Poorly worded. it stinks of subjective voodoo nonsense.
Your (short-term) "success" is NOT a "table condition."
This is no more than pure superstition derived from
"selective memory" That is what it sounds like to me.
I am aware that (pathological) ploppies think that way.
My bad ZMF, I always separated table conditions themselves from the house rules which I use as another category. On your list you listed Player Crowding with a question mark rightfully so, as this plays a big role in the use of full wonging or not, or even the time it takes to find another table.
ZeeBabar wrote:
"I think your selection of tables to play have far more to do with your success than the count you use."
Freightman's response:
"Kind of a combination - wouldn't you think?"
ZMF response:
"Poorly worded. it stinks of subjective voodoo nonsense.
Your (short-term) "success" is NOT a "table condition."
This is no more than pure superstition derived from
"selective memory" That is what it sounds like to me.
I am aware that (pathological) ploppies think that way."
I am with ZMF all the way on this one, who described it perfectly. Zee, any poor player who does not work hard and thinks that just by using good table selection will be enough to carry them through to long term success is gravely mistaken. All it will do is possibly prolong an inevitable long term defeat. You are afraid to play shoe games because you know nothing about the game within the game itself, which can take years to learn correctly. Most good players know many, many more index plays than the I18 and Fab 4 just to garner that little extra EV when they see it. How many do you know Zee? We all know the answer to that one, but how come you did not take the time to learn more? Do you know when there are more two's, and three's in the discard tray than the other low cards? I do not have the exact numbers, but I do know when there is a disproportion either way, and will adjust my bet a little differently. Why I do this is because of the extra idle time when playing that I have put to good use, that many players suggested on the site, about not wasting idle time.
Now just like good game selection "although it is a good thing" alone will not help a poor player become successful, neither will the system used by the poor player. There are just so many variables involved that even players playing the exact same type systems,"more difficult or not" are nothing alike in how they attack the game. I believe players themselves better make the most of what they have, and continue learning new things, or just end up on the scrap heap.
Last edited by BoSox; 08-18-2017 at 01:43 PM.
Wow, following this thread is interesting.
The techy's are digging down in the indexes looking for cover. Our count system aficionados, suggest HiLo is mark of shame.
Never have I seen a surveillance report that says, "this person is an AP because he uses XXXX count". Hell, the majority of pit people could not recognize a cover play involving an index!
The MAJORITY of people in the databases are there for BET SPREADS. I contend this should be your first area of attack if looking for cover strategies.
I suggest you locate Dr. Richard Reid's Dynamic Blackjack book and pay heed to his chapter on betting. It is the best solution to bet spread I am aware of!
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't been able to find that book anywhere in the past. Do you know where I can get it? Or even just the chapter in betting if available?
Would you also recommend Blackjack for Blood? There is a camouflage chapter in it. Or is that book just for people who want to learn the Omega count?
[QUOTE=NB10;228183]Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't been able to find that book anywhere in the past. Do you know where I can get it? Or even just the chapter in betting if available?
Someone on this board might be willing to cut you a copy of the good Dr.'s monograph for the right price.
Stealth, ZMF roots another count, says he looks at table conditions and a host of other factors which together makes him a success. My point was that all those other things and not the count he uses is why he wins. There is too much pushing of different counts on this forum, something I am not the only one noticing. I take it as a put down of all successful counters using level one counts.
Stealths post is excellent. However, one should be aware that the strategy will have some tradeoff with either EV, risk, or NO depending on the structure. Some players maybe ok with more backoffs than giving anything up there. The work is, IMO, a bit incomplete but the only real book on the subject, similar to walkers book on Spanish.
Last edited by mcallister3200; 08-18-2017 at 02:53 PM.
[QUOTE=Member Name Hidden;228196]
I have it in attachable format. Prefer off my throwaway
[email protected]
Bookmarks