ZenMaster_Flash: The Man, The Myth, The Legend.

[Dbs6582]

Besides, there is nothing to fret about here as this board has an asset that other boards drool over. You see this board has an all-important go-to guy, possibly two. The first is ZenMaster_Flash, aka The Legend.

I’m sure everybody is waiting for me to chime in on this.

I think we can add the second legend-in-the-making is Freightman. His 10 splitting alone is legendary and on my bucket list to see first hand. I’ve been told you have to see it to be able to fully appreciate it.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

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.

[spiderman]

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.

[spiderman]

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.

[BoSox]

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.

[spiderman]

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?

[bjarg]

Another example might be that the best way to play would be table minimum at -EV counts and table max at +EV counts.

There are actually many places where you can do just that and play 12 hours a day every day.

[BoSox]

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?

That was not relevant to ZMF, or was it his objective. He I believe was just acting as usual by pushing his preferences for complex methods nothing more.

[Three]

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.

No doubt he chose one that exposing didn't have much effect on team play because of what Spiderman pointed out. It is a play that's usefulness has pretty much expired. Why would he want to expose a play that was still powerful?

[BoSox]

No doubt he chose one that exposing didn't have much effect on team play because of what Spiderman pointed out.

Correct. The problem is that the majority of the board is comprised of relative beginners who will often think that they will one day use this idea.

[Three]

Correct. The problem is that the majority of the board is comprised of relative beginners who will often think that they will one day use this idea.

As a poster made me think more about this today, I was thinking the same thing.

[Stealth]

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.

That is not exactly true. Custom made creative works based on existing game simulations do make it possible to evaluate such structures.

ZMF's post was an example of the type of concepts that can improve longevity. He likely has no intention of posting "actual" protocols as that would not be wise.

Unless you have experience using them, I would suggest you might want to withhold your opinion. Mine comes from experience and would suggest you are wrong.

If you do have experience with this type of concept then PM me and we can share information.

[spiderman]

Unless you have experience using them, I would suggest you might want to withhold your opinion. Mine comes from experience and would suggest you are wrong.

If you do have experience with this type of concept then PM me and we can share information.

I don't have the ability to PM on this site. I have extensive knowledge of the evaluation process at some of the top casinos in Las Vegas through close friends employed in that field for many years. The process involves quite a bit more than using technology to track the advantage and player movement of money in relashionship to the advantage. There is also quite a bit of emphasis placed on identifying players working together and not just analyzing who is at the table at any given time but who might have been there prior or immediately after. Unfortunately advances in technology have made it rather easy to identify players working together.

Admittedly, my expertise is Las Vegas and to lesser extent, other jurisdictions in the U.S. Perhaps in other countries, where technology has not yet "caught up" you can still get away with this kind of team attack for some period of time.