lol, almost anything goes here i guess

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

....

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.

thank you! that point stikes exactly (as possible lol) at the heart of the matter. significant numbers just don't exist beyond the accuracy of our measurements. tying to force that issue might lead us astray even further than we already are lol. you just can't obtain a measurement of greater accuracy than your measuring instrument can provide. point being that in any situation that one is evaluating there comes a point when it's time to make a decision as further efforts to evaluate are simply going to be made in vain.
but here is what gets me about orthodox counting. if you play all then over fifty percent of your counting effort extended is stress and effort on the counter that is performed in vain. if you play either wonging out or wonging in your effort is better than fifty percent but really not much better and you now get into the wasted time issue along with irritations that wonging entails. that's all just to get EV not money. you still need even more time and effort before the money comes if it comes and you don't tap out. i wont even dredge up the realities that lousey conditions represent in my complaint.
think about this. there are people deriding those who make mistakes and try and reduce work loads threw enginutiy and yet by their very methods they willing accept usurpious amounts of intrinsic mistakes and wasted effort.
so dumb and i guess lazy as i am the only solution i can come up with when facing this conumdrum is taking the option of using my brain lol..... scary huh?

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

but here is what gets me about orthodox counting...

Hey O Wise Frog.

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Hey O Wise Frog.

oh, oh it's the enigma again lol
question.......
does the term forty-niner mean anything to you?

Originally Posted by Kasi

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

yeah, i guess you are. come to think of it i guess being a fuzzy counter makes one a fuzzy better. lol

Originally Posted by Kasi

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

so i'm curious as to why you take that tact after putting forth the time and effort to dilligently count. is it that you are trying to use reasoning in the hope of improving your odds? or maybe trying to make your risk to reward decisions in real time. or some other reason?

Originally Posted by Kasi

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.

well good, hopefully your recent Vegas excursion went well.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

oh, oh it's the enigma again lol
question.......
does the term forty-niner mean anything to you?

yeah, i guess you are. come to think of it i guess being a fuzzy counter makes one a fuzzy better. lol

so i'm curious as to why you take that tact after putting forth the time and effort to dilligently count. is it that you are trying to use reasoning in the hope of improving your odds? or maybe trying to make your risk to reward decisions in real time. or some other reason?


well good, hopefully your recent Vegas excursion went well.

As is too So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. often the case, I read this stuff the next day and don't really know what my point was lol.

Maybe it was, given all the grief you sometimes seem to get for your "fuzzy counting", I'm maybe even more irresponsible than you in that maybe more often I bet in ways not typically recommended even though I think I have an idea of I actually think my bet should be.

Of course I don't have any sims so it's just a big guessing game anyway. And, if I did, it wouldn't be programmable anyway.

Of course when you are playing DD, a "fuzzy count" is almost as good as a real count since it doesn't last too long til the next shuffle anyway which is what I played more of last trip. So I guess I just do it (count) because I like to, make a few index plays maybe, use a combination of voo-doo betting systems with a general idea of how often they'll win what, make some "big" bets when I feel like it (usually only when it's positive) with some idea of the consequences to my bankroll.

Maybe sit out a few negatives here and there and if I lose the count I just bet min til next shoe.

I'm betting small, most of the time, don't play enough to worry about N0 and all that, making that expected $20 - $50 / hr 50-100 hours a year isn't gonna change my life anyway even if I do.

So I guess I have fun betting in a "non-system" way, since I don't do the same thing at the same counts.

Much, perhaps, in the same way I perceive you having fun with your "non-system" way of doing things.

So, big deal, I win $800 in 40 hours of play playing 3 different games, betting $3-$100 at various times over 6 days. Never needed more than $400 total buy-in for a session, got $5K in my pocket. Whatever that means.

So, basically, I never know to what degree any wins are attributable to luck or not. I make guesses but I don't really know.

Although I always have the nagging feeling it's more luck than science lol.

OK - what's forty-niner supposed to mean lol? Is that where they went looking for gold but it was all gone lol?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Kasi

..........
Although I always have the nagging feeling it's more luck than science lol.

OK - what's forty-niner supposed to mean lol? Is that where they went looking for gold but it was all gone lol?

i appreciate the update of how you go about your play. i was especially curious about that because i can tell that you have an excellent understanding of the game. i figure that you would be playing in an insightful manner even if your betting is not entirely orthox. thats interesting to me as that is sort of what i'm trying to do.
lol, the forty-niner thing was just a dumb question, for some reason from one of your posts i got the idea you were born in forty nine, 1949 that is not 1849 lol. but since i was born then and have been told i was a forty-niner i was just wondering. i know that's dumb but something just made me ask and lol i never thought the term had any sort of definition so for many years i've just wondered about the term. but yeah gold rushers i guess thats what it means.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

ilol, the forty-niner thing was just a dumb question,

Not at all lol. Glad I asked.

The more so since it's nice to know somebody around here is older than I am, even if only by as many as 17 months or as few as 5! lol.

As you know, it happens less and less often

And with age comes wisdom, we like to think, so I defer to your wisdom, Wise Frog lol.

Anyway, whatever is I do with whatever spread I use based on God knows what, and with what bankroll at the time, I've already pretty much proved to myself it's quite possible to overcome a HA for a very very longtime, at least what I consider to be a very long time, even with no card counting and even when every hand is played when the house is favored.

Would most card counters be happy with winning over 100% of their average bet every hour for 1900 hours under most games of the games they play and most of the bet spreads they use, whether play-all or back-counting, all the while playing with an overall +EV? I think they'd have to send their pants out to the cleaners if they made more than their average bet every 100 hands for 1900 hours. Or just buy a new pair because they sure could afford it lol.

As I've said before, I've done that with no card counting and without playing a single hand with an advantage.

Such results are dismissed as voo-doo, which in fact they probably are, ok they are, yet, using any conventional measure of N0, etc would liklely be deemed successful, and then some, had they occurred as a result of card counting. Apparently it's easier for some to believe I'm 1 in a million lucky than it is to believe just how long applying the likllihood of certain "voo-doo" systems of winning some units betting a certain way with a certain bankroll may actually last.

In fairness I spread more, maybe a lot more absolutely, but probably spread less more often and don't have an accurate number how that relates to avg bankroll per session. So it's possible they are making a better use of their bankroll. Also my ending average bet might be more like 5-6 times min bet compared to their average of say 2 or so I'd guess. But, then again, it's a situation where my best bet is to not play at all.

So, when I card count, I pretty much do the same betting thing except it's even nicer knowing when a slight advantage occurs. And, it seems so far, a little easier to make a little money.

So, "fuzzy counting" or not, I see no reason why you couldn't win regularly for a very long period of time.

[moo321]

Such is the essence of voodoo...

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Kasi

.......Of course when you are playing DD, a "fuzzy count" is almost as good as a real count since it doesn't last too long til the next shuffle anyway which is what I played more of last trip. ....

yes thats what i would expect since what ever inaccuracy that might be creeping in ends with the shuffle. that idea is part of my rational for using a fuzzy count in the six and eight deck games that i normally encounter. the tables are normally so crowded that even with fairly decent penetration there just aren't that many rounds before the shuffle. not the best conditions to play under but such is life.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

you just can't obtain a measurement of greater accuracy than your measuring instrument can provide.

That’s exactly right. Orthodox counting systems are technically just a “less fuzzy” way of estimating your advantage. But, sometimes fuzziness has its price.

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

if you play either wonging out or wonging in your effort is better than fifty percent but really not much better and you now get into the wasted time issue along with irritations that wonging entails.

That’s exactly the issue: wasted time and energy. There’s no doubt that Wonging takes more effort than sitting and playing through all the hands. But is all that standing and walking around really just wasted time and energy? Not in my opinion. The time spent standing is time that’s not being spent losing money. The time spent looking for a better game is time that will come off the “back end” of my career. If I sit and play all, I might earn a few dollar per hour and it might take 600 hours of play to approach my long-run results (I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air). But if I am backcounting I might earn much more per hour and shave 200 hours off of my long-run index. The time that I “wasted” walking around has earned me a “free” 200-hour vacation and some extra spending cash when I get there!

I think of fuzzy-er counting the same way. Using an orthodox system will save me both time and money in the long run. It is more difficult and will require more effort, but some people will find it worth the effort. Others will not. It all depends on what your goals are. Different people will require different systems to achieve their goals. Some will have more success with fuzzy counting, others will have the best results using a (oh man, am I really going to say this?) progression system.

But you didn't hear that from me...

-Sonny-

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Sonny

That’s exactly right. Orthodox counting systems are technically just a “less fuzzy” way of estimating your advantage. But, sometimes fuzziness has its price.

thank you for clarifying that. i agree that the potential for realizing the fruits of advantage play is greater for the orthodox method than the fuzzy method.
you give up accuracy of betting knowledge for ease of play. that represents greater risk and more uncertainty about expected yield. greater risk in just about any endeavour can translate into greater reward and unfortunately greater pain if things don't go well. the fuzzy approach allows for two things that the orthdox approach doesn't. those being ease of application and the freedom to make decisions (ie. think). the question being in such an approach is there any value in being able to take thoughtful actions? i should imagine that knowledge and experience might translate into thoughtful actions that might improve the picture. imagine me doing the fuzzy approach as opposed to a inexperienced ploppy. or better yet imagine me using the fuzzy approach up against you. with your insight, understanding and native intelligence i'm sure your results would beat mine into the ground lol.

Originally Posted by Sonny

That’s exactly the issue: wasted time and energy. There’s no doubt that Wonging takes more effort than sitting and playing through all the hands. But is all that standing and walking around really just wasted time and energy? Not in my opinion. The time spent standing is time that’s not being spent losing money. The time spent looking for a better game is time that will come off the “back end” of my career. If I sit and play all, I might earn a few dollar per hour and it might take 600 hours of play to approach my long-run results (I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air). But if I am backcounting I might earn much more per hour and shave 200 hours off of my long-run index. The time that I “wasted” walking around has earned me a “free” 200-hour vacation and some extra spending cash when I get there!

I think of fuzzy-er counting the same way. Using an orthodox system will save me both time and money in the long run. It is more difficult and will require more effort, but some people will find it worth the effort. Others will not. It all depends on what your goals are. Different people will require different systems to achieve their goals. Some will have more success with fuzzy counting, others will have the best results using a (oh man, am I really going to say this?) progression system.

But you didn't hear that from me...

-Sonny-

i didn't mean to cast any doubts as to the value of wonging. it's just that in my case it really does have it's limitations. most of my future play is likely to be in about four casino's. i believe if you evaluated these casino's with respect to the idea of frequent play, number of tables, table layout, crowding and the table minimums available that you'd come to the same conclusion i did. but i do understand your comparison of time, effort and reward afforded by wonging and the idea that time, effort and reward for orthodox vs fuzzy affords different potential.
and i do think your point about goals and chosen methods is an important one. anyone trying to apply advantage play (irrespective of method) is going to spend a fairly significant amount of time at it. considering that comfort and satisfaction with the process becomes an issue, especially for the recreational player looking to reap some benjamins. as a retired guy who has always had and always will have a lot of respect for the virtue of hard work i've got to say that there is also a lot of virtue in the idea of working smarter not harder.