Moses what represents the 72% in the above quote? I believe it is 87% gains, from flat betting and only using basic strategy, to using basic strategy and the Hi low count for bet variation alone, without using any index play. Then when you add in the I18, and fab 4 you capture 90% of all the deviations gains. I do not know the single deck numbers but this is a shoe thread that you started.
Last edited by BoSox; 01-01-2017 at 06:13 AM.
Everyone should be aware that ZMF has never liked The Hi Low Count period, and once again he continues with biased implications to attempt to discredit the system. Between the lines he is saying the only way you can beat good 6 deckers is with large spreads, if you are using the hi low count system and they will not be tolerated long, especially with a noticeable cumulative win. Leaving the Hi Low count out of this for a second, using large spreads in today's casino environment is going to result in a very short playing career. ZMF says especially with a noticeable cumulative win, well this applies to all systems used. He thinks you can hide your skills better winning money on a regular basis and continue playing with the HI-OP II system. You might last longer, depending on your act, just looking at a pit person the wrong way can get you tossed but, everyone gets the toss when the cumulative win tolerance is reached!
Back to ZMF's implication:
"I would gladly play with Hi-Lo if I could spread 24 to 1 in good 6 deckers."
Lets cut the spread in half to 12 to 1 just for an example, the games I play start with a play all SCORE of 51.53. I do not even come close to playing all, and sometimes I will briefly use a slightly higher spread and at times a lower spread depending on the house and situation. I have found that by using a real good act, without being greedy, with infrequent visits to the same casino has keep me from being flat bet , or removed to a very reasonable number. ZMF is well aware of the stats in chapter ten in BJ Attack 3 by Don S, however his problem is he also knows AP plays in other games that return him much higher EV percentages. So subconsciously he wants others to reach for and achieve higher goals, extremely admirable. Personally I have admired his work for a very long time, and given the opportunity I am sure I could learn plenty from him. On the other hand I will not stand idle an allow the discrediting of BJ attack 3, whether indirectly or not, as well as what CC system I use.
Last edited by BoSox; 01-02-2017 at 05:06 PM.
BoSox,
Without identifying casinos, would you please kindly share the rules of the 6 deck games you play, in a play-all mode, that yield a SCORE of 51.53, while employing a 12:1 bet spread, using the Hi-Lo counting system?
I believe that information would benefit most new counters, and many more experienced players.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
You say a few times that you are making big assumptions about what Flash was saying, so why get so worked up about it? I think a more straightforward interpretation is, compared to what Flash has going on now, the 6 deck game would have to allow him a 24 to 1 spread to make it worth his while. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the games he's playing, with better rules or opportunities. Should we get all righteous about the injustice of a shoe game?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Discredit ? Surely you jest !
I have several copies of BJA 3rd, Hardcover, Softcover, and
the latest printing with the priceless updated appendices.
Don's magnum opus is the Card Counters Holy Book.
I demand that my students study the book thoroughly.
I quiz them on various chapters to be sure that they are
well-grounded in BJ technicalities. The only other demand
that I have is a reading of The Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed.
Don Schlesinger has explained why he based the book
upon Hi-Lo and no explication is required here. For those
who need an explanation of why the redoubtable Don S. has
never used Hi-Lo, but based his priceless tome upon it ~
It is a LINGUA FRANCA ... it serves as a common language
between author and readers whose counts are different.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 01-02-2017 at 07:42 AM.
I don't like the Hi-lo Count as well because it doesn't count the 7s but I won't discredit Hi-lo and say it is a weak count (it is not). I have been using my own version of the TKO with both true count for betting and indices. But these couple of days I decided to experiment and use a level 3 count system to see what difference it makes. I found that with a level 3 count I was able to bet more successfully in a six deck game and the win rate has increased. Now I am looking to see how well it performs in terms of playing efficiency and insurance in a double deck game. Level 1 count are still good count systems but it is not as effective compare to higher level count systems.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-02-2017 at 09:52 AM.
Clever manipulation ZMF, but sorry it made you look worse. People are paying attention. Just as long as your students are made very clear in your instruction, that the HI LOW count is not only to be ignored, but is only used by mere mortals, who are amateurs.
Correct, as it was a smart thing to do using the hi Low count in many of the book examples. The book has absolutely nothing to do with what card counting system Don Schlesinger personally uses, so why bring it up? Unless, of course, you are implying that the count is beneath him, and subsequently readers of the book should recognize the meaningless fact. Au contraire, unlike you, Don Schlesinger is an honorable man. He would never in his life fill a book with numerous examples about a worthless card counting system. Don is constantly defending the material he writes about, against charlatans like you. I hope people are paying attention.
Last edited by BoSox; 01-02-2017 at 10:09 AM.
I manipulated absolutely nothing at all.
In the last century, during the 70's and 80's BJ players could
spread aggressively with almost no consequence, as when Don
S. was an active BJ player. Furthermore, Hi-Lo is perfectly fine
for (classic) team play, and for those who are shuffle tracking
or Ace Locating, Hole Carding, etc. It is certainly sufficient for
low-stakes "recreational" play. In the modern hyper-paranoid
casino environment Hi-Lo for serious [heads-up] BJ play is
self-defeating for several reasons, none of which I will bother
to reiterate here. As a semi-retired veteran professional player
I spend enormous amounts of time rescuing the gullible from
the (ubiquitous) Hi-Lo / K. O. / etc. propaganda. B T W, I am
the recipient of a never-ending stream of gratitude from my
partners and students, and that is better than money won !
Bookmarks