Think I screwed up a few minutes ago...

**tjr5259** · 04-21-2015, 08:16 PM

I thought this was a joke

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**stopgambling** · 04-21-2015, 08:37 PM

.Everyone have emotion ,so i would try to keep my mind on the BIG PICTURE. i get affected by lost at times when it gets out of my comfort zone, So i set a 30 max bets lost /session. If the shoe is over and i have less than 10 max bets , i am outta there. It happens quite a few times and it hurts . So i just go do something else or go home to diffuse the bad feeling.

**Meistro123** · 04-21-2015, 08:51 PM

But ace is a gin card for you when you split; surely the more aces available the more likely you should split. But then again the more aces extant the more likely the dealer is sitting on 20, so I guess it's a wash.

Everyone have emotion ,so i would try to keep my mind on the BIG PICTURE. i get affected by lost at times when it gets out of my comfort zone, So i set a 30 max bets lost /session. If the shoe is over and i have less than 10 max bets , i am outta there.

This is a great plan in my opinion. Booking a loss is good for longevity and surely we all make inferior decisions when stuck. Plus it's just plain more fun to play when you are winning. And if the dealer is up to some monkey business then this protects you as well.

KJ · 04-21-2015, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Orangechip2

I have to read more of this kids posts..

Kid?...yeah

Zee, this is exactly the kind of post that gets you into trouble time and time again. You really should know what the correct play was. It's basic strategy, count doesn't even enter into it. But, if for some reason, you didn't know, don't you have some reference point to look it up (what happened to that software you were going to buy?), without posting and awakening all these guys that want to jump on you? It almost seems like that is your intent.

**Jabberwocky** · 04-21-2015, 09:50 PM

Maybe some kind of persecution complex?

**Three** · 04-21-2015, 10:11 PM

If he wants to be persecuted just post about a new approach to counting.

**NotEnoughHeat** · 04-22-2015, 01:52 AM

I mildly enjoyed reading this thread, but I have no idea what the original purpose of it was. It should be quite straight forward if the question was "is this play correct at this given count?". However this doesn't seem to be the intent behind the post. The decision is either correct or not considering the circumstances, the EV of the decision and alternatives, and the risk associated. What happened after doesn't matter. Even if you lose and it feels like crap to have made that play, the math is what it is and it's the math that determines what's right.

**tiny** · 04-22-2015, 02:59 AM

You'll drive yourself crazy thinking about what you could have done differently after the hands play out. Not playing correctly is just throwing your money away.

**21forme** · 04-22-2015, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tthree

If he wants to be persecuted just post about a new approach to counting.

This could be a momentous occasion - the shortest post you've ever made

**ZeeBabar** · 04-22-2015, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by KJ

Kid?...yeah

Zee, this is exactly the kind of post that gets you into trouble time and time again. You really should know what the correct play was. It's basic strategy, count doesn't even enter into it. But, if for some reason, you didn't know, don't you have some reference point to look it up (what happened to that software you were going to buy?), without posting and awakening all these guys that want to jump on you? It almost seems like that is your intent.

KJ and others. The other side is dead because many an idiot jumps on anyone who admits to "screwing up" or admits to doubts about some move they made. They expect every single post to be made by AP's to be flawless or to be made after hours and hours of research, sims and such. If you look at the responses to the original posting, many are excellent, explain why 9s' should be split and variance and it helps many others who are newbies. I see nothing wrong with a post such as I made. What I am hoping is that Norm will ensure personal insults are not made as at the other site, that people are allowed to admit to mistakes and doubts without nasty sarcasm and attempts to intimidate posters with doubts or concerns.

**ZeeBabar** · 04-22-2015, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by bjarg

I just thought it would be funny to make the post at GC and then make a document with 2 columns: the first would display the answers you got here, the second the answers you got there.
That would have me laughing for an entire day.

Its easy to compare. Take a look at the daily activity here and compare it to the other one. I just might make my post there and see how they jump on me.

**DSchles** · 04-22-2015, 07:53 AM

You overthink things and, unfortunately, come to the wrong conclusion in any event. You already count the aces in your primary count. You aren't counting them twice for betting purposes, so your edge is already known before the second contemplated round. An extra ace is nice, but it isn't worth the difference in e.v. that I explained. And, do you not consider that maybe getting one of those extra aces on your split nines would be nice, too, and makes splitting that much better. Take a look at p. 514 of BJA3, and look at the effect of removing a single ace when you have 9,9 v. 9. It's the most harmful card you can remove, which, conversely, means it's the best card to have in excess for that play.

Bottom line: Do what makes you happy, but in this situation, it's the wrong play.

Don

**NotEnoughHeat** · 04-22-2015, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by moses

However, getting one or 2 Aces in the next round matched with a 10 counts for a much more handsome payoff at 3.2. Getting two 10's with those 9's doesn't guarantee a win - likely a push and now whizzed away my hefty count for the next round - which will now be played as a 1 hand minimum as opposed to a two hand max.

I find this line of reasoning to give a plausible answer. There are many cases where you would want to sacrifice EV in one round to have more in the next. Whether it's the right play, based solely on EV, depends how much your betting is likely to change, and what it actual changes to, when you split compared to when you don't. If you don't mind, would you share what number of units you would have on the 9s hand in this example compared to the two hands if you didn't split. I think it would give the example more to look at. However I acknowledge that I'm not thinking of any heat of longevity issues that you might factor in. I'm still just a bit curious on the EV situation.

Originally Posted by moses

Sim's suggest a TC +4 will occur 5% of the time or 10% going to two hands.

Are true count frequencies usually expressed as frequencies of having a TC on a particular round or a particular hand? I had the impression it was the former. If that's the case it doesn't seem right to say spreading to X times more hands gives you the TC X times more frequently.