KJ BJ expert?

[MDawg]

Wow, the kewl-groomer still squealing like a little bitch, amazing, hey hey!!!!

[accountinquestion]

This example has a base bet of 200 or 100 when negative. Then you raise it to 300 or 400? I don't know much about spreads but I know about math but it is hard for me to make that out as working. Hmmm. A spread of 1 to 4?

$300 or $400 is only my first jump mate. I have said elsewhere what my max bet currently is. It is much larger than that isn't it?

Now lets define bet spread. If a player's smallest bet is $100 and his max bet is $800, that is a 1-8 spread. Simple enough right.

Now if I sit down and my first bet is $200, but I drop to $100 during negative counts and jump to $300/$400 and eventually to $800, what is my spread? is it 1-4? ($200-$800), 1-8? ($100-$800)

Answer: it is 1-8, the smallest wager you make to the largest wager you make. That is what spread is. the $200 initial bet, instead of the very smallest $100 bet is what is known as spreading BOTH ways. there is a little bit of a cost to it as opposed from a strict 1-8 spread, but it makes it more difficult to see the entire spread. they have to see both a negative count and positive max bet count in the same shoe to see the full spread. This is a major factor in longevity. because if they only see half, it looks like a 1-4 spread and you wont even be backed off with that at a 6 deck game.

Yes, but it is isn't a 1:8 spread either. The way you are teaching what the spread is will send people down the wrong answer if they take what you say as correct. I don't know how often you bet 200 vs 100 but when other background sims and such let you input the "spread". your 1:8 is simply not correct and it seems misleading to teach it like that.

I assume somewhere someone has talked about something likely called an 'effective spread'. Your effective spread is going to be more like 1:6. I don't know how often you stay at 200 vs 100 but ultimately with AI it could determine really quickly in a way that your countermeasures would do nothing against. Just overall correlation.

Next time I'm in LV I'm going to walk around looking for how many are betting $400+ a hand. I guess the real quesiton I'd ask is - how many pits have the games available?

Seems best to me to

[kewlJ]

Yes, but it is isn't a 1:8 spread either. The way you are teaching what the spread is will send people down the wrong answer if they take what you say as correct. I don't know how often you bet 200 vs 100 but when other background sims and such let you input the "spread". your 1:8 is simply not correct and it seems misleading to teach it like that.

I assume somewhere someone has talked about something likely called an 'effective spread'. Your effective spread is going to be more like 1:6. I don't know how often you stay at 200 vs 100 but ultimately with AI it could determine really quickly in a way that your countermeasures would do nothing against. Just overall correlation.

Next time I'm in LV I'm going to walk around looking for how many are betting $400+ a hand. I guess the real quesiton I'd ask is - how many pits have the games available?

Seems best to me to

There ya go account, you posted your question in the right place so as not to hijack Druff. Was THAT so hard?

You are confusing bet spread and bet ramp. Spread is simply a ratio between the smallest wager and the highest wager. It is NOT a ratio between the zero count wager and the highest wager. Exactly what amount is bet at what count or advantage is defined as the bet ramp.

As mentioned there is a little bit of a cost for not placing your smallest wager at zero, but instead dropping to it in negative counts. But that cost is worth it. It really makes your spread look much less. I am going to go back to the example of the 6 deck game spread $100 to $800.

If you bet $100 at a count of zero and max bet $800 at a count of true 4, that 1-8 spread would be very easy to see. And while not a huge spread, it is big enough to possible concern someone that notices.

Now if you use the same $100-$800 spread, $100 in negative counts, $200 at zero, $800 max bet at TC +4, they will only see a $200-$800 (1-4) spread unless the count goes both negative and positive in the same shoe. And a 1-4 spread, just doesn't concern many people. If someone saw it they probably won't even to take any action against you on what looks like a 1-4 spread

What is important about the smallest wager is that you are betting that in the negative counts to minimize negative EV. You can fudge it at zero and it doesn't have much effect. A little bit, but not much. You can even be creative and bounce back and forth between $100 and $200 at zero.

[accountinquestion]

I post in the same threads that have the messages I am replying to. Is that hard to understand?

My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.

You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.

[kewlJ]

My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.

You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.

If you are reading blackjack books and looking at charts, then you are stuck in the last century. Don Schlesinger, author of like THE book on blackjack, Blackjack Attack which is just full of charts, graphs, numbers, was one of the biggest influences on me and my career. And I have had the pleasure of communicating privately with him often, although not recently.

But as good as that book is, if someone is using the charts from that book or any book, they are doing it all wrong. Today and for a while now, professional players get their information from computer software simulation. Some of the top players write their own, but Norm's software (Qfit products) is as good as any and more than adequate.

And the best part is you can spend hours tinking with bet spread, ramp, shutdown points (negative counts) until you find what works and is acceptable to you for a win rate without compromising everything else. then you look at the RoR for whatever you have come up with and see if that works for your bankroll.

So when tinkering one of the things you will find is there are some things that don't cost nearly what conventional wisdom says it does. Spreading both ways is one of them. Another is playing card counter basic strategy (CCBS). the old books liked to tell you that playing index plays, Don's 18, or 20, or 25 was worth about 25% of the total you can win. It just is NOT. If you set the simulation for CCBS, you will see you lose like 5%. And that 5% loss for eliminating one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently at different times is well worth in longevity.

Then is you do something that has a little cost like spreading both ways or betting $200 at zero instead of $100 and you feel that is too much a cost for you and your target win rate, you can further tinker and see where you can make some of that up. Maybe Max Bets slightly earlier at TC +3.5 instead of 4. Maybe exit the game at TC of -2 instead of -3, or maybe in between at -2.5.

There is hundreds of combinations you can tinker with until you find what works for you, and results in the EV you are looking for. That is the beauty of software simulations vs the old charts. The possibilities are endless. You can't do that with the "canned simulations" in books.

If someone is getting into card counting, whether having dreams to play for a living, or just recreational for decent money (more than red chip), simulation software should be their very first purchase. It will pay for itself 100 times over, thousands of times if you do make a career of it.

[kewlJ]

AS far as 1-8 spread, I don't know how to tell you any more than I have. 1-8 spread means your smallest bet is x and your largest is 8x. Where the different amounts are doesn't change it from being a 1-8 spread.

The reason this is effective is because casino mark down your first wager, or first couple wagers (even when playing unrated). So if that first wager is $100 and they later see you betting $800, that is an easy to detect 1-8 spread. If they mark down that first wager as $200 and later see an $800 wager they think 1-4 spread.

And if they mark down the first wager as $200, and later see a $100 bet, that is nothing. Completely normal. No one would think anything of it as far as what your spread is.

And as long as you have the minimum out at the negative counts, you aren't losing much. In the benefit/cost analysis it is well worth it in longevity.

This completes KJ's BJ 103. Asmuch as I enjoy talking blackjack, I can't give EVERYTHING away.

[accountinquestion]

My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.

You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.

If you are reading blackjack books and looking at charts, then you are stuck in the last century. Don Schlesinger, author of like THE book on blackjack, Blackjack Attack which is just full of charts, graphs, numbers, was one of the biggest influences on me and my career. And I have had the pleasure of communicating privately with him often, although not recently.

But as good as that book is, if someone is using the charts from that book or any book, they are doing it all wrong. Today and for a while now, professional players get their information from computer software simulation. Some of the top players write their own, but Norm's software (Qfit products) is as good as any and more than adequate.

And the best part is you can spend hours tinking with bet spread, ramp, shutdown points (negative counts) until you find what works and is acceptable to you for a win rate without compromising everything else. then you look at the RoR for whatever you have come up with and see if that works for your bankroll.

So when tinkering one of the things you will find is there are some things that don't cost nearly what conventional wisdom says it does. Spreading both ways is one of them. Another is playing card counter basic strategy (CCBS). the old books liked to tell you that playing index plays, Don's 18, or 20, or 25 was worth about 25% of the total you can win. It just is NOT. If you set the simulation for CCBS, you will see you lose like 5%. And that 5% loss for eliminating one of the bigger tells of a card counter, playing the same hand differently at different times is well worth in longevity.

Then is you do something that has a little cost like betting $200 at zero instead of $100 and you feel that is too much a cost for you and your target win rate, you can further tinker and see where you can make some of that up. Maybe Max Bets slightly earlier at TC +3.5 instead of 4. Maybe exit the game at TC of -2 instead of -3, or maybe in between at -2.5.

There is hundreds of combinations you can tinker with until you find what works for you, and results in the Ev you are looking for. That is the beauty of software simulations vs the old charts. The possibilities are endless. You can't do that with the "canned simulations" in books.

If someone is getting into card counting, whether having dreams to play for a living, or just recreational for decent money (more than red chip), simulation software should be their very first purchase. It will pay for itself 100 times over, thousands of times if you do make a career of it.

Most people who are starting to look into blackjack and just starting to evaluate it are not going to be using simulations. They're going to be using books/articles.

Your bet spread is not 1:8 in the same way meant in the books.

So if someone was going to see "oh this is the kewl one's way of doing it I am going to follow in his foosteps" they need to at least understand that your 1:8 spread is just not the same.



It is interesting for a guy who uses sims so much and such that you don't know how much the spreading both ways costs you. You give me paragraphs of the different things you can and can't do but ..

[MDawg]

You’re going into these elaborate logic chains that aren’t ALL that different from saying you couldn’t possibly count cards for a living in Las Vegas for over a decade….

[jdaewoo]

This retard is a closeted homosexual.

[kewlJ]

My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.

You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.

You continue to be completely wrong about the 1-8 spread. here is anolther 1-8 spread. A bit extreme but still a 1-8 spread.

any negative count you bet $100 or one unit. At TC +4 you bet max bet or $800. At counts in between, 0, 1, 2, 3, You can bet anything you like between those two wagers. bet $500 at +1, Bet $300 at +3, Next time at +1 bet $100, then at +2, bet $600. Just randomly (the more random, the better) you wager at the intermediate counts between minimum wager and max wager. This is a form of opposition betting. But all that really matters is your top wager and your minimum wagers are placed correctly. all those intermediate wagers even out. The variance would increase, but the Ev wouldn't change all that much...only mildly.

THIS, kind of extreme as it is, would be a 1-8 bet spread.

Now as for KewlJ's way and someone following in my footstep, if I had the chance to respond to someone wanting to follow in my footsteps, my response would be don't. I have done exactly that many times. Zenking goes back with me a long time on many forums, and even read some forums after I was gone. I bet he has read where my advice to someone wanting or saying they were going to follow in my footsteps, was don't!

Look, as a professional player, I can share some of my experiences and the way I do things without it meaning I am encouraging anyone to do anything. So don't lay that on me.

[kewlJ]

There I just gave you all the numbers. so you do the math. And it will come out to somewhere between 60-80k a year in EV at roughly 10 hours a week.

My hourly is above $200.

10 hours per week x $200 per hour x 52 weeks per year = $104K per year

So you have been running from 23% - 43+% over your estimated EV.

How is that possible?

Coach belly, You are a real sleezeball. 5 different times today, I said my EV was $200/100 rounds. 1 time I mistakenly used the word hour instead of /100 round. And you jumped on that like I made some major blunder. And then do some equations that make no sense based on me making a simple mistake 1 time, when everyone knew exactly what I was saying.

You are just ridiculous with you petty little "gottch ya" bullshit, when it was crystal clear what I was saying.

[coach belly]

I said my EV was $200/100 rounds.

Currently I make about $200+ an hour in EV playing blackjack

[redietz]

Here's a question. If Person A posts multiple times that what Person B did was impossible and putting MDawg and Rob to shame with its far-fetched narrative, and Person B already posted proof of what he had done, then what is one to make of person A?

a) Dumb as a rock?
b) Serious memory issues?
c) A "sleazebag" to outdo all other sleazebags?
d) Just some dude purposefully fucking up a forum and having a chuckle?
e) Some grifter trying to funnel any readers' money into his own pockets by debunking EVERY OTHER gambler on the forum?


I think these are logical, reasonable questions.

Obviously, Person A has no interest in educating people about how Las Vegas actually works because he goes out of his way to lie about what other people have provably done IN LAS VEGAS. So what the hell is his real purpose?

[MDawg]

He joined these forums because he has a messed up zero life, and figured he could concoct an online fantasy life to compensate for it. Problem has been, most forums get tired of his nonsense and BS envy of others, so they ban him. All it does is compound his hurt.

I agree with the educated assessment that he got his wimpy ass kicked somewhere/sometime, which is why he gets into all types of cyber fights.

I'll also say that it seems very important to you that people believe you.

You seem to descend into a much darker place when you battle with people on these forums.

[jdaewoo]

This retard is a closeted homosexual.

[accountinquestion]

My point here is that when someone reads some blackjack math based book and it talks about pentration and spread - then no one should consider what you're doing 1:8 spread. That stuff is derived from where you are lowest bet until it is positive then you "ramp" up.

You say it has a cost. I'm saying you can't look at the charts for 1:8 spread because they're not accurate due to what you call a cost. I don't really follow counting anymore but it seems like a reasonable trick but the devil is in the details. Betting 2 units instead of one at the average loss per hand is not an insignificant cost to overcome.

You continue to be completely wrong about the 1-8 spread. here is anolther 1-8 spread. A bit extreme but still a 1-8 spread.

any negative count you bet $100 or one unit. At TC +4 you bet max bet or $800. At counts in between, 0, 1, 2, 3, You can bet anything you like between those two wagers. bet $500 at +1, Bet $300 at +3, Next time at +1 bet $100, then at +2, bet $600. Just randomly (the more random, the better) you wager at the intermediate counts between minimum wager and max wager. This is a form of opposition betting. But all that really matters is your top wager and your minimum wagers are placed correctly. all those intermediate wagers even out. The variance would increase, but the Ev wouldn't change all that much...only mildly.

THIS, kind of extreme as it is, would be a 1-8 bet spread.

Now as for KewlJ's way and someone following in my footstep, if I had the chance to respond to someone wanting to follow in my footsteps, my response would be don't. I have done exactly that many times. Zenking goes back with me a long time on many forums, and even read some forums after I was gone. I bet he has read where my advice to someone wanting or saying they were going to follow in my footsteps, was don't!

Look, as a professional player, I can share some of my experiences and the way I do things without it meaning I am encouraging anyone to do anything. So don't lay that on me.

I like how you admit to it costing more but you don't know the actual value. You talk of how sim software pays for itself 1000x over but you minimize the results. When the average house edge is when you're paying 2 units it seems like it would make a difference. And regardless of what you say you are wrong. I don't know the distribution of various counts so I can't begin to estimate. Anyway I'm not going to argue with someone who is only book./internet learned and can't think beyond that. You admit it is different and costs more.

I've never said that you don't have an actual 1:8 spread just that it is significantly different from what you'd see results for if looking at some chart and what they mean by their results. Maybe it isn't at 200 for very long and the difference and the cost is minimized.

I don't think too many peopl4 are following in your foot steps but just like you correcting singer and dawg I feel the need to do it for you.

[accountinquestion]

Kewl did they teach the word semantics at Villanova?

[kewlJ]

Anyway I'm not going to argue with someone who is only book./internet learned and can't think beyond that.

And I am not going to argue with someone who says "what do I know" "Maybe it is/maybe it isn't", "I don't think this or that....well maybe" and "seems to me". Account you clearly don't know about what you are arguing......but yet you still argue.

With all due respect AIQ, you don't know enough about either blackjack or sports betting to be making judgments about who's an expert on either. Grosjean has said he's shocked at how little additional blackjack research in developing has been done on blackjack since he exposed there was much more math to it in his books.

Take away the due respect and you sound like a complete fucking moron, like a college freshman taking his first psychology or philosophy course.

AccountinQ, YOU have called me an expert in BJ card counting. You downplay that by saying something like it doesn't take much to be an expert, but you on several occasions now have said that you believe I am one. And at the same time you have numerous times now made reference that you are not and don't know much about it.

So my question is: Why does a guy that repeatedly has said he doesn't know much about the subject, continue to argue with the guy he has called an expert numerous times? And I think we all know the answer. YOU just want to argue with me. with everything I say.

[accountinquestion]

Anyway I'm not going to argue with someone who is only book./internet learned and can't think beyond that.

And I am not going to argue with someone who says "what do I know" "Maybe it is/maybe it isn't", "I don't think this or that....well maybe" and "seems to me". Account you clearly don't know about what you are arguing......but yet you still argue.

With all due respect AIQ, you don't know enough about either blackjack or sports betting to be making judgments about who's an expert on either. Grosjean has said he's shocked at how little additional blackjack research in developing has been done on blackjack since he exposed there was much more math to it in his books.

Take away the due respect and you sound like a complete fucking moron, like a college freshman taking his first psychology or philosophy course.

Do you see yourself more as forum mascot or more of the forum clown?

You have repeated mcap 6 times now. You trying to emulate mdawg now?

[kewlJ]

Do you see yourself more as forum mascot or more of the forum clown?

You have repeated mcap 6 times now. You trying to emulate mdawg now?

I am neither the forum mascot, nor the clown. The later title belongs to Rob Singer, but several are you seem to want to take it from him. I am a blackjack player who plays for a living on a gambling forum that likes to share some of my experiences. Unfortuantly there isn't a lot of sharing of real experiences on this forum anymore. Trolls, like you have taken over and do nothing but troll.

I repeated Mcaps quote for a reason. Mcap is no fan of mine. Have you ever seen him defend me? No. Have you ever seen him be critical of me? yes.

So I though maybe you hearing from a guy (as many times as it takes) that has a lot of real blackjack experience and knowledge, but isn't a fan of mine, might have an impact on you, more than me just telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. But apparently it doesn't. You will say "I don't know what I am talking about, but you are wrong" almost in the same sentence.

"Our President" (<- ) and his supporters talk about people having Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Probably is in some cases. Well you, Dawg and other trolls have KJ Derangement Syndrome. You are obsessed and will argue with me about anything and everything I say, regardless that you acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about.