For YOU Rob. YET ANOTHER tracking two tables player

[kewlJ]

Here is the thing about tracking a second table:

Any successful player today, with today's conditions and higher house edges by rules like H17, quickly realizes that the "play all" approach of yesteryear, meaning playing through all counts, isn't going to cut it. Play all approach today requires a huge bet spread, aggressive bet ramp, and huge variance to get just a small edge.

So successful players adopt some version of escaping at lease some of the negative counts. Everything from bathroom breaks to pretend phone calls, just sitting out if the casino will allow it. For some players, myself included, negative counts is a trigger to find a new game.

So once a player adopts that mentality, exiting negative counts to find a new game, the next logical step is to start looking for that next game or opportunity even before that exit trigger has come. I mean if you are going to exit one game because the count is negative and join another table in progress without knowing any information about the count, then don't you think ANY information you have as to that second table and count is beneficial? This includes partial counts etc.

Anyone arguing partial counts provide no advantage should look into Standford Wong's (among others) extensive work on the subject. OR you can just troll and make statements you know nothing about.

[jbjb]

Another 2 table debate???

[Ozzy]

Damn J, BlackjackDegen.

[Rob.Singer]

Here is the thing about tracking a second table:

Any successful player today, with today's conditions and higher house edges by rules like H17, quickly realizes that the "play all" approach of yesteryear, meaning playing through all counts, isn't going to cut it. Play all approach today requires a huge bet spread, aggressive bet ramp, and huge variance to get just a small edge.

So successful players adopt some version of escaping at lease some of the negative counts. Everything from bathroom breaks to pretend phone calls, just sitting out if the casino will allow it. For some players, myself included, negative counts is a trigger to find a new game.

So once a player adopts that mentality, exiting negative counts to find a new game, the next logical step is to start looking for that next game or opportunity even before that exit trigger has come. I mean if you are going to exit one game because the count is negative and join another table in progress without knowing any information about the count, then don't you think ANY information you have as to that second table and count is beneficial? This includes partial counts etc.

Anyone arguing partial counts provide no advantage should look into Standford Wong's (among others) extensive work on the subject. OR you can just troll and make statements you know nothing about.

Kew, for someone who lives a concocted online forum life, you're remarkably ineffective when it comes time to back up your attention-craving bullshit.

Did you see how you needed to post two extended diatribes as soon as your diminished credibility surrounding counting 2 tables got totally squashed....and by someone who never plays the game, no less! You go on and on about irrelevant issues, then when you FINALLY realize your nonsensical points aren't making it pass the sniff test, you attack the provider.

IF I were you I'd stop reading those forums. When you post that stuff here as if you own it, all you do is humiliate yourself further.

[kewlJ]

Another 2 table debate???

Not really much of a debate, as I am sure you know jbjb. You have a handful of people who have absolutely zero blackjack experience or knowledge, Rob and Alan among them, that want to insist that a person can't track more than one table simultaneously, when numerous successful players have done so, including the basis for an entire team approach, the "call-in" implemented by many successful players and teams.

To counter that, opponents want to draw a distinction between back-counting multiple table and playing one while tracking a second, when there is no distinction. Are there not people, both players with their backs to the spotters as well as people walking through the casino that may cause a back-counting spotter to missed card or two? Absolutely. It all comes down to "partial" counts, which can still identify an advantage and the key phrase "when able to".

Much less a debate than an attempt to troll.

Damn J, BlackjackDegen.

Why would you use the term "degen". I guess an attempt to degrade me, as you always do. A degenerate in gambling terms is someone who can't control their gambling, plays a losing game....loses, usually effecting their life financially (unable to pay bills, relationship deteriorate ect).

I am a professional blackjack player, in my 19th year of supporting myself from blackjack advantage play and a bit of non-blackjack advantage play (but mostly blackjack related), who has earned more than 1.6 million dollars doing so. Show me how that fits into any definition of degenerate in terms of gambling?

Now if you want to use some terminology saying I am obsessed with blackjack card counting advantage play....fine. It has been my life, for 19 years, nearly all of my adult life.

[kewlJ]

Kew, for someone who lives a concocted online forum life, you're remarkably ineffective when it comes time to back up your attention-craving bullshit.

Did you see how you needed to post two extended diatribes as soon as your diminished credibility surrounding counting 2 tables got totally squashed....and by someone who never plays the game, no less! You go on and on about irrelevant issues, then when you FINALLY realize your nonsensical points aren't making it pass the sniff test, you attack the provider.

IF I were you I'd stop reading those forums. When you post that stuff here as if you own it, all you do is humiliate yourself further.

YES Rob! acknowledged. You are a much better troll than me. Congratulations! That is not my purpose, although admittedly, I have been drug into the mud responding to you trolls.

[Ozzy]

Another 2 table debate???

Not really much of a debate, as I am sure you know jbjb. You have a handful of people who have absolutely zero blackjack experience or knowledge, Rob and Alan among them, that want to insist that a person can't track more than one table simultaneously, when numerous successful players have done so, including the basis for an entire team approach, the "call-in" implemented by many successful players and teams.

To counter that, opponents want to draw a distinction between back-counting multiple table and playing one while tracking a second, when there is no distinction. Are there not people, both players with their backs to the spotters as well as people walking through the casino that may cause a back-counting spotter to missed card or two? Absolutely. It all comes down to "partial" counts, which can still identify an advantage and the key phrase "when able to".

Much less a debate than an attempt to troll.

Damn J, BlackjackDegen.

Why would you use the term "degen". I guess an attempt to degrade me, as you always do. A degenerate in gambling terms is someone who can't control their gambling, plays a losing game....loses, usually effecting their life financially (unable to pay bills, relationship deteriorate ect).

I am a professional blackjack player, in my 19th year of supporting myself from blackjack advantage play and a bit of non-blackjack advantage play (but mostly blackjack related), who has earned more than 1.6 million dollars doing so. Show me how that fits into any definition of degenerate in terms of gambling?

Now if you want to use some terminology saying I am obsessed with blackjack card counting advantage play....fine. It has been my life, for 19 years, nearly all of my adult life.

It's a joke that a couple might get, one in particular. I thought you would interpret it that way though, not surprised.

[Ozzy]

Here is the thing about tracking a second table:

Any successful player today, with today's conditions and higher house edges by rules like H17, quickly realizes that the "play all" approach of yesteryear, meaning playing through all counts, isn't going to cut it. Play all approach today requires a huge bet spread, aggressive bet ramp, and huge variance to get just a small edge.

So successful players adopt some version of escaping at lease some of the negative counts. Everything from bathroom breaks to pretend phone calls, just sitting out if the casino will allow it. For some players, myself included, negative counts is a trigger to find a new game.

So once a player adopts that mentality, exiting negative counts to find a new game, the next logical step is to start looking for that next game or opportunity even before that exit trigger has come. I mean if you are going to exit one game because the count is negative and join another table in progress without knowing any information about the count, then don't you think ANY information you have as to that second table and count is beneficial? This includes partial counts etc.

Anyone arguing partial counts provide no advantage should look into Standford Wong's (among others) extensive work on the subject. OR you can just troll and make statements you know nothing about.

Kew, for someone who lives a concocted online forum life, you're remarkably ineffective when it comes time to back up your attention-craving bullshit.

Did you see how you needed to post two extended diatribes as soon as your diminished credibility surrounding counting 2 tables got totally squashed....and by someone who never plays the game, no less! You go on and on about irrelevant issues, then when you FINALLY realize your nonsensical points aren't making it pass the sniff test, you attack the provider.

IF I were you I'd stop reading those forums. When you post that stuff here as if you own it, all you do is humiliate yourself further.

If he were to do that Rob, you would lose to Mickey for the race to 10k. You're in the drivers seat right now. Mickey has lost steam lately, since I started my thread a few weeks ago. You are not nearly as diverse as he is, you're a one trick pony !

[MaxPen]

We really need some new shit to argue about...RIP

[monet]

Damn J, BlackjackDegen.

Why would you use the term "degen". I guess an attempt to degrade me, as you always do. A degenerate in gambling terms is someone who can't control their gambling, plays a losing game....loses, usually effecting their life financially (unable to pay bills, relationship deteriorate ect).

I am a professional blackjack player, in my 19th year of supporting myself from blackjack advantage play and a bit of non-blackjack advantage play (but mostly blackjack related), who has earned more than 1.6 million dollars doing so. Show me how that fits into any definition of degenerate in terms of gambling?

Now if you want to use some terminology saying I am obsessed with blackjack card counting advantage play....fine. It has been my life, for 19 years, nearly all of my adult life.

Did you literally just state that you spent 19 years inside Casinos at Blackjack tables and tell everyone you are not a degenerate???
As if normal honest upright citizens do this sort of thing lol.
You are delusional.
Just admit that you are a low life degenerate like the rest of us.
Counting Multiple Tables at Blackjack for living and thinking you are not a degenerate lol... RIP.

[jbjb]

Damn J, BlackjackDegen.

Why would you use the term "degen". I guess an attempt to degrade me, as you always do. A degenerate in gambling terms is someone who can't control their gambling, plays a losing game....loses, usually effecting their life financially (unable to pay bills, relationship deteriorate ect).

I am a professional blackjack player, in my 19th year of supporting myself from blackjack advantage play and a bit of non-blackjack advantage play (but mostly blackjack related), who has earned more than 1.6 million dollars doing so. Show me how that fits into any definition of degenerate in terms of gambling?

Now if you want to use some terminology saying I am obsessed with blackjack card counting advantage play....fine. It has been my life, for 19 years, nearly all of my adult life.

Did you literally just state that you spent 19 years inside Casinos at Blackjack tables and tell everyone you are not a degenerate???
As if normal honest upright citizens do this sort of thing lol.
You are delusional.
Just admit that you are a low life degenerate like the rest of us.
Counting Multiple Tables at Blackjack for living and thinking you are not a degenerate lol... RIP.

I guess Walmart workers are degenerates at going to Walmart then.

[monet]

I guess Walmart workers are degenerates at going to Walmart then.

Your analogy makes no sense.
No reason to argue about it with you.
You only believe in Science.

[Ozzy]

We really need some new shit to argue about...RIP

I agree, I'm trying my best but can only produce so much

[jbjb]

I guess Walmart workers are degenerates at going to Walmart then.

Your analogy makes no sense.
No reason to argue about it with you.
You only believe in Science.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[kewlJ]

Did you literally just state that you spent 19 years inside Casinos at Blackjack tables and tell everyone you are not a degenerate???
As if normal honest upright citizens do this sort of thing lol.
You are delusional.
Just admit that you are a low life degenerate like the rest of us.
Counting Multiple Tables at Blackjack for living and thinking you are not a degenerate lol... RIP.

I play blackjack for a living monet, That is far different than some losing player spending every day at a casino or horse track.

In term of gambling or in gambling circle, the term "degenerate" refers to 1) losing players and 2) players that gamble more than they can afford to which effects their life, finances, relationships, sometimes even ability to hold a job or place to live neither of these definitions applies to me. I am a guy that makes a living at the blackjack tables. Would you call the dealer or pit guy that spends nearly every day making a living in a casino a degenerate? How about a bartender, cocktail waitress, or any other job that requires a person to be in the casino?

You are always so desperate to put some kind of negative spin on everyone. You look for and see the worst in people.

[MisterV]

No reason to argue about it with you.You only believe in Science.

Better than believing that there really is a lady luck, santa, easter bunny and tooth fairy, aka omniscient beings, aka god.

How's that worked out for you?

[mickeycrimm]

Kew, for someone who lives a concocted online forum life, you're remarkably ineffective when it comes time to back up your attention-craving bullshit.

Did you see how you needed to post two extended diatribes as soon as your diminished credibility surrounding counting 2 tables got totally squashed....and by someone who never plays the game, no less! You go on and on about irrelevant issues, then when you FINALLY realize your nonsensical points aren't making it pass the sniff test, you attack the provider.

IF I were you I'd stop reading those forums. When you post that stuff here as if you own it, all you do is humiliate yourself further.

YES Rob! acknowledged. You are a much better troll than me. Congratulations! That is not my purpose, although admittedly, I have been drug into the mud responding to you trolls.

KJ has been the number one troll on VCT for at least a couple of years now. The sheer volume of his troll posts far outnumbers those of others.

[monet]

Makes perfect sense to me.

After a little more consideration I concede to the fact that your statement makes sense.
The point is that kewlJ is completely a degenerate but has delusions of grandeur.