CSM and some limited success

[halcyon1234]

I guess people with no experience don't deserve a job either no matter how well they could do the job.

Flawed analogy. An inexperienced doctor gets a residency, and learns to be a good doctor. An inexperienced doctor who claims they can do a good job because they once put leech on someone and it cured them doesn't get to be a doctor until they learn better.

Another analogy:

An experienced doctor with a radical theory researches it, tests it, presents it to her collegues, has it peer reviewed, and if there is any merit to it, puts it through rigerous, scientific, reproducable trials. If it passes those, it is accepted. If it flies in the face of conventional medical wisdom, it may be mocked or ridiculed, but will be accepted if provable. "You want us to wash our hands? wtf?"

A doctor, no matter how experienced, who claims to have a cure that doesn't need to be tested because (it worked once/I think it will/it should/just because), doesn't have their theory accepted. If it flies in teh face of conventional medical wisdom, it will be mocked, ridiculed-- and will never be accepted.

You're saying your theory is valid because of short term, unprovable, unreproducable trials. We're saying it won't work, because of long term, provable, reproducable facts. For your theory to be valid, you must not only scientifically prove why it works, but also why the fundimental facts that are accepted and used by everyone else are flawed. If you're correct, your theory will be provable, and it will be accepted.

 

[bigbjfan]

Well, these are all very interesting exchanges. I counted these CSM's about a year ago just to practice keeping the count in a casino atmosphere and I noticed a lot of clumping too. Many times, when the count was high, the next couple hands the 10's and Aces would spill out. I never did any wonging on these things because I just wasn't very confident that I knew exactly what the CSM's were doing. I know for a fact that these specific CSM's at the casino I frequent get fed with 5 decks. It would be great to reverse engineer this thing and find a weakness or flaw to exploit but I am still researching this out.

 

[Ringer]

I am not saying my theory is 100% provable. I have repeated the process successfully 3 times with the minimum time spent at the table of 3 hours. Statistically this very well could be within regular variation but I think we all know the difference between guessing when the large cards are comming, and knowing.

If someone came to you and said the following:

"I have played hi/lo strategy today. When the true count got to +3 then all the tens and aces started to come out. I won $150."

You would say, "see, counting works".

I'm not giving any statistical data to prove this point because trying to do so while at the casino is a sure way to get kicked out. But the experience that we have all had is undeniable.

Have you even WATCHED these machines? Have you actually sat for even 10 hours just counting and observing? Now that may be too little data for your formula's to make a provable theory, but if you are going to continue to argue that the experiences I've witnessed are just luck you're going to need some evidence about the machines unpredictability to back it up.

I've read all the patents for the "King". Random in and random out ain't so random. Otherwise how could it be "programable"?

Look, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely correct and based on 12 hours at a table I"m going to disprove everyone. But I'm looking for some answers as to why what I am witnessing and experiencing happens when all the materials out there say it's not possible.

 

[shadroch]

No,if someone has three winning sessions,it shows that they understand counting,a system that has been proven over billions and billions of hands.
You have three sessions under your belt,which represents a few thousand hands at most.

 

[NDN21]

One thing is obvious. You have a pre-defined concept of csm's and how to beat them and didn't really come here for advice.

You have a defense/excuse for everything that disagrees with your hypothesis.

You got it all figured out, you have learned how to exploit the one area of blackjack that has been ignored by players since the inception of the csm and you did it in 12 hours!! Congratulations. Three sessions is concrete evidence that this will always work.












BTW-you are wrong but your ego is too big to let you see that you are wrong.

but I think we all know the difference between guessing when the large cards are comming, and knowing.

Nope you are still totally guessing when they are coming.

 

[Ringer]

One thing is obvious. You have a pre-defined concept of csm's and how to beat them and didn't really come here for advice.

You have a defense/excuse for everything that disagrees with your hypothesis.

You got it all figured out, you have learned how to exploit the one area of blackjack that has been ignored by players since the inception of the csm and you did it in 12 hours!! Congratulations. Three sessions is concrete evidence that this will always work.












BTW-you are wrong but your ego is too big to let you see that you are wrong.

but I think we all know the difference between guessing when the large cards are comming, and knowing.

Nope you are still totally guessing when they are coming.

I have been nothing but graceous to everyone. I haven't said an ill word or claimed someone's ego was getting in their way. I have treated all of the opponents to what I'm saying with absolute civility. How have I been treated in return? With more of this absolute crap and personal attack.

I HAVE read ALL of the patents associated with the king. I've even found the Google versions of the patents to be much more readable as the design sketches are much more readable. Nasty US Patent office uses quicktime and you can't save or blow up the pictures.

I have also WATCHED these machines for many more years that I've been counting. I'm new to counting, but I'm not new to blackjack or the CSM.

I'm not a professional, I dont' claim to be, and thus you all are vastly more advanced into your ego trips than I am. I'm offering my observation with some explinations... going point vs counter-point with quite concievable arguments. As a result instead of genuine discourse more verbal abuse about how rediculous a person I am.

Take the time to consider my argments carefully before going off half cocked that I'm a moron. You don't know who I am or what kind of knowledge I actually posses. For all you know I could be an engineer with a Doctorate in mechanical engineering and a Masters in Theoretical Mathematics from Yale.

Of course I could be an elementary school drop out with no education or experience in any field. I'll let my vocabulary skills give you a hint as to which one is more likely.

I have not come out and claimed I can predict with absolute certainty what the cards will be ... (again because I have no ego to salve) ... I am simply offering a different paradigm that is simply appears unexplored by the major players of the game. I find no arguments for or against the simple concept of a continuous deck count to determine a true count when playing a CSM. Of the few professionals I've contacted via E-Mail in fact it's considered quite plausible. Much more study would need to be done and statistical data would need to be created. That would require an intimate knowledge of the machines and their sorting routines.

Until such time YOU cannot say I am any more wrong on this subject than I can say you are wrong. Nor have I even made any attempt to say that anyone is wrong. I simply don't know and neither do you. Put your ego's aside and have a decent, thoughtful conversation on this subject and maybe together we could all figure out a way around this problem.

 

[Ringer]

Thank you for the complete analysis of my initial play. It certainly puts things in perspective. Indeed I do need much more playing time before I can say my experience is more than just luck.

I'm curious if someone could work out the statistical analysis of the following situation.

20 designated piles all ranging from 5 to 15 cards per pile with a total number of 260 cards. After a hand is played, those cards played would then be placed randomly one card at a time on top of a pile. Assuming that the last hand played was ALL low cards, what is the statistical likelyhood of the next hand having more than %50 high cards. How does this statistical likelyhood go up or down with each hand played after the first? What would the effects of %75 low cards played in the hand be on the same statistics?

THAT's the kind of data I'm looking for.

Okay, I'm going to hit you with a touch of math here. You can double check it yourself. You can find the information just about anywhere with Google.

Blackjack HOUSE edge for a BS player =~ 0.5% (0.005)
Blackjack standard deviation = 1.15

stdev is the "+/-" you always see with anything mathematical. Margin of error. Range. Swing.

You're playing $5 hands, in a game with a 0.5%, and stdev 1.15. You get, let's be liberal, and say 100 hands an hour.

After 1 hour of play, you will have wagered $500. You're EV (expected value, how much you should be up/down) is -$2.50.

You say you won $150 after 4.6 hours. So that's 460 hands. Your EV is -$11.50. But the stdev is:

(square root of 460) * 1.15 = 21.45 * 1.15 = 24.66

You wagered 460 units ($5), and won 30 units ($150). You were expected to lose 2.3 units ($11.50). That means you are 32.3 units above expecation.

32.3 / 24.66 = 1.30. This means that you are /just/ barely above one standard dev, which will occur roughly 95% of the time. (65% you're within 1, and ~97.6% you're within 2).

In other word, for the action you are describing, your wins are absolutely indistinguishable from luck.

If you want to prove beyond a statistical blip that your system works, you'll need MUCH more table time. Let's assume you keep your $5 bet going. If you are playing as good as a shoe-counter, you'll have, at least, a 1% advantage. This means for every $100 you wager, you'll win $1.

Let's use units. You'll wager roughly 100 units an hour. After an hour, you should be up 1 unit ($5) +/- the sqrt(units wagered) * stdev.

So after going through 100 units ($500), you'll earn $5 +/- $57.50.

After 1,000 wagers, you'll earn $50 +/- $181.83

After 10,000 wagers, you'll earn $500, +/- $575

After 100,000 wagers, you'll earn $5000 +/- $1818.31... in other words, you'll be in the + no matter what.

For the record, your break even point should be 13,225 hands. It's there that a stdev is equal to your EV, so the worst you can do is +$0.

Don't mistake luck for a working strategy.



See above.

 

[Sonny]

I have been nothing but graceous to everyone. I haven't said an ill word or claimed someone's ego was getting in their way. I have treated all of the opponents to what I'm saying with absolute civility. How have I been treated in return? With more of this absolute crap and personal attack.

I agree with Ringer here. He has been very polite and respectful with us and he deserves the same kind of treatment in return. He came here with some concepts about the machines and is looking for more information about them. Let’s try to help him with whatever explanations we can give.

And, of course, let’s not get too cocky here. After all, none of us knows how the heck those machines actually work!

-Sonny-

 

[Ringer]

I agree with Ringer here. He has been very polite and respectful with us and he deserves the same kind of treatment in return. He came here with some concepts about the machines and is looking for more information about them. Let’s try to help him with whatever explanations we can give.

And, of course, let’s not get too cocky here. After all, none of us knows how the heck those machines actually work!

-Sonny-

Thank you Sonny, I appreciate you stepping up and agreeing with me.

I did start a new thread in the advanced strategies section because of your last statement. I have the patent sitting right in front of me that I have been looking over most recently. It is the one used at my local casino and is of course that much more interesting to me.

 

[Sonny]

For anyone interested, here is a link to the new thread:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6365

All discussion will continue there.

-Sonny-