When trying to define something and get answers, it's always good to cross reference from multiple independent resources to compare numbers, check your math, etc. On occasion you can encounter differences not only between your math or calculations and a known text but differences between multiple reputable blackjack publications when you look close and compare, although they will normally be very close, very similar. If you are attentive to these slight differences when something pops up that is clearly and blatantly false it's easier to recognize. This is the beauty of a forum, the exchange of ideas and information and the sharing of resources to verify that information, weeding out misinformation and errors.
Sometimes it goes beyond a difference of .0014 here compared to .0016 over there and it's much easier to see a potential discrepancy without even breaking out the pocket calculator. I was on the WOV site, which is not a blackjack site but there is a blackjack section should you ever want to understand the perks and nuances of the A/5 count or other similar exciting topics. There was an excellent post about some blackjack basics aside from one of those potential discrepancies where they mentioned a 10 fold gain in using a level 1 count such as Hi-Lo over more complicated methods due to errors or miscalculations or whatever. Rather than hurriedly run back here to tell those HiOpt2 guys to hurry up and switch to Hi-Lo before it's too late, I mentioned that although it was an otherwise great post this was clearly not an accurate statement, which didn't get a very warm reception. I got a rebuttal that not only seemed to side with this being an accurate statement but also seemed clearly upset that I questioned it!
An individual can say anything they like, especially online but unless they can mathematically prove something out or have evidence to back it up, saying it 1000 more times will not alter the raw data. The same individual saying it 2000 more times beyond that will not erase or disprove existing mathematical proof to the contrary either. Question what you see and read, look at all the resources available along with considering the reputability of the resource. If someone tells me it's a brilliant idea to get a time share in Pago Pago, American Samoa I'm going to check it out from multiple angles from multiple resources. If someone gets irritated that you question something, veering away from the question, this only makes it more questionable. Consider validity so you don't end up with a time share in Pago Pago, American Samoa that ends up becoming the bane of your existence.
313085_289342967759230_782784936_n.jpg
Bookmarks