zengrifter
Banned
So, someone get confirmation on this, please. zg
Isn't BJ crazy, but predictable
- Thread starter Elhombre
- Start date
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Sure, anytime you know the next card is a face-card it will dramatically Increase the dealers chances of Busting, against any up-card. Sometimes On close-decision plays, I'll always stand, If I see 3 or 4 little cards In a row Depending on high the count is. Because I know their should be a facecard every 3.25 cards. Take this into Correlation with count, along with a Surplus or Shortage of Aces, and I can damn near give the Dealer a Ten, at times, while sitting at third base, to Improve the dealers chances, of Busting. Like wise I do the same thing In negative-counts. Yes I believe I can Slighty Help a Full-table win
Aces Improve the Dealers "chances" on Making a Pat-hand, with a bust card showing especially S17, w/a 6 up! And also help The dealers 7,8,9, But Virtually becomes a Neutral-card vs a X,A up. Except it Technically does Increase the Dealers chances of Busting, by about 1/13, provided he's Stiffed with a ten showing. Excluding H16.
I once tried to start up a thread about this "Index Deviation" But it was quickly shot down!
aslan
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing that, jackson. :1st:
Now bring in the sharpshooters!
......:gun:
...:gun:
:gun:......................................................:yikes: j,j
...:gun:
......:gun:
Just kidding, jackson. But you can always count on the critics around here. Don't take it to heart. Most times it's just that they can't stand it if someone else has something to offer. Everyone that I know here on the forum appreciates your comments. Keep up the good work!
Now bring in the sharpshooters!
......:gun:
...:gun:
:gun:......................................................:yikes: j,j
...:gun:
......:gun:
Just kidding, jackson. But you can always count on the critics around here. Don't take it to heart. Most times it's just that they can't stand it if someone else has something to offer. Everyone that I know here on the forum appreciates your comments. Keep up the good work!
JJ, you're one of the few posters round here that i bother to read. Keep up the good work - even if you don't feel it's appreciated.
RJT.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
You got it right. Suppose you have two hands and you're sitting at third base. First hand is a hard 19. Second hand is a baby and you draw it out to hard 15, and let's say you know the next card is an ace. Dealer shows 10. You have a very slight positive count. What do you do?
Well you can draw to your 15 and have a hard 16 you to stand on instead, or you can let the dealer have the ace. It is to your advantage to let the dealer have the ace. How much, I don't know, it's kind of an obscure problem.
zengrifter
Banned
aslan
Well-Known Member
Don't be quick to voodoo. If the count is, say, +2, we know there is a greater expectation of face cards. If three small cards come out, the count is now +5. Isn't there a greater expectation of the next card being a face at +5 than there was at +2? As for averages, we use averages in card counting all the time. Aren't we assuming the 8s and 9s that we tag zero are evenly distributed throughout the decks, ie, they have an average or near-average distribution? Just a thought.
zengrifter
Banned
If instead of the count the final arbriter of play deviation is a percieved pattern, then it's voodoo.
That is of course UNLESS you are using bonafide intuition. Then it's genuis. zg
Sorry but i require something a little more scientific that "we're human beings, ain't we wonderful". Don't get me wrong, i don't think we've discovered all our potential by a long shot, but until i can prove something actually works i won't be applying it to my AP strategy.
RJT.
aslan
Well-Known Member
I agree with the first part entirely. I haven't had much luck proving the second part, although my wife seems to have a special talent in this area. When she ways so and so is going to win the world series, you can bet the farm. lol
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
As far as the Voodoo is concerned. Ya, it was probably something against my better judgement. I believe we all post something from time to time that we regret. Lord knows I have Though I've read, the True Count Theorm, for some reason I still believe(Voodoo) that a TC that goes from 0 to +4 is slighty stronger than a TC that goes from +8 to +4, even though there both +4. (Of course the deeper dealt the game, the more the TC will jump from one hand to the next.)
Im just the type of guy that Stands on 12vs2 In a Singledeck game In a neutral count with a couple of 8s on the spread. Maybe Im just trying to hard. Or maybe, perhaps there is a little Vodoo In my Blood.:eyepatch:
Though I've read, the True Count Theorm, for some reason I still believe(Voodoo) that a TC that goes from 0 to +4 is slighty stronger than a TC that goes from +8 to +4, even though there both +4. (Of course the deeper dealt the game, the more the TC will jump from one hand to the next.) Im just the type of guy that Stands on 12vs2 In a Singledeck game In a neutral count with a couple of 8s on the spread. Maybe Im just trying to hard. Or maybe, perhaps there is a little Vodoo In my Blood.:eyepatch:
aslan
Well-Known Member
As far as the Voodoo is concerned. Ya, it was probably something against my better judgement. I believe we all post something from time to time that we regret. Lord knows I have
Im just the type of guy that Stands on 12vs2 In a Singledeck game In a neutral count with a couple of 8s on the spread. Maybe Im just trying to hard. Or maybe, perhaps there is a little Vodoo In my Blood.:eyepatch:
Well, I did think your rationale for expecting a face card after three small cards came out in a positive count was actually rooted in the fact that the count was higher by three and thus there would be a greater expectation of face cards (and aces)--nothing voodoo about that. But if the fact that three small cards came out and therefore a face card was due (every 3 1/2 cards on average), I'm not buying that. This would presuppose a perfectly even distribution of cards. There may be some science there, but it has yet to be developed, so far as I know anyway. lol Hey! Who doesn't have a little voodoo in there blood.
Speaking of voodoo, I have been bragging about how my buddy goes to AC several days a month and never loses, yet he doesn't count, and he does play craps and slots besides BJ. Well, last week it all came to an end. He lost $1,700 at the same casino which reported he had won $1,600+ last year. So in one fell swoop he wiped out all his former winnings. You can't fool Mother nature.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
just curious. isn't this one of the postulates that the speed count is based on or maybe the OOP count?
Alright this is your first post in the thread saying how if you do steer aces then its usually to the dealer and its a powerful tactic. Then as you realize that is a ridiculous statement you change your tune to make it more of a defensive move, which is all it is. Last time, if you have to give an ace to a dealer you either made a mistake in your previous hands, or you just don't understand the advantage of the ace. Granted in very few instances, it may be the move to make, but if you're good, which you better be if your even trying to play this way, you find a way to set up for the next round or better yet don't get yourself in the jam of having to hand it to the dealer. If your goal is to set up the dealer for a bust you DO NOT do it with an ace. Look at the indecision in Monkey's posts, that should be enough to tell you its not right. Man, playing methods like these are hard enough, you don't need the bad advice to make using it impossible.
And just for the record, steering and predicting through sequencing are totally different animals. When sequencing you have much less accuracy then steering. Sequencing depends on other cards and is dealer dependent on the shuffle. Steering is actually seeing a card and cutting to it and steering it to the hand of your choice. Neither is easy and I really doubt most here can do it. But from reading this thread I definitely know who can't.
aslan
Well-Known Member
For us new to this, the terminology "steering" is something other than what you just defined. I was envisioning "either" (1) cutting to an ace and in so doing steering it to your hand, and (2) tracking an ace through the shuffle and when a key card appears, then trying to steer it for the best effect. But if you only see steering in the one sense, I see your point. As I said, I'm not enough into this to know the technical definitions. It just seems that steering must/should be an element in tracking (or did you call it sequencing?). Anyway, could we be getting bogged down in technicalities?
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Ah, you are talking about some totally different techniques. "Steering" does not just mean bottom steering, although bottom steering is a form of steering. I don't do bottom steering, because in the kinds of games I have available to play and the times I have available to play them, I can't just go to a casino and hope I find a bottom flasher. Even if you do, you have to see 13 bottom flashes for every ace, therefore I don't consider it that valuable a technique. You can get an ace with a pure sequencing technique before you get one bottom steering. I also don't need to divide the money with any accomplices for a one-man sequencing approach. At least you now understand what I mean by steering an ace to a dealer.
Still, sometimes when sequencing you get an opportunity to steer an ace. This is also a form of steering. Sometimes you are sequencing other ranks of cards and you get to steer them too. Sequencing itself is actually not that difficult, I find it kind of relaxing. The hard parts are analyzing the games to determine which tracking or sequencing approach is best to use, if any, and determining your advantage for proper bet sizing. Even some very smart guys have made errors in this latter, in published books.