do you laik this count ?

translator web sites?

Do we have the Kazakhstan to US translation software for this site? I'm thinking that would show his count is really Hi/Lo or Red 7. Hmmmm, Borat, is that you?

Ah yes, the gambler's fallacy. I no laik dem stratigi.

-Sonny-

1 ideot make bj game
2 ideot wraite book
4 ideot make count
8 ideot make soft
16 ideot belive all
32 ideot belive to 16 ideot
64 ------32
martingale is working
it is same laik
1 ideot say rubish
2 ideot belive to 1 ideot
4 ideot jast ideot

Kolan, you didn't say what you treat a blackjack as. Is that -1 also?

Yu wble down on all 11s, including BJ, git it wraite, you ideot:whip:

You guys, what's all this "bed" talk

First of all, Thank you. I really enjoy this site and have received some excellent advice and the forums are loaded with useful knowledge and expertise answers.

But geez...I for one am intrigued by different counting systems and if I can get an even better edge over the house then "YOU REALLY HAVE MY ATTENTION". I would definatley like to learn more on Kolan's system and the stats.

Thank you and have a great night!

You are correct. This is an excellent site, loaded with useful knowledge and excellent advice from experts and some less useful knowledge and advice from want-a-be-experts. I sugguest you re-read as much as you can so you can so you can better distinguish between the two.

I think you're asking a lot of the members of this forum.

I'm not sure anyone on here is qualified to test KOLAN's system!

yes KOLAN, i think that is an interesting article. i'd read it before. some how i missed that such methods were backed by computer simulations. i'm glad you referenced that article. i'm gonna try and find that book and give it a read.

a blast from the past

thanks again KOLAN. i got my book No Need To Count by Leon B. Dubey Jr. in the mail a few days ago.
two hundred and eight pages and lmao essentially his system is summed up in twenty five words. well i haven't read the whole book yet so maybe he has some other significant things to say that i just haven't gotten to yet. what ever his stuff is more geared to single deck where you already might have a small advantage anyway, lol, but he claims it can be used against multiple deck as well with less of an advantage. anyway kind of interesting to see what people were thinking about the game twenty nine years ago or so. a book written by a for real 'rocket scientist' of the Apollo strain, how about that?
so but anyway the link you provided :
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
of Arnold Snyder's mentions that as far back as 1978, Dr. John Gwynn and Professor Armand Seri found similar qualitative situational findings from computer studies. the thing is Snyder mentions that Gwynn and Seri found that after a push the players advantage is significantly reduced while Dubey claims the players advantage is significantly increased after a push.
I'm just wondering if anyone knows who is correct on the push issue?
oh, and i was pleasantly surprised that Dubey mentioned a 'leaning' approach that could be used with his system. a technique not unlike what Fred Renzey writes about in Blackjack Bluebook II for counting 'babies' on page 93, not to mention my 'fuzzy count', what ever the heck that is.

edit: ahh, i see, upon closer reading Dubey distinguishes between push's that are composed of four cards between the dealer and you (no advantage) and push's that are composed of more than four cards between you and the dealer (advantage in this case).