It is so automatic, I would rather keep a side count, which gives a specific vs general type of information.Originally Posted by moses
Nothing wrong with being nosy. It's like licking balls. Ask him nicely
I have to make certain assumptions since your little chart is not crystal clear to me. So, I am assuming the BC numbers are tied into true count, and that the PE numbers are never negative, and that PE 0 ties into halves of .56. On that basis, not that it matters, your terminology is wrong, but I get what you mean. So, the question arises as to increase over benchmark halves .56, what do PE 1,2 or 3 actually represent. Once represented by revised PE, I really would have to give additional thought to some of the choices that you offered. Clearly though, pe3 and Bc3 would represent a big bet, and though not shown, pe0 and bc0 would represent a minimum bet.
On bc3, pe3, I would be in my upper ramp at close to max. Bc5 (not on your chart) with pe3 would represent upper ramp max. Anything higher than BC 6, with pe3 would be super max, upper ramp
Hope I've interpreted correctly.
Last edited by Freightman; 03-26-2017 at 10:50 AM.
Leaving a shoe doesn't mean leaving a game. But if you had to play all for as long as you had this requested game, that's something else.I was playing a secret honey hole, very recently, with a game that has to be requested. During my 3.5 hours of play, with initial $500 buy in, I went up $1000 reasonably quickly, lost that going in for $1500 total, coming back with 3.66k (3660) win.
Between the 2 extremes, I had a flat betting shoe betting min of $25, losing 400 on the shoe. Would you have left this great quality game, being 1k up, 1.5k down, during the shit shoe just described, or waited till the end.
Oh, forgot - had dinner paid fir as well
LOL, had a thought this morning that fits right with this. I don't know how long Orville Wright's first flight was but let's call it 100 yards.
The progress in card counting over the last 60 years (endless yammering about what gets .1 or .2 more money) would be equivalent to the flight industry in the 60 years after that first flight doing nothing but arguing which design would result in a flight of 110 to 120 yards, with a head wind of .2,.3 house edge of course. Instead, in that 60 years they were orbiting the earth.
To paraquote the great Bill Murray, "There's something wrooonnggg with this, There's something very, very, wrooonnnggg with this."
I'ts actually hard to think of something else so stagnant. Seems to be an astounding lack of innovative geniuses involved. Although looks like there are a few who are headed towards making decisions with more information.
Yeah, well, I've told you just about zero about my thinking. Did put up one dirt simple, rudimentary, bare bones, example for thought.
Got a couple conclusion jumpers, assumers, dogma defenders.
And your above statement is dead, couldn't have said it better, like turning the titanic without a rudder.
The way the universe works, I surely am not alone in seeing the stagnation in card counting, the revolution either has already started or is right around the corner.
Galileo made some simple, obvious observations and then had the audacity to report them. Persecuted for it by dogma lovers.
Enjoy getting left behind.
Now I'll make your day. I'm done with this site, it is dedicated to software dedicated to 60 year old thinking. Have really enjoyed a lot of what I read here, but tired of the closed minds. Buh, bye.
Some processes have inherent limits. AP via card counting alone is one of those processes. The limit is when you know and can make perfect use of the exact composition of the remaining cards. The work that Eric Farmer is doing with Don on "Perfect Play" will someday demonstrate that the advantage is not much higher than when using the most powerful existing counting systems.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks