zengrifter
Banned
By itself PBJAAB is a loser because its betting and BR instruction is WRONG. zgCardcounter said:
Playing blackjack as a business is a most read!!!
- Thread starter Cardcounter
- Start date
Cardcounter
Well-Known Member
What book is a winning book by it self?
There are no winning books by it self you have to put in hard work and learn how to play your hands and how to bet your money. The concentration it takes to count cards can't be taught in a book you have to know that on your own.
There are no winning books by it self you have to put in hard work and learn how to play your hands and how to bet your money. The concentration it takes to count cards can't be taught in a book you have to know that on your own.
Cardcounter
Well-Known Member
How the book is written
Playing blackjack is written with these rules in mind the dealer stands on soft 17 and double after a split is not allowed. However the author had the foresight to cover how you should play if double after a split is allowed and if the dealer hits soft 17. He also explains how you play according to how many decks there are. Overall no matter how many decks there are or if the dealer hits or stays on soft 17 it doesn't make that much difference on how you play your hand. I think out of 400 possible plays there are less than 10 changes according to the rules of the game.
Playing blackjack is written with these rules in mind the dealer stands on soft 17 and double after a split is not allowed. However the author had the foresight to cover how you should play if double after a split is allowed and if the dealer hits soft 17. He also explains how you play according to how many decks there are. Overall no matter how many decks there are or if the dealer hits or stays on soft 17 it doesn't make that much difference on how you play your hand. I think out of 400 possible plays there are less than 10 changes according to the rules of the game.
I flipped through this book last time I was in a bookstore. It contains some ridiculous pearls of wisdom. To name a few:
Don't play at a table with bad players (why?)
Set a stop loss of 30 units (I'm not leaving a great shoe just because I lose three hands in a row with max bets out)
You have to count perfectly and can't make any mistakes
If table conditions aren't perfect, don't play (so if a new dealer starts cutting off 1.5 decks instead of 1 in a shoe game, I'm supposed to leave?)
These are just the ones I can remember. There were more. I find it hard to take this book seriously when it gives out the above advice.
Don't play at a table with bad players (why?)
Set a stop loss of 30 units (I'm not leaving a great shoe just because I lose three hands in a row with max bets out)
You have to count perfectly and can't make any mistakes
If table conditions aren't perfect, don't play (so if a new dealer starts cutting off 1.5 decks instead of 1 in a shoe game, I'm supposed to leave?)
These are just the ones I can remember. There were more. I find it hard to take this book seriously when it gives out the above advice.
bj bob
Well-Known Member
Put it in context
You have to take into account the time period and the readers he was writing for.
Revere is writing his book based on the assumption that the average reader is starting from scratch.
1) Playing with "bad" players IS distracting to a new AP, it's just human nature for most. I still get miffed when an idiot keeps spliting 10's driving the count down when I've already bet a hand assuming a Pos. count.
2) Stop loss of 30 Units-This one I agree is ridiculous. One thing that Revere lacks is the concept of adaquate BR and RoR. On the other hand, he is talking about SD with excellent pen(typical of the 70"s)
3) Count perfectly-There's nothing wrong with setting the bar high. Besides, if your count is off after 1 deck, where will it be after 3 or 4?
4) Perfect Conditions-This can be relevant to each player. Personally, I physically cannot play certain tables at certain clubs do to the fact that there is too much glare from the lighting at certain angles. Also some dealers obstruct the cards with there arm motion. I don't know about you, but if I cannot see every card on the table I just can't keep the count.
In short, although "Specks" omitted or glossed over things pertinent to today's game, most of his basic advice is sound when you think through it.
sabre said:
You have to take into account the time period and the readers he was writing for.
Revere is writing his book based on the assumption that the average reader is starting from scratch.
1) Playing with "bad" players IS distracting to a new AP, it's just human nature for most. I still get miffed when an idiot keeps spliting 10's driving the count down when I've already bet a hand assuming a Pos. count.
2) Stop loss of 30 Units-This one I agree is ridiculous. One thing that Revere lacks is the concept of adaquate BR and RoR. On the other hand, he is talking about SD with excellent pen(typical of the 70"s)
3) Count perfectly-There's nothing wrong with setting the bar high. Besides, if your count is off after 1 deck, where will it be after 3 or 4?
4) Perfect Conditions-This can be relevant to each player. Personally, I physically cannot play certain tables at certain clubs do to the fact that there is too much glare from the lighting at certain angles. Also some dealers obstruct the cards with there arm motion. I don't know about you, but if I cannot see every card on the table I just can't keep the count.
In short, although "Specks" omitted or glossed over things pertinent to today's game, most of his basic advice is sound when you think through it.
bj bob
Well-Known Member
How So?
Ken, Say I'm playing 1D with some chump who is clueless. Dealer's got an 8 and it's almost 1/2 way through the deck (TC=1/2 deck res.) I'm dealt a 4-6 and want to double with the RC @-1. Now at this very point I would double, however this "gentleman" wants to play cute and split his 10's.First card is another 10, he splits that hitting a 10 and then splits again. Now he's got 3 hands with 6 10's. He's now driven the RC into neg. territory to a TC of -7and therefore under my index of doubling down. Of course, to put icing on the cake, the dealer deals me a small card (5) and another(2) and I end up losing the hand to an 18. Tell me where my logic is failing.
Ken, Say I'm playing 1D with some chump who is clueless. Dealer's got an 8 and it's almost 1/2 way through the deck (TC=1/2 deck res.) I'm dealt a 4-6 and want to double with the RC @-1. Now at this very point I would double, however this "gentleman" wants to play cute and split his 10's.First card is another 10, he splits that hitting a 10 and then splits again. Now he's got 3 hands with 6 10's. He's now driven the RC into neg. territory to a TC of -7and therefore under my index of doubling down. Of course, to put icing on the cake, the dealer deals me a small card (5) and another(2) and I end up losing the hand to an 18. Tell me where my logic is failing.
Last edited:
He'll just as frequently draw away small cards that will make your double even more lucrative. (Well, less frequently, because you're in a plus count. Keep reading to see why this doesn't matter.)
His drawing or not drawing cannot affect the expected true count by the time the dealer gets to you.
Let's say you're half-way through the deck using Hi-Lo. The remaining deck happens to consist of 12 small cards and 14 faces or aces. That means you have already seen 8 small cards and only 6 high cards. The running count is +2, and the true count is +4.
Now, let the player ahead of you draw one card.
If he draws one of the good cards, the running count drops to +1, and the true count is now +1/(25/52) = 52/25 = +2.08
If it is a small card, the running count is now +3, and the true count is +6.24.
The former will happen (14/26) of the time, and the latter (12/26) of the time. If we sum the conditional probabilities, what is the expected true count?
(14/26) * 2.08 + (12/26) * 6.24
= 1.12 + 2.88
= 4
Just where we started.
His drawing or not drawing cannot affect the expected true count by the time the dealer gets to you.
Let's say you're half-way through the deck using Hi-Lo. The remaining deck happens to consist of 12 small cards and 14 faces or aces. That means you have already seen 8 small cards and only 6 high cards. The running count is +2, and the true count is +4.
Now, let the player ahead of you draw one card.
If he draws one of the good cards, the running count drops to +1, and the true count is now +1/(25/52) = 52/25 = +2.08
If it is a small card, the running count is now +3, and the true count is +6.24.
The former will happen (14/26) of the time, and the latter (12/26) of the time. If we sum the conditional probabilities, what is the expected true count?
(14/26) * 2.08 + (12/26) * 6.24
= 1.12 + 2.88
= 4
Just where we started.
Cardcounter
Well-Known Member
Important book!
I find that this book is so important that I will give it to my friends that want to become better blackjack players.
I find that this book is so important that I will give it to my friends that want to become better blackjack players.
zengrifter
Banned
It is soooo obsolete at this stage... and confusing as well. Any number of books are beter for your friends now. zgCardcounter said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
I'll put it on my read eventually list
Right now I'm interested in anything that will quickly put me where I need to be now, because I am playing now. True, I want to eventually absorb everything that the old masters have to offer, but I'll take zg's and others' advice and stick to the latest experts and their instruction on how to beat today's menu of games with all of the tools available to today's players.
Today's experts have taken everything taught by the masters and updated it to include thirty years of scientific research and experience. Why grapple with a system that was once relevant but now must be handled with the greatest care so as not to fall into any of the errors of the past? It sounds like a great read from an historical perspective, and probably, judging from the praise heaped on it by cardcounter, a very inspirational read. I'm looking forward to reading BJaaB when I get time; I believe it will enhance my game. In the meantime, I'm already enjoying winning at BJ thanks to the help of everyone here in the Blackjackinfo forums, and I have several books already on my "must read" list.
Right now I'm interested in anything that will quickly put me where I need to be now, because I am playing now. True, I want to eventually absorb everything that the old masters have to offer, but I'll take zg's and others' advice and stick to the latest experts and their instruction on how to beat today's menu of games with all of the tools available to today's players.
Today's experts have taken everything taught by the masters and updated it to include thirty years of scientific research and experience. Why grapple with a system that was once relevant but now must be handled with the greatest care so as not to fall into any of the errors of the past? It sounds like a great read from an historical perspective, and probably, judging from the praise heaped on it by cardcounter, a very inspirational read. I'm looking forward to reading BJaaB when I get time; I believe it will enhance my game. In the meantime, I'm already enjoying winning at BJ thanks to the help of everyone here in the Blackjackinfo forums, and I have several books already on my "must read" list.
zengrifter
Banned
PBJAAB was first published in 1969 as a spiral bind version. That version included the RPC count as a level-1 (HiLo) with a per 1/2D TC.aslan said:
The per-deck TC was first suggested in Thorp's revised BTD, but only for betting, not for play indexing. Apparently it didn't occur to Thorp that his per deck simplification could also be used for play - he calibrated his indices for "PER CARD" TC. In other words he divided the RC by the number of cards played to get the play-index TC.
Revere's breakthrough was his recognition that per deck TC puts the application within reach of less mathematical minds like ours/mine.
BTW, as I pointed out in my review last year of Snyder's Big Book of BJ, Snyder's Blackbelt is the ONLY book that has been occasionally updated and revised to remain fully current spanning 25-years. zg
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
I remember back in"96" I called his sister mary up tryin to con her out the revere APC by sayin i lost my original book.
She then proceeded to ask what color my charts were
I said uh,uh,uh, they were blue. She said nice try, those are pink!:whip:
She then proceeded to ask what color my charts were
I said uh,uh,uh, they were blue. She said nice try, those are pink!:whip:
zengrifter
Banned
My friend Anthony purchased the 1971 version of RAPC for $200. He told Mary that he intended to play exclusively 1D and she proceeded to sell him the wrong system.jack said:I remember back in"96" I called his sister mary up tryin to con her out the revere APC by sayin i lost my original book.
She then proceeded to ask what color my charts were
This was in '98 and she showed him three other books - Wilson's Casino Guide, Thorp's BTD, and Epstein's Theory of Gambling, and told him that these were the only other credible books on the subject. Same pitch her late father-in-law used 25-years previously. zg
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
I cant remember exactly how i pulled this caper off. But i least got the system tags out of here. If memory serves me right she ended up sending me this little cheap blue book, printed in blackink with playin and betting indices. I think it was a updated version of the rpc. With no soft doubling indices.zengrifter said: