So for the second day in a row Alan has started a thread at WoV about me and discussions here, poorly disguised as ….I don’t know what. I asked for permission to address Alan at WoV, but apparently was denied as I heard nothing back, so I will do so here.

Yesterday it was an “article” he read about a card counter, losing $6000 while playing a positive expectation game. That was one day after I lost $6000 on Monday while accumulating $170 in EV. Alan oddly asked the question "what are the odds of a player playing $50 a hand losing $6000, or 120 hands?". The answer he got and wanted was 1 in 4000. Alan completely ignored the fact that my max bet Monday was $400, meaning I lost about 15 top wagers. The odds of that….a lot less than 1 in 4000.

Now today, Alan poses the question “IF I wanted to learn card counting how accurate should my count be?” First Alan has no interest in learning card counting. That two letter word “IF” tells you that.

What this really is, was Alan playing his manipulation games. This stems from the discussion yesterday or repeat of a discussion about me tracking a second table while playing my primary table when the opportunity is there. When you track a second table you may miss a couple cards here and there. You would prefer to see all cards when card counting but missing a couple has no effect. When tracking a second table all you need to know is that second table, the count is better than your primary table, thus a better opportunity. Even an approximate count can tell you that.

Alan probably doesn’t realize that EVERY count in card counting is an approximate count. There are cards you won’t see no matter what, in a 6 deck game generally about 78 of them, (deck and a half), in a 8 deck game, as many as 100 or 2 decks. So any cards missed as they come out just gets added to that other group of unseen cards, effectively lowering penetration. Stanford Wong did extensive work on this. It is the basis behind wonging in.

So anyway, Alan was hoping for some responses that if you miss cards, the count is so inaccurate, it is null and void. And he did get a couple comments in that direction which is what he wanted. But the two fairly knowledgeable card counters that responded, billryan and Sabre, both told him the count still accurately indicates when you are at an advantage, just reduced penetration just like I said. No doubt Alan will dismiss them.

Alan posting mirroring discussions at WoV, of what I said here, hoping for members to dispute what I say, is really trolling, when I can’t reply there at the moment. But I am not going to go off on Alan as per my new trolling policy. Alan is Alan. That is punishment enough. But really the word I keep using is manipulative. Alan is very sneaky and manipulative with his trolling.