New here

[QFIT]

And, by the way, no RNG can simulate a hand suffled deck of card....something to think about when evaluating blackjack systems and a common error in this forum.

CVData simulates hand shuffling down to the fact that the riffling precision varies during the shuffle as the angle of the cards against the dealer's thumbs changes. But, the studies indicate that nearly all shuffles are sufficiently random such that evaluation of BJ systems is correct even with a "random shuffle."

 

[BJ Warrior]

You guess he's right?

ok, i guess your right. and if you want to see the system i came up with i posted it in voodoo

Hi Daggers,

Had to LOL while reading this exchange. Do you know who Norm Wattenberger is? You should be grateful that he responded to you so graciously. Go to the QFIT site and buy a clue. Do yourself a favor and read everything there. This first time I read this thread I didn't realize how young you were and that explains a great deal. But you should be aware that there are some very talented and experienced people on this board, who may know more about the game than you.

Cheers,

BJ Warrior

 

[Sonny]

CVData simulates hand shuffling down to the fact that the riffling precision varies during the shuffle as the angle of the cards against the dealer's thumbs changes.

Is that like a variation of the GSR algorithm?

-Sonny-

 

[QFIT]

Is that like a variation of the GSR algorithm?

-Sonny-

Not quite. There are user variables on the outside limits of precision. House dealers are better rifflers than the average person. The average person is hopeless at shuffling.

 

[Daggers]

haha the average person doesn't even know what card counting is! :laugh: not the ones i've talked to anyways. and thanks everyone for helping me see that progressive betting does not work! i've gotten past that now

 

[Coyote]

Be a sponge!

Good for you Daggers, now get your hands on as many books and articles as you can on advantage play and really study the craft. You will only get our of it what you put in. Cliché I know, but it is true.

Best of variance and flux to you,
Coyote

 

[Daggers]

thanks coyote! i think i'll use either hi opt II with an ace side count or hi-lo. The HO2 because of the higher PE and IC and matching the BC with the side count, and because im able to handle the calculations. The hi-lo because of it's simplicity and power without a 2nd count to disctract me. im not sure which to go with, any suggestions? im pretty sure im able to do the HO2 while talking and acting normal but maybe not quite as well as if i use the hi-lo. power vs. cover?

 

[Coyote]

thanks coyote! i think i'll use either hi opt II with an ace side count or hi-lo. The HO2 because of the higher PE and IC and matching the BC with the side count, and because im able to handle the calculations. The hi-lo because of it's simplicity and power without a 2nd count to disctract me. im not sure which to go with, any suggestions? im pretty sure im able to do the HO2 while talking and acting normal but maybe not quite as well as if i use the hi-lo. power vs. cover?

I'm a fan of the simpler counts to effect cover. That being said, understand that I primarily play 6deck and not pitch so the simpler counts serve me well. If you can handle the hi opt 2 with out much error then go for it by all means. Only you can make that decision.

 

[Daggers]

ok, i'll think i'll go for it