Kim Lee Chat
- Thread starter creeping panther
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
Katweezel said:
Its about time you showed up here, "miscreant!" zgSyph said:
And I still don't approve of your catching BJ cards as dealt in mid-air while looking the other way.
Ps - Who the hell would come up with a silly handle like 'Syph', anyway?
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
I second that motion. All in favor say AYE! zgTico said:
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
Yeah BUT that doesn't mean "don't play when losing". I think you misunderstood. zgsagefr0g said:
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
the idea of the danger of psychological affects that can crop up as a result of losing plays i can understand. i believe that was Kim's point.zengrifter said:
i also understand that a positive ev play is a positive ev play, lol.
as i understand it AP's may share theory in common and yet it is not uncommon that how each one ply's their craft is likely to vary widely.
why this is so i really don't know, just i know in my own humble case it's a matter of psychology.
two things i lack trust in (with respect to blackjack), my skill and the luck factor when it comes to risk of ruin. in other words, i'm fairly likely to screw up a play and far as luck goes, i'm fearful of being in the small percentage of guys for whom risk of ruin is gonna get ya.
so thank goodness i can still apply some knowledge as far as my decisions about making plays or not. and thank goodness i don't rely on counting cards to make my living. also thank goodness there are other forms of advantage play that one can diversify ones portfolio of skills so as to extract some loot from the casino's.
zengrifter
Banned
Playing, whether winning or losing causes an altered state - similar even to scuba diving, hence the buddy system - you can go on tilt. What you cannot do is not play when losing. zg(high on gambling narcosis)zengrifter said:
Katweezel
Well-Known Member
I thought this chat ran pretty much very smoothly, with no mod; (although CP facilitated very well, when needed.) Kim Lee seems to be a very fast and accurate typist, and that helps a great deal. The questions mostly kept coming thick and fast, but Kim mostly kept up to speed. This was also helped by his homework, when - in the week or so preceding the chat, he filled in many blanks as to certain questions, and so on. This saved time. His preparation was first class.zengrifter said:How can we avoid "playing when losing?" zg
Ps - Sorry I missed the chat. How bad was it without a mod?
He also knows his areas of interest so well that he's able to respond clearly, right to the heart of the issue, with a minimum of words and no waffle. The words he chooses also see that he clearly expresses what he wants to say.
KimLee, well done, that was a masterful effort from you. :1st: You've also helped future chats with a template, because your classy chat demonstrated the importance of quality features, like those I noticed.
Gramazeka
Well-Known Member
My question is very delicate, what's right, what's wrong and is there a right desision at all?QFIT said:
Or, to put it in pictures:
QFIT user's diagramms are interesting. Under what criteria were these calculated? If TTvs6 diagramm was calculated under my criteria than that is the answer, but I doubt, because you probably didn't get what I meant.-
It's probably useful to remind that the matter is not about just EV loss, split/stand, but the effect from burning the cards. About losing EV by pulling other two cards from the positive slug when splitting TT vs 6. I believe, Casino Verite creators should help (if they understand the subject, of course). It's very difficult to solve the task analitically.
Polevoy and others could understand the problem better if they had talked aluod: "WE CONSIDER COUNT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF REMAINING CARDS!!" The point is that immediately arises the parameter "price of taken card", in lack of such a few pages of this forum are quite useless.
Indeed, the count of +5 with one deck left (say, there's no penetration), and ten decks left (infinite deck as a bound) are different game situations. In the first case any pulled card may change the count significantly, unlike in the latter.
Limited number of remaining cards brings out "index drift" effect. In my opinion there'll be different data for different situations:
1.Penetration.
2.Number of cards left before and after the cut card, the number of taken cards (depends on the two).
3.TrueCount exact to tenths (it's probably better to take running count then)
4. Cards in play zone.
Accordingly, when one of the parameters changes we'll have different value of the burned card. And because in reality the count frequency is different from theoretical, the solution gets even harder. How shall we count the variance? That's why this task is analitically solvable, I believe, though very difficult.
Once again, I remind the question, which is "EV loss when burning cards in TTvs6 situation.