Are AP`s just advanced ploppies?
- Thread starter tezzadiver
- Start date
I thought the generally accepted definition of a "ploppie" is a player who believes:
1) Joining and leaving a game in progress disrupts the "sacred flow" of the cards.
2) Third base messed up and took the dealer's "bust card".
3) You should never hit A7 because 18 is a winning hand.
4) Always take even money because you can't lose.
5) Someone at the table MUST HIT, or the dealer won't bust.
6) (Others I didn't mention)
I do not engage in these practices AND I am not a card counter or AP. Are you saying I am a ploppie, too?
Last edited:
This is pretty uncharted territory, but my guess is that it depends on which tags your system counts.
So for HiLo, at +12, it might mean a certain distribution of 2-6 and 10-A, which happens to coincide with the dealer busting a certain % of the time. Yet if you used RPC, that extremely high count could mean a certain distribution of 3-6, with a lot of 10's left, and it might coincide with the dealer getting less 21's from her 16.
My point is, with counts that high the distribution of remaining cards will be pretty accurate in describing which cards come out next. And a TC of +12 versus +13 might not be very different in if the dealer will bust, but when you get to +14, it means that there are almost surely more 6's, which means the dealer will be busting on 16 more (just one for example). The changes between counts will be more noticeable with the high counts, as they are more accurate in "knowing" the remaining cards.
If you notice, it is pretty linear between +2 and +8.
These are just my humble opinions, and I could be way off.
Also, if the mods want to break off this discussion from the "Are AP's just advanced ploppies" topic, I wouldn't be opposed to that.
So for HiLo, at +12, it might mean a certain distribution of 2-6 and 10-A, which happens to coincide with the dealer busting a certain % of the time. Yet if you used RPC, that extremely high count could mean a certain distribution of 3-6, with a lot of 10's left, and it might coincide with the dealer getting less 21's from her 16.
My point is, with counts that high the distribution of remaining cards will be pretty accurate in describing which cards come out next. And a TC of +12 versus +13 might not be very different in if the dealer will bust, but when you get to +14, it means that there are almost surely more 6's, which means the dealer will be busting on 16 more (just one for example). The changes between counts will be more noticeable with the high counts, as they are more accurate in "knowing" the remaining cards.
If you notice, it is pretty linear between +2 and +8.
These are just my humble opinions, and I could be way off.
Also, if the mods want to break off this discussion from the "Are AP's just advanced ploppies" topic, I wouldn't be opposed to that.
I don't know, maybe I am one too.
1. I try to keep the "flow of the cards" by asking someone to not join in (note: the count is very positive here) or asking them to "mess with the flow" (note: the count is negative here).
2. I took the dealer's bust card, damn (note: it was an index call which didn't work)
3. I'm not hitting my A7 versus that 2 (note: the count is negative)
4. I take even money (note: TC>=+3)
5. I hit my 14 versus that 2 (note: that was the correct index play)
Man, I guess sometimes I look like a ploppy too. Nice cover, eh??
1. I try to keep the "flow of the cards" by asking someone to not join in (note: the count is very positive here) or asking them to "mess with the flow" (note: the count is negative here).
2. I took the dealer's bust card, damn (note: it was an index call which didn't work)
3. I'm not hitting my A7 versus that 2 (note: the count is negative)
4. I take even money (note: TC>=+3)
5. I hit my 14 versus that 2 (note: that was the correct index play)
Man, I guess sometimes I look like a ploppy too. Nice cover, eh??
So I am not a TOTAL idiot, just a partial idiot? Some of those total idiots may be AP's in disguise, says paddywhack.
Even AP's sometimes are losing players. Therefore, by your statement, even AP's can be ploppies at times. (Maybe the point of this thread!)
Actually, according to BJ21.com, "Ploppy" is a term coined by Frank Scoblete to describe the typical uninformed gambler. OK, I am an "IP". (informed ploppie)!
Even AP's sometimes are losing players. Therefore, by your statement, even AP's can be ploppies at times. (Maybe the point of this thread!)
Actually, according to BJ21.com, "Ploppy" is a term coined by Frank Scoblete to describe the typical uninformed gambler. OK, I am an "IP". (informed ploppie)!
Last edited:
Here's my flow chart to figure this out...
Do you play games that have uncertain impact on your wealth? No -> 1, Yes -> 2
1. You are not a gambler. (You probably are a gambler but don't realize, eg: do you invest in the stock market? Take out insurance? Keep driving when dissatisfied with the price of gas at a gas station? etc)
2. You are a gambler. Do you play with an edge (counting comps, etc)? No -> 3, Yes -> 4
3. You are a ploppy.
4. You are an AP. Do you gamble with a risk of ruin that you have calculated, considered, and is appropriate for your situation and that of your dependents? No -> 5, Yes -> 6
5. You are an AP but also a risk loving lunatic.
6. Would you be able to stop gambling if you went on a losing streak and it got to that point that it had the potential to materially impact you or your dependents? Yes -> 7, No -> 8
7. You are an AP with solid BR management.
8. You are an AP but you need to be betting a lower fraction of Kelly bets.
Do you play games that have uncertain impact on your wealth? No -> 1, Yes -> 2
1. You are not a gambler. (You probably are a gambler but don't realize, eg: do you invest in the stock market? Take out insurance? Keep driving when dissatisfied with the price of gas at a gas station? etc)
2. You are a gambler. Do you play with an edge (counting comps, etc)? No -> 3, Yes -> 4
3. You are a ploppy.
4. You are an AP. Do you gamble with a risk of ruin that you have calculated, considered, and is appropriate for your situation and that of your dependents? No -> 5, Yes -> 6
5. You are an AP but also a risk loving lunatic.
6. Would you be able to stop gambling if you went on a losing streak and it got to that point that it had the potential to materially impact you or your dependents? Yes -> 7, No -> 8
7. You are an AP with solid BR management.
8. You are an AP but you need to be betting a lower fraction of Kelly bets.
Yes, I think the basis for the averaging out will be significant. If when the TC goes up one click an extra ten card replaces a 6, the difference may not be that significant, but if it replaces a 2 it may be more so. Does the TC increase from 0 to TC+5 assume that one each of 2,3,4,5,6 have all been removed and to TC+12 also in equal proportions? Dependent on which cards are replaced by the high cards, I would think the actual %age edge increase will vary for each TC+ increment. And the other way, in TC- increments as well? - if there are additional 2s the house edge will be higher than if there are additional 6s.
Also the counting system will have an impact. In Hi Lo at a very extreme count if all cards lleft to play are tens, there is in fact no edge as both player and house are guaranteed a 20. But if there are aces mixed in amongst the high cards, then the player must have an edge, as BJ pays 3-2 to the player but only 1-1 for the house.
All twilight zone, theoretical, stuff. And dare I say not worth spending time on investigating further (for me anyway) - if card counting were an exact science, with no margins of error inherrent, then it might be worth looking at to sharpen up the sums for those who make a living at it. But, of course, it ain't.
Also the counting system will have an impact. In Hi Lo at a very extreme count if all cards lleft to play are tens, there is in fact no edge as both player and house are guaranteed a 20. But if there are aces mixed in amongst the high cards, then the player must have an edge, as BJ pays 3-2 to the player but only 1-1 for the house.
All twilight zone, theoretical, stuff. And dare I say not worth spending time on investigating further (for me anyway) - if card counting were an exact science, with no margins of error inherrent, then it might be worth looking at to sharpen up the sums for those who make a living at it. But, of course, it ain't.
The problem is that the majority of posters on this board refer to anyone who isn't playing with an advantage, as a ploppy. It doesn't matter if that person is the addicted gambler, who has been there every day for 2 years straight, or the person who wants to have fun at a Casino, 1 night of the year.
The term is tossed around too easily. In stories you read around here, the guy sitting at first base playing perfect strategy, flat betting, and losing 4 cents on his dollar is now a ploppy, not a gambler. He's probably losing less this way then he would going out for dinner and a movie, or going to a club.
I was a poker player online for 2 years making a living and quit for a while. I was playing basic strategy blackjack with discipline for a while and made a killing. Now I'm back to brick and mortar poker, and even though I don't play BJ anymore, every now and then while waiting for a seat I will shoot craps, obviously with no advantage. Am I up from this? Certainly not.
It seems to be generally accepted that there are now only 2 types of people in a Casino, AP's and Ploppies, nothing in between.
A ploppy is someone who has theories, rituals, is superstitious, and probably truly believes they can make money, despite losing time after time after time. To group the general gambler with these people imo is wrong.
The term is tossed around too easily. In stories you read around here, the guy sitting at first base playing perfect strategy, flat betting, and losing 4 cents on his dollar is now a ploppy, not a gambler. He's probably losing less this way then he would going out for dinner and a movie, or going to a club.
I was a poker player online for 2 years making a living and quit for a while. I was playing basic strategy blackjack with discipline for a while and made a killing. Now I'm back to brick and mortar poker, and even though I don't play BJ anymore, every now and then while waiting for a seat I will shoot craps, obviously with no advantage. Am I up from this? Certainly not.
It seems to be generally accepted that there are now only 2 types of people in a Casino, AP's and Ploppies, nothing in between.
A ploppy is someone who has theories, rituals, is superstitious, and probably truly believes they can make money, despite losing time after time after time. To group the general gambler with these people imo is wrong.
So what derogatory term may we use for AP's who might also, possibly, be even stupider than some of the "TOTAL idiot" ploppies?
How does a perfect BS player who fully realizes he has -EV but also realizes he has almost no chance of losing all of his 300 unit roll over the next 6000 rounds while flat-betting, indeed even realizes it might be 50000 rounds before he has a 50-50 chance of losing his 300 unit starting roll compare to an AP who counts perfectly, uses 100 indexes perfectly, bets the absolute optimal ramp perfectly for what happens to be traditionally considered a very very "good" game, indeed, does play each and every round with an average advantage over the house, yet, apparently, somehow, doesn't seem to realize he might lose those same 300 units over the same 6000 rounds 2 out of 3 times?
I ask who is the greater "TOTAL idiot"?
I'd label the latter case something like "utterly idiotic delusional insecure AP, "UIDIAP" for short. The more so since it appears to me their self-worth can only be defined by picking on others whom they perceive to be their inferiors.
Maybe I'll start a thread on whether "ploppies are just innately advanced AP's".
How does a perfect BS player who fully realizes he has -EV but also realizes he has almost no chance of losing all of his 300 unit roll over the next 6000 rounds while flat-betting, indeed even realizes it might be 50000 rounds before he has a 50-50 chance of losing his 300 unit starting roll compare to an AP who counts perfectly, uses 100 indexes perfectly, bets the absolute optimal ramp perfectly for what happens to be traditionally considered a very very "good" game, indeed, does play each and every round with an average advantage over the house, yet, apparently, somehow, doesn't seem to realize he might lose those same 300 units over the same 6000 rounds 2 out of 3 times?
I ask who is the greater "TOTAL idiot"?
I'd label the latter case something like "utterly idiotic delusional insecure AP, "UIDIAP" for short. The more so since it appears to me their self-worth can only be defined by picking on others whom they perceive to be their inferiors.
Maybe I'll start a thread on whether "ploppies are just innately advanced AP's".
An Edge?
Pretty harsh judgement to say the least on rebuttal but nonetheless. You can lump people together in all sorts of categories in the gaming world. You play poker with fish and don't tap the aquarium do you? There are all sorts of games and advantages to gain by knowledge and wisdom and last but not least experience. The terms used here are no more derogatory then in other aspects of the gaming world.
Pretty harsh judgement to say the least on rebuttal but nonetheless. You can lump people together in all sorts of categories in the gaming world. You play poker with fish and don't tap the aquarium do you? There are all sorts of games and advantages to gain by knowledge and wisdom and last but not least experience. The terms used here are no more derogatory then in other aspects of the gaming world.
