Singing the Riverboat Blues

[rob2004]

Simply Hopeless, or a Note From a Dissatisfied Customer

I'm not sure why you all seem to assume that I never learned basic strategy or how to play in an "orthodox" fashion, when I have repeatedly said that I have. Nor do I understand why you seem to believe that I have "cherry picked" my results from home, or am relying on a sample that is not statistically valid, except to say that such accusation supports your position. Equally, I have read "good" books, and "bad" books about blackjack, and will tell you that while I certainly do not idolize Richard Harvey, or any other single author for that matter, I will still maintain that he was at least willing to explore different possibilities, which is what I was looking for in the first place, why I evoked his name, and is why I elected to use the metaphor of interpreting the bible. In short, though certainly well intentioned, because most of your responses seem to suggest that anyone who questions your doctrine must either be a liar, a fraud, an incompetent boob, or a "Ploggy" (whatever that is) I guess I should seek out more furtive ground elsewhere. But before I go, least I throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, I will read, Busting Vegas, and as for sagefr0g's response, I truly did try to digest the information in your link, but unfortunately found it far too difficult to swallow, or too advanced for my simple mind. Still though, I appreciate your effort along with everyone else's.

Rob

 

[Sonny]

I'm not sure why you all seem to assume that I never learned basic strategy or how to play in an "orthodox" fashion, when I have repeatedly said that I have.

Again, I think it was your original post that gave people that idea. You later mentioned that you play proper basic strategy, but some people may not have not read that part. The playing mistakes in your original post were so drastic that they probably stuck in people’s minds. I think you just got off on the wrong foot and people have trouble getting past that.

Nor do I understand why you seem to believe that I have "cherry picked" my results from home, or am relying on a sample that is not statistically valid, except to say that such accusation supports your position.

The fact that your results are still affected by the variance of the game shows that your sample size is not significant. The results of a session should not make a difference in your overall results. That is just the nature of variance. That is something that you will understand as you start to learn more about the math behind the game. If you tell us how many hands you have played we can give you more details about the results you should expect, but we can already tell that they are not significant.

…I will still maintain that he [Richard Harvey] was at least willing to explore different possibilities, which is what I was looking for in the first place

Well then, you came to the right place. I gave you a link with a dozen ways to get an advantage other than card counting. Each technique is a gateway to new possibilities. Nobody ever said that card counting is the only way or that blackjack is the only beatable game. Card counting at blackjack is just one of the easiest and most widely documented methods so most people start with that.

In short, though certainly well intentioned, because most of your responses seem to suggest that anyone who questions your doctrine must either be a liar, a fraud, an incompetent boob, or a "Ploggy" (whatever that is)

I honestly don’t mean any offense here, but you are a ploppy. You’re a novice player who doesn’t yet understand the nuances of the game. You aren’t able to distinguish a legitimate technique from an illegitimate one. That’s why we are trying to help you. We want to steer you away from the systems that are worthless and help you understand why you shouldn’t expect them to work. Trust me, it will save you a lot of time if you ignore all the systems that have already been proven to fail. The sooner you understand why these systems fail, the sooner you will be able to recognize them and avoid them. That way you can focus your attention on finding or creating new ways that will work. That is what all of us are here to discuss.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

Simply Hopeless, or a Note From a Dissatisfied Customer

I'm not sure why you all seem to assume that I never learned basic strategy or how to play in an "orthodox" fashion, when I have repeatedly said that I have.

that's right you said you knew about card counting but didn't think you could do it. sorry about that.

Nor do I understand why you seem to believe that I have "cherry picked" my results from home, or am relying on a sample that is not statistically valid, except to say that such accusation supports your position.

well the sample isn't statistically valid in orthodox respects cause it's too small. so maybe you do have some thing to learn about the orthodox stuff.
but i think the cherry picking comments were because it's known that it's sort of human nature to do that and so it was assumed you might have been doing that.
by the way you could check your home results against 'expected' standard deviation to determine if there is really something highly unusual going on there. you'd need to know a few exacting parameters such as expected standard deviation and the number of hands you played.

Equally, I have read "good" books, and "bad" books about blackjack, and will tell you that while I certainly do not idolize Richard Harvey, or any other single author for that matter, I will still maintain that he was at least willing to explore different possibilities, which is what I was looking for in the first place, why I evoked his name, and is why I elected to use the metaphor of interpreting the bible. In short, though certainly well intentioned, because most of your responses seem to suggest that anyone who questions your doctrine must either be a liar, a fraud, an incompetent boob, or a "Ploggy" (whatever that is) I guess I should seek out more furtive ground elsewhere.

yeah well at least i guessed that part right. lol.
so but i'm still curious and maybe you missed my question earlier. i'll ask again but no big deal lol. so but like i was saying i found it extremely hard to follow Harvey's writing. how about you?
and also i was wondering if you understood, agreed with his ideas of being able to determine the likelyhood of what the hole card might be?

But before I go, least I throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, I will read, Busting Vegas, and as for sagefr0g's response, I truly did try to digest the information in your link, but unfortunately found it far too difficult to swallow, or too advanced for my simple mind. Still though, I appreciate your effort along with everyone else's.

Rob

right wouldn't wanna throw that baby out lol.
sorry about throwing that silly link out. don't worry about it. just a voodoo slant thing i thought you might be interested in since you expressed interest in arcane matters. but really one of the biggest points was how most of this stuff is far to dificult to swallow and that reality it's self is far to advanced for our simple minds even though we'd like to believe the opposite. to where it's only prudent to know when the gap between what you know and what you think you know becomes dangerously wide.
again a mistake on my part and i appologize for the charlatan voodoo link. lol.
so but if you read it there was some mention of standard deviation in there.
that would be about the only part of that thesis that truly relates to the maths of blackjack. the idea of the link was that for loads of phenomenon in the universe or what ever that sometimes our maths and statisitics that we tend to rely on don't always accurately help us as much as we'd like to believe. the ironic thing was that the author does think statistics and maths work just fine for the casino environment lol. so just to let you know we both might share at least the trait of critical thinking albeit perhaps not a perfect knowledge of advantage play. i harbor this admittedly unjustified hope that it might be posible to take advantage of standard deviations and that even blackjack and casino's might harbor Black Swans. lol.
definately nothing to it of any value so again i appologize but thats the reason i was just wanting to make sure you had a solid understanding of the orthodox stuff of advantage play.
oh and no big deal but i doubt you'll find busting vegas much help for learning anything new. i'd suggest John May's Get the Edge at Blackjack although it reportedly has some errors in it. Busting Vegas is just sort of a good story.

 

[rob2004]

With Apologies All Around

It is I who will apologize. Beyond ADD and Dyslexia keeping me from being able to count cards, it can also cause me to come off as being defensive or arrogant. And so, if I may, I would like to ask that we start anew, assuming some simple parameters:

1. I already know basic strategy extremely well, and not just from memorizing the charts, but also from understanding its basic principles (Remember, although I have indeed experimented with the aforementioned variations, I only carry a chart with me to use as a way of checking that my symptoms have not gotten the better of me)

2. I understand the stupidity of negative betting progressions.

3. I always look for the best possible rules available before sitting down to play, I play very slowly, I never play hunches, and I always look for whatever comps I can get.

4. I will freely admit to once having had the fantasy that if I got good enough, I could use my ability to play as a way of supplementing my income, but I've known all along that blackjack is, and will always be gambling against a consistent house edge.

These things having been said, I would still like some advice as to the following questions...

1. Other than speeding up the game (forcing the player to lose money faster and also lose comps) shouldn't any machine that truly randomizes multiple decks actually serve the interest of the non-counter who is using basic strategy? Or, stated otherwise, are there any other reasons why I should avoid automated or continuous shufflers, such as card clumping?

2. I have read and been told that if a player loses more than 3 hands in a row, it is time to either find another table, or, failing this, leave altogether. But after waiting several months to acquire enough of a stake to play with, and then driving 3 hours just to get to a casino, this is easier said than done. I realize that the casinos are counting on just this type of scenario, and this is the biggest reason why I have done so much worse in real life than in computer simulated games, and so, I have decided on a compromise. Given my desire to maximize each trip, and the limited amount of minimal stake tables with favorable rules that are available at small riverboat casinos, I will only play 3 consecutive losses per shoe, or between shuffles, sitting out the remainder, while holding my place at the table. Does this make sense, or am I only fooling myself?

 

[GeorgeD]

No need to apologize, people are just trying to help. Maybe they are a little rough, but playing the game can be rough.

1) You know BS, but my understanding was you don't always follow it. If you don't you should since you do not count or use other AP strategies.

2) Excellent.

3) Also excellent.

4) Yes. Without advanced techniques you may have good wins, but are not likely make money on a long term basis. But you never know .. maybe you'll have a long lucky streak.

and then ....

1) Machines shouldn't matter. Some claim they tend to reduce varience (good/bad swings) but the HA always plays out in the end.

2) I suppose you can do this if you like, but it can't be proven to help. The fack that you lost (or won) the last X hands has no significant effect on what will happen with future hands except when you losing changes the count. Since you don't count you can't exploit that.

There may be clumps especially in a hand shuffled game, but since you don't track them, you can't exploit them. Because a clump started three hands ago doesn't mean it will end, and doesn't mean it won't turn into a positive clump.

Sitting out hands may help because you play less you lose less, If the pit critter notices, he may reduce you play rate which will reduce your comps. May be better to take a phone call, a walk or BR break than just sit there for more than a hand or two.

It is I who will apologize. Beyond ADD and Dyslexia keeping me from being able to count cards, it can also cause me to come off as being defensive or arrogant. And so, if I may, I would like to ask that we start anew, assuming some simple parameters:

1. I already know basic strategy extremely well, and not just from memorizing the charts, but also from understanding its basic principles (Remember, although I have indeed experimented with the aforementioned variations, I only carry a chart with me to use as a way of checking that my symptoms have not gotten the better of me)

2. I understand the stupidity of negative betting progressions.

3. I always look for the best possible rules available before sitting down to play, I play very slowly, I never play hunches, and I always look for whatever comps I can get.

4. I will freely admit to once having had the fantasy that if I got good enough, I could use my ability to play as a way of supplementing my income, but I've known all along that blackjack is, and will always be gambling against a consistent house edge.

These things having been said, I would still like some advice as to the following questions...

1. Other than speeding up the game (forcing the player to lose money faster and also lose comps) shouldn't any machine that truly randomizes multiple decks actually serve the interest of the non-counter who is using basic strategy? Or, stated otherwise, are there any other reasons why I should avoid automated or continuous shufflers, such as card clumping?

2. I have read and been told that if a player loses more than 3 hands in a row, it is time to either find another table, or, failing this, leave altogether. But after waiting several months to acquire enough of a stake to play with, and then driving 3 hours just to get to a casino, this is easier said than done. I realize that the casinos are counting on just this type of scenario, and this is the biggest reason why I have done so much worse in real life than in computer simulated games, and so, I have decided on a compromise. Given my desire to maximize each trip, and the limited amount of minimal stake tables with favorable rules that are available at small riverboat casinos, I will only play 3 consecutive losses per shoe, or between shuffles, sitting out the remainder, while holding my place at the table. Does this make sense, or am I only fooling myself?

 

[ihate17]

Gee I wish I wrote that bit of dribble

2. I have read and been told that if a player loses more than 3 hands in a row, it is time to either find another table, or, failing this, leave altogether.

Rob
As a cardcounter I wish that everyone would obey this peace of garbage advice because some of the best shoes I have ever had have begun with tons of little cards coming out. This results often in players staying with totals of 12-16 vs a dealer stiff and then the dealer makes his hand and kills the table several times in a row. The result is you lose several minimum bets, the non counters have happily (for me) ran away from the so called hot dealer, and only stupid little old me is left on the table with a positive count. It is situations like this where I have had many of the best shoes of my life.

Even plain common sense should tell a non counter that just because the dealer won a few in a row does not mean that he will continue to win, but common sense is a very rare thing to find in a casino.

ihate17

 

[Mr. T]

There is hope for you. You are paying attention to some of the things others are telling you here.

For myself I would say you put me off track by your rant on belief in BS as in the Bible, card counting for Zen Masters only and calling us traditionalist and you a reformer.

If you take all the advice that others are giving you then you could minimize your losses. Still expect to lose. You cannot win. I would say that gambling is probably the most expansive hobby you can find.