lol, almost anything goes here i guess

Automatic Monkey said:

....

People who actually attended MIT as students know better than to try to add decimal places to measurements beyond the intrinsic accuracy of those measurements. It's a sure sign of a scientific ignoramus to do so.

Click to expand...

thank you! that point stikes exactly (as possible lol) at the heart of the matter. significant numbers just don't exist beyond the accuracy of our measurements. tying to force that issue might lead us astray even further than we already are lol. you just can't obtain a measurement of greater accuracy than your measuring instrument can provide. point being that in any situation that one is evaluating there comes a point when it's time to make a decision as further efforts to evaluate are simply going to be made in vain.
but here is what gets me about orthodox counting. if you play all then over fifty percent of your counting effort extended is stress and effort on the counter that is performed in vain. if you play either wonging out or wonging in your effort is better than fifty percent but really not much better and you now get into the wasted time issue along with irritations that wonging entails. that's all just to get EV not money. you still need even more time and effort before the money comes if it comes and you don't tap out. i wont even dredge up the realities that lousey conditions represent in my complaint.
think about this. there are people deriding those who make mistakes and try and reduce work loads threw enginutiy and yet by their very methods they willing accept usurpious amounts of intrinsic mistakes and wasted effort.
so dumb and i guess lazy as i am the only solution i can come up with when facing this conumdrum is taking the option of using my brain lol..... scary huh?

sagefr0g said:

but here is what gets me about orthodox counting...

Click to expand...

Hey O Wise Frog.

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

Kasi said:

Hey O Wise Frog.

Click to expand...

oh, oh it's the enigma again lol
question.......
does the term forty-niner mean anything to you?

Kasi said:

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Click to expand...

yeah, i guess you are. come to think of it i guess being a fuzzy counter makes one a fuzzy better. lol

Kasi said:

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

Click to expand...

so i'm curious as to why you take that tact after putting forth the time and effort to dilligently count. is it that you are trying to use reasoning in the hope of improving your odds? or maybe trying to make your risk to reward decisions in real time. or some other reason?

Kasi said:

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

Click to expand...

well good, hopefully your recent Vegas excursion went well.

sagefr0g said:

oh, oh it's the enigma again lol
question.......
does the term forty-niner mean anything to you?

yeah, i guess you are. come to think of it i guess being a fuzzy counter makes one a fuzzy better. lol

so i'm curious as to why you take that tact after putting forth the time and effort to dilligently count. is it that you are trying to use reasoning in the hope of improving your odds? or maybe trying to make your risk to reward decisions in real time. or some other reason?


well good, hopefully your recent Vegas excursion went well.

Click to expand...

As is too So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. often the case, I read this stuff the next day and don't really know what my point was lol.

Maybe it was, given all the grief you sometimes seem to get for your "fuzzy counting", I'm maybe even more irresponsible than you in that maybe more often I bet in ways not typically recommended even though I think I have an idea of I actually think my bet should be.

Of course I don't have any sims so it's just a big guessing game anyway. And, if I did, it wouldn't be programmable anyway.

Of course when you are playing DD, a "fuzzy count" is almost as good as a real count since it doesn't last too long til the next shuffle anyway which is what I played more of last trip. So I guess I just do it (count) because I like to, make a few index plays maybe, use a combination of voo-doo betting systems with a general idea of how often they'll win what, make some "big" bets when I feel like it (usually only when it's positive) with some idea of the consequences to my bankroll.

Maybe sit out a few negatives here and there and if I lose the count I just bet min til next shoe.

I'm betting small, most of the time, don't play enough to worry about N0 and all that, making that expected $20 - $50 / hr 50-100 hours a year isn't gonna change my life anyway even if I do.

So I guess I have fun betting in a "non-system" way, since I don't do the same thing at the same counts.

Much, perhaps, in the same way I perceive you having fun with your "non-system" way of doing things.

So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. Never needed more than $400 total buy-in for a session, got $5K in my pocket. Whatever that means.

So, basically, I never know to what degree any wins are attributable to luck or not. I make guesses but I don't really know.

Although I always have the nagging feeling it's more luck than science lol.

OK - what's forty-niner supposed to mean lol? Is that where they went looking for gold but it was all gone lol?

Kasi said:

..........
Although I always have the nagging feeling it's more luck than science lol.

OK - what's forty-niner supposed to mean lol? Is that where they went looking for gold but it was all gone lol?

Click to expand...

i appreciate the update of how you go about your play. i was especially curious about that because i can tell that you have an excellent understanding of the game. i figure that you would be playing in an insightful manner even if your betting is not entirely orthox. thats interesting to me as that is sort of what i'm trying to do.
lol, the forty-niner thing was just a dumb question, for some reason from one of your posts i got the idea you were born in forty nine, 1949 that is not 1849 lol. but since i was born then and have been told i was a forty-niner i was just wondering. i know that's dumb but something just made me ask and lol i never thought the term had any sort of definition so for many years i've just wondered about the term. but yeah gold rushers i guess thats what it means.

sagefr0g said:

ilol, the forty-niner thing was just a dumb question,

Click to expand...

Not at all lol. Glad I asked.

The more so since it's nice to know somebody around here is older than I am, even if only by as many as 17 months or as few as 5! lol.

As you know, it happens less and less often :grin:

And with age comes wisdom, we like to think, so I defer to your wisdom, Wise Frog lol.

Anyway, whatever is I do with whatever spread I use based on God knows what, and with what bankroll at the time, I've already pretty much proved to myself it's quite possible to overcome a HA for a very very longtime, at least what I consider to be a very long time, even with no card counting and even when every hand is played when the house is favored.

Would most card counters be happy with winning over 100% of their average bet every hour for 1900 hours under most games of the games they play and most of the bet spreads they use, whether play-all or back-counting, all the while playing with an overall +EV? I think they'd have to send their pants out to the cleaners if they made more than their average bet every 100 hands for 1900 hours. Or just buy a new pair because they sure could afford it lol.

As I've said before, I've done that with no card counting and without playing a single hand with an advantage.

Such results are dismissed as voo-doo, which in fact they probably are, ok they are, yet, using any conventional measure of N0, etc would liklely be deemed successful, and then some, had they occurred as a result of card counting. Apparently it's easier for some to believe I'm 1 in a million lucky than it is to believe just how long applying the likllihood of certain "voo-doo" systems of winning some units betting a certain way with a certain bankroll may actually last.

In fairness I spread more, maybe a lot more absolutely, but probably spread less more often and don't have an accurate number how that relates to avg bankroll per session. So it's possible they are making a better use of their bankroll. Also my ending average bet might be more like 5-6 times min bet compared to their average of say 2 or so I'd guess. But, then again, it's a situation where my best bet is to not play at all.

So, when I card count, I pretty much do the same betting thing except it's even nicer knowing when a slight advantage occurs. And, it seems so far, a little easier to make a little money.

So, "fuzzy counting" or not, I see no reason why you couldn't win regularly for a very long period of time.

Such is the essence of voodoo...

Kasi said:

.......Of course when you are playing DD, a "fuzzy count" is almost as good as a real count since it doesn't last too long til the next shuffle anyway which is what I played more of last trip. ....

Click to expand...

yes thats what i would expect since what ever inaccuracy that might be creeping in ends with the shuffle. that idea is part of my rational for using a fuzzy count in the six and eight deck games that i normally encounter. the tables are normally so crowded that even with fairly decent penetration there just aren't that many rounds before the shuffle. not the best conditions to play under but such is life.

sagefr0g said:

you just can't obtain a measurement of greater accuracy than your measuring instrument can provide.

Click to expand...

That’s exactly right. Orthodox counting systems are technically just a “less fuzzy” way of estimating your advantage. But, sometimes fuzziness has its price.

sagefr0g said:

if you play either wonging out or wonging in your effort is better than fifty percent but really not much better and you now get into the wasted time issue along with irritations that wonging entails.

Click to expand...

That’s exactly the issue: wasted time and energy. There’s no doubt that Wonging takes more effort than sitting and playing through all the hands. But is all that standing and walking around really just wasted time and energy? Not in my opinion. The time spent standing is time that’s not being spent losing money. The time spent looking for a better game is time that will come off the “back end” of my career. If I sit and play all, I might earn a few dollar per hour and it might take 600 hours of play to approach my long-run results (I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air). But if I am backcounting I might earn much more per hour and shave 200 hours off of my long-run index. The time that I “wasted” walking around has earned me a “free” 200-hour vacation and some extra spending cash when I get there!

I think of fuzzy-er counting the same way. Using an orthodox system will save me both time and money in the long run. It is more difficult and will require more effort, but some people will find it worth the effort. Others will not. It all depends on what your goals are. Different people will require different systems to achieve their goals. Some will have more success with fuzzy counting, others will have the best results using a (oh man, am I really going to say this?) progression system.

But you didn't hear that from me...

-Sonny-

Sonny said:

That’s exactly right. Orthodox counting systems are technically just a “less fuzzy” way of estimating your advantage. But, sometimes fuzziness has its price.

Click to expand...

thank you for clarifying that. i agree that the potential for realizing the fruits of advantage play is greater for the orthodox method than the fuzzy method.
you give up accuracy of betting knowledge for ease of play. that represents greater risk and more uncertainty about expected yield. greater risk in just about any endeavour can translate into greater reward and unfortunately greater pain if things don't go well. the fuzzy approach allows for two things that the orthdox approach doesn't. those being ease of application and the freedom to make decisions (ie. think). the question being in such an approach is there any value in being able to take thoughtful actions? i should imagine that knowledge and experience might translate into thoughtful actions that might improve the picture. imagine me doing the fuzzy approach as opposed to a inexperienced ploppy. or better yet imagine me using the fuzzy approach up against you. with your insight, understanding and native intelligence i'm sure your results would beat mine into the ground lol.

Sonny said:

That’s exactly the issue: wasted time and energy. There’s no doubt that Wonging takes more effort than sitting and playing through all the hands. But is all that standing and walking around really just wasted time and energy? Not in my opinion. The time spent standing is time that’s not being spent losing money. The time spent looking for a better game is time that will come off the “back end” of my career. If I sit and play all, I might earn a few dollar per hour and it might take 600 hours of play to approach my long-run results (I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air). But if I am backcounting I might earn much more per hour and shave 200 hours off of my long-run index. The time that I “wasted” walking around has earned me a “free” 200-hour vacation and some extra spending cash when I get there!

I think of fuzzy-er counting the same way. Using an orthodox system will save me both time and money in the long run. It is more difficult and will require more effort, but some people will find it worth the effort. Others will not. It all depends on what your goals are. Different people will require different systems to achieve their goals. Some will have more success with fuzzy counting, others will have the best results using a (oh man, am I really going to say this?) progression system.

But you didn't hear that from me...

-Sonny-

Click to expand...

i didn't mean to cast any doubts as to the value of wonging. it's just that in my case it really does have it's limitations. most of my future play is likely to be in about four casino's. i believe if you evaluated these casino's with respect to the idea of frequent play, number of tables, table layout, crowding and the table minimums available that you'd come to the same conclusion i did. but i do understand your comparison of time, effort and reward afforded by wonging and the idea that time, effort and reward for orthodox vs fuzzy affords different potential.
and i do think your point about goals and chosen methods is an important one. anyone trying to apply advantage play (irrespective of method) is going to spend a fairly significant amount of time at it. considering that comfort and satisfaction with the process becomes an issue, especially for the recreational player looking to reap some benjamins. as a retired guy who has always had and always will have a lot of respect for the virtue of hard work i've got to say that there is also a lot of virtue in the idea of working smarter not harder.

for bluewhale.....

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=73692&postcount=254
moved this here outta respect for EasyRhino's wishs.....

bluewhale said:

wow, so you and kasi have over 3k posts combined and are using some kind of voodoo betting strategy. this is very interesting. what kind of hard results are you getting? like $s up in your gambling careers... will be interesting to compare with Easy who only uses pure math.

Click to expand...

can't speak for Kasi but i'd just say from reading his posts his understanding of the game far surpass's mine. and for number of posts on my part it's just because i get such a kick out of all this stuff. but i did for a few years play the game according to orthodox methodology. but have only recently changed up my approach.
i don't have enough anecdotal hard results to even offer a reasonable sample of what been trying to do. i've done an awfully lot of cvbj play how ever thats approached N0 territory that leads me to believe what i've been trying to do is not all that unreasonable. but just would say i think i can play a break even game with this fuzzy count approach alone. modified to circa 75% fuzzy count and circa 25% hi.lo orthodox i conjecture maybe a bit better.
i'm learning as i go along. lol
please don't try this at home (like in the jackass flics lol ).
but in my defense i'll say this. card counting for a lone wolfe player a'int all that great and that's a fact. might as well get a job flippin burger's or what ever. but it can be fun if you take out the grinding drudgery that is entailed that being constantly keeping the RC from my perspective. and what i'm trying to do is elliminate that drudgery, have some fun and maybe be able to make as much as a hamburger flippin job. and again in my defense i say this that there is more to advantage play than orthodox card counting but card counting is a good base to approach it from. and it's a respected idea that successful AP's are going to find ways other than card counting to get an edge. so what i'm doing is just coloring a bit outside the box and nosing about a bit and who knows i might stumble upon something. it's fun anyway for me at least for now it is. thanks for asking and showing any interest.
the link below shows one anecdotal example of some cvbj play how i was betting and what the TC's were when i was betting. not so great but it's an example of how it seems to go:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=69151&postcount=38

Kasi said:

Hey O Wise Frog.

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

Click to expand...

Fuzzy betting is the main thrust of Rick Blain's BJ In The Zone. zg

for kasi......

from......
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=73655&postcount=251

Kasi said:

Yes it was lol and it does not include the bonus advantage. Just the results of playing in a way that tried to exceed flat-bet results.

The miracle is I ever even bothered, or took the risk, to do anything besides just flat bet since it was not necessary. Mostly I didn't because I was gonna win something unless the game was crooked.

So it was obviously very easy to record the hands etc. Probably sparked my interest in all this BS. And I don't mean basic strategy lol.

Click to expand...

yeah as i recall you could get very detailed play logs for online play. i did it for a while before the dooshbags shut it down. unfortunately i never learned how to properly execute bonus whoring. but by just dumb luck i was at one point i think making more money per hour than most brain surgeons lol. that is until i lost it all.
so but anyway i take it that you were able to analyze from your play logs and determine that your results i think it was 1.5 units up per hour. and then you can know for how ever many hands that is better compared to flat betting using basic strategy. and i forget the number of hands you said it was but i think it was in N0 territory. so i guess you reason that these results can be compared to how much a basic strategy player should be down. and so you scratch your head and wonder how can i be up 1.5 units per hour in a negative ev game when i should be down x units if i was flat betting basic strategy for this many hands. and so i think you kind of conclude that using some betting method other than flat betting that the losing can be stretched out considerably longer than one might suspect.

Kasi said:

But I guess yes counting and index stuff is very very loosely built into my voodoo stuff in real life in the sense at least when I do the same voodoo stuff
I know it's with an advantage compared to knowing it's not.

Click to expand...

so now we are in brick & mortar. and i take it you make these bets only or mainly when the count is positive and that you might also work some proportionality betting in there? so what other considerations? if i recall the bets might be purposely designed to regain some if not all of the loss's that you may have previously incurred? so maybe you expect to lose so much if you were playing basic strategy and flat betting. so maybe you work in betting (somehow) enough at least to possibly win that amount back or more maybe?

Kasi said:

So I understand how real life is alot more difficult to figure out. Everything is a guess. Hands played. Avg bet. Etc. All I know for sure is how many dollars I won or lost lol. And my ROR is still 100% because I'm just not betting enough often enough for it to be otherwise.

Click to expand...

every thing a guess. thats interesting to me. i mean if i can get an even steven game i think i'm willing to do some guess betting especially if i can monitor factors that might push that game to a bias advantage-wise one way or the other. long term ROR i guess would be 100% or close. but short term what would it be? would you maybe take your average bet and compare that to what a flat betting basic strategy player would expect short term? i dunno. i don't think the basic strategy player ROR would be 100% in the short term though. so i mean if your doing what ever your doing and you monitor your results and those results are positive or negative for a session then you can change your tact in what ever way you see fit or repeat your behaviour for the next session. but if you hit an advantage with your guessing enough it's gonna push your bank results up and could go up enough to beat say the amount the flat bet basic strategy player is expected to lose. so i guess if you got far enough ahead by luck or skill or what ever then you'd be safer for the prospects of more play in the future with out fear of 100% ROR. sort of like the counter who can feel secure 'if they don't get him early on they might not get him at all' well in this case you'd be saying if they don't get me early on it's gonna take them longer to get me lol.
but you've said before and i think i understand the idea words to the affect that one can be happy basicly playing basic strategy and making some (hopefully) informed bet increase in some way and your probably not going to incurr any real life changing effects either for the good or the worse. that's a phillosophy of play that i think i learned from you that fits well into my own desires and expectations from the game.

Kasi said:

let's face it it's just not very hard with a 500 unit roll to make up 10 units using various betting systems over a 1000 hands. Half the time plain old luck gets you there anyway. So big deal I come home with a little more than I left almost always.

Click to expand...

yeah there you said it again. and i think that's a piece of knowledge that can lend one some wiggle room as far as mastery of the game goes. the only thing i'd add is though that you want your bigger bets how ever they are crafted to be made in positive true counts and the higher the true counts the better. that way hopefully those few times you don't allways go home with more than you left that those losses aren't astronomical. at least i think the loss's would be more in line with what they would be expected to be for some card counter following some paritcuarly crafted simulation with an advantage.

Kasi said:

At least I'm not pretending to myself because I win a couple thousand bucks over a few years, a few, maybe several, thousand hands, that, just because I'm counting, that that's the reason I'm ahead and this counting stuff is great and all I need to do is play more to become a millionaire since it's such a certainty.

I mean, if I did, if I thought my results were just because I counted cards, I'd have to recognize the fact that I'm one unbelievably lucky card counter with results exceeding so many standard deviations it simply is not believable.

Click to expand...

well i can relate to this because my results were at times and overall for two years play about anywhere from six to eight times my expectation and i dunno i must have had 200 sessions of play in . i know the results made me feel pretty darn confident until i hit that one big slump period. so that was a wake up call for me, that maybe i'm not such a great counter AP and all and made me examine and see that hold on stupid things really aren't all that great as the results might make you think and that yes card counting is only going to probably get you so far and even that is probably going to require some luck when i considered how truly inept i might be. lol

Kasi said:

The much more reasonable explanation is that the results are explainable knowing that an x unit roll will make a unit before losing y units betting a certain way with a high, mathematically established, percentage of success. And if I lose those y units with that roll, I have another 20 unit roll whose unit is 4 times the original unit. Win that one higher unit I'm back to even and can go back to original plan. Kind of thing. I guess in that sense I re-size my bets to roll just like real AP's might occasionally do lol.

Click to expand...

lol well i guess i'm gonna have to mull those statements over a bit as i don't think i fully understand. it's like as if your giving a formula sort of but not quite at least to my fuzzy muddled old brain. lemme try here:
given x unit bank
given highly likely that if bet ?unit then win 1 unit before lose y units.
but if lose y units .... or is it lose x units + y units or just x units ???
well anyway...
then take 20 unit' where unit' = 4unit
then bet ?unit'
if win 1unit' then your back to even....
now revert to x unit bank and unit for ?unit bet...
lol am i even close here?

Kasi said:

Whatever - who the heck ever knows what's REALLY going on anyway lol.

Click to expand...

well now that sure is true from my perspective. maybe that's part of what makes it so much fun.

sagefr0g said:

from......
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=73655&postcount=251
i think it was in N0 territory.

Click to expand...

Well look thru Sclesinger and find a game where the dollars per 100 won is about equal to the avg bet. From that point of it's N0 5 times over - I would have doubled my 10K roll five times.

Anyway voodoo stuff can last a long time.

I have no exact system that I always do such and such. So, just because I win and made some bets in an advantage I don't call it card-counting because it's not part of a "system".

I suppose I could delude myself that I win in AC because I card-count but that'd be silly because my bets are not part of a system.

Like I think some people maybe suddenly spread from 1 hand of 1 unit to 2 hands of 50 units just because they have a good count but I just can't imagine that was part of their pre-defined "system" if they had one. So if they win they think it's because they card-count and they won this money using their plan when maybe most of the money was not part of the system and was just fortunate. But they might likely think they are a successful card counter actually having no real plan and just betting all kinds of amounts in all kinds of counts.

Like if you were 7 times ahead of EV did you always follow the same plan or maybe just make a bigger bet here and there maybe kind-of thing? If you can't realate your results to a card-counting plan, what good is it. Maybe either you were actually an unbelievably lucky counter or maybe alot of the win was the result of some luck here and there because you deviated from the plan here and there.

Kasi said:

Well look thru Sclesinger and find a game where the dollars per 100 won is about equal to the avg bet. From that point of it's N0 5 times over - I would have doubled my 10K roll five times.

......

Click to expand...

ok i'm trying.
i'm lookin at table 10.7 page 217 in my book......
for an eight deck game where 7.0/8 dealt & s17 game......
found for the TC = 3 row where avg bet $ = 24.59 & w/100 $ = 24.94 ....
am i even lookin at the right table?
anyway the spread 1-16 & it's play all......
N0 is 40,123 hands.....
ect, ect.....
and one thing i'm thinkin. i mean this info is just for tc=3 right. i'm going into this table cold here haven't fully read the whole chapter.
i'm trying to get your point but obviously i'm a bit lost here. i mean for what your talkin about isn't being confined to this tc=3 a bit restrictive as far as understanding what might have happened for some guy trying to count cards? i know, i know i'm not getting what your saying. lol

sagefr0g said:

ok i'm trying.
i'm lookin at table 10.7 page 217 in my book......
for an eight deck game where 7.0/8 dealt & s17 game......
found for the TC = 3 row where avg bet $ = 24.59 & w/100 $ = 24.94 ....
am i even lookin at the right table?
anyway the spread 1-16 & it's play all......
N0 is 40,123 hands.....
ect, ect.....
and one thing i'm thinkin. i mean this info is just for tc=3 right. i'm going into this table cold here haven't fully read the whole chapter.
i'm trying to get your point but obviously i'm a bit lost here. i mean for what your talkin about isn't being confined to this tc=3 a bit restrictive as far as understanding what might have happened for some guy trying to count cards? i know, i know i'm not getting what your saying. lol

Click to expand...

You're doing good lol.

The stuff on the right is not related to any specific TC. It's related to how you choose to bet the stuff on the left (TC Freq, W/L %, and SD) which remain fixed because that's what it is if you use a hi-lo count, truncating, no bet cover, with indexes, in a 7/8 S17 game, etc. God himself can't change it given the underlying assumptions. It's like gravity except they call it probability. Just as predictable.

It's up to you to choose how you want to bet your roll given the stuff on the left.

In this case, you've chosen to bet your $10K roll optimally, using play-all, and spreading 1-16 assuming you're playing a 7/8 S17 game. You have 1072 units in your $10K bank (your unit is $9.32) and you bet according to col 4 ($9 until 0, $15 at TC+1, $56 at TC+2, $96 at TC+3, $140 at TC+4 and $149 at TC+5 and above.) So that's your 1-16 spread (9.32*16=149)that will create your N0 of 40123 hands, avg bet of $24.59, win per 100 of $24.94 etc.

If you chose to bet optimally 1-8 or 1-12, you'd still use columm 4 but you'd use the first or second numbers instead of the 3rd set.

Anyway, basically it means my voodoo results are more or less equivalent to betting a $10K roll in an 8D, S17 game with 1 deck cut-off and an avg 1.01% adv. In fact, my results exceeded flat-bet results by .97% which would be a little higher if I adjusted for splits. So very comparable results.

Except, if I were playing this particular game you've chosen in the way you've chosen, I did it 5 times in a row with no advantage whatsoever. And a bigger spread, from time to time, than 1-16 lol. And sometimes more than an only a 1072 min-unit roll lol. Mostly alot less though.

So, you know, if one happens to think, best guess, one is ahead by some guessed amount over a guessed amount of hands and want to attribute such results to "card-counting", it really is not that hard or unusual to achieve such results by random luck over a few hundred thousand hands.

Kasi said:

........

Anyway, basically it means my voodoo results are more or less equivalent to betting a $10K roll in an 8D, S17 game with 1 deck cut-off and an avg 1.01% adv. In fact, my results exceeded flat-bet results by .97% which would be a little higher if I adjusted for splits. So very comparable results.

Except, if I were playing this particular game you've chosen in the way you've chosen, I did it 5 times in a row with no advantage whatsoever. And a bigger spread, from time to time, than 1-16 lol. And sometimes more than an only a 1072 min-unit roll lol. Mostly alot less though.

So, you know, if one happens to think, best guess, one is ahead by some guessed amount over a guessed amount of hands and want to attribute such results to "card-counting", it really is not that hard or unusual to achieve such results by random luck over a few hundred thousand hands.

Click to expand...

ok i'll go with that. so what about the random bad luck that can happen over a few hundred thousand hands on maybe top of the house advantage. how does one escape that? i guess your gonna say that can happen to somebody that thinks their card counting as well and it could lol. and then the whole good luck bad luck thing can even out as well leaving one with their expectation. or you could have various degrees of the whole mess at any given time.
i guess what i'm not getting is what prompts you to bet higher if not the count as you percieve it and the advantage that you think that represents?
whether it be online or brick & mortar if you decide to bet up the question is if not the count and the advantage that represents then for what reason?

sagefr0g said:

ok i'll go with that. so what about the random bad luck that can happen over a few hundred thousand hands on maybe top of the house advantage. how does one escape that? i guess your gonna say that can happen to somebody that thinks their card counting as well and it could lol. and then the whole good luck bad luck thing can even out as well leaving one with their expectation. or you could have various degrees of the whole mess at any given time.
i guess what i'm not getting is what prompts you to bet higher if not the count as you percieve it and the advantage that you think that represents?
whether it be online or brick & mortar if you decide to bet up the question is if not the count and the advantage that represents then for what reason?

Click to expand...

Well I just vary my bets so that I "make-up" whatever my min unit is. If I fail , then maybe I do the same thing with a higher unit. Online was easy because I knew how many more hands I had to play if I bet min for the next however many hands. Once the odds got over 15 stand dev and the sheet couldn't calculate it, I was pretty sure random luck probably wouldn't kick in lol

There is no system, not even a voodoo one lol. Just a sense of where I stand and how long I can probably play if I'm up a few units here and there and what to do with with a 100 unit roll in my pocket if I want to make up a unit.

Kasi said:

Well I just vary my bets so that I "make-up" whatever my min unit is. If I fail , then maybe I do the same thing with a higher unit. Online was easy because I knew how many more hands I had to play if I bet min for the next however many hands. Once the odds got over 15 stand dev and the sheet couldn't calculate it, I was pretty sure random luck probably wouldn't kick in lol

There is no system, not even a voodoo one lol. Just a sense of where I stand and how long I can probably play if I'm up a few units here and there and what to do with with a 100 unit roll in my pocket if I want to make up a unit.

Click to expand...

ahh now i'm gettin it. and sorry because i now realize you must have said as much a bunch of times and yet it wasn't registering with me.
i think i've read where you said that you might raise your bets as the true count raises but maybe not so much as what you infact may be aware is perhaps an amount needed to seize the advantage to the extent where such cummulative bets could overcome your waiting bets which may or may not have been lost. but then yet again you might raise your bets at times even greater than such amount. so i'm assumming this sort of thing might be to do with your sense of where you stand and how long you realize you can play and whether your up or down units. sort of maybe risk averse to begin with but then maybe when a unit is lost we want it back. lol and maybe still trying to get that unit back in a risk averse sort of way. just guessing on that.
but yeah i think like you say one can go a pretty long time with say perfect basic strategy and some indices and just flat betting and maybe raising some bets when the count is good to where with some luck it can get even better. and then like i was trying to say before where how Schlesinger says it is for a card counter who if they don't get him early on they might not get him at all well so it could go with your approach that at least they might not get you for a longer time, hopefully a lot longer time lol.
it's interesting what maybe a sort of parallel here with how i think you prefer this fuzzy bet way as you call it and the discussion and perhaps i think incorrect belief you might have had regarding varying bets at tc=1 post with EasyRhino and Qfit. i mean in that case the parallel approach would incurr more risk in the long run. i guess the EV would stay the same which seems weird but i guess it's the case. so but anyway in both parallels perhaps risk has some wiggle room where as EV maybe doesn't. sort of you can maybe spread your risk out one way or the other and still get your EV as long as your bankroll can handle it. that was another factor i think you was writing about.
so but anyway the yin yang aspect as you was saying of a fuzzy bet approach or a fuzzy count approach is to me interesting as well. i hope there is some wiggle room ROR-wise in the fuzzy count approach as there apparently is for the fuzzy bet approach.

sagefr0g said:

it's interesting what maybe a sort of parallel here with how i think you prefer this fuzzy bet way as you call it and the discussion and perhaps i think incorrect belief you might have had regarding varying bets at tc=1 post with EasyRhino and Qfit. i mean in that case the parallel approach would incurr more risk in the long run.

Click to expand...

Yes you're quite right about my incorrect belief lol. Although I still think it may have some use as cover lol. If I were going to count and think about doing it, believe me, I wouldn't rely on my figures I'd just run some sims or just not do it.

Anyway, in real life, I don't even pretend I'm playing with an advantage or even know. It's possible sometimes maybe I actually am. For a shoe or 2 lol. But I'm not "card-counting" in any "AP" way in my mind because I'm not applying bets in any consistent way. Even though I am actually am card-counting lol and if I want to make a move and try to make-up a min unit or 2 in my voodoo way at some point , why not at least do in a + count. It can't hurt. I have no goals except maybe it'd be nice to win a few bucks or finish this session ahead. So it really doesn't take too much. Maybe I win a few 10 or 20 unit bets or more here and there. Maybe I don't. Whatever I feel like. I have no way of measuring my results against any "card-counting" plan.

I analyzed years ago possibly counting in AC but given win rates, how much I'd play in a few years, the games, how much I really wanted to stand around back-counting, if I could, how much trip roll I should take, etc but I rejected it. Plain and simple. I was unwilling to always bet in the way I was supposed to with a risk I liked and the bankroll to bet against. I could be dead before I reached N0 lol. I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour. Kind of thing. Whatever, had I tried, at least I'd know what to expect. And I'd keep a log that had more in it than I won $100 today.

So it just never would occur to me to attribute any results I may have because I'm a "counter" just because I count although sometimes it seems to me there may not be a whole lot of difference between what I do and what others may do.

Perhaps what separates your fuzzy counting and my fuzzy betting is that maybe we don't really fully think of ourselves as "AP counters", don't mean to speak for you lol, but I certainly don't, even though we may count a little or a lot in our different ways or whatever.

Maybe we're just more willing to admit any results are actually probably more likely due to luck than the result of any card-counting plan.

Maybe I'm an idealist.

Let's find out.

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

RJT? Sonny?

Is there a snowball's chance you'd even wonder if you were lucky or good after 50 or 100000 hands?

Sorry this is in voodoo - I got carried away. What you guys say is no way voodoo to me lol.