Thread: JSTAT: Why blackjack card counters lose

1. JSTAT: Why blackjack card counters lose

Everywhere you look when trying to beat the casinos at blackjack, the hi-lo count rears its ugly head. The movie "21" in 2008 accelerated this count to the masses. Almost every book published since 1966 recommends this strategy. The internet is infested with 2-6=+1, 10-A=-1. A can't miss count presumably. It can be argued that hi-lo cannot detect blackjacks and insurance. Since aces and tens are counted together, the probability of predicting blackjacks that correspond with the count is impossible. All aces gone in a single deck game (Reno rules) with a +2 count at 1/4 deck played is a almost a 2% disadvantage with the 2.4% deduction from blackjacks. More aces played than normal can do serious harm to the player. Conversely, an even count with no aces seen at 39 cards left, blackjacks will increase from the 4.83% off the top to 6.47%! The hi-lo player missed out on this positive situation. In insurance instances, hi-lo strikes out due to aces being counted as high cards.

A calculator was used to confirm these numbers, not a computer simulator. After Edward O. Thorp's "Beat The Dealer" in 1962, the casinos panicked. Something had to be done. More decks were added to confuse the Ten Count player. The 1966 revised edition of "Beat The Dealer" introduced Harvey Dubner's High/Low count. Julian Braun of the IBM corporation did the faulty computer work that has fooled the masses since. The mob controlled casinos were happy. Card counters bought the half truths hook, line, and sinker. Casino consultant/blackjack expert Stanford Wong "fixed" the overlay's of 7,8,9's from Braun's "mistakes"(see "Blackjack High-Low Card Count Shattered" on YouTube) in his 1975 book "Professional Blackjack" with yet another computer sim. Wong and other "recognized" blackjack authorities relied on sims for their results and condemn the mathematics when challenged to this day.

3. JSTAT: Until you respond without insults

You have a vested interest with your Casino Verite products and the motivation to attack the message. Explain the "nonsense" (as you call it) of the mathematics.

4. Parker: Is this a joke?

You throw out a few isolated instances where Hi-lo gives erroneous info, dismiss the results of trillions of hands of computer simulations without any explanation as to why, and post a video that attempts to draw conclusions based on a dozen or so hands.

Sure, the player in an ace-depleted deck is playing at a disadvantage that may not be accurately reflected in the count. However, any intelligent discussion of this has to include how often it happens, or it is meaningless.

In his 1980 book, Braun admitted to a "slight" error in his work for Thorp. Hello, that was 30 years ago, and there have been more than a few studies done since then.

Anyone reading this has access to a computer many orders of magnitude more powerful than that used by Braun.

Most counters lose because they make mistakes, they are underbankrolled, they give up too much in cover, or they are emotionally unprepared for the large swings that are a normal part of the game. They do not lose because of some flaw in Hi-lo or some huge conspiracy among the casinos.

I'm not getting any younger, and I resent having wasted 10 minutes of my life on the video.

5. kewljason: Re: Why blackjack card counters lose

3 points. First of all, I don't see where Norm insulted you. Simply asked a question which expressed how tired many of us are of you rehashing your same nonsense over and over again. Number 2, you set up an extremely rare situation of single deck game with all aces played as proof that the ten count is better than hi-lo. While it is true that in this rare occurance of all aces being out, hi-lo will underperform, ten count is not the only way to determine that all aces have been removed or played. Many people side count aces as well or just casually observe them. I play hi-lo and side count aces, so in your hand picked situation, I would have left the table and not been subject to playing with no aces. I wonder how your 'Jstat' count would do against in long term results against more common 6 deck games, rather than finding a rare instance that it does out perform. Number 3, You have been spouting this opinion for several years that I know of. How long have you been able to support yourself, SOLELY from your 'Jstat' theory?? (solely means no other income, like a fulltime postman's job, partime newspaper columist job, social security or any other income) I have supported myself solely, from blackjack play, mostly consisting of hi-lo, for 6 years 3 months and currently 5 days. That's ample proof for me.

6. Norm Wattenberger: Re: Until you respond without insults

Well, that is yet another a lie. My software supports most any system.

As for the math, it has been explained to you hundreds of times, and you have posted this exact same message hundreds of times. That's why you keep getting barred from sites. Not because of your false accusations of fraud, but because you keep posting the exact same message, over and over and over. Hundreds of times. We have read it. What is the point of posting something no one agrees with one more time?

7. NightStalker: why only hi-lo

It is true for every system. no system can have 100% betting correlation as well as playing correlation to the advantage, unless your brain is faster than my laptop.

> Everywhere you look when trying to beat the casinos at
> blackjack, the hi-lo count rears its ugly head. The
> movie "21" in 2008 accelerated this count to
> the masses. Almost every book published since 1966
> recommends this strategy. The internet is infested
> with 2-6=+1, 10-A=-1. A can't miss count presumably.
> It can be argued that hi-lo cannot detect blackjacks
> and insurance. Since aces and tens are counted
> together, the probability of predicting blackjacks
> that correspond with the count is impossible. All aces
> gone in a single deck game (Reno rules) with a +2
> count at 1/4 deck played is a almost a 2% disadvantage
> with the 2.4% deduction from blackjacks. More aces
> played than normal can do serious harm to the player.
> Conversely, an even count with no aces seen at 39
> cards left, blackjacks will increase from the 4.83%
> off the top to 6.47%! The hi-lo player missed out on
> this positive situation. In insurance instances, hi-lo
> strikes out due to aces being counted as high cards.

> A calculator was used to confirm these numbers, not a
> computer simulator. After Edward O. Thorp's "Beat
> The Dealer" in 1962, the casinos panicked.
> confuse the Ten Count player. The 1966 revised edition
> of "Beat The Dealer" introduced Harvey
> Dubner's High/Low count. Julian Braun of the IBM
> corporation did the faulty computer work that has
> fooled the masses since. The mob controlled casinos
> were happy. Card counters bought the half truths hook,
> line, and sinker. Casino consultant/blackjack expert
> Stanford Wong "fixed" the overlay's of
> 7,8,9's from Braun's "mistakes"(see
> "Blackjack High-Low Card Count Shattered" on
> YouTube) in his 1975 book "Professional
> Blackjack" with yet another computer sim. Wong
> and other "recognized" blackjack authorities
> relied on sims for their results and condemn the
> mathematics when challenged to this day.

10. JSTAT: No joke

Parker wrote:
> In his 1980 book, Braun admitted to a
> "slight" error in his work for Thorp. Hello,
> that was 30 years ago, and there have been more than a
> few studies done since then.

> orders of magnitude more powerful than that used by
> Braun.

Julian Braun admitted to not taking out the 7,8,9's while taking out 2,3,4,5,6's in his computer work. The overlay of 7,8,9's causes the dealer to bust more often and our double downs on 10/11's are improved. This error by Braun in the amount of percentage added to the card counter is not stated by him or by the "trillions" of sims by others since his admission. I'd bet it is more than a "slight error".

Parker wrote:
> I'm not getting any younger, and I resent having
> wasted 10 minutes of my life on the video.

You only needed to see the first few minutes of the video to see Brauns admission in his book. Results from YouTube statistics shows that interest spikes at this moment.

11. Don Schlesinger: YOU'RE the joke

> Julian Braun admitted to not taking out the 7,8,9's
> while taking out 2,3,4,5,6's in his computer work. The
> overlay of 7,8,9's causes the dealer to bust more
> often and our double downs on 10/11's are improved.
> This error by Braun in the amount of percentage added
> to the card counter is not stated by him or by the
> "trillions" of sims by others since his
> admission. I'd bet it is more than a "slight
> error".

You're delusional. Braun admitted the error, corrected his work, and, everyone on planet earth moved on, except you, who are living in the Stone Age.

Do you think that today's software and methodologies are perpetuating Braun's mistake, or do you think that, 30 years later, we have learned to do it correctly.

I'm wasting my time writing this, but you need to go away and crawl back into your hole.

Don

12. Parker: Re: No joke

> Julian Braun admitted to not taking out the 7,8,9's
> while taking out 2,3,4,5,6's in his computer work. The
> overlay of 7,8,9's causes the dealer to bust more
> often and our double downs on 10/11's are improved.
> This error by Braun in the amount of percentage added
> to the card counter is not stated by him or by the
> "trillions" of sims by others since his
> admission. I'd bet it is more than a "slight
> error".

Are you suggesting that, simply because Braun made a mistake 30 years ago (and subsequently acknowledged and corrected it), all of the thousands of mathematicians, computer programmers, ad infinitum have continued to make the same mistake, and nobody has ever noticed? That is so far beyond absurd that I cannot even come up with a word for it. Madness?

Are you Frank Stanton?

13. Norm Wattenberger: Re: No joke

One person, 30 years ago, made an error, once (stop the presses). Why on Earth would you accuse every person after that of making the same mistake? Seriously, your assumptions and your conclusions are incorrect and have been shown to be incorrect innumerable times by numerous people. Yet, you continue to post the exact same words over and over and over with NEVER an answer to the responses other than the exact same words. It's boring.

> Parker wrote:

> Julian Braun admitted to not taking out the 7,8,9's
> while taking out 2,3,4,5,6's in his computer work. The
> overlay of 7,8,9's causes the dealer to bust more
> often and our double downs on 10/11's are improved.
> This error by Braun in the amount of percentage added
> to the card counter is not stated by him or by the
> "trillions" of sims by others since his
> admission. I'd bet it is more than a "slight
> error".

> Parker wrote:

> You only needed to see the first few minutes of the
> video to see Brauns admission in his book. Results
> from YouTube statistics shows that interest spikes at
> this moment.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Posting Permissions

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