I know about how many indices he sims but many don't without stating the number of indices his statement about PE is very very misleading. What do the ploppies have to do with anything? Controlling them is AP 101.Originally Posted by Fenix
WTF. Why won't you just say it? Is your statement made to look that ridiculous when it is put in context? How many indices did you use in your sim that lead you to say,Like I said PE is meaningless if you hardly use any indices but you go out of the way to make a comment about PE and then seem to embarrassed to reveal the information that should have been in the post above, namely how many indices did you use in the sim. And if they were few enough what were they.
I wouldn't describe any ace reckoned count as high PE unless you use ace reckoned to include ace compromise counts. Still they are just moderate PE counts.
One that tends to shut them up when translated to you would be:
I have to listen to my boss and boyfriend all the time and do whatever they say. I hate being told what to do. I really want to stand on this hand but you are making it impossible by telling me otherwise. Then immediately signal for a hit. The guy will either leave the table or stop making comments.
I don't want to list a bunch of things I use because it will identify me.
Basically you just ignore them or try to really piss them off. If they are obnoxious the staff hates them no matter how much they lose. Getting them to shut up or move to another table makes the staff love you. If it is a place you both frequent a lot they guy is likely to refuse to play at your table ever again.
Pissing people off is an art of reading people. Some people like to complain and may seek you out to complain about your play while others more genuinely believe the crap that comes out of their mouth. The art of reading people is to know which is which and what buttons to push to get them to avoid you. There is no this always works. Like anything, you just get a knack for it after a while.
I don't try to encourage anybody to do anything. But contrary to what you believe the vast majority of BJ players play shoe games more than pitch games.
Now you are starting to understand. being an AP is a job, it is not about playing games. If you think you are playing games you are an amateur. When you don't tell people you are talking about SD you are misleading most people because they never play SD. I used to not say when I was talking about SP21 (actually simply counting techniques that worked best at SP21 but also worked at BJ) because I didn't want the casino staff looking for me there bit that ship sailed a long time ago. I have said just what I am talking about for the year(s) since then.
I don't know how many indices were in your sim but I know how many you think you can use. Remember we have talked about that in private many times and I advised you to tailor a playing count to those indices. A bit disappointed in your answer. You repeatedly say you can't even use the sweet 16 on the forum. I am not sure anyone else bought it. I know the seasoned pros have a pretty good idea but you didn't say your spread (although that is public knowledge as well) or specify your count for the sim. But the BC and PE say what the count is likely to be. That leaves enough grey area for things to remain uncertain.
I would say to have stats like that (BC .986 and PE .511) the count would need to look something like this:
Tags (A-T): (-1.5, +0.5, +1, +1, +1.5, +1, +1, 0, -0.5, -1)
Or some multiple of these same numbers or something very similar. Pros are not easily fooled.
The count debate will continue for decades - there is no end, except of course, comments by myself, which I happen to hold in high esteem.
The average counter doesn't have enough skill or discipline to play hi opt 2. Deficiencies include inability to maintain an Ace side count in a shoe game as well as poor deck estimation skills critical to proper true count conversion at a speed capable of keeping up with a fast dealer. Those players that do have that ability, coupled with judgement, are playing a very powerful game.
Hi lo is a great starter system, due to its simplicity, and interestingly enough for various reasons, also used by a number of high end players that I personally know. Users also include those individuals who have no interest in upping their game, lack critical judgement, and are therefore exposed to heavy duty variance. The motivated hi lo player, with judgement and tweaks, can turn what some view as a simplistic count into a profitable experience. I play neither system, though I can easily play both.
A friend of mine with no real skill is the GM of a high profile local corporation. He plays hi opt 1 with, or without an ASC, that being dependent on how much he has had to drink. So, desire, ability, discipline - That's the ticket.
Those hi lo players who are so inclined, playing more than recreational hours and stakes, may well decide to study an alternate higher end system with a view to enhancing win rates, or simply with a view to reduce variance.
Moses, two great minds have reached an, agreement, no that is a bit too much to hope for an understanding, at least in principal to a long and hard fought debated impasse. Posters who took positions can now only speculate on what words transpired during this great mediation process. Rest assured there was NO winner or loser in the outcome, in the settlement, at least admitted. Evidently we will never know what went on in that battle of words, So Moses, your guess is as good as mine.
Here is my guess for whatever conclusion resulted:
Always account for variable change. From the movie 21
Last edited by BoSox; 01-16-2017 at 05:49 AM.
Something about non linear equations
https://youtu.be/8DMnAAvakh0
Aside from my off humor remark taken from the movie 21, after giving some real thought, I think I have a much better answer. I have not read chapter 9 of Don's book in a while, and when Tthree pointed out to me TABLE 9.21 on page 172 showing the correct answer I was a bit surprised and re-read the chapter and the answer is so obvious. Tthree's example from Don's book compares 11 different CC systems comparing one exampled game with a Benchmark SCORE based on 100 hands observed with back count and play all.
On page 169 at the end of the second paragraph Don wrote:
"For me, the simple conclusion is: The most advanced counts really are not worth the time, effort, or money spent acquiring, learning, and using them. To see this, just look at the SCOREs."
Although Tthree was correct in his point, there is not a doubt in my mind, that Don is also correct. Just comparing shoe games, who the hell today plays all hands or put another way based on a Benchmark SCORE ? Very few players do, so that point is not worth comparing other than as good starting point for comparing games. Everything else boils right down to c- SCORE, this part of the equation encompasses thousands of different variables, which as a matter of fact it would be extremely hard to find two players that play exactly the same way. Those who argue simple systems gets you flat bet quick, sure if you have no brains, but if you really researched this thoroughly and put in the work you will know how to play the inner game of blackjack that is not learned in books, but by experience.
Last edited by BoSox; 01-17-2017 at 09:23 AM.
Greek orthodox? Russian orthodox? Modern orthodox? Chabad?
I'm so confused (channeling my best John Travolta as Vinnie Barbarino)!
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks