How to Approach a Situation?

[RS]

Would you agree the OP in question was playing in a very unusual fashion? Not too many players play that way, so please do not try to make this a normal situation. Thank God I know better than to deal with someone who is not thinking rational at the moment.

By the sounds of it from others here, that type of play is “normal” in Australia, at least much more so than in the USA. I’ve never played or even been in Australia, so I really don’t “know” if that’s the case.

Either way, why does it matter if it’s normal or unusual? You insinuated because the casino allowed him to play, he wasn’t a skilled player or playing with an advantage. I don’t see how it being normal or unusual has anything to do with that.....unless you’re saying he has a really good cover by playing in a possibly unusual manner?

Bottom line is this: Do you think the player was playing with an advantage, yes or no? I don’t care about hypothetical situations like what if his first 2 cards are this or the dealer gets a 21 or bad variance or the guy’s bankroll (since we don’t know his bankroll).....as Bushie described, do you think he was playing with an advantage? Please don’t try to “move the goal posts” with your answer.

[Bushie]

Ok so because of this fuckwit moron in question, they've implemented a "3 times previous wager" limitation. Heard it from the horse's mouth.

The greedy little fucker needs to learn about tolerance. Sorry about the French Norm.

[Dbs6582]

Ok so because of this fuckwit moron in question, they've implemented a "3 times previous wager" limitation. Heard it from the horse's mouth.

The greedy little fucker needs to learn about tolerance. Sorry about the French Norm.

Bushie, I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe your casino needs to talk to Freightman and BoSox about this. They could explain to your casino how someone is not playing with an advantage when they spread to 7 hands in a positive count. Freighmam could do it with one of his hypothetical cases, telling the casino if the dealer gets such and such a hand and the player gets such and such a hand, then the casino would still win. Freightman could also explain to the casino how if someone would just split their 10s when someone spreads to 7 hands, this would eliminate all the other spots advantage. You should get Freightman to fly over to Australia so he could talk some sense into your casino. Lol.

And just think Freightman thought this guy's mistake was not going to table max ($500) when he spread to 7 hands. I wonder what would have happened if this guy did that?

[Ryemo]

And just think Freightman thought this guy's mistake was not going to table max ($500) when he spread to 7 hands. I wonder what would have happened if this guy did that?

i haven’t been following this thread much because there’s too much to read, but this would be my main criticism. I don’t understand the point of spreading further horizontally when you are not capped vertically. I understand co-variance comes into play, but once you’re at 2 hands, I don’t understand the need to spread to 7 spots of $200 when table max is $500. Why not spread to 2x500 or even 3x500? Why 7x200?

[Freightman]

Ok so because of this fuckwit moron in question, they've implemented a "3 times previous wager" limitation. Heard it from the horse's mouth.

The greedy little fucker needs to learn about tolerance. Sorry about the French Norm.

Appears to be an excellent cross section of the Queen's English.

[Freightman]

Bushie, I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe your casino needs to talk to Freightman and BoSox about this. They could explain to your casino how someone is not playing with an advantage when they spread to 7 hands in a positive count. Freighmam could do it with one of his hypothetical cases, telling the casino if the dealer gets such and such a hand and the player gets such and such a hand, then the casino would still win. Freightman could also explain to the casino how if someone would just split their 10s when someone spreads to 7 hands, this would eliminate all the other spots advantage. You should get Freightman to fly over to Australia so he could talk some sense into your casino. Lol.

And just think Freightman thought this guy's mistake was not going to table max ($500) when he spread to 7 hands. I wonder what would have happened if this guy did that?

Ustonzen
I've provided a link for you regarding an employment opportunity that I believe you are eminently qualified for. You can thank me later.

https://youtu.be/mqnPvKbUoLs

[Tassie]

... a "3 times previous wager" limitation...

So you bet $ 15 at counts of 1/2 and less, wager $ 45 at true count above 1/2 but below 2, wager $ 135 at counts 2 and 3, and $ 405 at counts 3 or higher. There is a caveat when count suddenly drops or picks up, especially towards the end. So you shift the aforementioned strategy upward as you are dealt deeper in the shoe, i.e, bet $ 45 at counts of 0 or better and keep increasing three-folds at higher counts.

Some +EV is compromised. But casino is providing you with a limitation that works like a camoflauge and still keeps your variance somewhat lower.

[Freightman]

So you bet $ 15 at counts of 1/2 and less, wager $ 45 at true count above 1/2 but below 2, wager $ 135 at counts 2 and 3, and $ 405 at counts 3 or higher. There is a caveat when count suddenly drops or picks up, especially towards the end. So you shift the aforementioned strategy upward as you are dealt deeper in the shoe, i.e, bet $ 45 at counts of 0 or better and keep increasing three-folds at higher counts.

Some +EV is compromised. But casino is providing you with a limitation that works like a camoflauge and still keeps your variance somewhat lower.

Well thought out and strategized. Far more sensible than ustonzens senseless defence of the redundant and ridiculous.

[Dbs6582]

i haven’t been following this thread much because there’s too much to read, but this would be my main criticism. I don’t understand the point of spreading further horizontally when you are not capped vertically. I understand co-variance comes into play, but once you’re at 2 hands, I don’t understand the need to spread to 7 spots of $200 when table max is $500. Why not spread to 2x500 or even 3x500? Why 7x200?

All the strategies you've outlined get the money. This is the only point I've been trying to make. You and several others have said this guy's strategy would eventually cause him to lose all his money. This is just patently false. I wish you could at least admit you were wrong. It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong. This is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. When BoSox pointed out i contradicted myself by saying I wasn't debating if what he was doing was smart, I told him he got me on that one. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong when someone points that out to me.

The reason this thread has gone on so long is because so many people have been adamant that this guy was playing a losing strategy, and that he would eventually lose all his money. It made no sense to me that APs on this site believe someone will win spreading to 2 to 3 spots in positive counts but lose when doing this same thing spreading to 7 spots. It appears like this casino in Australia agrees with me.

Each time people brought up different points that had nothing to do with central issue (was this guy playing a winning game?). One person pointed out that someone can have a 5% edge and still lose. I'm still trying to figure out what this poster was trying to prove with this statement. That's true in the short run; it is not true in the long run. Some talked about the size of his bankroll, even though none of us knew what it was.

So Freighnam, I'll ask you one last time? Was this guy playing a winning strategy playing the way Bushie described in the OP? My point all along is yes, he was! And it appears the casino in Australia agrees with me.

[Dbs6582]

Ustonzen
I've provided a link for you regarding an employment opportunity that I believe you are eminently qualified for. You can thank me later.

https://youtu.be/mqnPvKbUoLs

Come on Freightman you can do better than that. I also thought your last zinger of finding a corner in a round room to pee was weak. I like a good put down. At my work, being a smart ass is one of the requirements. These last couple zingers weren't your best effort. I was hoping I'd see your best.

You're very predictable. I always know when I've beat you in an argument since you go to name calling and put downs. That's your defense position. It usually is with people who get frustrated and don't know how to make a coherent case supporting their position. Part of me kind of feels sorrry for you. I can tell you're a very proud man but you have some insecurities.

[Bushie]

The guy was sweating his spread, which is a good indicator that his bank is at a pretty decent risk.

Either that or the guy deserves a Grammy.

[Dbs6582]

The guy was sweating his spread, which is a good indicator that his bank is at a pretty decent risk.

Either that or the guy deserves a Grammy.

That has always been my qualifier when I said this guy had a winning strategy. I said he had to have a bankroll to support it. In fact, I'm the first one who pointed this out. And as usually because Freightman didn't understand the point I was making, he ridiculed me for bringing up his bank. But at the same time, Freightman thought this guy should be betting $500 on 7 spots. I challenge everybody to go back and read through this thread. There were a lot of statements made by respected APs that made little sense. It was like this idea of spreading to 7 spots was so unusual they couldn't get their head around it. That's why I liked when Flash pointed out he had a student that did this.

As as far as getting a grammy, I think you meant an Oscar, but I get your point. You should see me when I push out $80, I'm shakeing so much you'd think that was my rent check. Lol

Bushie, I did enjoy your post. It prompted a good discussion and I think opened up some people's eyes that there are different ways to play and still have a winning game. Thanks!

[Freightman]

Ustonzen
It's not so that you don't get it, you do. You just don't want to get it. The reason you don't want to get it, is because it relieves you if your responsibility to show common sense.

The answer is in the thread. It's been articulated twice. Explaining it a third time will not satisfy your twisted desire. If articulated a different way a third time, you will, with predictable certainty, pick some little hole and produce some ridiculous argument to bypass the previos 155 posts. People, wth unrealized hopes and desires ultimately fail, both ptprifessionally as well as personally. Under your initial handle, you boasted of having read every post ever posted, whilst proclaiming a myriad if personal issues.

Time is money, and your elephant is waiting.