You're not suggesting selective enforcement, are you?Originally Posted by 21forme
Because I'm certain I'm not the only one disgusted by never ending references to scratching your *****. Further, why do you have to insert an unknown strategy into so many, many threads? I'll say it again, if you want to discuss your strategy, do so in a new thread -- not everyone else's threads.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Men have scratched their ***** since the dawn of time. Fail to see what’s so disgusting. From a marketing standpoint, FBM ASC would have to be regarded as a resounding success - mention FBM ASC, and it’s a known commodity - ball scratching and all.
As for unknown strategy, seems to me the FBM ASC framework has been handily established, bombarded by those not willing to expand their thought processes. Just for you, I will start a new thread in the next couple of days. As long as I’m able to transfer certain information without losing column cohesiveness, I’ll provide column information on my results spreadsheet (when I recorded info). It will show total cumulative info of results firstly showing an unusually high % win rate, unfortunately also showing an average dollar loss being somewhat higher than its inverse dollar win - the first steps in developing a concept - a non responded to challenge previously extended to the forum failed to attract anyone willing to guess at its basic premise. Then again, if I have trouble transferring the info, I may not as I would have to work doubly hard then putting up with the barbs of small minded peons. Information gathered was extensive, filterable in a hundred different ways, with pivot charts showing go to preferred info and further sensitive to filtered data.
Anyways, growth and knowledge requires expanding ones paradigms - I’m sure you’d agree with that. I’m sure you’d also agree that limiting one’s self to inside the box thinking limits one’s future possibilities.
People have been defecating since the dawn of human time. But, this site wasn't created for scatological conversations. As for FBM, I have no idea what it is. You keep referencing it with no explanation, or you talk about ***** and I move on to something else instead of finishing the post.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Its been discussed in pretty fair detail. Further, you’ve commented in pretty extensive non descriptive detail. Now, I can create the new thread, or ignore it and save myself the aggravation.As for FBM, I have no idea what it is. You keep referencing it with no explanation, or you talk about ****
If we two collaborate, I would like to explore your FBM ASC, but I’ve never understood your methodology.
Email: [email protected]
It would be very interesting to have a thread on the regaled FBM (Freightman Blackjack Methodology???)
However, we can already predict what will happen since the FBM system has no SCORE yet.
Freighter will be told that his system is crap until he gets a SCORE.
The problem is that Freighter has a couple of programming issues before getting a SCORE.
That may take some time to resolve.
Once resolved, he will probably have a SCORE higher than an easy system like Hi-Opt II.
We all know what happened the last time someone got a SCORE higher than Hi-Opt II
The referred system was 6.4% better than the "great" Hi-Opt II.
Yet it was labeled as a "disappointing result"
A 6.4% edge over the best of the best is considered amazing in just about any field.
... except here.
We have yet to see a coherent explanation why it was so disappointing to have a system that clearly beats anything.
How topping the best by 6.4% can be considered disappointing is beyond me.
I therefore predict that Freightman's system will be considered a "disappointment".
Still, it would be highly interesting to have a thread on it.
So, two quick comments. Freightman's system will NOT outperform Hi-Opt 2 by 6.4%. Second, the reason Tarzan's results were considered disappointing were twofold: 1) Many had predicted a much higher outperformance (but not me), and 2) If we could rate the degree of difficulty in learning Tarzan's system above that of Hi-Opt 2, I don't know if even ten-fold would do it justice. So, if you're going to spend the rest of your life trying to master something, when you're done, some would expect more than a 6.4% increase in results to justify the effort. I know I would.
Does that answer your question?
Don
Don, like you I think Freightman's system would not surpass Tarzan and it would sit somewhere above Hi-Opt II. Tarzan has absolutely every angle covered.
For the second part, SCORE is everything around here, so it's not disappointing by any means. Tarzan delivered the highest SCORE ever of your golden standard and he should be applauded for it like the superstar of blackjack. That's all I am saying. Don, 6.4% EDGE over the best is AWESOME. DON'T YOU THINK? If some people expected 10% or 15% or 20% improvement it was not realistic.
SCORE is one thing but DIFFICULTY is a totally DIFFERENT ISSUE. It's a personal thing. It took Tarzan years to develop his system to its highest level but now, one doesn't have to take an entire life to learn it. He can teach it and although I don't know his charts, it's not that hard to learn Tarzan basic. It's just a different way of counting and it gives a much clearer picture of deck composition than HiLo or Hi-Opt II. Within a few months, one can learn it but the top level is not for everyone that's for sure.
FBM ASC is still a work in progress with constant modification. Clearly, it’s author questions established thought. At this stage in my life, I’m not interested in investing loads of time totally confirming my thoughts. Too many meatheads, both intelligent and not without vision and loads of resistance throwing up too many roadblocks. My time is far more pleasurably spent with my kids and grandkids (one more confirmed on the way), earning a few dollars through my gruelling approx 2-3 hours per week work schedule, travelling in a combo of wife, sons with wives and grandchildren (Xmas time), son, grandsons boys weekends, with wife to various places or by myself plying my gifts at various stores.
Now, in various posts I have said both
- always had a very high win rate - excellent
- always had an average loss exceeding average win, both as a % and hourly - shitty
Not withstanding my most recent records in some flash drive, here are some stats from about a decade ago. The arbrutary chosen information probably covers a couple of years. I played most afternoons.
Over 531 rounds
373 wins, 155 losses, 3 ties, 70.24% win rate, average win $1110.31, average loss $1748.32, win per hour $333.14, loss per hour $452.44 (struggle to reduce loss often losing more, Total dollars won $414145.63, Total dollars lost $270998.05, net win $143147.58, $77..06 per hour. That differential between average win and average loss really made me think.
Now for the meatheads,
Consider dollars won lost at 60% win rate with same dollars won/lost per session. Consider dollars won with 70.24% win rate with both dollars won/lost per session at $1101.31. Really very significant - Really makes you think, doesn’t it.
The Colin trained counter as an example, will blindly throw money (as did I) at positive true counts. QTC becomes a concept. As an example, as discussed on the forum and thoroughly confirmed that insurance threshold (and many other index situations) will vary from index based through various factors, then WTF is so difficult to grasp that quality of true counts will vary based on deck composition?
To make things easy (and I’ve explained this in different ways (but - meatheads will be meatheads) the end effect (try to reason it out) is a reduction in average win, significant reduction in average loss approaching average win - note the effect on hourly - pretty significant - huh?
Now for the end all be all - consider factors in preceding paragraph coupled with an increase in % win rate as noted above. Kinda kicks the shit out of sims.
Now, if you’re really sharp, you’ll note what you may think of as omissions. I have the answers for those. Just as higher true counts produce increased success over low counts for splits, doubles, etc., higher QTC over identical TC lower QTC will produce superior results. I’ll welcome intelligent questions.
I missed a vary important point above. See if you can reason it out. A weakness is I can’t confirm the actual % numbers, only the concept. It won’t violate certain statistical principles, simply manipulates them for the greater good - a byproduct of QTC.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks