moses

[Rainmaker]

Moses, what kind of spread do you use?Yes, you can still play a winning game regardless of what you do on 16vT, if other parts of your game are stronger. Playing that hand incorrectly (based on hunches) is NOT what is winning you the money. I'm gonna make a wild guess and say you have a pretty large spread.

I do not understand half of what is going on here, probably mostly due to not understanding what the hell Moses is talking about. But the idea that began to form in my head was something no one touched on, until I read Rollingstoned's post. This is what I believe is happening, Moses. You are playing a solid, winning game. The plays you are describing, you are playing them wrong. You are inadvertantly using these as cover plays. They do not cost you enough to wipe out your edge. Your observations that they are actually making you money are probably wrong, you have probably lost money. But the amount of money to be saved by playing them correctly is small, they are fairly inconsequential. So I agree with Rollingstoned 100%.

[Rainmaker]

Threads like these are the reason why many of us lose interest in message boards.

Then pay the fee and stay out of the ghetto. Cuz you don't wanna be in the hood after dark.

[Rainmaker]

Ok. I will try to explain my system. Only because you inquired. I could care less if anyone uses it or not. PEs, Correlations, True Count, are all greek to me. Perhaps read my last post reply that showed some deciency. Throw out the 8s for money managment purpose. So you deck is considered 48 cards instead of 52. I think that answers most of your questions above. I only take insurance on large bets and I only insure 10-11-19-20-21 (sometimes 18). However, I will insure other hands on large bets in an extreme situation. It's primarliy to protect my large investment. I don't bother with insurance on minimum bets. 1.) it takes to much brain power 2.) taking insurance is a red flag for counters...figured you'd know that. I have no desire to play any game but single with 3-2 on blackjacks. Only Dustin Hoffman could implement this strategy in a shoe.

Moses, everything you are saying is making your system sound like voodoo. And I don't blame anyone for thinking it by what you are saying. You told me that Tthree identified your system as resembling Tarzan's. If this is true, why don't you explain your system in enough detail that people can realize you are playing with an edge?

[Rainmaker]

Ok. I will try to explain my system. Only because you inquired. I could care less if anyone uses it or not. PEs, Correlations, True Count, are all greek to me. Perhaps read my last post reply that showed some deciency. Throw out the 8s for money managment purpose. So you deck is considered 48 cards instead of 52. I think that answers most of your questions above. I only take insurance on large bets and I only insure 10-11-19-20-21 (sometimes 18). However, I will insure other hands on large bets in an extreme situation. It's primarliy to protect my large investment. I don't bother with insurance on minimum bets. 1.) it takes to much brain power 2.) taking insurance is a red flag for counters...figured you'd know that. I have no desire to play any game but single with 3-2 on blackjacks. Only Dustin Hoffman could implement this strategy in a shoe.

Regarding insurance, your thinking is somewhat incorrect. You appear to be insuring the best hands, which would decrease variance. You said sometimes you insure 18. Hands better than 18: Pair of Aces, 9, Soft 13-14, Soft 18.

[Rainmaker]

He is obviously doing more than his initial posts indicate. He must be side counting aces to do aces as part of the low and high in the ratios. So he counts a 6 card block 2-7 and a 5 rank block 9-K and side counts 8's and aces.Or even more blocks and individual cards. Then he balances the appropriate blocks to the play by shuffling the neutral cards to the appropriate block too maximize correlation to the play. It is really quite elegant and if he does his homework, as it seems he has, probably better than almost all other or all level 1 counts and some or most level 2 counts.Two thumbs up.

Absolutely agreed. The casino is not going to ban an idiot with a losing system, unless he wins a few million and they are so terrified they lose their minds. Moses did an extremely poor job of describing he had an edge, but it is amazing how everyone just jumped all over him. Mr. BJ75 got more respect for his 12-16 bust plan.

[moses]

Moses, everything you are saying is making your system sound like voodoo. And I don't blame anyone for thinking it by what you are saying. You told me that Tthree identified your system as resembling Tarzan's. If this is true, why don't you explain your system in enough detail that people can realize you are playing with an edge?

Good Morning Rainmaker. Good to see you back. I did try to explain the system in earlier posts. But I was getting barbequed. I was employing Tarzans system, not really knowing someone else was doing and assuming several players used it. Since, I've learned the single deck game played 1 on 1 is different from the multiple deck game play with other players. Also, playing as an AP as opposed to just a regular player effects the strategy as well. I've worked out all the bugs now. Thank you as you helped to decide how to handle 14,15,16 vs A. I spent the weekend playing about 3K hands and ran a couple of simulations to decide how to handle 12,13 vs 2,3. I've concluded it's best to hit 13 vs 3 at even or less. And Stand on 12 vs 2,3 and 13 vs 2 at +2 or more. I've simplied the Tarzan method for a few reasons I can't go into. But it's less work with similar results.

Now, with all due respect this singledeck talk would sail over your as you're weened on multiple decks strategy which is good. Only Tarzan could implement this on more than 1 deck. I wouldn't even try.

[moses]

I do not understand half of what is going on here, probably mostly due to not understanding what the hell Moses is talking about. But the idea that began to form in my head was something no one touched on, until I read Rollingstoned's post. This is what I believe is happening, Moses. You are playing a solid, winning game. The plays you are describing, you are playing them wrong. You are inadvertantly using these as cover plays. They do not cost you enough to wipe out your edge. Your observations that they are actually making you money are probably wrong, you have probably lost money. But the amount of money to be saved by playing them correctly is small, they are fairly inconsequential. So I agree with Rollingstoned 100%.

Very astute: Yes your analogy is very close. I had to modify my game from Tarzan's method. In the process, it was easier to find a way to profit on larger bets. But, in short, I needed to become a better minimum bet player as the profits were being offset. Hence, playing too long and often in "catch up" mode. The good news is that, yes, with Tarzan's method one knows exactly when to hit a 16 vs 2, for instance. However, for an AP player this causes more scrutiny changes of decks, counting trays etc...anything to delay your game. I can see where you and most readers believe it's paraniod thinking...but until your in it one wouldn't know. Just ask Flash. After playing about 20k hands since this post, I've concluded it's better to hit 16 vs 10 at even and not stand as the first hand off the deck even though it does lead to less prime bet opportunites late in the deck.

[moses]

Regarding insurance, your thinking is somewhat incorrect. You appear to be insuring the best hands, which would decrease variance. You said sometimes you insure 18. Hands better than 18: Pair of Aces, 9, Soft 13-14, Soft 18.

Yes. This was an area that needed improvement as well. Never thought about insurance on the hands you mentioned above. Still, for most part, I'm only taking insurance on these hands on large bets. Yes, I do have a count or index but it's too complicated to go into.

[Rainmaker]

Yes. This was an area that needed improvement as well. Never thought about insurance on the hands you mentioned above. Still, for most part, I'm only taking insurance on these hands on large bets. Yes, I do have a count or index but it's too complicated to go into.

Well I strongly suggest you add the pair of Aces to the ALWAYS insure list when you have a big bet. And I suggest you drop the 18 from the SOMETIMES list in favor of all the other hands...including a pair of 9s, which I neglected to list. You have no reason insure this way. But when you insure the 18, skipping over the hands that are better--you also lack rhyme.

[Rainmaker]

Good Morning Rainmaker. Good to see you back. I did try to explain the system in earlier posts. But I was getting barbequed. I was employing Tarzans system, not really knowing someone else was doing and assuming several players used it. Since, I've learned the single deck game played 1 on 1 is different from the multiple deck game play with other players. Also, playing as an AP as opposed to just a regular player effects the strategy as well. I've worked out all the bugs now. Thank you as you helped to decide how to handle 14,15,16 vs A. I spent the weekend playing about 3K hands and ran a couple of simulations to decide how to handle 12,13 vs 2,3. I've concluded it's best to hit 13 vs 3 at even or less. And Stand on 12 vs 2,3 and 13 vs 2 at +2 or more. I've simplied the Tarzan method for a few reasons I can't go into. But it's less work with similar results. Now, with all due respect this singledeck talk would sail over your as you're weened on multiple decks strategy which is good. Only Tarzan could implement this on more than 1 deck. I wouldn't even try.

Hitting 13 v. 3 does not make any sense. Hitting 13 v. 2 is a negative index close to zero. I can stretch my imagination to the point where a system calls for the latter to be a hit at even, but not the former.

[moses]

Well I strongly suggest you add the pair of Aces to the ALWAYS insure list when you have a big bet. And I suggest you drop the 18 from the SOMETIMES list in favor of all the other hands...including a pair of 9s, which I neglected to list. You have no reason insure this way. But when you insure the 18, skipping over the hands that are better--you also lack rhyme.

I concur on the AA. Hadn't thought of that. Already made that adjustment on 18 or 9,9

[moses]

Hitting 13 v. 3 does not make any sense. Hitting 13 v. 2 is a negative index close to zero. I can stretch my imagination to the point where a system calls for the latter to be a hit at even, but not the former.

This is where the side count of 8's come into play.

[Rainmaker]

I concur on the AA. Hadn't thought of that. Already made that adjustment on 18 or 9,9

9,9 is better than hard 18. I had forgotten you play SD...it is also better than Soft 18 because you will normally split 9,9 versus normally stand on Soft 18 (if you are playing S17 and insuring at high counts). In my game, 6D H17...9,9 is a weaker hand.