See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 33

Thread: Quality of hours vs Quantity of hours - Perspectives

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The QTC concept needs further explanation.

    You have previously stated that you use a modified Level 3 count and further benefit can be obtained by tracking and taking advantage of the remaining deck composition. As Hi-lo, one of the easiest and most common counts that uses only three tags it is clear that deck composition can vary wildly at any given running/ true count but the system works because the Hi-Lo true count closely corresponds with the actual (dis)advantage. To take this scenario and compare it with what a Level 3 count already produces requires simulation to quantify any additional benefit and that’s what’s missing. Empirical evidence is not enough – you may just have been lucky but a large simulation can be achieved quickly with a modern computer producing a win rate and SCORE that can then be compared with the results of your count system.

    In addition, to do all this with ramping variations, etc, almost extends to the limit of human capabilities and would need years of training to carry out successfully under the radar against many different rule sets in an actual casino environment.
    Casino Enemy No.1

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by davethebuilder View Post
    The QTC concept needs further explanation.

    You have previously stated that you use a modified Level 3 count and further benefit can be obtained by tracking and taking advantage of the remaining deck composition. As Hi-lo, one of the easiest and most common counts that uses only three tags it is clear that deck composition can vary wildly at any given running/ true count but the system works because the Hi-Lo true count closely corresponds with the actual (dis)advantage. To take this scenario and compare it with what a Level 3 count already produces requires simulation to quantify any additional benefit and that’s what’s missing. Empirical evidence is not enough – you may just have been lucky but a large simulation can be achieved quickly with a modern computer producing a win rate and SCORE that can then be compared with the results of your count system.

    In addition, to do all this with ramping variations, etc, almost extends to the limit of human capabilities and would need years of training to carry out successfully under the radar against many different rule sets in an actual casino environment.
    The halves portion is not modified - it’s the add ons that give it extra oomph. The easy part are the ramping variations - hardwired into my brain and it’s automatic. For me, the difference between hi lo and halves are
    1. The slight difference between a marginal advantage and a marginal disadvantage
    2. The slight difference between a fair sized or max bet and super max bet
    3. The slight differences between everything in between

    Fine tuned by the toughest part of all - QTC including ASC. I correspond with a fellow who seems to have a better grasp than me on the intricacies of column type counts, excellent insights - In addition to varying ramps, the concept is also extended to index play.

    You’re right regarding empirical evidence - I simply don’t have the ability to provide additional data. I actually prefer at this point in time to avoid a lot of discussion on the topic - too much narrow minded thinking from some good minds who can’t seem to see the forest from the trees as well as Snarkish type commentary from others - and so, likely my last mention of the subject - I do appreciate your obvious sharp open mind.

    As far as rule sets go, I evaluate around the most common rule set I encounter. It’s easy enough to modify or even revert to standard type methods on different rule sets, and for that matter, losing my place on QTC.

    Two last comments - QTC can make your head explode on a shoe game - far easier at DD. I’ve commented in years gone by that I regard myself as an excellent shoe player and adequate at DD due to what I was weaned on, that being shoes. I regarded myself as adequate at DD, QTC has made me much stronger. Oh, game speed is affected.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    I watched an hour long youtube Video a few months back of a real high end player travelling the country in a high end luxury RV with an apparent very significant bankroll, RV equipped with disguises and the whole 9 yards.
    I'm interested to watch this, could you provide a link?

  4. #17


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Trixar View Post
    I'm interested to watch this, could you provide a link?
    Enjoy

    https://youtu.be/nO6aPOkCt84

  5. #18


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    Converted my car into a stealth camper. Ripped out all the seats, installed a bed and water system and electric station for power. I live off fast food when i'm on the road. Don't shower in days, wear wrinkled walmart clothes to high limit. Card counting is literally the worst thing ever.

    I don't have a girlfriend.

    Keep a full extra 5 gallon GI can hidden in the trunk for $$$ states with D governors. Those players with the right cards for that particular casino franchise get us comped free rooms for two or three nights. I usually get into the buffet for free at least once a day, and the high roller gets us a comp for the steak house by the second day. Had to buy swim trunks at Walmart to use the pool at the casino hotel. Card counting is literally the best thing ever.

    My girlfriend says so.


    Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    The halves portion is not modified - it’s the add ons that give it extra oomph. The easy part are the ramping variations - hardwired into my brain and it’s automatic. For me, the difference between hi lo and halves are
    1. The slight difference between a marginal advantage and a marginal disadvantage
    2. The slight difference between a fair sized or max bet and super max bet
    3. The slight differences between everything in between

    Fine tuned by the toughest part of all - QTC including ASC. I correspond with a fellow who seems to have a better grasp than me on the intricacies of column type counts, excellent insights - In addition to varying ramps, the concept is also extended to index play.

    You’re right regarding empirical evidence - I simply don’t have the ability to provide additional data. I actually prefer at this point in time to avoid a lot of discussion on the topic - too much narrow minded thinking from some good minds who can’t seem to see the forest from the trees as well as Snarkish type commentary from others - and so, likely my last mention of the subject - I do appreciate your obvious sharp open mind.

    As far as rule sets go, I evaluate around the most common rule set I encounter. It’s easy enough to modify or even revert to standard type methods on different rule sets, and for that matter, losing my place on QTC.

    Two last comments - QTC can make your head explode on a shoe game - far easier at DD. I’ve commented in years gone by that I regard myself as an excellent shoe player and adequate at DD due to what I was weaned on, that being shoes. I regarded myself as adequate at DD, QTC has made me much stronger. Oh, game speed is affected.
    There are some members of this forum with the skills to set up and run complex simulations to sort out your issues.

    By the way, thanks for the link above. It was interesting to watch and shows why a younger person may have a better chance of success at that type of life, at least until they get sick of constantly being on the road.
    Casino Enemy No.1

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There are some members of this forum with the skills to set up and run complex simulations to sort out your issues.
    The problem as I see it - they’re so many nuances that it’s impossible to sim my game - some of them absolutely but a lot of them not.

    A couple of examples
    1. What I will not do on first shoe against what I will or will not execute in subsequent shoes, opposition type scenarios
    2. I used to blindly follow index play. With no real good way to explain, I have indexes for indexes. Example - just as high counts provide higher success doubles and splits - in those doubles and splits good QTC provides higher success than poor QTC (tried to avoid this topic). I’ve found no logic supporting not splitting in some high counts but I have found logic in not doubling in some high counts. How do you sim that?

    To much of this is in my head and granted I use intuition to guide me - but as good as I think my intuition is, it’s certainly not infallible.Think I’ll simply go onwards and play my game the way that I feel like playing it. Results are good and I’m happy with the style.

  8. #21
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You'd have to explain in more detail.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    yep...want my phone #, too?
    Posts
    949


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    You'd have to explain in more detail.
    may be quicker, and wiser, to move this puppy to Voodoo

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
    may be quicker, and wiser, to move this puppy to Voodoo
    One simulation that would be quite accurate is the high probability of Snarky sticking his own foot up his own ass when addressing Freightman.

    By the way, how much bigger is that pimple on your ass from the last time you stuck your foot up your own ass. I may not be a Proctologist, but I do know an asshole when I see one.


    Snarky revealed - photo array - police lineup - choose

    https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/pimple-...x-gif-21905819

    https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/zit-pop...le-gif-3447668

    https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/pimple-...e-gif-13353198

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    The problem as I see it - they’re so many nuances that it’s impossible to sim my game - some of them absolutely but a lot of them not.

    A couple of examples
    1. What I will not do on first shoe against what I will or will not execute in subsequent shoes, opposition type scenarios
    2. I used to blindly follow index play. With no real good way to explain, I have indexes for indexes. Example - just as high counts provide higher success doubles and splits - in those doubles and splits good QTC provides higher success than poor QTC (tried to avoid this topic). I’ve found no logic supporting not splitting in some high counts but I have found logic in not doubling in some high counts. How do you sim that?

    To much of this is in my head and granted I use intuition to guide me - but as good as I think my intuition is, it’s certainly not infallible.Think I’ll simply go onwards and play my game the way that I feel like playing it. Results are good and I’m happy with the style.
    One final word before this thread gets shut down.

    The solution may be to use a mathematical process to generate an answer. This should be able to be done with MS Excel in conjunction with simulations. It's clear that sims alone cannot replicate all scenarios but with the help of a professional mathematician who specialises in applied maths you should be able to work it out. I undertook a similar task some years ago with back betting which included many sims but the results had to be interpreted in MS Excel and further calculations were then needed to determine a strategy and quantify the advantage. Still, if you're happy with what your doing and it works for you then so much the better but if I had devoted much of my adult life to the game then I think at some stage I would want to undertake this process. Good luck.
    Casino Enemy No.1

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Hi Dave. Could you explain a little more or show an Excel file how you can use this popular software as an add-on to CV Data simulations?

    Freightman' system is certainly worth looking at. Basically it's Halves on streroids (certainly not voodoo). As far as I know there are are only two guys here who could sim it.
    Last edited by Secretariat; 06-03-2023 at 09:20 AM.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretariat View Post
    Hi Dave. Could you explain a little more or show an Excel file how you can use this popular software as an add-on to CV Data simulations?

    Freightman' system is certainly worth looking at. Basically it's Halves on streroids (certainly not voodoo). As far as I know there are are only two guys here who could sim it.
    This thread has rejuvenated an existing remodel of a logical food for thought scenario. My existing theory is a ratio of mid cards to high cards regarding QTC. Now simply using EOR 1st card values
    Ace has a 52-53% advantage
    Face has a 10% advantage
    9 has a 0% advantage
    8 thru 2 have increasingly higher negative expectations in order starting from 8

    In simpler terms so that Snarky can understand, 9 is more valuable than 8, 8 is more valuable than 7, 7 is more valuable than 6, 6 is more valuable than 5. Logically, there is a distortion in QTC if 98 is exceeded in quantity by 65. Now, it has to be reasoned through to simply quantify 98 as a proportion to high cards which might more accurately define when to bring out the cannons. Have to give it some thought.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Down 240 units in 2 1/2 hours
    By Craven in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-09-2020, 03:20 PM
  2. 150 hours played
    By DannyOcean in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-03-2019, 09:52 PM
  3. Lost $1500 in 3 hours - my first big defeat in 160 hours of Playing...
    By Planisphere in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 01-20-2018, 02:35 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.