The whole thread can be read on BJ21 free site on index page 54.
Flash's Post In A Previous Thread Needs Further Discussion
Posted By: BoSox <Send E-Mail to this Poster>
Date: 26 Nov 12, 11:53 amFlash's post was posted on November 23, 2012, titled "The Facts And A Healthy Measure Of Skepticism," needs a response. Flash was talking about a Level 1 counting system and the problems associated with it.
Flash wrote "The game with GOOD conditions is still a game where your card counter edge is going to be below 1% as there plays you cannot make like doubling soft 20 and splitting faces, and your spread needs to be "polite" to maintain longevity and we cannot estimate cards/decks played as accurately as a computer does."
Flash, you are lumping together every player who only uses a Level 1 count system in their arsenal, such as his or her level of experience, which games they are playing, their level of wagering, their spread used, and in which casinos they are playing for tolerance levels, etc.
Flash, you are also (whether you realize it or not) are attempting, very poorly, to discredit the excellent book Black Jack Attack, Playing the Pros Way, by Don Schlesinger. Specifically, Chapter 10, The World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation, considering the research that has gone into it by the author, as well as the respected John Auston. What is wrong with you?
"Playing efficiency with a Level 1 counts tends to hover just above .50%."
True playing efficiency is an important aspect of CC, which is 13% of the gain attributable to card counting and cannot be ignored. Flash, you conveniently forget to mention Level 1 counts like the High Low have a 97% betting corr. efficiency and gains 87% attributable to card counting, along with basic strategy alone.
BoSox
Messages In This Thread
- Flash's Post In A Previous Thread Needs Further Discussion (1157)
Bookmarks