See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 5 of 72 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #53


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I just want to make it clear that the simulations were requested by another user on this thread. The simulations were not my idea. It would be nice to have verification with simulations but I already KNOW my calculations are correct.

    I have been using them for almost four years now and they work great. I use KO with AA89mTc.

    It should be noted that Tc = Ten Count = LLc = Lucky Ladies count = KO + AA89mTc = Noir count which has been well documented in the literature for decades as a PERFECT Ten count with an unbalance of 4 per deck and that the Noir count give a perfect insurance decision when Noir = KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n where n = number of decks.

    I have been using this Tc for insurance, Lucky Ladies betting, hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions and more for over 4 years now. Besides my Least Squares Line (LSL) calculations based on Schlesinger's EoR I have also calculated indices using Griffins PD (Proportional Deflection) technique and the results matched EXACTLY.

    I have used my LSL technique to calculated indices for the HL count which match the published HL indices. I have tested dozens of indices and have not found a single incident where the HL indices calculated from my LSL program did not match published HL indices derived through simulations.

    I have calculated Weighted Average CC (tag values of counts, EoR) for various counts weighing around 30 playing strategy decisions and then sorted them by increasing weighted average CC the results showed the counts with the highest weighted average CC were also the counts that were deemed strongest by simulations. I included a chart of the various counts I tested in an earlier thread so you can see for yourself.

    So my calculations have passed every single tests that I have thrown at them and I have also used it successfully for over four years now And I have also used Don Schlesinger's EoR published in Blackjack Attack 3rd edition which EoR have six significant figures and so are very accurate.

    So while it would be nice is someone ran the simulations (suggesting by another user who would not believe my calculations were correct without simulations) it is not really necessary because as I said form the start, I know my calculations are correct.

    If someone can run the requested simulations then great as I a positive that those results will once again prove that my calculations are correct.

    My calculations have passed every other test that I have thrown out them. I know that my calculations are correct.
    I, for one, realize that not all situations can be simmed. Though not definitive, though sounding probable, further argument by you should incorporate results.

    In other , what are your typical game rules, number of decks, deck pen, average number of players at table and hands per hour. What is your ramp, in terms of units, and what is your earning rate in terms of units per hour.

  2. #54


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I will explain the game that I playing below but first I would like to comment that using weighted CC to evaluate the strength of various counting systems makes it unnecessary for consider betting ramps, players at the table, penetration etc. Of course, all of these are important but I am just analyzing the strength of various counts which is all I do with weighted average CC where CC is the Correlation Coefficient between the tag values for the count and the EoR for any given situation. The factors you mentioned should be used to determine what game you are going to play and how you are going to paly it, but these factors have no bearing on determining the strength of any given count. The weighted average CC is what determines the playing strength of any given count. Now these factors may be taken into account in determining the weights given to any given situation in the calculation of weighing each CC for each situation to get the weighted average CC but that is the extend that the factors you mentioned should be considered in determining the strength of various counts. Since your maximum bet occurs at KO true counts of 4 or more then the playing strategy variations at KO true counts of 4 or more can perhaps be given somewhat more weight. Also the frequency of each strategy variation should be taken into account also in determining weights. If you look at the chart I gave where I calculated weighted average CC in a previous thread, I have a column labeled "Relative Weights". Insurance and hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T were right up there with large weights. So the only thing subject to change is the selection of weights. I believe the weights I chose for the selected situations are very reasonable as they are chosen based upon relative frequency of the strategy change as well as relative bet size when that strategy change is made.

    But now I will answer your questions. I back count tables with Carla where we both use the KO with AA89mTc. We play the six deck game were 5 out of 6 decks are dealt (sometime 4.5 out of 6 are dealt but most of the time 5 out of 6 decks are dealt).

    I will digress a bit here into a discussion about the LL bet snice you asked me how I played.

    Lucky Lades is offered with the more generous payoff tables of 4:1, 10:1, 25:1, 200:1 and 1000:1 for any ten, suited Ten, Suited and Matched 10, QHQH, and QHQH with dealer blackjack. The casino starts out with an over 20% advantage on this side bet. We use LLc (Lucky Ladies count)= Tc (Ten count)= KO + AA89mTc for this bet. The advantage of this bet really starts skyrocketing when the LLC passes the critical count needed for this bet where the player's advantage can surpasses 10%. The LL bet is capped at $25 and since this is not a 1:1 payoff like BJ almost is, there is a lot of variance so even with large advantage you need to be careful how much you bet. But since the maximum bet is only $25 anyhow, the casino "helps" you in this situation by forcing you not to over bet if you have a small bankroll. The LL bet really helps reduce variance since hen they are hit they pay big, the advantage can be large and the LL bet are independent of the blackjack bet and are independent of each other. So when the LL bet is good to make you want to play as many hands as possible betting the LL and of course the blackjack bet. It should also be noted that the LL bet is a compound event where you are getting two Tens to win. At any given tc(LLc) (Lucky Ladies true count) the chance of getting the first Ten is the same throughout the shoe but the change of getting a 2nd Ten decreases as dr (decks remining) decreases.

    I will not go into details on how I did my calculations here. I will just give you the results here. My detailed calculations are covered in my books that I mentioned in a previous thread because I was requested to mention the books I wrote.

    So consider the following for when the make the Lucky Ladies bet:

    LL1.jpg
    LL2.jpg

    So now here is how I bet with Carla. Remember we use KO and AA89mTc and LLc = KO + AA89mTc.

    Carla and I are back counting different six deck tables with 5 out of 6 decks dealt and the LL bet offered. When either LLc >= 24 or when KO >= 24 then Carla calls me over to her table or I call her over to my table. if 24 <= LLc < 30 then we bet $5 on LL bet. If LLc >= 30 then we start increasing LL bet from $10 all the way up to it maximum of $25 if we are winning. If we are playing LL and KO < 24 then we bet the table minimum of $10 or $15 on blackjack. If KO >= 24 then we increase the blackjack bet but we are very, very conservative and our blackjack bets are under $50. When the LL bet is advantageous we play as many hands as possible. As long as either LLc >= 24 or KO >= 24 we stay at table. If LLc < 24 we do not play the LL bet. If we are at the table we will continue to bet the minimum blackjack bet at $10 or $15 as long as tc(KO) >= 2, that is KO >= crc(2) = 4*n - 2*dr where n = number of decks and dr = decks remaining.

    But there is no need to do calculations of crc(2) for example as I put together a table of critical running counts for the KO count so all you need to do is "memorize" the table (easy to memorize because there are patterns in the table constructions covered in my first book). We do not bring a lot of money with us, generally $1,000, but I have access to more money at the ATM if I need to but I rarely need to access more money. If I am losing I reduce my blackjack and LL bets.

    Also as long as I am winning and I was at the table, I will continue to bet table minimum even if KO < crc(2) until I lose. Once I lose I stay out hands and just wait for the count to hopefully come back, either KO >= 24 or LLc >= 24. And I do hit the LL once in a while for 200 to one but I have never hit the Lucky Ladies with dealer blackjack for 1000 to 1.

    So that is how I play blackjack. I hope that helps. I have done very well playing this way.

  3. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I will explain the game that I playing below but first I would like to comment that using weighted CC to evaluate the strength of various counting systems makes it unnecessary for consider betting ramps, players at the table, penetration etc.
    I would like to explain to you that correlation coefficients are not quantitative ways to compare but relative ways to compare. That means the degree of difference in correlation coefficient doesn't predict an amount of difference rather it predicts a relative difference, like one is better than the other but the numbers don't tell you anything about by how much it is better. Betting accuracy is loosely related to BC.As with everything accuracy is determined by the SD of the bell curve of actual optimal bet around estimated optimal bet for all deck compositions that are bet the same. A higher degree of accuracy would allow for higher bets when spread, RoR, BR, etc are kept the same. That said, what you are doing will definitely increase playing accuracy. Betting accuracy is not so clear if you use a combined count for betting at all. A combined betting count would make it possible to bet more accurately if the counts are chosen correctly. Your counts don't seem like any combined count would improve betting accuracy.

    You should get someone that can sim this to help you generate something that isn't a comparative difference but is an actual difference for comparisons. I do similar things and the improvement is not that great in EV for BJ. But you can use the technique to make the ride to pretty much the same EV much more user friendly by making BR growth far more steady and predictable. This has a big impact on longevity by not causing many of the red flags casinos look for like larger swings, and more extreme wins and losses, and larger buy-in requirements. But you have to really intentionally target affecting results that way to see it shaped that way. I doubt you are doing that and probably are causing red flag issues to become more frequent. In my opinion the biggest strength of complexity is using it to target increasing longevity. A simple approach can generate plenty of EV with a big enough BR. The problem is being allowed to play while generating that EV. Complexity opens more avenues than a simple approach has to increase longevity, but both have avenues to increase longevity at the expense of some EV.

    Plus I know how hard it is to master your count. Once mastered the count becomes easy with enough practice but most will not have the drive to master it to begin with. I think almost anyone can master it. But most people just aren't driven enough to excel at many of their endeavors. They strive to be okay at what they do. That kind of attitude won't get them through the long learning stage. But for a two player team any two players could easily do it with one keeping each count. You just need to work out the signals so they won't be noticed. Plus you can't bet in unison. Getting away with it isn't hard but it isn't easy until you have a good plan and get good at doing it at the table.
    Last edited by Three; 12-24-2018 at 06:20 AM.

  4. #56


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    I would like to explain to you that correlation coefficients are not quantitative ways to compare but quantitative ways to compare. That means the degree of difference in correlation coefficient doesn't predict an amount of difference rather it predicts a relative difference, like one is better than the other but the numbers don't tell you anything about by how much it is better. Betting accuracy is loosely related to BC.As with everything accuracy is determined by the SD of the bell curve of actual optimal bet around estimated optimal bet for all deck compositions that are bet the same. A higher degree of accuracy would allow for higher bets when spread, RoR, BR, etc are kept the same. That said, what you are doing will definitely increase playing accuracy. Betting accuracy is not so clear if you use a combined count for betting at all. A combined betting count would make it possible to bet more accurately if the counts are chosen correctly. Your counts don't seem like any combined count would improve betting accuracy.

    You should get someone that can sim this to help you generate something that isn't a comparative difference but is an actual difference for comparisons.
    This is the point I was trying to make! CC means nothing when looking at systems as a whole. What matters is the global return for each playing and betting situation.

    But, I guess I'm just an ass who impedes goodness on the forum and subjects his wrath upon the lowly souls thus here.

    Again, as I have said before: I have no doublt this guy has a winning system. What *I* want to know is how he came about this idea, how it fits within the ranks of other systems, and if this much work is necessary compared to, say, a level 3 count (Wong) or much older and trusted multi-parameter systems (HOII w/ ASC).

    The OP is free to do as he pleases. I wanted to know what his sim data is. Since there is no sim (and the OP, as far as I can tell, does not want to perform a MC sim on his system,) I can't say for certain if this system is worth the effort. Nor can I say that it is superior to other known systems. Until OP performs a sim with win-rate, variance, and SCORE data, I remain sceptical.

  5. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dogman_1234 View Post
    Again, as I have said before: I have no doublt this guy has a winning system. What *I* want to know is how he came about this idea, how it fits within the ranks of other systems, and if this much work is necessary compared to, say, a level 3 count (Wong) or much older and trusted multi-parameter systems (HOII w/ ASC).
    We all should know that the traditional approaches get you pretty close to the ceiling of perfect play in the long run. The more complicated approaches like Halves and Hiopt2/ASC just have tighter bell curves around decisions. That additional accuracy allows for bigger bets with the same spread, RoR, BR, etc. The more aggressive betting with the same spread, BR, and RoR is where most of the gain for these systems come from. The additional accuracy helps tame swings but the higher bets increase swings. The net result is you don't affect swings much unless you intentionally do something specifically to affect them.

    SCORE will be better for the more accurate approaches, which is one of the better metrics. I try to maximize SCORE, EV, and CE as a group with CE being my favorite. Getting that last little bit to maximize any one of these stats costs too much in the other two. Like if I maximize EV my SCORE is around 80. But if I maximize SCORE my EV is cut by 33% for a 16% increase in SCORE. I can cut the max SCORE of 93 to about 89 and recover most of the lost EV. Giving up a small amount of both EV and SCORE from each ones max comes pretty close to maximizing both stats at the same time. Most of the drop off of one stat when maximizing another doesn't get you much gain in the stat you are maximizing but costs the other stat a lot. Including CE in the group gives an even better overall picture at when everything is maximized as a group.

  6. #58


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You asked about betting efficiency. The KO has a betting efficiency of around 96.5% which is exactly the Hi-Low betting efficiency with AACpTCp = 0.5% (Average Advantage Change per True Count Point) and FDHA = -0.5% (full deck house advantage). You are totally aware of all of that so the BASIC STRATEGY advantage is approximately.. Then there is also strategy gain to add to the 0.5% increase in player's advantage for each KO true count point. For blackjack, Carla calls me over or I call her over when either KO >= 24 or LLc >= 24 (six deck game). For blackjack if KO = 24 then tc(KO) = 4 and player's basic strategy advantage is approximately 1.5%. Since we back count and just paly when he have a big edge. Exact betting is not that important to us. Plus we have the LL bet which has big edges but because of the large payoff also has big variances. But our bankroll is around $1,000 for our day trip (the casino is only one mile from my house) and I start betting two hand and Carla bets two hands at $15 tale minimum when either KO >= 24 or LLc >=24 (we start betting LL at $5 until LLc >= 30 when we start increasing the LL bet which is independent of the blackjack bet and independent of each other). If we win we start increasing our blackjack bet is KO >= 24 and the LL bet if LLc >= 30. We cap out maximum bet at less than $50. If KO < 24 we go down to one hand at table minimum and play until we lose that one hand or if KO >= 24 again or LLc >= 24 we go back to multiple hands.

    So we play very, very conservatively. But a formula that I have seen that I like and which I am sure that you are familiar with is if you have a bigger bankroll then your bet should be, bet = (t - 1) units where t = truce count with maximum bet = 4 units which occurs at t = 5. So if KO = crc(2) bet one unit, if KO = crc(3) bet two units. if KO = crc(4) bet three units and if KO = crc(5) bet 4 units which is the maximum bet. The unit bet should be 0.25% of your day trip bankroll. So if you have a $10,000 bankroll then your unit bet is $25 which occurs at KO = crc(2), $50 at KO = crc(3), $75 at crc(4) and $100 at crc(5). You do not have to actually have the $10,000 on you - that is just money you have access to if needed. These are one hand blackjack bets. If you are betting multiple hands you must decrease the one hand bet on each hand so $100 on hone hand has the same risk as $75 on two hands. Note that your maximum bet of 4 units is $100 which is 1% of your $10,000 bankroll or alternately your day trip bankroll is 100 maximum bets. So this is nothing new here and I am sure that you already knew about this.

    But as I said I do not use this as I am very conservative and go with only $1,000 which is why I play only when KO >= 24 or LLc >= 24 and the LL wins helps reduce my bankroll fluctuation also. I start out with $15 blackjack bets when KO >= 24 on two hands (and Carla plays $15 also) and will increase my blackjack bet also if I am willing be playing the LL bet is LLc >=24 at $5 and start increasing LL bet when LLc >=30. If I am winning and KO >= 24 then I will also increase my blackjack bet. So I play very, very conservatively.

    No remember, I told you Carla is not very bright. She is just average intelligence, nothing special. And I taught her KO and AA89mTc in just a few weeks and she plays it perfectly and does exactly what I told her to do and I have checked her many times --she keeps both counts flawlessly. I keep on telling you that it is VERY easy to keep both the KO and AA89mTc in the shoe game.

    Now to answer your questions about increasing betting efficiency. I first used the side count 45m79c and I got betting running count = brc = KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) which has a betting efficiency of 99.6% which is a 3.1% increase in the KO betting efficiency of 96.5%. And brc can be used for betting just as if it were the KO with both KO and brc having AACpTCp = 0.5%.

    I will include brc = KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) below but I have since decided the the 45m79c is too difficult to keep and use so I now use 5m7c and brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) which has betting efficiency of 99.0% which is almost as good as the 45m9c but a lot easier to use. And when I am up to it I keep the 5m7c as a 2nd side count to KO and AA89mTc. psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + k1*(AA89mTc) + k2*(5m7c) where the values of k1 and k2 are chosen to maximum the absolute value of the CC between the tag values of psrc and the EoR for any given situation. So for example, stand on hard 16 v 9 if KO + 4*(5m7c) + AA89mTc >= crc(7) with CC = 79.2% where crc(7) = 4*n + 3*dr or just "look it up" in the table of critical running counts that I created. There are many, many more changes in playing strategy when you use both AA89mTc and 5m7c which I will not be covering here. They are covered in my 3rd book and also in my fourth book that should be published next month along with much more material.

    But back the 5m7c for betting. Below is the chart for KO with 45m79c for betting. I could have put a similar chart for KO with 5m7c for betting but i didn't. They would be similar. 5m7c is much simpler to keep and the betting efficiency of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) is 99.0% which is only 0.6% less than the betting efficiency of KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) which I do NOT recommend because it is way too difficult to keep. I can keep KO, AA89mTc no problem and if I am up to it I can add 5m7c (especially if Blazing 7's bet is offered) but adding 5m7c is really overkill (if Blazing 7's is not offered) because I am playing blackjack when KO >= 24 anyhow (six decks) and I have the winning form the LL bets. But I still include 5m7c sometime if I am not tired as it helps with the blackjack bet and also helps with some playing strategy variations that the AA89mTc does not help with such as surrender and hit/stand decisions for hard 15 and hard 16, which again, I will not go into here.

    I did not cover SCORE or any simulation questions because I do not know how to do simulations. But when I am only playing blackjack when KO >= 24 (six decks) and I have the Lucky Ladies bet that I make money on, I do not worry about simulations or SCORE. Someone who is familiar with simulations and SCORE calculations may sometime take up my analysis and calculate a SCORE but that is not something that I can do. All I can tell you is that what I do works and the way I play is very risk averse.

    Betting Efficiency.jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 10:30 PM.

  7. #59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    I do think there’s something to it, but I really lack the patience to interpet all of this, and also think his commentary can be simplified.
    Exactly. You can't sell a book that reads like this. That's been my point from the beginning.

  8. #60


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    <snip>Lucky Lades is offered with the more generous payoff tables of 4:1, 10:1, 25:1, 200:1 and 1000:1 for any ten, suited Ten, Suited and Matched 10, QHQH, and QHQH with dealer blackjack.<snip>
    bjanalyst,

    With this paytable, you should be flat-betting the maximum on the sidebet every round ;-)

    Dog Hand

    P.S. You really should proofread your posts more carefully if you want to convince your readers of the meticulousness of your research. Your results are intriguing, but I am reluctant to purchase your books because I fear that their writing is as sloppy as that demonstrated in your many posts.

  9. #61


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    I would like to explain to you that correlation coefficients are not quantitative ways to compare but quantitative ways to compare.<snip>
    Huh?

    Dog Hand

  10. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Dog Hand View Post
    Huh?

    Dog Hand
    Oops. Obviously a typo. Thanks.

  11. #63


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    As soon as LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 30 for the six deck game or 40 for the 8 deck game your Lucky Ladies advantage starts increasing dramatically. I try to play as many hands as possible when I have the edge on the LL bet since the LL bets are independent of the blackjack bet and each other. But the payoff means a lot of variance on the LL bets whereas blackjack is almost a 1 to 1 payoff. So you have to be more careful on betting LL. Plus the casino is only one mile from my house so I usually go with just $1,000 for the day so I play conservatively. But if you have a big bankroll, then you should bet the $25 max LL bet on as many spots as possible as soon as LLc >= 30 (six decks). Since I do not bet big (I do not bet over $50 on blackjack and start with the table minimum of $15 and only increase if I am winning and KO >= 24 - remember I enter the six deck game only whne either KO>= 24 of LLc >= 24) they do not bother me. That is whey I am able to go back and keep winning money a little at a time. They ignore me because of my small bets. I win mainly because of the LL bets and I have hit the QHQH several times also.

    I am more concerned about content than pretty writing. Is my analysis correct and can you use it to make money. That should be your main concern also. But that benig said, I probably should proof read to make it more presentable. Thanks for the feedback.

    Also if you want something very simple, just use my first post. If you insist on using HL then just add AA78mTc to the HI-low and use it for insurance and hit/stand hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and use HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. That is very easy to do and is a good start.

  12. #64


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I don't use HiLo or KO. I use FELT with tags 1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2,-2. What would my side count look like?

  13. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    You asked about betting efficiency.
    I guess my point eluded you. The typo probably didn't help. A correlation coefficient measures how well the count tags correlate to theirs in question. A higher correlation coefficient means that one correlates better than the other but doesn't say anything about by how much. Accuracy is measured by the SD of the actual advantage for all the deck compositions around the bell curve average used for betting the deck compositions in question. This thread illustrates the point:

    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-at-tc-1/page2

    Post #17 shows the advantage bell curve for Hilo at TC +1 and post number, post #30 shows the advantage bell curve for the Hiopt2/ASC equivalent, which is at TC +2.5. If you look at the scale you see Hilo has twice the range into negative EV and a slightly larger range into positive territory around the mean. This tighter bell curve is what being more accuracy looks like. BC does't say anything about betting accuracy. It just gives how well the count tags correlate to the betting EoRs. Hilo BC .97 and Hiopt2/ASC BC .98 doesn't come close to illustrating how much more accurate the bell curves indicate Hiopt2/ASC bets at equivalent TCs. My twist on Hiopt2/ASC is Hiopt2/BASC (Hiopt2 with a balanced ace side count where I add half the BASC to the main count to get my betting count). The BC increases minimally at a .002 increase but betting accuracy increases a lot, and you get a Hilo TC +1 equivalent at TC +1 with an increase in advantage per TC increment that is higher than traditional Hiopt2/ASC. This makes every advantage bet made much more frequently since it is made at a lower more frequent TC (except for max bet which is made slightly less frequently). The added accuracy (lower variance) at each TC allows for larger bets to begin with and then even larger optimal betting with the same spread, RoR, BR, etc on top of that. The increase in optimal bets for the same spread, BR, RoR, etc is where most of the EV gain is produced from more accurate betting. Of course if you bet the same this gain isn't lost, it just shows up as an improvement in one of the important stats that were being held static like reduced RoR.

Page 5 of 72 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 07:44 AM
  2. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2021, 05:21 AM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 05:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.