Jstatii

#81
1357111317 said:
6:30, You had a A,4 and the dealer showed a 2. You stood. You can say what you want about that but that immediatly disqualifies you from being an AP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMXQUAxSB5o


You are talking about my 6 deck video above. We took one take and I cringed when I saw that I stood on A,4vs2 on You Tube. I still won but you are right, it was stupid. I was the dealer, ploppies, wonger, and commentator at the same time. This multi-tasking caused this sloppy play, I apologize. The goal of the video was to teach the viewer to backcount and wong in at true counts of +1. It was successful at that. I still won $50 on that video.


JSTAT
 
#82
FLASH1296 said:
JSTAT,

You have a lengthy thread on BJ21.com re: purchasing Hi-Opt II

Here is what I posted there:

I purchased Hi-Opt II some years ago.

It is only a handful of (photocopied) pages stapled together.
It barely acknowledges anything but the Single Deck game.
Many of the indices are suspect, to put it mildly.
There is almost no discussion at all re: the use of the Ace Side Count for making playing ENHANCED playing decisions on most double downs and splits.

You have the tags. We all do. That is simple enough.
Just use "S.B.A." or "CVXC / CV Data" to sim' sets of Indices.
You will do better by far than following the old published data.

This is not too hard to understand.
Thanks my friend Flash for the answer on BJ21. My combinational analysis of the side counts of A,8,9 will have to do. I used subsets and a calculator to determine the EV's. Then I played thousands of hands at home to confirm my findings before I torched the casinos. I just wanted to know if Hi-Opt II by Lance Humble was going in the same direction that I did.

JSTAT
 
#83
standard toaster said:
You still havent answered the questions...

1. whats your betting ramp/structure

2. What are your indicies

3. How do you use the ace sidecount to your advantage?

4. Can you prove why hi-low is no good?

5. You did all the math so what is your ev ror and all that stuff
You still didnt answer! 9 times now
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#84
1357111317 said:
6:30, You had a A,4 and the dealer showed a 2. You stood. You can say what you want about that but that immediatly disqualifies you from being an AP.
standing on A4 vs 2 disqualifies you from being anything but an idiot!

also jstat, I'm not sure but I think standard toaster may have a question (or 5) for you. :laugh:
 

1357111317

Well-Known Member
#85
JSTAT said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMXQUAxSB5o


You are talking about my 6 deck video above. We took one take and I cringed when I saw that I stood on A,4vs2 on You Tube. I still won but you are right, it was stupid. I was the dealer, ploppies, wonger, and commentator at the same time. This multi-tasking caused this sloppy play, I apologize. The goal of the video was to teach the viewer to backcount and wong in at true counts of +1. It was successful at that. I still won $50 on that video.


JSTAT
If you have played as much blackjack as you said you have played you should be able to play basic strategy in your sleep. You shouldn't even have had to think about that play, it should be second nature.
 
#86
1357111317 said:
If you have played as much blackjack as you said you have played you should be able to play basic strategy in your sleep. You shouldn't even have had to think about that play, it should be second nature.
Oh wait! He may have indexes! at -4 if you have A,4 vs a 2. You stand! Obviously

he still hasent answerd my questions!
 

itrack

Well-Known Member
#87
JSTAT said:
I was the dealer, ploppies, wonger, and commentator at the same time. This multi-tasking caused this sloppy play, I apologize.


JSTAT


well thats only 3 extra things on top of wonging, and since you have 3 different things apparently that you side count, im guessing you always have sloppy play because it seems to me like the side counts might be harder than dealing cards
 

Deathclutch

Well-Known Member
#88
Bojack1 said:
I checked this one out before. It starts off with total inaccurate facts about the MIT team. There was more than one team by the way. And then you go on to flat bet your way through the shoe regardless of the count. Thats not a very effecient way of playing. And so what if you win $1500 flatbetting $1000 a hand for one shoe. If you think this is a testament to your system you are as funny as your videos. I won't be trying your count anytime soon, maybe you should let me teach you some methods for a few days and then see what you think about your count. I've come across a lot of "experts" like you over the years. Funny thing though, after playing with them, it seems it was all just a matter of interpretation.
I know this is an old thread, but if JSTAT didn't take Bojack up on this offer he should be kicking himself!
 
#90
JSTAT video

I watched (one) of the official JSTAT videos and was somewhat less than totally impressed to say the least. The oddities or discrepancies have already been talked about. One thing that is to be said about anyone pushing any "system" is that if a given system is so truly successful then why the heck are you blurting out your secrets to the public at large to blow your "cash cow" right out of the water?

At least that's the way I have always looked at it! In a conversation I was having with Flash once pertaining to exactly what I do and how I do it (which he is one of the few that understands the parameters of it), I talked of the difficulty in teaching my system (which is nothing more than a derivative of "the tried and proven" anyway that is catered to my mathematical perspective), the risk as far as being identified somehow and the main point which is "Why the heck am I going to do anything that could jeopardize myself with regard to this time-tested tried and proven thing that is currently effective that I have been working on for 20 plus years and take some chance that it could all be rendered obsolete". The "loose lips sinks ships" theory from WW2; Why does one make something available to just anyone and everyone that is your "secret edge", since this puts you at risk for making these "amazing secrets" no longer to your advantage? Arnold Snyder talks at length about people that advocate and push "systems" out there and how they make more selling their system than they make using it.

An interesting case in point is "Cipher" and his amazing Cipher system that I talked about at length in a few posts. This one I DID pick apart a bit but it was all so off the wall and ridiculous that I did it merely for amusement's sake. This was bona fide scam all the way and it didn't take an expert to figure that out.

If I dreamed up some whacky, stupid, simplistic thing and made a website about it, charged a fee, promised to make everyone that uses my amazing system millionaires, got some testimonials out there like on those infomercials where your average dumb Joe from Newark, NJ says, "It so easy an' it as simple as stumblin' out to da mailbox to put up da CHECK! There I was, jus' a dummie that only made barely enough to survive but NOW look at me--- I's got dis here mansion in Hawaii!" Russ Dalbey would be proud of me and I'm SURE I'd get some "takers" along the way. I am not saying JSTAT's system is total garbage, nor am I advocating it in any way because I haven't looked at it close enough but at a glance...

My question is not a matter of validity but a matter of WHY? Is it notariety? If your amazing system is so good, they why do you make it available to the general public (to include casino goons that troll these sites) and make it obsolete for YOU to make any money from it??? Hmmmm....
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#91
The problem I personally have with Jstat's claims and videos ect is 1.) that he has taken a system that already existed and slapped his name on it and somehow taken or tried to take responsibility for it, and 2.) that he continually claims the hi-lo system to be a fraudulant system that doesn't work, even having claimed the casinos may be responsible for the "hoax" as he calls it.
 
Top