SplitFaceDisaster question answered

[Dummy]

First off I am not looking for any advice from you, I hope you did not think I did. Last shame on you for posting this above crap about betting trends.

I said it was ploppy like thought but it also is a fact. Some call it an alternating bet ramp. The part about not raising your bet after a loss was in almost every blackjack book when it came to increasing longevity. I stated it costs EV. It also affects the ride just the way betting schemes affect the ride for ploppies. Nothing I wrote wasn't factual. Why didn't you take Don to ask for suggesting only raising your bet after wins in his book? Why not Carlson for the alternating bet ramp in his book? What I suggested was using both Don's advice and Carlson's advice. I pointed out it cost EV, but also pointed out it restructured the way you win and lose money in a way that trades severe downswings for less severe downswings, while increasing the severe upswings and changing pushed runs of alternating wins and losses to losses every other round of the difference between your larger TC bet and your smaller TC bet for the same TC.

I guess when the bigot reads the same advice in Don's book or Carlson's book with the explanation of how it affects you in the short term and the explanation from the books of how useful it is for increasing longevity it is okay it is all the sudden bad advice. When I say the exact same concepts but go into more detail about their effects on your wins and losses round to round you take me to the woodshed. The stuff about RA indices is well established. RA insurance play goes back all the way to Peter Griffin as what is optimal for BR growth. Typical bigotry. Didn't you realize the altrernating bets is Carlson's masterpeice, and the only raising bets when winning was in every blackjack book including Don's as good cover? You do realize RA insurance play goes back to Griffin? Perhaps now you see how badly your bigotry stains your thought process. All the stuff I wrote is long established and accepted concepts for more efficient play or longevity. Just RA insurance was mine. I just went into more detail about how all this affects the short run. Basically you are limiting downswings while not hurting EV much. That makes your BR grow more steadily. All I have done is use all these concepts at once and explain their effect on the likelihood of BR growth by relating some of what is going on to ploppy betting schemes. I didn't come up with any of these concepts, except RA surrender. I would be willing to bet a number of people have been quietly doing that for a long time. It is just way too obvious for me to be the first to look into it.

Now don't you feel silly. I didn't intentionally set you up. But when you challenge all the major contributions and established concepts simply because I talked about the effects of using them, you either show your ignorance or your blinding bigotry.

 

[KewlJ]

"The community" seems to only want one viewpoint presented. I just present my viewpoint and let the chips fall where they may. Any good researcher reads all opinions whether they agree with his position or not.

This is interesting to me, because you played a big part in insuring that MY viewpoint NOT be presented for the last 4 years.

But I am not going to get into that right now out of respect for Al.

But I do have a question: In reading through a lot of your "mumbo jumbo", and that is exactly what I think much of your postings are, , I can't help but notice that reasons you give for many things are optimal bankroll growth. Usually players obsessed with optimal bankroll growth are players just starting out and growing their bankrolls. Most of us have been there.

But why are you still there? Playing for decades as you have and at least 5 years professionally, with your "super duper count", making all kinds of money as you say (I could pull some quotes, but will just leave it at that), why are you still growing your bankroll? There comes a time when most of us have built the bankroll we need. I mean there is only so high you can go as far as bankroll, because there is only so high you can go as far as limits that you can play. And once a player gets to that point, bankroll growth no longer needs to be top priority and top priority should be maximizing profits and longevity.

To me this is the kind of thing about you and your story or claims that just don't add up and why you have credibility issues in my eyes and apparently many others.

 

[Dummy]

But why are you still there? Playing for decades as you have and at least 5 years professionally, with your "super duper count", making all kinds of money as you say (I could pull some quotes, but will just leave it at that), why are you still growing your bankroll?

Because a a professional what I spend is dependent on BR growth. I can make BR growth very steady so I don't have to wine about swings like one professional that posts here. I generate more than enough EV. The issues are being allowed to play and not looking to threatening. Large buy-ins, big swings, and big wins and losses make you look a lot more threatening than regular smaller wins. With smaller wins and swings they see you will not threaten their shift, day or month. If your play allows them to look the other way, they know you have their back. That is they don't need to worry about you getting them scrutiny from superiors. I got a boatload more heat making less overall but having to buy-in heavy often and creating regular big swings, and big wins and losses.

I realized it wasn't about making the most money I can and then being done with a short career. It was about being allowed to play for years and years while making what I need. I wish I figured that out earlier. I burned too many places earning 6 figures a year. Of course one place is too many in my mind. Once my BR grew to 6 figures (actually even less than that) I didn't need to earn that much to meet my needs. I really wish I had figured that out sooner. I felt like 6 figures a year was some kind of badge of honor. Maybe for other people, but that doesn't fit what I want to do with my career. The more places you lose the harder it is to spread your action around. Once I get in a national network I will go back to the places I lost. Until then I will let their back-offs stand and just play the other casinos I have left. I really don't have being a traveling AP in my plan for the short term future.

 

[KewlJ]

OK, thanks for clarifying some of that. Some of this particular issue is terminology. When I hear bankroll growth, I think of my early years, starting out with a very small bankroll, playing underfunded and not taking out winnings or taking as little as possible so as to allow your bankroll to grow and move up in stakes.

I now start every year with a set BR (100k in my case) and as I win or lose through the year (hopefully more win than lose) and my bankroll gets bigger, I don't really consider that "bankroll growth". I consider that winnings, that I will eventually take out at years end. It would be bankroll growth if I didn't take those winnings and just allowed the bankroll to grow as I did or tried to do in my early years.

So you are using different terminology that I would use or maybe more precisely using a specific terminology in a different manner than I would. To each his own.

And now I am going to pivot and discuss something else. Many of your thoughts on longevity, and identifying casino tolerance and comfort levels as well as style of play, particularly short sessions designed not to create large win situations that pit personnel have to answer for....well I feel like I have heard that all somewhere before. I have been reading some of these things that you say for a couple years now and man, a lot of it sounds like things I have said for 9 years now since I moved to Vegas and devised my particular plan of attack designed to take advantage of Vegas....many casinos in close proximity. That is when I came up with instead of trying to "trick" casinos and/or casino personnel, or fly under the radar, which didn't work for me in Atlantic City, I would find a level and style better tolerated. Sort of a co-exist strategy.

I really see a lot of my thoughts, almost to the word in some of your writing. Might be coincidence, or maybe I had some influence on you. Not looking for you to admit that, nor do I need any kind of credit, just an observation that I find interesting.

 

[psyduck]

I really see a lot of my thoughts, almost to the word in some of your writing. Might be coincidence, or maybe I had some influence on you. Not looking for you to admit that, nor do I need any kind of credit, just an observation that I find interesting.

No coincidence. You have been around for a long time, not Dummy Tthree.

Remember the old days:

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/asking-for-new-members-comments.16852/#post-166432

 

[Dummy]

Obviously we took different roads when it comes to approach. But I read all your posts and respected your knowledge, even though it was from another perspective. Where it applied to what I was doing I added it to the influences of other people that shaped what I do. Of course this discussion has been about things other than counting approach so you probably were one of the voices I took to heart. I know I don't share my view with all my mentors. As I am sure you know, if I lived in a casino cluster like Vegas, I would be able to explore more playing options and may be doing much the same thing as you are doing, not talking about counting approach. But I have to deal with my regional issues. Maybe if the number of casinos that exist now were here when you played you wouldn't have had to move. But I am guessing that you have no regrets. It sounds like you found a great fit. AC is the only casino cluster around here and it is a pail shadow of what it used to be in that respect.

I know this is belated and I may have already said it, but I am sorry to hear about your lose of your loved one. Way too young for that sort of thing to happen. My condolences.

 

[KewlJ]

I know this is belated and I may have already said it, but I am sorry to hear about your lose of your loved one. Way too young for that sort of thing to happen. My condolences.

Thank you.

Maybe if the number of casinos that exist now were here when you played you wouldn't have had to move. But I am guessing that you have no regrets. It sounds like you found a great fit. AC is the only casino cluster around here and it is a pail shadow of what it used to be in that respect.

The timing of my departure from AC is kind of funny. I had five and a half good years in AC (living in Philly, playing AC). Worked my way up from a very small spread playing red, to playing green to mid black. And then I wore out my welcome. AC was ideal as a training ground and for low limit play and building a BR and experience. Looking back, I would never have been able to sustain green to mid black play there. It is just too small. Too few casinos. Same faces every day or every few days. And the timing was good because I feel like just as I was shown the door, AC took a nosedive related not only to blackjack, but everything. It dramatically went down hill. Casinos began shutting down. I didn't think so at the time but it was definitely for the best for me.

As for not moving if all the casinos in Pa and neighboring states were around at the time: Vegas was my destiny. My first trip to Vegas, probably my 3rd year playing blackjack for a living, as I flew into Vegas and the plane touched down, I knew I was "home". It took a couple more years for that to officially happen, but there was never a doubt from that moment on. I bleed neon.

 

[BoSox]

A creative AP can do the same by how he chooses to apply his count system. To some extent you can choose the ride to much the same long run. You can alter bet sizes. You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning. Raising a bet after wins and lowering bets after losses costs EV if the bets aren't optimal, but can be good cover because another reason for bet moves is obvious. What it also does is shift where and how you win and lose money on the way to the long run. All those nightmare shoes where you get a monster count and can't win a hand. guess what you didn't raise your bet. That huge lose is made into a small lose. But that shoe where wins and losses alternated you know lose the difference between your two bet sizes for each TC very other round. And that shoe where you won non stop you may play with even higher bets, if your last round won bet is more than your normal bet and your last round lost bet is less, causing larger upswings. If your winner bet and loser bet average to your optimal bet EV is unchanged but variance is increased. But swings are actually changed in a favorable way. That is a judgment call, but cutting the amount lost in your massive losing shoes and replacing them with even more massive winning shoes and more moderate losers is something I prefer for both longevity and certainty of BR growth.

Dummy, the above paragraph is all I responded to. Nothing about Ra index plays. Now pertaining to what I did respond to I did not like it when I first read it, and I still don't, as a matter of fact, I do not think it belongs on this board as I think it stinks. Established players who know their game well and are properly bankrolled while betting higher stakes can implement some of the plays periodically for cover as it is necessary. New players starting out should stay away from attempting most of this crap, as there are too many reasons for them to form bad habits. Their playing banks are smaller, they are for the most part betting red and the need for cover, for the most part, is unnecessary especially with the higher house edges that are prevalent today.

 

[BoSox]

Now don't you feel silly. I didn't intentionally set you up. But when you challenge all the major contributions and established concepts simply because I talked about the effects of using them, you either show your ignorance or your blinding bigotry.

I am not afraid to say that many of those established concepts should be reconsidered and reestablished. Frankly, the games have changed far too much for the worse and some of the old camouflage plays need reexamining. So if I am showing as you say ignorance on the matter I stand by it. Pertaining to me possibly holding some kind of bigotry toward you, it very well may be true that unfortunately slowly developed over the years. Hopefully, I will stop that, as I hold the same views on some politicians for decades.

PS: When Don played often he did not raise his bet after losing a hand because he was worried about possibly having a bigger session loss you idiot. I have the right to call you that after you calling me a bigot.

 

[BoSox]

A creative AP can do the same by how he chooses to apply his count system. To some extent you can choose the ride to much the same long run. You can alter bet sizes. You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning. Raising a bet after wins and lowering bets after losses costs EV if the bets aren't optimal, but can be good cover because another reason for bet moves is obvious. What it also does is shift where and how you win and lose money on the way to the long run. All those nightmare shoes where you get a monster count and can't win a hand. guess what you didn't raise your bet. That huge lose is made into a small lose. But that shoe where wins and losses alternated you know lose the difference between your two bet sizes for each TC very other round. And that shoe where you won non stop you may play with even higher bets, if your last round won bet is more than your normal bet and your last round lost bet is less, causing larger upswings. If your winner bet and loser bet average to your optimal bet EV is unchanged but variance is increased. But swings are actually changed in a favorable way. That is a judgment call, but cutting the amount lost in your massive losing shoes and replacing them with even more massive winning shoes and more moderate losers is something I prefer for both longevity and certainty of BR growth.

The above quote implies that all counts including simple counts have numerous opportunities available throughout the shoe to determine if you are hot or cold, "voodoo" to fire away or hold back. Very few opportunities appear, and when they do most players unlike yourself do not have the luxury to think about if they are hot or cold, they need to fire their ammo. You already KNOW that is true but are being a hypocrite in the process, and I will prove it right now with two quotes you made this week on the other site.

"My doubling playing counts may not be at all correlated to the betting TC so no move in the TC is required to be in that situation when the playing count and betting count have little correlation. Sometimes I forget how many opportunities are forfeited when you commit to a simple count or even a traditional count. Sorry everyone. I see what Bosox has been complaining about. Many of the avenues I pursue just don't exist for most players' approaches. The less complicated the approach the more the avenues to improve are closed off for you. Nothing wrong with the simple approach. It gets the money in the long run. But if you gather more info and/or use information differently opportunities are there to improve things concerning EV, CE, and more specifically changing the variance makeup concerning swings. But that small subset where any count have a big bet out and are at the doubling or splitting index this concept applies. For most that convergence of conditions is too rare to have much of an impact on results. "

"I just never thought about how many opportunities are closed to you when you decide to use a very simple approach. The concept is valid but the number of times you can apply it using a simple approach with no extra info and a traditional way of using info seems quite limited. You need to be at the double/split index with a big bet out. The frequency of the time you are putting more money out when this is the case is very small. "

I call that being a two-faced hypocrite and a liar to boot!

 

[Dummy]

PS: When Don played often he did not raise his bet after losing a hand because he was worried about possibly having a bigger session loss you idiot. I have the right to call you that after you calling me a bigot.

I never said limiting losses was the reason to do it. I was talking about byproducts of doing things. I wanted people to see the analogy of ploppy betting systems structuring the way wins and losses stacked up and the way some of our decisions for other reasons do the same. If you understand the byproducts of your decisions you may feel they weigh on one side of the scale or the other and help you make a better decision about strategy. Changes made can take away from one type of run and add to another type of run. You can use this knowledge to structure your strategy so results stay closer to expectation by trading outliers you don't like for more moderate results by the strategy you choose. Some players make a change that makes the ride change and don't understand why the ride changed. That doesn't allow them to understand the game fully or make the best informed decisions concerning steady BR growth. These kind of things don't show up in long term stats because they are short term differences. But many of them affect important things like heat and how steady your BR growth is. Some people like the big swings. Nothing wrong with that as it is a matter of personal preference. That is not my perspective.

I like to very steadily increase my BR so I can spend the money and not hit times where I am taking a lot out while I am getting my ass kicked. I try to reduce the severity and frequency of losing without affecting long term EV much. Some of the things I do toward this end increase EV and some of what I do decrease EV. I can force the net to be positive or negative. It is such a small percentage difference that I don't worry about it. But everyone should understand my system allows a lot more avenues for flexibility and the use of techniques not available to most systems. Not bragging. It is just a fact. I worked to develop high level counting skills to have these opportunities. I think it was worth it, but that is a judgement call everyone makes for themselves. I try to only post techniques that are available to all, or make it clear they aren't. Some of my classic screw ups are when I get this wrong. I think these are the times that gets you going against me. I can't find fault with anyone for that. I screwed up. I have been trying to think more about how well things apply to other approaches and post accordingly, largely because of your input. I thank you for that. Others just take shots at me, but there is some value to some of your criticism and I am trying to take it to heart.

 

[psyduck]

But everyone should understand my system allows a lot more avenues for flexibility and the use of techniques not available to most systems. Not bragging. It is just a fact. I worked to develop high level counting skills to have these opportunities.

Why don't you just say "I am the smartest ass and my system defines the upper limit of counting" and be done with it?

 

[BoSox]

Dummy, at times when we jostle or fight and I, tend to get hard at times this should be looked upon as a compliment. Only because I recognize the knowledge you possess and the potential that is there for possibly enhancing the game for simple system players. In other words, I think you are worth the trouble to debate with.

 

[KewlJ]

Why don't you just say "I am the smartest ass and my system defines the upper limit of counting" and be done with it?

You spelled defies wrong.

 

[psyduck]

You spelled defies wrong.

No, I meant "define".

 

[psyduck]

Here is a little history for you Dummy. You used to be and expert in dice control. Are you still doing it?

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/black-jack-or-craps.22095/

BTW, what did you do to get banned as Tthree? Just to refresh my memory.

 

[psyduck]

In other words, I think you are worth the trouble to debate with.

Good luck! Be prepared to be put to sleep by long meaningless posts and eventually "lose" the debate, unless you can make longer posts with deeper, more confusing, vaguer, and drunken thoughts!

 

[Dummy]

Why don't you just say "I am the smartest ass and my system defines the upper limit of counting" and be done with it?

Because none of that is true. I don't know why you think it is true. I have some pockets of expertise that few have pursued. I have a pretty good knowledge of the game especially from the perspective of my pursuits. I have done really well thinking outside the box of traditional approaches. I believe there is a lot to be fond once you leave the box. I just try to inspire people to be creative with counting by thinking outside the box. If I thought mine was best I either wouldn't talk about it or I would be very specific. I think I am missing a ton by not having anyone else research to improve upon. For others to go down avenues I missed they must blaze their own path, not do exactly what I do. I hope I inspire them to do so. A games deteriorate there will be a day when traditional counting won't be worth it but more complicated approaches will still get the money. I hope we never live to see that day, but I want to be prepared for it when and if it comes.

 

[psyduck]

A games deteriorate there will be a day when traditional counting won't be worth it but more complicated approaches will still get the money.

When traditional counting won't work, neither will yours.

 

[sagefr0g]

@ Dummy, since you seem to be the only one having an interest dealing with variance and goals (with respect to expenses of life other than AP costs.
did you not see this post? https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/the-straw-that-broke-the-camels-back.56070/post-498379
just curious, as to your response.