I’m sorry if we are boring you with our mathematical proof and relentless logic, but you’ll have to endure just a little bit more if you want to really see how much you’re hurting yourself by playing that way.biggamejames said:Ah finally we move away from the mundane mathematical arguments and begin to tackle the real practical circumstances that an AP will actually run into in a real casino.
But that “shoe leather” is also costing you money. For example, an average player can easily play 100 hands per hour. About 70 of those will be at a disadvantage and about 30 will be at an advantage. If you walk away from half of those good hands (because you lost a few of them) then you are only playing about 15 winning hands per hour. On top of that, you are walking into unknown situations more often, which puts you at a disadvantage again. You are walking away from winning hands in favor of losing hands. Suddenly you are only getting 15 winnings hands and about 85 losing ones. How can you expect this to not hurt your bankroll?biggamejames said:If i am given the choice between burning this so called "shoe leather" costs and burning real actual money at i will opt to incur the "shoe leather" costs 10 times out of ten.
But playing when you have the advantage does not burn your BR, it adds to it. Do you not understand that? When you have the advantage, you are winning EV every time you play. You may lose a few hands or go on a losing streak, but if you are betting properly then you will know what kind of streaks to expect and your bankroll will be able to sustain the bad streaks until you hit another good streak. That is just the nature of variance. You cannot escape it by running away from the table. You just have to play intelligently so that the losing streaks don’t hurt you too much.biggamejames said:While time is an important aspect of the AP, one cant fall over oneself in a bid to save as much of it so he can burn more of his BR.
biggamejames said:Quote:
Originally Posted by NDN21 View Post
In the end, it's your money, James is right on with that one. Play how you want but know that a good counter with vast blackjack experience and knowledge, wouldn't leave a positive shoe very often.
Therefore making a statement such as this...See this exactly where i lose it and begin to call a spade a spade!!!
NO ONE HERE INCLUDING ME IS ADVOCATING THAT ANY ONE LEAVE A SHOE WITH POSITIVE COUNT. YOU WONT EVEN FIND A SINGLE POST OF MINE SUGGESTING ANYTHNG ON THE SORT!!!
and another postbiggamejames said:Here is my advise to you. If you get some good positive counts in about 3 or 4 shoes but the dealer still beats your brain in and is taking your money, then dood!!!!! GET UP AND LEAVE!!!!
You are right I did not find one post suggesting a player leave a table with a positive count, I found TWO!! What did I win?biggamejames said:in my response i clearly state that if you lose 3-4 shoes with positive counts you should move. But this genius decided to revise that statement into something else..
You called yourself the voodoo king on page two, not us.biggamejames said:NOw dont take this as a direct attack on you. I am just using this one statement to illustrate the fact the people here calling me the voodoo king and superstitious have completely failed to understand the circumstances that have very clearly been laid out to them...
This hurts you as you will spend time finding another game and playing through more marginal/negative expectation hands to find another positive count. You have to remember that when you have a 2% edge that means that you can expect to win 51 and lose 49 out of every 100 bets you place (a little oversimplified, but serves for the purpose). This doesn't depend on which table you are sitting at. This is just what the wins and losses will average out to in the long run. So if they clump together this is perfectly normal and completely unpredictiable.
I have said this before and i will say this again. You are walking away at the end of several shoes where you have lost with positive counts. I did not say you are walking away in the middle of the shoe.. (thank you but please refrain from formulating arguments for me.)No. If they sample enough shoes they will find another positive shoe. But that takes time and as your winnings in blackjack are base on how many hands you can play with an advantage in how short a space of time, this will reduce how much you can expect to earn per hour. Even in SD/DD games, there in no way to guarentee walking straight into another +ve count. In fact as you mentioned earlier, with the no mid-shoe entry rule you are walking away from an advantageous situation to guarentee that the next hand you play will be at a disadvantage.
NDN21 said:But from your first post
and another post
You are right I did not find one post suggesting a player leave a table with a positive count, I found TWO!! What did I win?
Now you are saying you never advocated leaving a table.
You called yourself the voodoo king on page two, not us.
Contradicting yourself many, many times in this thread.
You are costing yourself money in the long run if you leave shoes with positive counts, even if you are getting your clock cleaned.
Here is my advise to you. If you get some good positive counts in about 3 or 4 shoes but the dealer still beats your brain in and is taking your money, then dood!!!!! GET UP AND LEAVE!!!!
I think that is backwords. You can always replace the money you lost, but any time lost due to switching tables and waiting for a new positive count can never be recovered.biggamejames said:Time in a casino is 100% replaceable. Money lost is not!!!
Sonny said:I’m sorry if we are boring you with our mathematical proof and relentless logic, but you’ll have to endure just a little bit more if you want to really see how much you’re hurting yourself by playing that way.
But that “shoe leather” is also costing you money. For example, an average player can easily play 100 hands per hour. About 70 of those will be at a disadvantage and about 30 will be at an advantage. If you walk away from half of those good hands
-Sonny-
But there is absolutely nothing to be gained from it either. As we’ve been saying, it is just a waste of time. Just like avoiding tables with bad players. It doesn’t give you any advantage. It just wastes your time, which most people would consider a disadvantage.biggamejames said:There is absolutely nothing you lose by moving to another table, outside of the time it takes to physically transfer your body from one place to another!
I made that comment back when we were discussing leaving during positive counts. Apparently you're going in a different direction now. I'll try to keep up.biggamejames said:So let me get this straight if a person walks away from a table, they are walking away only those few hands they were destined to win and not any of the hands they were destined to lose.
No, but you walk away from opportunity and reduces the number of hands you see. That means that you'll win less in the same time.biggamejames said:looks like the b/s train is rolling on full steam ahead.... So let me get this straight if a person walks away from a table, they are walking away only those few hands they were destined to win and not any of the hands they were destined to lose.
Sonny said:But playing when you have the advantage does not burn your BR, it adds to it. Do you not understand that? When you have the advantage, you are winning EV every time you play. You may lose a few hands or go on a losing streak, but if you are betting properly then you will know what kind of streaks to expect and your bankroll will be able to sustain the bad streaks until you hit another good streak. That is just the nature of variance. You cannot escape it by running away from the table. You just have to play intelligently so that the losing streaks don’t hurt you too much.
I’m beginning to have some serious doubts about your understanding the game. You could be hurting yourself more than you think. What count system do you use? What’s your bet spread? What’s your RoR?
-Sonny-
Sonny said:I made that comment back when we were discussing leaving during positive counts. Apparently you're going in a different direction now. I'll try to keep up.
-Sonny-
You are making the mistake of assuming that because you reduce your playing time by losing 3-5 minutes changing seats that you will only missout out on hands that wont have a negative impact on your bankroll.RJT said:No, but you walk away from opportunity and reduces the number of hands you see. That means that you'll win less in the same time.
RJT.
Yes you did:biggamejames said:YOU AND WHO? ME? BECAUSE i have not advocated for leaving during positive counts...I did not say get up and leave if you have a positive count now did i?
You specifically talked about walking away from hands in the middle of the game. You'll have to excuse me if I can't keep up with your changing arguments.biggamejames said:And in your great wisdom if i get up and leave after losing about two of these hands i am going to suffer from greatly because i skipped out on the last two hands...So my Br is going to be greatly hurt because i missed out on two final hands left in the meagre SD or DD?"
That depends. When the other player is looking for “hot streaks”, dealers on a “paying streak”, using stop-loss limits, trying to predict a “vicious losing streak” and not betting properly then yes, I have a considerable advantage over that player and anyone else who plays like him.biggamejames said:You think you have some mythical advantage over any other player playing the same game at another table?
Sonny said:Yes you did:
You specifically talked about walking away from hands in the middle of the game. You'll have to excuse me if I can't keep up with your changing arguments.
-Sonny-
Alright I'll bite. I understand you are NOT leaving the shoe when the count is positive, only when a succession of positive shoes have beat you, and when you have completed play through them, then you leave. Well that leads me to some questions. Now mind you this is only pertaining to shoe games of more than 2 decks. Where are you finding games where shoe after shoe goes positive to the point of larger betting? I find it a bit strange how shoes will be positive on such a regular basis. Are you playing through shoe after shoe playing through large negative counts waiting for positive counts? Its been my experience, not a fact, but my experience, even with multiple people counting shoes at one time like with team play, that you won't find 3 to 4 shoes in a row with multi unit betting opportunities. With that in mind most APs' that I know will rarely sit through 3 to 4 shoes at one table because its almost inevitable that it will become too disadvantageous at some point during such a prolonged time without some sort of advanced technique. Hell even spotters who never raise their bets will move to play fresh tables if the count is not at least close to positive, and usually that is well before 3 or 4 shoes. So basically I'm questioning if your whole argument is based on any real world merit. And if you believe it does, than as asked of you before, what type of counting system do you use. Because I'm wondering how you can be able to find more positve shoes to count than the average counter. Or are you maybe betting when you think you have the advantage but truly do not? Not an accusation just a question.biggamejames said:YOU AND WHO? ME? BECAUSE i have not advocated for leaving during positive counts. I have advocated leaving a table after 3-4 for shoes where you lost even though you had positive counts during those shoes.
I did not say get up and leave if you have a positive count now did i?
Truth be told you made up your own argument and run with it. You even ignored the 3 other people i have explained this to and decided you are special and get to have your turn....