oh really?:devil:aslan said:
???????sagefr0g said:oh really?:devil:
you got this all calculated out do you? mathematical t's crossed and i's dotted so at to know precisely what to do should you become, shall we say a bit fuzzy as to that precise count, i guess huh?
nuthin fuzzy there?
ok. .... (long pause)
the wise one, licks finger, puffs on window, places mark on window......
don't i remember? aslan, your so fuzzy it's you that doesn't remember.aslan said:
sagefr0g said:
lmao, sorry i was tryin for a cheap shot and you don't even get it. no big deal, i'm a failior as a comedian.aslan said:
well lemme just say if you don't know if it's a minus 4 or a minus five count, one might just wonder how it is you know it's either one, maybe it's a plus 4 for all i know.
First of all, I would only do something like this if I was in a play all mode. I would have to be certain that the number I chose could not be more positive than the actual count. Since I am playing all, the only thing I am doing is making certain that I do not begin ramping up in a negative count. Get it? If I am in a play all mode, I am not going to wong out because occasionally I lose count and can't remember whether it is -4 or -5. If I thought that it might actually be -5 or +5, well that's too big a discrepancy, unless I am near the end of the shoe. I would NEVER choose to adjust my count upward to a +5 count. That would be suicide if I was wrong. I would always take the conservative position. If the count was possibly that far off, and the shoe had a long ways to go, I would wong out to the bathroom, because I have no chance to beat this shoe except by luck. But if there is only a couple of rounds left, I would just play as if it were a -5. If I was wrong and it was really +5, I would be flatbetting with an advantage. That is not a mortal sin-just bad playing.sagefr0g said:
no i don't get it. sounds voodoo to me. not how a robot or a simulation would play it. not precise, it involves guessing, decision making and judgement.aslan said:
how much is fuzzy enough, do you know how much you lose or gain as a result of counting error with respect to winrate? got a number? so there are ways to play this scientific count stuff different and your ok, yeah sounds about right, how right? how do you decide? it's ok to fudge it a bit? so these charts or tables outa Snyders book and the various game you play and the variation of penetration and all, you find those charts and table precise enough? how precise, got a number.
did Snyder use QFIT's stuff?
I am unable to play like a robot, as you suggested earlier would be the optimal way to play; but I do try to. When I make a MISTAKE I must decide whether it is a fatal mistake requiring me to quit the table or whether it is a mistake that I can live with. In the case of not remembering whether or not the count is -4 or -5, I can live with assuming it to be -5 because it will only delay my increasing the bet by a single increment. If you recall the ko book, the suggested progression based on Kelly starts with a simple doubling of the minimum unit, not immediately going to max bet. This MISTAKE of mine in losing the count is not a fatal error in the case of single unit. It is not always a case of making a mental ERROR, but sometimes it occurs because the dealer's hand is covering the players bust card as he quickly scoops up the cards and I cannot see what the bust card was because he does it all so swiftly. (I normally don't ask him what it was because I don't want to appear to be counting cards.) When this happens which is rare I assume the bust card was a ten because if I don't subtract one from my count I run the risk of being too high in my count which will lead me to thinking I have reached a positive count prematurely. If you had to choose between, quitting the table, risking betting higher before you are in positive territory, or delaying your betting by one point to ensure you are in positive territory, which would you do? The most conservative thing to do, is to quit the table. But I reason that it is harmful but not too harmful to take the next most conservative decision and continue playing choosing the -5 as my count. This, according to the SCIENTIFIC charts will not affect my win rate to the point that I should quit and start over. If I lost the count by 10 points, of course I would agree with you. It would be STUPID to play when you are not sure of the count by a factor of 10, and I don't do it if there are a number of hands yet to play. Please do not forget that I only do this when I am in a play all mode, meaning that the pen is sufficient to normally got into several rounds of positive count. If you can think of a better SCIENTIFIC way to approach the problem of not seeing whether the bust card was a nine or a ten, for example, I would sure like to hear it. Seeing that you have at your disposal all of this SCIENTIFIC software you should easily be able to come up with the most advantageous course of action. Until I hear from you I will continue to use REASON as opposed to SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS when faced with such dilemmas. I am conversant enough with the effect of a single point difference form my studying Snyder's charts that I am reasonably certain that the effect of starting to increase my betting one count late will still keep me well within a healthy expected win rate for that round. I guess that sort of makes it SCIENTIFIC doesn't it? I'll give you another example of when you would NOT use the best scheme of advantage play based on those precious simulations. When the SCIENTIFIC approach says that the best way is to increase the bet using a 1 to 20 spread, and you know the house will likely bar you from play, reason dictates that you find a scheme with a lesser win rate that the house will tolerate. Is this REASON overruling SCIENCE? You decide. I am tired of this wrangling. Sorry I stepped on your fuzzy toes, they were difficult to see in the dark.sagefr0g said:
You should stop taking those bennies, one of which you dropped when you were getting your chips. lol Or did you mean pennies? I didn't know you were a poet. Kind of captured the excitement of it all. I'd end it with..."For the time being, anyway." lol As a famous advantage player once said, "Time will tell." Kudos for the fine job of poetry. You really do have a talent with words.sagefr0g said:
the only thing i could say as to those bust cards not being visible would be i quess it would be less of a problem for hi/lo to handle, maybe since you can consider unseen cards as not dealt when you determine your true count, but on the limited basis you describe it doesn't seem so important one way or the other, just as you allude. really no wrangle over it all or toes really stepped on. just me being overly argumentative, trying to show that even guys like you who are trying to do everything right aren't immune to straying (by no real fault of your own) from the scientific straight and narrow course. it's the sort of thing i do to the extreme. i don't find what you do in such a minor case as irrational in any way shape or form. it's just a mild case of voodoo is all. and i'll bet how you are handling it is the correct thing to do. and if you judge it by those charts like you say then it's not really even voodoo, it's just in the grand scheme the game plan suffers a bit from unforseen difficulties sort of thing.aslan said:
right all those questions i was asking is probably (my guess) stuff that Snyder's charts cover. well except where i was nosey enough to ask how your results measure up against your expected value and standard deviation.
I think of voodoo as planning to win with some bogus strategy. I don't think what I do is that. I play according to advantage guidelines, and if I miss a beat I try to make a rational in-flight adjustment. If I go too far astray, I abort the mission. Is there anything else I can possibly do. Not voodoo, Not.sagefr0g said:
sounds like good stuff to me. i think i've heard of those books, infact i wanted to get the one for multiple deck. seems they were out of print, i believe. you don't happen to know what software was used for the simulations? just curious. i mean if it was differant than QFIT's it would be interesting to compare data, or see how they stack up against Schlesingers tables in Blackjack Attack or probably could run a correlated ko sim with cvcx, take the w/l & std dev and running count freq's and put them in Kasi's spread sheet, compare results that way.aslan said:
sagefr0g said:
I imagine a casino cares little or none who plays (except that they have no way to neutralize the house edge). I think there concern is that as many people not possessing an advantage play at all times. Just like the AP, they are interested in the long run and the more hands dealt, roulette wheels spun, and dice thrown, the better! If someone wins big, I don't think they give a thought to getting even with that particular person, at least not if they are thinking rightly, but see it as an opportunity to tout the possibility of winning in their establishment to prospective customers. Yes, they probably are interested to ensure that the big winner has no advantage, but once it's determined that they were merely lucky, they are happy as a pig in a mud puddle. If someone wins millions, like Archie Karas, they know they'll get it back if he keeps playing, and if not from him, from the countless others who pass through their doors. Of course a million dollar player is probably a better prospect for a casino long in cash than a thousand small bettors, so I guess there is deference to high rollers, but only as a class of bettor. Sheiks from the middle east probably make Archie with his $10,000 bets look like a run of the mill high roller. I guess if you have billions, $50,000 a hand blackjack hardly gets the adreline flowing. lolsagefr0g said:
In the long run, Sage's positive variance is complimented by enough negative variance on the part of others to balance things out nicely, with a little house edge on the side to keep the lights on and the shareholders happy.
heh, heh, thats good to know. at least it doesn't have to be sage that loses it back, maybe some other poor dumb slob,aslan said:I imagine a casino cares little or none who plays (except that they have no way to neutralize the house edge). I think there concern is that as many people not possessing an advantage play at all times. Just like the AP, they are interested in the long run and the more hands dealt, roulette wheels spun, and dice thrown, the better! If someone wins big, I don't think they give a thought to getting even with that particular person, at least not if they are thinking rightly, but see it as an opportunity to tout the possibility of winning in their establishment to prospective customers. Yes, they probably are interested to ensure that the big winner has no advantage, but once it's determined that they were merely lucky, they are happy as a pig in a mud puddle. If someone wins millions, like Archie Karas, they know they'll get it back if he keeps playing, and if not from him, from the countless others who pass through their doors. Of course a million dollar player is probably a better prospect for a casino long in cash than a thousand small bettors, so I guess there is deference to high rollers, but only as a class of bettor. Sheiks from the middle east probably make Archie with his $10,000 bets look like a run of the mill high roller. I guess if you have billions, $50,000 a hand blackjack hardly gets the adreline flowing. lol
I guess what I'm saying is that Sage might walk in and parlay $100 into $1,000,000, but I guarantee you that Aslan or someone else, or combination of someone elses, will walk in and lose $1,000,000 plus 0.5% or so.
Now how did Sage get so lucky? Is there any way to enhance one's chances to get lucky? I think there is a way to beat the odds, but no one likes my answer. There's only one person who knows which machine will hit next. Maybe he'll give you a tip. But that's not luck, that's advantage play. lol Even if it's discovered that we all have some innate ability to predict the future, that would not be luck, again, that would be advantage play. lol
No, Sage just got lucky...and maybe he will continue to get lucky for the rest of his life. The casino doesn't care. The standard deviation still describes the long run for casinos who are engaged in millions and millions of gambling transactions. They will always have happy shareholders as long as they can get people to play, in spite of the Sages of the world who clean their clocks.
All I know is that you won't catch me around a roulette wheel again. Sober reflection has shown me the error of my lucky ways. But an advantage play at the wheel, well, that's another thing!sagefr0g said:heh, heh, thats good to know. at least it doesn't have to be sage that loses it back, maybe some other poor dumb slob,
or lmao, maybe some AP.
but no need to enhance the chances of getting luck, just be there enough and it'll happen. one thing though, it might help to know accurately what is probably luck and what is probably not.
thing is, why fool around with the risk of giving it back if the results are relatively at or beyond the expectation even the best player might have for some given session? there is always tomorrow to lose it back, why not wait?
or if you just want to play some more, maybe play at a lower rate of risk with respect to standard deviation in the short term. lol, might just get lucky doing that too.
who knows, maybe next time sage'll knuckle down and play it straight. maybe it might just depend on what happened last time.
yes, i wouldn't try and convince you. kind of like a kid playing with fire sort of thing. burn me once shame on them, burn me twice shame on me. lol. if i didn't get burnt, damm was i sure as hell lucky.aslan said:
:whip:
On those match plays, a fellow I know showed me how to bet both sides of mini-baccarrat, one side with the coupon and the other side with cash. Sometimes they make you play money on the same side as the coupon, but as long as you bet the same on both sides, you can't lose, but you can convert your token into cash, minus a commission if you win on the bank side.sagefr0g said:yes, i wouldn't try and convince you. kind of like a kid playing with fire sort of thing. burn me once shame on them, burn me twice shame on me. lol. if i didn't get burnt, damm was i sure as hell lucky.
i know coupons or match plays of some certain type it can be considered advantageous to use on roulette and even more so than if you used them on blackjack under certain rules of the coupon or match play.
i think it's argued that one wouldn't want to take money won in a casino and consider it similar to match plays or coupons and then play it on roulette, because money has value that coupons and match plays don't.
it's confusing to me. i used to value the hell out of match play tokens when i was able to get them on a regular basis. lmao, i used to get them so reguarly and such volume it was as if the govt was printing another countrys money and giving it to me with out the usual inflation.
i know under that situation i was glad to lay some of my really cash on the line to get those tokens working, what ever even if i didn't fully understand the best way to gamble them. but anyway, at least i understand now, that it's in a great part because of those match plays that i was able for a long time to turn a really, really small bankroll into a bigger one and have fun doing it.
maybe, part of the distinction confusing to me with respect to coupons, match play tokens, money won gambling and really money taken out of pocket for making a bankroll has to do with the fact that ones bankroll according to orthodox AP stuff is supposed to be considered at risk money to the extent if you lose it all, then supposedly it's no big deal.
lol, ROR to me is AP stuff's achillies heel. i mean, how absurd to a guy like me, the concept that i've got fifty grand or a hundred grand, or heck even ten grand and oh, no big deal if i lose it sort of thing, just tsk, tsk, ho hum. lmao. i mean heck, sure you got $100,000.00 to risk at AP as opposed to $10,000.00 and your gonna have a lower ROR . but duh, you might lose ten g's of your hundred g's trying or maybe the whole wad? what happens if your whole financial situation changes suddenly as a result of a black swan, and suddenly your hundred g's really is a hundred g's? lol, it's like on this issue one has to wonder which part of the brain the math nerds smart as they are, are using. same section of brain that got us in this sub-prime mess i should suspect.
so i dunno, it's maybe like i said before, probably our differances are grounded in questions around utility theory more than anything else.