Giving it a rest

aslan

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
They may be religious, in the sense that they put a lot of devotion into what they do, but what exactly are they practicing? Last weekend on the Boardwalk the May 21st people were running around with their signs telling me I have only 3 weeks. They put a lot of devotion into what they do too, which makes them very religious, it's just not any religion I can identify.

There's a nice backcounting system I came up with designed especially for high volume shoe games like you'd find on the Boardwalk. It's like KO except you count the 5 as +2 and the 7 as 0, as I think those system tags work a little better when you are only playing in high counts. I might have time to draw it up and post it here tonight.
On Hasidim, my Jewish wife perceives nothing negative about this particular stream of Jewish Orthodoxy. In her upbringing, they were considered orthodox in the best sense of the word, and admired by members of her family as being more devout/religious that the average Jew.

On the new counting system for shoe games, I am anxious to learn all about it.
 
Last edited:

Syph

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Whoaa! That is a skewed statistic, Mr. Twain.
Your 99% of "counters" ain't "counters" - they are ploppies who "tried counting."
"Real counters", like the core membership here and at BJ21, etc., are in the majority, like Charlie Sheen, WINNING!
Well, I just checked your 2010 BJ poll:

83 members broke even, or made money. Of those, only 33 made over $5K for the whole year.

You have 7,250 members.

:shrug:

Best,
Syph
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
Syph said:
Well, I just checked your 2010 BJ poll:

83 members broke even, or made money. Of those, only 33 made over $5K for the whole year.

You have 7,250 members.

:shrug:

Best,
Syph
Hey, Syph

My perception is that only a very small percentage of that 7,250 are active members. But it doesn't matter anyway. In a survey you can only use those who actually participated in the survey.

You can't presume that all who did not complete the survey are losers. Many of them do not even claim to be APs. Some are BS players and some are progression players. Some are craps players, who still like to hang here. Some, maybe the majority, don't come here anymore. Some have several identities on the Forum. In fact, I doubt there are 500 active members on the Forum, but Ken should know.

Of those surveyed, a whopping 83 of 101 made money. That's an 82% success rate!

Of those who reported losses, some of them may not have reached the long run yet. For a recreational player, the long run does not have to occur within a year's time frame. It doesn't have to for a pro player either, although I assume it does over the course of a year, or a 1,000 hours (but I could be wrong). Also, the beginning of a long run does not coincide with the beginning of the year, so it's hard to say whether even someone reporting a loss is really a "loser" for purposes of making pronouncements about the success rate for counters. That applies to winners as well; they may be long run losers who have had a winning streak, which made their game "look" good, at least, for the current year.

For those who keep records, lifetime wins/losses might be a better gauge, if you could be sure members would not lie.

All that being said, I agree that the majority of blackjack players with some actionable knowledge of counting systems and basic strategy do not go the distance to becoming competent players. But of those who stay here on the Forum, I believe the majority are in the winning category, unless they are so undisciplined and pigheaded that they refuse to acknowledge the correctness of the principles espoused here. Just staying here on the Forum has got to improve a player's game. It's many of the ones who come and go who are the losers. They learn a little, but not enough, and leave believing they can play a winning game.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
Syph said:
Hey Aslan,

Sorry for the delays.



The Red Pill

Best,
Syph
[Responding to the red pill] Not only poker, life in general.

Thanks for clarifying what I already knew deep inside, but was trying my best to circumvent. Fortunately, I have this deep seated need to win at whatever I do, so what you say does resonate. I can only thank you for taking the trouble to respond. It's easy for someone who is "dabbling" in card counting to get off on this tangent and that, and finally end up missing the boat entirely. I don't play a lot of hours, but when I do you can be sure I will have but one objective and nothing will distract me from that end.

PS-- Your red pill analogy is nothing short of genius, at least, for an avid Matrix fan like myself.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
I'd like to thank all those who commented on some of my recent posts and helped me to get my thinking straight on some very basic principles.
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
I'd like to thank all those who commented on some of my recent posts and helped me to get my thinking straight on some very basic principles.
To me, I think your problem lies on improper bet size. There are good threads about spread in the forum. You need to follow the guideline closely.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
BJgenius007 said:
To me, I think your problem lies on improper bet size. There are good threads about spread in the forum. You need to follow the guideline closely.
My rule of thumb for shoe games is a 10 to 1 betting spread. That is recommended by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs, originators of the KO counting system, which I use. If I am playing a $10 min game I may spread higher, but in a $25 min game, my max bet is normally $250 or two hands of $200.
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
My rule of thumb for shoe games is a 10 to 1 betting spread. That is recommended by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs, originators of the KO counting system, which I use. If I am playing a $10 min game I may spread higher, but in a $25 min game, my max bet is normally $250 or two hands of $200.
When these authors said 10 to 1 spread, they really mean 10 to 1 spread on pitch games aka SD and DD. In their minds, they hardly think they would play 6D or 8D that have much slower return.

More careful authors DO specifically wrote that you SHOULD spread 8 to 1 on DD and 16 to 1 on shoe games.

From my experience, I have decided 16 to 1 spread is a must for +ev on shoe game. Actually 20 to 1 is better. (Not only that, my other conclusion is that you have to bet 9 units when TC reaches +2.5.) I have tried to play 10 to 1 spread on computer to see if I can have +ev game after lowering spread. (Wouldn't it be nice because there will be no heat at any casino, spreading only 10 to 1 on shoe game?) My simulation said no.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
BJgenius007 said:
When these authors said 10 to 1 spread, they really mean 10 to 1 spread on pitch games aka SD and DD. In their minds, they hardly think they would play 6D or 8D that have much slower return.

More careful authors DO specifically wrote that you SHOULD spread 8 to 1 on DD and 16 to 1 on shoe games.

From my experience, I have decided 16 to 1 spread is a must for +ev on shoe game. Actually 20 to 1 is better. (Not only that, my other conclusion is that you have to bet 9 units when TC reaches +2.5.) I have tried to play 10 to 1 spread on computer to see if I can have +ev game after lowering spread. (Wouldn't it be nice because there will be no heat at any casino, spreading only 10 to 1 on shoe game?) My simulation said no.
This is simply not true. Vancura and Fuchs are very specific when they recommend 10 to 1 for shoe games (6 and 8 deck) and 5 to 1 for pitch games (SD and DD). I have found their recommendations to be quite high enough. Many players do not mind playing with a 20% or 30% RoR, but I am not one of them. I might use 20 to 1 on a $10 min bet game, but my bankroll will not sustain 20 to 1 on a $25 game.

On your comments about 16 to 1 and 20 to 1, you will find that 100 to 1 and 1,000 to 1 are even better, but you must have a tremendous bankroll to sustain these bets. It is not a matter of what is "better," it is a matter of what your bankroll can stand above minimum requirements.
 
Last edited:

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
This is simply not true. Vancura and Fuchs are very specific when they recommend 10 to 1 for shoe games (6 and 8 deck) and 5 to 1 for pitch games (SD and DD). I have found their recommendations to be quite high enough. Many players do not mind playing with a 20% or 30% RoR, but I am not one of them. I might use 20 to 1 on a $10 min bet game, but my bankroll will not sustain 20 to 1 on a $25 game.

On your comments about 16 to 1 and 20 to 1, you will find that 100 to 1 and 1,000 to 1 are even better, but you must have a tremendous bankroll to sustain these bets. It is not a matter of what is "better," it is a matter of what your bankroll can stand above minimum requirements.
I know you are strong minded (like me). But I really like you give a try for just one day. This is what doc BJGenius007 ordered:

Find a $5 minimal table and for that day, play it all, don't do any cover and bet strictly using true count:

TC Bet Size
Neg $5
0 $5
+1 $10
+2 $30
+3 $45
+4 $60
+5 $80

It will be an eye opener for you. I promise. The right spread can correct even minor playing flaws.
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
BJgenius007 said:
I know you are strong minded (like me). But I really like you give a try for just one day. This is what doc BJGenius007 ordered:

Find a $5 minimal table and for that day, play it all, don't do any cover and bet strictly using true count:

TC Bet Size
Neg $5
0 $5
+1 $10
+2 $30
+3 $45
+4 $60
+5 $80

It will be an eye opener for you. I promise. The right spread can correct even minor playing flaws.
"Correct" is not the right word. I should say "conquer".
 
Top