SplitFaceDisaster question answered

[johndoe]

Tthree/Dummy, your "knowledge" that you continue to relentlessly pollute these forums with is completely without foundation, evidence, or legitimacy. Why people are giving you a platform to espouse your greatness - while forever failing to back it up with even the slightest bit of evidence - is beyond me.

Just put up or shut up, already.

 

[Dummy]

@ 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.

Sagefr0g's post:
if i may digress a bit regarding some games other than blackjack.
no argument sir. but asking for your opinion far as the scenario below:
the other night, i was about spot on far as EV for my typical daily session. i was happy with that. i’m about to leave for the day, when a play presented on a different game (that has generally half the ev and twice the variance) of the games i’d been playing but it was in it’s ‘highest’ state of advantage. i figured i’d likely lose half of what i’d made (or worse) for the day on the plays if things didn’t go so ‘stellar’, however if things went really well, then i’d leave singing to the bank, sorta thing. i passed the play up, took my EV home with me. i should add that currently the revenue realized has more significance with respect to utility than it normally does.
did i mess up, in your opinion?

Generally, you definitely messed up mathematically. But in a practical sense you said you needed that win to pay for things in your life. You have to balance mathematical theory with real life needs. You obviously weighed that and I can't argue with the decision. I probably would have risked half my win for a solid plus EV play but that is not set in stone. Now if you were talking about something that would have taken my day well into the negative I would give more consideration to passing it up. But that would depend on how my trip had been going or some other long term metric. The safe play is to ignore the math and lock in the win if you really need the win. It is also the wrong play mathematically.

It depends on how you do your accounting. The way KJ defined his method of breaking his BR annually, you would always follow the math. By the time you are breaking your bank you should be so far ahead that there should be no consideration besides the math. If you know you are about to break your bank to pay a lot of bills and would like to be certain you have at least a certain amount, then you may want to play it safe and forgot the opportunity if it could cause you to drop below that amount. You have to balance the math with the practical needs for your life.

I have had to make similar decisions with machine play opportunities. Sometimes I go against the math, but usually I am not in that position. I don't baby sit machines so I usually don't hit the really juicy opportunities often. I just keep my eyes open in my travels through the casino. I found one that was about to payout 5 figures. After waiting a while to step in and win, it became clear the couple on the machine were going to play it until it hit. I figure less than $5K coin in would have hit the big payout so there was at least $5K profit to whoever played until it hit at that point, and probably a lot more. I stopped by a little bit later, when I thought it would be close to hitting, and saw them hit the big payout. Oh well, I tried. I would have baby sat that machine but it was clear they weren't going anywhere until they hit it and a strong play awaited elsewhere. I don't play the shared jackpots among a bank of machines much, which sounds like what you were describing. I like to know I am going to win it when I start the final run toward the amount it must hit by.

 

[Dummy]

Tthree/Dummy, your "knowledge" that you continue to relentlessly pollute these forums with is completely without foundation, evidence, or legitimacy. Why people are giving you a platform to espouse your greatness - while forever failing to back it up with even the slightest bit of evidence - is beyond me.

All the concepts in this thread are long established and respected concepts of RA indices, betting patterns for cover, RA insurance, and more accurate play producing higher EV. The only concept that is truly mine is RA surrender but I am sure lots of pros have quietly been doing that for years. Just way to obvious a principle to have not been pursued. If you want numbers go to DonS's book, Peter Griffin's books, Carlson's book, or pretty much any book worth reading on blackjack. Like I said some are plus EV but most are minus EV unless you use them to bet more with the same RoR. Nobody else knows my system so I see no benefit to posing its numbers. For numbers for other systems consult the books mentioned or run the sims yourself. Don only trusts sims run by two people. One of them happens to run most o my sims. I don't get to fancy for Blackjack play because BJ is too linear. Most simulators can run those plays. I do a little more that I can't simulate when playing BJ. I can simulate enough to do the plays 100% accurately but can't get the combined EV of using all of the combined playing counts at the same time. This again is just a bunch of traditional counts using the one that is most accurate for the play.

You don't need me to explain some of the stuff again. You either got it the first bunch of times or you didn't. If you are curious about how the ideas impact your system then run the sims. The gain will be different for every system so I don't see the point in posting sim results for a system nobody else uses. I don't care to run sims for systems I don't use. The gain from most improvements will be proportional to the relative strength of the system you use it with. So the simpler your system the less gain you can expect. But that is a gross generalization.

 

[psyduck]

so I don't see the point in posting sim results for a system nobody else uses.

Everyone here knows why. It's not worth much for the effort.

 

[BoSox]

so I don't see the point in posting sim results for a system nobody else uses.

Well, how about just to prove that you are not another Bernie Madoff.

 

[Dummy]

Everyone here knows why. It's not worth much for the effort.

I don't see it that way but I do it for my system. You might be right for other systems but many papers and books say to do this so there must be something to it. To me EV is not the most important thing. I generate enough EV. I usually don't try to turn all the gain into increased EV. I am happy to have better results and a lower n0. Over regular Hiopt2/ASC I had a 5% gain in EV when I took all the gain as increased EV about 2 years ago. I have figured out a lot of ways to improve that but I don't take much of the gain as increased EV. I would have to run a sim that took all the gain as increased EV to quantify the extra gain. I doubt it would be that much extra EV. Probaly around an 8% improvement over Hiopt2/ASC if all is taken as EV. I take the recent extra gain in ways that increase longevity and make BR growth more certain instead of increasing bets to keep RoR the same and turn it into increased EV. That is just my choice. Most probably wouldn't take the gain that way. I see the volatility as one of the biggest hits to longevity. When I make $2K in a weekend you wouldn't think a big casino would bat an eye. But when I am bouncing back and for the between up 5 figures and down 5 figures the whole weekend their imagination of what might have happened makes me seem a big threat and they are likely to act despite the relatively small 3 day win. There were reasons why this place produced monster swings. If you understand BJ I am sure you know why. I think it is better not to state why. If you plan your attack right you can generate about the same EV with far less volatility. Plus, I see being allowed to play as the biggest obstacle to being a BJ card counter. I took the recent gains where these issues are helped.

 

[DSchles]

If, somehow, we could eliminate all the repetitious posts that you write, which say THE SAME THING over and over and over again, ad nauseam, 90% of your posts would disappear. You really have to ask yourself why you feel it necessary to make the same point 25 times a week. Do you somehow feel that if you say something 50 times instead of once it will be better received by those who read it? I can assure you that just the opposite is true: I stop reading 90% of your posts after the first two sentences, because I realize that I've read the same thing 100 times.

Is it possible that you truly don't understand this?

Don

 

[Dummy]

Well, how about just to prove that you are not another Bernie Madoff.

That is funny. A poster I had a lot of correspondence with a couple of years ago just posted on another forum that he uses a count of his own creation and mentioned some of my terms and said how pleased he was over the traditional system he is for his resultsand that he is continually improving his system. I have had exchange of ideas with a lot of posters in private. They all thank me periodically and say how much better they are doing now. Being Christmas I just got quite a few communications like that.

I never tell them what to do. I explain things to them and let them decide what application is best for them. If they ask what I think I tell them, and explain the plusses and minuses associated with all the choices. Some of it is about making the most of your time in a casino and other parts are about what they are asking about counting. Sometimes it is about casino procedures and being able to tell the difference beween normal procedures and heat. Sometimes it is about how to be allowed to play longer in their sweaty casino options. Often they are asking about things I alluded to in posts. Or want more detail about things I discussed directly but they didn't quite understand.

I am pleased when they find my input helpful and see the difference in their results. I am happy to try to help them. I think I help almost all of them. One I don't think I helped because he wouldn't listen to anything anyone including me would tell him. He just complains about his bad luck or being cheated and won't admit there are causes for his bad luck that he needs to understand in order to do better. I think he was just unteachable.

 

[BoSox]

Over regular Hiopt2/ASC I had a 5% gain in EV when I took all the gain as increased EV about 2 years ago. I have figured out a lot of ways to improve that but I don't take much of the gain as increased EV. I would have to run a sim that took all the gain as increased EV to quantify the extra gain. I doubt it would be that much extra EV. Probaly around an 8% improvement over Hiopt2/ASC if all is taken as EV. I take the recent extra gain in ways that increase longevity and make BR growth more certain instead of increasing bets to keep RoR the same and turn it into increased EV. That is just my choice.

Making all of these extraordinary unsubstantiated claims with an attitude that says "do you know who I am" I don't have to prove anything to anybody.

 

[psyduck]

If they ask what I think I tell them, and explain the plusses and minuses associated with all the choices.

But no one has publicly asked you anything and you keep on bragging. Can't you tell we are already impressed?

 

[psyduck]

To me EV is not the most important thing.

Sure, definitely less important than hot air.

 

[psyduck]

Over regular Hiopt2/ASC I had a 5% gain in EV when I took all the gain as increased EV about 2 years ago.

I see. Your gain must have grown to ~11% now two years later due to inflation.

 

[BoSox]

you keep on bragging.

Surely, you jest. Perhaps an over exaggeration?

 

[BoSox]

Is it possible that you truly don't understand this?

I think Dummy is looking for recognition among his peers, no that can't be right there is no one close enough to be equal. If he can prove his theories acclaim will come, mostly from the common folk "the simple system users", and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Mathematics as well.

 

[psyduck]

If he can prove his theories acclaim will come, mostly from the common folk "the simple system users", and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Mathematics as well.

Two problems: First, he cannot prove it. Second, there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. His best hope is a no bell prize.

 

[21forme]

I think Dummy is looking for recognition among his peers, no that can't be right there is no one close enough to be equal. If he can prove his theories acclaim will come, mostly from the common folk "the simple system users", and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Mathematics as well.

DUmmy is causing a repetitive stress injury in my mouse wheel finger, scrolling past his posts without reading them. I wish he'd contain his "forum pollution" to one site.

 

[KewlJ]

DUmmy is causing a repetitive stress injury in my mouse wheel finger, scrolling past his posts without reading them. I wish he'd contain his "forum pollution" to one site.

An interesting observation to this. A couple nights ago, on the day that Mr. Dummy made....I don't know quite a few posts here, seemingly responding to every comment made, I happened to have a bit of time and was catching up at "other forums". And on another blackjack forum, that he uses a different handle (this BTW is something most AP's don't do), this same person had the most recent post in 9 of the 14 subsections. It's like he had a day that he needed to hear (or see) himself talk.

I have a saying that I repeat a lot on these forums involving credibility: "It just don't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking".

 

[Dummy]

I think Dummy is looking for recognition among his peers, no that can't be right there is no one close enough to be equal. If he can prove his theories acclaim will come, mostly from the common folk "the simple system users", and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Mathematics as well.

What makes you think I haven't proven them? What, because I didn't share my research with a bunch of complaining ingrates. I tried before to get people interested in a bunch of widely different things I was looking into, but they all wanted me to share what is mine. And when I shared early data things just got worse. Why should I share any of my results after being treated like that. I don't do research for public consumption, I do research to use it to make money in the casinos. Just listen to some of the asses on this forum. I have surprisingly found out I am not the first to do many of the things I thought I was the first to do.

The researchers that did the research in the past used their research but never shared it even though they were respected BJ researchers. There are just mentions of their projects in some of their books. No proof or data. I wonder why that is. There are two obvious possibilities. One is it was so effective they wanted to make money using it rather than see casinos do countermeasures as everyone started to try to do it. Most AP researchers are like that. They share stuff after the play is somewhat played out. AM is a prime example. If he shares his research publicly it is because he found something better or the casinos took countermeasures. Second they catch a bunch of crap from other people who have a large expertise in a narrow field of experience and understanding. Get outside that narrow field and they don't know what is going on. Within their comfort zone they are experts. The nature of ground breaking research is it is different that what others do.

 

[psyduck]

The difference between a dummy and Dummy is a dummy knows he will need evidence to convince others.

Dummy, the only reason people ask you to show data is you cannot shut up talking about your system. The fact is we already know your data - it is not worth much for the effort.

I strongly suggest that you schedule an appointment with your psychiatrist after he comes back from visiting his psychiatrist.

 

[BoSox]

I don't do research for public consumption, I do research to use it to make money in the casinos.

Okay, then why the need to constantly tell everyone about all of your capabilities? Combining that with numerous posts with extra paragraphs about all the weaknesses and ineffectiveness of traditional systems. Sometimes you follow that up with but they do get the money long term. Who do you think you are fooling with that afterthought? No one, just once kindly have the balls to say your honest opinion on what you think about simple systems. You will feel better about yourself knowing that you did. Do you think people are jealous of you? If you do, why do you think that? I believe you are not even remotely aware of how you present yourself to the blackjack community.