How do you beat a 6-deck game?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
MAZ said:
You really aren't that bright are you. You claim to understand quantitive properties yet you at the same time use ploppy logic. So you're giving the example of getting a high count but you get bad cards and the dealer gets the good ones, aww too friggin bad. Thats like saying every time I double my 11 against a 6 today I lose so I'll stop doing it. Do it right enough times an it will work out, thats what math implies. If you want to use math as your point it can't be a contradictory one. And you can't depend on mistakes canceling out all the time as many times they are habits that are tendencies that are also quantitive. If you don't have a control over your practice environment and learn how to play correctly you would not be able to recognize this, least of all correct it. Oh yeah, I agree MIT was a hoax. That makes your point of view on everything seem so much more valid. I mean you must be an expert, look at how many posts you have. Who needs to really play when you can spend so many more hours spreading your vast knowledge about it online. Better yet learn to holecard and forget counting altogether.
Now that wasn't very nice.

Actually I never said any of those things (including the MIT team being a hoax. Anyone can claim to have been on an MIT team, or any team, or any level of experience or skill and there is no way to verify.) Nor did I ever say you should make mistakes, nor that they will always cancel out, nor that one should worry about results and take empirical evidence over theory.

The point is that the count itself has only a very small effect on whether or not we win the next hand (which is ultimately what we care about) and this is why we lose so often in high counts, almost as often as in low counts. And no matter what count we use, there are a ton of things we are ignoring that we don't make up for by counting more accurately, nor that we contribute to, significantly, by missing a few cards per shoe.

People who actually attended MIT as students know better than to try to add decimal places to measurements beyond the intrinsic accuracy of those measurements. It's a sure sign of a scientific ignoramus to do so.
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#82
This thread is closed

Alright, nine pages of this argument is enough. I think we’ve all expressed our positions quite clearly and there really isn’t going to be any movement in this discussion. Although we have different opinions of how costly mistakes can be, I think we all agree that they should be avoided whenever possible. Obviously accuracy is important to all of us (to varying degrees). There is no reason to argue about something that we all agree is detrimental.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread. Despite some personal differences and some obvious frustration, the posts were well-organized and constructive. Thanks to everyone for their effort. This thread is now closed.

-Sonny-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top