Real Pros?

[Chunky Yellow]

Even Stalker has a real job.

LOL, can you go even one post without lying?

 

[sagefr0g]

I did not say if I still counted I would consider myself a failure. I do still count today. No, I am saying that if I spent the last 30 years "making a living in this manner," I would consider myself a failure. That's a personal reaction. It's a crappy life if you don't also do something else. Even Stalker has a real job. If you feel differently; then that's fine for you. There are some people that go on and on about how they are BJ pros when in fact they play video poker for hours a day. What kind of life is it playing video poker for 30 years? I'm sorry if this offends you; but I think someone needs to talk about the downside. There are plenty of cheerleaders just talking about the positives.

yes and no is my position on this one. first off the work that you do in life need not be the contribution that you make for your fellow mankind. there are plenty of other avenues of endeavor that one can find self realization.
for some perhaps (due to life circumstances) advantage play may be the only viable option they have to make a living at the level of compensation that advantage play can yield.

 

[QFIT]

yes and no is my position on this one. first off the work that you do in life need not be the contribution that you make for your fellow mankind. there are plenty of other avenues of endeavor that one can find self realization.
for some perhaps (due to life circumstances) advantage play may be the only viable option they have to make a living at the level of compensation that advantage play can yield.

I agree. One of the players that CM denigrated spends a large portion of his time doing charity work. And as I have said; many have written books. And if anyone thinks that's a money making proposition... And yes you need to do what you need to do to make a living. I'm just saying that it can be a highly unpleasant and unsatisfying long term vocation. Just sucks the enjoyment out of playing. And that's something that is worth considering when looking at long term planning.

 

[zengrifter]

LOL, can you go even one post without lying?

I thought your (Stalker) day job was 'personal workout trainer', or is that just an avocation? zg

 

[zengrifter]

..for some perhaps (due to life circumstances) advantage play may be the only viable option they have to make a living at the level of compensation that advantage play can yield.

I think that is his point. Certainly its true of many or most all so-called high-level full time APs. zg

 

[sagefr0g]

...... I'm just saying that it can be a highly unpleasant and unsatisfying long term vocation. Just sucks the enjoyment out of playing. And that's something that is worth considering when looking at long term planning.

makes sense. like the old saying "they wouldn't call it work if it was fun"...
that's not to say one can't find enjoyment and fullfillment in work. the right mental mindset can go a long way in how one experiences most any work environment as long as it doesn't involve the dreaded double bind.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I thought your (Stalker) day job was 'personal workout trainer', or is that just an avocation? zg

Is that what they're calling a rentboy these days?

 

[ChefJJ]

Is that what they're calling a rentboy these days?

When you say "rentboy", are you meaning a gigolo...

Or a plaything for moneyed homosexuals?

One seems like a decent occupation, the other...well, I guess it depends how you roll.

 

[MEDITANK]

When you say "rentboy", are you meaning a gigolo...

Or a plaything for moneyed homosexuals?

One seems like a decent occupation, the other...well, I guess it depends how you roll.

:laugh: :grin: :band:

YOUR TOO MUCH Chef! I guess it's break out the K-Y.

*ROTFLMAO!!!!*

 

[Automatic Monkey]

When you say "rentboy", are you meaning a gigolo...

I was a gigolo once. I kid you not!

But I was kind of ashamed of it, so when people asked me what I did for a living, I told them I was a "heavy equipment operator in a small contracting unit. " :cat:

 

[zengrifter]

Is that what they're calling a rentboy these days?

Now you've done it! Batten down the hatches and prepare for the full unbridaled wrath of Kahn... errr Stalker. zg

 

[jack.jackson]

Now you've done it! Batten down the hatches and prepare for the full unbridaled wrath of Kahn... errr Stalker. zg

I spit at thee, with my last dying breath.Imagine that.imagine that?

 

[Craps Master]

I agree. One of the players that CM denigrated spends a large portion of his time doing charity work.

Who on the list of 13 authorities have I denigrated? What charitable soul have I slandered? Schlesinger is about the only one on that list I would have something negative to say about (for having an overblown opinion about himself, his book, and his expertise), and I don't even think I've done that. I've just mentioned, as I have about you, that they generally aren't actual working professional players, and that most of them are authors or salesmen with limited expertise. A lot are hacks as well, but I haven't specified anyone on that, so I haven't, as you say, denigrated anyone. I leave it as an exercise to the aspiring professional to determine which of the 13 authorities you repeatedly list to try and give your software some credibility are hacks and which are legitimate. It's not so hard to figure out.

 

[Craps Master]

First you accuse me of claiming all over the ‘Net that I am an expert. When I point out that I have never posted such; you then repeatedly claim I admit to not being an expert. Now you demand that I claim I am or admit I’m not. If I say no; you will again repeatedly say I admit I’m no expert and that you were right all along. If I say Yes; you will again state that I noisily claim to be an expert and that you were right all along. I will not play your childish game.

Wow, you can't even answer a direct question such as, "Do you consider yourself an expert on blackjack." What is the point of even having a conversation with you if you can't answer a simple question like that? Oh well, we've established that you're not a professional and that you can't answer a question about your level of expertise. I guess that's good enough for me.

Well, he could tell you to spread 1-30 at double deck without any explanation

What more needs to be explained? My answers to the questions posed by zengrifter and Automatic Monkey are very useful for the professional and aspiring professional. I can see how they lack the theoretical aspect of EV calculations to the third decimal place that you might treasure, but if the aspiring professionals go out there and put my ideas into action, they'll make bigger gains in EV than they would from spending ten thousand hours Mickey Mousing around with your software.

As for CM's statements that all respected authorities in the field are money-hungry hacks and he is the only real source of information, these are common statements by trolls on all types of forums and they should be called on it.

I'd love for you to show me where I said that "all respected authorities in the field are money-hungry hacks" and that "I am the only real source of information." Oh wait, I never said either of those things, so I doubt you'll be able to quote where I did. Once again, you are forced to fabricate statements out of thin air, because logic has overwhelmed your untenable position. Just listen to your erstwhile fans in this very thread. They're telling you the same thing I've been telling you: you should make an exit, because you're making yourself look bad with all of these baseless attacks.

 

[QFIT]

If I say I am an expert; he attacks me. If I say I am not; he attacks me. And if I say neither; he attacks me. What's the point of conversation when absolutely every possible answer results in an attack?

 

[EasyRhino]

In determining if a pit is better than another pit in a major house, you first look to see which pit has the table with the biggest action.

We're talking about playing at a table other than that of the whale, right?

Playing at the same table (while perhaps fun), would also seem that it might attract collateral attention from the pit, and I would think more importantly, the eye?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Whichever strategy will get you the most EV in any particular situation. Consider, for example, that you're at a major casino with plenty of shoes, but you've found a dealer who deals at lightning speed and you've got the table heads up or with only another player or two there. What's the answer? I would probably stay and play all and employ as enormous a spread as I can. You see, these types of things are just glossed over in the books, with their tables of expected hands per hour for a given number of players at the table. Generally speaking, trying to find a dealer who deals significantly faster than other dealers is superior to Wonging out or backcounting.

The answer to your question also depends on your entry and departure points. I don't really advocate moving around the pit or casino with aggressive Wonging-out or backcounting, but trying to find the pit or dealer with the best conditions. If you absolutely must bounce around, you can certainly reduce the spread by requiring a positive edge before jumping in and leaving at your best estimate for the ODP. But, again, all of that stuff is for minor-leaguers. Far better is scouting for the best conditions, remembering the names, shifts, and so on of dealers who deal and shuffle extremely fast and being surgical in how you target shoes. You can literally double your long-term EV this way.

In determining if a pit is better than another pit in a major house, you first look to see which pit has the table with the biggest action. You then position yourself at a table at which it is inconvenient for a boss to pay close attention to you in the same pit, because he'll have to track and observe the big player's play closely. Keep your max bet below the big player's bets, and you won't get noticed very much. Secondly, you look for pits where the bosses definitely don't remember you or, if they do remember you, it is because you got destroyed the last time you were playing there, and they think of you as a loser.

These things will take you much further than worrying about when to Wong in or out of a game or what spread you should employ when using different approaches. If you find a shoe with great conditions but where the count gets intolerably low, you can always Wong out to the bathroom for a couple of minutes and then come right back for the next shoe.

I don't see how your approach is the best one. We've stipulated that we're talking about mid-level counters playing good shoe games in the carpet joints on the Strip, right? And we're playing aggressively and without cover.

If I'm playing aggressively and without cover, I'm not going to be playing any -EV hands at all. There's no benefit to playing with a fast dealer at a negative count, because that just means you lose money faster. Playing deep pen with a negative count means you lose money longer. If playing a negative shoe means losing EV and watching a negative shoe be dealt out means zero EV, why not go and watch some other shoe and Wong in for positive EV? You can always come back to your favorite dealer on the next shoe if you don't find a good count somewhere else.

Overall though I like your choice of games and approach. Last time in LV I played very little DD because there are only a couple of games left in town that are as good as Strip shoe at the green level. There's one thing I wanted to add about spreads and game selection and that is making sure you can actually find a table and one that you can spread out on. Let's say you are capitalized for a spread of either $10-1x$200 or $10-2x$150. First of all don't hold your breath waiting for a $10 table at the Strip stores we're talking about, and if you do find one with a vacant seat, it's very unlikely you will have another vacant seat next to you throughout a shoe. So if the count gets big you're going to end up playing 1x$200. Now assuming you are rigorously Wonging out of bad counts, you are a lot better off getting on a $25 table and spreading $25-2x$150, in a less-crowded game where you can be sure you're going to be able to spread to the second hand.

 

[ChefJJ]

I was a gigolo once. I kid you not!

But I was kind of ashamed of it, so when people asked me what I did for a living, I told them I was a "heavy equipment operator in a small contracting unit. " :cat:

That's freaking great!

 

[zengrifter]

If I say I am an expert; he attacks me. If I say I am not; he attacks me. And if I say neither; he attacks me. What's the point of conversation when absolutely every possible answer results in an attack?

AND, he/she's got you talking to yourself! zg

 

[Craps Master]

I don't see how your approach is the best one. We've stipulated that we're talking about mid-level counters playing good shoe games in the carpet joints on the Strip, right? And we're playing aggressively and without cover.

If I'm playing aggressively and without cover, I'm not going to be playing any -EV hands at all. There's no benefit to playing with a fast dealer at a negative count, because that just means you lose money faster. Playing deep pen with a negative count means you lose money longer. If playing a negative shoe means losing EV and watching a negative shoe be dealt out means zero EV, why not go and watch some other shoe and Wong in for positive EV? You can always come back to your favorite dealer on the next shoe if you don't find a good count somewhere else.

It's really all a matter of how much money you can get down in positive EV situations per hour given your playing options. If you think wonging around is superior in that respect to playing a much faster game, I think you're mistaken. You can get four or five times as many hands per hour playing one lightning speed dealer under good conditions than you can wonging around. This will generally translate to more positive EV bets that you can make. If you're spreading an enormous amount, the bets you make in negative EV situations become more and more negligible, and hands per hour becomes much more important.

Sure, in intolerable counts you can wong around, but wonging also draws attention to your game. Why? Because, at the very least, the boss is going to have to track what you've taken off of one table and brought to another table. It's part of his job description to have to do that. Now you're getting noticed. Now he has a data point on you: that you bounce around between tables. Far better to do as I've suggested and take measures to get the best possible game speed and the least amount of scrutiny. Sticking it out at a table where a boss can't pay much attention to you because he's busy watching bigger action is the way to go. You can bet that surveillance isn't watching you either, because surveillance generally zeroes in on the tables with biggest action in the casino. Never wong into those tables, regardless of the count. They're poison. You can get away with murder at the tables when nobody is watching you.

Other strong moves are to raise the table minimum to whatever your bankroll and spread dictate and to get the boss to make your table a non-smoking table as quickly as you can. Not only does this increase your EV against getting cancer, but it also increases your hands per hour by way of reducing the number of ploppies who end up sitting at your table.

Lastly, and this was ignored for theoretical reasons before, but wonging does take time. You don't just leave your shoe and immediately find another good shoe. You don't even have any guarantee of finding a fresh shoe at all which, of course, limits the potential of the shoes you come across. It may require going all over the place, when quickly eating away the negative count on a shoe with otherwise great conditions would get you to positive counts and big bets sooner.

Overall though I like your choice of games and approach. Last time in LV I played very little DD because there are only a couple of games left in town that are as good as Strip shoe at the green level.

Right, I advocate against playing double deck. I advocate playing shoes. The shoe games in places like the MGM are just begging to get creamed by counters. Stay under the radar via being a relative peon, employ an enormous spread, and get the optimal conditions for game speed, and you'll get the money. It's as simple as that. Screw around with too much camouflage, or too small of a spread, or too much wonging and you won't get the money and you will get noticed a lot more than you ought to.