I'd respond, but I think at this point it is best I simply say nothing. I've had my say, made my point and it's time to move on.
I'd respond, but I think at this point it is best I simply say nothing. I've had my say, made my point and it's time to move on.
> I'd respond, but I think at this point it is
> best I simply say nothing. I've had my say,
> made my point and it's time to move on.
Wildcard, I have the utmost respect for you and have always enjoyed your posts. I do think you should read the earlier posts from Parker to Ouchez, where Parker has clearly told him if he continues with voodoo posts he will be called on it. Parker had patience with him through posts of, "You should surrender a 12 vs. a dealer high card", "You should not double an 11 vs. a dealer high card", etc... The board has to be protected against unsound mathematical advice, there are newbies on this board that may be susceptible to it. If Parker didn't show alot of restraint during those earlier posts, then you'd have more of a case to call him on it. What Parker should be called on is, his misspelling of mathematical! He spells it wrong every damn time, how come Don hasn't jumped on him ;-). But seriously Wildcard, I have no desire to get in a disagreement with you and hope you don't take this as butting in, I just think you should go back and read some of the earlier posts between Parker and Ouchez. You may come to the conclusion that this was just trolling in order to start an argument.
> Wildcard, I have the utmost respect for you
> and have always enjoyed your posts. I do
> think you should read the earlier posts from
> Parker to Ouchez, where Parker has clearly
> told him if he continues with voodoo posts
> he will be called on it. Parker had patience
> with him through posts of, "You should
> surrender a 12 vs. a dealer high card",
> "You should not double an 11 vs. a
> dealer high card", etc... The board has
> to be protected against unsound mathematical
> advice, there are newbies on this board that
> may be susceptible to it. If Parker didn't
> show alot of restraint during those earlier
> posts, then you'd have more of a case to
> call him on it. What Parker should be called
> on is, his misspelling of mathematical! He
> spells it wrong every damn time, how come
> Don hasn't jumped on him ;-). But seriously
> Wildcard, I have no desire to get in a
> disagreement with you and hope you don't
> take this as butting in, I just think you
> should go back and read some of the earlier
> posts between Parker and Ouchez. You may
> come to the conclusion that this was just
> trolling in order to start an argument.
Count,
Thanks for some more kind words.
I believe you live near AC and do Vegas once in a while, correct?
If you had the pleasure to play the game I have described you would be negligent in NOT thinking up off the wall ways to wring every cent out of it and to control it completely. Have you ever been able to play a dd game that is always dealt almost to the bottom, (for hundreds of hours) and thus face those peculiar situations I wrote about?
If you did you may very well be thinking the same things I am.
There is nothing I posted here that does not make sense in the bottom of a deep dealt game with surrender, no heat, and a few other things.
But playing in AC you will never get that situation. I drive 7 hour round trips, in the best of weather, to compete in this particular game and my commitment as the "Supreme Competitor" is unwavering even after all the insults hurled at me by players such as yourself.
I will make this challenge, we both play this game, from 9 in the morn to 6pm, buy in with $3000, you play any way you want and I will do the same and at the end we will Count the money and see just who came ahead, who was the most skilled player. I am sure you would not mind driving 10 hours one way to play such a great game, after all I am sure you are, *the real deal*.
I also think there is a chance the Travel Channel may be interested in doing a piece on this challenge, just as they have on Poker Cruises and Vegas gaming. I am already known and not a pro so I would not care being on camera. I don't know how well known you are but I know you are not a pro.
> What Parker should be called
> on is, his misspelling of mathematical! He
> spells it wrong every damn time, how come
> Don hasn't jumped on him ;-).
You know, I have looked at that word every time I typed it, but for some reason never bothered to spellcheck it.
You are correct that I have consistently spelled it that way, and I, too, am surprised that Don has never corrected me. :-)
I learn all sorts of stuff from moderating this board. :-)
Now that is an innovative idea. Innovation is easy. Useful new ideas are something else altogether. Your ideas may be innovative ? but they?re wrong. They hurt your game and readers must be made aware of this fact. And, sorry, but your assumption that no one understands the situation or is not innovative is simply insulting ? not ?polite.? As an innovator once said:
Of modern infidels and innovatours, he said ?Sir, these are all vain men.?
-James Boswell, 1768
You're taking me out of context. There is a big differnce between running a sim on a full deck and running a sim for a particular situation for example when the deck is half played on only particular cards remain. This reference was to the time Ochez took some lumps for indicating that their may be a time deep in a dd game where surrendering a 12 may be a better idea than busting out due to an extreme positive true count. Now if I run a sim on a full deck I will not get the same results as if I ran what was left at the given time in the given deck to get the given optimal play.
As far as his dd strategy I indicated I do not use or believe in cover play. I encouraged him to post since so he would not feel like an out sider because a slide rule mad man may not always understand him. The spreading from 1 to 4 seems to not be a bad idea if you have adequate bank roll. But betting 4 off the top to me does not seem to be a good idea nor does not hitting in negative situations. I think people come up with ideas like that because they are told to only use 18 indicies and that stragey also makes no sense if you are a play all player.
I am sorry if you feel insulted Ouchez or Mr Wattenberger. I try to be polite. Although Ouchez may have some way out ideas does not necessarily mean he is trying to sabotage anyone's game or this website.
Ouchez, just do a real sim man! I'd be interested in seeing how it does. Of course, that would require you to come up with a BS table for your no-bust strategy, and all of that good stuff. And you should also know that your 'challenge' is crap, unless you get 200 hands an hour, 12 hours a day, every day for the rest of your lives. THEN it could prove something. Use a computer, and come up with a EV for your BS and counting system under the enticing conditions you describe. You could have saved all this hassle if you just asked for advice on what program to use to run such a simulation in your orginal description of the system.
> You know, I have looked at that word every
> time I typed it, but for some reason never
> bothered to spellcheck it.
> You are correct that I have consistently
> spelled it that way, and I, too, am
> surprised that Don has never corrected me.
> :-)
> I learn all sorts of stuff from moderating
> this board. :-)
> Count,
> Thanks for some more kind words.
> I believe you live near AC and do Vegas once
> in a while, correct?
> If you had the pleasure to play the game I
> have described you would be negligent in NOT
> thinking up off the wall ways to wring every
> cent out of it and to control it completely.
> Have you ever been able to play a dd game
> that is always dealt almost to the bottom,
> (for hundreds of hours) and thus face those
> peculiar situations I wrote about?
> If you did you may very well be thinking the
> same things I am.
> There is nothing I posted here that does not
> make sense in the bottom of a deep dealt
> game with surrender, no heat, and a few
> other things.
I simply do not understand why you seem to feel that you are the first advantage player on earth to ever play this type of game. "Blind Pitch" has been around for years. Several casinos in Las Vegas tried it several years ago. Bill Zender even posted about it. And deeply dealt games are nothing new, just increasingly hard to find.
As I mentioned (more than once, I think), this game was available at Barona casino near San Diego a couple of years ago. There was even a single deck version! If you have BJ21 Green Chip access, you can probably still find a thread discussing the best strategy for it.
There is nothing in these games requiring "off the wall strategies."
If I were playing this game I would always play two hands when heads-up. I would change a few close plays in order to see the dealer's card (I would always stand on 16 vs 10, for example), but I certainly would not adapt a "never-bust" strategy. By playing in this manner I would only miss an average of 2 or 3 dealer hole cards per (double) deck, and I would be giving up very little in EV.
Come to think of it, that's exactly how I did play it. :-)
If you have done well using your system, then I contend that you did so in spite of your system, rather than because of it.
It is, after all, a deeply dealt double deck game.
> You're taking me out of context. There is a
> big differnce between running a sim on a
> full deck and running a sim for a particular
> situation for example when the deck is half
> played on only particular cards remain
Umm, isn't this rather obvious to everyone? I never tried to impugn anyone?s motives. Anyone is allowed to think up new ideas. But, one shouldn?t be surprised if way-out ideas presented with no proof but with insistence of ?truth? are met with derision. We have seen the attitude oft before that anyone daring to question way-out ideas is somehow closed-minded and against innovation. When I have a new idea that goes against common knowledge; I always assume that the idea is wrong and work to prove it one-way or another. If one assumes each of one?s own ideas is true, one is in for many disappointments in life. And many well-deserved critical comments.
I would never advocate cheating, but if a player managed to hold-out a couple aces and then introduce them into a new DD game, they could greatly increase their EV. It seems like a cheater would be much more likely to get away with this sort of thing since there isn't a full accounting for all of the cards played.
Also, hole card play would be harder to detect (it always looks weird to hit a hard 17 vs a 9 up, but it looks more suspect when you can confirm that the player only hits that hand if the dealer has a 9-A in the hole).
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks