Just wanted to know.

[Bojack1]

I think we've got (at least) three different viewpoints going on here:

1) The "team" mentality that stresses the importance of practice and a high degree of training. (Everyone agrees that practice is important, it's the degree that there seems to be debate about). Anyway, this viewpoint seems to be most vociferously supported by those who play on a team. Not a coincidence.

I would guess this approach would have two benefits specific to teams: a) it would enable a more diverse of outsiders to achieve a baseline skill level, and b) it would engender trust in the skill level of teammates. While the other benefits of practice can help anyone, these two are specific to team play.

2) The "theoretician" mentality. Guys are like the math, the theory, the count systems, the sims, the obscure areas of research. Guys like Qfit, Schlesinger, Dr. Thorp, and AutoMonkey. Not coincidentally, these guys are often very good at the mental gymnastics involved, but this might be due to a surfeit of brainpower, not necessarily the training regimen.

3) The slackers. These people are for whom advantage play is merely a route to some other goal, which could include:
a) comps
b) a sustainable way to get the thrill of gambling
c) the high-roller image
d) the fun of sticking it to The Man
e) the prospect of not having a day job
f) I could go on

(I put myself in the last category.)

These three camps aren't Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. Each brings different perspectives to the table, and there's no need to balkanize. And we can all agree that we're all good at arguing.

I am going to say a few things here that are going to be hard to swallow for a few. You cannot put Monkey in the category of those you mentioned, he has not set any precedent such as those that you speak of. Also there is a distinct difference between what each of the men you mention has done. Due to the nature of what I do I can only say little. But what I will say is this, Thorp is more like what I believe in, Schlesinger is a great theorist that manages much better players for large teams, Norm is the consultant for such ventures but is not quite a money player, And Monkey is a nobody that I once thought to approach until I saw him play and than realized he is a fraud. I don't wish to sell anything other than strong play, and I have a friend in RJT who believes the same. I am not subtle and that sledgehammer that you speak of Monkey is truth. I'll tell you what, I offer you a free pass to the MIT seminar on April 28th. If you can count down even 1 six deck shoe with no mistakes I will give you an extra $900, the price of the seminar. If you can count 1 six deck shoe with less mistakes than me, I will triple that amount. I will even drive you there myself so there will be no cost to you whatsoever. This is nothing more than a positive EV situation for you Monkey, what say you. I'm not selling anything, never was, but you have begun to piss me off, so either put up or shut up. I say you can't play worth a damn, and I'm willing to back that up with my money with no risk to you. The only thing you have at risk is your fictional rep as an advantage player. These tests don't prove who is definitely a great player, but it will prove who definitely isn't.(regardless of what the the A.C. dealers say , lol!!)

 

[RJT]

Re: working at home vs. working at the casino- now I'm really curious. Do you think the win rate per hour of flogging Blackjack Institute paraphernalia on message boards from your computer at home will in the long run exceed that of Wonging shoes in casinos?

I mean, don't anybody take this personally, but like all good farmers and card players I call a spade a spade. And we've got two guys who seem to be selling the same system using the same rhetoric. Ye are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

Now if you don't mean to offend anyone, using negatively loaded words like "rhetoric" and "flogging" is a strange path to take.
As to the mathematical proof of what we talk about, i would have thought that you would be able to find that yourself. No get out here, but all this work has been done long before me and i don't see the need to re-create it.
I've already stated quite openly that sims will show that you can play with an advantage even with a few mistakes, but how many proffessional players do you know who would advocate this style of play as successful? I know of none. Does this not speak volumes.
I also know of very few people who have ever managed to make any decent amount of money out of the game and those that have (be that on a team or nae) have played in a very dedicated and precise style. Call it anacdotal if you like, but the successful players all show similar traits.
What you essentially did there AM, is state as clear as day that you feel that myself and Bojack were working for BI. This is simple something that you cannot prove and you cannot do that because it is not true. I do advocate using what i feel is the best information out there and my top 5 resources in no particular order would be: The Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook, BI's Home Training Course, The Card Counter's Guide to Casino Surveillance, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Burning The Tables in Las Vegas. I recommend any serious player to have read at least these titles.
As it so happens i have been contacted recently by the guys at BI and asked to write some articles for them as has mdlbj. This is due to the fact that i've been posting on their board for several years now. I won't be getting paid for this. I have been offered the opportunity to attend their seminar, something that i would take up if i ever was in a local to them, but that doesn't look likely for the near future. I just wouldn't want that coming out when my first is posted and having to validate again that i am not in they're employ.
Before posting on this board i had only encountered Bojack once before, but since starting to post here we have talked extensively over PM, and yes we hold very similar view points on what it takes to be successful and we will toe that line.
I'll be interested to see if you take up Bojack's offer. The first bet i would feel should at least be a certainty if you are a good player. The second - knowing Bojack's skill level - i would say would be a no chance of winning situation. I know how good Bojack is, he doesn't make mistakes.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

out of curiosity... whats you're $/hr win rate? (not unit per hr) if its too personal just don't reply, no hard feelings.

Nothing fantastic. I don't have the bankroll to be playing the big units so somewhere in the region of $30/hour. This will change hopefully in the near future, but that remains to be seen.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

for lack of a better name i'll just call the approach that i've been experimenting with fuzzy counting.

An interesting approach that i'm sure merits discussion, but certainly one that i wouldn't place any great faith in.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I am going to say a few things here that are going to be hard to swallow for a few. You cannot put Monkey in the category of those you mentioned, he has not set any precedent such as those that you speak of. Also there is a distinct difference between what each of the men you mention has done. Due to the nature of what I do I can only say little. But what I will say is this, Thorp is more like what I believe in, Schlesinger is a great theorist that manages much better players for large teams, Norm is the consultant for such ventures but is not quite a money player, And Monkey is a nobody that I once thought to approach until I saw him play and than realized he is a fraud. I don't wish to sell anything other than strong play, and I have a friend in RJT who believes the same. I am not subtle and that sledgehammer that you speak of Monkey is truth. I'll tell you what, I offer you a free pass to the MIT seminar on April 28th. If you can count down even 1 six deck shoe with no mistakes I will give you an extra $900, the price of the seminar. If you can count 1 six deck shoe with less mistakes than me, I will triple that amount. I will even drive you there myself so there will be no cost to you whatsoever. This is nothing more than a positive EV situation for you Monkey, what say you. I'm not selling anything, never was, but you have begun to piss me off, so either put up or shut up. I say you can't play worth a damn, and I'm willing to back that up with my money with no risk to you. The only thing you have at risk is your fictional rep as an advantage player. These tests don't prove who is definitely a great player, but it will prove who definitely isn't.(regardless of what the the A.C. dealers say , lol!!)

You have never seen me play, I'm not sure I would ride in a car with you, I don't use a level 1 count so you will definitely be making more mistakes than me if we were to have a counting competition (not that they would amount to anything in a practical sense), and you are right that I am not in the same category as Thorp, Schlesinger or NW. I'm just an ordinary player.

But I have a really dumb question... if you don't have any kind of relationship with BI... how can you offer me a free pass?

 

[RJT]

Well let me return the favour by asking you another dumb question, do you have to be paid to 'flog' the BI system to have any form of relationship with them?
I'm sure accomidations could be made for your counting system. I counldn't guarentee it, but let's face it, it wouldn't be too difficult.

RJT.

 

[mdlbj]

Due to some recent posts that have actually made me rethink the reason I post on these blackjack message boards, I'm curious as to what people are thinking about the game. So I have just a few general questions to maybe help me understand what is making some of these people tick. Please, the more info the better, so I hope many will take the time to answer.

1) Do you consider yourself a serious or recreational player? Serious does not have to mean pro, but should mean you are definitely trying to win money everytime you play. Recreational could mean you're just having fun and let the chips fall where they may.

2) What would be your ultimate goal in playing blackjack?

3) What was/is your biggest influence you had/have in learning advantage play?

4) Since you started counting/advantage play have you been satisfied with the results. If yes why, if no why.

5) If you could meet any of the blackjack "greats" who would it be, and why do you consider them great? And what might you ask them or want to talk about?

Thats it, any who choose to answer don't feel you have to answer all the questions, just those that you want to. Have fun with it.

1) Yes

2) Improve everything I do. I know I can always be better.

3) Loosing a few bucks during a trip to LV. I think it was only 350.

4) Absolutly, there is no better feeling than having 100% confidence in when to put the money out.

5) Already Met the people I wanted to meet so I guess I would like to also meet Ed Thorp.

Great thread.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Now if you don't mean to offend anyone, using negatively loaded words like "rhetoric" and "flogging" is a strange path to take.
As to the mathematical proof of what we talk about, i would have thought that you would be able to find that yourself. No get out here, but all this work has been done long before me and i don't see the need to re-create it.
I've already stated quite openly that sims will show that you can play with an advantage even with a few mistakes, but how many proffessional players do you know who would advocate this style of play as successful? I know of none. Does this not speak volumes.
I also know of very few people who have ever managed to make any decent amount of money out of the game and those that have (be that on a team or nae) have played in a very dedicated and precise style. Call it anacdotal if you like, but the successful players all show similar traits.
What you essentially did there AM, is state as clear as day that you feel that myself and Bojack were working for BI. This is simple something that you cannot prove and you cannot do that because it is not true. I do advocate using what i feel is the best information out there and my top 5 resources in no particular order would be: The Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook, BI's Home Training Course, The Card Counter's Guide to Casino Surveillance, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Burning The Tables in Las Vegas. I recommend any serious player to have read at least these titles.
As it so happens i have been contacted recently by the guys at BI and asked to write some articles for them as has mdlbj. This is due to the fact that i've been posting on their board for several years now. I won't be getting paid for this. I have been offered the opportunity to attend their seminar, something that i would take up if i ever was in a local to them, but that doesn't look likely for the near future. I just wouldn't want that coming out when my first is posted and having to validate again that i am not in they're employ.
Before posting on this board i had only encountered Bojack once before, but since starting to post here we have talked extensively over PM, and yes we hold very similar view points on what it takes to be successful and we will toe that line.
I'll be interested to see if you take up Bojack's offer. The first bet i would feel should at least be a certainty if you are a good player. The second - knowing Bojack's skill level - i would say would be a no chance of winning situation. I know how good Bojack is, he doesn't make mistakes.

RJT.

No formal mathematical proof should be necessary, just some general idea of what constitutes a mistake and how much each mistake of each kind affects your EV. The question is, literally, rhetorical. I already know what those numbers are. I just want other players to realize that they shouldn't stop playing a shoe because they think they may have messed up the count or aren't very good at deck estimation or using index numbers. I really don't want to offend anyone. Blackjack is rough enough, we players should be gentle with one another.

See there is an enormous amount of variance built into the game and no count and no level of precision comes even close to making a dent in it. That's a depressing but true fact of blackjack- the count can be sky-high, and all those high cards might be behind the cut card, and there is absolutely no way to tell nor anything you can do about it (with counting). This is the reason why High-Low and KO work almost as well as Halves and the other high level counts, and the differences between counts are so small you might never realize them in your lifetime. That's why although KO has you overbetting at the end of a shoe and underbetting at the beginning of it, some sophisticated players and teams use KO because that under/overbetting doesn't amount to diddly-squat.

Everything in card counting is an approximation and it may be comforting to believe that hours of training and practice will act as a talisman against negative variance, it won't, and believing so amounts to superstitious thinking which is always risky at the table. Not that I'm recommending making mistakes, everyone should be as accurate as they can but just not invest large amounts of time money or worry, fretting that they aren't perfect. That's all I'm suggesting here. Otherwise you end up like that kid just out of engineering school, who measures something with a yardstick and then sits down and does his calculations to 6 decimal places. His elders and betters smile knowingly, seeing that he is being silly but remembering that they once did it too!

 

[21forme]

I'll tell you what, I offer you a free pass to the MIT seminar on April 28th. If you can count down even 1 six deck shoe with no mistakes I will give you an extra $900, the price of the seminar. If you can count 1 six deck shoe with less mistakes than me, I will triple that amount. I will even drive you there myself so there will be no cost to you whatsoever. This is nothing more than a positive EV situation for you Monkey, what say you.

Hey, I'll take you up on the offer for a free pass (or even a discounted one.) I'll even play the 6 deck countdown game, as long as I can count 7 as a +1 (a la KO.)
P.S. Free ride not necessary. I don't mind taking NJ Transit to Penn Sta.

 

[mdlbj]

Am,
If you dont take Bojack1 up on his offer, I will!! I would love to sit with Dave and Mike again to see how much I have improved. They will blow your mind. Its kinda foolish not to have someone else critque your play. Im sure they can check out your level 2 count with no problems.

After the seminar and refocusing my trainning regiment, I also have not had a loosing session. Been playing quite a bit lately too. No time to write or post.

 

[sagefr0g]

.........
See there is an enormous amount of variance built into the game and no count and no level of precision comes even close to making a dent in it. That's a depressing but true fact of blackjack- the count can be sky-high, and all those high cards might be behind the cut card, and there is absolutely no way to tell nor anything you can do about it (with counting). This is the reason why High-Low and KO work almost as well as Halves and the other high level counts, and the differences between counts are so small you might never realize them in your lifetime. That's why although KO has you overbetting at the end of a shoe and underbetting at the beginning of it, some sophisticated players and teams use KO because that under/overbetting doesn't amount to diddly-squat.

Everything in card counting is an approximation and it may be comforting to believe that hours of training and practice will act as a talisman against negative variance, it won't, and believing so amounts to superstitious thinking which is always risky at the table. Not that I'm recommending making mistakes, everyone should be as accurate as they can but just not invest large amounts of time money or worry, fretting that they aren't perfect. That's all I'm suggesting here. Otherwise you end up like that kid just out of engineering school, who measures something with a yardstick and then sits down and does his calculations to 6 decimal places. His elders and betters smile knowingly, seeing that he is being silly but remembering that they once did it too!

this is essentially the conclusion i've arrived at durring my sabbatical. really the whole point one wants to obtain is just simply knowing when there are a 'significant' quantity of aces and faces left in the pack to be dealt and what would be an intelligent manner to bet under the circumstances.
it's a fact that the distribution of true counts in the range of >= +3 are few and far between. and then when you do reach those cherished counts and lay out some money BAM you lose the bet (i know, i know statistically you win more than you lose of those bets) or if that doesn't happen then WHAM out comes the cut card and your left sitting there with your tonque hanging out after having burnt out your time and brain power tediously counting for zilch. what i'm finding is that it is really simple and relatively fun to just watch the rounds as they go by (in a six deck game with the normal circumstance of a crowded table there are'nt that many rounds anyway) and become aware of when the remaining pack is 'significantly' strong in aces and faces. then go ahead and put your little money out there and hope for the best. just as in precise card counting if you can determine the packs heavy in aces and faces then you can obtain an advantage. it's also a time issue, there are so few >=+3 true counts that present that if one wants to get more advantage action one needs to lay out some money during the lower true counts.
the other thing i'd like to mention is what i consider a considerable waste and that is the prevolent fear of being like a ploppy so i just wont use my mind attitude amongst the orthodox counting community. that i consider a shame since those very people are the ones that exhibit such remarkable brain power, understanding and expertise.

 

[RJT]

No formal mathematical proof should be necessary, just some general idea of what constitutes a mistake and how much each mistake of each kind affects your EV. The question is, literally, rhetorical. I already know what those numbers are. I just want other players to realize that they shouldn't stop playing a shoe because they think they may have messed up the count or aren't very good at deck estimation or using index numbers. I really don't want to offend anyone. Blackjack is rough enough, we players should be gentle with one another.

Again, this information in readily avalible if you choose to look for it. A good
starting place would be Don Schlesinger's 'Blackjack Attack'. But quite frankly i'm not going to do you any favours. Look it up yourself.
If you don't want to offend, don't make accusations that you can't prove and that are obviously damned offensive.

See there is an enormous amount of variance built into the game and no count and no level of precision comes even close to making a dent in it. That's a depressing but true fact of blackjack- the count can be sky-high, and all those high cards might be behind the cut card, and there is absolutely no way to tell nor anything you can do about it (with counting).

Interesting, i always thought that the high cards were on average spread through out the whole packet, and that the times when the whole pack of high cards comes out before the cut card would balance the times that the high cards are behind the cut card - or more accurately, you'll see an average of your TC of extra high cards per deck you play through. Hence the TC being an assessment of your average advantage, not your actual advantage. You'll have to let me in on that secret some time.

This is the reason why High-Low and KO work almost as well as Halves and the other high level counts, and the differences between counts are so small you might never realize them in your lifetime. That's why although KO has you overbetting at the end of a shoe and underbetting at the beginning of it, some sophisticated players and teams use KO because that under/overbetting doesn't amount to diddly-squat.

I don't deny that there are some very proficient teams out there using the KO system - it's a very good count if counting's all you want to do - but how do you think they look on playing mistakes? Do you think they feel they are acceptable?

Everything in card counting is an approximation and it may be comforting to believe that hours of training and practice will act as a talisman against negative variance, it won't, and believing so amounts to superstitious thinking which is always risky at the table. Not that I'm recommending making mistakes, everyone should be as accurate as they can but just not invest large amounts of time money or worry, fretting that they aren't perfect. That's all I'm suggesting here. Otherwise you end up like that kid just out of engineering school, who measures something with a yardstick and then sits down and does his calculations to 6 decimal places. His elders and betters smile knowingly, seeing that he is being silly but remembering that they once did it too!

Well it's interesting that you would compare a member of the hall of fame, who got there specifically due to his great success playing the game and training and managing teams to a newly qualified engineering student. Not to mention the other extreemly qualified captains of the MIT team. Johnny C was always a strong advocate of the harsh check-outs that the MIT team used as have Mike and Dave been who run BI. Don't you think that it's odd that people with so much real play experience and who have literally made millions playing the game would recommend such methods and disregard the theory you keep pulling up?
The reason for it is obvious - this 'mistakes aren't important' attitude works well in theory, but falls flat on its face in practicality. Any pro player will tell you this and it is a lesson that the MIT teams learned the hard way. I re-itterate this once more, if you make some mistakes at home, you make lots of mistakes playing live.
You asked about "better than perfect" - that is actually my point. To play perfectly in the casino, you would have to play "better than perfect" at home - which obviously isn't possible. Playing "perfectly" is not possible during live play, so you should be playing as close to perfect as possible at home when every environmental advantage is on your side. This ensures that you play as close to perfect as possible when you are sitting at the table.
If you are playing recreationally, far be it from me to say that you should put too much effort in, but then don't expect too much out. If you are playing on any serious earn level, then everything i've been saying applies.
Oh and the other side of this argument - i believe someone mentioned mental fatigue earlier - is that when you are that good, deploying your system in the competitive environment becomes much simpler and far more natural. Fatigue is actually reduced.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

it's a fact that the distribution of true counts in the range of >= +3 are few and far between.

What's your definition of "few and far between"? 1%, 5% 10% ? And in what game?

 

[blackchipjim]

bj question

I'm a recreational player on a mission to win. I have tried different systems and am currently working on improving my game. I know I will eventually come out ahead and build by bankroll to the level of play I want to achieve. I would suppose anyone that was sucessful and funny would be fun to meet and play at a table with. After reading some of the stories that the authors share with us in thier books they are a riot to be around in the casino. There is no greater experience in the casino enviroment than to make a big profit and having an a enjoyable time doing it. blackchipjim:devil:

 

[Sonny]

so here is the fuzzy counting approach and thoughts about it that i'm referring to...the idea is to employ perfect basic strategy and 'fuzzy' illustrious 18 departures.

Hey AutoMonkey, would this be a good time to unveil your Franklin system? Perhaps a new thread?

-Sonny-

 

[bj bob]

Ben Franklin-still under wraps

Hey AutoMonkey, would this be a good time to unveil your Franklin system? Perhaps a new thread?

-Sonny-

Distribution is still highly selective, and may still be in refinement stages, but what do I know? In the end, my lips remain sealed ,so we'll all have to await an official reply from the Chimp!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Distribution is still highly selective, and may still be in refinement stages, but what do I know? In the end, my lips remain sealed ,so we'll all have to await an official reply from the Chimp!

I'd love to... problem is getting it down to the size where I can post it as an attachment to a message here. ZIP only takes it down to about 170K, all those tables are the culprit I think. Still working on it.

 

[sagefr0g]

What's your definition of "few and far between"? 1%, 5% 10% ? And in what game?

tc = +1 11.32%
tc= +2 6.48%
tc = +3 4.03%
tc= +4 2.37%
tc= +5 1.51%
tc>= +6 2.49%

these are Wong's figures for a six deck game with only one deck cut off. page 288 Professional Blackjack appendix C .
what game it is really isn't so important if your just considering what the distribution of true counts is. but penetration is a critical factor.

 

[sagefr0g]

An interesting approach that i'm sure merits discussion, but certainly one that i wouldn't place any great faith in.

RJT.

can't argue with that. the point though that needs clarification is how much faith do you put in the exacting methods used by the blackjack institute?
probably a 2% edge at best for counting only i should suspect. not to shabby i must admitt if you are playing one heck of a lot hands per hour for many, many hours through varying degrees of fluctuation.

 

[RJT]

can't argue with that. the point though that needs clarification is how much faith do you put in the exacting methods used by the blackjack institute?
probably a 2% edge at best for counting only i should suspect. not to shabby i must admitt if you are playing one heck of a lot hands per hour for many, many hours through varying degrees of fluctuation.

I would put a hell of a lot of faith in it. But that said, it's not really any different to any other system that other authors recommend, it's just more rigorus in it's training methods. Let's face it, this system is a tried and tested winner, that much warrents a certain amount of faith.
What i don't see however frog, is how you hope to obtain greater than optimum Kelly bankroll growth with your system. I can see that you are wanting to cut out a lot of the work, but i really don't see you gaining any greater advantage and if you do gain an advantage at all it's going to be at the cost of heavy risk.

RJT.