"Great Job Don S. What an excellent format to follow! Even more amazing is he did it without advanced technology like CV Data."
As you may know, I did it with a $4.99 calculator, a pencil, and lots of paper. :-)
Don
You really don't understand the game do you. People make accurate decisions all the time with many decks of cards left to be played on 15v3. The number of cards left doesn't even figure into the decision. The difference in impact on results for drawing a low card is measurable but minor.Originally Posted by moses
Don didn't make it the number one index play. It just is due to the frequency of occurrences (actually not very frequent) times the percentage of advantage times the bet size you will have out in a shoe rich enough in T's that you would insure. Don just did the work to assess the relative value of index plays.
Moses. You just don't get it. You have a great wealth of knowledge in a tiny very specific area of playing BJ. Namely Reno SD. When you try to extrapolate that out beyond Reno SD you just make really dumb comments. Many just let them slide but after letting them slide enough you start to worry about the newbies that don't know you don't have a clue beyond the 26th card dealt or whatever your dream pen is in SD. Expect people to point this out when you speak erroneously beyond your very narrow expertise. Those that regularly play shoe games wouldn't play the game you play because it is a poor game. They do regularly all the stuff you tell them never to do and get no heat from it. They win regularly making accurate decisions based on the information whatever count they use gathers.
Yet you regularly make stupid comments based on your ignorance of the better game they choose to attack and the wealth of knowledge you have on a game they would not play because it is not worth their time. Just stop doing this because it makes you look bad and makes people feel compelled to correct you. Wong halves never beats Hiopt2/ASC except in very rare conditions for a computer. That said the difference between the two isn't much so why even mention it. What is the best count is a very personal decision and is based on so much more than just what a computer plays best. Sims are just a starting point. So much more needs to be considered.
I am not going to play this game with you Moses. In my post, which is now post #57, I quoted a portion of your post where you talked about not being to make accurate decisions with more than a partial deck left to play. Now the quoted post is gone. Anyone that cares to check can see that the quote is there and the post is gone. Then after you delete your post and change history you say, where did I post about SD in this thread? Well you know it was in the post you deleted that was the start of this.
Nice try again. Your post said nothing about how much 15v3 is worth. As can be seen in the quote that survives in post #57, it talked about the accuracy of playing a 15v3 decision with 36 to 42 unplayed cards. That is what everyone was having issue with. Now you delete your post and try to act like it was about the value of of the play of 15v3. Nice try but it proves that you are doing a ridiculous cover up rather than admitting you goofed. Then you follow it up with attacks on the person which everyone knows is the tactic a person takes that can't argue their side of an issue using facts. Trying to do things like this undermines your credibility. Next time you try to change your history in order to mislead readers check to see if your post was quoted first. Now I wish I quoted the whole post but I never thought anyone would be so childish as to resort to erasing their post and act like it was never posted.
Your post was immediately before my post #... Well I see my post is now #56 so another post was deleted by someone. How childish. LoL
Semantics strike again:
Rather than getting long-winded, I employed
the over-used modern term "virtual" A poor
choice of words. To be more clear ~ that is
because of the lowered importance of P.E.
and I.C. [relative to B.C.] to Wong Halves.
in a shoe game with an aggressive spread the
actual difference in Win Rate will be minor.
The Hi-Opt II player will earn more, with less
risk, by employing a safer narrower spread.
I could but that was not what was being discussed. You deleted your post and then tried to change the discussion. Your post that shows what the original discussion was about is still partially quoted. I am not taking the bait to change the subject.
This is closer to what your post was about. But what you said was you don't see how anyone can make accurate decisions with more than a small number of unseen cards. When everyone on this site regularly does that. I guess that is why you deleted your posts.
Actually what makes the difference between the two isn't just the number of cards left. It is the fact that there will be more than 1 card drawn when resolving the issue. If you had the same percentage with a half deck of cards and four deck left the odds of drawing the same card would be the same but the effect on the second draw of drawing that first card would be different on the remaining pack. If you have a bag 0f 7 white marbles and 35 black marbles and another bag with 70 white marbles and 350 black marbles the odds of drawing a white marble would be the same for each bag. But the odds of drawing a white marble after a marble has been removed is not the same. The other factor is that if you play a SD game there are at most 4 of each rank left but if you start with more decks the remaining cards have that 4 times the number of decks as the most possible left for any rank. Now what you said is a set of things that do overlap with this it also has a part of the set that does not. That part is when only 1 card will be removed. There is no difference in the odds of drawing any rank with more or less cards if the ranks' percentages are the same in both cases.
A more accurate statement is: Then Moses made some ridiculous comments that were very wrong and someone tried to correct him. Then rather than admitting his mistake he deletes the post, tries to change the subject and goes into attack mode. Very childish behavior. An adult admits when he/she is wrong and debates the topic rather than attack the person they are debating. The latter is the tactic of someone that can't defend their position. The site's history is replete with banned former members that took the tactic of attacking posters rather than their ideas.
That would make sense if you stopped posting in this thread. But you didn't. And Norm told to never answer any post you make no matter how wrong the post is because the way you react to correction is disruptive to the forum. I should have listened to him. He obviously knew what he was talking about. You rewrite history and make up a bunch of lies before admitting you were wrong. It must be lonely in a reality were you are the only one there. Everyone sees right through your BS Moses. You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.
I am not the one deleting posts because I have posted too many posts in a thread already and then posting another dozen posts. I guess you should have thought that lame defense through better. We all know why you deleted your post.
You are entitled to your opinion. I can tell from my correspondences that it is quite a minority opinion. I don't care if everyone thinks that. It is better for me that way. I was simply warning you that the path your are on goes to suspensions, which you have already had, and then a banning. The smart ones have headed my warnings and still can post when they want. the dumb ones thought I wary to influence Norm and just kept doing it. They are pretty much all banned now. The question is are you one of the smart ones or not. I am done with this. It is just stupid to have a discussion with someone like you just like I was told.
Halves?Not just yet Mr. Freightman. I'd like to hear your point of view on what Wong Halves has done for your game. To listen to Mista blue ink and T3 it must be pretty doggone shitty. Correct?
.
Makes me a bad man.
Watch to the end, only a minute 24 seconds.
https://youtu.be/BY6_3Y7OOo8
Not long ago people pointed out I was posting a lot because I had 14222 posts. If you don't think I am not deleting posts see Bosox post #215:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...492#post231492
Who has anything even close to 14,222 posts. Well that used to be me. Now I have 13,052. That is That is over 1,171 posts with sensitive info or about my count or deleted in the carpet bombing since I have continued to post and delete at the same time. Everything you have been posting is easily proven false by the forum itself for anyone that wants to take the time to investigate. You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Now why don't you show everyone how smart you are and STFU. I will continue to PROVE you wrong at each turn, as I have thru this entire exchange. I really don't want to continue this but you make yourself such an easy target by making up the dumbest and easily disproven BS.
I am trying to be polite as that is what we do here. There are any number of horrible derogatoriness that would fit so if you want just pick one yourself. Childish fits perfectly but so does a lot that I shouldn't use here. Just tell me why you believe I can't make an accurate decision on 15v3 with more than 52 cards. that is what this is all about. You made that statement and when confronted you deleted it and made up the most transparent lie you could make for why you did it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks