Vegas Trp Report

[Three]

Let's switch to 'Which count to use?'. That hasn't been discussed in at least a week.

And some get so pissed that others disagree with them about the count debate they leave the site. But first their argument becomes a personal attack and creation of a fictional straw man to lampoon. It is pretty pathetic. The point of a debate is to present all sides of an issue. Too many only see how an issue affects them and fails to see how someone in another situation is affected. Often the correct answer simply depends on your specifics. It can be your BR size, your style of attack, artificial boundaries to your spread that exist, the games you will ply your method at or your personal strengths and weaknesses. I have met people that could tell you every card played in a shoe. Would you advise them to leave this amazing ability at the curb or learn how to use its maximum potential. Others have a tough time keeping a simple count or doing simple math and lack either the desire or the ability to do something about it. Obviously the correct answer to what count is best is entirely different for these individuals. Without all sides of the issue being discussed somebody is not going to get the best option for them. I guess everyone sees the world as a reflection of themselves so what you expect of others just shows what you believe about yourself. Having a hissy fit and storming off the site because other opinions are expressed does show something about someone's character just as resorting to personal attacks shows someone is arguing a weak position or are simply intolerant to those that have a different perspective.

[KJ]

And some get so pissed that others disagree with them about the count debate they leave the site. But first their argument becomes a personal attack and creation of a fictional straw man to lampoon. It is pretty pathetic. The point of a debate is to present all sides of an issue.

Having a hissy fit and storming off the site because other opinions are expressed does show something about someone's character just as resorting to personal attacks shows someone is arguing a weak position or are simply intolerant to those that have a different perspective.

Why are you trying to draw me into another round of this. Norman doesn't want it and there is no point.

It ISNT about a count debate or not accepting that others have different opinions or views. It is about your discussion, and views misleading new players/members. There is a place for the discussions that you want to engage in....it's called Advanced Strategies, Theories and Math. This is clearly where almost all of your discussion belong.

The general section on a site like this, that is attracting many new members and players and has become the entrance point to card counting for so many, is NOT the place for such discussions. The argument that you guys make for not wanting your discussion in that advanced session, which is obviously the appropriate place for it, is that the discussion will receive little traffic because most of the newer members aren't paid subscription members. And THIS is exactly the point of why it belongs there.

If a member isn't serious enough to pay the $3/month subscription, then how serious is he about card counting? For these members the general discussion section should be about general and simple card counting practices and principals and that is mostly Hi-lo or K-O or something along those lines. When a player is ready to explore the things that you constantly talk about, they won't be asking the elementary questions and making the almost painfully simple posts that lead to these 'debates'.

A lot of people in the community curse John Patrick or Frank Scoblete or a couple of the other authors that have lost all credibility and feel like running into some of their work is the worse thing a new counter/AP can do. I believe you have trumped them all. I believe reading your posts is about the worse thing a new counter can do. It will point him in the wrong direction and guarantee he has no chance of succeeding at card counting.

You have won, so please stop trying to draw me in. You have your platform for misleading the newer players and trying to impress, whoever it is that you are trying to impress and there is nothing I can do about it.

[Freightman]

I

Why are you trying to draw me into another round of this. Norman doesn't want it and there is no point.

It ISNT about a count debate or not accepting that others have different opinions or views. It is about your discussion, and views misleading new players/members. There is a place for the discussions that you want to engage in....it's called Advanced Strategies, Theories and Math. This is clearly where almost all of your discussion belong.

The general section on a site like this, that is attracting many new members and players and has become the entrance point to card counting for so many, is NOT the place for such discussions. The argument that you guys make for not wanting your discussion in that advanced session, which is obviously the appropriate place for it, is that the discussion will receive little traffic because most of the newer members aren't paid subscription members. And THIS is exactly the point of why it belongs there.

If a member isn't serious enough to pay the $3/month subscription, then how serious is he about card counting? For these members the general discussion section should be about general and simple card counting practices and principals and that is mostly Hi-lo or K-O or something along those lines. When a player is ready to explore the things that you constantly talk about, they won't be asking the elementary questions and making the almost painfully simple posts that lead to these 'debates'.

A lot of people in the community curse John Patrick or Frank Scoblete or a couple of the other authors that have lost all credibility and feel like running into some of their work is the worse thing a new counter/AP can do. I believe you have trumped them all. I believe reading your posts is about the worse thing a new counter can do. It will point him in the wrong direction and guarantee he has no chance of succeeding at card counting.

You have won, so please stop trying to draw me in. You have your platform for misleading the newer players and trying to impress, whoever it is that you are trying to impress and there is nothing I can do about it.

KJ
I know several high end counters who have evolved beyond their introductory card count counting strategy. I know a few who evolved and gravitated towards hi lo. I also know several high end counters who have started and continue to use Hi lo, and for quite well. The old adage of "the best card counting system is the one that you can execute flawlessly", continues to hold true. There's no point in your getting your shorts tied up in a knot over a card counting debate.

As far as the TThree count system is concerned, there are few counters, if any, who know it, much less execute it. Regardless of that point, there are those, including myself, who find its concepts interesting. Though I have no intent of switching over, I also see some value in debating it, for the simple reason is that there may be something I can glean from it, and adapt to my situation. I think you are not giving newbies enough credit as to what is, or is not appropriate for their skill levels, or for that matter, what may be possible.

New counters are likely to start off their card counting career by gravitating towards that system found during their initial research. For me, that was hi lo. For others, red seven, ko, or whatever. At some point in time, they may or may not gravitate towards some other system for whatever reason. For me, that was halves.

Now, you have "quit" this site several times over the last couple of weeks. For you to maintain credibility, either just quit, or, let bygones be bygones and hop back in. If you decide to hop back in, then get rid of that chip on your shoulder. Personally, I think the site is better off with you than without you. Obviously, that choice is yours.

[Three]

Yeah, they pull out their Zee bashing clubs pretty quick. You will find you get a much better understanding of the things you ask about if you do the research yourself or before asking.

[Norm]

KJ, I just plowed through T3's last 50 posts and saw discussions on many things, none of which have anything to do with his complex strategy. I really don't understand why you keep harping on this. Or why parts of this thread, out of context, are being bashed elsewhere. The picture you draw of this site is simply not valid.

Funny thing is that one site claims that no one ever discusses anything here except simplistic straight counting, and the other complains that complex strategies are always discussed.

[Norm]

SCORE measures efficacy of a strategy. It does not talk to the individual skills of a player. Some players have trouble with side counts, some don't. Some have trouble with TC conversion. Some don't like negative numbers. Some don't like wide ranges of numbers. Some don't like multi-level counts. I don't see the point of one-size-fits-all. If it was all cut and dried, we would just say play six-deck games with specific rules, at a specific casino, with this cover, at these stakes, with this spread, with this act -- and close the site.

[Norm]

Wouldn't simming the games you play most frequently make some degree of "cents"?

My book gives charts for the common strategies that have been weighted by the frequency of games available at the time of the sims. But, that was just for fun. There simply isn't one best system. People vary greatly and circumstances vary greatly.

Both are giving horrible advice to a novice.

There isn't one class of novice. I think the novice should be exposed to differing views and see some of the pros and cons instead of being led by the nose.

[Norm]

OK. But, I'm not taking out the Ebola code.

[Three]

KJ, I never made comments aimed at new players to go with a complex count. I answer each post I refer to with the info that is relevant to the poster. I refuse to answer a poster like he is a newbie when he is not. I have told newbies to start with a simple count with the option to evolve into more complex approaches if they so desire when the time comes. I have also told newbies that if the simple approach isn't working for them they are probably making mistakes so moving to a more complex approach would only increase their problems. There is no one size fits all answer as you like to paint it. What the best count is for any individual depends on many factors as I said in the post you took your quotes from. You seem to have some kind of deep rooted issue with people whose (yes it is not who's) views perspective differs from yours to come up with a fictitious or delusional take on a long posting history. As long as you are here you can give any newbie that takes posts intended for others the correction they may need. If not you, then others may do it as I have done in the past. It would seem you think "General" discussion means very specific counts only. Where I went to school general is an all inclusive inclusive term. As for the comment of the $3 being an indication of how serious a counter someone is, some of the most senior members (in age, BJ experience and commitment) choose not to pay the $3. Stereotyping them all into one homogenous group shows a tendency towards generalization, to use a nice word. My first few word choices that came to mind are a little too emotionally charged to be appropriate in a polite forum. Generalization is a close enough fit. That means to include all of the people that don't pay the $3 not just the ones that you think are convenient. I hope you get what general and generalization actually means. As an adjective or a noun:

1) General (adjective): Including or affecting all or most people, places or things; Universal.

2) Generalization (noun): A general statement or concept derived by inference from a small number of specific cases. Taking something specific and applying it broadly.
i.e. "All casino personnel are stupid". "Everyone that is unemployed is lazy". "All politicians are crooks". Statements like these often get the one making the comment generalized as insensitive to use another nice word and another example of the use of generalization.

LOL
After all the BS that was made up about me that I endured reasonably well I hope I could expect those that perpetrated the attacks to have a sense of humor. At least I am trying to be funny and not just attacking because I don't like people disagreeing with me. Now the forum here is a nice civilized place for discussing all sides of AP issues. Different philosophies are used and championed by many successful AP's. I am sorry if my joking around bout the simple approach got under your skin. At some point a few months back I figured out the jesting comments were not taken well and changed my tone a bit. I guess I was too slow on the uptake. The ridiculous nature of this recurring debate just begged for humor but I guess it was lost on much of my audience. Like most I think it is funny to rib people but unlike some only if it doesn't bother them. Once I can tell the humor is hurting people I stop. Unfortunately I don't always pick that up a quickly as I would like.

[Norm]

This is, of course, why arguments should be on content, not on posters. You need to debate what is said, not who is saying it. Novices should be happy when they see a logical debate. A fistfight is not useful.

[zergy]

This is, of course, why arguments should be on content, not on posters. You need to debate what is said, not who is saying it. Novices should be happy when they see a logical debate. A fistfight is not useful.

I agree and disagree. Of course things should be civil and ideas should be the center of debate. But it is really hard to figure out who to listen to when people argue on the internet if you aren't already an expert on the topic. I think credentials are important. I think it is fair to ask about a person's experience. I don't think posters that exaggerate their credentials or imply experise falsely should be completely immune from criticism.

[Three]

As far as KJ TThree chronicles, not that I'm any more succinct - they're both long winded, regardless, their is Value in both of their perspectives, though they may not see the value in the other.

I have learned a lot from KJ. He was one of the few I respected enough to contact about dealing with issues a pro must deal with that a recreational player doesn't need to be concerned about. I guess it is no surprise he kind of blew me off after finding out the respect I feel for him does not seem to be mutual.

As for side counting, what few seem to get is there is value in knowing the side counted cards are at expectation. It won't change your play but it increases the certainty of your play and bets. This allows for a lower risk which can be used to bet more while keeping the same risk factor. This part of the math of gains is often lost on people. They may compare things using the same bets rather than a standard risk, BR etc for each thing being investigated while using each thing in the comparison's optimal ramp keeping everything but the optimal ramps as a standard for each. This will give all the gain as increased EV rather than hidden as gains in other stats. Don invented SCORE with this idea. You compare a simple and complex approach to get reaches SCORE you will find the complex approach bets more (larger unit size) using the standards of SCORE because its increased certainty or better correlation lowers risk but with SCORE risk is a constant so betting units increase to even out to the constant RoR.

[Freightman]

I have learned a lot from KJ. He was one of the few I respected enough to contact about dealing with issues a pro must deal with that a recreational player doesn't need to be concerned about. I guess it is no surprise he kind of blew me off after finding out the respect I feel for him does not seem to be mutual.

As for side counting, what few seem to get is there is value in knowing the side counted cards are at expectation. It won't change your play but it increases the certainty of your play and bets. This allows for a lower risk which can be used to bet more while keeping the same risk factor. This part of the math of gains is often lost on people. They may compare things using the same bets rather than a standard risk, BR etc for each thing being investigated while using each thing in the comparison's optimal ramp keeping everything but the optimal ramps as a standard for each. This will give all the gain as increased EV rather than hidden as gains in other stats. Don invented SCORE with this idea. You compare a simple and complex approach to get reaches SCORE you will find the complex approach bets more (larger unit size) using the standards of SCORE because its increased certainty or better correlation lowers risk but with SCORE risk is a constant so betting units increase to even out to the constant RoR.

Im going to criticize you here. You'll find your detractors are commenting that to many of your posts are a treatise. Wouldn't it say the same thing much more economically that you measure the ratio of hi cards to low cards, and then adjust based on intermediate density, or to say that your basic is full risk averse indices, and that your indices are departures from your basic dependant upon ratio of intermediates. Think it says the same thing.