"The Color of Blackjack" – My Observations

**ZeeBabar** · 09-16-2019, 07:55 AM

Freightman, let it go. You seem to be quite sensitive about everything.

**Freightman** · 09-16-2019, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeBabar

Freightman, let it go. You seem to be quite sensitive about everything.

Not in the least. However, it would seem that bullshit has wings, dropping crap with no useful purpose being served.

**Norm** · 09-16-2019, 08:14 AM

Drop it now. I don't have time for this.

**BoSox** · 09-16-2019, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Not in the least. However, it would seem that bullshit has wings, dropping crap with no useful purpose being served.

Originally Posted by Norm

Drop it now. I don't have time for this.

Freighter, please give the moderator a break as he is working two full-time jobs. First as a kindergarden superintendent here and also keeping the book transactions up to date in an investment house.

**RatherNotGiveMyRealName** · 09-16-2019, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Counting_Is_Fun

Now you are giving advice on changing your physical appearance or not? How many hours of experience do you have in a real casino again?
And camouflage means something different to most BJ players.

I have every right to give my opinion and you will not stop me.

**Phoebe** · 09-16-2019, 11:40 AM

What about my comment about TKO?

**RatherNotGiveMyRealName** · 09-16-2019, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Phoebe

What about my comment about TKO?

I apologize if I missed it. Could you direct me to it or post again?

**Phoebe** · 09-16-2019, 12:09 PM

No problem.
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?29762-quot-The-Color-of-Blackjack-quot-%E2%80%93-My-Observations&p=275503&viewfull=1#post275503

**RatherNotGiveMyRealName** · 09-16-2019, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Phoebe

Risk averse indices for hit/stand is what most of ploppies use.

That's what Norm says in Modern Blackjack.
I still do not agree.

I thought that the index of +2 for 12 vs 3 was standard and not risk-averse. That’s what it says in the I18.

What is it you don’t agree with? I’m interested to hear your opinion on all of this TKO stuff.

**Freightman** · 09-16-2019, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName

I thought that the index of +2 for 12 vs 3 was standard and not risk-averse. That’s what it says in the I18.

What is it you don’t agree with? I’m interested to hear your opinion on all of this TKO stuff.

I dont know TKO. That being said, I18 indices are given ax EV maximizing. The shoestring bankroll should look at risk averse, provided if course, that those 8nduces are available.

**Phoebe** · 09-16-2019, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by RatherNotGiveMyRealName

I thought that the index of +2 for 12 vs 3 was standard and not risk-averse. That’s what it says in the I18.

What is it you don’t agree with? I’m interested to hear your opinion on all of this TKO stuff.

Maybe, I'm wrong but I think that :

1) Risk averse only makes sense for split or double.
To specify risk averse for hit / stand is absurd.

2) The Brett Harris's TKO formula is wrong, in Modern Blackjack and in the post of the serious player.

TC = RC/ Decks unplayed + 4not -4

**Phoebe** · 09-16-2019, 01:27 PM

Erratum : surrender and insurance too but still not Hit/stand.

**RatherNotGiveMyRealName** · 09-16-2019, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Phoebe

Maybe, I'm wrong but I think that :

1) Risk averse only makes sense for split or double.
To specify risk averse for hit / stand is absurd.

2) The Brett Harris's TKO formula is wrong, in Modern Blackjack and in the post of the serious player.

TC = RC/ Decks unplayed + 4not -4

1. That stands to reason.

2. See, that’s what I figured originally but I’ve been second guessing that for the better part of the last 24 hours. I appreciate you setting that straight. That makes sense that because of the extra four 7’s being counted per deck that the equation for the TC should also add four.