The Official Jay Moore Experience Thread
- Thread starter SPX
- Start date
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
I call charlatan on him for saying that. I've played a lot of blackjack hands at a lot of dodgy online casinos, and the results are still more or less what you'd expect from a fair game.
Anyway, unless you want those free pencils, I'd also recommend trying the system on the computer rather than with real money.
As I mentioned to Sonny earlier, I could always flat bet but I'm not much of a fan and with just a touch of luck I am at least convinced that his method will bring me more money than flat betting.
The only way you'll win more/lose less by flat betting is if you end up at a table where your cards are just unusually bad.
One question I have is their more money in counting cards or writing books ? It seems like it's all just a hustle one way or the other. In the end its all called gambling! :laugh:
Sonny
Well-Known Member
I knowing your joking. But shouldn't all these authors be applying their trade instead of sharing their knowledge? I know if I had a system that worked it would not be in a book. Just do the math!
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Why can’t they do both? Why can’t they use their experience to write better books? Why can’t they use their playing and their writing for supplemental income?
What would the world be like if nobody shared their ideas with anyone else? Can you imagine a world where scientific discoveries are locked away instead of published? And how could we tell which ideas are valid if nobody is allowed to confirm them? Everyone in the world would think that they invented the Martingale system and that it actually worked..and that nobody else should ever find out about it! :laugh:
Why not? It’s not like these authors have some super-secret system they have to keep to themselves. Card counting systems have been published for over 40 years. There’s no secrets there. And it’s not like these systems are foolproof ways to make quick, easy money either. There is no such thing, despite what you read in this forum.
These systems require lots of practice and discipline. Most people will never put in the effort to learn them properly. So why bother hiding your secrets when almost nobody is going to use your systems anyway? Do we really want a world full or Licentias?-Sonny-
C'mon now . . . be nice. I certainly wouldn't want people going "Ha ha! Do we really want a world full of SPXs?!" Although I'm sure before it's said and done with I'll have to have some thick skin around here.
But the worls IS full of SPXs. Folks that know that they are using an inferior product but would rather do that than work hard and struggle on their own.
When all is said and done in a few months,they chalk up their losing-not to themselves,but to having chosen a bad system. Then they go back to looking for the right system.
i've met a thousand SPXs,on the bus to AC,in bars in Vegas,ect,ect.
When all is said and done in a few months,they chalk up their losing-not to themselves,but to having chosen a bad system. Then they go back to looking for the right system.
i've met a thousand SPXs,on the bus to AC,in bars in Vegas,ect,ect.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
There’s absolutely no comparison. You seem like a smart guy who understands the limitations of betting systems but doesn’t mind taking a little risk as long as it makes the game more fun. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. That is how most people play BJ. You understand the risks and you have realistic expectations. You also show a wise apprehension towards unfounded systems. These are all good qualities.
Licentia, on the other hand, quit his/her job in order to become a professional progression player. We gave numerous warnings, showed the exact flaws in the system (both logical and mathematical), showed proof that it was not a winning system, and did everything in our power to let the truth be known. Unfortunately, our words were vehemently ignored.
As I said, no comparison…although a thick skin does come in handy in the Voodoo Forum.
-Sonny-
First off, there is only one SPX and I am incomparable.
Second, consider this: There was a time when no one knew anything about counting. I do understand that there's evidence that primitive forms of counting were around before Thorp, but it's not as if counting and blackjack were developed together. Someone had to put their mind to the game and figure it out.
So why believe that it's all over and blackjack is no longer open to new innovations? I am simply a person who believes that blackjack is open to new innovations and that a new breed of thinkers may one day take what we know about blackjack and come up with a new way to win (that does not involve hole-carding or other situation-dependent techniques).
If you think that this is it . . . the door is closed . . . the game and the cards have no other secrets to give up . . . the best of the best strategies have already been discovered then . . . you may be right BUT you may be wrong and an inquiring mind--perhaps one not even as bright or as intelligent as yourself--may very well one day have a moment of genius in which that door that so many seem to consider closed is thrown open and they make a lot of money because of it.
And that's all I'm saying . . . I believe in supporting further inquiry and questioning accepted widsom.
On that note, I'd like to mention the book No Need to Count which, many of you may know, is mentioned in Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack. In it, the author mentions a method that--while perhaps supporting the underlying concepts of card counting--is in fact NOT card counting. And the truth--the UNDENIABLE, MATHEMATICAL truth--is that while the method devised by the author is not as powerful as Hi-Lo or KO or probably any other counting system, it does render the player a tiny advantage.
The only reason we know about it is because someone took the time to listen to the game and look at it all in a new way. And if that's possible, then why not believe that it's at least feasible that some method that's MORE powerful than card counting lies hidden underneath it all just waiting to be discovered?
There’s absolutely no comparison. You seem like a smart guy who understands the limitations of betting systems but doesn’t mind taking a little risk as long as it makes the game more fun. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. That is how most people play BJ. You understand the risks and you have realistic expectations. You also show a wise apprehension towards unfounded systems. These are all good qualities.
Licentia, on the other hand, quit his/her job in order to become a professional progression player. We gave numerous warnings, showed the exact flaws in the system (both logical and mathematical), showed proof that it was not a winning system, and did everything in our power to let the truth be known. Unfortunately, our words were vehemently ignored.
As I said, no comparison…although a thick skin does come in handy in the Voodoo Forum.
-Sonny-
Well I'll say thank you for what I will take as complimentary remarks. With that said, I have browsed the Licentia posts a bit (and I don't know why, but the name and the tone of the posts have always seemed feminine to me) but not enough to really what know what's going on.
So does Licentia claim to be doing well and good? Or to have gone broke as hell?
It seems to me that that's what's really important. Is he/she making money?
As far as my attitude toward betting systems goes, I have no delusions, and you're right, I'm not afraid to gamble a bit. I do have some basic counting skills and have looked into all sorts of counting systems. Occasionally for the hell of it I'll try to keep the count at the tables when I play (the key count for KO Rookie is +2 on a single deck game!) but I can never do it for long and rarely even have a chance to get to every card before they get scooped up.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
As far as I know Licentia is doing just fine. But what’s really important is not whether she has made money, but whether she will continue to make money. Just because a system wins for a little while doesn’t mean that the player won’t end up broke somewhere down the line. The end result should be the important thing, not the short-term luck.
I don't think anyone is saying that. I know of about 20 different ways to beat blackjack, all of them are completely legal and all of them have been discussed on this website. We all keep the door to new ideas open, but many of the ideas that people present here in the Voodoo Forum were disproved centuries ago. In most cases it is the people who endorse these voodoo methods that are not being open-minded. Anyone who does a little research can find the truth quite easily, yet it is surprising how many choose not to believe it when they find it.
I completely agree that we should always be open to new ideas no matter how crazy they sound, but it is also important to realize that all of the “new ideas” in this forum are really just “old ideas” from the 18th century. If they showed even the slightest bit of merit we would move them to another forum and discuss them. This forum is where old ideas come to die (over and over again).
-Sonny-
My 2 cents
I think, to people like Licentia's eternal upset, this is why we can instantly dismiss most betting systems. Because they provide us with no real knowledge, and therefore, no real advantage.
Can't we say that actual advantage play requires some knowledge? Knowing that the rest of the cards in the shoe will be generally favorable to the player. Knowing that a certain section of the shoe contains cards favorable to the player. Knowing that you're going to be dealt an ace. Even knowing that it's likely you will be dealt an ace. Knowing what the dealer's hole card is.
I think, to people like Licentia's eternal upset, this is why we can instantly dismiss most betting systems. Because they provide us with no real knowledge, and therefore, no real advantage.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth . . . I will now clear things up by clarifying what apparently got lost in translation.
I think that for the miniscule advantage that card counting gives you it's a lot of damn work and, in the short term, which for us weekend warriors is all we'll ever see, it's a lot of work for what will quite possibly add up to a huge loss.
Furthermore, being 25 and doing tech support for $13/hr I don't come close to having the massive bankroll that we all know is required for card counting. When I go to the casino I take $200 max.
So why not look for a better way? What harm will it do? I'm a naturally curious person and am always inspired by the people who have done the "impossible."
Sometimes I really do feel as if SOME people here (not meaning you) are averse to any sort of possbility that card counting is not the end all be all of blackjack awesomeness. But what can I do about closed-minded people? I'm not claiming to have any miracle cure or unbeatable strategy . . . all I've said is that maybe something is out there that's NOT situational dependent, that can be used in just about any game (like counting) but that can render a higher-than-1% advantage.
If probably won't be me, and it may not be in my lifetime, but I would not at all be surprised when such a thing is discovered/developed.