Tales from the felt

[creeping panther]

Avenger

Nothing in the original OP says the 6 up civilian hand was the last hand of the shoe? Even if it was, the ruckus still probably slowed things down.

Having read the original OP again I am perplexed that it was ok for the "highly skilled AP" to apparently split 10s when not warranted, and it is justified because they won? That gave the mindset for it doesn't matter if the play was horrible or not, did it win. So when the civilian "hurt" the table, it was a big deal. In the face of something serious going down there is this flippant misplay of the 10 split?

The couple asking to play. Sounds like they were innocent. Many in a casino are. How were they suppose to know something "serious" was going down? The size of bets? What is serious bets to one is not serious to another. they may have had no idea what those chips were in front of them. Seems like she was trying to do the right thing by asking the dealer if they could play. Most civilians are there to have fun, even I like to have fun. So many civilians don't look at playing as a life and death struggle.

The whole situation just seems out of place and unwaranted. At the end of the evening were CP and company happy with their EV or lamenting what other players did?

Yes, I also hate variance.

good cards
:joker::whip:

I am enjoying you and 21's posts in this matter, incident. Yes, it was the last hand and yes,,,I must confess, I and my friend do count, amongst other thangs:laugh:

As to the people wanting to force their way onto the table this is not an unusual occurence, they watch and see big play and lotsa chips and they want to jump in on the ride,,,that just happened to me again a couple hours ago, and sometimes it really pisses me off, winning or losing, because I really care for my partners on the table, and care absoloutely nothing for any one else at these times,,, and best they stay clear of me, even when things are going great, just how I am. This is what I call being "In The Zone", and when there very few are invited to join.

Another point I was making was of the inevitable part that emotions do play in the game, even to the coolest operators I know, such as my partner in this game,,,I like emotion and respect anger, it is to BJ as Passion is to Great Sex!:grin:

CP

 

[alwayssplitaces]

If I am back counting a table, I will force my way on the table. I don't care about saving the "flow" of the cards.

At the same time, I will try to prevent someone from forcing their way on my table in a + count.

 

[aslan]

Now you're talking!

Dear ,

Rest assured I was NOT talking about the ploppy who "caused" the entire table to lose. Helping such persons has a fifty-fifty chance of helping you win the round and therefore futile.

BTW, telling someone they are guilty of ploppy thinking can either be taken as helpful and instructive or as insulting and debasing. Attempting to read another person's heart on the matter is a difficult task. In most cases, you can be sure that I am a person of good will, and not one intentionally insulting of others.

As a rule of thumb, they say it's always best to put a good construction on things that people say. Again, I am just trying to give good advice, but you are free to take it otherwise, if you are so disposed.

 

[21gunsalute]

Dear ,

Rest assured I was NOT talking about the ploppy who "caused" the entire table to lose. Helping such persons has a fifty-fifty chance of helping you win the round and therefore futile.

BTW, telling someone they are guilty of ploppy thinking can either be taken as helpful and instructive or as insulting and debasing. Attempting to read another person's heart on the matter is a difficult task. In most cases, you can be sure that I am a person of good will, and not one intentionally insulting of others.

As a rule of thumb, they say it's always best to put a good construction on things that people say. Again, I am just trying to give good advice, but you are free to take it otherwise, if you are so disposed.

But I'm not thinking like a ploppy, I'm speaking from personal experience and well thought out and well reasoned, logical analysis. It seems the masses here are trying to bully the minority into submission, stating that it's a fact that such hits help as often as they hurt, without any evidence to support such claims. I don't believe this can be proven one way or another, but I do believe that the empirical evidence suggests that such ill advised hits are more likely to hurt the player in higher counts when more money is on the table. We have a disagreement on this issue, but I haven't insulted you because I respect you and your opinion. All I'm asking is that you and a few others treat me with that same respect. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with you, but we should all try to get along because this issue isn't worth losing any sleep over, calling names over or arguing about any further, at least in my opinion.

 

[blackjack avenger]

No One Read My Sims

6 deck shoe
same shoes for each sim

Players:
halves player with indicies
halves player but hits 16 vs 3,4,5,6 will be called "hit"
halves player but stands 16 vs 7,8,9,10 will be called "stand"
halves perfect, plays perfect bs will be called "perfect"

these 3 sims playing tc2 and up

stand score 29.57
halves score 42.18

perfect score 26.49
halves score 41.75

hit score 9.18
halves score 41.68

Notice halves score drops as his partners hit more frequently. So it appears you want your partners to conserve cards when the count is positive. Though the effect is not great.

these 3 sims play all:

halves score 25.51
hit score .4689

halves score 25.04
perfect score 15.00

halves score 24.68
stand score 14.39

With these 3 sims it appears when you are facing negative hands; as most are in play all, you want your partners to hit. As the partners hit more the halves player score improves.

Stand and Hit were pretty bad players. One does but rarely sees players this bad. In the real world getting players to take cards when a negative count and not use cards when a positive count can be helpful, but an added benefit of coaching civilians may be in getting them to play fast. One can coach while sounding civilian.

good cards
:joker::whip:

cept I think Aslan
each line was 500,000,000 rounds played
or 6,000,000,000 total rounds! for 12 players
I think it clearly shows the effect bad players have on a good player

 

[aslan]

But I'm not thinking like a ploppy, I'm speaking from personal experience and well thought out and well reasoned, logical analysis. It seems the masses here are trying to bully the minority into submission, stating that it's a fact that such hits help as often as they hurt, without any evidence to support such claims. I don't believe this can be proven one way or another, but I do believe that the empirical evidence suggests that such ill advised hits are more likely to hurt the player in higher counts when more money is on the table. We have a disagreement on this issue, but I haven't insulted you because I respect you and your opinion. All I'm asking is that you and a few others treat me with that same respect. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with you, but we should all try to get along because this issue isn't worth losing any sleep over, calling names over or arguing about any further, at least in my opinion.

Hell yes we can get along. No animosity whatsoever. All the proofs necessary have been presented in this thread, whether you believe them or not (IMHO).

My very first counting trip was to Reno with a friend (still a friend) who was one hundred percent convinced that a three tier negative martingale was all that was needed to beat blackjack. I tried until I was blue in the face to dissuade him from his guaranteed disastrous plight. He told me that he had never lost using his strategy. The return trip was a bit subdued as he had lost everything between blackjack and hookers, but he had learned a good lesson about at least one of the two. Later that year he divorced, and hopefully learned a little about the other.

Friends to the end, 21gunsalute! It does me no good whether you believe me or not, or whether you're right and I'm wrong. The important thing here is that we maintain an atmosphere where we can agree to disagree, and remain brothers in our mutual pursuit.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But I'm not thinking like a ploppy, I'm speaking from personal experience and well thought out and well reasoned, logical analysis. It seems the masses here are trying to bully the minority into submission, stating that it's a fact that such hits help as often as they hurt, without any evidence to support such claims. I don't believe this can be proven one way or another, but I do believe that the empirical evidence suggests that such ill advised hits are more likely to hurt the player in higher counts when more money is on the table. We have a disagreement on this issue, but I haven't insulted you because I respect you and your opinion. All I'm asking is that you and a few others treat me with that same respect. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with you, but we should all try to get along because this issue isn't worth losing any sleep over, calling names over or arguing about any further, at least in my opinion.

Just to add a little theoretical clarity: yes, when the count is high every hit hurts the players, including your own. It decreases the chance of getting another round dealt. A counter at the table increases everyone's EV by standing and surrendering on high counts, and by the non-BS hard doubles, but he takes some of it back by splitting 10's and doubling A8 or A9.

No need for empiricism or bullying- refer to the True Count Theorem which proves that the true count will on the average stay the same for any number of hits, at any point in the shoe. It is a blackjack consequence of the law of similar triangles, and easy to remember in that every shoe starts at a TC of 0 and if you deal to the end, ends at a TC of 0. So if that unwise hit were to be dealt face down, the TC would remain the same and so would the predicted possibilities of everything that happens after that.

 

[Shoofly]

Hell yes we can get along. No animosity whatsoever.

Same here. I dropped out of this discussion early because it had just become "Yes it is", "No it isn't", but there was certainly nothing personal involved.