Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Yes, there is self-inflicted sarcasm, and there is also outgoing sarcasm that is considered mockery directed at certain groups of individuals. ZMF is an expert "only in his mind" at this game of trickery.
"It's self-inflicted sarcasm. I've been doing it all my life."
You, myself and many others do this, but only a rare few will talk about downplaying their own self imagined superiority to the degree that obviously everyone else MUST recognize.
Last edited by BoSox; 06-16-2018 at 04:23 PM.
Oh legend in his own lunchtime, I did but jest. And to quote someone of even greater legendary standing:
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Pip, pip, dear man
Starkly different from most self-appointed 'experts', up until last year
I had NEVER turned down an invitation to get together with the posters
here. Either in my home, their home, a casino, or a coffee shop. Nor have
I ever neglected to mentor an aspiring serious BJ player. If they were not
up to the task of learning Hi-Opt II, I would teach the Zen Count. But those
things are not the "bottom line" as BJ is a nuanced game and learning to deal
with the casinos and their minions is what the game is all about.
Flash knows his shit. There are simple count experts that know their shit as well. But the latter will not know or experience results for complex counts they don't know shit about that. Most complex counters do know about both simple counts and complex counts. Be very cautious about listening to what any simple count advocate says about the complex approach. They may have no experience to base anything they say upon. That makes them a bad source of info. Some have used complex counts and have their personal perspective on complex counting which may not be the same as someone that performed better when using a complex count. But at least they will make comments based on experience rather than total speculation. Listen to the expert on whatever approach you choose to follow or are thinking about. If you choose employ a simple approach don't listen to those that use a complex approach unless you are considering a complex approach. The two approaches do things differently and experience varying degrees of success depending on their approach with the use of any topic considered. What is powerful for a complex approach may not be a good place to expend mental energy for a simple approach. Expend energy doing things that are most productive for your approach and the game you are attacking. This will vary greatly with approach.
It occurs to me that the readers of this thread may not know what is meant by a "complex" approach.
Complexity may appear in more than one guise. A couple of good examples are "Dynamic Betting"
and using 'multiple' counts simultaneously.
Complexity really shines when 2 or 3 very skillful counters play together and benefit smartly from several techniques.
Here is an example ~
Player A, B, and C merge their bankrolls. The players rotate who shall be betting ? of the optimal
(mini-team) bet. Player A employs perfect bet-sizing while Player B wagers one half of that amount.
Player C side-counts middle cards and works at "card-eating" where appropriate and steps out when
the T.C. is high to initiate "vertical bet spreading". When the Pit Critter has the Pit Boss call Surveillance
and ask for a "skills-check" on Player X, that player will have switched roles following each shuffle.
The foregoing is purposely vague, and non-inclusive. The mini-team has rehearsed their coded communications.
This sounds like a blueprint for a very short career for all involved. This isn't the 1990's. Pit and surveillance are now very adapt at identifying players playing together and / or "coded communications".
Any group employing such a technique better plan on extensive travel, NEVER playing any casino more than once. And even then, the time frame for this team and players of this approach will be very short. Information and databases travel much faster than people do.
As a general note, some of these things discussed sound great in theory, but are either impractical, or will be severely counter productive to any king of longevity.
Unfortunately this is an area that computer simulations can't project for you. You need actual experience. What looks good on paper (or computer simulation) may have very detrimental effects, career and 'playing days' shortening effects when actually implemented.
Spiderman, you missed the entire point of ZMF's example from his post. He wanted to establish just one example of the superiority and advantages of using complex counting methods versus all the other kinds. The practicality of actually getting away with and using this team approach was not even considered for the relevance he was making.
Well to that end, the Martingale progressive system is a winner then. In theory, with an unlimited BR and no bet restrictions, it is a guaranteed winner. Unfortunately real life applications work a little differently.
Another example might be that the best way to play would be table minimum at -EV counts and table max at +EV counts. But just not practical for more than 3 minutes, so why discuss it?
I guess what I am saying is there seems to be a lot of "theories" or concepts that may be practical in simulations but not real life play that are discussed and considered. I don't understand the benefit of that.
To get back to this specific example, what is the "superiority" or "advantage" if you cannot successfully employ it for more than a very brief period?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks