path to AP

Path to AP

  • ploppy or neg EV player to AP player

    Votes: 45 48.9%
  • began strictly as AP player

    Votes: 47 51.1%

  • Total voters
    92

darco77

Well-Known Member
#61
I answered "Ploppy to AP" because it's more honest, but it might not be the right answer if viewed in the spirit of your question. I answered this way because I hit the tables before I was ready. But before reading on AP play, I spent most of my time in casinos drinking all night and chasing tail. Was never much of a gambler.

As far as non-AP play now, well, some sports betting, of course (contemplating the O/U on the Halladay/Johnson match-up as we speak). Then there's my slot-slut comps experiment, which is documented in the "Other Games" section. Other than that, well, I do remember playing roulette once back in 2007.
 

matt21

Well-Known Member
#62
I first played BJ (badly) when a 24/7 casino opened next door to my University.

I started playing as an AP some years later after reading 'Bringing down the House' for the second time.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#64
Well, I guess I better weigh in. My retreat from counting was short-lived. In the past 5 days I have had 9 bj sessions:
6-deck $650
6-deck $425
6-deck $225
6-deck $325
2-deck $500
6-deck $200
6-deck ($500)
6-deck $500
6-deck $1,400
6-deck $225

My background goes like this:

I began gambling as a young kid when another kid beat out of a couple dollars at pool. I practiced and practiced until I could beat that kid, which I did. But during that practice period, some other clever kid snuck up on me and beat me for a few more dollars. So after I beat the first kid, I began practicing to beat the second kid, which I did. But during that practice period, a third kid snuck up on me and beat me for a few dollars. This went on and on as I became more and more proficient. Somewhere along the way I learned the professional gambler's insight that the money is made before you begin the game; that is, making a game where you have the clear advantage is the secret to being a good money player, NOT how well you play. Unfortunately, that concept was limited to pool.

When I would visit Vegas I would play slot machines of every variety and I would play blackjack. My strategy for playing slots was to look for a "hot" machine. My strategy for blackjack was to mimic the dealer, that is, hit everything except 17 and above. Needless to say, I didn't win many times at blackjack. But by this time I had a great job and no financial worries, so it was purely entertainment, and although I wanted to win, I did not know how.

So upon being introduced to AP blackjack by a friend, I took to it with my mixed background, part ploppy and part AP. The reason I showed you the chart of bj wins above, is to explain, too, that I blew three hundred playing VP and slots, even though I knew I was at a severe disadvantage, especially with the slots. KJ was right. I have a problem with gambling to some extent despite the fact that I can play purely AP at blackjack. Four years ago, before I learned counting, I was a total slot machine sucker, one of those people who go to Vegas with the notion, "I will limit my losses to $500, and who knows, maybe I'll get lucky. They don't build those big casinos if people can win." I am far better off now than I was then. But I still fall into weak periods where I "try to get lucky" against prohibitive odds. Believe me, I am working on it. I can visit casinos many times without touching even a VP machine, but when I am ahead at counting, or when nothing I do at blackjack seems to work, I am vulnerable to slots and other gambles, like baccarat, which means I am pretty much vulnerable all the time.

Part of the problem is that I do not play for a living. When I played pool for a living, I never consciously made a bad bet, at pool or anything else. The pressure of winning the rent, gas and food money kept me focused and intent on winning at every thing I did. I did not have the luxury to make a bad bet as I now do. There were not many role models for this. Many of the big gamblers were already rich, so betting sports and prizefights was a normal part of their everyday lives. Others who were not rich swung between flush and flat broke. I never had an extra dollar to waste on even money or worse bets. I played pool, poker, and had a few other bets where I always had the best of it. Many of the more successful gamblers who rose from nothing were also cheaters-- at cards, at pool, at dice, or had some other income from criminal activity anywhere from "laying the note," to check fraud, to drug sales, to counterfeiting. I didn't want to go that route. I eventually managed to pull away from my unsuccessful gambling career to get an education and a good job. I never wagered on more than an office football pool for 27 years, with the exception of those trips to Vegas where I went with the idea of only losing so much and no more.

Now in retirement I plunged back into the world of pool looking for something I loved to keep me active. I bet modestly and was able to pull in several thousand a year playing pool, which for me served more as a recreational outlet than a source of income. As other players became more and more aware of my skill level, the money dried up. Then a friend introduced me to AP. He himself was not an AP, but through him I became interested and learned how to count cards. In blackjack I found a new "gamble" where I could have both the best of it and a recreational outlet. So here I am today. I can readily relate to kewljason, because AP is his livelihood and there is no room for making bad bets. I hope now he can relate to me, and understand why I sometimes have to wrestle with the urge to gamble. Nowadays, I don't have the pressure of making ends meet to keep me from gambling; what I do have is a strong desire to win and this urge to bet against the odds endangers this objective. If confession is good for the soul, maybe I am now a little closer to being 100% in the winner's column. If all else fails, I will call 1-800-gambler. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

bj21abc

Well-Known Member
#65
I was at a BJ table in europe a few years back with the winners of the national event of an international poker circuit (the prize-giving had just been broadcast there).

Could have given the worse ploppies I know a run for their money. This got me wondering - these guys are obviously intelligent, they have the smarts and the discipline to learn a game I consider vastly more complex than BJ - yet they're quite happy to throw money at a game they obviously know nothing about ? But could easily learn in a day ?

Weird.

moo321 said:
I know the theory is to "give action to get it". But these guys give way too much action. They're mostly just degenerates, especially the tournament "pros".
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#66
bj21abc said:
I was at a BJ table in europe a few years back with the winners of the national event of an international poker circuit (the prize-giving had just been broadcast there).

Could have given the worse ploppies I know a run for their money. This got me wondering - these guys are obviously intelligent, they have the smarts and the discipline to learn a game I consider vastly more complex than BJ - yet they're quite happy to throw money at a game they obviously know nothing about ? But could easily learn in a day ?

Weird.
Different skill set. With blackjack and other casino card games, there is a right and a wrong play. With poker, the correct play is situation dependant. Poker players spend their hours trying to outwit the maths, knowing that being able to read their opponent is potentially more valuable than knowing the odds. So while it does take discipline, they also try to apply this other mindset to other games and that simply doesn't work.

RJT.
 

MangoJ

Well-Known Member
#67
My first contact to AP was at the age of 12 (no kidding). It was on a ferry boat which was packed with slots and stuff.

On one machine I saw a group of a few men sitting around a single machine. They were playing on a rather high amounts, and discussing strategy. It was some kind of video poker where cards were arranged in a 5x5 grid (hence 25 cards), each card could been holded, and after the draw you were payed on each column and row (and maybe diagonal) that hit.
They were playing that machine for hours (the entire ride). I always wondered who would be so stupid and play ANY such game, not to say put in bills after bills.

Only now well-more than 10 years later I figure they must have been advantage players. I should have better watched them play, and would have found to AP much more earlier.

In retrospective, does somebody know this game, and know the EV ? How complicate was strategy, and when did they pull that game from the market ?
 

bj21abc

Well-Known Member
#68
Since they have the smarts and the discipline to learn poker, it's a simple matter to pick up a basic strategy card and spend 30 minutes reading about ho to play BJ.

What surprises me is that they are willing to put money down without investing the time to find out - even at a basic level - how to play...



RJT said:
Different skill set. With blackjack and other casino card games, there is a right and a wrong play. With poker, the correct play is situation dependant. Poker players spend their hours trying to outwit the maths, knowing that being able to read their opponent is potentially more valuable than knowing the odds. So while it does take discipline, they also try to apply this other mindset to other games and that simply doesn't work.

RJT.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#69
bj21abc said:
Since they have the smarts and the discipline to learn poker, it's a simple matter to pick up a basic strategy card and spend 30 minutes reading about ho to play BJ.

What surprises me is that they are willing to put money down without investing the time to find out - even at a basic level - how to play...
That was exactly my point though - their primary field of experience is one where they constantly make judgement calls. The good players are the ones that develop a good sense of what their opponent has and will do. The bad players fool themselves into thinking that they have a good sense. Their ego tells them that they are "good at cards" so they simply try to apply this 'good sense' to other games. Your assumption is that most poker players are actually good and have put time and research into learning. Most aren't good and even of those that are, many learned through trial and error rather than reading.

RJT.
 

bj21abc

Well-Known Member
#70
so in other words, you'd be happy to invest in a new casino (non-poker games) aimed specifically at poker players..

I am not a poker player (have tried to learn several times, have to admit I am probably either unskilled or unmotivated) but it seems to me that alongside reading other players, a good poker player must have a strong technical side - what outs are possible, what the nuts are, what the odds are etc - all questions that have definite answers. And that's the side I would have assumed they would apply to other games...

RJT said:
That was exactly my point though - their primary field of experience is one where they constantly make judgement calls. The good players are the ones that develop a good sense of what their opponent has and will do. The bad players fool themselves into thinking that they have a good sense. Their ego tells them that they are "good at cards" so they simply try to apply this 'good sense' to other games. Your assumption is that most poker players are actually good and have put time and research into learning. Most aren't good and even of those that are, many learned through trial and error rather than reading.

RJT.
 

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#71
RJT said:
That was exactly my point though - their primary field of experience is one where they constantly make judgement calls. The good players are the ones that develop a good sense of what their opponent has and will do. The bad players fool themselves into thinking that they have a good sense. Their ego tells them that they are "good at cards" so they simply try to apply this 'good sense' to other games. Your assumption is that most poker players are actually good and have put time and research into learning. Most aren't good and even of those that are, many learned through trial and error rather than reading.

RJT.
Yep, trial and error largely. Integrating patterns of past behavior matched up with profiles of players you are currently playing against, and you yourself either displaying no pattern or patterns others will misread.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#72
aslan said:
KJ was right. I have a problem with gambling to some extent despite the fact that I can play purely AP at blackjack.

I hope now he can relate to me, and understand why I sometimes have to wrestle with the urge to gamble. Nowadays, I don't have the pressure of making ends meet to keep me from gambling; what I do have is a strong desire to win and this urge to bet against the odds endangers this objective. If confession is good for the soul, maybe I am now a little closer to being 100% in the winner's column. If all else fails, I will call 1-800-gambler. :laugh:
I was simply stating observations based on your posts, which could have contributed to your losing periods and frustration, however, I now regret doing so. I didn't mean to be judgemental, but inadvertently was. :( Wasn't my place to do so and you don't need to answer to me or anyone but yourself. (maybe spouse...lol)

I will say the results of this poll surprise me a great deal. Currently. Split almost evenly. :confused: I would have expected more people who identify as AP's to have drawn a line separating AP play from 'gambling'. I can't imagine the two co-existing. Just seems contradictory to me. I count myself as lucky to never have had the desire to play negative EV games.
 

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#73
bj21abc said:
so in other words, you'd be happy to invest in a new casino (non-poker games) aimed specifically at poker players..

I am not a poker player (have tried to learn several times, have to admit I am probably either unskilled or unmotivated) but it seems to me that alongside reading other players, a good poker player must have a strong technical side - what outs are possible, what the nuts are, what the odds are etc - all questions that have definite answers. And that's the side I would have assumed they would apply to other games...
I wouldn't necessarily say you need a strong technical side. The major decisions are fairly straightforward mathematically, pot odds are easy to calculate, so are major drawing hands (flush draw and outside straight draw, both approx 20%).

The human aspects of poker swamp the other more refined technical analysis (for example pre-flop card values).
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#74
kewljason said:
al. Currently. Split almost evenly. :confused: I would have expected more people who identify as AP's to have drawn a line separating AP play from 'gambling'. I can't imagine the two co-existing. Just seems contradictory to me. I count myself as lucky to never have had the desire to play negative EV games.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. During the time i've spent contributing to bonus whoring communities i've found that all but a very small number display degenerate tendecies. They find some way to validate it, cover, hot streak, won too much and so on, but they almost all play a lot of negative ev and a lot end up admiting they have a problem at some point. Counting come a little above BW on the skill totem - although imo up till very recently the average BW was making FAR more than the avarage counter - realisticly, i think most people who claim to be counters aren't play much beyond break even, if at all, once all their bad habits are taken into account. AP attracts 2 types of people, those who had no interest in gambling until they realise they could beat the system and those who loved gambling but were sick of losing. I know which group i bet on being more successful.

RJT.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#75
bj21abc said:
so in other words, you'd be happy to invest in a new casino (non-poker games) aimed specifically at poker players..
Absolutely! Given my experience with poker players at the tables, i'd be more than happy to bank a game they were going to play. Even considering the few that might be smart enough to go and find the optimal strategy, i reckon i'd come out way ahead! Much in the same vein as casinos offering blackjack, there might be a few players good enough to beat the game but the number of horrible players more than makes up for that.

RJT.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#76
kewljason said:
I was simply stating observations based on your posts, which could have contributed to your losing periods and frustration, however, I now regret doing so. I didn't mean to be judgemental, but inadvertently was. :( Wasn't my place to do so and you don't need to answer to me or anyone but yourself. (maybe spouse...lol)

I will say the results of this poll surprise me a great deal. Currently. Split almost evenly. :confused: I would have expected more people who identify as AP's to have drawn a line separating AP play from 'gambling'. I can't imagine the two co-existing. Just seems contradictory to me. I count myself as lucky to never have had the desire to play negative EV games.
The day may come when you are so successful at what you do, that you will pump a few hundred into a VP game just for the diversion, nothing more, except a slight chance that this may be your lucky day.

I have a friend with his own business who is extremely intelligent. If I told you what he did prior to becoming a businessman, you wouldn't believe it. He's a class guy with plenty of intellect and plenty of money to boot. Still he goes to the casinos whenever business takes him to a casino town and plays all the carney games. His strategy is to throw a couple hundred at this or that game, 3-card poker, let it ride, 4-card poker, roulette, games with some big odds pay-offs if you get lucky. For him its fun, and occasionally he hits them big. His discipline lies in knowing that he has way the worst of it, so he is not willing to bet much for a hoped for windfall. It's a diversion and it's fun, plus he has more money than he knows what to do with. One trip to Vegas he got lucky at 3-card poker, winning $17,000 just before leaving, and said he had, comically, every pocket stuffed with cash when he went through TSA at the airport. he has several such stories, but the point is, he is not an advantage player, nor does he purport to be. He knows he is gambling, he knows he has way the worst of it, yet it's a fun-time diversion and he know how to line himself up for the occasional nice prize.

I OTOH do not have his resources, so I feel compelled to grind it out and protect my money. Yes, I am probably way ahead of him in lifetime winnings. I don't envy him, yet I understand his mindset. With his kind of money, he is not going to grind it out at anything. Why should he?

I hope some day you are so successful that you feel the same way, and money is no object. But I thank you for your comments on my game. For a person in my position, you were dead on. I resented it a little at first, maybe misjudging your motives, but then I realized that you were right, possibly even trying to be a friend, plus you didn't want fledgling new APs picking up bad habits. Like you said, you were just responding to my posts, which were full of dubious advice. Friends are those who will tell you when you are wrong. So thanks, and good variance! I still look forward to reading your posts.
 
Top