Two to one blackjack
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-23-2019, 05:18 AM
  3. Variance; can it be contained?
    By Moses in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-13-2018, 09:45 AM
  4. Las Vegas Numbers Shopping 101
    By redietz in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2016, 12:57 AM
  5. What numbers were you trying to hit Dicesetter?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2016, 03:56 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
  •