Real Pros?
- Thread starter JoeV
- Start date
- Status
yes and no is my position on this one. first off the work that you do in life need not be the contribution that you make for your fellow mankind. there are plenty of other avenues of endeavor that one can find self realization.
for some perhaps (due to life circumstances) advantage play may be the only viable option they have to make a living at the level of compensation that advantage play can yield.
for some perhaps (due to life circumstances) advantage play may be the only viable option they have to make a living at the level of compensation that advantage play can yield.
I agree. One of the players that CM denigrated spends a large portion of his time doing charity work. And as I have said; many have written books. And if anyone thinks that's a money making proposition...
And yes you need to do what you need to do to make a living. I'm just saying that it can be a highly unpleasant and unsatisfying long term vocation. Just sucks the enjoyment out of playing. And that's something that is worth considering when looking at long term planning.
And yes you need to do what you need to do to make a living. I'm just saying that it can be a highly unpleasant and unsatisfying long term vocation. Just sucks the enjoyment out of playing. And that's something that is worth considering when looking at long term planning.
Who on the list of 13 authorities have I denigrated? What charitable soul have I slandered? Schlesinger is about the only one on that list I would have something negative to say about (for having an overblown opinion about himself, his book, and his expertise), and I don't even think I've done that. I've just mentioned, as I have about you, that they generally aren't actual working professional players, and that most of them are authors or salesmen with limited expertise. A lot are hacks as well, but I haven't specified anyone on that, so I haven't, as you say, denigrated anyone. I leave it as an exercise to the aspiring professional to determine which of the 13 authorities you repeatedly list to try and give your software some credibility are hacks and which are legitimate. It's not so hard to figure out.
QFIT said:
First you accuse me of claiming all over the ‘Net that I am an expert. When I point out that I have never posted such; you then repeatedly claim I admit to not being an expert. Now you demand that I claim I am or admit I’m not. If I say no; you will again repeatedly say I admit I’m no expert and that you were right all along. If I say Yes; you will again state that I noisily claim to be an expert and that you were right all along. I will not play your childish game.
I will not play your childish game.
QFIT said:
Well, he could tell you to spread 1-30 at double deck without any explanation
I'd love for you to show me where I said that "all respected authorities in the field are money-hungry hacks" and that "I am the only real source of information." Oh wait, I never said either of those things, so I doubt you'll be able to quote where I did. Once again, you are forced to fabricate statements out of thin air, because logic has overwhelmed your untenable position. Just listen to your erstwhile fans in this very thread. They're telling you the same thing I've been telling you: you should make an exit, because you're making yourself look bad with all of these baseless attacks.
I don't see how your approach is the best one. We've stipulated that we're talking about mid-level counters playing good shoe games in the carpet joints on the Strip, right? And we're playing aggressively and without cover.
If I'm playing aggressively and without cover, I'm not going to be playing any -EV hands at all. There's no benefit to playing with a fast dealer at a negative count, because that just means you lose money faster. Playing deep pen with a negative count means you lose money longer. If playing a negative shoe means losing EV and watching a negative shoe be dealt out means zero EV, why not go and watch some other shoe and Wong in for positive EV? You can always come back to your favorite dealer on the next shoe if you don't find a good count somewhere else.
Overall though I like your choice of games and approach. Last time in LV I played very little DD because there are only a couple of games left in town that are as good as Strip shoe at the green level. There's one thing I wanted to add about spreads and game selection and that is making sure you can actually find a table and one that you can spread out on. Let's say you are capitalized for a spread of either $10-1x$200 or $10-2x$150. First of all don't hold your breath waiting for a $10 table at the Strip stores we're talking about, and if you do find one with a vacant seat, it's very unlikely you will have another vacant seat next to you throughout a shoe. So if the count gets big you're going to end up playing 1x$200. Now assuming you are rigorously Wonging out of bad counts, you are a lot better off getting on a $25 table and spreading $25-2x$150, in a less-crowded game where you can be sure you're going to be able to spread to the second hand.
If I'm playing aggressively and without cover, I'm not going to be playing any -EV hands at all. There's no benefit to playing with a fast dealer at a negative count, because that just means you lose money faster. Playing deep pen with a negative count means you lose money longer. If playing a negative shoe means losing EV and watching a negative shoe be dealt out means zero EV, why not go and watch some other shoe and Wong in for positive EV? You can always come back to your favorite dealer on the next shoe if you don't find a good count somewhere else.
Overall though I like your choice of games and approach. Last time in LV I played very little DD because there are only a couple of games left in town that are as good as Strip shoe at the green level. There's one thing I wanted to add about spreads and game selection and that is making sure you can actually find a table and one that you can spread out on. Let's say you are capitalized for a spread of either $10-1x$200 or $10-2x$150. First of all don't hold your breath waiting for a $10 table at the Strip stores we're talking about, and if you do find one with a vacant seat, it's very unlikely you will have another vacant seat next to you throughout a shoe. So if the count gets big you're going to end up playing 1x$200. Now assuming you are rigorously Wonging out of bad counts, you are a lot better off getting on a $25 table and spreading $25-2x$150, in a less-crowded game where you can be sure you're going to be able to spread to the second hand.
It's really all a matter of how much money you can get down in positive EV situations per hour given your playing options. If you think wonging around is superior in that respect to playing a much faster game, I think you're mistaken. You can get four or five times as many hands per hour playing one lightning speed dealer under good conditions than you can wonging around. This will generally translate to more positive EV bets that you can make. If you're spreading an enormous amount, the bets you make in negative EV situations become more and more negligible, and hands per hour becomes much more important.
Sure, in intolerable counts you can wong around, but wonging also draws attention to your game. Why? Because, at the very least, the boss is going to have to track what you've taken off of one table and brought to another table. It's part of his job description to have to do that. Now you're getting noticed. Now he has a data point on you: that you bounce around between tables. Far better to do as I've suggested and take measures to get the best possible game speed and the least amount of scrutiny. Sticking it out at a table where a boss can't pay much attention to you because he's busy watching bigger action is the way to go. You can bet that surveillance isn't watching you either, because surveillance generally zeroes in on the tables with biggest action in the casino. Never wong into those tables, regardless of the count. They're poison. You can get away with murder at the tables when nobody is watching you.
Other strong moves are to raise the table minimum to whatever your bankroll and spread dictate and to get the boss to make your table a non-smoking table as quickly as you can. Not only does this increase your EV against getting cancer, but it also increases your hands per hour by way of reducing the number of ploppies who end up sitting at your table.
Lastly, and this was ignored for theoretical reasons before, but wonging does take time. You don't just leave your shoe and immediately find another good shoe. You don't even have any guarantee of finding a fresh shoe at all which, of course, limits the potential of the shoes you come across. It may require going all over the place, when quickly eating away the negative count on a shoe with otherwise great conditions would get you to positive counts and big bets sooner.
Right, I advocate against playing double deck. I advocate playing shoes. The shoe games in places like the MGM are just begging to get creamed by counters. Stay under the radar via being a relative peon, employ an enormous spread, and get the optimal conditions for game speed, and you'll get the money. It's as simple as that. Screw around with too much camouflage, or too small of a spread, or too much wonging and you won't get the money and you will get noticed a lot more than you ought to.
Sure, in intolerable counts you can wong around, but wonging also draws attention to your game. Why? Because, at the very least, the boss is going to have to track what you've taken off of one table and brought to another table. It's part of his job description to have to do that. Now you're getting noticed. Now he has a data point on you: that you bounce around between tables. Far better to do as I've suggested and take measures to get the best possible game speed and the least amount of scrutiny. Sticking it out at a table where a boss can't pay much attention to you because he's busy watching bigger action is the way to go. You can bet that surveillance isn't watching you either, because surveillance generally zeroes in on the tables with biggest action in the casino. Never wong into those tables, regardless of the count. They're poison. You can get away with murder at the tables when nobody is watching you.
Other strong moves are to raise the table minimum to whatever your bankroll and spread dictate and to get the boss to make your table a non-smoking table as quickly as you can. Not only does this increase your EV against getting cancer, but it also increases your hands per hour by way of reducing the number of ploppies who end up sitting at your table.
Lastly, and this was ignored for theoretical reasons before, but wonging does take time. You don't just leave your shoe and immediately find another good shoe. You don't even have any guarantee of finding a fresh shoe at all which, of course, limits the potential of the shoes you come across. It may require going all over the place, when quickly eating away the negative count on a shoe with otherwise great conditions would get you to positive counts and big bets sooner.
Right, I advocate against playing double deck. I advocate playing shoes. The shoe games in places like the MGM are just begging to get creamed by counters. Stay under the radar via being a relative peon, employ an enormous spread, and get the optimal conditions for game speed, and you'll get the money. It's as simple as that. Screw around with too much camouflage, or too small of a spread, or too much wonging and you won't get the money and you will get noticed a lot more than you ought to.
- Status