Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

[Mission146]

I have to agree with jbjb. The rebates only take the sting out of losing but don't make you a winner or give you an edge.

I have to agree with myself. You're an idiot who doesn't understand the word, "Expectation," when used in a gambling context.

By the way, if you win once and then lose and take your rebate, you're up $200,000. It's really not that fucking hard.

Also, if you lose the first one and get $200,000 back, you're down $800,000 overall. If you follow that with a win, then you add $1,000,000 and you're up $200,000 overall.

Pretend you start with $2,000,000 Alan, so you don't confuse yourself. Try really hard to follow this:

$2,000,000

$2,000,000 - $1,000,000 (Lost) = $1,000,000

$1,000,000 + $200,000 (20% Back) = $1,200,000

$1,200,000 + $1,000,000 (Win) = $2,200,000

$2,200,000 - $2,000,000 = $200,000 (Profit)

That's what happens with one win and one loss in any order.

Now you see why I try to stick to easy stuff like coin flips. I'm doing that for you, Alan.

(Redacted)

I typed a paragraph really tearing into your intelligence, but fuck, I can't do it, man. It's like making a small child who I'm not even related to cry. You're trying really hard, Alan. I'll have your participation trophy ready when we meet so you can give me those nuggets.

[coach belly]

The LR, by itself, put him at a huge advantage

Except he wasn't getting any loss rebate when he won $4.2 mil at Caesars.

He only learned of possible loss rebate offers months later.

[Alan Mendelson]

Take your expectation to the bank or the supermarket and see what it gets you.

If I bet $1 and lose but get a 20% discount I have lost 80-cents.

If I bet $1 again and win, I win $1.

I still am down 20-cents.

Where is any of that positive? How does that 20% discount on losses improve my expectation?

A loss is a loss whether it's a 100% loss or an 80% loss.

Losses do not create gains.

[Mission146]

One last thing on Alan that I have to say:

Here's the thing Alan, I really wanted to like you, you little shitweasel. I'm being completely forthright and honest on this one.

When you came on in that thread on WoV with all those Yo's all those years ago, I didn't go on my diatribe of, "Mathematically possible," with several long posts just because it theoretically was. Far from it. I did that for your benefit because:

A.) It is, technically, mathematically possible.

AND:

B.) I thought you were a nice guy with a wild claim and I wanted people to accept that the math says it's possible and lay off you a little.

Anyway, I had respect for you for a good while because you seemed more-or-less inquisitive and I think I may have watched a few of your infomercials and liked them. I kind of thought you seemed like a nice guy and it would be cool to go grab a beer and maybe hear some of your stories from when you did news reporting. You've certainly walked many miles in your shoes and have picked up some interesting stories on the way. I'm one to be interested in people, though, so admittedly, I think just about everyone is interesting. I also have an interest in occupations and ask a lot of questions about that with people I meet.

Another thing is that it's not like your claim really hurts anybody. You weren't selling a gambling system, quite the opposite, in fact, as you have often said, "Why bet the Yo', isn't that a bad bet?" You're not wrong, though I would suspect loaded dice, but that's neither here nor there.

I figured one of three things:

-The claim was true, 100%. (Highly doubtful)

-You remembered the claim as true or are delusional. (More likely)

-You willfully exaggerated or outright lied. (As possible as the second suggestion, but I used to doubt this more)

Here's the thing, I wouldn't even really care which of those were true.

Some people seem to take great enjoyment in having the, "Best gambling story," and like I said, you seemed like a really nice guy. I honestly didn't see the harm in just letting you have it if it felt good. It didn't matter to me if it was true and reported 100% accurately, or otherwise.

You had your story, you enjoyed telling it and it made you happy. That's good enough for me. I'm not a guy to try to have the best gambling story or least likely thing happen, but it is cool to have unlikely things happen. I do expect not to be trusted, though, and fortunately for me my stuff is mostly machines, so I can take pictures.

I got dealt Four Deuces + Joker on that same game (Deuces and Joker Wild) once, took a picture and sent it to a couple of people should I ever be challenged on the claim. Joker was right in the middle, too! I wanted to score symmetry points, apparently.

Anyway, I think lots of people like to see rare stuff, but some people want to have the best story, and that's just fine with me. I don't care to have the best story, I just want to have my stories. But, if you felt that you have the best story ever and it gave you pleasure to tell it, I didn't see the harm. So, I came in with, "It is technically possible."

But, I'm disappointed to say I wouldn't do the same now if you were to bring it up for the first time ever today. The reason is because you're a little ass-burrowing shitweasel and I don't care if they, "Maybe give you this one,"*anymore. I'm not wishing suffering upon you, but nor do I care at all if you experience joy. Funny thing is if I had to name my, "Top 10 WoV Personalities," there was a time that you'd have made the list, I think.

[mickeycrimm]

Here are some quotes of Don Johnson that Rob won't like:

"If you have an edge if you play enough over a large enough sample size of hands you are going to win."

"All of it is math. Everything on this casino floor is math. Just like the Wall Street trading floor. You are trying to find inefficiencies in the way they offer their games. And when you find an inefficiency, yes, you are going to take advantage of it."

"There is a natural collision of interests between the marketing side of a casino and the operations side of a casino....the marketing side wants to give away as much as possible to get the players in."

"I'm not doing anything different than what a very smart hedge fund operator would do on Wall Street. He see's an inefficiency in a market and he starts buying stock."

"The right game, with the right odds and the right discount policy."

[Alan Mendelson]

Mission wrote:

$1,000,000 + $200,000 (20% Back) = $1,200,000

Wow this is creative! When you bet $1-million and lose but you have a 20% discount you are DOWN $800,000 and you do not have $1,200,000.

[Mission146]

Take your expectation to the bank or the supermarket and see what it gets you.

If I bet $1 and lose but get a 20% discount I have lost 80-cents.

If I bet $1 again and win, I win $1.

I still am down 20-cents.

Where is any of that positive? How does that 20% discount on losses improve my expectation?

A loss is a loss whether it's a 100% loss or an 80% loss.

Losses do not create gains.

You've transitioned to lower numbers, that should help you.

If you start with $2, again, to make it easier for yourself, and lose $1, then you will have $1 remaining. If I give you $0.20 of what you lost back, you will have $1.20 in total and will, at that time, be down $0.80. If you bet a dollar of that and win, then you will have a total of $2.20, which is $0.20 more than you started with.

[Mission146]

Mission wrote:

$1,000,000 + $200,000 (20% Back) = $1,200,000

Wow this is creative! When you bet $1-million and lose 20% of it because of a 20% discount you are DOWN $800,000 and you do not have $1,200,000.

I made your bankroll $2,000,000 in the example in the hopes of making it easier for you.

[mickeycrimm]

The LR, by itself, put him at a huge advantage

Except he wasn't getting any loss rebate when he won $4.2 mil at Caesars.

He only learned of possible loss rebate offers months later.

[/QUOTE]

That's right. He wasn't getting loss rebates at Caesar's. But he was card-counting, hole carding and sequencing. Big edge.

[Alan Mendelson]

Take your expectation to the bank or the supermarket and see what it gets you.

If I bet $1 and lose but get a 20% discount I have lost 80-cents.

If I bet $1 again and win, I win $1.

I still am down 20-cents.

Where is any of that positive? How does that 20% discount on losses improve my expectation?

A loss is a loss whether it's a 100% loss or an 80% loss.

Losses do not create gains.

You've transitioned to lower numbers, that should help you.

If you start with $2, again, to make it easier for yourself, and lose $1, then you will have $1 remaining. If I give you $0.20 of what you lost back, you will have $1.20 in total and will, at that time, be down $0.80. If you bet a dollar of that and win, then you will have a total of $2.20, which is $0.20 more than you started with.

Correct. But only because you won the second bet. The rebate by itself does not make you win.

Perhaps we're arguing apples and oranges.

[Mission146]

Correct. But only because you won the second bet. The rebate by itself does not make you win.

Perhaps we're arguing apples and oranges.

Correct. No, the rebate gives you a positive expectation. Just like playing a negative expectation game doesn't, "Make you lose." You can win. It becomes decreasingly likely as your sample of attempts goes up. Just like you are increasingly likely to be profitable as your sample goes up on a positive expectation play.

[MaxPen]

This is funny, watching Mission fight with a total tard. How long before Mission needs his own crash helmet?

[Mission146]

This is funny, watching Mission fight with a total tard. How long before Mission needs his own crash helmet?

Take however long it has been and add maybe five seconds.

[coach belly]

This is funny

Don Johnson has absolutely nothing to do with card counting.

Johnson won by exploiting loss rebates. Period.

The LR, by itself, put him at a huge advantage

He wasn't getting loss rebates at Caesar's. But he was card-counting

[Alan Mendelson]

Correct. But only because you won the second bet. The rebate by itself does not make you win.

Perhaps we're arguing apples and oranges.

Correct. No, the rebate gives you a positive expectation. Just like playing a negative expectation game doesn't, "Make you lose." You can win. It becomes decreasingly likely as your sample of attempts goes up. Just like you are increasingly likely to be profitable as your sample goes up on a positive expectation play.

I'll give in. But the rebate really doesn't give you anything except a reduction of your loss.

I surrender. But I caution you: your reasoning won't work when you apply for a mortgage.

[kewlJ]

What is really lame is that Rob Singer posted this thread to distract from the fact that I had completely debunked his ridiculous claim of winning a million dollars at video poker playing a progressive betting system. So he posted this thread, complete with completely false statements about card counting, as well as this false accounting of the Don Johnson situation from 8 years ago.

None of it matters! Singer is just trying to distract from the fact that his claims have been proven to be a bunch of BS.

[mickeycrimm]

"Johnson had shown up at the casino with two guys in tow and a pair of hot looking girls....things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson CARD COUNTING, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer's HOLE CARDS, and another collaborator SEQUENCING THE DECK, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way. Besides serving as distractions, the good-looking girls made small bets and ate cards when THE COUNT got bad.

Bump.

Belly, you cherry picked some quotes out of the 888 article to make your case but you conveniently left the above passage out of it. And you and Rob are ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Alan Mendelson]

What is really lame is that Rob Singer posted this thread to distract from the fact that I had completely debunked his ridiculous claim of winning a million dollars at video poker playing a progressive betting system. So he posted this thread, complete with completely false statements about card counting, as well as this false accounting of the Don Johnson situation from 8 years ago.

None of it matters! Singer is just trying to distract from the fact that his claims have been proven to be a bunch of BS.

I'm sorry but I missed how you debunked Rob's claims. Did I miss how you got casino records of Rob's actual play? That is the only thing that could debunk his claims. Tax records wouldn't. People lie about their taxes. In fact people exaggerate about what they win and lose all the time. And even your rules about math and negative expectation don't debunk his claims. As a matter of fact you don't know if I lost money or not in the years I hit $100k royals no matter what I said on this forum.

[kewlJ]

I didn't follow the Don Johnson case in detail. There was chatter at the time on BJ websites of course, so I knew about it somewhat. I was not aware that James Grosjean was involved in any way. I had never heard that. So, if he was, which appears to be the case, I can almost guarantee, Johnson was applying some sort of advantage play technique.

Probably not card counting though. We know how James feels about card counters and card counting…."salamanders". On top of that, I can also guarantee Atlantic City casinos involved were watching a player betting $100,000 a hand checking for card counting. Hey I played Atlantic City the first 5 and a half years of my career, so I know they would be looking for that from a player of this size stakes. Maybe Ace sequencing, or hole carding or something with a bigger advantage. That seems more like Grosjean's style. And of course he would couple that with the rebate, which provides a substantial advantage despite that Alan and some of the others don't seem to understand how or why.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj I believe card counting will give you an advantage in blackjack. I also believe that altering the rules of blackjack for standing and splitting can also give you an advantage. Hole carding can give you an advantage. Distracting a dealer so he makes mistakes can give you an advantage. But a rebate gives you zero advantage.

A rebate means you lost less than you otherwise would have lost, but that's not an advantage.

In chess sacrificing a bishop to take the Queen is an advantage play.

In poker losing a few hands to set you up as a weak player can be an advantage play.

But never is losing money with a rebate or a discount going to give you an advantage. It's only going to discount your losses.

There is no advantage losing 80% of a bet. You still lost. And unlike chess and poker, losing that bet will not help you win the next play.

Now with that said is it better to lose 80% of a dollar instead of a whole dollar? Yes. If you want to call that an advantage then be my guest.