Bosox. Here is the difference. You handle your wins like a scholar and losses like a man. It's when those expect a handout and/or do nothing to improve their game, except complain about losses or addiction etc,etc. that irritates some posters to the point of exiting.
Stop with the cheap shots. I have said numerous times that I am still learning. Some folks do a lot of studying, research, sims, playing on software, practice before they go on to serious playing. I opted to learn as I go, play recreationally and with little practice. Just reading forums, archives and playing. It's been a slow process but with a 40 hour job, a family, a location in a small town with limited opportunities. So I have been content just being in the positive, not really making money.
This does not change the fact that folks playing HiLo or other simple counts are making as much money as most of those using more complicated counts.
Norm, Don S, multiple other accomplished folks have stated that any count will get you the money.
You and T3 and a few others are like those who purchased a Rolls Royce and cannot believe that a Honda can go to the same place, so you keep arguing that the luxury car is a must on today's roads.
ZeeBabar;
"This does not change the fact that folks playing HiLo or other simple counts are
making as much money as most of those using more complicated counts."
The above is a clearly false statement.
Nearly all of those who I have trained to properly play BJ, came to me after playing for months (or years) utilizing Hi-Lo, (or other Level One counts), balanced, unbalanced and mostly Ace-Reckoned.
They sought me out in order to help them because they were either "broke" or "even",
and could no longer rationalize their having "spun their wheels for naught."
More than half simply gave up - after failing to improve their game with a strong count,
while most have thanked me with genuine gratitude. About a dozen of them are regular
posters on this forum, but have taken my strident suggestion to stand back and not
attempt to defend me against scurrilous characters like ZeeBabar, who are largely ignorant
of the facts when it comes to BJ, or are, indeed, closeted "pathological gamblers."
They simply came back to you after a few months or a year because they were all like most new counters to this game: NOT ENOUGH TRAINED, NO EXPERIENCE AND MAKING A LOTS OF MISTAKES THAT THEY DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE AS SUCH.
You should stop delude yourself into thinking that you can SEE and FEEL the difference using a multi-level count over a year or a few months compared to HI-LO. Worse, you should stop telling that to newbies, it only poorly serves them and make you look like an amateur.
G Man
Ronster was just a little boy when this thread began. I happen to know his OP was geared toward SD and DD. A relatively simple question with countless complex generalities for answers.
From an SD and DD perspective, what difference does it make? As Don S might say for the umpteenth time, the answer is in the SCORE found in SIMS. The questions are made up of what is "in" the individual.
Everytime my butt hits the leather seat my mind is ready to play. Can I prove a 4 column count is superior? Not without a SIM. But then who can prove it isn't effective without a SIM? Running a SIM on the matchups provides a better return on select indices than a conventional count. Simply put, I like to know what's been played and thus what remains when making minimum bets decisions. I also have peace of mind knowing my BC is the highest possible when my large bet is placed. My mental suitcase is neatly packed with all the necessities to compete at maximum capacity. Losing a session means they have to beat me at my best. It happens. But I'm not an easy out.
Flash is the expert on Hi Opt ii. So of course I wouldn't speak for him. But I wouldn't want to be on the other side of the table against him. That's for sure.
Last edited by moses; 01-07-2017 at 10:31 AM.
The above quote is taken from post #197 in the thread in a response to a post of mine that I originally did not read, because frankly, the paragraph was too long. Since it was in a response to mine I since changed my mind.
" Making them believe that the simplest approach is all they need is a recipe for disaster. It makes it sound like they will be an expert counter in weeks."
Kindly state who is stating that. No one is stating that you can become an expert counter in weeks.
"There is a weird thing about beginners. They tend to be underfunded. The techniques people say are not worth it in many cases are worth the most to an underfunded player. The trouble is they need to dedicate a lot of time to learning and research to be ready. The get pushed out to play way too quickly using simple approaches. "
Instead of falsely implying that established players are pushing out new players to start playing the game. Could it be possible that many new players made these decisions on their very own? Again who is pushing them out to play?
"A beginner can choose to rush out before he is ready with a simple count and risk his small BR or he can study and save a bigger BR so he can play better to a smaller initial RoR. Which is the better advice for the beginner?"
The answer is obvious, but if the beginner chooses to do otherwise, on his or her own, who can stop them?
"You guys have him rushing out there and playing a system that is not well tailored to a weak BR when they don't know anything about being an AP that is beyond counting. That is about the worst advice you can give a beginner. Learning to count and the index plays doesn't take much time for any count. Being ready to play like an AP in the casino takes a long time of study and research. Please tell beginners that."
I do not teach students, please do not put me out there in the category of rushing new players out to play before being ready. Frankly I can not recall seeing it, "I do not read many threads" but if I did see someone doing so, I would voice my objection.
Don absolutely has the right to express his opinion. However, when he's bitching at others for not adding value to a thread, or side tracking it, he becomes a hypocrite when he does it himself.
Is the board better without Don? No, but it would be exponentially better without his condescending, shitty attitude.
This isn't one of those situations where Don fucked up once, and I jumped on his case about it. This is an ongoing thing with Don, as I showed with just a handful of posts. Need I dig further? I already explained that I couldn't find the comment that really irked me off with him where he was giving ridiculously reckless advice to an obvious beginner.
The whole point is that Don is not some innocent teacher like he pretends himself to be. He's a grumpy asshole who wants this forum to post in a certain fashion, and only in a certain fashion. He very clearly does not like threads that carry on discussions after they have been answered, and he very clearly does not like threads that sidetrack.
Both of those, however, he's more than guilty of, as I've proven.
That's what you're hearing from Don. I think there's maybe all of 3 people on this forum who want to see a forum the way Don wants it. It would be worthless, useless. Guys like me, real APs, wouldn't post here. I come here for discussion, not for answers. I have all the answers, I have Don's book and Norm's software! But both of those two great pieces of work, only cover about 3% of what it is to be an AP. The other 97% can't be read through many books as the ones already written have become irrelevant. Even Max Rubin's Comp city, the only book of its kind really, is wholly irrelevant today.
That's because, as I explained, I couldn't find it. I ran into way too many posts from Don that just went on to prove my secondary point about his attitude and the way he comes off on this forum. Buried underneath, of course, all of the "page 249 table A" posts.
I also showed a quote-string where Don attacks me for not answering the mathematics of the question, when the OP asked for more than just the mathematics, then went on like a fucking child to bash everyone in the thread for continuing on with that discussion, the one the OP was more interested in, and then went on a tantrum when his name wasn't first on the thank you list.
The guy's ego can't fit through the fucking doorway, and his bedside manners could certainly use some improvement.
I serve to better the community here, he does not. Simple as that. Make an argument that he wrote a book which served the community, sure, but I'm specifically talking about his posts here on the forum, which serve more as a detriment than anything. His advice, doesn't add value, and often its decades old, dated material. His mathematics posts are the only thing of value he provides, and he overwhelms all of that with the worst attitude, and the biggest outpouring of condescension on this forum.
And what makes matters worse? Idiots like you who defend him blindly because he wrote a book, but don't take the time out of your days to actually read what he writes here.
That's not what forums were designed for. That's not what THIS forum was designed for. This forum was designed for the community. If we only needed questions answered, there would be maybe 200 posts on this forum, all point to Don's book or Norm's software, and ultimately we'd be churning out robotic, mindless APs that only further damage the community by giving us that much more heat everywhere we go.
People come here not looking for the answer to their question, they come here to learn how we got to the answer, or if there's a much bigger question to be asking.
A prime example was that "buy a double down" thread. I came in, suggested that the OP look at the bigger picture, Don came in lambasting me for not answering the mathematics to the question which was no longer relevant because the OP had a moment of enlightenment when he realized he was looking at the situation all wrong.
In Don's world, my post doesn't happen, only his, and this guy carries on with his life, playing wrong and making poor decisions.
I make my living as an AP, Zee. There are some very obvious APs on this forum, Don just isn't one of them, and in a Biography of him that I read long ago, he admits this fact.
So I'll ask you Zee, do you really want the mathematician without relevant real world practice within the last decade, being the guy who dictates forum policy? I sure as shit don't, and I'd take a single KJ over a thousand dons any day of the week, yet you guys did a damned good job at running him off and letting Don do a wonderful job of substituting.
Exoter
Again, no disrespect intended, your manner reminds me of a social anarchist type who used to post elsewhere. He was somewhat if a condescending asshole who believed that the only valid opinion was his own - a legend in his own mind.
Yes, Don is somewhat opinionated in a number of different ways, however, you are failing to look at the individual as a whole. Anyone can be condemned, including me and you. It would seem to me that your blind allegiance to KJ, is one if your character flaws. I would agree with you that his personal approach to longevity is good and that it works for him. I disagree with you as to his value, as there are many, including myself, who think of him as a certifiable fruit loop. His distorted mindset does not, as he proclaims, assist newbies, rather, encourages them to mediocrity. He refuses to consider other methodologies, and manipulates verbiage to prop up his version of the truth.
I'm not sure that Don has imagination - however, it is clear that he has a brilliant mind. Regardless of your though processes, and fir that matter, wherever you may be correct, his immense contributions simply demand respect, and for whatever quirks he may have personality wise, he is not deserving of condemnation.
Bookmarks