hi-lo one of the worst systems?

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Learn KO and memorize about 13 index plays for shoe games that hinge on two count points. As far as the flat betting, just do it then...I don't see how any particular counting system is going to put forth a better advantage than another without bet variation.

i have realized this, as som1 told me that i still need to pay attention to BC because that has to do with wonging, which is my main concern, then comes a few index plays.. about KO, i checked the book out, along with speed count, and i plan to read them both just because bj books interest me, but i dont trust unbalanced counts, there is something that just dont seem right.. kind of random here, but i thot of a count that would be awsome, since the effect of removal is positive for 2-7, and negative for 8-a, why not have a balanced count that is 2-7=+1, 8-10, with a sidecount of aces.. what kind of effect would that have compared to hi-lo (in general, not in my case)?

 

[Sonny]

"if you cant spread just play bs and get comps".. there is no in between? of course there is, and thats what i want to do, get within .1% of zero (aka losing less than $1/hr)..

The difference between playing a game with a house edge of 0.55% and 0.1% is almost meaningless. The short-term variance will be the same either way so the amount of money actually lost will not change much.

If you are willing to play a negative expectation game, why are you so worried about losing your money? If you’re expecting to lose it all, why not at least give yourself a chance to win instead of trying so hard to lose your money slower?

you guys cant be serious, if your an AP, you should HIGHLY be advising against spreading with a $1000 bankroll and $10 table minimums. it doesnt take a genius to realize that spreading $10-$40 could EASILY get you killed with a $1000 bankroll

Actually, I advise that you not play at all, but you can get away with a $10-$40 bet spread if you know how to do it. You act like this is such a helpless situation but it’s not. You are in complete control. You control how much you bet. You control when you make a bet. You control how much of an advantage you get. You control how many hands you play. You control how much risk you are willing to take. As a very wise (and handsome!) man once said in every post he’s ever made:

“It's not the size of your bankroll, it's how you leverage it!”

…and this isnt about emotionally being able to handle the swings, its about taking a huge risk for a small gain.

But you’ve already said that you’re willing to play even though you have a negative expectation. That would be taking about the same amount of risk for a huge loss.

btw i wouldnt have to spread at all if i played only when the tc was over 1, but that would mean i would only be playing 26% of hands, not to mention +2 which is probably like 10%.. if im only playing 1/4 of the hands, what the hell is the point?

What’s the point?! Now that’s just gambler’s talk! Do you want to play or do you want to win?

It sounds to me like you really just want to play the game. You’re not willing to play aggressively enough to beat the game. You just want to have your money on the table and you’re trying to find a “safe” way to do it. You want to win, but so does every other gambler in the casino. Well, there is no safe way. The variance doesn’t care what size your bankroll is or what counts you play at. It will treat you the same either way. You should expect to lose $100-$400 per hour no matter how you play. That is the reality of the game. The swings are big and sometimes long. There is no way around that. The only way to reduce that is to not play at all.

I really think you need to make a decision here: Why do you want to play? Do you want to play for fun and accept the loss or do you want to play for profit and accept the work. There isn’t much middle ground.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

i actually was wrong, i am playing at an advantage by only playing at when the running count is positive, and usually wait til +2, but sometimes i play when its +1, but regardless its positive because the house edge is the average of all the counts, but im eliminating all counts lower than +1 rc, and i calculated that a +1 rc at the very start of 6 decks is about -.35% (compared to .43% at zero), thus the worst house edge im playing at is -.35%, and the best is probably like 2% (tc +5-6), so you average out the frequency each of the counts happen at and you get a positive.. the people who said you should wait til the true count is +2 are wrong (unless of course you plan on not wonging out until like -1), and i dont care who you are or what your goal is, playing only 10% of all hands is retarded, and you can still have the advantage while playing 40% of the hands and flat betting.. my point was that it seems some of you think there is a larger difference between +.1 and -.1 than there is between -.1 and -.5.. saying "if your gonna play negative, who cares how negative it is, since your going to lose anyways" is horrible ploppy logic.. when you said "variance will take over more than -.1 vs -.5 will", well, the same goes for +.1 vs +.5! i honestly dont understand this logic that if your not going to play positive "who cares about counting".. so then you dont care if the house edge is -.1 or -.7? yet you would care if you could get it to +.1? your not making sense, and btw YES there is a huge difference between -.1 and -.5 in the long run, and in the medium run, and if that wasnt true, then that means that going from -.5% to +1.5% wouldnt be too much of a difference either, which is highly false.. im surprised when i hear things like this from the top 5 members of this site.. and btw, like i said in another thread, i want to get as serious as i possibly can with a $1000 bankroll, but im not dumb enough to start spreading with a grand; you dont need math to tell you that you could easily lose that $1000 in like 10 hours spreading 1-6 (with wonging).. alls you need to do is lose 16 top bets and your done.. go find me a quote from any book or website that advocates spreading with a $1000 bankroll.. and when i say i dont care if i eventually lose it all, i didnt really mean that, i just meant that i would rather lose $1000 in 100 hours rather than take a huge risk and lose $1000 in 10 hours spreading

 

[sagefr0g]

Hail Mary Bankroll

.. go find me a quote from any book or website that advocates spreading with a $1000 bankroll..

i can't find such a site. the link below may provide some food for thought on the subject however..... not that i'm advocating a hail mary attack just aiming some info at your musings.

http://www.bj21.com/bj_reference/pages/9719.html

but i'd go along with what a couple other posters put forth on another thread that you just are currently not be in a good position to risk your money playing blackjack. you make the point your self by alluding to the fact that spreading with a $1000 bankroll in a $10 min game is just asking to get demolished by the normal fluctuation that is going to occur in relatively a short time span. this is especially true if you are not able to readily replenish your bankroll. i believe what would be key for you would be if you were able to get your self in a position wherein you were able to comfortably replenish your bankroll in a reasonable amount of time and still maintain what for you is a reasonable financial level of comfort.