Ran into another counter this weekend at a double deck game. He had one of the best acts i've seen as he came off as a complete ploppy. After a minute though when the count sky rocketed and he moved to two hands and I jumped my bet we both noticed each other was counting. He said he was an engineer and that he uses hi-lo. He also said he had played roughly 2 million hands to date. I had to run and didn't catch his name but if thats anyone on this site send me a PM as i'd be interested in putting a name with a face.
An engineer who uses hi-lo
- Thread starter revrac
- Start date
Friendo
Well-Known Member
Say it ain't so!
High-Low? Disgusting!
He must be extremely stupid to leave all that money on the table. High-Low is only suitable for non-pitch and non-shoe games.
One would think that an experienced player would know better than to hand his money to the casino in this fashion. High-Low earns only 0.006% of a good level-2 count in shoes, and has negative expectation on pitch games. When will they ever learn?
Sarcasm aside, I find the 2 million hands figure impressive, if true. Figure 100 hands an hour, so 20,000 hours - 10 years of a 40-hour-per-week jok. Whoa!
High-Low? Disgusting!
He must be extremely stupid to leave all that money on the table. High-Low is only suitable for non-pitch and non-shoe games.
One would think that an experienced player would know better than to hand his money to the casino in this fashion. High-Low earns only 0.006% of a good level-2 count in shoes, and has negative expectation on pitch games. When will they ever learn?
Sarcasm aside, I find the 2 million hands figure impressive, if true. Figure 100 hands an hour, so 20,000 hours - 10 years of a 40-hour-per-week jok. Whoa!
kewljason
Well-Known Member
No way! I guess 200,000 hands a year is possible, but you are going to have to play a lot more than 40 hours a week. 40 hours a week @ 100 hands an hour.Friendo said:
It just doesn't work that way, trust me. I keep track of my play by estimating hands played rather than hours and I estimate I am just under 100,000 hands per year for each of the past couple years. I spend more than 50 hours a week total scounting, walking and playing to reach that figure. I can't see many folks going much above this amount unless they had absolutely no life. And beleive me, if you did do this for a year, basically playing and sleeping, no way anyone could string several years of this amount of play together, let alone 10. Either his estimate is way off, or this figure is stretched out over 30-40 years.
Last edited:
creeping panther
Banned
Friendo
You use it for betting and a few deviation plays.
I call it Hi-Lo-Lo,,and it rocks!
CP
Incorporate a side count of aces to HI-LO in DD, the results can be excellent.Friendo said:
You use it for betting and a few deviation plays.
I call it Hi-Lo-Lo,,and it rocks!
CP
paddywhack
Well-Known Member
revrac said:
Have to agree. That's a ton of table time.kewljason said:
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
Wow, are you related to JSTAT? :grin: But seriously a negative expecation on a pitch games?Friendo said:
HockeXpert
Well-Known Member
Perhaps another part of his act was to put one over on you or my guess is that with age, big numbers that like that just fly out without even considering the magnitude. I've been know to use some great hyperbole as I age. It's like the fishing story, "I caught one this big". There are probably only a few here that can attest to having played 2 million hands other than BJG.revrac said:
Friendo
Well-Known Member
I doubt that I will break the 750,000-hand mark over 15 years, and that assumes conditions do not significantly worsen.
Among stores which are close, I think I could manage a total of about 400 hours (50,000 hands) and maintain longevity. Maybe another 300 hours (30,000 hands) on the road each year, for a total of 80,000 hands per year.
These are optimistic averages for my case.
Mantaining that level of activity would put me at 2 million hands after 25 years.
Among stores which are close, I think I could manage a total of about 400 hours (50,000 hands) and maintain longevity. Maybe another 300 hours (30,000 hands) on the road each year, for a total of 80,000 hands per year.
These are optimistic averages for my case.
Mantaining that level of activity would put me at 2 million hands after 25 years.
I believe I asked you once before to describe how you use Ace side counting with HiLo, but never got an answer. Care to give details?creeping panther said:Incorporate a side count of aces to HI-LO in DD, the results can be excellent.
You use it for betting and a few deviation plays.
I call it Hi-Lo-Lo,,and it rocks!
CP
fwb
Well-Known Member
2 mil hands is certainly an impressive figure, but like others have suggested it was probably exaggerated. I have yet to meet someone who has not moved beyond straight counting with a level one strategy with that much playing time. After that many hands, you are statistically likely to hit that cold dark corner quite a few std dev to the left of the bell curve which, as documented by even some of the top regarded professionals, is difficult for anyone to stomach and gives most players incentive to move on to bigger and better things (anyone know the article I'm thinking about? I'll try to find it).
edit: I was recalling some bits of info across a few articles, but found one:
YOU WON'T WIN By Arnold Snyder (Written from the depths of a once-in-a-lifetime magnitude losing streak...)
One of my favorites by Snyder.
edit: I was recalling some bits of info across a few articles, but found one:
YOU WON'T WIN By Arnold Snyder (Written from the depths of a once-in-a-lifetime magnitude losing streak...)
One of my favorites by Snyder.
Last edited:
Friendo
Well-Known Member
Aren't I just as statistically likely to "enjoy" a massive losing streak starting now?fwb said:
That's the beautiful thing: you don't have to be a pro to play like one!
If Arnold Snyder and I sit down at the table today, each of us is just as likely to begin a devastating long slide lasting over 1000 hours.
(Sure, I'm less likely to have been through one in the past than Arnold is, because I don't have 1% of his table time, but that has no effect on my bright future of catastrophic losses.)
I try to be positive about these things! :grin:
EDIT: Enjoyed the article, particularly the part where he says
Wow: He totally sugar-coats it, does he not? What a Pollyanna!
Last edited:
HockeXpert
Well-Known Member
That post by Friendo was done tongue in cheek and wreaked of JStat.psyduck said:
Friendo
Well-Known Member
Thanks.HockeXpert said:
One would think that saying "Sarcasm aside ... " would suffice to alert everyone that the previous paragraphs were in an assumed voice, but you pretty much have to enclose sarcasm between BEGIN SARCASM and END SARCASM, in 16-point type, to avoid misunderstanding.
Interestingly, the claim that High-Low is suitable only for those games which are neither pitch games nor shoe games didn't seem to help.
Last edited:
kewljason
Well-Known Member
This is an odd statement, psyduck.psyduck said:
I am a proponent of Hi Lo and the notion that any advanatge from a level 2 count is overrated in the real world of play and just not necessary for the majority of players, however that increase in performance should definately show up in simulations unless there is something unusual and very unique about either "your Hi-lo" or "the shoe game that you play". Am I missing something? did something with the meanings of these terms, go over my head, again?
Last edited:
psyduck
Well-Known Member
Jason,kewljason said:This is an odd statement, psyduck.
It sounds odd, but it is what I have seen. I remember you do sims too. When you have a chance, compare some level-2 systems (using indices) with the HiLo you use under flat bet condition. I am curious if you will see any improvement in winrate for the level-2 systems in 6-deck shoe games.