Posted by ZeeBabar
"I think your selection of tables to play have far more
to do with your success than the count you use."
ZMF wrote:
Poorly worded. it stinks of subjective voodoo nonsense.
Your (short-term) "success" is NOT a "table condition."
This is no more than pure superstition derived from
"selective memory" That is what it sounds like to me.
I am aware that (pathological) ploppies think that way.[/quote]
BoSox wrote:
Originally Posted by NB10
"How much does Hi Opt II lower your variance vs Hi Lo?"
ZMF wrote:
I do not have a handy statistic, especially as
varying table conditions must be factored in.
I can say that Pragmatically Speaking the
difference is extremely (impressively) large.
When my students switch from a Level One
Count to Hi-Opt II they are virtually unanimous
in mentioning this - their subjective experience
of reduced volatility!
Originally Posted by SpikeBJ
"Extremely (impressively) large"
ZMF wrote:
"Sorry. I meant to convey a subjective sense of
session-to-session results, but I overstated it
via hyperbole."
BoSox:
ZMF, at least you admit you are biased in your opinion, and not meant to be taken literally. Poorly worded. You are making the first statement worse.
It stinks of subjective short term irrelevance.
ZeeBabar wrote:
"There is too much pushing of different counts on this forum, something I am not the only one noticing. I take it as a put down of all successful counters using level one counts."
Zee, do not take it as a put down. The count you use is a individual choice, it either works for you, or it does not. The proof is in the pudding, do not let short term results give you the wrong impression. You also need to keep working hard, and fine tuning all aspects of your game.
Bookmarks