The Official Jay Moore Experience Thread

[SPX]

So for anyone has encountered any of my posts lately, you will be aware that lately I have been playing around with the betting system Jay Moore has come up with in his book The Most Powerful Blackjack Manual.

And I am always up for experimenting and testing people's claims, i.e. don't TELL me but SHOW me. And for me, that's the thing. All that matters is dollars in my pocket at the end of the day.

So what are some of Jay's claims? Well. . . He claims that:

• You need a 200 unit total bankroll to survive the fluctuations and a 20 unit session bankroll for individual sessions.
• You can expect 2-3 units per hour averaged over the long run.
• The long run consists of about 20,000 hands.
• You'll do just fine if you utilize his modified basic strategy (mostly straight BS with a few modifications like: no splitting Aces or 8s against a 10).
• You can expect to win approximately 75% of your sessions, with the units won during your winning sessions exceeding the units lost during your losing sessions.

So here's what I've decided. I'm taking $200 tonight--one session's worth--to Wendover tonight and will use his system. I will utilize a $10 base bet. If I lose, I will gather $200 more at my first opportunity and repeat. If I win, I will put it away until next time and will then take out $200 to wager next time around. If I ever lose 200 units then I'm done. The experiment will be deemed a failure.

My goal at this point is to make 10 trips, risking 20 units each time, and see where things stand at the end.

I understand this is basically a counter's board, but I'd appreciate a bit of support. Regardless of any mathematical advantages I may or may not have, the fact of the matter is that this is my money and I would rather win more than lose what I got.

Furthermore, I'm not ignorant regarding blackjack. I've read a lot, both on the counting side and the non-counting side. Everything from Thomason and Moore to Rezney (I'm a proud Bluebook II owner), Thorp and Snyder. I also learned to do the KO Rookie count in order to see it work with my own eyes (though I'm not nearly fast enough to utilize it in a casino environment).

I intend to add updates to this thread after every trip. If there's anyone else out there using Jay's system (ukdave?) then I'd be happy to hear about your experiences as well.

 

[zengrifter]

Go get'em tiger! zg

 

[SPX]

Okay, wait, wait, hold up. . .

Do over. . .

I did go out to 'Dover last night but I didn't take my A-game. Clearly I need a bit more practice with the system before I can take it out into the world. I consistently lost track of my wins and losses (something essential to utilizing Moore's betting method) and b*tched out on a couple of plays where I should've doubled but couldn't quite bring myself to do it.

My bad.

At first, it looked like things were going to go well. I was up about $50 within the first 20 mins or so. Then things went downhill. The table turned into one of those where the dealer is either consistently getting better cards than you or he is getting worse cards and somehow turning them into 21.

From there on, I felt like I was on a see-saw. At one point I was about $100 down, then fought my way back to to being literally $1 ahead and then things turned south again.

At the end of the night, I was about $48.50 down in blackjack. Luckily I had won about $80 on roulette at one point during the night which covered my losses.

Anyway, I'm going to call this one a practice run, study up a bit more and head back out there.

 

[shadroch]

If you call all your losing sessions practice sessions,and only count your winning sessions,you have a very good chance of being ahead longterm using his method.

 

[zengrifter]

At the end of the night, I was about $48.50 down in blackjack. Luckily I had won about $80 on roulette at one point during the night which covered my losses.

That may be an important addition to the system. zg

 

[ukdave]

Good luck

SPX

enjoyed recent exchnages on this subject. I will look with interest at your results

regards

ukdave

 

[SPX]

If you call all your losing sessions practice sessions,and only count your winning sessions,you have a very good chance of being ahead longterm using his method.

Ha ha.

Nah, the only reason I called it a practice session was that I didn't really follow everything "by the book" so I wasn't really using his system. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that my performance last night (or lack thereof) was indicative of the performance (or lack thereof) of Jay's system/method/ideas.

If you were going to evaluate the performance of a Lamborghini, you wouldn't do so with a version of the car that was missing key parts.

 

[SPX]

That may be an important addition to the system. zg

I like roulette. I have fun with it. I always keep my blackjack money seperate from my recreation money, but I always take recreation money for video poker, slots, roulette, 3 card poker (although after the beating I took the last time I played 3 card I don't know if I'll venture that way again) . . . whatever tickles my fancy.

I'm considering learning to play Pai Gow. I need a good game that you can play for a while with just a little money and I hear that it is such a game.

 

[SPX]

SPX

enjoyed recent exchnages on this subject. I will look with interest at your results

regards

ukdave

Indeed. Well I am going to study up a bit more this week and make sure I have everything down cold and then probably hit up Wendover again next weekend.

 

[EasyRhino]

SPX, I don't know what the system is, but I would strongly urge you not to believe that it will work.

Regardless, if you're having trouble keeping track of wins/losses, you could probably just grab a tracking sheet from a baccarat table to mark them down. Once you explain your betting system to the pit, they'll probably supply free pencils.

 

[SPX]

SPX, I don't know what the system is, but I would strongly urge you not to believe that it will work.

Regardless, if you're having trouble keeping track of wins/losses, you could probably just grab a tracking sheet from a baccarat table to mark them down. Once you explain your betting system to the pit, they'll probably supply free pencils.

I make no claims regarding the system whatsoever . . . I'm just interested in testing the claims of Jay Moore.

I will say that I have corresponded a bit with him via e-mail and that I am at least relatively convinced that he believes in his system and that he does play it himself. He seems sincere in his belief that it's a winner and, according to him, he HAS won with it for several years now, playing twice a week for 5 hours each session.

So might as well give him the time, if only to satisfy my curiosity.

 

[EasyRhino]

Plus, don't forget all the free pencils you'll get.

 

[Sonny]

I make no claims regarding the system whatsoever . . . I'm just interested in testing the claims of Jay Moore.

Don’t you think it would be safer to test his claims on a computer instead of risking your money in a casino? Since you say that you would “rather win more than lose what I got”, why would you trust your money to an unproven system that so many people are telling you doesn’t work? I’m not trying to discourage you from testing the system, I’m only suggesting that you be more careful with it.

But before you even spend all that time practicing and learning his system, let’s look at a few facts:

1) He claims that his progression system will give you an advantage. We know this is false. There are 19 articles at the top of this forum that explain exactly why and give mathematical proof of this. There is no evidence that his system does not suffer from the same faults as all progression systems.

2) He uses a “modified” basic strategy that increases the house edge. This fact can easily be found online or by using a simulator. The calculations have been done both by hand and by computer so there is no mistaking this fact. His basic strategy will only cause you to lose more money.

3) He is an “accomplished math teacher” yet he fails to offer any mathematical proof that his system might be effective. That doesn’t sound like any math teacher or gaming analyst I’ve ever known. It certainly doesn't sound like a "proven" system either.

4) He claims that the long run consists of about 20,000 hands. That is absurd. It can easily take more than twice that just to overcome one standard deviation, which only covers about 68% of the outcomes. Again, this is not my opinion, it is a fact that has been mathematically proven. Anyone who has really studied blackjack will know this, and certainly a math teacher would understand it.

So without even looking at his system we can already get a pretty good picture of where his mistakes are and exactly why his system cannot give the player an advantage.

Again, I’m not trying to discourage you from testing his system. In fact, I’d be very interested to see what the actual long-term results are. I’m just encouraging you to be more careful with your money when the system is so obviously a long-term loser.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

Don’t you think it would be safer to test his claims on a computer instead of risking your money in a casino? -

Why mess with computer reality when you can test in real-world? Besides, some systems don't work in computer-reality, ONLY in the real-world. Right, SPX? zg

 

[SPX]

Don’t you think it would be safer to test his claims on a computer instead of risking your money in a casino? Since you say that you would “rather win more than lose what I got”, why would you trust your money to an unproven system that so many people are telling you doesn’t work? I’m not trying to discourage you from testing the system, I’m only suggesting that you be more careful with it.

Probably the best way to explain it is that right now, as a basic strategy player, I have a couple of different options: I can flat bet or I can attempt to use some sort of betting strategy.

Flat betting kind of sucks. It's boring and kind of feels like a trap. Which leads to betting systems. . . I've studied up on several of them and have used a few in live play. Thomason, Dahl, Dunki-Jacobs, Papadouchebag (or whatever that guy's name is). . .

Of all the ones I've tried, this is the only one that has continued to intrigue me. It's fun to play with, more dynamic than flat betting, and I daresay in the limited experience that I have had with it it's a better performer than flat betting.

1) He claims that his progression system will give you an advantage. We know this is false. There are 19 articles at the top of this forum that explain exactly why and give mathematical proof of this. There is no evidence that his system does not suffer from the same faults as all progression systems.

As foolhardy a statement as it is, I will go so far as to say that since it has not yet been SIMd (and a program would probably have to be written from scratch to do so), there's no evidence that it does suffer the same faults either.

With that said, as much as your blackjack career is "one long session," it's also a fact that each night is a new night and that the cards you get this time know nothing about the cards you got last time.

2) He uses a “modified” basic strategy that increases the house edge. This fact can easily be found online or by using a simulator. The calculations have been done both by hand and by computer so there is no mistaking this fact. His basic strategy will only cause you to lose more money.

I have issues with some of his BS decisions, especially not doubling 11 against anything higher than an 8. With that said, splitting Aces almost ALWAYS seems to go badly for me so I can understand how you become gun shy with regard to certain plays over time.

3) He is an “accomplished math teacher” yet he fails to offer any mathematical proof that his system might be effective. That doesn’t sound like any math teacher or gaming analyst I’ve ever known. It certainly doesn't sound like a "proven" system either.

Hey man, I don't know. . . I will admit that in our e-mail exchanges I did actually ask him if he had ever had his system run through any simulations and that was a question that he just didn't answer in his reply.

4) He claims that the long run consists of about 20,000 hands. That is absurd. It can easily take more than twice that just to overcome one standard deviation, which only covers about 68% of the outcomes. Again, this is not my opinion, it is a fact that has been mathematically proven. Anyone who has really studied blackjack will know this, and certainly a math teacher would understand it.

20,000 hands may not be the long run, but if it takes two 5 hour sessions per week for a year to even reach the 20K mark (and that's how many hands he said he played in that amount of time) then most non-pro players will be dead before the "long run" even approaches.

Now, I also understand the argument that goes like this: The long run gives you an idea of what is likely to happen in the short run.

Nevertheless, if after a year of playing blackjack twice a week I had won an average of 2-3 units per hour, I'm sure I'd write a book, too. I assume we can all agree that we aren't playing for the sake of equations and formulas, but for the sake of cash.

I will also say this: One mantra that is often repeated around here is that a card counter WILL win money . . . and a system better WILL lose money. However, whenever someone talks about wanting to play blackjack and count full time, all I ever hear is caution and statements like, "Your money would be better put into a savings account!"

If blackjack becomes such a sure bet when counting, why not sell everything you own, get rid of the house, buy a van to live out of and minimize expenses, and devote yourself for a year to playing black chip blackjack?

Granted, that may not be practical for the family men around here, but what about everyone else?

My point is that when it comes down to really risking what you have, people no longer seem quite so confident that the math will work it all out in the end.

Again, I’m not trying to discourage you from testing his system. In fact, I’d be very interested to see what the actual long-term results are. I’m just encouraging you to be more careful with your money when the system is so obviously a long-term loser.

Well as we all know 10 trips aren't the long-term but I will be curious to see how things are looking after I've at least done that. I doubt I'll lose much more than I would flat betting, and I really wouldn't be surprised if I won more than I would flat betting.

Time will tell.

 

[SPX]

Why mess with computer reality when you can test in real-world? Besides, some systems don't work in computer-reality, ONLY in the real-world. Right, SPX? zg

Well, I will assume your condescending tone was meant for some other SPX, but I will answer your question anyway.

It does seem obvious that real-world performance IS what's important. And it's a fact that regardless of any simulation success, if that success doesn't translate into dollars in your pocket then it's worthless. In regard to your question, do some methods possibly breakdown in simulations but translate into real-world success?

Well . . . possibly.

 

[SPX]

Since this discussion is heating up a bit I thought I would post some e-mails I had sent to, and received from, Jay Moore. I tried to ask him some challenging questions and hoped for some good answers. Sometimes I got them, sometimes I didn't, but when I didn't I tried to remind myself that he's probably a busy guy. . . Anyway, I will give each exchange it's own section. . .

 

[SPX]

My Email:


Jay,

Hi, how are you? I recently bought your book . . .
it's interesting and probably one of the better ones
I've encountered.

I've not yet tested your betting system (or whatever
you might like to call it, I know you don't like the
term system), but I assume it to be like most betting
systems: It will win sometimes and lose sometimes.
What's interesting, though, about your book is that
you talk about playing to the long term. Essentially,
you make the claim that it's only over the LONG TERM
that you're system is sure to be effective. This is a
claim usually made only by card counters.

Now a few questions. . .

1. Why did you stop counting and did you do it for
long before you gave up on it? What sort of results
did you experience while counting?

2. You mention in your book that you can expect to
win 2.5 or so units per hour and that you won 3/4 of
your sessions. Now, win you say you won your
sessions, does that simply mean that you were ahead by
some amount while possibly losing all your stake on
the losing session? Or does that mean that
consistently after 4 sessions you were ahead
financially even after losing one session? One thing
you never mention, though you kept tons of records
over the course of a year, is exactly what you were
able to do financially.

3. As a mathematician, have you ever had your system
tested over the course of millions of hands and do you
think it would stand up? THAT, after all, is of
course the long-run. I understand what you mean when
you say that you don't live your life in a simulation,
but I'm sure you also understand that if a system
doesn't ultimately work out mathematically that coming
out ahead is at least partially due to some degree of
luck.

Right now, I'm at a point in my play in which I either
need to pursue a serious study of betting systems and
pick one and stick with it or I need to learn to
count.

Just wanted to get your feedback and see what you
thought. I hope to hear from you soon.


Thanks,
Chris


His Response:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your email. I have to be honest, your questions are so
broad that I could write another book based on these questions alone.
But believe it or not, I made more money playing at the table than
writing books. To answer your questions:

1/ The answer is in the book.

2/ On my 3 winning session, I always make more money than I lose on one
losing session.

"......One thing you never mention, though you kept tons of records
over the course of a year, is exactly what you were able to do
financially....." - Sorry, but this is a very personal question about
my
income.

3/ The 64 possibilities adds up to a positive result, if you consider
the first row is open to a long winning streak.

Try to play by my book, follow it 100% (!!!) and you'll be surprised
with the profits.

All my best,
Jay Moore


My Commentary:

Overall, I was disappointed with the lack of detail in his response and the fact that he didn't address some of the points which I considered most critical. I specifically wanted to know more about the details of his experience counting, which he really didn't go into in his book. You'll notice he also semi-dodged the question regarding the math behind his system. Lastly, I would've liked to have had more specifics about exactly how much money he was able to make and at what base bet but if he feels that's too personal then so be it.

 

[SPX]

E-mail Exchange # 2


My E-mail:


Jay,

Hmm, how odd. I had your book in my hand not more
than 30 minutes ago and now here's your email. . .

If you could spare a few more minutes:

1) You did mention why you stopped counting, but you
never talked about your results while counting. I get
the impression that you didn't stop counting because
it wasn't working, only that it wasn't working well
enough to justify the massive amounts of work it
takes. Would you say this is accurate?

2) I understand that you may not want to mention actual
financial figures, but perhaps you could phrase it in
terms of units. Just curious, that's all.

3) I know you make some modifications to basic
strategy, which I can certainly understand. Despite
what the charts say, doubling on 11 when the dealer
has a 10 or A just never seems to work out for me.
Splitting aces rarely seems to work out either. My
question to you: Since you say that you can still
easily keep track of the cards, do you still utilize
the count for making BS modifications even if you
don't use it for betting?


Thanks for writing back. I appreciate it. You're a
gentleman and a scholar!


Chris


His response:


Hi Chris,

To answer your questions:

1/ Correct

2/ As I say in the book, 2-3 units in long term. Even at the 10 dollar
table, it's say $25/hr. How many people would be happy making 25 an
hour, when they're working hard for less. For some reason, if the same
people playing BJ made 50 dollar an hour, they are not so happy.
Expectations. They expect different things.

3/ As I'm getting older I truly believe that to follow the chart 100%
correctly by math does not mean too much and does not guarantee being a
winner. Expectations, PATIENCE and self-control mean everything! If
you can develop these three things, you'll be a winner. If one of them
is not 1000%, it doesn't matter what you are doing - you'll be a loser.

Thanks again for writing.

All the best,
Jay Moore


My Commentary:

Overall, I thought he did a better job of addressing my concerns and answering my questions this time around than the first. Although, again, he really wouldn't fill me in on the details of his counting days.

 

[SPX]

E-mail Exchange #3:

My E-mail:


Jay,

It's fascinating to see a mathematician embrace a
progressive system as mathematicians are pretty much
exclusively sold out to card counting. Furthermore,
your system is a huge departure from the typical
progressive system. It's elegant and intriguing.

Now. . .

1) I understand what you're saying about people's
expectations. I have a friend who refuses to have any
structure to his betting patterns. He calls it "Wild
Man" style. And indeed it is. I've seen him take
$100 and turn it into $800, then lose all but $15,
turn that into $1400 and ultimately walk away with
nothing, all over the course of about an hour. It's
insane.

2) Have you ever tested your system in on-line games
and do you think it would work just as well?

3) And this one's serious. Do you think your system
could be presented in a way to interest investors? I
know many outside investors fund card counters/card
counting teams and I am wondering if it might be
possible to raise funds for a progressive system such
as yours. I'm young, no responsibilities and would
certainly be willing to put the play time in.


Thanks again,
Chris


His Response:

Hi Chris,

1/ "Wild man" style doesn't work. Turning $100 into $1,400 and
bringing
home nothing? I think it's not the smartest way to gamble. It is not my
style. Something must be wrong with his expectations.

2/ Yes, I tried online. The problem is, the software is set up in a
way
that the dealer busts less than the 'theoretical' should be. I never
play online, since there is no way to beat the unfairly set up
software.

3/ Thanks for the offer; however, I'm not interested.

All my best,
Jay Moore


My Commentary:

My question regarding whether or not he would be willing to pour some real money into his method and/or try to entice investors was really a challenge. It was a way to say, Well if you truly believe in your system why not try to maximize profits? Why not try to set up the non-counting version of the MIT team? Ultimately, I was not satisfied with his response.