1. GT: Anything good at all about Target 21?

I know that Target 21 has been proven to be not worthy of serious study. But is there anything at all, even minor stuff, that is worthy of knowing?

Good cards,
GT

3. Zenfighter: Re: Nonsensical streakiness

All these nonsensical theories like Target are based on the fallacy that streaks can be predicted in advance and you can capitalize onto them to your advantage. But you have to be aware of the following facts:

1) There is not such a thing like streakiness (winning shoes following winning shoes, or losing ones following after each other) when the cards aren?t shuffled at all. You can double-check this fact with Wong?s PBJ.

2) Obviously there is nothing like predictive streakiness when the cards are perfectly randomised. Streaks do occur, but you can look at them only after the fact and never before in advance.

In the real World of casinos, it isn?t simple not economical for them, to shuffle the cards in a manner that will approximate somehow a random shuffle. It would take simple too much valuable time. So essentially what you have are insufficient shuffled cards with shoes running between pseudo-random ones and non-random ones. With these types of cards there is a tendency to obtain results that tend to look a little bit out of square. That is, big wins mixed all the way with out of the hell shoes. In the long run your results will cluster around your expectation, as been demonstrated by numerous researchers on this field. So what?

If we accept the fact that number 1 and 2 are correct statements and both represent the borders or limits for what to be seen inside a casino, anything that lies in between will fall into the same group. That is in plain English: streakiness can?t be predicted in advance, no matter random cards, pseudo- random, insufficient shuffled and or not shuffled at all.

Hope this helps

Sincerely

Zenfighter

5. GT: I was thinking more along the lines of tips

One thing he said in his "brief" description of Target, was that you should seek out games with nearly empty chip racks, and avoid games with overflowing chip racks. It sounds like a good tip. However, I would still Back Count them first though, if they are allowing Mid Shoe entry. Tips like that is what I meant. I know his "System" is f-ing garbage...

> All these nonsensical theories like Target
> are based on the fallacy that streaks can be
> predicted in advance and you can capitalize
> be aware of the following facts:

> 1) There is not such a thing like
> streakiness (winning shoes following winning
> shoes, or losing ones following after each
> other) when the cards aren?t shuffled at
> all. You can double-check this fact with
> Wong?s PBJ.

> 2) Obviously there is nothing like
> predictive streakiness when the cards are
> perfectly randomised. Streaks do occur, but
> you can look at them only after the fact and

> In the real World of casinos, it isn?t
> simple not economical for them, to shuffle
> the cards in a manner that will approximate
> somehow a random shuffle. It would take
> simple too much valuable time. So
> essentially what you have are insufficient
> shuffled cards with shoes running between
> pseudo-random ones and non-random ones. With
> these types of cards there is a tendency to
> obtain results that tend to look a little
> bit out of square. That is, big wins mixed
> all the way with out of the hell shoes. In
> the long run your results will cluster
> around your expectation, as been
> demonstrated by numerous researchers on this
> field. So what?

> If we accept the fact that number 1 and 2
> are correct statements and both represent
> the borders or limits for what to be seen
> inside a casino, anything that lies in
> between will fall into the same group. That
> is in plain English: streakiness can?t be
> predicted in advance, no matter random
> cards, pseudo- random, insufficient shuffled
> and or not shuffled at all.

> Hope this helps

> Sincerely

> Zenfighter

6. Parker: Re: I was thinking more along the lines of tips

> One thing he said in his "brief"
> description of Target, was that you should
> seek out games with nearly empty chip racks,
> and avoid games with overflowing chip racks.
> It sounds like a good tip. However, I would
> still Back Count them first though, if they
> are allowing Mid Shoe entry. Tips like that
> is what I meant. I know his
> "System" is f-ing garbage...

This means nothing at all. A full chip rack may mean that the dealer has had a hot streak, or it may merely mean that the pit critter is overzealous in ordering fills. Either way, it tells you absolutely nothing of value.

7. Cardkountr: Re: I was thinking more along the lines of tips

> One thing he said in his "brief"
> description of Target, was that you should
> seek out games with nearly empty chip racks,
> and avoid games with overflowing chip racks.
> It sounds like a good tip. However, I would
> still Back Count them first though, if they
> are allowing Mid Shoe entry. Tips like that
> is what I meant. I know his
> "System" is f-ing garbage...

If you play games with comparable SCORES, your theoretical EV will be the same whether you play tables with empty racks, full racks, change tables because you've lost X number of hands, change casinos, play tables with dirty ashtrays etc.....none of it matters as it all comes down to pure math.

The next time you play is simply a continuation of all your previous sessions.

Best Regards,
Card.

8. Don Schlesinger: We need to move on

From "Don's Dictums" (see left frame), #8:

"I will not entertain, on this site, any discussion whatsoever on the topics of betting progressions, card-clumping, or TARGET. These are asinine, bogus, time-wasting subjects that have no place on a serious board."

So, let's end this thread, please. There is no aspect whatsoever about TARGET that is worth five seconds of discussion -- at least not here.

Don

10. John Lewis: you covered that topic well, thanks (nm) *NM*

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•