I didn't split 10's for a number of years because of that "longevity" thing. But I'd be lying if I told you there weren't times I would gladly watch some casinos burn to the ground and sip champagne doing it. So yea.. I split 'em.. all day.KewlJ said:And now a couple of my own thoughts on things said in this thread.
Number of card counters: I don't track my play by hours, I track by an estimate of rounds played. And I play roughly 80,000 rounds a year. Using the traditional 100 rounds per hours that would be 800 hours, but I don't come close to 100 rounds per hour....not on average. I play short sessions and exit aggressively on negative counts. Even sometimes tracking a second table and jumping immediately to a new game, I probably average 50 rounds an hour when all the moving around and traveling to the next casino is added in. So that would be 1600 hours a year. I wouldn't be surprised if it is even more. Both these numbers 800 and 1600 hours (or even more) are surely greater than most professional players play.
And in all that time, now finishing my 15th year, and 10th in Vegas, I probably see 3-5 card counters a year playing my level (green to mid black), or higher. I see a larger number playing red chip level at some of the lower limit tables that I am forced to play. But reasonable money....not many.
Next: I want to respond to the comment about splitting 10's being "valuable" to the blackchipper. On paper..yes. That includes simulations. It looks like significant value. But one of the most important things....maybe the single most important thing that my experience has taught me, is that most pit people aren't as smart as we think they are. Most are just working folks doing their job and they aren't as knowledgeable about card counters as maybe pit folks once were when they were players or former players themselves. There are really like 3-4 things pit people today are looking for.
1.) of course a spread. But a spread itself doesn't mean much. Many players vary bets. It is the retreating back to the small wager that is the give-away.
2.) A very small number of plays, played differently. 16 vs 10 (which happens to be the most common hand if I am not mistaken), Insuring a blackjack, and splitting 10's. These 3 plays are really the ones that pit people know that card counters play differently at different times. Sharp pit people may look at 12 vs 2 or 3 as well, but it is those initial 3 that signal card counter to most pit people.
You will note that the often talked about splitting 10's is among them. To me, any discussion of their value has to be measured against the big tell that it is. That momentary "value" has to be measured against longevity and the ability of many future hours. When you include that, it becomes not so "valuable".
And by the way, all 3 of these common things that almost all pit people know to look for can be taken care of by playing card counter's basic strategy and not varying how these hands are played.
Can I Add These 2 Deviations?
- Thread starter Raven
- Start date
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Thank you for confirming and clarifying, Don. I don't recall any context of "beginners", but I will take you at your word.DSchles said:
But I will argue that the idea of simplicity is very valuable to many more than just "beginner" players. Diminishing returns and all that. Way to many players, both experienced and beginner are "chasing pennies"....in my opinion. But you already know my feeling on this.
I don't remember my exact words. But if you're implying that I said something to the effect that the whole world should play Hi-Lo, I would never make such a remark.KewlJ said:Thank you for confirming and clarifying, Don. I don't recall any context of "beginners", but I will take you at your word.
But I will argue that the idea of simplicity is very valuable to many more than just "beginner" players. Diminishing returns and all that. Way to many players, both experienced and beginner are "chasing pennies"....in my opinion. But you already know my feeling on this.
10% of a lot of money is a lot of money. It isn't "chasing pennies." And for those who make $100,000 or more at this game every year, $10,000 is a lot of money.
Don
Because? You don't think I can earn 10% more than you? You don't think thousands of Halves players can earn 10% more than you? You don't think thousands of Hi-Opt II players can earn 10% more than you? Don't start an argument you can't possibly win.KewlJ said:I never said you made or would make such a statement. THAT is for me to do.
As for the 10%. Let's not even go there. Lol.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I didn't want to go there because I don't believe you are capable of being objective. You take it personally as some sort of challenge to you and then want to turn it into a pissing contest when that is not what it is about. I am not, nor have ever challenged your abilities Don. But I don't think everyone using a higher count is a Don Schlesinger either.DSchles said:
The fact is that almost all higher count proponents want to seize on this increase in performance, usually the 10% neighborhood, without acknowledging the possibility of an increased error rate, which for many....for most, will reduce or even wipe out entirely any benefit gained from a higher count. It is simply a case of accepting the pros or benefits while ignoring the cons or negative.
AND as for thousands of Hi-Opt ll players? Well I highly doubt there are thousands of Hi-Opt ll players anywhere. Like I posted somewhere in the last day or two, I probably see 30 serious card counters a year, playing reasonable stakes. More playing red chip or attempting to card count playing red chip, but 30...probably less playing reasonable stakes. So where is this thousand strong Hi-Opt ll army? Maybe they skip Las Vegas, a location with the highest concentrate of playable games in close proximity.
But anyway, lets get back to your question: Do I think "thousands" of Hi-opt ll players can earn 10% more than me playing similar stakes? No I don't! I think you very well could. But I don't believe thousands, nor even most Hi-opt ll players could outperform me by 10%. I track multiple tables about 50% of the time and am actually able to jump directly to a more advantageous count and situation, half of that time, maybe less than half (not exactly sure how to track that).
I mean if this Hi-opt ll army (you excluded) could actually play to a 10% advantage over my play and do so without any increased error rate, (which I don't believe), you really think they can do so tracking 2, and sometimes 3 tables vs a simpler count? Again, this isn't about you Don. No body is challenging your ability. If you think that this so called army of Hi-Opt ll players are all playing at a Don Schlesinger level, then it is You who is not being honest, either with yourself or with us.
Happy now that we went there?
More the latter than the former. I have played sparingly in A.C. and Monticello, but today's games are so putrid compared to yesteryear that I have little interest to spend the time and energy to play them. I just don't need the money, and it isn't worth the effort for me.Raven said:
Don
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what others are capable of, based on your own abilities. I don't. You seem to travel in a very small circle, because you are a loner, playing in one locale, with little desire to change, because everything is fine for you. But your obsession with this error-rate thing ill becomes you and shows a disdain for what others are capable of.KewlJ said:I didn't want to go there because I don't believe you are capable of being objective. You take it personally as some sort of challenge to you and then want to turn it into a pissing contest when that is not what it is about. I am not, nor have ever challenged your abilities Don. But I don't think everyone using a higher count is a Don Schlesinger either.
The fact is that almost all higher count proponents want to seize on this increase in performance, usually the 10% neighborhood, without acknowledging the possibility of an increased error rate, which for many....for most, will reduce or even wipe out entirely any benefit gained from a higher count. It is simply a case of accepting the pros or benefits while ignoring the cons or negative.
AND as for thousands of Hi-Opt ll players? Well I highly doubt there are thousands of Hi-Opt ll players anywhere. Like I posted somewhere in the last day or two, I probably see 30 serious card counters a year, playing reasonable stakes. More playing red chip or attempting to card count playing red chip, but 30...probably less playing reasonable stakes. So where is this thousand strong Hi-Opt ll army? Maybe they skip Las Vegas, a location with the highest concentrate of playable games in close proximity.
But anyway, lets get back to your question: Do I think "thousands" of Hi-opt ll players can earn 10% more than me playing similar stakes? No I don't! I think you very well could. But I don't believe thousands, nor even most Hi-opt ll players could outperform me by 10%. I track multiple tables about 50% of the time and am actually able to jump directly to a more advantageous count and situation, half of that time, maybe less than half (not exactly sure how to track that).
I mean if this Hi-opt ll army (you excluded) could actually play to a 10% advantage over my play and do so without any increased error rate, (which I don't believe), you really think they can do so tracking 2, and sometimes 3 tables vs a simpler count? Again, this isn't about you Don. No body is challenging your ability. If you think that this so called army of Hi-Opt ll players are all playing at a Don Schlesinger level, then it is You who not being honest, either with yourself or with us.
Happy now that we went there?
People learn higher-level counts with the same ease as you learned Hi-Lo. That you can't accept this is your problem, not mine. I have DOZENS of friends who play Halves, RPC, Zen, Hi-Opt II -- all flawlessly -- all of whom would be happy to show you via playing against a practice simulator or real games that a) they can play as fast as you, b) play as accurately as you, and c) win more money than you for the same stakes. I say that you can't win this argument because you're a one-trick pony: if you play a higher level count, you no longer can play accurately. That's a baseless assumption.
Happy to let you have the last word. You live in a bubble with little knoweldge or understandaing of what's really out there and what people have been doing all their lives. Norm and I have been playing the RPC since before you were born. And you want to suppose that we're unique in the world with our ability to play our count just as accurately as you play yours? You're sadly mistaken. And you're no mathematician either, if you think for a minute that a couple of alleged errors made by the users of higher-level counts could even come remotely close to wiping out a 10% edge over time. That's an asinine statement.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I knew you would take it personally....you always do Don. Your consistent…..I'll give ya that.DSchles said:
No one is challenging you Don! And Norm wasn't even mentioned. This is not a me vs you or vs Norm or any of your other friends that played higher level counts in an era when doing so was more advantageous than today. You need to stop taking this so personally.
And really....did you just invoke the "I've been doing this longer than you have been alive, sonny" argument?
No matter. But this is exactly why I chose not to go here again. But Happy Holidays to you Don.
xengrifter
Banned
KewlJ said:
I fall squarely in the KJ camp on this...DSchles said:
... Mostly as relates to advanced ace-neutral counts, like HO2, AO3, & UAPC - most HO2 practitioners are deluded - they are working harder to achieve the same real world result as would more easily be obtained by RPC or ZEN.
The sainted Ken Uston was prophetic when he declared in 1986 that such counts were obsolete.
xengrifter
Banned
He gave up on those Ace neutral counts, including his own UAPC before he died.*Raven said:
* See Uston on BJ 1986
Last edited:
"What if he did you, young whippersnapper, who counts multiple tables at once?"
That's the hysterical part of KJ's completely specious argument. He throws off how he routinely backcounts two or three tables at the same time, as if it's a given that anyone with a functioning brain could do this as child's play, but then he trots out the ridiculous "your 10% extra edge will be canceled out by mistakes" argument, as if to say that adding 2+2 to get 4 is infinitely more complicated than adding 1+1 to get 2.
Newsflash to KJ: when you completely and thoroughly LEARN the multiplication table, ALL the facts are the same. 9x7=63 isn't any harder than 2x3=6. THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!
And despite his wanting to make this personal, about me, it's nothing of the sort. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with my discussing the mathematics of why level-2 and level-3 counts gain more money for their users -- of which I am but one of tens of thousands -- than level-1 counts. Period. Pure math. End of discussion. Believe it or not, KJ, some people actually can walk and chew gum at the same time. And, although you insist on making this personal, when it isn't, I would say that for every one person who routinely makes it his business to backcount several tables simultaneously -- and claims to do it effortlessly and flawlessly, without mistakes -- there are thousands of counters out there employing higher-level counts effortlessly and flawlessly, without making mistakes.
Don
That's the hysterical part of KJ's completely specious argument. He throws off how he routinely backcounts two or three tables at the same time, as if it's a given that anyone with a functioning brain could do this as child's play, but then he trots out the ridiculous "your 10% extra edge will be canceled out by mistakes" argument, as if to say that adding 2+2 to get 4 is infinitely more complicated than adding 1+1 to get 2.
Newsflash to KJ: when you completely and thoroughly LEARN the multiplication table, ALL the facts are the same. 9x7=63 isn't any harder than 2x3=6. THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!
And despite his wanting to make this personal, about me, it's nothing of the sort. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with my discussing the mathematics of why level-2 and level-3 counts gain more money for their users -- of which I am but one of tens of thousands -- than level-1 counts. Period. Pure math. End of discussion. Believe it or not, KJ, some people actually can walk and chew gum at the same time. And, although you insist on making this personal, when it isn't, I would say that for every one person who routinely makes it his business to backcount several tables simultaneously -- and claims to do it effortlessly and flawlessly, without mistakes -- there are thousands of counters out there employing higher-level counts effortlessly and flawlessly, without making mistakes.
Don
Last edited:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Don, it is you trying to make this personal. I specifically said, let's not go here.....simply because we have been over this. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. But no. You insisted...baited me to go here yet again.
You say it's not personal but your post #31 contains that "I have been doing this longer than you have been alive" line, clearly meant as a putdown. You also insinuated that would be your final post on the subject saying "happy to let you have the last word". But you couldn't do that. You had to come back with the above post with further put downs like "when you learn the multiplication tables...." Shame on you Don. Be better than this.
I am going to make one more point and then I am going to let you have the final word and I will stick to my word where you didn't, because I never wanted to go here again in the first place.
My final point is your above statement: "as if to say that adding 2+2 to get 4 is infinitely more complicated than adding 1+1 to get 2".
I'll refer you to Modern Blackjack by Mr. Norman Wattenberger, page 240, level 1 vs level 2 counts.
"However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain."
You say it's not personal but your post #31 contains that "I have been doing this longer than you have been alive" line, clearly meant as a putdown. You also insinuated that would be your final post on the subject saying "happy to let you have the last word". But you couldn't do that. You had to come back with the above post with further put downs like "when you learn the multiplication tables...." Shame on you Don. Be better than this.
I am going to make one more point and then I am going to let you have the final word and I will stick to my word where you didn't, because I never wanted to go here again in the first place.
My final point is your above statement: "as if to say that adding 2+2 to get 4 is infinitely more complicated than adding 1+1 to get 2".
I'll refer you to Modern Blackjack by Mr. Norman Wattenberger, page 240, level 1 vs level 2 counts.
"However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain."
Last edited: