Thanks for all your help....

LeonShuffle, Canceler and Ken Smith.
I simply read an article and asked for opinions from all you "knowledable" BJ players. What I got from you three open minded players was that I must be a real dope and don't I know that there are risks in playing. I am always interested in information that can be backed up by something other than, "This is the way you should do it".
Thanks again.

I assume you are referring to this thread.

I'll agree that my response to your question was far too short, but I knew I didn't have time yesterday to go through the bogus article you asked about point by point to respond. Instead, I gave you the summary: It's complete bunk.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to all its information today either, but I guess I'll at least start...

Mathematically, the card counting system has a minor influence today, if any. I showed in a previous post the only impact counting can have in a single deck game, Player against Dealer. A +2 count, generously translated into a 2% Player’s advantage results in a 0.01% better chance to get a blackjack (a “natural”). Such a chance increases, at best, from 4.77% to 4.78%.

Click to expand...

OK, I don't know what planet this guy is from, but this first "fact" he states is already seriously screwed up. Let's take a real look...
In single deck, off the top, your chance of being dealt a blackjack is:

(16/52) * (4/51) * 2 = 4.82% (That's 16 ten-cards, 4 Aces, in either order.)

The author of the article is already wrong, with his stated 4.77%.

Now, let's remove two small cards, to get a running count of +2, and figure how often you'll get a blackjack.

(16/50) * (4/49) * 2 = 5.22%

Removing the two small cards adds 0.40% to the chance we'll get a blackjack, not the aforementioned 0.01%. So, the author of this article who states "If there is a gambling system, I analyze it mathematically, first and foremost.", in the very first mathematical statement of his article has provided a number that is wrong 40-fold.

The author's thinking process doesn't get any better. I can't even make sense of his rambling about card sequences. Why choose 3 specific card sequences to examine here? Who knows.

His view on waiting until a counter is a loser before throwing him out is just as ridiculous. That's right, if all you casinos out there are listening... Just let me spread whatever I want, wait until I'm losing, and then throw me out. Yeah, I'll be kicked out a loser a lot of times, but just check my tax return at the end of the year and see the effect.

Back to your post tedloc... If I offended you by not taking the time to clarify why this article is not useful information, for that I apologize. It's just that in the gambling world, we see this kind of junk analysis all the time, and it just gets tedious and time-consuming to have to read through this dreck over and over again.

Many many thanks.

I really appreciate your response.