KJ BJ expert?

[kewlJ]

Yea, I know.. your brain breaks into 2 things and you sit around thinking about life why the sub-brain just counts magically. It is also why you can count 3 tables at once.

While I'm sure it becomes a lot easier with time and second nature (duh, obviously) - you still have to occupy your mind constantly with the count. You can sit there and tell us how easy it is for Mr BJ-master but whatevers. I doubt you can count just fine and think 100% on other things.

This is you doubling/tripling down on something you know absolutely nothing about. AinQ, you really have KJ derangement syndrome mentioned earlier. If I say something you will fight me on it, no matter what it is, no matter how little you know about what is being discussed. hell, I think we are to the point that you will fight me when you know 100% you are wrong.

Take the tracking of a second table that you just mentioned (just about a thing of the past now, as there are few situations where it would work). YOU and others continue to mock this. But when this discussion came about several other blackjack players weighed in at different places that they too had done some form of this. Richard Munchkin, Don Schlesinger, A known BJ player that was here for a short while, and has asked me not to use his name on this forum and I believe a couple more. I think RS_ the known blackjack player from WOV and here (shortly) said he had done so. (RS_ used to go by rolling stoned. Don't confuse him with Rob Singer). If Kim Lee shows up again, I will ask him. I will bet he did some version of this.

So numerous other real and experienced blackjack players have done this also. And I didn't copy anything from anyone, because we didn't even know of anyone else until discussion after I had mentioned it.

AinQ, can you really not see how KJ obsessive you have become (just like a few others) If I say the grass is green, you will fight me.

Oh, this is just something that can never be proven nor can you demonstrate.

Just like you counting 3 tables. You can insist you are superman counter or whatever the fuck but it doesn't mean you're more right. Of COURSE you'll fight for whatever you claimed and never back down. You have something no one else can prove. Even when it can be demonstrated you made it up and everyone else is laughing - you don't back down.

Come'on Kewl. No one takes you seriously and very few will. ZenKing?

I have seen nothing to suggest you even have the capability of being honest to yourself as far as your mental ability while keeping a running count.

There is no derangement here, we just know you're full of shit about so much. Not too bright. etc etc. Counting Cards seems like it'd really blow as far as a longterm profession. For many many reasons - many of which are the same reasons people don't believe your story as a whole.

I NEVER mocked tracking a second table. At some point you suggested you could and did on occasion track 3.. I'm not why you keep switching it around but it is like everything with you - disengenious and only meant to try and reinforce this life narrative you present. Reality has no value to you when on the forums. You went with 2 then upped it to 3 and people were like wtf lol. Same pattern you've demonstrated repeatedly. Now when I bring it up and say 3 tables, you respond as if I said 2 when it is very clear. You live in fantasyland. Sorry.

Stop with the 3 tables. That is just you trying to make something out of nothing. The technique was about tracking a second table while playing one. But when you can do that as many real and experienced card counters have, then yes you could track a 3rd table for a very short time under the perfect conditions. And THAT is what I said. I think I did it maybe twice, maybe 3 times. the other two tables one on each side had to be starting (after shuffle point) about the same time. You could track for a round, possibly two and then you drop the worse of the tables and continue tracking only the second until you decide which is the better opportunity.

Account, even non-card counters are familiar with the MIT story and movie aren't they? That "spotter/call in approach" used by the MIT team and many teams dating back to ken Uston and AL Francesco, who is credited with the play. You have heard of this right? Well the spotters were tracking as much as 4-5 tables at one time, looking for that favorable count to call in a player. You don't even need the specific count! You just need to be sure it is enough that the table is significantly +EV.

Well playing one table and tracking a second is nothing compared to tracking 4-5 tables. A real and experienced player can do this in his sleep almost.

[kewlJ]

Oh, this is just something that can never be proven nor can you demonstrate.

Just like you counting 3 tables. You can insist you are superman counter or whatever

This is the laughable point in any argument about this topic. I am not a superman counter. I am a good card counter just because I have been at it so long and have kept to a simpler count minimizing mistakes. But you simply do not have to be a superman counter (whatever that is) to do this.

And no! No one is going to prove it to you. Alan wanted to film me. Like I, an anonymous card counter, trying to stay that way would do that.

Do you think any AP, trying to stay anonymous is going to come to you and prove something to you? What world do you live in?

[coach belly]

In the wording of the challenge Mdawg states or stated if he has changed it) that he would prove to my satisfaction. Well he canNOT prove to my satisfaction.

If that is true, then you cannot lose the challenge.

The challenge presents the opportunity to collect and present evidence, but you refuse to participate in that endeavor.

If you don't take the challenge, then you can't legitimately claim what he can or cannot do....because you're only willing to limit your authority to what you think...not what you have observed that he can or cannot do.

[kewlJ]

In the wording of the challenge Mdawg states or stated if he has changed it) that he would prove to my satisfaction. Well he canNOT prove to my satisfaction.

If that is true, then you cannot lose the challenge.

The challenge presents the opportunity to collect and present evidence, but you refuse to participate in that endeavor.

If you don't take the challenge, then you can't legitimately claim what he can or cannot do....because you're only willing to limit your authority to what you think...not what you have observed that he can or cannot do.

There can be no challenge dip shit! Therefore there is no opportunity to collect anything. It is just another Mdawg troll game.

[coach belly]

There can be no challenge

The only reason you insist that there can be no challenge is because you won't participate.

That's not legit. Follow up on the challenge and try to prove MDawg is bullshitting.

Or work out a darkoz-type challenge.

I'll bet that if you and MDawg had a contest to see who could win (or win more) over a period of time, MDawg would win.

Over what period of time do you think you could win more playing BJ, than MDawg could win playing Bac?

Since you think that you have the mathematical edge, name your terms.

[kewlJ]

I'll bet that if you and MDawg had a contest to see who could win (or win more) over a period of time, MDawg would win.

Over what period of time do you think you could win more playing BJ, than MDawg could win playing Bac?

Since you think that you have the mathematical edge, name your terms.

Dude, I am not having some pissing gambling contest with someone. Shades of Moses wanting to play me one on one in blackjack. THAT is NOT what I do. I am a professional player who beats the casinos in blackjack.

The darkoz challenge was not a challenge really. It was a free roll for Mdawg. But I have offered a completely fair challenge to both parties where Dawg would be monitored for a reasonable length of time and trials (1 month) and see if his results match what he has claimed for 7 years now. I don't know how much more fair you can get. And I am willing to put up a good amount of money on this fair wager. If dawg has some magical method to win month after month after month after month, like he has claimed for 7 years now, it would be a layup win for him.

[Keystone]

I'll bet that if you and MDawg had a contest to see who could win (or win more) over a period of time, MDawg would win.

Over what period of time do you think you could win more playing BJ, than MDawg could win playing Bac?

Since you think that you have the mathematical edge, name your terms.

Dude, I am not having some pissing gambling contest with someone. Shades of Moses wanting to play me one on one in blackjack. THAT is NOT what I do. I am a professional player who beats the casinos in blackjack.

The darkoz challenge was not a challenge really. It was a free roll for Mdawg. But I have offered a completely fair challenge to both parties where Dawg would be monitored for a reasonable length of time and trials (1 month) and see if his results math what he has claimed for 7 years now. I don't know how much more fair you can get. And I am willing to put up a good amount of money on this fair wager. If dawg has some magical method to win month after month after month after month, like he has claimed for 7 years now, it would be a layup win for him.

Coach loves challenges.

Everyone that was here at the time remembers when he eagerly volunteered to fly to Vegas to be a judge in the Boz-Singer 9-1/2” cock challenge

My guess is that he would have been a real “hands-on” judge

[coach belly]

Dawg would be monitored for a reasonable length of time and trials. And I am willing to put up a good amount of money on this fair wager.

I'm certain that I asked you to name your terms.

It seems like you have something in mind...so don't be so vague...name your terms.

[mickeycrimm]

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 ..

Sklansky recommended disguising your minimum bet on your first bet decades ago.

[coach belly]

cock challenge

This homosexual is a closeted retard.

[coach belly]

I am a professional player who beats the casinos in blackjack.

You are a blowhard blabbermouth who has refused to verify anything about your gaming results, while insisting that others are lying about their results.

When presented with the opportunity to verify your results, you refuse to participate.

But you are anxious to examine the results of other members under your conditions.

That's not how things work. How about you go fuck yourself?

[kewlJ]

Coach loves challenges.

Everyone that was here at the time remembers when he eagerly volunteered to fly to Vegas to be a judge in the Boz-Singer 9-1/2” cock challenge

My guess is that he would have been a real “hands-on” judge

Something I have noticed about CB. Whenever some challenge pops up, whether me or dawg or Singer or anyone else, belly is right there interjecting himself into it, setting terms ect. You feel like you are negotiating with someone's rep or something when he has nothing to do with it.

I remember Singer claiming 9 1/2. But I don't really remember a challenge with Boz. Don't doubt it, just don't remember and have zero interest in looking it up.

But here is something about that. I doubt many people know this but I am a gay guy. So most gay dudes have pretty good gaydar, as discussed recently. I think mine is pretty good. Works best when you are in person and can hear the person talk and see mannerism, but you can get a reading from pictures and written word, what they talk about and how they talk. So I have already expressed my opinion on Singer in that regard.

But another thing we have is the ability to know what someone is packing. Mostly it is in the hands. the hands almost never lie. You almost never see a guy with small hands that has a big dick. (sorry Mr. Trump but it is true). Well I have seen Robs hands on a couple of these videos and that dude in NOT packing 9+. He would be lucky is he ever had 6 on a good day. But now, proabbly a 2.5 inch turtle that he can't get hard.

[coach belly]

Well I have seen Robs hands on a couple of these videos and that dude in NOT packing 9+. He would be lucky is he ever had 6 on a good day. But now, proabbly a 2.5 inch turtle that he can't get hard.

Your gaydar must have gotten a hit on Keystone.

Who would care about, or even think about this, unless they were gay?

[mickeycrimm]

If you want evidence whenever kew makes his claims--about himself or anybody else--you're barking up the wrong tree. He's the Gavin Newsome of the gambling forums world: "Required of thee but not of me". Again, in his twisted low-income/non-productive world, he has never gotten it right with his "I know how casinos & LV works, and that is not the way it works". He desperately needs and wants to be the final authority on his allegations and assertions of that which he does not agree with or understand, but he regularly comes up short.

Whats the word on Newsome? I knew very little about him but he's been running a train on Trump. All the other dems are basically a different version of Kewl but in national politics. Before he started pointing out who and what Trump is .. he was just another governor to me.

I didn't know you live in Cali btw. Or do you just take in your news from fake news and they have nothing real to write about... so they go on and on repeating stories about how Newsome is bad. (Trump is good)

Anyway.. serious question, whats the story on Newsome? Is this some fucking mask reference from 5 years ago? More to it? Whats he got hiding in his closet that isn't known?

Newsome has forced the closure of two refineries. One already down and the other will go down next spring. It's causing a 20% reduction in fuel being produced. They already have the highest price in the nation but it's going to skyrocket next year.

Oregon has no refineries. They will be totally dependent on Washington which already has the 3rd highest gas. The Portland area is scared shitless that their economy will implode. And those Washington refineries are under pressure to close too.

I pay attention to this shit because of where I live.

California gas in $4.33
Washington gas is $3.97
Oregon gas is $3.57
Idaho gas is $2.94
Montana gas is $2.87

We have two refineries in Montana so gas prices aren't so bad. But if they start shipping the gas elsewhere because of Newsome's bullshit then those of us in the northwest will suffer paying more. Newsome's actions affect more than just his state.

[kewlJ]

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 ..

Sklansky recommended disguising your minimum bet on your first bet decades ago.

Interesting. I know of him, but never read much of his work or thoughts. But not surprised. When you sit down the first bet is the bet they mark down. Sometimes the first couple bets. And then they compare later bets to that first bet. So anything you can do to disguise that first bet is going to pay big dividends. Almost makes me wonder if you opened up with your max bet or maybe 1/2 max bet what THAT would buy you? Wow!

Mickey, do you know of Zengrifter? I don't think he wrote a book (could be wrong). A lot of people don't like him because he did some white-collar shit outside of BJ that landed him in Country club Fed prison for a bit. But he was a pretty clever blackjack player. I always got along well with him, although he labeled me "young whippersnapper" when I first hit the forums because I was younger and newer than everyone else at the time. Last I saw of him, he was occasionally posting at GF.

Anyway, ZG was responsible for some of my "cover" thinking with disguising wagers, including one I talked about this morning. Min wager, Max wager and random Kaos in between. I don't know if he advocated a complete spreading of both ways like I do, but he definitely talked about not playing you minimum wager at zero counts or at least all zero counts.

Now the thing about that, is conventical thinking was just the conclusion that acctinQ came to, that because of the higher frequency of the Zero count (bucket) that not playing minimum has too high of a cost. But you have to remember that zero count "bucket" also has a very small house advantage. Towards the + end of the bucket it may even be close to break even. So the cost isn't as much as you might initially think. And just like I told acctinQ today, you start playing around with the software and you discover a whole bunch of stuff that isn't as bad (or as good) as conventional wisdom would have you believe.

Not lecturing you Crimm. I know you know all of this. just having a good conversation that maybe someone else can take something from.

Question though Mick? You have more card counting experience that you have let on over the years don't you? probably long ago now, but it is more than you have told us isn't it?

[coach belly]

those of us in the northwest will suffer paying more.

What is the alternative to suffering by paying more?

[mickeycrimm]

those of us in the northwest will suffer paying more.

What is the alternative to suffering by paying more?

The alternative is being happy by paying less

[MDawg]

I'm rather certain he has money from something he feels shame over.
Most likely a prostitute

Pretending to be some hero AP gives him purpose and a sense of accomplishment.

[jdaewoo]

This retard doesn't gamble.

[kewlJ]

This retard doesn't gamble.

Well of course he does Jdaewoo. Can you not read. This guy has reported wins totaling $870,000 in just the last 2 weeks. What are you having a problem with that such a high- end player, would immediately run over to VCT a forum 10 people to troll someone? Isn't that what all the wealthy folks do? Doesn't Buffet go to a stock forum with 10 members each night to troll someone.

You want to know the absolute best part of the $870k won in the last 2 weeks by dawg (in this fantasy)? It was the day he reported 3 sessions. -$800k, +$130k, +720k. Surprise, surprise, even THAT day ended up a winner.

Dude is the greatest EVER. Never had a losing month. Never had a losing trip.