Hit and run with oscars grind

Status
Not open for further replies.

ExhibitCAA

Well-Known Member
#61
A few more points

1. "Which I imagine is what you are seeing how you have bullied other people on here." Show me the posts where I have "bullied other people on here."

2. It is possible that chitown will avoid the inevitable train wreck by setting stop losses that are fairly small, so that he will go home before taking a catastrophic loss in one visit to the casino. This will not change the fact that his overall expectation is negative. By reducing his total action, however, it will reduce his total loss.

3. If he DOES play long enough to allow a single session to deliver a huge loss, I expect that this particular session will not be reported on the Web site. However, I believe chitown would then feel uncomfortable reporting subsequent winning sessions. The solution is that the trip reports would stop entirely if a big loss occurs, leading our voyeuristic community to wonder "What ever happened to chitown? Is he still playing?" Some would infer that chitown has stopped playing, but more likely, chitown will be driven underground, keeping his poor results private from then on. You see, there is never a happy ending. Progressionists always boast of their (short-term) wins, and then ultimately slink away when the losses mount. No progressionist ever shows up five years later with a mansion and a boat. If they show up five years later at all, it's with a mantra and a book.

4. Empirically, it appears highly unlikely that a progressionist can transform himself into a counter. I know of one success story, but that was a guy who had programming skills, simmed a progression (on roulette), saw that it was worthless, and quickly moved on.

5. The ideal outcome is that chitown starts to use his progression only in positive-expectation counts as dictated by Red 7, and finds that he wins more than he did previously. This starts to become "fun." After a while he discovers that he wins even more by choosing a bet solely determined by the Red 7 system, instead of the OG system. Eventually, he derives the most "fun" from using the straight Red 7 system. Further down the line, he feels that OG is "anti-fun." (Imagine the retraining in "A Clockwork Orange.") Even further down the line, he feels that JG is "anti-fun."
 

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
#62
One or more posts in this thread have run afoul of the prohibition on personal attacks. Warnings were issued as appropriate. Please discuss and disagree without resorting to personal attacks and name-calling. The thread will remain open as long as that happens.

Refer to the Posting Guidelines if you need a refresher course.
 
#63
ExhibitCAA said:
4. Empirically, it appears highly unlikely that a progressionist can transform himself into a counter. I know of one success story, but that was a guy who had programming skills, simmed a progression (on roulette), saw that it was worthless, and quickly moved on.
According to you. I know many people that started out using betting schemes and now use advantage play techniques. But saying as a statement of fact that someone who uses progressions cannot become a counter based on people you know is hardly "empirical". Just as my saying that people who use progressions can learn to count based on people I know is hardly empirical. The only thing keeping anyone from being a successful counter is the amount of effort and bankroll they are able and willing to devote to the enterprise. Nothing about using progressions indicates that someone lacks either determination or bankroll.

5. The ideal outcome is that chitown starts to use his progression only in positive-expectation counts as dictated by Red 7, and finds that he wins more than he did previously. This starts to become "fun." After a while he discovers that he wins even more by choosing a bet solely determined by the Red 7 system, instead of the OG system. Eventually, he derives the most "fun" from using the straight Red 7 system. Further down the line, he feels that OG is "anti-fun." (Imagine the retraining in "A Clockwork Orange.") Even further down the line, he feels that JG is "anti-fun."
Which is what I told him to do. To learn a good counting system and use that to determine his entry and exit points for his OG play. I figured if he did that then he could determine for himself which was more advantageous. If OG turned out to be a loser then he will figure it out and rely more on counting. Perhaps the combination of the two will work best. Betting more into advantageous counts while winning and betting less into all counts while losing seems to be where chi would end up at using both approaches.

But, he did say that he tried counting and it "did not work". I don't know if that was because of the counting system he uses, or he is not skilled enough at that counting system, or he does not have enough hands played so that his actual results are somewhere close to expected results. I'm guessing a combination of all three.
 

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#64
I've been seeing this term floating about a lot on the board recently.. not like an iceburg..but merely a tip...bobbing about...:laugh:

So here is the definition if anyone cares.... (Merriam Webster Online)

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

-db
 
#65
iCountNTrack said:
I cant believe a person who has been counting and tracking for 12 years and who is a statistician to have the slightest sympathy to any progression system. That is blasphemy :flame:,
Well, since I don't belong to the Church of Smart Aleck Know It Alls Who Beat Posters Up Because They Think They Know More Than Everyone Else, I don't think I have committed blasphemy. I told the guy to learn to count and I told him some characteristics of shoes that he needed to investigate to see if OG was a good idea. Not sure what was wrong with that advice. Let's see, I didn't tell him he was an idiot and I didn't trot out the trillions of hands over millions of years arguments, so I guess that is where I committed blasphemy. Give me a ****ing break.

I do have sympathy for someone who wants to discuss something and not be told he is an idiot because he isn't as smart as the experts on here.

For the way he is playing, he will only have good results if the shoes he is playing exhibit certain characteristics. Since those shoes are poorly shuffled perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. You can't say that they wont, I cannot say that they will. I believe the premise can be tested.

But, it is pretty obvious thas forum is all about conforming to the Church Of Know It All Smart Alecks and not actual discussion.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#66
daddybo said:
I've been seeing this term floating about a lot on the board recently.. not like an iceburg..but merely a tip...bobbing about...:laugh:

So here is the definition if anyone cares.... (Merriam Webster Online)

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

-db
You'll see a section on empirical evidence at http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html

Skip down a bit.
 
#67
ExhibitCAA said:
I know, because you are the type who likes to argue outside your areas of expertise ad nauseum. This has nothing to do with "I am smarter than you." I would not presume to tell you one thing about fixing cars, flying airplanes, repairing damaged arteries, defusing roadside IEDs, etc. But regarding gambling systems, I am willing to bet my entire bankroll that I AM more trained than you and the original poster. I am academically trained in the areas of math, computer science, and statistics, and currently MAKE A LIVING beating casino games, which I guarantee you and the original poster do not. This is not because I am smarter than you. It is because of the life path that I have chosen (think "Outliers"; think "10000+").
I can tell by the posts that you make that you have no real skills in math or computer science or statistics beyond perhaps using an excel spreadsheet form time to time or perhaps you use the cash register at McDonalds to add up the order at the drive through window. You just like to repeat mantras you have read elsewhere and call people names when they don't bow to your brilliance.

I will take your bet.
 

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#70
jimbob said:
Well, since I don't belong to the Church of Smart Aleck Know It Alls Who Beat Posters Up Because They Think They Know More Than Everyone Else, I don't think I have committed blasphemy. I told the guy to learn to count and I told him some characteristics of shoes that he needed to investigate to see if OG was a good idea. Not sure what was wrong with that advice. Let's see, I didn't tell him he was an idiot and I didn't trot out the trillions of hands over millions of years arguments, so I guess that is where I committed blasphemy. Give me a ****ing break.

I do have sympathy for someone who wants to discuss something and not be told he is an idiot because he isn't as smart as the experts on here.

For the way he is playing, he will only have good results if the shoes he is playing exhibit certain characteristics. Since those shoes are poorly shuffled perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. You can't say that they wont, I cannot say that they will. I believe the premise can be tested.

But, it is pretty obvious thas forum is all about conforming to the Church Of Know It All Smart Alecks and not actual discussion.
You still dont seem to get the point of running a billion hand simulation, it is not a practical purpose, it is an informational/theoretical purpose, given a set of rules, betting strategy, playing strategy, you will get the expectation value PER HAND.

If you are a statistician as you claim to be, it shouldnt be hard for you to understand that progression systems cannot and will never overcome a game with a negative expectation.


P.S: If i were you i would go learn the tags for a system i have been using for 12 years, because apparently you do not know them well yet.
 

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
#71
This and the other two threads with the Oscars Grind discussion have been closed. if anyone has non-inflammatory comments to make about Oscars Grind, open a new thread and we'll give it a fresh try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top