Next Weekend in Vegas.

[mdlbj]

Is MIT living in the past? KO is the wave of the future. Why don't they embrace the new technology instead of trying to perserve the stone age? This just adds to my nostalga theory. It's everywhere.

Red7 or the kiss count are just as good if not better than KO. Mr Fred Renzy who posts here often can speak to that..

Stone age? I have yet to see any material that is as complete as what the Blackjack Institute offers. Or a system that has done better with team play.

You are talking fractions of a percent. And yes, they did ( past tense ) use CE adjusted numbers as well as surrender numbers. I would like to see someone come up with something better and I do not intend that to be sarcastic. If there is something better out there, I want to be the first to know!!

LVHCM has their ways, Bojack1 and his crew do things their way. Its a good debate however and I enjoy reading all the opinions on this forum.

This is good stuff. If you are a reader of this post and have a question for Mr. J Or MIT_Mike. Post it here and I will pass it on in my Q&A session or you can post it on the blackjackinstitute.com forum..

My goal is not only to improve my game, it is to look at the future of Advantage play and what they, the MIT players think the future of AP is. Kapish?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Totally disgree with you AM.
If you look at the history, prior to instituting these ridged tests, mistakes were costing the team the majority of their winnings (i.e. they were falling far short of their EV). After they brought in the ridged standards, they became a highly successful team. Precision isn't totally necessary, but if you don't have the dedication to achieve this level of percision, your probably making far too many mistakes.

RJT.

I don't know. Everything we do when we are card counting is an approximation. For example, it's been shown repeatedly that the difference in EV between deck estimation to the exact card and to the nearest deck is insignificant, and the rounding only gives you a little more standard deviation, and with team play that added SD gets divided down to jack-diddly-squat pretty quickly.

Now if using as 2 your true count divisor instead of 2.25 when you get down to two and a quarter decks doesn't amount to a hill of beans, how could counting one high card as a low card or vice versa? It's the same thing. So I don't think passing this test would make you any more of an asset to this team than an ordinary player who would make one or two mistakes on it. Integrity, balls, resistance to fatigue, dexterity in moving around a casino and table comportment all would seem to be more important. Until someone can show me math to prove otherwise I have to deem their test a gimmick. :devil:

 

[EasyRhino]

You know, I think it would be good to ask they seminar guys about the idea of using a simple count system (KO or Red 7 or KISS) for team play purposes in shoe games.

I get the impression that Big Player team play is not really about finesse, it's about having the spotters grind out long periods of counting, and then using the BP as a financial sledgehammer against the tables. In KO, you've got a pivot point of around +4. This seems very well suited to a "go, no-go strategy". When the count is that high, move in, wail on it, and then leave. By a TC of +4, you'll also have just about every index play you'd want in place, so the BP can play totally consistently whenever he's in a positive shoe.

 

[mdlbj]

You know, I think it would be good to ask they seminar guys about the idea of using a simple count system (KO or Red 7 or KISS) for team play purposes in shoe games.

I get the impression that Big Player team play is not really about finesse, it's about having the spotters grind out long periods of counting, and then using the BP as a financial sledgehammer against the tables. In KO, you've got a pivot point of around +4. This seems very well suited to a "go, no-go strategy". When the count is that high, move in, wail on it, and then leave. By a TC of +4, you'll also have just about every index play you'd want in place, so the BP can play totally consistently whenever he's in a positive shoe.

You can ask them on their site directly. visit the forums and Title it Question For Mr. J or MIT_Mike!!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

You know, I think it would be good to ask they seminar guys about the idea of using a simple count system (KO or Red 7 or KISS) for team play purposes in shoe games.

I get the impression that Big Player team play is not really about finesse, it's about having the spotters grind out long periods of counting, and then using the BP as a financial sledgehammer against the tables. In KO, you've got a pivot point of around +4. This seems very well suited to a "go, no-go strategy". When the count is that high, move in, wail on it, and then leave. By a TC of +4, you'll also have just about every index play you'd want in place, so the BP can play totally consistently whenever he's in a positive shoe.

That's probably not a bad idea. With enough spotters you can always have the BP playing in a high count. This is a form of play where 8D games are an advantage because he has time to get to a high count before it evaporates. Once he's in the game there will only be 3 other signals the spotter will need to pass to the BP: 1) get out, 2) Point of insurance, stand 12 vs. 2, and similar plays, 3) Point of split 10's, DD 10 vs. 10 and A, other super-high count plays.

 

[mdlbj]

Ill ask about RED7 KO and Kiss.

 

[mdlbj]

Asked Mike Aponte about Kiss Red7 and KO.

This is not verbatim but it is what I can partially read from my notes.. The power and simplicity of HI-LO was one reason also, they were familiar with it and it took less time to train new members on how to use it. Bet correlation had alot to do with it as well.

Sorry I could not answer the question better, there was just so much stuff to do and learn. Mike and Dave Irvine mentioned that they did not think KO was out at that time the MIT Team started.

P.S
Training with them took me to a new level. I thought I had my stuff wired tight. They will put you to shame in a heart beat and let you know it. I was amazed at how fast they are at absolutely every aspect of Blackjack.

I watched Mike deal 5 hands to include the dealers hand and have the cards off the table in the discard tray in less than 3 seconds and accurately keep count through a few decks. Sounds easy? Try it. These guys know how to train. Really made me rethink my approach. I have my tail between my legs so to speak.

Much More later..

 

[Bojack1]

Asked Mike Aponte about Kiss Red7 and KO.

This is not verbatim but it is what I can partially read from my notes.. The power and simplicity of HI-LO was one reason also, they were familiar with it and it took less time to train new members on how to use it. Bet correlation had alot to do with it as well.

Sorry I could not answer the question better, there was just so much stuff to do and learn. Mike and Dave Irvine mentioned that they did not think KO was out at that time the MIT Team started.

P.S
Training with them took me to a new level. I thought I had my stuff wired tight. They will put you to shame in a heart beat and let you know it. I was amazed at how fast they are at absolutely every aspect of Blackjack.

I watched Mike deal 5 hands to include the dealers hand and have the cards off the table in the discard tray in less than 3 seconds and accurately keep count through a few decks. Sounds easy? Try it. These guys know how to train. Really made me rethink my approach. I have my tail between my legs so to speak.

Much More later..

So let me ask you this then. Is it possible that all the weekend warriors that play this game might not be as good as they think, or are these MIT guys just blowing smoke and hosting gimmicks. It seems to me these MIT guys were heroes to all of the last generation of card counters, until people read a book or two and thought they were capable of doing it just like the people who were "Bringing Down The House". Funny thing though, when told what their heroes do to bring down the house, most say its crap and not true. Its much easier than that they say. One question, based on who's experience and knowledge. This thread has hit a personal note and I must say has pissed me off. There are so many wannabees and neverwas' claiming what it takes to make money at this game. Yet there are proven winners standing in front of you telling you, but because its not free its not worth it. At this point all I can say is you get what you deserve. Either learn from those who do, or read from those who teach. Figure it out for yourself where you want your game to be.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

So let me ask you this then. Is it possible that all the weekend warriors that play this game might not be as good as they think, or are these MIT guys just blowing smoke and hosting gimmicks. It seems to me these MIT guys were heroes to all of the last generation of card counters, until people read a book or two and thought they were capable of doing it just like the people who were "Bringing Down The House". Funny thing though, when told what their heroes do to bring down the house, most say its crap and not true. Its much easier than that they say. One question, based on who's experience and knowledge. This thread has hit a personal note and I must say has pissed me off. There are so many wannabees and neverwas' claiming what it takes to make money at this game. Yet there are proven winners standing in front of you telling you, but because its not free its not worth it. At this point all I can say is you get what you deserve. Either learn from those who do, or read from those who teach. Figure it out for yourself where you want your game to be.

Please don't take it personally, for my only purpose in questioning certain assertions is to increase my understanding of the game. I'm educated in a scientific tradition where a freshman with data can (and is expected to) challenge the conflicting claims of a Nobel laureate.

I just ran a simulation of a quality 6D game pitting a computer-perfect player against a player who makes one playing error and one betting error per shoe. That's kind of a lot of errors, hopefully more than I make and certainly more than the MIT team would tolerate. But I was relieved to see the error-prone player only gives up 4.4% of his win rate, well under the standard deviation for 1 million hands (a lifetime) of blackjack. In any branch of science involving objective measurements, variations under the magnitude of one standard deviation would normally be characterized as random, would they not?

Now the MIT team uses High-Low do they not? I happen to use RPC, which gives a user a 5-10% advantage over a High-Low player depending on the game and playing conditions. Again, it will take around a lifetime of blackjack for the High-Low and RPC player to expect to see a difference in their results. But if the MIT players are justified in saying a player who makes two errors per shoe is NFG, then I would have to be justified in saying the MIT players or anyone else who uses a level 1 count is NFG. And a player who uses multiparameter Uston APC can say I'm NFG, and so on.

In reality I would never say that about the MIT players because I'm not disrespectful to other players, but more importantly because I know it isn't true. In human terms the disadvantages of using a level 1 count aren't very much, nor are the disadvantages of making a few errors here and there. Unless I'm missing something very important here. I could be wrong. Perhaps I am misapplying the math, but I don't believe the math is wrong.

 

[zengrifter]

I just ran a simulation of a quality 6D game pitting a computer-perfect player against a player who makes one playing error and one betting error per shoe. That's kind of a lot of errors, hopefully more than I make and certainly more than the MIT team would tolerate.

According to JohnnyC in the Richard Munchkin interview, the MIT Team eventually settled to using simply HiLo with a count-adjusted basic strategy. zg

 

[Bojack1]

Please don't take it personally, for my only purpose in questioning certain assertions is to increase my understanding of the game. I'm educated in a scientific tradition where a freshman with data can (and is expected to) challenge the conflicting claims of a Nobel laureate.

I just ran a simulation of a quality 6D game pitting a computer-perfect player against a player who makes one playing error and one betting error per shoe. That's kind of a lot of errors, hopefully more than I make and certainly more than the MIT team would tolerate. But I was relieved to see the error-prone player only gives up 4.4% of his win rate, well under the standard deviation for 1 million hands (a lifetime) of blackjack. In any branch of science involving objective measurements, variations under the magnitude of one standard deviation would normally be characterized as random, would they not?

Now the MIT team uses High-Low do they not? I happen to use RPC, which gives a user a 5-10% advantage over a High-Low player depending on the game and playing conditions. Again, it will take around a lifetime of blackjack for the High-Low and RPC player to expect to see a difference in their results. But if the MIT players are justified in saying a player who makes two errors per shoe is NFG, then I would have to be justified in saying the MIT players or anyone else who uses a level 1 count is NFG. And a player who uses multiparameter Uston APC can say I'm NFG, and so on.

In reality I would never say that about the MIT players because I'm not disrespectful to other players, but more importantly because I know it isn't true. In human terms the disadvantages of using a level 1 count aren't very much, nor are the disadvantages of making a few errors here and there. Unless I'm missing something very important here. I could be wrong. Perhaps I am misapplying the math, but I don't believe the math is wrong.

First off Monkey 1 million hands is not even close to a lifetime to a full time team. Thats about 3 years tops, maybe 2 1/2 with real steady play. We average about 30-35 thousand hands per month as a team. And as far as making mistakes, 1 error per shoe, don't take this personal, but most are closer to an error per deck, and those are the good ones. What I've said from the beginning is most don't realize the mistakes they make and how many, again not speaking directly to you but, with that being the case it doesn't matter what counting sytem you're using. As far as team play goes there needs to be a basic simplicity to be able to it to be able to interact with each other in the casino without detection. There also can be no room for errors so using a level 2 count is not practical. And hi lo works for the purpose of this and more advanced techniques, something the even more simple unbalanced counts are not that adept at switching over to. So its just a matter of taking a strong simple method and applying it perfectly. There is a fine line between a winning AP and a losing one, and an inflated perpective of one's skills seems more times than not to be the culprit of it. Running sims is a helpful tool in the game of blackjack, but the computer will only tell you what you feed it, and from what I've seen and heard most aren't feeding it well.

On a seperate note Monkey, Mike and Dave are having a seminar in NYC April 28th. I think to be able to form an educated and well informed opinion on this matter, you should attend. It will give you the chance to see what type of "Gimmick" these guys have, and test your skills to see if they're exactly where you believe they are. If the cost is an issue let me know, I'm sure something can be arranged to accomodate the Automatic Monkey.

 

[mdlbj]

Monkey, CV is great software and Mike and Dave like it. Bojack1 nailed it on the head with his posts and ZG, after SI, they stuck with Counting and Numbers Plays. They kept it simple and cleaned house never to have a loosing year.

You can run all the sims you like, read all the books you like but, its like reading a book on how to hit a baseball. After the seminar and training, I'm halting my play until I am up to par so to speak. I thought I had it, boy was I wrong.

 

[mdlbj]

So let me ask you this then. Is it possible that all the weekend warriors that play this game might not be as good as they think, or are these MIT guys just blowing smoke and hosting gimmicks. It seems to me these MIT guys were heroes to all of the last generation of card counters, until people read a book or two and thought they were capable of doing it just like the people who were "Bringing Down The House". Funny thing though, when told what their heroes do to bring down the house, most say its crap and not true. Its much easier than that they say. One question, based on who's experience and knowledge. This thread has hit a personal note and I must say has pissed me off. There are so many wannabees and neverwas' claiming what it takes to make money at this game. Yet there are proven winners standing in front of you telling you, but because its not free its not worth it. At this point all I can say is you get what you deserve. Either learn from those who do, or read from those who teach. Figure it out for yourself where you want your game to be.

I would say to the people who doubt them " go to a seminar and see if they are posers " You will quickly learn why they have millions in their bank accounts.

They give you everything you need to know and at the same time, teach you how to train. Priceless.

 

[mdlbj]

So let me ask you this then. Is it possible that all the weekend warriors that play this game might not be as good as they think, or are these MIT guys just blowing smoke and hosting gimmicks. It seems to me these MIT guys were heroes to all of the last generation of card counters, until people read a book or two and thought they were capable of doing it just like the people who were "Bringing Down The House". Funny thing though, when told what their heroes do to bring down the house, most say its crap and not true. Its much easier than that they say. One question, based on who's experience and knowledge. This thread has hit a personal note and I must say has pissed me off. There are so many wannabees and neverwas' claiming what it takes to make money at this game. Yet there are proven winners standing in front of you telling you, but because its not free its not worth it. At this point all I can say is you get what you deserve. Either learn from those who do, or read from those who teach. Figure it out for yourself where you want your game to be.

As one of them said at the seminar, " Most of the people posting are posers". I laughed! I was a bit skeptical at first yet after spending 8 hours with them, it solidified my belief.

Something they did was kinda shocking, they had us play a mini Blackjack tournament. I was like what the? It was fun! I think I will pick up a copy of Kens book to get a heads up on Tournament play.

 

[21forme]

On a seperate note Monkey, Mike and Dave are having a seminar in NYC April 28th. I think to be able to form an educated and well informed opinion on this matter, you should attend. It will give you the chance to see what type of "Gimmick" these guys have, and test your skills to see if they're exactly where you believe they are. If the cost is an issue let me know, I'm sure something can be arranged to accomodate the Automatic Monkey.

Bojack - PM sent...

 

[Automatic Monkey]

First off Monkey 1 million hands is not even close to a lifetime to a full time team. Thats about 3 years tops, maybe 2 1/2 with real steady play. We average about 30-35 thousand hands per month as a team. And as far as making mistakes, 1 error per shoe, don't take this personal, but most are closer to an error per deck, and those are the good ones. What I've said from the beginning is most don't realize the mistakes they make and how many, again not speaking directly to you but, with that being the case it doesn't matter what counting sytem you're using. As far as team play goes there needs to be a basic simplicity to be able to it to be able to interact with each other in the casino without detection. There also can be no room for errors so using a level 2 count is not practical. And hi lo works for the purpose of this and more advanced techniques, something the even more simple unbalanced counts are not that adept at switching over to. So its just a matter of taking a strong simple method and applying it perfectly. There is a fine line between a winning AP and a losing one, and an inflated perpective of one's skills seems more times than not to be the culprit of it. Running sims is a helpful tool in the game of blackjack, but the computer will only tell you what you feed it, and from what I've seen and heard most aren't feeding it well.

On a seperate note Monkey, Mike and Dave are having a seminar in NYC April 28th. I think to be able to form an educated and well informed opinion on this matter, you should attend. It will give you the chance to see what type of "Gimmick" these guys have, and test your skills to see if they're exactly where you believe they are. If the cost is an issue let me know, I'm sure something can be arranged to accomodate the Automatic Monkey.

You're right, the math for team play is a bit different. What it does is decrease variance, still, you don't lose all that much with the occasional mistake, and the difference between perfect play and -EV is a hell of a lot more than 1 error per deck. It still has yet to be explained how perfect play with a level 1 count could possibly be stronger than occasional errors with a level 2 count. You say "no room for errors", well, compared to level 2, level 1 is full of errors. Not counting the 7's is an error, counting the 2 the same as the 5 is an error, etc. So I could put a High-Low player to the test relative to RPC, and from my perspective he would be missing cards all the time, even though he is counting perfect High-Low. But he'd still be playing a strong game. The fact that there are so many different counting systems that all work proves that errors aren't as fearsome an enemy as you might think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put the MIT guys down, and I'm sure their seminar is valuable to a lot of people. I just don't think their test is going to be able to determine if a player is a winning player or not. I know I am and I have several solo N0's in that prove it. I won't be attending not for any financial reason, just that I don't think it will be of any benefit.

 

[Bojack1]

You're right, the math for team play is a bit different. What it does is decrease variance, still, you don't lose all that much with the occasional mistake, and the difference between perfect play and -EV is a hell of a lot more than 1 error per deck. It still has yet to be explained how perfect play with a level 1 count could possibly be stronger than occasional errors with a level 2 count. You say "no room for errors", well, compared to level 2, level 1 is full of errors. Not counting the 7's is an error, counting the 2 the same as the 5 is an error, etc. So I could put a High-Low player to the test relative to RPC, and from my perspective he would be missing cards all the time, even though he is counting perfect High-Low. But he'd still be playing a strong game. The fact that there are so many different counting systems that all work proves that errors aren't as fearsome an enemy as you might think.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put the MIT guys down, and I'm sure their seminar is valuable to a lot of people. I just don't think their test is going to be able to determine if a player is a winning player or not. I know I am and I have several solo N0's in that prove it. I won't be attending not for any financial reason, just that I don't think it will be of any benefit.

I'm not sure why this has become an issue. Just as in anything a person strives for, the best formula for success is working towards perfection. That type of mentality breeds success. All those who dominate in their field most times follow such a doctrine. I will agree an occasional mistake might not hurt you game. The problem is a there are certain mistakes that breed other mistakes, and there are certain mistakes that are less forgiving than others. If 1 counting mistake happens than it could be no big deal, or it could be tremondous. Say if you reversed the count, fom that point on everything you do, from betting to numbers plays, will be off. That is caused by 1 mistake. Even being off on the RC by a couple could be devastating especially in a 1 or 2 deck game, as your bets will all be inaccurate. So yes just a few errors can greatly effect your game depending in which areas you make them. The test given for an MIT BP is a result of training, not any kind of gaurantee. It just proves that someone is disciplined and given most circumstances with some experience, will be able to excel at this game. Nothing is definite, but its as close to a sure thing as you will find in this game. And yes there are many different counting systems out there, and theoretically they all gain an edge. But realistically there are very few winning counters out there, and I will be painfully truthful when I tell you that the few I met that said they were, weren't exactly honest. These types of seminars expose people to a mindset of what it REALLY takes to win at this game. All who go regardless of any test, realize that they are not what they thought, and there is nothing wrong with that. Its when the horse we sit on is so high that we can't see the truth is when we play a fools game. I'm glad you're a winning player, but as you said it takes a lifetime for an average player to reach even just a million hands, so is your winning game just living on borrowed time? I hope not, but I would keep an eye in the rear view mirror.

 

[ScottH]

I'm not sure why this has become an issue. Just as in anything a person strives for, the best formula for success is working towards perfection. That type of mentality breeds success. All those who dominate in their field most times follow such a doctrine. I will agree an occasional mistake might not hurt you game. The problem is a there are certain mistakes that breed other mistakes, and there are certain mistakes that are less forgiving than others. If 1 counting mistake happens than it could be no big deal, or it could be tremondous. Say if you reversed the count, fom that point on everything you do, from betting to numbers plays, will be off. That is caused by 1 mistake. Even being off on the RC by a couple could be devastating especially in a 1 or 2 deck game, as your bets will all be inaccurate. So yes just a few errors can greatly effect your game depending in which areas you make them. The test given for an MIT BP is a result of training, not any kind of gaurantee. It just proves that someone is disciplined and given most circumstances with some experience, will be able to excel at this game. Nothing is definite, but its as close to a sure thing as you will find in this game. And yes there are many different counting systems out there, and theoretically they all gain an edge. But realistically there are very few winning counters out there, and I will be painfully truthful when I tell you that the few I met that said they were, weren't exactly honest. These types of seminars expose people to a mindset of what it REALLY takes to win at this game. All who go regardless of any test, realize that they are not what they thought, and there is nothing wrong with that. Its when the horse we sit on is so high that we can't see the truth is when we play a fools game. I'm glad you're a winning player, but as you said it takes a lifetime for an average player to reach even just a million hands, so is your winning game just living on borrowed time? I hope not, but I would keep an eye in the rear view mirror.

Being off on the RC and reversing the count are unacceptable errors in my opinion and should never be made. I can see making an "error" by rounding the cards in the discard tray, or rounding the results, but a counting error or forgetting the count is just retarded. If anyone makes those mistakes with relative frequency they definitely aren't a good player.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Being off on the RC and reversing the count are unacceptable errors in my opinion and should never be made. I can see making an "error" by rounding the cards in the discard tray, or rounding the results, but a counting error or forgetting the count is just retarded. If anyone makes those mistakes with relative frequency they definitely aren't a good player.

Sure they would be retarded, but still they would be playing a winning game. That's the point I'm trying to express.

 

[RJT]

I agree with Bojack 100% on this one and to be totally frank about it, i wouldn't play with any player who didn't have the dedication to pass the sort of test Bo is suggesting and the MIT team required. If you can't show a very high level of accuracy on the kitchen table, then you are making far too many mistakes when playing live.
As to level 2 and beyond counting systems i have 2 issues - a) the vast majority of counters are not nearly as accurate as they think they are making in my opinion too many mistakes, multi-level systems just serve to amplify the volume of mistakes and b) the extra advantage you gleen from using a multi-level system is small and easily wiped out by making extra mistakes. What's the point in the extra complexity?
AM, if you're saying that one error per deck is not enough to wipe out your advantage, i think you need to take another look. In a shoe game that could potentially place your running count 5 out each shoe! And that's just running count mistakes. If you even make one RC error and hold that for the rest of the shoe you could potentially be making dozens with all the TC errors you are going to make.
Any player that doesn't look to play as close to perfection as humanly possible is in my experience playing a far weaker game than they think they are.
Another point that intrigues me is that i've seen it being said on here that people are only estimating decks to the nearest full/half deck?!! It might not make a dramatic difference to counting, but i've seen the same posters that have played down quarter deck estimation claim to be winning advanced techniques player. If you can't accurately estimate the discard tray to a 1/4 deck you're not going to win playing any sort of shuffle tracking or ace sequencing game. That simple.

RJT.