How to Approach a Situation?

[Freightman]

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.

Further, it was far from optimal, unduly increasing risk without a corresponding increase in SCORE.

[Freightman]

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!

I understood your ridiculous point totally. Despite your verbose pomposity, and proclaimed mastery of the game, credited to reading, you lack the seasoning to understand the actual statistical realities.

Here's an analogy for you. If you play in traffic to many times, you'll eventually get hit. That is the reality of your argument. Try it, the traffic test.

[stopgambling]

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.

forgive me to try again . playing a +Ev game doesn't mean you will win with a high CERTAINTY. The emphasis is CERTAINTY and long run may be TOO LONG if you are not doing things right . NZERO and CE are two term you should get familiarize with . i think there was an article that give you a good idea of what positive Ev doesn't always make you a winner on the gambling with an edge site . It was by Bob dancer i believe but i could have remembered wrong. Even Bj info has a thread talking about something related to this which is CE, Get informed before dismissing everyone that is against your point of view . Are you sure you know what those people are trying to say? your point is valid but as i said you must be careful when playing sub optimal as variance is a killer .

[Dbs6582]

I understood your ridiculous point totally. Despite your verbose pomposity, and proclaimed mastery of the game, credited to reading, you lack the seasoning to understand the actual statistical realities.

Here's an analogy for you. If you play in traffic to many times, you'll eventually get hit. That is the reality of your argument. Try it, the traffic test.

So are you saying Flash's student was also playing in traffic? He was spreading to 7 hands, and it sounds like making a lot of money playing this way. Why is okay for Flash's student to spread to 7 hands, but not this guy in Australia. I guess I don't understand why this brings on more risk. It should reduce our risk. You've shown me no data to support your view. You've just given me hypotheticals on what might happen on some isolated hand. That's how ploppies think.

[stopgambling]

As you are saying about spreading to 7 hands with an adequate bank in tc 2 is a winning strategy ,no doubt . You seem to over look the real world situation of changing condition . What if this person only were able to play in this manner for 100 to 200 hours and was in the red . Now he is not able to play in this manner in many places and maybe even bj is so deteriorated and crowded that he can not get the hours in . Theory and reality usually have a gap . Being able to play computer perfect and jump bets and error free only exist in Sim ( my opinion). Actually i should never even respond to these threads as it doesn't help me in any way . While getting hate and ridicule is the possible outcome.

[Tassie]

It appears like this casino in Australia agrees with me.

When you discuss Australian gaming scene as a non-Australian, you should bear in mind few factors.

Australians in general are PPPs - paranoid pokies players. Australian casinos are barely 13 in numbers and there is always some apprehension, when someone wants open up another casino, from all sections of government and society due various conflicting interests. Consequently, an average Australian pit critter is as smart (or dumb) as an average pokie-playing punter.

Even if that "moronic" punter was playing a winning strategy, he was still risking money with high variance. So the casino would still have higher hold (handle) - i.e the amount and percentage of total action - that can be used to pay daily bills. Such a punter may make money in the long run, but if casinos allow more of such wild beasts to play, they (casinos) achieve their own long term profit in two days.

But the casino in question doesn't want all that hassle of going through big windfalls or taking unnecessary risks when it has monopoly over this business.

[Dbs6582]

As you are saying about spreading to 7 hands with an adequate bank in tc 2 is a winning strategy ,no doubt . You seem to over look the real world situation of changing condition . What if this person only were able to play in this manner for 100 to 200 hours and was in the red . Now he is not able to play in this manner in many places and maybe even bj is so deteriorated and crowded that he can not get the hours in . Theory and reality usually have a gap . Being able to play computer perfect and jump bets and error free only exist in Sim ( my opinion). Actually i should never even respond to these threads as it doesn't help me in any way . While getting hate and ridicule is the possible outcome.

You aren't going to get ridiculed, at least not by me. I agree with your point. Thank you for your first sentence, saying it's a winning strategy. Most won't concede this point.

As far as negative variance, I agree with your point. But this is true with bj in general. It has nothing to do with his strategy. The variance in bj is huge (and brutal), and it's what has caused many APs to stop playing the game. For me, BJA3 does the best job of hamming home this point. On page 22, Don gives an example of a person backcount a 4-deck game with a 2.47% advantage. But even after 200 hours, 1 player in 10 will be losing. This is the math of the game. I also enjoyed reading Chapter 12 on team play. In the sim, 1 of the 5 team members was down $35,000 after the first year, playing 400 hours.

So yes, if bad variance struck this individual, he could be in the red after 100 or 200 hours. What's your point? This could have happened to him if he played one spot, or spread to 2 or 3 spots too. This can happen to any AP, regardles of their strategy.

As far as if his strategy will lead to longevity at the casino that's another debate. Most weren't arguing this point. They just didn't believe he could win long-term playing this way. This was the main point I wanted to understand: Why did APs (RC was the exception) think this way? In fact, many argued the casino would let him play this way since he would ultimately lose all his money.

Maybe the casino finally got wise to what he was doing, since it appears they now have new rules in place to stop this type of play. If the casino thought he'd lose all his money in the long run, I doubt if they would have changed their rules.

Good discussion! Thanks for not attacking me or calling me names. Basically thanks for not pulling a Freightman.

[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?

Remyo, my bad. Sorry about that but when I read your post, I thought it was Freightman since I saw Freightman in the post. I didn't notice you were responding to a post I made to Freightman. Freightman has been the main person attacking anybody who says this guy was playing a winning game.

The point is not if what this guy did was optimal. Everybody agrees it was not. The point is, is this a winning strategy? Many posters have said it's not. They believe in the long run this guy will lose all his money playing this way.

[Bushie]

When you discuss Australian gaming scene as a non-Australian, you should bear in mind few factors.

Australians in general are PPPs - paranoid pokies players. Australian casinos are barely 13 in numbers and there is always some apprehension, when someone wants open up another casino, from all sections of government and society due various conflicting interests. Consequently, an average Australian pit critter is as smart (or dumb) as an average pokie-playing punter.

Even if that "moronic" punter was playing a winning strategy, he was still risking money with high variance. So the casino would still have higher hold (handle) - i.e the amount and percentage of total action - that can be used to pay daily bills. Such a punter may make money in the long run, but if casinos allow more of such wild beasts to play, they (casinos) achieve their own long term profit in two days.

But the casino in question doesn't want all that hassle of going through big windfalls or taking unnecessary risks when it has monopoly over this business.

It's a shitshow at the moment. Tonight the guy won about $3000 in a couple rounds in a monster count after a straight ramp from 1x15 - 7x45 - 7x135 - 7x405 and management about 10 minutes after it was paid realised that he should have been limited to only 1 box x3 and table minimum wager on everything else. If you pop in there soon enough you'll instantly know who it is in question, that is if the pit doesn't properly countermeasure the fucker like they should have done already.

They're actually pretty tolerant, they know I count and that I don't push their boundaries, but this dipstick has taken the hog to slaughter to the detriment of other APs.

[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?

Remyo, my bad. Sorry about that but when I read your post, I thought it was Freightman since I saw Freightman in the post. I didn't notice you were responding to a post I made to Freightman. Freightman has been the main person attacking anybody who says this guy was playing a winning game.

The point is not if what this guy did was optimal. Everybody agrees it was not. The point is, is this a winning strategy? Many posters have said it's not. They believe in the long run this guy will lose all his money playing this way.

[BoSox]

In a reply to Stopgambling you wrote:

Thank you for your first sentence, saying it's a winning strategy. Most won't concede this point.

Dbs, you miss-interpret and turn around so many quotes to try to make yourself look good, it is rather funny.

This is the first sentence Stopgambling wrote:

As you are saying about spreading to 7 hands with an adequate bank in tc 2 is a winning strategy ,no doubt .

Do you see the words adequate bank in the sentence, that changes what the discussion is all about? No one knows anything about the OP's bankroll so what point is there to concede? Everything about the OP is based on speculation. Earlier in the thread, I said if the casino allowed the OP to play that is all we needed to know. Now since there are restrictions put in place, the casinos' position has changed on the individual, backing up my position that only nonthreats can do unusual plays. In my opinion, the discussion was only about the player himself, at least that is how you presented it in your numerous posts. Anyone who has half a brain would overwhelmingly listen to advice given by Freightman, over anything you have to say. Freighter, if that is taken as an insult for the comparison I am sorry.

[Freightman]

Dbs, you miss-interpret and turn around so many quotes to try to make yourself look good, it is rather funny.

Anyone who has half a brain would overwhelmingly listen to advice given by Freightman, over anything you have to say. Freighter, if that is taken as an insult for the comparison I am sorry.

No worries. I think of him as a filling pustule oozing from an angry hemmorhoid. His chapped cheeks, crying for relief, manifests itself in warped literary outbursts.

[BoSox]

No one stated the rules of the game in question, such as is there a no hole card rule in place where you lose everything to a natural? What was the upfront house edge? By not knowing this when the OP played 7 hands at plus 2 what was the significance?