The value of "proof"

[kewlJ]

I discussed this again with a card counting buddy of mine. When I told him there are now two posters on the forum who claim to count two tables he broke out in laughter and said "now these guys are competing for attention? I'd like to see even one card counter accomplish this under real conditions."

Good! The last thing I need is for every two bit counter to start attempting to track multiple tables. Casinos will immediately throw up NMSE signs (common back east) and I will be screwed. As is often the case, I probably would have been better off to have never mentioned it and just kept it to myself.

[kewlJ]

Actually, Alan, I think the math does dispute that.

No, the math only says what the chances are of that random shooter throwing 18 yos in a row. The math doesn't say it can't be done, nor does it say it didn't happen.

The math shows it's a million times more lilkey that you were delusional at the time.

Delusional disorder is a mental illness in which the patient presents with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Delusions can be "bizarre" or "non-bizarre" in content;[2] non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life, such as being followed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not necessarily generally seem odd

That's getting pretty technical and medical, there Doctor Axel.

I personally think many of these types of "x amount of something in a row" claims, whether its 18 yo's or 12 consecutive losing hands in blackjack is more a result of "selective memory". The memory has a way of playing tricks like that.

I don't think anyone sets out to mislead or exaggerate, they just are not remembering "clearly". And then when they start to be challenged and it is pointed out just how improbably the math say those events were....the person often digs in their heels and swears (and convinced themselves even more) that these events occurred as they are remembering them.

[AxelWolf]

No, the math only says what the chances are of that random shooter throwing 18 yos in a row. The math doesn't say it can't be done, nor does it say it didn't happen.

The math shows it's a million times more lilkey that you were delusional at the time.

Delusional disorder is a mental illness in which the patient presents with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Delusions can be "bizarre" or "non-bizarre" in content;[2] non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life, such as being followed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not necessarily generally seem odd

That's getting pretty technical and medical, there Doctor Axel.

I personally think many of these types of "x amount of something in a row" claims, whether its 18 yo's or 12 consecutive losing hands in blackjack is amore a result of "selective memory". The memory has a way of playing tricks like that. I don't think anyone sets out to mislead or exaggerate, they just are not remembering "clearly". And then when they start to be challenged and it is pointed out just how improbably the math say those events were....the person often digs in their heels and swears (and convinced themselves even more) that these events occurred as they are remembering them.

Or they just pull numbers out of their ass to prove a point, not realizing just how ridiculous and improbable it is. Inorder to save face, they dig their heels in.

[kewlJ]

I discussed this again with a card counting buddy of mine. When I told him there are now two posters on the forum who claim to count two tables he broke out in laughter and said "now these guys are competing for attention? I'd like to see even one card counter accomplish this under real conditions."

I would be interested to know the status and skill level of this "card counting buddy" of yours. Is he a professional card counter, meaning supports or a significant amount of his income comes from card counting or is he more of a recreational card counter?

I am not asking this because I am trying to say professional CCer's are more skilled or knowledgeable. I have known recreation CCer's that are more experienced, skilled and knowledgeable than me. But there is a different mindset and goals. A professional player is looking to maximize EV over a set period of time. Tracking multiple tables and moving to the better opportunity is one such way to do that. A recreational type player is more interested in playing for recreation and enjoyment but would rather play a winning game than lose like a regular gambler. So he sits at one table, but the recreational CCer's still counts, presenting himself with an advantage rather than negative EV.

I suspect this card counting friend (if there is such a person) falls into this second recreational category, meaning his goal is to play, have fun and still make a little money or at least play a +EV game, but not necessary to maximize EV as a professional player would have a goal of.

I know of a couple other card counters, that have mentioned they track a second table/opportunity to some degree. BUT, I suspect many more professional type Card counters, especially fairly experienced professional type card counters do this to some extent. Again, a part of this that you are missing or can't seem to grasp is that the second table being tracked doesn't have to be exact. Just enough to know that the opportunity at the second table is superior (EV-wise) to the game currently being played.

As an experiment, I posted on an AP blackjack site, Blackjackinfo.com, asking if any fellow counters track a second table while playing a primary table. I am not sure what kind of response there will be because the current blackjackinfo, which was brought back to life about a year ago, after the more popular (many more members and activity) original blackjackinfo was shut down 6 years ago, has far less activity and few members than the original site. There are probably only a dozen to two dozen or so members that post somewhat regularly and I am not sure the status (professional vs recreational) of most of them.

So I don't really know what responses there will be, but because this concept isn't all that new, nor certainly not something that I came up with, I suspect there will be at least a few other professional type card counters that confirm they also track multiple tables. I'll keep you posted or anyone interested can pop over there and see any responses.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's what my card counting buddy said. "I don't see that well." And, he said, "Huh?"

By the way I was in Bellagio and there was no way to look at a nearby table without turning your head dramatically in any seat. Don't you think this would be suspicious?

[kewlJ]

By the way I was in Bellagio and there was no way to look at a nearby table without turning your head dramatically in any seat. Don't you think this would be suspicious?

I don't know what you consider "dramtically". If you are sitting in the middle seat or one of the two middle seats at a table of six seats (less advantageous), the table to your right will be at about 2 o'clock. The table to your left at about 10 o'clock. Again we go back to in human beings without neck injuries/limitations, both the head as well as the eyeball move. To see something in my 2 o'clock line of vision, I don't have to move either my head or eyes very far. Certainly not what I consider dramatically.

Again, I feel like I am repeating, but with the cancellation method of card counting, which most experienced card counters end up using, just because the mind eventually starts to naturally use this method, I only need get a glance at the cards to pick up the count. That goes for my table as well as any secondary table being tracked. This too seems to be a concept you aren't grasping or won't accept. I (as most counters) are not staring at cards at any table. WE look away, observing surroundings, nearby TV monitors, what the pit personnel is doing, and yes even other tables, only returning to our game or the second game being tracked for a glance...a fraction of a second to pick up the count.

And no I don't think that suspicious, nor have I found it to be. Quite the contrary, I think looking around at surroundings (TV, other games, other goings on) makes it look less like you are counting.

Here's what my card counting buddy said. "I don't see that well." And, he said, "Huh?"

For god sakes Alan, if your friend doesn't see well or you don't see well, then obviously this technique wouldn't be advantageous to you. Similarly, I wouldn't recommend someone in a wheelchair participate in the high jump. I however, have no vision limitations at this time, which I am thankful for. And don't turn that around saying anything about super-duper or Xray vision. I don't have that either, nor is it necessary.

I go back to this experiment. Tape a playing card to the wall. Stand back 10 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet. Can you identify that card at all those distances? I certainly can and I expect most people with decent eyesight can. Anyone who can't, well this technique probably isn't a good match for them.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj I'm just saying this to you: I've now examined the seating at two blackjack pits, Mirage and Bellagio. The tables are set up in such a way and with a certain distance that I could not see the cards at the closest tables. Adding to my lack of vision are other problems such as how the cards come to rest on the tables and people in the way and my height and angle of vision and how the tables are curved so you must turn your head to look at a nearby table.

You and RS__ the former craps dealer who is now a Seven Stars player, say you can count two tables. I say good for you.

In the meantime has anyone else on this forum looked at the setup of blackjack tables at any casino and can they report back?

[kewlJ]

You and RS__ the former craps dealer who is now a Seven Stars player, say you can count two tables. I say good for you.

Why do you make this kind of comment Alan? The highlighted part is clearly a back-handed attempt to belittle RS_, insinuating he is not who he says or his claims to be false or exaggerated. Why? Why do that? Why sink to Rob Singer's level?

For the record, I don't know and/or have not met RS_. And I have had some disagreements with him on past forums. Being a former Dealer, we have very different views on tipping and who's responsibility it is to compensate dealers (casino or patrons). He being a big fan of Wizard, he has been very critical of my negative view of Wizard and his handling of my banning at WoV. I used to think of RS_ as an online friend, but in the last year, more just an fellow AP who I respect as an AP.

But regardless, I have never seen or read anything that would lead me to question anything RS_ said. Quite the contrary, I find him to be very credible. Remember my frequent comment "that it doesn't take much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking?" RS_ knows what he is talking about when it comes to AP!

And I resent your AP negative bias coming through yet again, by the above back-handed swipe. Be better than this Alan. Be better than a Rob Singer!

[coach belly]

with the cancellation method of card counting, which most experienced card counters end up using, just because the mind eventually starts to naturally use this method, I only need get a glance at the cards to pick up the count

The cancellation method seems plausible until the last player gets his second card.

At that point all cards except the dealer's hold card are face up on the table and exposed long enough to be glanced at.

But once the players start hitting and busting, the dealer scoops their cards away.

You are able to track the hits on your table, and the hits on the table next to you, simultaneously, without being detected?

That's gotta require some pretty shifty eyes...

https://giphy.com/gifs/oj-simpson-pa...GBrsQN35qDsTJK

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj how tall are you? I'm five feet, nine and a half inches. When I sat at a table my angle of vision was not good enough to have a clear view of the cards at the next table. Plus there was that "lip" on the table, also the cards were not neatly arranged and there was that "people problem."

But as I said if you and RS__ can do it, good for you.

I also know two true dice influencers, and maybe a third. I can't influence dice either.

[kewlJ]

The cancellation method seems plausible until the last player gets his second card.

At that point all cards except the dealer's hold card are face up on the table and exposed long enough to be glanced at.

But once the players start hitting and busting, the dealer scoops their cards away.

You make a fair point coach belly. You do need to pay some attention while players are playing their hands. But still it is much less time consuming than watching every card as it is dealt and that was the point I was trying to make. There IS time to be observing other opportunities.

And again I go back to occasionally, you may miss a card or two. That missing a card or two isn't that big of a deal, seems to be a concept that isn't being accepted too well, but it is mathematically true. A couple missed cards at either table only has the effect of less penetration (more unseen cards), which while not ideal, isn't as big a deal as one might think. In addition, if you miss a card, you can sometimes make a pretty educated guess as to what that card was. If a player had a 12 or 13 and you missed him drawing a card and he broke and dealer is scooping up cards, you can make an educated guess that it was a 10 value card.

I know you guys are going to jump all over this, making comments about guessing and nothing more than random gambling, but it really doesn't work that way. Card counting is NOT an exact science. Much of it IS approximation. You track as best you can, to identify situations that are more favorable to the player and then bet more in those instances. Being off slightly in identifying strong +EV opportunities, has a very minimal cost.

[kewlJ]

Kewlj how tall are you? I'm five feet, nine and a half inches. When I sat at a table my angle of vision was not good enough to have a clear view of the cards at the next table. Plus there was that "lip" on the table, also the cards were not neatly arranged and there was that "people problem."

I most certainly am not going to publicly give any description of myself. But I am not particularly tall or unusually tall, which is what you are driving at. That is not necessary. You continue to want to make the case that some sort of extreme circumstance is needed (Xray vision, very tall) and that just is not the case.

The "lip" of the table is completely irrelevant. The cards are not dealt near that "lip" and you are still basically looking from above that lip. I suppose if you were a midget/dwarf or whatever the PC correct term is, and/or were looking from a height of 2 and a half feet, then yes that "lip" could be an obstacle.

And I beg to differ.....the cards ARE neatly arranged....for the most part.

[Alan Mendelson]

Cards are neatly arranged? Like you see them on the World Poker Tour? LOL

Again, if you and RS___ can see the cards, well good for you.

I leave it up to everyone else to judge for themselves. Folks, please report back the next time you're in a casino.

[RS__]

The things Alan says almost makes me wonder whether or not he's actually been inside a casino. You are aware the lip on the edge of a blackjack table is maybe 2-3 inches high? Can you not see over that? My God.....


Next, Alan's going to be arguing you can't see what number the roulette ball landed on, because it's in a big bowl, and if you're looking at if from straight-on, you can't see into the bowl. Or perhaps he'll argue you can't see the dice when they've landed, since there's a 1-2 foot wall around the table.

[dannyj]

Math doesn't dispute that a random roller threw 18 yos in a row.

Actually, Alan, I think the math does dispute that.

No, the math only says what the chances are of that random shooter throwing 18 yos in a row. The math doesn't say it can't be done, nor does it say it didn't happen.

Alan,
I never said that the mathematics say that 18 yo's in a row can't or didn't happen. I just said that the math disputes it.

Dispute: to call into question or cast doubt upon.

Remember Dan's calculated odds of this event happening, (I don't) so many billions or quadrillion's to one? I would say the math does indeed dispute it. Having said that, I've never said it didn't happen. I believe that you believe you saw it.

[Alan Mendelson]

The things Alan says almost makes me wonder whether or not he's actually been inside a casino. You are aware the lip on the edge of a blackjack table is maybe 2-3 inches high? Can you not see over that? My God.....


Next, Alan's going to be arguing you can't see what number the roulette ball landed on, because it's in a big bowl, and if you're looking at if from straight-on, you can't see into the bowl. Or perhaps he'll argue you can't see the dice when they've landed, since there's a 1-2 foot wall around the table.

No, I don't argue where the roulette ball lands. I don't play roulette. But I've seen some strange things at roulette tables.

[kewlJ]

The things Alan says almost makes me wonder whether or not he's actually been inside a casino. You are aware the lip on the edge of a blackjack table is maybe 2-3 inches high? Can you not see over that? My God.....


Next, Alan's going to be arguing you can't see what number the roulette ball landed on, because it's in a big bowl, and if you're looking at if from straight-on, you can't see into the bowl. Or perhaps he'll argue you can't see the dice when they've landed, since there's a 1-2 foot wall around the table.

I honestly don't quite know what to make of Alan. I don't see him in the same vein as the bitter nasty AP haters/deniers, some that frequent this site. He clearly is not in the same arena as the very mentally ill Rob Singer, although Alan's sometimes seems to stray in that direction with various comments, like his recent back-handed attack of RS_. His admiration of one said Rob Singer is disturbing.

But Alan most definitely has a dislike of AP's and an extreme bias towards them. He then goes out of his way with what is known as "bias confirmation" to prove his preconceived negative ideas and notions involving AP's. And sometimes in doing so, he seems to exit reality and see and say things that just aren't there. I guess the nicest way I can say it is he void of any objectivity in any such AP related discussion which essentially disqualified him and almost anything he says.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have no bias towards APs. I just have to question certain claims and abilities.

You missed the years I questioned the claims of the dice controllers who sold books and put on seminars. I played craps with them. I watched their demos at the "conventions" they held.

Because I've been in casinos I question the ability to count two tables. If you can do it, great. Mortal man can't.

And stop saying I don't believe in APs. I just don't believe in Superman.

[kewlJ]

Because I've been in casinos I question the ability to count two tables. If you can do it, great. Mortal man can't.

This is the part that isn't true. Mortal man CAN. People with average eyesight CAN.

I am not trying to mean but maybe the fact that you are a bit older and I have no idea what your eyesight situation is, plays a part in you thinking it can't be done, but it certainly can and isn't that difficult....when the right conditions present themselves, which isn't that infrequently. (<-double negative )

[Alan Mendelson]

Because I've been in casinos I question the ability to count two tables. If you can do it, great. Mortal man can't.

This is the part that isn't true. Mortal man CAN. People with average eyesight CAN.

I am not trying to mean but maybe the fact that you are a bit older and I have no idea what your eyesight situation is, plays a part in you thinking it can't be done, but it certainly can and isn't that difficult....when the right conditions present themselves, which isn't that infrequently. (<-double negative )

This is why I asked on this forum for others to go to casinos and tell us what they observed. So far NO ONE has. RS__ has told us he can. But no one else has gone to a casino and reported back. I look forward to the reports.