lol, almost anything goes here i guess

Yes you're quite right about my incorrect belief lol. Although I still think it may have some use as cover lol. If I were going to count and think about doing it, believe me, I wouldn't rely on my figures I'd just run some sims or just not do it.
.

Anyway, in real life, I don't even pretend I'm playing with an advantage or even know. It's possible sometimes maybe I actually am. For a shoe or 2 lol. But I'm not "card-counting" in any "AP" way in my mind because I'm not applying bets in any consistent way. Even though I am actually am card-counting lol and if I want to make a move and try to make-up a min unit or 2 in my voodoo way at some point , why not at least do in a + count. It can't hurt. I have no goals except maybe it'd be nice to win a few bucks or finish this session ahead. So it really doesn't take too much. Maybe I win a few 10 or 20 unit bets or more here and there. Maybe I don't. Whatever I feel like. I have no way of measuring my results against any "card-counting" plan.
.

I analyzed years ago possibly counting in AC but given win rates, how much I'd play in a few years, the games, how much I really wanted to stand around back-counting, if I could, how much trip roll I should take, etc but I rejected it. Plain and simple. I was unwilling to always bet in the way I was supposed to with a risk I liked and the bankroll to bet against. I could be dead before I reached N0 lol. I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour. Kind of thing. Whatever, had I tried, at least I'd know what to expect. And I'd keep a log that had more in it than I won $100 today.
.

so it just never would occur to me to attribute any results I may have because I'm a "counter" just because I count although sometimes it seems to me there may not be a whole lot of difference between what I do and what others may do.

Perhaps what separates your fuzzy counting and my fuzzy betting is that maybe we don't really fully think of ourselves as "AP counters", don't mean to speak for you lol, but I certainly don't, even though we may count a little or a lot in our different ways or whatever.

Maybe we're just more willing to admit any results are actually probably more likely due to luck than the result of any card-counting plan.
.

Maybe I'm an idealist.

Let's find out.

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

RJT? Sonny?

Is there a snowball's chance you'd even wonder if you were lucky or good after 50 or 100000 hands?

Sorry this is in voodoo - I got carried away. What you guys say is no way voodoo to me lol.

only problem i would see is those times that you don't succeed and then say you try to make that loss up and on and on and then next thing you know your basicly just progression betting. the other thing is you don't give any sense of say proportional betting to the advantage as far as i can tell.

Bojack - you have a log? Maybe at least bet almost always within some kind of a general plan? Play much without a plan? Know about how much you played and what to expect under maybe a few different scenarios? Maybe periodically analyze expected reults to actual in some general way anyway?

RJT? Sonny?

I only ventured onto this thread because i say Bojack's name as the last post - ...

...........

Like as an extreme say I have $10K and play $1/hand for 10000 hands. I'm down 42 units or $42 dollars. If I start betting $20, I still have a 500 unit roll and all I have to do is come out 2 bets ahead with that unit and then I'd be good to go for 10000 more hands at $1. And if I used a system that a 500 unit roll could gain 2 units 99% of the time, I probably could play for a pretty long time. Even flat-betting 500 units it's pretty likely I'd be ahead at some point by 2 units before losing it all. Heck win 1 unit and I'd still be ahead of EV but I like to break-even anyway

When there are betting systems out there, and I've said this many times before, that can predictably win x units with a y unit roll a high percentage of the time, why not use one of them to make up my unit. If I lose my y unit roll, maybe I just play it again with higher dollars but same unit roll. Always nice to have enough unit-roll lol.

........

well now that you've ventured into the den of iniguity lol how about commenting on this statement --->>>> "I'd rather make a $100 bet at a $5 table and if I win, presto, I have the EV of a CC for the next 1000 hands. If I lose I don't even have half the SD he might have in an hour."
from this post: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=74974&postcount=21
your comments would be truly appreciated and no argument will follow. erh uhmm at least not from me.
or anyone comment on this? please really would like to hear thoughts on this.

There's some fairly flawed logic there as i'm sure most of us can see - the point about losing and not having half the SD of an hour of counting is really comparing apples to oranges. It would be hard to draw a valid comparison to this actually, the person who places a single bet is not risking nearly the same monetary sum as the person who is counting, so of course they don't have half the SD of the counter, but at the same time that implys the presumption that SD is always a negative thing. The counter also has the opportunity to end up in positive territory or indeed make a far greater profit that the single $100 bettor.
Also if you are playing with an EV of $10/hour (assuming 100/hour) your bankroll's too small. While i'm not saying don't play or anything like that, you have to be honest with yourself and admit that you are playing more for the enjoyment of the game than you are for the money. So this would have to be assuming very much a recreational counter, who certainly in the short term future has no real intentions of playing seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, i did it for a good length of time, but i think it has to be recognised that the $100 for 10 hours of play probably isn't going to be that big a deal to the counter who - while they will be bummed out that they lost - has had 10 hours of entertainment and knows that if they stick to their strategy will win in the longrun.
That leads nicely onto the next point that would be if you are just going to place a random $100 bet then you're not really doing it because you expect to win, you are doing it for the thrill of gambling and the entertainment value that being in a casino provides. That being the case you have to consider whether that one bet provided a great an amount of entertainment value and is it the sum total of what they bet that trip to the casino? Do you regularly go into a casino and place one single bet of $100 and walk away? Not very many people only want to play one hand or place one bet. They want to play for a couple of hours and have some fun and free drinks. So if they are betting smaller amounts before and/or after then the $100 bettor's SD is suddenly going North.
There is no right or wrong answer here. I never set foot in a casino or made any form of wager what-so-ever before i heard about card counting and had trained myself up to the point where i felt that i was ready to play in a casino, but since having had the experience i've realised that a lot of my preconceptions about gambling and casinos were actually wrong. Casinos can be a great night out. A really good atmosphere, good fun and as long as you don't let yourself get out of control, relatively cheap! For most people, even here, card counting is never going to become an occupation or even a serious money earner. Entertainment always has to be factored into the game.
And there are other reasons to gamble to, which might fit better with this 1x$100 bet. I know a guy who every month takes half his paycheck and goes to the casino. He places it on black at the roulette table. If he loses he has a really tight month, but if he wins he goes out every weekend and really enjoys the month. Not my cupof tea, but hey whatever floats your boat and doesn't harm anyone else is all good with me.
As i said, no real right or wrong - of course it's wrong for a card counter to do this, but sometimes you have to factor in more than just the system.

RJT.

I just wanted to thank you and RJT for venturing over here into Voodooland and sharing like that and setting a standard that any aspiring AP CC would do well to do his best to emulate. I mean that's it. That's exactly what AP card-counting is. To me anyway.

Nice to know, even in my ivory castle, for the most part anyway, lol, that what you say you do is pretty much exactly how I imagined you, or any "AP card-counter" would do, or at least try darn hard, to do it.

Anythying less than that, more or less anyway, in my narrow world, you might as well stop fooling yourself and call it some flavor of voodoo.

Anyway, fwiw lol, for the one week I felt I actually was "card-counting", 2 years ago in Tahoe, mostly DD, that's exactly what I tried to do. Logs, comparing "what should happen" to "what did", etc. Play and bet to the plan(s) I had as best I could. And was very happy that results seemed to be, as best I could figure, within 1 SD of expected after the week. That meant alot more to me than the absolute dollars won/lost lol.

I just find it ironic, since I think the plan and general method you outlined should be the standard for posting anything in the "Card-counting" forum but ends up here in Voodooland and yet alot of what passes for card-counting in the CC thread probably belongs over here lol.

Not that it really matters where anything is anyway I guess - it is what it is wherever it is lol.

Thanks again for just saying it. Absolutely beautiful.

The obvious comments to make here are firstly that that one bet turns a losing player into a winning one, but the counter point would be that no serious player should or would ever touch this game.
.

For a recreational player who doesn't really have bankroll concerns - this is perfect. Make your bets when you are slightly more likely to win and actually play a slightly positive game. The assumption has to be made that the person take enough of a bankroll every time they go, doesn't worry about busting out and can replenish that bankroll fully inbetween trips.
.

One question does spring to mind though - if you've gone to all the effort of being able to identify a TC of +3 and have the bankroll to support playing like this, why not just go the full hog?

RJT.

yes & yes lol. but hey RJT are you the guy over on blackjack institute that used to have the problem over on the island lol Britania :1st: that was facing the frustrating situation of the crap games they have to offer? i mean no wonder you know so dam much you haven't got anywhere to play and you spend all your time studying lol. hey i'm just joking around. i figure you get your shots in and all. lol.

well where i was elbowing you in the ribs above about over there across the pond and the conditons. well you know when you came over here and chummed around with Bojack. this country is vast. like where i'm at it's almost as if i'm on an island surrounded by crappy games and conditions lol.
i think you know how tedious going full hog is under such conditions and virtually impractical. why not liven up with a little gambling. lol. that sir is in part why your seeing me in voodoo land lol. under these conditions on my little island marooned as i am, ship wrecked lol and alone i'm tryiing to keep from going crazy and from starving to death at the same time. lol.
just hoping against hope that there is a better way or at least a more tolerable one. but yeah about the going full hog for my part in the stuff here in the discussion like about the $100 dollar shots being fired uhm well i'm more into trying to proportionalize it a bit closer to orthodox counting methods but i did find what Kasi was sayiing interesting none the less.

......, but if we looked at a more general scenario, would you have learned all you know about counting had you known that the games around you were of such a poor standard before you started?
From where i sit a lot of people seem to play blackjack because they honestly believe that they can work out some system that will allow them to beat the house. Those that go so far as to learn to count proficiently do so because they realize that they can beat the house and that's what got them interested in the first place. If they find down the line that the rules are so aweful that they can't win, that's an exception to the standard. In the states there is at least fair access to vaguely beatable game. Not good enough that that you could make a lot of money, but still beatable enough for the recreational player to feel that it's worth playing them rather than some unbeatable game. In those more standard conditions, would it not be more normal to employ the full array of skills you learned rather than just an isolated bet at a + count?
Perhaps a better question would be; would you still find the $100 bet at a TC of 3 an interesting proposition if you had better conditions around you?

RJT.

I read your posts and if I understand them. LOL I am often left with the same questions and thoughts.
You have the books and seem to have the knowledge, so you should have no delusions about what you should expect as far as variance or earnings.
I would think if conditions you face are tough you need a stronger game and not weaker?

Have you considered playing less frequently but stronger? Perhaps you are tired from other activities, bored or jaded.

If you are trying to use less mental effort then why do you spend time on things I think you know don't mean much or that you can avoid? Things like very negative indices?

I believe you are a hi low user?

A very stripped down yet effective game can be:
I think you are familiar with the counts for those with poor vision, can use one of those.
or
running hi low for betting, easy to think in terms of small, med and big advantages.
ILL 18 indices, can even use light indices. Maybe even fewer then the ILL 18.

I probably have not said anything you don't know or perhaps have not thought of?

that's exactly right. lol. i am painfully aware of that fact about the poor conditions hence need for stronger attack sort of idea. thanks though for reminding me. you are of course right. as strong of play as i can muster i'm just not happy with the reward to work extended ratio for orthodox card counting. and i'm not competant or really well enough versed in any other viable advanced tacts.

lol you'll love this. the other day i played 21 hours straight. no sleep, no significant break or any food. just two cups of coffee. man that coffee was good lol. it was just some crazy thing i did. i had a blast but had my a$$ handed to me on a silver tray. i know to do that was wrong in every way. i doubt i'll ever do anything like that again. but you know what? i learned quite a bit about my game from that experience.
but your suggestion has merit. i really feel bad to say that i probably won't do that since you took the trouble to suggest it and it does make sense. i'm just truly interested in reducing the work load, while not reducing the reward level to significantly for my modest expectation of no big deal as long as it isn't life changing sort of thing. to be more specific if i can maintain a expectation of a dollar an hour i'd be satisfyed. if i could do that maybe i could improve a little as time goes on. i did used to only have an interest in making some good money. i've just changed my focus. for right now i'm more interested in trying to gain a mastery of the gamble involved in this game with out having to extend the kind of effort that i (personaly) find tedious.

lol, finally a question i think i can give a satisfying answer to. the reason for that is (you'll just have to trust me on this one) is that for the joints that i play and the recreational kick i'm looking for makes it to where i'm gonna pretty much play all for say two or maybe three hours on an average a trip. wonging in is definately out and wonging out is a limited option under this scenerio.

right i'm familiar with the senior counts and the like. well at least the ones discussed on Arnold Snyder's site. thank's though for offering those options up. beggers can't be choosers i know lol but to me those options would seem to me as much work.
so let me ask you or great if anyone else wants to critique this stuff i'm trying to do. but here is the scenerio to where i know the games i play tend in the long run to present circa 75% negative/zero true counts and circa 25% varing degrees of positive true counts. the point is where i'm at in my trying to do this fuzzy count thing i sincerely belieive i can recognize with just card watching from the start of a shoe up to the point where one would normally wong out or wong in that the true count is either at some hopelessly negative point or that ok this shoe at some point is just starting to go positive or at least has a chance to get positive. so now i start for real counting the RC and figuring the TC and bet accordingly (per some play all sim that fits my bankroll and goals). but in the case where the shoe is in the hopeless forget it wong out condition i just sit there and flat bet min and maybe try and sit out a few hands or even an occasional potty break.
and well to complicate the issue even more. i mean a couple of things i know from experience of card watching and card counting is that ok a couple of things can happen. one being with the card watching is you might know that hey i'm lost here at some point or another thing that may happen say with card counting is for what ever time you have alloted your self to play is you might never see a decent shoe. but either way you may have spent some sum of money or units trying. so then there is still this prospect that Kasi was discussing of what i think is fundamentally some sort of progression bet scenerio but nothing fixed in stone. so say you've more or less floundered around for some trip session and managed to lose some sum of money. but maybe you get lucky and a decent true count presents. so why not in this case maybe bet some amount that might get you back that sum previously lost or maybe less or maybe more depending on how good you might think your prospects were with respect to the count and with respect to maybe how healthy you think your bankroll is at the moment.

I was wondering if you were playing too much and if your style of play was influenced by the conditions or the length of your play. I would think doing anything for extended periods of time over multiple days would get tedious.
.

You have the books. Don't you think you could employ a stronger game for just an hour. A cup of coffee half an hour before play would probably carry you through. To me playing a strong game for an hour would result in less fatigue then playing just BS for several hours.
.

A stronger game would make more in less time and lower your session variance because you would lower the total hands you play dramatically.
.

For camoflauge purposes just being there so long is not the best thing.
.

The stronger progressions also require mental effort. The better ones require you keep track of your units up or down. It's a lot like counting, for the work might as well count. You know what progressions will do. With most you win small amounts consistenly and feel good until the crushing loss comes that wipes out your gaines and then some.

Assuming fuzzy has some merit then betting as close to optimal as possible would out perform a progression.

:laugh:

Frog
You mention a psychological reason to play a stronger game.

How about love as a reason.
Love of money. I like the way money feels, to caress it softly and lovingly.:devil:

I love what money provides me. Like mcds double cheeseburgers off the dollar menu. I am all AP even in Mcds.:eyepatch:

Hail Mary bankroll? Well the name says it all. Not many Hail Mary passes are successful. A couple of unsuccessful Hail Mary's and you get to punt and go home cuz you are broke.:joker:

Hey O Wise Frog.

Probably off topic but it occurred to me recently while in Vegas that while u may be a "fuzzy counter" I decided I'm a "fuzzy better".

Like I know the count but bet inconsistently compared to a normal ramp. Sometimes less. Sometimes more. Sometimes a lot more. Mostly less I guess lol.

I don't know, for some reason, I usually win a few bucks lol.