K-O Blackjack vs HiLo

[Exoter175]

fyi ex, Don's books are the "de facto handbooks" for any real pro, while you, my friend, are an ass clown

obama out..(thk god!)..lol

Sharky

And I own it, you assclown. I don't dispute his fucking book you goddamned idiot, I dispute his advice to beginners on this forum. I've made that abundantly fucking clear.

Give an example of the kind of reckless advice I give to beginners on this forum. Curious to see what you're talking about.

Don

Its not just the beginners, Don, its your fucking attitude towards others on this forum. You act like you're head and shoulders above everyone else, and that you're allowed to dish it without getting it in return.

Your relevance in Blackjack today is to that of a Calculator.

I think my favorite quote of yours has to be this from https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...27-My-new-blog! where you shit all over Moo

When you have some spare time, maybe you can reread my chapter on camouflage, since what you wrote about it in your first blog represents the worst misunderstanding of the chapter by anyone who's ever read the book. Providing information, for the first time, on what the cost of misplaying a hand is, is a far cry from advocating doing it. I'm sorry you weren't able to understand that from a close reading of the text. For example, I write, middle of page 93, "My conclusion is obvious. First I wouldn't make mistakes at all." Sorry if you found this difficult to understand. My language skills are limited (but, apparently, not as limited as your comprehension skills).

FWIW, I've been playing blackjack for 41 years and have probably purposely played a hand wrong about five times in my life. So, yet again, providing information, for both counters and basic strategists, on what the cost of misplays would be, in direct response to letters from readers who solicited such information (that's how the chapter starts, in case you missed that), is vastly different from recommending that such plays be made.

Incredible that you would launch such a ridiculous diatribe before understanding what the hell you were reading. Note, finally, on the same page 93, "I spoke with Stanford Wong and Arnold Snyder, and they were both very enthusiastic, stressing the usefulness of this kind of information." But, what do they know?

Don

While you weren't inherently wrong that he misunderstood the Author, you, you slammed him for his application of your advice in an up-to-date world. Instead, you lambasted him and basically went on to turn your nose at his article, blog, and the idea of it all.

I also loved this comment from https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...firm-for-a-sim

What an utter waste of your time and money. Moreover, shame on the MIT crowd, if you are actually paying them for this. I'll take 10% of what you're paying them to tell you with 100% certainty that what you're doing doesn't work.

Don

Instead of talking to the guy, who just joined and started posting on the forum, you just swatted him away as if his time didn't matter. For all you know, the guy could have been on to something, but you decided "nah, fuck this guy". While ultimately the guy had a poor understanding of the game, and what he would be attempting to accomplish accomplish, (read further and you'll see where I get involved and actually talk to the guy) you simply treated him like he was a waste of your time. Guy could have been on to something (he wasn't) and because he didn't fit your mold of an acceptable post on this forum, to which you have a serious habit of, you treated him like he was nothing. You have a history of this, Don. Perhaps not a greater history of it than your posting page numbers and arguing semantics about counting systems and applications, but you do have a history of being sour grapes on new members. On top of this, you have a blatant history for bitching at long time forum members for carrying on conversations past you answering them on the first page, or someone else answering them after the first page.

This is a forum, Don, where people come to talk, First, and argue Second. They don't come here looking for an answer to a question found in your book, to which your posts are "You can read that in my book, Page 239" and then bitch at Moses and I for relative conversations not pertaining to the OP. And then T3 and I for talking about advantages missed by guys like yourself.

Examples from : https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...ut-Money/page6

To Exoter 175: I have never criticized discussion. I have provided more posts over the last 20 years than 99% of various blackjack forum posters. What neither you nor others understand is that first and foremost, an OP deserves an ANSWER to his question. Then, if everyone wants to show how smart he is and post 92 different nuances on the topic, to display your vast experience, knock yourself out. But first, ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION!

In our previous discussion, the OP clearly and specifically stated how, more so than anything, he was interested in understanding the MATH of how to go about solving problems such as the one he posed. Instead, what we got was the usual pontificating on how what he was proposing wasn't a good idea, followed by 15 other opinions, none of which answered the clear and simple question that was asked. I answered that question.

This was just one of dozens upon dozens of threads here where, before an original question is ever answered, the thread is hijacked by the usual suspects who do nothing but obscure and complicate issues BEFORE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION IS EVER ANSWERED.

Finally -- and I've only discussed this about 100 times in the past -- I don't give a flying fuck if anyone here buys my book or doesn't. Some people feel it contains the answers to myriad questions that are posed here and elsewhere and that it is a good reference source. So, you'll pardon me if, when the same questions are asked hundreds of times, over and over again, in various forms, rather than take 20 minutes to compose an answer, I refer posters to the page in my book where they can find the answer. Some people find this helpful. Others, like you, see it as a way for me to advertise my book, which is beyond ludicrous and shouldn't even be dignified with a response. How many times has Norm or someone else posted a graph or chart from his book or software to respond to a point? What could possibly be more natural?

Don

I agree with everything you've written. But the tendency for everyone here to instantly deflect the original question and to pursue his own personal agenda is overwhelming and stifling. It's epidemic, and it is what creates a staggering noise-to-signal ratio on this forum.

Don

A quote from Norm where I've criticized the forum for the whole "Buy the book, buy the software" commentary.

I fully agree. This is a forum designed for discussion -- not a support site. Which is why I have never posted "Buy my software."

A comment from Don again, after Tarzan goes and says what everyone on the forum already knows, which is Don's book is the best.

Thanks for injecting a little sanity into this thread.

Don

A quote from Moses, 100% on point.

And again, a perfect example appears. Pushing out the negatives. One might take this statement as if they don't walk in step, they must be insane.

And of course, Don's response. For which he has to put -Don at the end of everything, as if it were some powerful ending note.

Have you ever considered the possibility that not every post in every thread requires six responses from you?

Don

Don again, because he can't take criticism after dishing it out.

Exoter 175: "Don, on the other hand, doesn't own the forum, and the only interest in suggesting "Buy my book" or "read my book" is to further his royalties."

You're so full of shit it's coming out your nose. You are so painfully ignorant on the subject that you don't have a clue. If I listed 5,000 things that contribute to my personal wealth in this world, royalties from BJA3 wouldn't even make the list. 19 years' worth of royalties of the book don't even show up on my balance sheet. Your accusation is beyond aberrational; it's insane. Your comment is that of a madman.

"So let me state something real quick, right now. I DO NOT begrudge Don for wanting or trying to push the sales of his book, it is wonderful."

I have ZERO interest in pushing the sales of my book. I don't spend five minutes a year thinking about it. On average, I would say that I sell about one book a day in a good year. The royalty is about $2.25, but the book is now being sold at a 40% reduction on LVA, so the royalty would be much less. I don't make $1,000 a year on book royalties, and if you think that money matters one iota to me, you're out of your fucking mind.

"I DO begrudge him for pretending like it isn't the intent or even a concern of his when posting. Simply reading his posts you can tell he's full of shit when he denies it, and perhaps I take Honesty and Truth a bit more serious than others, which is why it chaps my ass a little."

You're a fucking asshole. That statement is pure, unadulterated horseshit. I quote my book in answers for one reason only: I've already answered the question in print and I am telling the poster where he can go to find a clear, detailed, complete answer to his question. It's either that or spend hours a day answering the same thing a hundred times, and I don't have the time or the inclination to do that.

I'm done here. Have the last word. Write whatever drivel you like. Those here who know me well know that what you've written is so far off base as to be delusional. And Norm would be the first to tell you that. He and I are currently involved in two business projects regarding companies valued at $30 million. Do you think I give a flying fuck about a $2-a-day book royalty, you pompous ass?

Don

To which norm closed the thread before I could respond.

Then there is this thread. https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...le-(with-tax-)

Where a relatively new guy asks a question, but ultimately overlooks the bigger picture, and I explain it to him.

First, the quote form the player that matters, to which Don later in another thread accuses me of not answering the question, because the OP was interested only in the mathematics.

As we see from this quote, he expresses interest in the math, but ultimately expresses his weakness of how to look at situations on the fly.

Don's answer

"so p is probability
w is win l is lose
[pw(90)]-[pl(100)]=net win"

Yes, right.

"I guess that would make sense?"

So, all you need to do is change the +46% e.v. into probability of winning or losing the hand. But, you must be careful. The urge is to say win 73% of the time, and lose 27%, so that 73% - 27% = 46%. But that would be wrong, because the +46% doubles the original bet, and you're not doubling. So, the +46% is the net result of having doubled, which you aren't doing. Therefore, the net e.v. for a single bet on the hand is +23%, which means (excluding ties): win 61.5% and lose 38.5%. That's what you have to plug into your equation above.

So, if the original wager is $100, to which you're going to add $100 of your own, your e.v., given the 10% of winnings arrangement, is:
(0.615)(90) - (0.38.5)(100) = 16.85, or $16.85.

When does the bet turn negative? A little algebra (simultaneous equations) leads to pw = 52.63% and pl = 47.37%. This is for the pre-doubled values. The pure edge would be 5.26% and the doubled edge (given in books and tables) would be 10.52%. Higher than that value, you accept the 10% tax. Lower, you don't.

Clear?

Don

My answer (1 post before his)

I think you're trying to overlook or over complicate the situation. You basically had it right the first time. If the expected return is .46 of the wager, then there is no reason to calculate anything else, as that's the final calculation of the value. Example, lets say this happens 15 times at the table, or 150 times at the table. Eventually your results will reach the .46 return number over time.

Having said that, I think you're using the wrong numbers to start off with. In order for this to be fair to the original player, you'll have to buy him out of the hand completely, and then give him 10% of the wager. Remember, if he/she wasn't planning to double, you could ultimately have created a difference decision for the player. If the next card out was a 2, then the original player would have likely hit his 13 against the dealer 17, and though he might have busted, he'll never see that scenario play out if you offered to double. If your double doesn't work out, in the example of simply buying the double and giving him 10% of the proceeds, then he actually loses out. The right play, here, would be to offer to buy his hand and do the double as is, with a 10% bonus for a win. In that sense, you're in for $200 for the hand and the double, and he's in for $0. Your win returns $200, you give him $20, and you'll have made $180 on top of the $200 wagered.

Guy's response.

Thanks ex175 and FM, at the time I completely missed the fact that by buying only the "double portion" of the bet that I could be hurting the player. This situation actually happened and I hit a 10 so the player and I won $100 and the player high five me and thanked me for doing the double. Who knows what would have happened if I pulled a 2 and lost to a 17 oh man... I didn't even tip the player for letting me buy the double, I foolishly thought it was win win for both of us since I forgot about the possibility of needing to hit again some of the time, it was during a decently high positive count. I remember I had just under my max bet out myself so I was a little excited and almost screamed when I saw the player was not going to double since I felt like it was throwing money away. Rookie mistake.

The 10% thing didn't actually happen but I was curious because my friend did something similar but he tipped out $10. Then I started wondering how an extra expense like that can affect the profitability of a play and where we would need to draw the line. (I think tipping can sort of fall into the same category?)

Thank you DSchles for the detailed response. I just want to make sure I get it now. I guess the first issue is 73-37=46? I typed it into my calculator at least 20 times but I kept getting 36. Although I suspect it was a typo, you wrote the number 73 for wp and 37 for lp twice, and I trust you more than myself so I was trying to see if I'm missing something haha. Please ease my mind that it was a typo. It all makes sense if its typo.

And then the part about doubling, its not a doubled bet because I am only buying the 2nd portion of it correct? The 46% edge is assuming that both the original bet and the double is mine? Since I am only doing the $100, I half the edge. Okay I think I got that. So we are dealing with a 23% edge on MY BET.

EDIT: I actually typed out a lot of stuff but I figured it out right before I hit send so I deleted it. I guess I'll leave the 2 questions I had lingering about the typo and half edge thing anyway just for clarification. Jumping for joy because it clicked!!! Took me a a hour tho, all good!

(I am interested in the math on how to get this answer, I need to learn how to think about this situation on the fly, this situation seems somewhat elementary and is making me feel bad about my self).

Immediately followed by Don's response

Naturally, all I did was answer the original question, which asked for an explanation of the math involved. Naturally, once again, immediately, everyone else began preaching about everything EXCEPT how the math would work. It gets to the point where the predictable NON-answers are actually quite funny. Ask a question and wait to see how long it takes for six people to provide "answers" to everything except what was asked.

Finally, although it doesn't matter in the slightest what I or any of you think about the 10% tax, it's really quite stupid, if it's a take it or leave it proposition that's being offered to you, not to take it. You all claim to be APs, but what you're saying is that, if you were offered a clearly positive-e.v. bet, you'd hold out for a better deal. And when the player said no to you, then what? You'd tell him "not interested"? How dumb is that?

Clearly, none of you spent 10 years on a trading desk, making dozens of decisions a day, as to where you would or wouldn't buy or sell a commodity or do a deal. The "you'll do it my way or it won't get done" approach gets you dick. Otherwise known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don

If this isn't the greatest post of Don being a grumpy ass, misinterpreting the intent of the OP (beginner, new to the forum) and then slamming others for answering in ways that weren't purely mathematical like Don wants the forum to be, I don't know what is.

A response by Freighman

"Shame on you for deviating off course. You should have answered the question, and only the question. Correcting the error simply added unnecessary commentary. Meaningful side dialogue, as proffered by the second amendment is unnecessary puffery not directly related to the OP"

Guys, squeeze your sphincters next time you consider responding, else Don may slap your peepee.

Yet, I love responses like these

Sigh. So much discussion over something that's been covered in such detail: BJA3, Table 2.2, page 21.

Can you spell "reinventing the wheel," yet again?

Don

Even though he "never plugs his book and always answer the questions".

Don again, not contributing to the conversation like a hypocrite. Happens all the time.

"Medical advice? Without subjecting myself to the details, how the hell did we get here from "AP's on Halloween" ?????"

Simple answer: it's a typical thread. Take any question whatsoever and wait till about, say, the 12th response. It will usually be about what the poster had for breakfast or what the price of gas is in his home state. Collectively, contributors to this forum must have one of the worst cases of ADD on the Internet. They are utterly incapable of remaining on a topic for more than a matter of minutes. One wonders how anyone on this board actually manages to keep the count all the way through a shoe.

Don

And then there's Don's quote to a new forum member.

Of course you can get better results with a shoe game, with better pen, larger spread, and higher risk of ruin. Your comparison isn't apples-to-apples. It's child's play to make a DD game sound awful and a shoe game wonderful.

Don

Another good one, first response to a thread about a guy asking about APs winnings. Way to contribute Don!

Boy, are you in for a rude awakening!

Don

Don S, I had to think awhile to come up with something and reckless wouldn't be a fair word. From a beginner's standpoint, the universal understanding of the ill 18 could be misleading. Sweet sixteen is a far more realistic suggestion. In today's game, and based on what I've read on the forum, the 12vs5,6 might be replaced with 13vs4, 14vs2,3,10. Especially when the 7 is given a card point value. But that's about it. The rest is pdg.

Not what I was getting at, Moses. The playing advice from his book and what he preaches on the forum are two different things.

Read BJA3, bottom of p. 207, number 6. Terribly reckless, huh?

Don

A prime example.

I think this was the point of Ex's diatribe. Your answers often refer to bookmarks. I dunno that's pretty much between you guys.

Joe Montana - SF 49ers. Vince Lombardi - Green Bay Packers. Michael Jordan - Chicago Bulls. Don S - ill 18.

Point is, names are often remembered with accomplishments. In your case, I doubt you would advise a newbie or anyone to always split 10s vs 5,6 at the called index. Yet Zee, for instance, says he employs the ill 18. Eric Farmer posts simulations study based on ill 18 and readers think it's wonderful.

You and I both know SCORE is like an anchor to mathematical equations regarding blackjack. We also know that splitting 10vs5,6 overinflates SCORE which is misleading in a game of people played with cards.

Would you advise a player in today's environment to always hit 12 vs 5,6 at the indice requirement?

Reckless? Absolutely not. Misinformed or not properly understood? Perhaps

Trivia question. What is the commonality of all the names listed above? Don S please don't answer.

Hall of Fame, and beause he's there, his responses need to be held to a higher standard, and he needs to set a better example for others. Instead, he's a caustic, acidic human being who disagrees with everyone who challenges him, and seeks only the admiration of others.

Difference is, Jordan didn't go to the five year old boys picking up the ball for the first time and say "you're not tall enough, quite right now kid, don't waste your time".

If I understood correctly, it is the advices given by Don, that are problematic to Ex.
As Don, I do not see which ones !?

Its his treatment of others that I have an issue with, most specifically the way he treats new forum posters, and long time forum posters. His advice about how to be an AP is tragic, which is why he doesn't discuss it often. I'd have to spend far too much time digging to find that exact comment that just killed my vision of "AP Don" forever. Unlike he, I'm an actual AP who actually works, and actually makes money doing all forms of AP things, and I log more hours doing it than he does.

Difference between us, he's twice my age and wrote a book, I'm half his and haven't written one yet. My insights to this game aren't anymore valuable than his, though the forum posting probably suggests as much. I just have a different perpsective than he does. I treat all human beings like their voice matters, at least until they give me a reason not to believe that. Don, on the other hand, has a problem with dismissing others too quickly, and treating them like they are beneath him, like the whole "old, rich, new yorker" stereotype of old, which happens to fit him 100% so I can't even mention the shoe fitting at this point.

Don's purpose on this forum is unknown. Perhaps he likes bathing in all of the glory that you guys give to him for his book, perhaps it is to sell a few prints. Perhaps, more likely, its to feel relevant in his old age to the game, because he hasn't been playing nearly as much or as often as he used to, which admittedly by Don in a biography piece, wasn't that much at all because he had a love for the numbers, not the game.

If I understood correctly. Don S answering with bookmarks was one, perhaps the main issue of Ex.

I wouldn't say "main" but it certainly is a big annoyance for me. His treatment of others on the forum, with respect to long time members like yourself and T3, and new members, is my issue. His actions here on this forum are to the detriment of others, and he doesn't see that, because he thinks he's right about everything all the time, event when what he thinks he's right about, has no relevance to the discussion.

maybe I need to re read it, but I haven't seen a lot of things in your book that I'd classify as advice, it's mostly just data and answering questions. If people come to incorrect conclusions from facts, well that's on that individual to re learn how they learn then.

And it is , mostly data.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with only referring someone to bookmarks. What the hell else do players expect spoon feeding, which often turns to disaster.

This forum exists for discussion, BoSox. Not to be the glossary for all questions relevant to Don's book.

The "wrong" is if you don't have the book. Suppose I ask "hey Bosox, did the Red Sox win last night?" And you reply SportsCenter is on ESPN from 9pm to 10pm.

Now, brother Bosox, this simple pimple thread is now at 242 posts. Isn't it obvious, players want to be spoon fed? BTW good to see Celtics look like a Boston team again. Dang Bruins shot a dagger in me in Montreal.

And you should know the answer to my trivia question. No, it's not fair to ask Don.

This is a pretty fair assesment of the annoyance I have for him, well done Moses!

Just maybe times are tough and Don needs to sell some books.

He's expressed that isn't the case.

Naw. His book revenue is a direct correlation to more shares in the What- a- Burger franchise.

Btw. There is a bright young man I met in September from NJ. He intended to take a two week vacation and bet the NFL along with a little blackjack. He is still here. Doing well and has the free room comp down to an art form. He has the east coast accent. So i ask him if he knew Norm or Don S. How can a blackjack player/sportsbettor from NJ never hear of you two guys?

Speaking of that Whataburger, I'm now hungry, thank you Moses.

The real issue about the Book quoting, is that Moo got his link taken down because Norm viewed it as "advertising", and Don is allowed to plug his book wherever, whenever.

Both are authors, both are self publicising their works, but with Moo's you don't have to "buy" his blog, with Don's you have to pay 99 cents for his book.

In Norm's defense, Moo does preach a "camp" of which several members here have gone to, and one could "say" that his end-goal is to get more people interested in it, that's fair. Ultimately, though, the problem is that Norm doesn't exactly do things unilaterally for all forum members, and because of Don's proclamation that he's involved with Norm on several business deals, one could easily say, and I will, that Norm has an interest in letting Don have special privelages on this forum, due to business or friendship. I don't begrudge Norm of doing that, I know I'd do the same. It is my duty, as a contributing forum member, however, to point that kind of behavior out.

Keeping in mind, I have no interest here in what Moo posts here or on his blog, I honestly don't think posting openly about what we do and giving "tips and tricks away" to the public is smart, but hey, that's me. I'm the young voice of this community who is far more concerned about longevity than the rest of you guys, and weary of the fact that the Casino has an obvious route towards getting rid of this, and this only becomes more prominent the more they read about us and how we act and behave, and what better place than a forum or blog for that?

I Digress.

If the blindfolded Don supporters want to tar and feather me, let them. I certainly can't compete with the geriatric crowd while slamming their idol about a game he knows nothing about anymore.

[Exoter175]

[crickets...]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mic Drop.

[stopgambling]

how much is one giving up by not true counting with Hi lo. I like the idea of unbalanced count . If i am not true counting i would like a level 3 U.B. count though.

It should read how much am i giving up using Ko vs true counted Hi lo after the 5deck mark in a 6deck game.

[BoSox]

Originally Posted by BoSox
Just maybe times are tough and Don needs to sell some books.
He's expressed that isn't the case.

I am well aware that Don's book sales profits are meaningless to him, it was all a bad joke on my part.


Pretty much everything in your above examples about Don S boils down to two different personalities and opinions on what supposed to take place on a General Blackjack Forum. How much sidetracking, and misdirection will be allowed, is really up to the moderator. Having someone on the board who tends to get right down to business, and always either gives the right answer, or steers the person where to find the answer is the best thing any serious board could hope for period. Who the fuck cares if someone does not like the personality of the person involved, give me the info brother. Do you think Don does not have the right to express frustration at times just like everyone else does? Personally, at times, I feel there is plenty enough justification for anyone to get upset and voice their opinion with the diversions of numerous threads. Here is the big question would the board be better off without Don Schlesinger? No Way, I am very glad he is around.

Keeping in mind, I have no interest here in what Moo posts here or on his blog, I honestly don't think posting openly about what we do and giving "tips and tricks away" to the public is smart, but hey, that's me.

I agree with you completely on this point.

[moses]

What I am hearing is most all would like to see shorter threads where question is ask and answered promptly. Not too many posts by one person and length of posts shortened. Robotic, if you will. I'm sure with today's technology it could be done. Question is should it be done?

Humor, drama, and bickering are all emotions that perhaps drive interest from us humanoids. Perhaps a break, If you will, from the actual game we play without emotion. I've always remembered 3 farmers would break for lunch everyday and watch a soap opera.

Do I want to read about A4 vs 4? O hell no. Did I read every word of Ex's diatribe? Twice. I cant even remember what the thread was about but i remember Frank's post about "call me Francis and I'll kill ya" and am still laughing.

As a moderator, I haven't a clue. In my early years of corporate ladder climbing, my boss and I would go to lunch almost everyday. I'd constantly be trying to solve personnel issues that seemed rather large, to me at the time. But my boss would listen and do nothing. Most times the solutions would work themselves out naturally and my boss was either lazy or a damn genius. He wasn't lazy. I figure Norm knows what he is doing.

[bejammin075]

Mic Drop.

I didn't see any reckless advice. Your personality clashes with his, that's all. I just wish the clashing could take place with more economy with words.

[ZeeBabar]

This long thread is a perfect example of how a simple OP is turned into a count discussion with a lot of BS. Obviously, there are many many cc'ers that are doing just fine using HiLo and not everyone has a huge bankroll. Those who have a huge BR made it huge using HiLO.

For folks who have not used HiLo in decades to come here and bash others who use a simple count is ridiculous. EX says Don S has not played in decades. I don't think T3 or Moses has played HiLo in decades either.

I find it it funny that they think new players should use a higher count. I find it funny that they think higher counts provide better camouflage. To me, HiLo is precisely why it's great. It takes about 0.2 seconds to count the table allowing plenty of time for your act. I can converse wthbPit, fellow players, watch the game on TV while playing and obviously be far less likely to be seen staring at or obviously doing mathematics in my head.

I wish Don S would get on the BS threads more often and insult some of these count pushers more often. Someone used an analogy of pro players. That's a bizarre one for someone like me who watches pro sports a ton. Michael Jordan might have been a player with great fundamentals but in today's games, there are a ton of players with poor fundamentals doing just fine, from Steph Curry to the Greek Freak. Tom Brady was selected in the 7th round because the scouts, thinking like T3, thought his were all wrong.

Every thread is an opportunity for some to lecture and show off here. Simply answer the damn OP and stop.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"I find it it funny that they think new players should use a higher count."

Funny? I try hard to avoid mocking you; but playing to our strengths,
instead of weaknesses, (in gambling and in life) is how one ought to live.

Your way does seem to focus on having low expectations to avoid defeat.

Could that have something to do with your rather episodic employment history;
and your (barely) profitable (recent) history swapping chips on the green baize ?

[BoSox]

As a moderator, I haven't a clue. In my early years of corporate ladder climbing, my boss and I would go to lunch almost everyday. I'd constantly be trying to solve personnel issues that seemed rather large, to me at the time. But my boss would listen and do nothing. Most times the solutions would work themselves out naturally and my boss was either lazy or a damn genius. He wasn't lazy. I figure Norm knows what he is doing.

Moses, did you work in the personal department?

[moses]

Zee. The list I provided was a trivia question answered by Ex. They were all Hall of Famers in their respective fields.

For the record, Moses never employed Hi Lo. Nor would he ever play six decks of cards dealt out of a shoe. He might travel specifically to stare at felt for a weekend but only if someone had a gun to his head. His compassion for inexperienced players is limited considering the viable resources that are available today.

Yes. This thread was answered in the first 25 Or 30 posts and has since run amuck (amok). What else is new? There are lots of things to fret over in this world. "This" should probably not be one of them.

[moses]

Moses, did you work in the personal department?

My phone often completes or changes words. I'm looking into a little box with readers on. So I post then go back and make changes.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"My phone often completes or changes words.
I'm looking into a little box with readers on.
So I post then go back and make changes."[/I]

How about your considering the purchase of a proper
cell phone ["smart phone"] e.g. iPhone 6s or 7 ?

[BoSox]

Funny? I try hard to avoid mocking you; but playing to our strengths,
instead of weaknesses, (in gambling and in life) is how one ought to live.

Your way does seem to focus on having low expectations to avoid defeat.

Low expectations, please, a lot depends upon not only game selection, what level of table stakes you play, and your skill in comportment. Speaking of comportment, I strongly believe there is only so much you can teach, and success or failure in this one very important area boils down to whether or not you are a natural because in actuality you can only learn correctly through experience of playing the game over a lifetime.

Could that have something to do with your rather episodic employment history;

Why are you getting personal ? Shame on you.

and your (barely) profitable (recent) history swapping chips on the green baize ?

Nothing more than a meaningless blip in fluctuation, and you know that.