lol, almost anything goes here i guess

[sagefr0g]

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

sorry i just love that i found your achilles heel to get you to post, lol...

It's simple - be as good as you can be. If you were going to invest a large sum of money in a company, would you be prepared to just pick one at random, or would you do the research first and make sure that you'd choosen one that you were confident would grow your investment substantially? The answer to that for most of us is obvious. Treat your time playing in the same way. If you are going to invest money in this - and actually expect any decent return - take the time, do the research and make sure you've got the skills to invest in. Remember, if you're serious about making money and not just getting a little entertainment - this is an investment so you should treat it as such.
Make sure you are 100% confident in everything that you do. The more accurate you are with all aspects of your game, the less you'll have to think about them and the easier it is to move beyond the basics.

anyway here's some more voodoo for ya. lol.

In one of the best selling books ever about investing, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", the author, a Princeton professor hypothesized that "a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper's financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts." In 1988, The Wall Street Journal, picked up on the popularity and novelty of the idea and ran the experiment of pitting monkeys (blindfolded journalists) against professionals.

The rules got changed continuously as experiment upon experiment was run. When the 100th contest ended, the Wall Street Journal presented the results. The professionals won 61 of the 100 contests against the Dart throwers. Though the professionals won, this slim margin was quite embarrassing for these supposed experts. What was worse was that the pro's only beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 51 of the 100 experiments. In theory, by just investing in the Dow, you could do just as well as following expert advice. This revelation as well as Bobby D Luffy's hate of mutual funds allowed us to come up with this website.
(Dead link: http://monkeythrowingdarts.com/about.php)

http://whyfiles.org/037wall_st/predict.html

just thought maybe i could get you fired up for some more voodoo talk lol.
sorry this sort of stuff fascinates me.

 

[sagefr0g]

Lol - perhaps that was a poorly chosen example.
The fact that most well read card counters have a better understanding of Risk and Variance than your average professional investor is a very valid point, but i'm sure you can see the concept that i was driving at.

RJT.

no a good example. maybe just when we are planting seeds in good soil there is a good chance they are gonna take root. i used to farm a bit. till then i never realized how important rain was lol and how poorly strategicaly it fell.
but still it was amazing how despite all ones worry or plans nature would just go ahead and take it's course.

 

[blackjack avenger]

In the Range of Possibilities

As is too So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. often the case, I read this stuff the next day and don't really know what my point was lol.

Maybe it was, given all the grief you sometimes seem to get for your "fuzzy counting", I'm maybe even more irresponsible than you in that maybe more often I bet in ways not typically recommended even though I think I have an idea of I actually think my bet should be.

Of course I don't have any sims so it's just a big guessing game anyway. And, if I did, it wouldn't be programmable anyway.

Of course when you are playing DD, a "fuzzy count" is almost as good as a real count since it doesn't last too long til the next shuffle anyway which is what I played more of last trip. So I guess I just do it (count) because I like to, make a few index plays maybe, use a combination of voo-doo betting systems with a general idea of how often they'll win what, make some "big" bets when I feel like it (usually only when it's positive) with some idea of the consequences to my bankroll.

Maybe sit out a few negatives here and there and if I lose the count I just bet min til next shoe.

I'm betting small, most of the time, don't play enough to worry about N0 and all that, making that expected $20 - $50 / hr 50-100 hours a year isn't gonna change my life anyway even if I do.

So I guess I have fun betting in a "non-system" way, since I don't do the same thing at the same counts.

Much, perhaps, in the same way I perceive you having fun with your "non-system" way of doing things.

So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. Never needed more than $400 total buy-in for a session, got $5K in my pocket. Whatever that means.

So, basically, I never know to what degree any wins are attributable to luck or not. I make guesses but I don't really know.

Although I always have the nagging feeling it's more luck than science lol.

OK - what's forty-niner supposed to mean lol? Is that where they went looking for gold but it was all gone lol?

You can win with fuzzy play.
If you count but your TC conversion is fuzzy so you are off by 1 and you place bets accordingly you can still win. The long run can be affected but you can win.

If you bascially bet small, med and large based on your perceived advantage you can win. A few misplaced bets are not catastrophic.

If you play fuzzy and it causes your fixed ror to go up to say 15%, well one can survive.

If one underbets then being fuzzy can be less dangerous.

The weaker counts are in a way fuzzy. Lite indices or using few indices means your hand play is a little fuzzy. Heck, the high level counts and playing indices to the max is a little fuzzy also.

Studies have shown that being off by one in indices is not catastrophic or perhaps even meaningful.

One does not have to play optimal in order to win, but if you play a strong game you should not have fuzzy results:joker:

 

[sagefr0g]

lol learned a new word today

You can win with fuzzy play.
If you count but your TC conversion is fuzzy so you are off by 1 and you place bets accordingly you can still win. The long run can be affected but you can win.

If you bascially bet small, med and large based on your perceived advantage you can win. A few misplaced bets are not catastrophic.

If you play fuzzy and it causes your fixed ror to go up to say 15%, well one can survive.

If one underbets then being fuzzy can be less dangerous.

The weaker counts are in a way fuzzy. Lite indices or using few indices means your hand play is a little fuzzy. Heck, the high level counts and playing indices to the max is a little fuzzy also.

Studies have shown that being off by one in indices is not catastrophic or perhaps even meaningful.

One does not have to play optimal in order to win, but if you play a strong game you should not have fuzzy results:joker:

exactly.
it's a heuristic of a heuristic is all it is.