The Official Jay Moore Experience Thread

[SPX]

Now you are making excuses for your excuses.
Do the cards know you are 25? Or make $13 an hour? Or that you have $200 to play with?
Are you better off gambling with your $200 using a proven system or a pie in the sky system?

You continue to miss my point and are too locked away in your closed-mindedness.

The way it seems to me is that you are content in your 1% advantage either because you 1) have put too much effort into learning to count that you don't WANT anything better to ever be discovered, or 2) simply lack any sort of vision or imagination and are too set in your ways to believe that such a thing could even be possible.

And remember, I never said a progression could "gain a mathematical" advantage, only that I don't think the door is closed to new technologies.

The fact of the matter is that you can't prove that statement untrue and why you are so concerned with showing me how I am wrong is beyond me. There are, after all, other threads and other boards.

 

[shadroch]

If you took the time to read some of my posts,you'd see that I operate at much more than a 1% advantage,as do dozens of posters on this forum.The fact of the matter is that methods have been invented and perfected that blow away anything your Mr Moore dreams about.How does a casino handing you $350 for walking in the door work for you?Howza about several casinos doing the same thing?
Rather than trying to prove you wrong,I've been trying to help you by getting you to not waste time chasing fly by nite methods and using your time to much better use.
I apologise,go play Mr Moores system.When,not if but when,you are willing and able to find a better way,someone will be here.

 

[SPX]

If you took the time to read some of my posts,you'd see that I operate at much more than a 1% advantage,as do dozens of posters on this forum.The fact of the matter is that methods have been invented and perfected that blow away anything your Mr Moore dreams about.How does a casino handing you $350 for walking in the door work for you?Howza about several casinos doing the same thing?
Rather than trying to prove you wrong,I've been trying to help you by getting you to not waste time chasing fly by nite methods and using your time to much better use.
I apologise,go play Mr Moores system.When,not if but when,you are willing and able to find a better way,someone will be here.

Well since you seem much less confrontational and insulting this time around, I will apologize if I sounded overly defensive the last time. If I sounded defensive, it's because I was.

Still, I think there are some misunderstandings. Even though this thread is directly related to Jay Moore's system, my past few posts really have had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying Jay's system is THE system which beat the sims and "give us a mathematical advantage" . . . I am merely saying that we have to keep our minds open to the possibilty that new methods of play may be discovered which can render a greater advantage than card counting.

I do understand that there are other forms of advantage play that can be exploited from time to time, but from what I've gathered card counting is the only all-pupose tool that can be used anytime, anywhere provided a non-rip off BJ game is available.

 

[RJT]

I do understand that there are other forms of advantage play that can be exploited from time to time, but from what I've gathered card counting is the only all-pupose tool that can be used anytime, anywhere provided a non-rip off BJ game is available.

To gain any form of advantage of any form of gamble you need to gain some information pertinent to the game. In otherwords, information that you gain must in some way be able to tell you which outcome is more likely in subsequent events. Unfortunately the reason that none of these systems work is simply because they don't give any pertinent information. Take Licentia's system - how does either the occurance of a Blackjack on either side of the table, or the condition of your bankroll tell you anything valuable about what will happened in the next few rounds of play?

RJT.

 

[SPX]

To gain any form of advantage of any form of gamble you need to gain some information pertinent to the game. In otherwords, information that you gain must in some way be able to tell you which outcome is more likely in subsequent events. Unfortunately the reason that none of these systems work is simply because they don't give any pertinent information. Take Licentia's system - how does either the occurance of a Blackjack on either side of the table, or the condition of your bankroll tell you anything valuable about what will happened in the next few rounds of play?

RJT.

I understand what you're saying. I may not understand all the math as outlined Theory of Blackjack, but I have studied up a good bit of card counting and know why it works, what the idea is behind it, etc. I also know all the arguments and counter-arguments that are constantly thrown back and forth between counters and non-counters.

With that said. . .

Perhaps there is another way of utilizing the information available that doesn't have to do with card counting, per se? Maybe there is a new way of looking at things that can lead to enhanced results?

One thing that people on here constantly say is, "Oh, if you don't want to learn to count, then you just want to do it the easy way. . ." Like this is some kind of slur. But isn't that the nature of progress? To take old technologies, improve upon them (or discard them completely) and come up with something that's easier to implement but works twice as well?

 

[SPX]

Are you better off gambling with your $200 using a proven system or a pie in the sky system?

Sorry, I missed this before. . . But to answer your question, I think we both know that trying to count with a $200 bankroll is a bad idea. According to Renzey in Bluebook II you need 60 units per session, and even at the $5 level that's only 40 units so you're undercapitalized.

So that basically leaves me with flat betting, and I can honestly say that I believe Moore's system is a better performer than flat betting. Can I prove this? No. Do I have some doubts? Sure. But I know that after some preliminary casino tests as well as dealing shoes in my living room and recording the results, it seems that Moore's system generally at least performs on par with flat betting . . . however, when it drops behind it only drops behind by a small amount, but when it leaps ahead it leaps ahead by a large amount.

I think that in the long run you'll make more money counting cards, but it's a compelling alternative to flat betting.

 

[RJT]

Perhaps there is another way of utilizing the information available that doesn't have to do with card counting, per se? Maybe there is a new way of looking at things that can lead to enhanced results?

One thing that people on here constantly say is, "Oh, if you don't want to learn to count, then you just want to do it the easy way. . ." Like this is some kind of slur. But isn't that the nature of progress? To take old technologies, improve upon them (or discard them completely) and come up with something that's easier to implement but works twice as well?

There are many other ways to use the information avalible to you. These constitute the advanced techniques. Hole carding, steering, tracking, sequencing etc etc. However these techniques are more difficult to implement and there are less opportunites to use them. The reason people are so adament that card counting is the only way is that in general to use any of these more advanced and powerful skills you generally need to be able to count or at least understand a lot of the theory that comes along with counting. Counting is just the best base to start off from.

RJT.

 

[shadroch]

Sorry, I missed this before. . . But to answer your question, I think we both know that trying to count with a $200 bankroll is a bad idea. According to Renzey in Bluebook II you need 60 units per session, and even at the $5 level that's only 40 units so you're undercapitalized.

WHERE DOES MR RENZEY SAY THIS? I DON"T SEE IT IN HIS KISS SECTION.




So that basically leaves me with flat betting, and I can honestly say that I believe Moore's system is a better performer than flat betting. Can I prove this? No. Do I have some doubts? Sure. But I know that after some preliminary casino tests as well as dealing shoes in my living room and recording the results, it seems that Moore's system generally at least performs on par with flat betting . . . however, when it drops behind it only drops behind by a small amount, but when it leaps ahead it leaps ahead by a large amount.

I think that in the long run you'll make more money counting cards, but it's a compelling alternative to flat betting.

BASED ON WHAT? A GUT FEELING? EVEN THE ORIGINATOR WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE MATH TO SUPPORT THIS.

 

[SPX]

BASED ON WHAT? A GUT FEELING? EVEN THE ORIGINATOR WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE MATH TO SUPPORT THIS.

1) Actually, I was wrong . . . Renzey does not say that you need 60 units per session . . . he says you need 60 AVERAGE BETS! Look on page 183 . . . you'll find it. And so obviously with $200 at a $5 table (and that's the cheapest we got) you ARE highly undercapitalized as I said.

2) And no, it's not best on a gut feeling . . . it's based on my admittedly-minimal testing so far. On a BAD shoe . . . those nightmare shoes where you just can't win a hand . . . the flat bettor will come out ahead (but not by a huge margin). But on an average shoe where you are winning at least 2 out of 5 hands (and based upon the math we can expect to do this, on average) the player using Jay's system can expect to have a slight lead over the flat bettor. And on those occasional great shoes where we catch a run and win 7 or more hands in a row the player using Jay's system will leap ahead of the flat bettor by SEVERAL units.

Based upon what I've seen so far, if you're using his system don't be surprised if you're slightly behind the flat bettor. However, on average you will be about even or slightly ahead. But when your day comes and you have a good run you will take a significant lead and keep it.

 

[shadroch]

I'm not going to discuss Mr moores theory any furthur. I think it's hogwash,you don't. So we can agree to disagree.

please remember this,though. -under normal conditions where you win 40% of the hands,the Martingale is the most powerful system ever created.But in the long run,it always ends in disaster,true?

However,I'm confused about Mr Renzeys stated 60 average bets a session. I don't have the book handy,so are you saying he says you need this to play KISS1? Or is he talking about when playing his advanced or Mentor counts?

 

[SPX]

I'm not going to discuss Mr moores theory any furthur. I think it's hogwash,you don't. So we can agree to disagree.

However,I'm confused about Mr Renzeys stated 60 average bets a session. I don't have the book handy,so are you saying he says you need this to play KISS1? Or is he talking about when playing his advanced or Mentor counts?

Okay, enough about Jay Moore. . . Agreed.

In regard to the issue of bankroll requirements, he's actually talking about what you need in terms of units to be a card counter in general. The information falls under the chapter The Art and Science of Skillful Play.

To quote (and this is condensed):

Just how much money do you need to be a blackjack card counter? . . . If you're not a math geek and don't want to mess with the square roots, then just use the following chart as your guide. . .

Session Stake: 60 average bets
Vacation Stake: 150 average bets
Overall Bankroll: 500 average bets


To clarify the issue of the Session Stake he says:

If you're headed to the casino for a three or four hour playing session, 60 of your average size bets will cover you the vast majority of the time.

 

[SPX]

Please remember this,though. -under normal conditions where you win 40% of the hands,the Martingale is the most powerful system ever created.But in the long run,it always ends in disaster,true?

This must have been a later edit, so I will respond to it now. . .

Hey, you are CORRECT! If you KNOW that you're not going to encounter more than 4 or so losses in a row (on my bankroll) then the Martingale is pretty awesome.

I actually very briefly (like two times) used a system outlined in the book Betting on Blackjack by Franz Dunki-Jacobs. It's basically a modified Martingale. Worked out well for me the first time around . . . not so much the second time. And I moved on.

Also, if you want some quick money and just want to get up a few units and leave, it's useful.

 

[shadroch]

My friend and I martingale for lunch quite often. $10 on a roulette color. Bets go like this
bet 1) $10 If we win we go to lunch. If not....
bet 2) $10 If we win we revert back to bet #1,if not....
bet 3) $20 If we win we revert back to bet#1 If not...
bet 4) $40 If we win we revert back to bet #1. If not... we pretty much drink a liquid lunch.