People like this site over others because it is not a fight club. Hopefully respectful commentary critical of ideas rather than posters. That creates a learning environment. Some choose one way to do things and others choose different ways. None of the ways are wrong. It can be hard to be constructively critical of a way you have never done. We all speak from what we know and can't speak intelligently about what we haven't experienced. These multiple view points help to sculpt the truth from the different viewpoints as long as the debate is about ideas.
It is like the issue I had with Don recently. We took it off the board to PM. To end up on the same page I simply had to decide that when his team of experts did their research they did a good job with their assumptions and didn't just make them arbitrarily. I had not been accepting the assumptions as a given. I had nothing else better to go on rather than their assumption so once that was established we had no differences. My view of any assumptions is always to take a jaded view of them. Assumptions are the mother of all F'ups. Once I accepted the 6 round lag to changing tables as a reasonable assumption we were on the same page. I really don't worry about hourly spent in the casino. I should have looked at things from a backcounter's perspective, since that was what we were talking about, but I don't backcount and rather hunt for good conditions more than good counts. I just want to win the most with the least exposure not maximize my hourly return when I am in the casino. That is how you balance longevity and win rate.
With that goal in mind I am often opting not to play but when I do play I get a lot of rounds in a short time which increases the likelihood of posting a win for the session (certainty of results) while minimizing exposure. As for hourly, it is very high for the amount of time I actually play. If I do my scouting well I am playing most of the time I am in the casino because I know when to be in the casino and when not to be in a casino. I don't expose myself for hours when I won't get in enough rounds to make it worth the exposure. The longer you play the more memorable you make yourself. For certainty of win you want to play a lot of rounds in a session and for longevity you don't want to play for much time. The conditions you seek to satisfy both of these seemingly opposing factors should be obvious. If you are successful at balancing the 2 you don't need to be in the casino for too much time to win what they are comfortable with you winning with a relatively high degree of certainty. That is the perspective I look at play from.
Anyway, Don and I posted our perspectives. From his perspective he was right but that perspective is not my priorities. It has its applications to my priorities and I use that but to me my priorities trump that perspective. Since we were talking about backcounting Don was right but I had more important considerations that I gave priority. I am hunting good conditions not backcounting for a good count. Don and I were having a conversation about backcounting so my perspective was off and Don's was right. I failed to step away from my primary goal and its perspective to see things from a backcounter's perspective. The difference being the time spent not betting is important to the backcounter's point of view. For the goals of my play it isn't. I learned a lot being challenged by Don as I always do. I am not sure that it has much of an application to what I do but it is always nice to learn something. That is what we are all here for isn't it.
Some are here to try to impress people. I am not. I am here to try to help others and to put my ideas out to be tested and challenged by those whose opinions I respect. I will continue until I understand differently. Don and I have ended a few discussions off the boards by PM and I have asked Don things by PM that I didn't want posted publicly. Without all the forum interference he finds the words to help me see when I am wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral of this long post is that we are all here to learn respectfully from one another and challenge each others ideas when appropriate rather than the typical schoolyard, immature personal attacks. People go there when they feel they have no valid argument for the ideas being discussed. It is the ammunition of a weak position or a weak mind and is not permitted here. That is what many love about this site. Those that only have the latter type of ammunition don't like the site. Rather than personally attacking those with different perspectives they should be challenged on their ideas and that is what this site strives for. More perspectives makes for a better total picture. It is the strength of diversity. We find out who doesn't understand things well enough to argue the issue by those that are quick to do personal attacks. If they had the understanding to argue the issue they would never lower themselves to personal attacks.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Norm
Bookmarks