2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
BJC
HI Guys,
My two cents from having read Colin's book and my observations on it.
On one hand, Yes a $600K career win is not super impressive given the amount of time i agree, but at least he is likely being honest.
In terms of his inspirational stories of guys starting with a small bank roll and making it, look he states explicitly that some people will hit a positive variance and just take off before having big drawdowns, it doesn't happen much, but it does happen. I don't think he misrepresents that and he does tell a story of a student who decided to play at a higher risk and was ruined.
Also to his credit, he goes into depth on bankroll management and sizing. He tells a story of teaming up with an older AP who insisted on (if I remember correctly) no more than a 1% ROR when he and his other partner originally wanted to do 5%. They had some major downswings at one point and this decision is what kept them in business.
The one thing I would point out that really stood out to me, and i'd be interested to hear others opinion on this, is that Colin is of the EV maximizing camp to the extreme. In his book at least, he recommends and has the philosophy of always making the correct mathematical play, even splitting 10's and doing flagrant AP moves if your consistently winning.
I found myself questioning this perspective it came up as it flies in the face of every other AP source in history except the MIT team (endless supply of replacements).
Honestly, I'm a bit paranoid, but i couldn't help but think he is actually trying to both sell a book and simultaneously sabotage potential AP's. He does make his money selling courses, and I wouldn't be surprised if those events he runs are utilized to put together his own team that he probably manages to this day on the low. While he might want to make money on his book and website, why create more competition for yourself? The reality is, the game is far harder than it used to be and if there are too many great AP's and especially sophisticated teams, if the casinos really want to go on a witch hunt, i wouldn't doubt there ability to identify anyone due to technology.
To counter my own argument here, he is basically of the philosophy that any AP, that is successful is going to be barred eventually especially if trying to do this professionally. You simply need to play far to much to make it as a career.
If you look at his success stories, a far disproportionate amount relative to the overall number are micro-rolled players who luckboxed their way to fortune. If you don't think there is a clear marketing reason for loudly broadcasting this type of success story, then I would challenge you to think about something--casinos love telling stories about how a $5 bet on a progressive gave a six or seven figure win to some lucky player. Same thing with lotto winners. You don't generally hear about high rollers binking huge wins while playing huge. Part of this, you may say, is simply because high rollers don't want the exposure, but many of the low limit big winners also request anonymity. The reason is that this marketing stirs the imagination of Joe and Jane Blow. They might never have the bankroll to play two hands of $10.000 at blackjack and to thereby amass a huge straight blackjack win, but they can definitely afford $5 for the progressive. The idea is to give hope beyond hope--that guy made it without any more than I have, I can make it too! Ultimately, personal responsibility plays the final role in these stories, but I have never been one to view casino-style marketing as something overly considered with ethics, and in his documentary and videos, I believe Colin too has stated that he looks down at casino marketing as underhanded and unethical. Just something to consider.
Colin himself doesn't have competition on the AP streets because he doesn't play much (at all?) anymore. I believe he does try to make effective card counters to the extent that they are willing to put out the money and make the plays they need to make when they have an edge.
As for maximizing EV v. laying cover, the answer is: it depends. Some places won't bat an eye no matter what crazy plays you make, other place sweat ploppies splitting tens in huge negative counts just because they know counters *sometimes* make that play. Almost all places have betting thresholds and/or win thresholds where they begin to sweat. Staying under these thresholds is usually a good idea for longterm success, but if it's an out of the way spot that you're not likely to hit again (and you're reasonably sure they don't, for instance, contribute to databases), it may be optimal to just fire away and let them bar you. There's no "one size fits all" solution to these questions.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks