This is a good advertisement for continuing to follow threads that have otherwise lost their value.
I'm not going to out you on a public forum. OF COURSE you didn't notice me. I have excellent cover, and I left when you joined my table. (In fact, I left during a positive count...)
I could describe your appearance, if you'd like. I will tell you this--you said you were in one location; where I saw you wasn't there. It was in a cousin's house. Named after water...
Believe me me or don't, it doesn't matter one bit to me. If you think you're not obvious, though, think again.
I appreciate that, email me at [email protected] and describe, I will confirm or deny, either way you wont be left thinking im someone im not. I seen lots of people trying to count in OK, nearly all are bad. Most will have large bets out after seeing some low value cards and i will still have min bet out or they have no bankroll management or will gamble any winnings away . Only noticed one other counter that i thought was any good, and we were both quite, discretely winning, drinking like one beer for cover and exiting after winning a few hundred and didn't talk at all. The hint about cousin's house and water doesn't trigger any recognition for me.
Last edited by hypercube; 08-22-2017 at 08:38 AM.
hypercube - This afternoon, on the way back to my office from a client's meeting, stopped at a local casino. Figured I might get some heads up time. I was at a table, and the TC and DC were getting pretty advantageous. Down sits a ploppie! Figures.
He is there to play Match the Dealer, while I am working to make that shoe into my ATM.
I put out 2 bets of $200 each ($10 min table, my bets had ranged from $10 to $100). Ploppie bitches, groans, and pleads that I pick up 1 bet before cards dealt. I turned to dealer, and simply said, please deal. I drew a blackjack and an 8-3. Got paid on both hands. Needless to say ploppie didn't get his match, cursed me out and left the table. Man he hurt my feelings. Oops, forgot, you gotta have a heart to have feelings. And we all know what they say about lawyers, and their great big hearts. Oops, sorry. Got that backwards.
Moral of the story, as Norm, moses and others usually say, ""There's other people at the table?"
"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/
Isn't it the truth Frank? Again I am strictly talking about the profession. If you are taking this personal I am really sorry for my remarks in this post, and one in another thread.
I am glad you hit those two bets, hope you had a great day. I also played yesterday with some real good variance, actually my last three trips had some real nice meaningless results.
Last edited by BoSox; 08-23-2017 at 06:29 AM.
Hey BS, no offense taken whatsoever. I suspect my writing style, dry Bostonian wit and regular expression of self-derogatory lawyer humor (many attorneys deserve public ridicule and scorn) may have clouded my meaning. Mea culpa.
Glad to see/hear you are well!
That ploppie... wait, there was a ploppie at the table?
"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/
"Don S. I would appreciate your input regarding CV Data Sims on strictly single deck straight up."
Have never run one, so Norm or someone else might be of more help. Have personally played about a half hour of single deck in 42 years.
"Now, I realize you are not a big fan of that W guy."
Can't imagine why you would say that. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We've been friends for more years than I can count, and I greatly admire the body of his work and his vast contributions to the blackjack community.
"I'm too lazy to look his name."
I imagine there's a thought there somewhere!
"But I'm conflicted. SCORE is significantly better when giving the Ace -1.5 (in this game). But this is in direct contrast to your words."
Can't imagine what those words would be, so why don't you just tell me.
"It makes no difference to me. I just don't want to do the work I'm about to embark on twice. So, in your opinion, do I go by your words or SCORE?"
I'm sorry, but your question makes no sense to me.
"Norm. I read in your book that deep pen is required for Wong Halves in the pitch game."
What do you mean by "required"? Deep pen makes EVERY count better than if you didn't have it. Maybe what you mean is that, when comparing various counts, Halves benefits from deep pen in SD more than some other counts do. I'm sure that could be true. Your point is?
"Sim and personal results"
It is utterly useless for you to talk about personal results! What you, personally, do or do not achieve is less than meaningless for discussions such as this. Sims are another matter.
"suggest you are spot on. But I can't figure out why. Perhaps knowing why would give me a better sense of direction. Any ideas as to why?"
Why WHAT??
Don
"Werthamer? There was a thread a couple of years ago where your opinion was not high of him and that giving the Ace -1.5 was a huge no no."
Richard Werthamer is an idiot. Why didn't you just name him?
"Wong Halves. When I run a sim at 66.7% Wong Halves is one of the best. But at 65.3% it is middle of the road in comparison to other tag assignments. At 63.6% it is woeful by comparison."
Would have to see it. Don't understand the problem.
"Now I played with Wong Halves for several months. The feeling was here it comes, here it comes, there it goes. This seemed to speak to the deep pen required. In other words. Just when I got to a big bet, the dealer was shuffling."
Makes no sense. Halves has the best betting correlation of any count out there. The fact that the dealer shuffled isn't the fault of the count! What sense does that make?
"So I tried some adjustments to compensate for Norm's statement in his book. Moving the 1/2 point from the 5 to the 7 provided a better SCORE."
Can't comment.
"However, I looked at RPC, Wong Halves, and Hi opt ii. Giving an additional 1/2 to the 4 on Wong Halves provided a significant boost at all 3 levels of pen. But to keep a balance count you can either add a 1/2 point to the 8,9, or A. The Ace is by far the winner in SCORE. Or you can add 1/2 point to the 4 and 7 from Wong Halves and a 1/2 point to the 8 and A to add a little more. The Efficiency Calculator reflects awful results with these tags. But it gives the best SCORE."
Can't comment. Efficiency means nothing.
"I have no allegiance to any count. Just like I have no emotional attachment to any team. I just do what the numbers suggest. So Don, it's your call. If you tell me to go strictly by SCORE that is what I will do. If you tell me not to give the Ace -1.5 and then go by SCORE. I'm okay with that as well."
Counts' relative values, and, therefore, SCOREs, can flip-flop depending on bet spread, rules, number of decks, and pen. The count that is best for one situation may not be best for another. The count that gives the best SCORE for the game you personally play all the time is the one you should use. None of the rest matters for you, personally.
Don
A very good and comprehensive post by Three.
I must say that a crucial error to make in life,
(especially in games, sports, and war, etc.),
is to UNDERESTIMATE your opponent/enemy/etc.
especially as Casino Surveillance, Pit Bosses, etc.
are your (stealthy) collective nemesis.
Unsolicited response:
Wong Halves is the virtual equal of Hi-Opt II in Shoe Games.
In pitch games, the clear superiority in Playing Efficiency of
Hi-Opt II makes it the preferred count for SD or DD games.
Running a rather close second is Advanced Omega II.
Impractical counts like The Gordon Count not withstanding.
Playing Efficiency swamps considerations of Betting Correlation
in Pitch games. To see why it was pointed out that you would
need deep penetration in a pitch game to use Wong Halves, (or
APC (Uston Advanced Point Count) I suggest you extrapolate
to the logical extremes.
Consider a Single Deck game dealt 90% but, as expected,
exceeding a 4-1 spread will get you 86'd in a hurry.
A 3-1 spread with near-perfect play will prove to be successful.
A count with inferior P.E. limited to a narrow spread (e.g. Hi-Lo)
will be (essentially) crippled.
Now, consider a common SD game (House Edge 0.42%) ~ but
you can spread 6-1 with impunity ~ but limited to
3 rounds heads-up and 2 rounds otherwise. Now that is a game
that can be profitable with a high B.C. count like Wong Halves or UAPC.
The more permissive the bet spread and the more decks in play the less
the importance of Playing Efficiency and the greater the importance of
Betting Correlation.
Casinos are aware of this and tailor their BJ games to suit.
I would enjoy playing a simple count at an 8 decker if I could spread 100 to 1.
I would also love playing with perfect play a Single Deck spreading 4 to 1.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 08-24-2017 at 04:16 PM.
Bookmarks