Blackjack Card Count Hoax
- Thread starter JSTAT
- Start date
I have now gone back and analized your other video hand by hand. (The one were you substitute a joker for a queen) 
again using hi-lo with an identical betting scheme. 10 count results -25. Hi-lo +125. Of course this was only a 13 hand sampling and proves nothing, but for gods sake, if you are going to present evidence, make sure it supports your claim. Now there is a part 2 and part 3 to that series which I am not going to compare simply because it is too difficult to do. The cards are blurry and you dont call out the values and sometimes its hard to distinguish your bet amount. I have to go frame by frame and it's just not worth it. I think I've made my point. Would be nice to see you present some evidence that actually supports your claim that hi-lo doesn't work.
again using hi-lo with an identical betting scheme. 10 count results -25. Hi-lo +125. Of course this was only a 13 hand sampling and proves nothing, but for gods sake, if you are going to present evidence, make sure it supports your claim. Now there is a part 2 and part 3 to that series which I am not going to compare simply because it is too difficult to do. The cards are blurry and you dont call out the values and sometimes its hard to distinguish your bet amount. I have to go frame by frame and it's just not worth it. I think I've made my point. Would be nice to see you present some evidence that actually supports your claim that hi-lo doesn't work.
Last edited:
kewljason said:
I have now gone back and analized your other video hand by hand. (The one were you substitute a joker for a queen) again using hi-lo with an identical betting scheme. 10 count results -25. Hi-lo +125. Of course this was only a 13 hand sampling and proves nothing, but for gods sake, if you are going to present evidence, make sure it supports your claim. Now there is a part 2 and part 3 to that series which I am not going to compare simply because it is too difficult to do. The cards are blurry and you dont call out the values and sometimes its hard to distinguish your bet amount. I have to go frame by frame and it's just not worth it. I think I've made my point. Would be nice to see you present some evidence that actually supports your claim that hi-lo doesn't work.
again using hi-lo with an identical betting scheme. 10 count results -25. Hi-lo +125. Of course this was only a 13 hand sampling and proves nothing, but for gods sake, if you are going to present evidence, make sure it supports your claim. Now there is a part 2 and part 3 to that series which I am not going to compare simply because it is too difficult to do. The cards are blurry and you dont call out the values and sometimes its hard to distinguish your bet amount. I have to go frame by frame and it's just not worth it. I think I've made my point. Would be nice to see you present some evidence that actually supports your claim that hi-lo doesn't work.
Last edited:
Are you amending your story as you go? I don't think anyone is arguing that the 10 count wouldn't work, especially with single and double deck games that it was designed for. I don't think anyone is arguing that the ace isn't very important. The argument also isn't whether there are better counts than hi-lo. The arguement is your statement that hi-lo is a hoax that doesn't work. You have offered nothing that supports that, while much evidence has been offered against your statement. But maybe you are right and everyone else wrong. Maybe the earth is flat! :laugh:
kewljason said:
I'm not taking the low road at all. I am offering evidence as you asked for. Now concerning this second video, yes you have corrected the playing with a joker problem. Congrats on that.
However there are some other problems with the video. For example you paid your winnings out of your own money several times. At the end of the video you claim to have made a profit of $75, when in fact you made a profit of $275. (due to several winners winners that you paid out of your own money)
Now I went back over the video and played the hands with hi-lo, using as similar a betting scheme as I could, for comparision sake. 2 hands of $50 at neutral counts, 1 hand of $25 at negative counts and 2 hands of $100 at true count of +1. The results: hi-lo won $312.50!! The difference being on the 3rd and last hand of the second series before the bathroom break you wagered 1 hand of 1 unit because several aces had already been played. The true count (and running count) was 0 at that point so the hi-lo wager would have been the neutral $50. Since the hand was a BJ. Thats an additional $37.50 won for hi-lo. Thanks for the video. Most entertaining.
For those of you thinking that I have too much time on my hands...you are correct!! I am recovering from a collarbone break.
However there are some other problems with the video. For example you paid your winnings out of your own money several times. At the end of the video you claim to have made a profit of $75, when in fact you made a profit of $275. (due to several winners winners that you paid out of your own money)
Now I went back over the video and played the hands with hi-lo, using as similar a betting scheme as I could, for comparision sake. 2 hands of $50 at neutral counts, 1 hand of $25 at negative counts and 2 hands of $100 at true count of +1. The results: hi-lo won $312.50!! The difference being on the 3rd and last hand of the second series before the bathroom break you wagered 1 hand of 1 unit because several aces had already been played. The true count (and running count) was 0 at that point so the hi-lo wager would have been the neutral $50. Since the hand was a BJ. Thats an additional $37.50 won for hi-lo. Thanks for the video. Most entertaining.
For those of you thinking that I have too much time on my hands...you are correct!! I am recovering from a collarbone break.
Be careful of what you ask for, you might get it zg. It's an honor to be banished into the Zen Zone by the casino sponsored conspirators of the bjinfo.com administration. Books that contain ace reckoned counts such as hi-lo must be sold on this site and speed bumps that get in the way moved here. The truth of "Blackjack Card Count Hoax" gets in the way of sales and future losers. Now the casinos will have more hi-lo players that they can ever ask for. While hi-lo is being pumped on the main board, more players will dump more money into the casinos for us to collect. A good thing for truth detectors who see the scam and prosper.
I never claimed that QFIT was conspiring with casinos. I need to review QFIT'S software before I made claims about him " working with casinos." OFIT has condemned Stanford Wong and others for consulting with casinos. Sounds like a fine fellow and most likely we can get along.
I am not Doug Grant. Never aspired to be him. I am my own free soul. Now you want to boot me off your conspiracy page for posting truth that is backed up with facts? You can discuss if Jesus Christ is God and condemn him, that's within the boundries of the Zen Zone, right zg? Why do you want to crucify me? For spreading the light?
I am not Doug Grant. Never aspired to be him. I am my own free soul. Now you want to boot me off your conspiracy page for posting truth that is backed up with facts? You can discuss if Jesus Christ is God and condemn him, that's within the boundries of the Zen Zone, right zg? Why do you want to crucify me? For spreading the light?
Last edited:
