Blackjack Terms you are confused about?

[21forme]

But ken Uston, Revere, hundreds other successful pros didn’t buy it. Don’t think the MIT team did either..... My son got great grades in some classes without even buying the text book. Sure, it could have made it easier but not necessary..

Games were very different in the Uston/Revere days.

Your son sounds like a chip off the old block. My condolences.

[Below AVG IQ]

“But there's a difference between being stingy and being stupid and not buying a product that will help optimize your betting in the specific games you're playing, help you train, etc etc.. is being the latter. Especially if you're going to be risking thousands of dollars.”

But ken Uston, Revere, hundreds other successful pros didn’t buy it. Don’t think the MIT team did either..... My son got great grades in some classes without even buying the text book. Sure, it could have made it easier but not necessary..

Stupid may be too harsh of a word and might be better stated if replaced with something softer. It also might be dependent based on where on currently is, the weaker the player the more important the software probably is.

Sure, it could have made it easier but not necessary..

Your textbook example may not qualify but at a certain point not taking the easier route even when not necessary becomes stupid.

[Scrum]

I don't know what it means to Color Up. Does that mean you are ready to leave? :/

term “snapper” has always confused me. Particularly those of the pink variety.

[BoSox]

I have a hard question for you. Suppose I have a 6-deck shoe, I have used a bet spread of 1/2/4/8/16/16 for true count of 0/+1/+2/+3/+4/>=+5, because I believe my bet should be inversely proportional to the probability, 27%/10%/5%/3%/2%/3%, of the corresponding true count. However, I recently found out from literatures that most authors’ bet is proportional to their advantage (and inversely proportion to their variance). This means, if the advantages are 0%/0.5%/1%/1.5%/2%/2.5%, then the bet spread should be 1/2/4/6/8/10. Based their theory, I can also gamble more by using a different spread of 1/4/8/12/16/20. Can you help invest some time to find out which bet spread make scientific sense? You are good at probabilities and you have CVCX, so you may know the answer. I fear I have been too conservative playing blackjack.

I am curious as to your betting patterns when the true count is in negative territory. Do you "play all" play every hand of the entire shoe? Did you ever hear the term Wong out? Do you ever sit out any hands? Do you ever play games with late surrender? Do you even understand how important late surrender is to a card counter?

[aceside]

I am curious as to your betting patterns when the true count is in negative territory. Do you "play all" play every hand of the entire shoe? Did you ever hear the term Wong out? Do you ever sit out any hands? Do you ever play games with late surrender? Do you even understand how important late surrender is to a card counter?

The above 1/2/4/8/16/16 and 1/4/8/12/16/20 bet spreads are my theoretical assumptions, not my real world spreads. My play spreads are mostly half of these. When the true count is negative, I always play out all in 6-deck and 2-deck games because it is awkward to wong out frequently in short sessions. It is also awkward to sit out any hands. However, for 8-deck games, I always tried to wong out when the true count is below -3. I know surrender is important for card counters, but I just play whatever is available for me, as long as no more than two players are at the table.

[BoSox]

The above 1/2/4/8/16/16 and 1/4/8/12/16/20 bet spreads are my theoretical assumptions, not my real world spreads. My play spreads are mostly half of these. When the true count is negative, I always play out all in 6-deck and 2-deck games because it is awkward to wong out frequently in short sessions. It is also awkward to sit out any hands. However, for 8-deck games, I always tried to wong out when the true count is below -3. I know surrender is important for card counters, but I just play whatever is available for me, as long as no more than two players are at the table.

aceside, I strongly believe that you're not playing with an advantage against the house, nor do I think that you ever did. You lack the knowledge of the most basic concepts about everything. I think that you should start over from scratch again without betting any money, and just learn the Why's and How's about the game itself.

[aceside]

aceside, I strongly believe that you're not playing with an advantage against the house, nor do I think that you ever did. You lack the knowledge of the most basic concepts about everything. I think that you should start over from scratch again without betting any money, and just learn the Why's and How's about the game itself.

I am a self made gambler who want to get the money out of blackjack. I recently finished my reading on ROR in blackjack and have gained some knowledge about money management. These were never my concerns before I joined the discussion here. Although I am pretty confident in my skills and am ready to gamble thousands, I still need to double check on a few concepts. One important thing’: most authors said that their bet amount is inversely proportional to their variance. However, as I understand, when you bet bigger, your variance gets larger to the roof, how could these authors say that? This is the part I don’t understand for now.

[Norm]

Variance at higher TCs is NOT substantially different. What increases variance is increasing the bet spread. But, you must increase bet spread to obtain an advantage with straight card counting. This is why we use optimal betting and SCORE to balance risk.

[DSchles]

I recently finished my reading on ROR in blackjack and have gained some knowledge about money management.

Do you mind sharing with us what authors you read?

most authors said that their bet amount is inversely proportional to their variance. However, as I understand, when you bet bigger, your variance gets larger to the roof, how could these authors say that? This is the part I don’t understand for now.

Right, you don't understand. Your bet size is directly proportional to your advantage and inversely proportional to the instantaneous variance when you place the bet. All this means is that, after you specify the bankroll size, you determine the proper Kelly wager by multiplying by the edge and DIVIDING by the variance. It doesn't matter if the variance increases slightly with TC (it does); the advantage ALSO increases, and by more than the variance, so the optimal wager grows as the TC does.

Clear?

Don

[aceside]

Do you mind sharing with us what authors you read?

I read briefly into your book Blackjack Attack 2nd edition and I have been waiting for a BJA3 to come. I thoroughly read into Stanford Wong 2nd edition. I have several other authors to read too. The way I read is different from everybody else. I read it like a high school student reading their text books. As I read, I also do exercise and simulations myself, so I can only read about three pages a day. That is why I am slow reading, but I want details, incredible details.

Your explanation about variance is very helpful for me.

[Blackjack Newbie]

You have been a senior member for so long but haven't heard about "color up." What did you say to the blackjack dealer when you were about to leave the table after you won a lot of red chips?

LMAO! My NAME says it all.

[aceside]

LMAO! My NAME says it all.

You are welcome. I am new to here and I am learning. These guys are all experts.

[aceside]

Variance at higher TCs is NOT substantially different. What increases variance is increasing the bet spread. But, you must increase bet spread to obtain an advantage with straight card counting. This is why we use optimal betting and SCORE to balance risk.

This is very helpful but inviting. So, variance varies little with the TC (though it goes up slightly) if we flat bet. If we use a (close to) linear bet spread of 1/2/4/6/8/10 at the linear true count of 0/+1/+2/+3/+4/+5 when the player advantage is linear 0/0.5/1.0/1.5/2.0/2.5%, what is variance as a function of the TC?