lol, almost anything goes here i guess

[sagefr0g]

Yes you're quite right about my incorrect belief lol. Although I still think it may have some use as cover lol. If I were going to count and think about doing it, believe me, I wouldn't rely on my figures I'd just run some sims or just not do it.
.

my wording was stupid. it was a math error. and it would seem a harmless enough way to make for some cover.

Anyway, in real life, I don't even pretend I'm playing with an advantage or even know. It's possible sometimes maybe I actually am. For a shoe or 2 lol. But I'm not "card-counting" in any "AP" way in my mind because I'm not applying bets in any consistent way. Even though I am actually am card-counting lol and if I want to make a move and try to make-up a min unit or 2 in my voodoo way at some point , why not at least do in a + count. It can't hurt. I have no goals except maybe it'd be nice to win a few bucks or finish this session ahead. So it really doesn't take too much. Maybe I win a few 10 or 20 unit bets or more here and there. Maybe I don't. Whatever I feel like. I have no way of measuring my results against any "card-counting" plan.
.

makes sense to me. only problem i would see is those times that you don't succeed and then say you try to make that loss up and on and on and then next thing you know your basicly just progression betting. the other thing is you don't give any sense of say proportional betting to the advantage as far as i can tell. if i understand it correctly proportional betting gives you some protection against risk where it can be in a sense a hedge against losse's incurred by failed raised bets.
on the other hand i like the idea of taking a shot at winning maybe some proportion of what you've lost if that bet is made at a positive count. i mean if your going to do that it's best to do so when your chances of getting a blackjack or succesful double down are greatest. i mean if you view your waiting bets as relatively negligible then in a sense it's almost like as if your wonging in for those make your move bets.

I analyzed years ago possibly counting in AC but given win rates, how much I'd play in a few years, the games, how much I really wanted to stand around back-counting, if I could, how much trip roll I should take, etc but I rejected it. Plain and simple. I was unwilling to always bet in the way I was supposed to with a risk I liked and the bankroll to bet against. I could be dead before I reached N0 lol. I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour. Kind of thing. Whatever, had I tried, at least I'd know what to expect. And I'd keep a log that had more in it than I won $100 today.
.

that's a novel way to look at it. i sure can't find an arguement against that reasoning. but one thing. what risk do you think you have with the approach that you do use? well anyway i'd be very interested to see what others would have to say about your statements above. i should imagine Sonny would liken your solution to progression betting in the long run.

so it just never would occur to me to attribute any results I may have because I'm a "counter" just because I count although sometimes it seems to me there may not be a whole lot of difference between what I do and what others may do.

Perhaps what separates your fuzzy counting and my fuzzy betting is that maybe we don't really fully think of ourselves as "AP counters", don't mean to speak for you lol, but I certainly don't, even though we may count a little or a lot in our different ways or whatever.

Maybe we're just more willing to admit any results are actually probably more likely due to luck than the result of any card-counting plan.
.

well i certainly didn't think that way when i was trying to count cards the orthodox way. but when i think about how far off my results were from what my expectation was and when i think about how really i was probably making a lot of errors that i didn't fully realize i was making and like you say maybe not following the game plan exactly. then yeah really l probably did have a lot more good luck than bad luck.
but yeah now where i'm using this fuzzy counting there isn't any way to know how to interpret the results. but when i practice the approach on CVBJ i do have the log to where i can check how my bets correlate with the count and compare that to some simulation. problem with that is who knows how well i can hit those marks in a real casino. but yeah now for my real play i can just thank my lucky stars if i ever start getting ahead.

Maybe I'm an idealist.

Let's find out.

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

RJT? Sonny?

Is there a snowball's chance you'd even wonder if you were lucky or good after 50 or 100000 hands?

Sorry this is in voodoo - I got carried away. What you guys say is no way voodoo to me lol.

agreed those are three of the most un-voodoo folks i've ever run across lol.
and yes it would indeed be interesting to know their views on all of that.

 

[Kasi]

only problem i would see is those times that you don't succeed and then say you try to make that loss up and on and on and then next thing you know your basicly just progression betting. the other thing is you don't give any sense of say proportional betting to the advantage as far as i can tell.

No I'm generally not giving any proportional weight to an advantage. What am I going to do pretend I have $10K and bet $75 when I have a 1% advantage and probably don't want to bet that much anyway lol. Realize that with $1000 in my pocket, it wouldn't even be the table min lol. Bet $50 when maybe only a buck of it would be because of the advantage anyway?

That's why it's voodoo lol. I'm flying in on a wing and a prayer lol.

As far as the "progressions" go, nothing is fixed in stone. If I try to make up a min unit by betting say twice min say$10, play 5 or 10 hands like that, down $40 from that, well now I'm down 4 extra min units. Maybe I bet $20 get lucky and make up 3 of them. Maybe I'm happy for a while. At least I'm back to close to the neg EV of BS now. Kind of thing. Alot of the time I'm just flat-betting anyway. Probably most of the time.

Like as an extreme say I have $10K and play $1/hand for 10000 hands. I'm down 42 units or $42 dollars. If I start betting $20, I still have a 500 unit roll and all I have to do is come out 2 bets ahead with that unit and then I'd be good to go for 10000 more hands at $1. And if I used a system that a 500 unit roll could gain 2 units 99% of the time, I probably could play for a pretty long time. Even flat-betting 500 units it's pretty likely I'd be ahead at some point by 2 units before losing it all. Heck win 1 unit and I'd still be ahead of EV but I like to break-even anyway

When there are betting systems out there, and I've said this many times before, that can predictably win x units with a y unit roll a high percentage of the time, why not use one of them to make up my unit. If I lose my y unit roll, maybe I just play it again with higher dollars but same unit roll. Always nice to have enough unit-roll lol.

Bottom line, not much different than what a lot of people probably do. Maybe I just have a sense for how long a unit can last - if I can make one up every 3 hours I'm probably playing an even game. So no reason to panic lol. Make a 3 unit bet every 9 hours and hope you win lol. Maybe I have smaller goals than many making it even easier to "succeed".

If I'm up $1000 over time and play mostly $10 tables, heck that's 100 units. I could flat-bet $10 for the next 300 hours and still be even.

No magic - I'm just having fun really. I'm not looking for or expecting much.

So you are really using a "system" alot more than I am it seems to me lol.

My ROR is 100% at least I think it is.

 

[Bojack1]

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

In answer to your questions Kasi, yes I keep a pretty detailed log. And yes we alway have a certain plan before any given trip. Very rarely do I or my team play without a plan, on rare occasions some plans need to be ammended, but never leave home without one, at least not when on my way to the casino. I know exactly how much I and everyone on the team has played and have every scenario and result recorded of every trip we make. I analyze the records after every trip, cross check indivudual stats to check for any inconsistencies, and figure out pay and general team financial status. As far as expected results we constantly moniter that, as playing with a team and playing often we can reach reasonably accurate expectations fairly quickly. It might not seem fun to some to play this way, but to us this is a business and as in all business there is some degree of paperwork and recordkeeping that needs to be done. It doesn't take too long to decipher luck from skill, but a good mixture of both sure helps.

 

[RJT]

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

RJT? Sonny?

I only ventured onto this thread because i say Bojack's name as the last post - yes i keep a very accurate record on the sessions i have played.
It really all depends on what you are looking to get out of the game. For the vast majority of players, playing the way i do would ruin the game for them. It would stop being a game and start being work. Personally i would never have enjoyed the game all that much if i didn't play with an advantage. The fun to me is actually in beating the game and if that requires an anal retentive approach to details then that's how i'll play lol.
Unfortunately i haven't actually crossed a casino threshold in several months now as i've been busy training up a few people to play with and looking into some advantages that i haven't previously exploited. It's a bit of a bummer, but to return to the purpose if this post, i've speant a good deal of that time designing and re-designing record sheets. Things become so much more complicated when you have to keep track of more players lol.
Anyway, if i've completely missed the point of this thread, please excuse me. I haven't actually read all the posts, just the one where Kasi asked and the last couple....

RJT.

 

[sagefr0g]

I only ventured onto this thread because i say Bojack's name as the last post - ...

well now that you've ventured into the den of iniguity lol how about commenting on this statement --->>>> "I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour."
from this post: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=74974&postcount=21
your comments would be truly appreciated and no argument will follow. erh uhmm at least not from me.
or anyone comment on this? please really would like to hear thoughts on this.

 

[sagefr0g]

...........

Like as an extreme say I have $10K and play $1/hand for 10000 hands. I'm down 42 units or $42 dollars. If I start betting $20, I still have a 500 unit roll and all I have to do is come out 2 bets ahead with that unit and then I'd be good to go for 10000 more hands at $1. And if I used a system that a 500 unit roll could gain 2 units 99% of the time, I probably could play for a pretty long time. Even flat-betting 500 units it's pretty likely I'd be ahead at some point by 2 units before losing it all. Heck win 1 unit and I'd still be ahead of EV but I like to break-even anyway

When there are betting systems out there, and I've said this many times before, that can predictably win x units with a y unit roll a high percentage of the time, why not use one of them to make up my unit. If I lose my y unit roll, maybe I just play it again with higher dollars but same unit roll. Always nice to have enough unit-roll lol.

........

ok i think i know now when your saying like you have i know at least once before said about the x units with a y unit roll and a high percentage that ok you are indeed talking about betting systems like maybe you know what some people call progressions lol. don't be shy now, lol . do i have to coax it out of you. lol . i mean aren't you really saying maybe take some progression bet system (i don't know what) and maybe apply it shall we say sparingly from time to time say maybe in a high count hoping to make up a unit or some units or maybe even shoot up ahead of what a counter might get ev-wise and maybe even over what he might get positive standard deviation wise. and if not maybe you just end up as bad off as the counter was on his negative standard deviation. so maybe fall back and let maybe some luck of basic strategy standard deviation build you back up maybe or hold you even at what ever low point for a while. then maybe take a shot at it again in some nice juicy high count. lol. i don't know i'm just guessing and getting evil idea's i think :devil:
so maybe i'm way off base on all that.
but next question that comes to mind is knowing that you did so well with the online approach of maybe that sort of thing or what ever but it was playing a negaitve expectation game online where they probably shuffled after every hand or maybe shuffled when ever you don't know or shuffle with some real poor penetration. well anyway the question would be have you ever considered going against a CSM with an approach like that? or would it be that the advantage of the bonus whoring helped you with the online approach and since that's not available for the CSM maybe it's not worth trying?
as a side note if it's like a progression what your doing i realize it's like you say nothing written in stone....
you haven't by chance read the book Zen is talking about in this link:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=75111&postcount=5
just curious.

 

[RJT]

well now that you've ventured into the den of iniguity lol how about commenting on this statement --->>>> "I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour."
from this post: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=74974&postcount=21
your comments would be truly appreciated and no argument will follow. erh uhmm at least not from me.
or anyone comment on this? please really would like to hear thoughts on this.

There's some fairly flawed logic there as i'm sure most of us can see - the point about losing and not having half the SD of an hour of counting is really comparing apples to oranges. It would be hard to draw a valid comparison to this actually, the person who places a single bet is not risking nearly the same monetary sum as the person who is counting, so of course they don't have half the SD of the counter, but at the same time that implys the presumption that SD is always a negative thing. The counter also has the opportunity to end up in positive territory or indeed make a far greater profit that the single $100 bettor.
Also if you are playing with an EV of $10/hour (assuming 100/hour) your bankroll's too small. While i'm not saying don't play or anything like that, you have to be honest with yourself and admit that you are playing more for the enjoyment of the game than you are for the money. So this would have to be assuming very much a recreational counter, who certainly in the short term future has no real intentions of playing seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, i did it for a good length of time, but i think it has to be recognised that the $100 for 10 hours of play probably isn't going to be that big a deal to the counter who - while they will be bummed out that they lost - has had 10 hours of entertainment and knows that if they stick to their strategy will win in the longrun.
That leads nicely onto the next point that would be if you are just going to place a random $100 bet then you're not really doing it because you expect to win, you are doing it for the thrill of gambling and the entertainment value that being in a casino provides. That being the case you have to consider whether that one bet provided a great an amount of entertainment value and is it the sum total of what they bet that trip to the casino? Do you regularly go into a casino and place one single bet of $100 and walk away? Not very many people only want to play one hand or place one bet. They want to play for a couple of hours and have some fun and free drinks. So if they are betting smaller amounts before and/or after then the $100 bettor's SD is suddenly going North.
There is no right or wrong answer here. I never set foot in a casino or made any form of wager what-so-ever before i heard about card counting and had trained myself up to the point where i felt that i was ready to play in a casino, but since having had the experience i've realised that a lot of my preconceptions about gambling and casinos were actually wrong. Casinos can be a great night out. A really good atmosphere, good fun and as long as you don't let yourself get out of control, relatively cheap! For most people, even here, card counting is never going to become an occupation or even a serious money earner. Entertainment always has to be factored into the game.
And there are other reasons to gamble to, which might fit better with this 1x$100 bet. I know a guy who every month takes half his paycheck and goes to the casino. He places it on black at the roulette table. If he loses he has a really tight month, but if he wins he goes out every weekend and really enjoys the month. Not my cupof tea, but hey whatever floats your boat and doesn't harm anyone else is all good with me.
As i said, no real right or wrong - of course it's wrong for a card counter to do this, but sometimes you have to factor in more than just the system.

RJT.

 

[sagefr0g]

There's some fairly flawed logic there as i'm sure most of us can see - the point about losing and not having half the SD of an hour of counting is really comparing apples to oranges. It would be hard to draw a valid comparison to this actually, the person who places a single bet is not risking nearly the same monetary sum as the person who is counting, so of course they don't have half the SD of the counter, but at the same time that implys the presumption that SD is always a negative thing. The counter also has the opportunity to end up in positive territory or indeed make a far greater profit that the single $100 bettor.
Also if you are playing with an EV of $10/hour (assuming 100/hour) your bankroll's too small. While i'm not saying don't play or anything like that, you have to be honest with yourself and admit that you are playing more for the enjoyment of the game than you are for the money. So this would have to be assuming very much a recreational counter, who certainly in the short term future has no real intentions of playing seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, i did it for a good length of time, but i think it has to be recognised that the $100 for 10 hours of play probably isn't going to be that big a deal to the counter who - while they will be bummed out that they lost - has had 10 hours of entertainment and knows that if they stick to their strategy will win in the longrun.
That leads nicely onto the next point that would be if you are just going to place a random $100 bet then you're not really doing it because you expect to win, you are doing it for the thrill of gambling and the entertainment value that being in a casino provides. That being the case you have to consider whether that one bet provided a great an amount of entertainment value and is it the sum total of what they bet that trip to the casino? Do you regularly go into a casino and place one single bet of $100 and walk away? Not very many people only want to play one hand or place one bet. They want to play for a couple of hours and have some fun and free drinks. So if they are betting smaller amounts before and/or after then the $100 bettor's SD is suddenly going North.
There is no right or wrong answer here. I never set foot in a casino or made any form of wager what-so-ever before i heard about card counting and had trained myself up to the point where i felt that i was ready to play in a casino, but since having had the experience i've realised that a lot of my preconceptions about gambling and casinos were actually wrong. Casinos can be a great night out. A really good atmosphere, good fun and as long as you don't let yourself get out of control, relatively cheap! For most people, even here, card counting is never going to become an occupation or even a serious money earner. Entertainment always has to be factored into the game.
And there are other reasons to gamble to, which might fit better with this 1x$100 bet. I know a guy who every month takes half his paycheck and goes to the casino. He places it on black at the roulette table. If he loses he has a really tight month, but if he wins he goes out every weekend and really enjoys the month. Not my cupof tea, but hey whatever floats your boat and doesn't harm anyone else is all good with me.
As i said, no real right or wrong - of course it's wrong for a card counter to do this, but sometimes you have to factor in more than just the system.

RJT.

i think you've got the idea pretty much of what the post is getting at. lol here i am saying that and i'm not even sure myself. i truly know zip about betting systems but i kind of just go by what i think Sonny or maybe Renzey said about how maybe you might get some system to perform well say 80% of the time and then maybe that 20% of the time you get your a$$ kicked real bad. something like that i think is how it goes. but anyway Kasi calls this a 100% ROR scenerio. but RJT from your post you may be missing a subtle point that i think Kasi may be making. one point where it might not be $100 just once, but i think you realize that and probably not a point of significance and another point where maybe not in this post but in this post he gives the idea of his past words "nothing set in stone" as far as what he's doing. lol . don't you just got to love it .
i mean what a freedom a card counter is never going to experience while playing but maybe while planning before playing lol. but anyway the point to me and maybe i'm wrong is well he is counting cards and he does allude to making his move in a positive count "Even though I am actually am card-counting lol and if I want to make a move and try to make-up a min unit or 2 in my voodoo way at some point , why not at least do in a + count. It can't hurt. I have no goals ......". and as you were refering to there is obviously a recreational aspect going on here. but the thing here is from what we know of Kasi we'd have to suspect he is going to be making an intelligent decision as possible. pure voodoo speculation on my part here but just maybe human intelligence seat of your pants decision making might get a slice of that good luck pie that is so often spoiled by the equal portion of bad luck pie. lol.
but below i got an image of a simulation that i hope i didn't screw up lol. it's of a game that i think is fairly a typical game. and well i set it up for a bankroll of arount five grand. then i think i have it set where it's a basic strategy flat betting player. then in the custom bets i got it where at tc=3 a guy makes this $100 bet. it looks as if the standard deviation for the custom bet scenerio is fairly in line with what maybe a card counter might expect, i dunno. the risk of ruin ain't so hot but beats that of the flat better lol. so i know it's not the same thing as exactly what been being discussed but it may set some sort of boundary idea of how things might go for a recreatonal player that might do what we've been discussing. maybe not. just thought i'd throw it in. but your points about you know how it can all be cheap fun and all i gotta agree. thanks for paying us a visit here in hades :devil:

 

[RJT]

The obvious comments to make here are firstly that that one bet turns a losing player into a winning one, but the counter point would be that no serious player should or would ever touch this game.
For a recreational player who doesn't really have bankroll concerns - this is perfect. Make your bets when you are slightly more likely to win and actually play a slightly positive game. The assumption has to be made that the person take enough of a bankroll every time they go, doesn't worry about busting out and can replenish that bankroll fully inbetween trips.
One question does spring to mind though - if you've gone to all the effort of being able to identify a TC of +3 and have the bankroll to support playing like this, why not just go the full hog?

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

I just wanted to thank you and RJT for venturing over here into Voodooland and sharing like that and setting a standard that any aspiring AP CC would do well to do his best to emulate. I mean that's it. That's exactly what AP card-counting is. To me anyway.

Nice to know, even in my ivory castle, for the most part anyway, lol, that what you say you do is pretty much exactly how I imagined you, or any "AP card-counter" would do, or at least try darn hard, to do it.

Anythying less than that, more or less anyway, in my narrow world, you might as well stop fooling yourself and call it some flavor of voodoo.

Anyway, fwiw lol, for the one week I felt I actually was "card-counting", 2 years ago in Tahoe, mostly DD, that's exactly what I tried to do. Logs, comparing "what should happen" to "what did", etc. Play and bet to the plan(s) I had as best I could. And was very happy that results seemed to be, as best I could figure, within 1 SD of expected after the week. That meant alot more to me than the absolute dollars won/lost lol.

I just find it ironic, since I think the plan and general method you outlined should be the standard for posting anything in the "Card-counting" forum but ends up here in Voodooland and yet alot of what passes for card-counting in the CC thread probably belongs over here lol.

Not that it really matters where anything is anyway I guess - it is what it is wherever it is lol.

Thanks again for just saying it. Absolutely beautiful.

 

[sagefr0g]

The obvious comments to make here are firstly that that one bet turns a losing player into a winning one, but the counter point would be that no serious player should or would ever touch this game.
.

yes & yes lol. but hey RJT are you the guy over on blackjack institute that used to have the problem over on the island lol Britania :1st: that was facing the frustrating situation of the crap games they have to offer? i mean no wonder you know so dam much you haven't got anywhere to play and you spend all your time studying lol. hey i'm just joking around. i figure you get your shots in and all. lol.

For a recreational player who doesn't really have bankroll concerns - this is perfect. Make your bets when you are slightly more likely to win and actually play a slightly positive game. The assumption has to be made that the person take enough of a bankroll every time they go, doesn't worry about busting out and can replenish that bankroll fully inbetween trips.
.

exactly i think where we was going with all this. spot on. except i have this tendency to worry over my bankroll lol.

One question does spring to mind though - if you've gone to all the effort of being able to identify a TC of +3 and have the bankroll to support playing like this, why not just go the full hog?

RJT.

well where i was elbowing you in the ribs above about over there across the pond and the conditons. well you know when you came over here and chummed around with Bojack. this country is vast. like where i'm at it's almost as if i'm on an island surrounded by crappy games and conditions lol.
i think you know how tedious going full hog is under such conditions and virtually impractical. why not liven up with a little gambling. lol. that sir is in part why your seeing me in voodoo land lol. under these conditions on my little island marooned as i am, ship wrecked lol and alone i'm tryiing to keep from going crazy and from starving to death at the same time. lol.
just hoping against hope that there is a better way or at least a more tolerable one. but yeah about the going full hog for my part in the stuff here in the discussion like about the $100 dollar shots being fired uhm well i'm more into trying to proportionalize it a bit closer to orthodox counting methods but i did find what Kasi was sayiing interesting none the less.

 

[RJT]

yes & yes lol. but hey RJT are you the guy over on blackjack institute that used to have the problem over on the island lol Britania :1st: that was facing the frustrating situation of the crap games they have to offer? i mean no wonder you know so dam much you haven't got anywhere to play and you spend all your time studying lol. hey i'm just joking around. i figure you get your shots in and all. lol.

Aye that was me, and truthfully the games here are awful - if you are just looking to count that is. Other conditions are somewhat more useful :devil:

well where i was elbowing you in the ribs above about over there across the pond and the conditons. well you know when you came over here and chummed around with Bojack. this country is vast. like where i'm at it's almost as if i'm on an island surrounded by crappy games and conditions lol.
i think you know how tedious going full hog is under such conditions and virtually impractical. why not liven up with a little gambling. lol. that sir is in part why your seeing me in voodoo land lol. under these conditions on my little island marooned as i am, ship wrecked lol and alone i'm tryiing to keep from going crazy and from starving to death at the same time. lol.
just hoping against hope that there is a better way or at least a more tolerable one. but yeah about the going full hog for my part in the stuff here in the discussion like about the $100 dollar shots being fired uhm well i'm more into trying to proportionalize it a bit closer to orthodox counting methods but i did find what Kasi was sayiing interesting none the less.

Oh i understand just how big the US is and have a good grasp on some generalizations about where offers beatable games and where you just shouldn't bother (although admittedly my information could be a few years out of date). I can see that you could be living in a near ocean of garbage and i know just how frustrating that is. The statement about going whole hog certainly wasn't aimed at you - in your circumstance i can see why the reward doesn't seem balanced compensation for the effort, but if we looked at a more general scenario, would you have learned all you know about counting had you known that the games around you were of such a poor standard before you started?
From where i sit a lot of people seem to play blackjack because they honestly believe that they can work out some system that will allow them to beat the house. Those that go so far as to learn to count proficiently do so because they realize that they can beat the house and that's what got them interested in the first place. If they find down the line that the rules are so aweful that they can't win, that's an exception to the standard. In the states there is at least fair access to vaguely beatable game. Not good enough that that you could make a lot of money, but still beatable enough for the recreational player to feel that it's worth playing them rather than some unbeatable game. In those more standard conditions, would it not be more normal to employ the full array of skills you learned rather than just an isolated bet at a + count?
Perhaps a better question would be; would you still find the $100 bet at a TC of 3 an interesting proposition if you had better conditions around you?

RJT.

 

[sagefr0g]

......, but if we looked at a more general scenario, would you have learned all you know about counting had you known that the games around you were of such a poor standard before you started?
From where i sit a lot of people seem to play blackjack because they honestly believe that they can work out some system that will allow them to beat the house. Those that go so far as to learn to count proficiently do so because they realize that they can beat the house and that's what got them interested in the first place. If they find down the line that the rules are so aweful that they can't win, that's an exception to the standard. In the states there is at least fair access to vaguely beatable game. Not good enough that that you could make a lot of money, but still beatable enough for the recreational player to feel that it's worth playing them rather than some unbeatable game. In those more standard conditions, would it not be more normal to employ the full array of skills you learned rather than just an isolated bet at a + count?
Perhaps a better question would be; would you still find the $100 bet at a TC of 3 an interesting proposition if you had better conditions around you?

RJT.

well first off to just do what ever it is i'm doing now under the circumstances that i face (which thankfully are not completely wretched) i'm glad to have what knowledge i've gleaned from this site and others and books. but yes for the most part i have to say better conditions would coax me into employing a fuller array of skill as a recreational player if the time spent playing was significant enough. i still do practice counting down a deck of cards every few days or so. and i keep up with deck estimation and basic strategy and departures. but that's pretty much what i do (as far as what your talking about with conditons better or worse) with the fuzzzy count. where i'll be half asleep with one eye open say near 75% of the time watching the cards but if that count strays into positive territory it's time to count the rc and figure the tc and bet appropriately (this is a relatively new tact engendered into my fuzzy little project). i've got a game plan from sims and other considerations about my bankrol and play strategies. admittedly i can easy stray into just a fuzzy cognition of some advantage situation where it would not be beyond me going ahead and taking a voodoo shot rather than miss what i'm pretty sure is at least a positive situation as what i consider a gamble pretty much in the same sense as Kasi was talking about the $100 dollar shot or what ever just maybe i might try to proportionalize that a bit in line with some bet ramp and spread i've got mapped out but just in this case it would be a hopefully intelligent guess in light of a fuzzy cognition.
but the thing is i did play the full array, full hog orthodox lol for a couple of years against close to the conditions i now play. things went remarkably well even if i was just a nickle player. life was sweet lol and then i hit a real nasty down swing. a dose of reality if you will. i mean what it told me was look no matter what the reason for this was be it normal standard deviation, crappy play what ever the point was this could happen again. and ok fine i can live with that (i might not like it lol) but what i can't swallow is the loss of efficiency of the work i extended. so truly out the window went my hope that all this might be a way for me to have fun and enhance significantly my retirement economics. had to admitt to myself that hope may have clouded my vision of what it would really take to make it work. so here i am now and i think i have this attitude i've adopted from Kasi's posts of 'no big deal, nothing life changing' as maybe a goal. to where now what i'm shooting for is ok maybe improve that work efficiency aspect and lower those expectations and still have some hope along the luck lines. lol. at least i am really having fun and still ahead of the game lol. truthfully if i went to some place that had great games on like a vacation or something i don't believe i'd change my tactics much. you know yeah i'd get with the rules, playing strategy, proper way to bet and then i'd probably wing it like i do now lol. but there is no doubt that your point is the right way, especially for the pro minded or the recreational most bang for the buck minded. no arguement at all.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Perhaps I Need to Smoke Some Sage or Lick a Frog? LOL

I read your posts and if I understand them. LOL I am often left with the same questions and thoughts.

You have the books and seem to have the knowledge, so you should have no delusions about what you should expect as far as variance or earnings.

I would think if conditions you face are tough you need a stronger game and not weaker?

Have you considered playing less frequently but stronger? Perhaps you are tired from other activities, bored or jaded.

If you are trying to use less mental effort then why do you spend time on things I think you know don't mean much or that you can avoid? Things like very negative indices?

I believe you are a hi low user?

A very stripped down yet effective game can be:
I think you are familiar with the counts for those with poor vision, can use one of those.
or
running hi low for betting, easy to think in terms of small, med and big advantages.
ILL 18 indices, can even use light indices. Maybe even fewer then the ILL 18.

I probably have not said anything you don't know or perhaps have not thought of?

 

[sagefr0g]

I read your posts and if I understand them. LOL I am often left with the same questions and thoughts.
You have the books and seem to have the knowledge, so you should have no delusions about what you should expect as far as variance or earnings.
I would think if conditions you face are tough you need a stronger game and not weaker?

that's exactly right. lol. i am painfully aware of that fact about the poor conditions hence need for stronger attack sort of idea. thanks though for reminding me. you are of course right. as strong of play as i can muster i'm just not happy with the reward to work extended ratio for orthodox card counting. and i'm not competant or really well enough versed in any other viable advanced tacts.

Have you considered playing less frequently but stronger? Perhaps you are tired from other activities, bored or jaded.

lol you'll love this. the other day i played 21 hours straight. no sleep, no significant break or any food. just two cups of coffee. man that coffee was good lol. it was just some crazy thing i did. i had a blast but had my a$$ handed to me on a silver tray. i know to do that was wrong in every way. i doubt i'll ever do anything like that again. but you know what? i learned quite a bit about my game from that experience.
but your suggestion has merit. i really feel bad to say that i probably won't do that since you took the trouble to suggest it and it does make sense. i'm just truly interested in reducing the work load, while not reducing the reward level to significantly for my modest expectation of no big deal as long as it isn't life changing sort of thing. to be more specific if i can maintain a expectation of a dollar an hour i'd be satisfyed. if i could do that maybe i could improve a little as time goes on. i did used to only have an interest in making some good money. i've just changed my focus. for right now i'm more interested in trying to gain a mastery of the gamble involved in this game with out having to extend the kind of effort that i (personaly) find tedious.

If you are trying to use less mental effort then why do you spend time on things I think you know don't mean much or that you can avoid? Things like very negative indices?

lol, finally a question i think i can give a satisfying answer to. the reason for that is (you'll just have to trust me on this one) is that for the joints that i play and the recreational kick i'm looking for makes it to where i'm gonna pretty much play all for say two or maybe three hours on an average a trip. wonging in is definately out and wonging out is a limited option under this scenerio.

I believe you are a hi low user?

A very stripped down yet effective game can be:
I think you are familiar with the counts for those with poor vision, can use one of those.
or
running hi low for betting, easy to think in terms of small, med and big advantages.
ILL 18 indices, can even use light indices. Maybe even fewer then the ILL 18.

I probably have not said anything you don't know or perhaps have not thought of?

right i'm familiar with the senior counts and the like. well at least the ones discussed on Arnold Snyder's site. thank's though for offering those options up. beggers can't be choosers i know lol but to me those options would seem to me as much work.
so let me ask you or great if anyone else wants to critique this stuff i'm trying to do. but here is the scenerio to where i know the games i play tend in the long run to present circa 75% negative/zero true counts and circa 25% varing degrees of positive true counts. the point is where i'm at in my trying to do this fuzzy count thing i sincerely belieive i can recognize with just card watching from the start of a shoe up to the point where one would normally wong out or wong in that the true count is either at some hopelessly negative point or that ok this shoe at some point is just starting to go positive or at least has a chance to get positive. so now i start for real counting the RC and figuring the TC and bet accordingly (per some play all sim that fits my bankroll and goals). but in the case where the shoe is in the hopeless forget it wong out condition i just sit there and flat bet min and maybe try and sit out a few hands or even an occasional potty break.
and well to complicate the issue even more. i mean a couple of things i know from experience of card watching and card counting is that ok a couple of things can happen. one being with the card watching is you might know that hey i'm lost here at some point or another thing that may happen say with card counting is for what ever time you have alloted your self to play is you might never see a decent shoe. but either way you may have spent some sum of money or units trying. so then there is still this prospect that Kasi was discussing of what i think is fundamentally some sort of progression bet scenerio but nothing fixed in stone. so say you've more or less floundered around for some trip session and managed to lose some sum of money. but maybe you get lucky and a decent true count presents. so why not in this case maybe bet some amount that might get you back that sum previously lost or maybe less or maybe more depending on how good you might think your prospects were with respect to the count and with respect to maybe how healthy you think your bankroll is at the moment.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Heresy by Any Other Name!

that's exactly right. lol. i am painfully aware of that fact about the poor conditions hence need for stronger attack sort of idea. thanks though for reminding me. you are of course right. as strong of play as i can muster i'm just not happy with the reward to work extended ratio for orthodox card counting. and i'm not competant or really well enough versed in any other viable advanced tacts.

lol you'll love this. the other day i played 21 hours straight. no sleep, no significant break or any food. just two cups of coffee. man that coffee was good lol. it was just some crazy thing i did. i had a blast but had my a$$ handed to me on a silver tray. i know to do that was wrong in every way. i doubt i'll ever do anything like that again. but you know what? i learned quite a bit about my game from that experience.
but your suggestion has merit. i really feel bad to say that i probably won't do that since you took the trouble to suggest it and it does make sense. i'm just truly interested in reducing the work load, while not reducing the reward level to significantly for my modest expectation of no big deal as long as it isn't life changing sort of thing. to be more specific if i can maintain a expectation of a dollar an hour i'd be satisfyed. if i could do that maybe i could improve a little as time goes on. i did used to only have an interest in making some good money. i've just changed my focus. for right now i'm more interested in trying to gain a mastery of the gamble involved in this game with out having to extend the kind of effort that i (personaly) find tedious.

lol, finally a question i think i can give a satisfying answer to. the reason for that is (you'll just have to trust me on this one) is that for the joints that i play and the recreational kick i'm looking for makes it to where i'm gonna pretty much play all for say two or maybe three hours on an average a trip. wonging in is definately out and wonging out is a limited option under this scenerio.

right i'm familiar with the senior counts and the like. well at least the ones discussed on Arnold Snyder's site. thank's though for offering those options up. beggers can't be choosers i know lol but to me those options would seem to me as much work.
so let me ask you or great if anyone else wants to critique this stuff i'm trying to do. but here is the scenerio to where i know the games i play tend in the long run to present circa 75% negative/zero true counts and circa 25% varing degrees of positive true counts. the point is where i'm at in my trying to do this fuzzy count thing i sincerely belieive i can recognize with just card watching from the start of a shoe up to the point where one would normally wong out or wong in that the true count is either at some hopelessly negative point or that ok this shoe at some point is just starting to go positive or at least has a chance to get positive. so now i start for real counting the RC and figuring the TC and bet accordingly (per some play all sim that fits my bankroll and goals). but in the case where the shoe is in the hopeless forget it wong out condition i just sit there and flat bet min and maybe try and sit out a few hands or even an occasional potty break.
and well to complicate the issue even more. i mean a couple of things i know from experience of card watching and card counting is that ok a couple of things can happen. one being with the card watching is you might know that hey i'm lost here at some point or another thing that may happen say with card counting is for what ever time you have alloted your self to play is you might never see a decent shoe. but either way you may have spent some sum of money or units trying. so then there is still this prospect that Kasi was discussing of what i think is fundamentally some sort of progression bet scenerio but nothing fixed in stone. so say you've more or less floundered around for some trip session and managed to lose some sum of money. but maybe you get lucky and a decent true count presents. so why not in this case maybe bet some amount that might get you back that sum previously lost or maybe less or maybe more depending on how good you might think your prospects were with respect to the count and with respect to maybe how healthy you think your bankroll is at the moment.

I was wondering if you were playing too much and if your style of play was influenced by the conditions or the length of your play. I would think doing anything for extended periods of time over multiple days would get tedious.

You have the books. Don't you think you could employ a stronger game for just an hour. A cup of coffee half an hour before play would probably carry you through. To me playing a strong game for an hour would result in less fatigue then playing just BS for several hours.

A stronger game would make more in less time and lower your session variance because you would lower the total hands you play dramatically.

For camoflauge purposes just being there so long is not the best thing.

The stronger progressions also require mental effort. The better ones require you keep track of your units up or down. It's a lot like counting, for the work might as well count. You know what progressions will do. With most you win small amounts consistenly and feel good until the crushing loss comes that wipes out your gaines and then some. Assuming fuzzy has some merit then betting as close to optimal as possible would out perform a progression.

 

[sagefr0g]

I was wondering if you were playing too much and if your style of play was influenced by the conditions or the length of your play. I would think doing anything for extended periods of time over multiple days would get tedious.
.

really i tend to average once or twice a week maybe three hours per trip. the one outrageous example i gave was way beyond the norm lol. but even the short sessions it's keeping the RC that i find tedious and frustrating as it's so relatively rare to get a good count with these multiple deck games. but your right if maybe i'd break up the play a bit more the tedium should be reduced.

You have the books. Don't you think you could employ a stronger game for just an hour. A cup of coffee half an hour before play would probably carry you through. To me playing a strong game for an hour would result in less fatigue then playing just BS for several hours.
.

yeah again. i think maybe your helping me realize a factor that just might be a good tact for me to take. give me a personal (psychological) reason to actually wong out more often as i know i should do. work those kind of 'breaks' in with some potty breaks, sitting out hands and i'd be in better shape wouldn't i? tell you what i'm gonna work on that. lol

A stronger game would make more in less time and lower your session variance because you would lower the total hands you play dramatically.
.

yes, yes and yes lol. yeah lemme look into that.

For camoflauge purposes just being there so long is not the best thing.
.

this i know too. they know my face pretty well by now. but yeah another good point.

The stronger progressions also require mental effort. The better ones require you keep track of your units up or down. It's a lot like counting, for the work might as well count. You know what progressions will do. With most you win small amounts consistenly and feel good until the crushing loss comes that wipes out your gaines and then some.

yep those are my thoughts exactly. i mean look at some of those progressions and omg counting is way easier. lol. and then like you say the crushing loss comes along wipes out any gain and more.
but this is the part i don't know. i mean as far as some progression or maybe not a progression written in stone so to speak but just say maybe the act of taking a gamble shall we say at some time where you think it may be advantageous or just want to do it for some reason and maybe you do so on a whim but at least in a positive true count. well i'd think that something like that need not be such a disastarous thing to where i'd expect the results might even out over time. but i mean you'd want to keep the size of the bet gambled smaller than your counting max bet and be watching your bottom line i should think. probably be wise to make such a gamble a rare tact as well i should suspect lol. if at all. but in the short term i guess it would increase your standard deviation and make you more likely to tap out early.

Assuming fuzzy has some merit then betting as close to optimal as possible would out perform a progression.

right again on that long term. you've probably read that 'hail mary' post over on i think it's Arnold Snyder's site. well anyway that's always kind of interested me, been i guess in the back of my mind. i don't really know the implications of that sort of thing if it were to be done paradoxally in some sort of modulated moderate way lol. kind of interests me but i've never really thoroughly thought it out. but i know you wouldn't want to exceed more than twice the size of some optimal bet sort of thing like i think Wong talks about.
oops it was bj21 http://www.bj21.com/bj_reference/pages/9719.html thought there was one about hail mary on Snyder too.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Why is it When the Term Psychological Comes Up Regarding Me, The Word Insane Follows?

:laugh:

Frog
You mention a psychological reason to play a stronger game.

How about love as a reason.
Love of money. I like the way money feels, to caress it softly and lovingly.:devil:

I love what money provides me. Like mcds double cheeseburgers off the dollar menu. I am all AP even in Mcds.:eyepatch:

Hail Mary bankroll? Well the name says it all. Not many Hail Mary passes are successful. A couple of unsuccessful Hail Mary's and you get to punt and go home cuz you are broke.:joker:

 

[sagefr0g]

when your nuts your always right in you own mind.

:laugh:

Frog
You mention a psychological reason to play a stronger game.

actually for a recreational player it kind of does need to be some psychological impetus. where as certain aspects of a strong game such as back count, sitting out hands, even counting at all have a tedious aspect to them. now betting into an advantage thats a thrill, fun and overall rewarding.
but your gonna be proud of me. i did count pure hi/lo, wonged out made my sessions shorter to avoid tedium my last road trip. admittedly i did abandon the pure hi/lo and fuzzy counted once a shoe showed no prospects for presenting an advantage. i didn't bail on all the shoes that went south but i did at least wong out on some of them. worked out pretty well. so really you did get through to me lol.

How about love as a reason.
Love of money. I like the way money feels, to caress it softly and lovingly.:devil:

I love what money provides me. Like mcds double cheeseburgers off the dollar menu. I am all AP even in Mcds.:eyepatch:

heh, heh yeah money was my first true love with this game. it's just so painful when she leaves me and i've done everything right by her :joker: .
it's still fun chasing her around though especially when by luck or skill you manage to win her charms.
thinking it was skill after nailing her is a real psychological boost lol.

Hail Mary bankroll? Well the name says it all. Not many Hail Mary passes are successful. A couple of unsuccessful Hail Mary's and you get to punt and go home cuz you are broke.:joker:

essentially true. that's where it can get psychological again. and dangerous if you end up steaming. this is where that oft neglected fundamental decision about bottom line how much am i willing to lose idea comes in. thing is your real bottom line bankroll the one if in truth your heart is broken but not your financial future to the point where you are gonna stop playing unless you build a new bankroll and some lesser amount ideal bankroll that should you lose it then no big deal nothing life changing and your gonna regroup and chase the dream again, well you can sort of compartmentalize those two psychologicaly. fool your self as it were so as what you gonna tend to do is be a little less conservative with the no big deal nothing life changing money but by default your not feeling the pain or allowing the true underlying bankroll to be exposed to the same risk. if you fail with this ideal roll well it's no big deal. in truth it has hurt that bottom line roll some but it's nothing life changing with respect to the question of are you gonna keep playing blackjack in the future. you can try again. maybe more than once or what ever. if the real size of your bankroll is sufficient then a failed hail mary or two may not cause significant damage. but a succesful hail mary might either sustain your ideal roll or even dramatically improve it. especially if your making these gambles into a positive advantage scenerio and never exceeding twice your optimal bet with respect to your real underlying bankroll.

 

[aslan]

Hey O Wise Frog.

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

I was reading some booklets put out by Arnold Snyder in which he describes various approaches to ramping up so that you can see a side by side comparison of different systems at work. Pretty cool stuff. It shows exactly where you come out depending on which betting pattern you choose. I guess the really great minds are way ahead of us, even when it comes to fuzzy betting.