Adding an advantage

[captheathmalc]

Since I found this site, and started my first thread (this being my 2nd), the replies I recieved to the methods I used during my BJ sessions were scrutinized, ridiculed, and in some cases deemed Bull****. At any rate, I decided to dig a little deeper into what people were saying to me (What could it hurt?) , and with this in-mind , decided to start practicing counting.

For those of you who haven't read the other thread..I learned a simple count system about 17 years ago, but abandoned it due to another strategy I developed. Anyway.... So while I have to wait for ordered books to arrive, I have scoured the internet in search of any useful information that may help me in my new quest...which, ultimately is to see if an advanced count will improve my take , or if I could combine a count with what I'm doing now...for the same objective.

Now that I have that out of the way.... Here is something that occured to me while I was surfing for specs of info:

If you knew exactly how many of each cards were in a shoe, during play...what sort of additional advantage would this give you..if any?

For example, say we are using a single deck...and we know that only 9 T's remain, four 2's; 1 ace,etc,etc. Would this advantage be any better than a strong advanced system? And what about in-conjunction with an advanced system.

The idea I have would only be able to be used by people with strong math skills, who have no problem with decimals, and dividing fractions.

But, the basic idea is to assign a weighted binary value to each card.

Lemme know what you think.

 

[supercoolmancool]

What you are trying to invent is the perfect count, and quite surprisingly, it is not worth the effort. If you want to try advanced techniques to get you larger edges you should just use what other people have come up with: shuffle tracking, ace sequencing, card steering, ect.

 

[captheathmalc]

What you are trying to invent is the perfect count, and quite surprisingly, it is not worth the effort. If you want to try advanced techniques to get you larger edges you should just use what other people have come up with: shuffle tracking, ace sequencing, card steering, ect.

Yeah, I've never been one to follow the beaten path.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...
If you knew exactly how many of each cards were in a shoe, during play...what sort of additional advantage would this give you..if any?...

This is called Perfect Strategy and it can give you significant improvement, but not as much as simply betting more when the odds are in your favor. There's no play that works better than having a bunch of black chips down in your spot when you get a blackjack! Makes your decision making real easy!

There have been many Perfect Strategy routines written. Until very recently there was a Java routine online called Perfect Play Blackjack that allowed you to set rules, enter your cards and it will give you your advantage for hitting/standing/doubling/splitting. It was a handy thing for online play. Too bad that site appears to be down.

 

[Sonny]

I agree with supercoolmancool (we've got to give that boy a shorter nickname!). What you are proposing is exactly what Peter Griffin did decades ago. That means: a) Your approach is definitely valid, and b) all the hard work has already been done. Hooray!

Griffin gave a value to each card based on how much it is worth to the player. He called them Effects of Removal. People could then create card counting systems that weighted each card based directly on how it affected the house edge. People could also measure the accuracy of any card counting system by finding the correlation coefficient of the system to the “perfect” value of each card. This lead to very accurate and very simple card counting systems. The HiLo, for example, is about 97% accurate in estimating the player’s advantage according to his estimations. There are several system with 99% accuracy.

The gain from using “computer perfect” play is therefore minimal. The main advantage of a computer is that is can play the hands more accurately. However, since the majority of the player’s advantage comes from proper betting, the use of a computer does not gain much.

As far as the responses to your other thread, I think a lot of people don’t really understand what you are doing (myself included). You seem to indicate that you are getting tells from dealer’s who use the mirror peekers, but that isn’t possible. I think we just don’t understand what you’re doing. We get incessant people promoting “fantastic new systems” about every week. Many of them aren’t nearly as rational as you are so the arguments can get very heated. You’ll have to excuse some people’s short-fuse attitudes. :gun:

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

Until very recently there was a Java routine online called Perfect Play Blackjack that allowed you to set rules, enter your cards and it will give you your advantage for hitting/standing/doubling/splitting. It was a handy thing for online play. Too bad that site appears to be down.

You can still buy the Blackjack 2021 software:

(Dead link: http://www.beejack.com/tools.html)

It does the same thing but it costs $15.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

Since I found this site, and started my first thread (this being my 2nd), the replies I recieved to the methods I used during my BJ sessions were scrutinized, ridiculed, and in some cases deemed Bull****. At any rate, I decided to dig a little deeper into what people were saying to me (What could it hurt?) , and with this in-mind , decided to start practicing counting.

Start here -

Free Counting Resources On Web
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=697

 

[captheathmalc]

I agree with supercoolmancool (we've got to give that boy a shorter nickname!). What you are proposing is exactly what Peter Griffin did decades ago. That means: a) Your approach is definitely valid, and b) all the hard work has already been done. Hooray!

Griffin gave a value to each card based on how much it is worth to the player. He called them Effects of Removal. People could then create card counting systems that weighted each card based directly on how it affected the house edge. People could also measure the accuracy of any card counting system by finding the correlation coefficient of the system to the “perfect” value of each card. This lead to very accurate and very simple card counting systems. The HiLo, for example, is about 97% accurate in estimating the player’s advantage according to his estimations. There are several system with 99% accuracy.

The gain from using “computer perfect” play is therefore minimal. The main advantage of a computer is that is can play the hands more accurately. However, since the majority of the player’s advantage comes from proper betting, the use of a computer does not gain much.

As far as the responses to your other thread, I think a lot of people don’t really understand what you are doing (myself included). You seem to indicate that you are getting tells from dealer’s who use the mirror peekers, but that isn’t possible. I think we just don’t understand what you’re doing. We get incessant people promoting “fantastic new systems” about every week. Many of them aren’t nearly as rational as you are so the arguments can get very heated. You’ll have to excuse some people’s short-fuse attitudes. :gun:

-Sonny-

Hmmm... yes... I didn't know of Griffin, but that is the basic Idea.

But (cannot seem to quit adding stuff)..... As you mentioned about proper betting.....my reasoning is that if you know how many of each card is left in the shoe...say...you know 100% that there are no more 6,7,8's left, 8 T's and the rest (say 30)are either ace,2,3,4,5....and you are on the last of a 6D shoe..... you are holding 5/5 vs the dealer 6. Now normally you would double on this.... but since you know the exact amount of each card..... you may wish to split, as your chances of getting an ace/low are very good (66% range)...and then double the splits. Wouldn't this information increase your ability to make the $10K bet at the right time? as opposed to a regular count that may be -5, but wouldn't change your strategy in this situation. BTW..I am assuming that a person is using Hilo RC, and keeping a TC.

Now.... if you use the assumed strategy (Hilo/RC/TC), then you wouldn't double down, as your strategy is telling you (correctly) that there are far more low cards in the deck, and accordingly, the percentages are aginst you.

Now...using my theory, we would actually split....for the same reason you wouldn't double...... The reason behind this, is under my theory, we know that there are only 8 cards in the entire deck that we could possibly bust with....and the percentages are on our side.

 

[mdlbj]

Hmmm... yes... I didn't know of Griffin, but that is the basic Idea.

But (cannot seem to quit adding stuff)..... As you mentioned about proper betting.....my reasoning is that if you know how many of each card is left in the shoe...say...you know 100% that there are no more 6,7,8's left, 8 T's and the rest (say 30)are either ace,2,3,4,5....and you are on the last of a 6D shoe..... you are holding 5/5 vs the dealer 6. Now normally you would double on this.... but since you know the exact amount of each card..... you may wish to split, as your chances of getting an ace/low are very good (66% range)...and then double the splits. Wouldn't this information increase your ability to make the $10K bet at the right time? as opposed to a regular count that may be -5, but wouldn't change your strategy in this situation. BTW..I am assuming that a person is using Hilo RC, and keeping a TC.

Now.... if you use the assumed strategy (Hilo/RC/TC), then you wouldn't double down, as your strategy is telling you (correctly) that there are far more low cards in the deck, and accordingly, the percentages are aginst you.

Now...using my theory, we would actually split....for the same reason you wouldn't double...... The reason behind this, is under my theory, we know that there are only 8 cards in the entire deck that we could possibly bust with....and the percentages are on our side.

Double. There are an unknown amount of aces left as well.

 

[captheathmalc]

Double. There are an unknown amount of aces left as well.

Under the "assumed" strategy, there are an unknown amount of aces.....

Under my theoretical strategy, I would know the exact number of aces.

Doubling is not a "bad" strategy..... but the percentage is still with you if split the fives, then double.....under my theory.

Assume that of the 30 cards left...2 aces are left...that would be 10 of 30 cards that could make you a 20 or 21.

Since all the other cards that are left are below 6, we have a very high chance that the worst we can do is break even, whereas if you split the fives
you have a 60+% chance of getting anything but a ten...and if you do...the percentages only increase. Chances are, you'll get the low card, and then you double the split.

When I put down 10k, I fully plan on winning it, and although this isn't always the case....I do take every advantage offered to me.

In this case, the 5's being split represent a good chance at winning 20K. I would definitely take this approach over the double....which is more likely to land you a low card, and then the dealer probably ends-up with a high hand...you lose 10K. I would hit that hand before I doubled it, and I would split it before I hit.

Understand: The dealer has a high percentage of not busing on his first hand...only way would be if he had a T, then drew a T.

You, on the other hand, by splitting the 5's are "guaranteed" at least 2 cards on the split. Why? Because we already know the number of T's and all the other cards are below 6.

Then again...when I play my max-bet, I tend to be aggressive. But, it has always worked..so I'll continue. But if my theory has anything to add to an advanced count, I may change my strategy completely.

Will need quite a bit of time to work it all out....but I'm positive it can be done with a limited number of decks. (More decks=harder calculations=slower timing= mess-ups)

 

[zengrifter]

Under the "assumed" strategy, there are an unknown amount of aces.....

Under my theoretical strategy, I would know the exact number of aces.

Doubling is not a "bad" strategy..... but the percentage is still with you if split the fives, then double.....under my theory.

Assume that of the 30 cards left...2 aces are left...that would be 10 of 30 cards that could make you a 20 or 21.

Since all the other cards that are left are below 6, we have a very high chance that the worst we can do is break even, whereas if you split the fives
you have a 60+% chance of getting anything but a ten...and if you do...the percentages only increase. Chances are, you'll get the low card, and then you double the split.

When I put down 10k, I fully plan on winning it, and although this isn't always the case....I do take every advantage offered to me.

In this case, the 5's being split represent a good chance at winning 20K. I would definitely take this approach over the double....which is more likely to land you a low card, and then the dealer probably ends-up with a high hand...you lose 10K. I would hit that hand before I doubled it, and I would split it before I hit.

Understand: The dealer has a high percentage of not busing on his first hand...only way would be if he had a T, then drew a T.

You, on the other hand, by splitting the 5's are "guaranteed" at least 2 cards on the split. Why? Because we already know the number of T's and all the other cards are below 6.

Then again...when I play my max-bet, I tend to be aggressive. But, it has always worked..so I'll continue. But if my theory has anything to add to an advanced count, I may change my strategy completely.

Will need quite a bit of time to work it all out....but I'm positive it can be done with a limited number of decks. (More decks=harder calculations=slower timing= mess-ups)

You are talking smack, pal. Read the books I recommended and then you'll have some foundation for the dialogue. While you are waiting for those books you can start here -
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=697

 

[Sonny]

say...you know 100% that there are no more 6,7,8's left, 8 T's and the rest (say 30)are either ace,2,3,4,5....and you are on the last of a 6D shoe..... you are holding 5/5 vs the dealer 6. Now normally you would double on this.... but since you know the exact amount of each card..... you may wish to split, as your chances of getting an ace/low are very good (66% range)...and then double the splits.

But what if you split your fives, get a low card on each, then double them both only to get another small card on each? Then you have 4 bets on lousy hands and the dealer has a very good chance of making his hand. You’ve put a lot more money on the table and limited your play to receiving only one card on each hand, but was it worth it? What if only one hand lost? Then you have broken even instead of winning. The only way to know is by looking at every possible outcome in that situation (there are probably much more than a few thousand events that you must consider).

Peter Griffin gives a perfect example of what your describing. Imagine a deck that is down to 2 sevens and 3 eights. The count tells you that you do not have an advantage, and sure enough if you follow BS you won’t. You will either hit a 14, 15 or 16 against the dealer’s 7 or 8 and you will bust. However, if you simply stand on whatever you are dealt you will have a 100% chance of winning! Unfortunately, situations like this are very rare, especially since most casinos cut 1-2 decks out of play.

So, to answer your question, yes a computer will be able to find certain situations that are favorable even when the count doesn’t (because of the unusual playing strategy), but the practical application of this are limited. The majority of your advantage is knowing how to bet before you see your cards.

-Sonny-

 

[captheathmalc]

You are talking smack, pal. Read the books I recommended and then you'll have some foundation for the dialogue. While you are waiting for those books you can start here -
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=697

Quite possibly it is smack...but if the theory works, then it isn't. But I will read the link.

But what if you split your fives, get a low card on each, then double them both only to get another small card on each? Then you have 4 bets on lousy hands and the dealer has a very good chance of making his hand. You’ve put a lot more money on the table and limited your play to receiving only one card on each hand, but was it worth it? What if only one hand lost? Then you have broken even instead of winning. The only way to know is by looking at every possible outcome in that situation (there are probably much more than a few thousand events that you must consider).

Peter Griffin gives a perfect example of what your describing. Imagine a deck that is down to 2 sevens and 3 eights. The count tells you that you do not have an advantage, and sure enough if you follow BS you won’t. You will either hit a 14, 15 or 16 against the dealer’s 7 or 8 and you will bust. However, if you simply stand on whatever you are dealt you will have a 100% chance of winning! Unfortunately, situations like this are very rare, especially since most casinos cut 1-2 decks out of play.

So, to answer your question, yes a computer will be able to find certain situations that are favorable even when the count doesn’t (because of the unusual playing strategy), but the practical application of this are limited. The majority of your advantage is knowing how to bet before you see your cards.

-Sonny-

True...I could lose on both hands...the possibility is there. Then again, I could lose on the first the same way. But the percentages would be in my favor , to not bust.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read Griffin yet, but I will.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wh is it that everyone only quotes a book..that another man wrote, and never tries to improve things themselves. Surely some of you have the means to do this. True...people prefer to stick to tried & true methods....and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the theory is sound....despite what some of you may think. And after I have a chance to do some research on this, I will be able to say with certainty whether I am right, or as ZG said...it is smack.

However.....If Revere,Griffin, Wong,etc,etc never wrote any books, and never tried anything...where would all of you be posting now?

If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it....it wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last. But "looking" for "better" cannot hurt.

 

[Sonny]

True...I could lose on both hands...the possibility is there. Then again, I could lose on the first the same way. But the percentages would be in my favor , to not bust.

Yes, but just because you don’t bust doesn’t mean that you’ll win. The dealer is equally likely to not bust so you will need to have a very good hand to beat them. Not busting is only half the battle.

I’m not saying that you’re wrong here (for all I know you might be right), I’m just saying that you need to do a lot more research before you make your conclusions. As I mentioned, there are many thousands of hands that you must consider to determine what the best play would be. You must analyze every possible play, every possible hand composition, every possible hit card(s), every possible dealer hole card, very possible dealer hit card(s) and total, every possible payout, and much more. Then you have to properly weight each possible outcome based on its probability of occurrence. This is not something that you can deduce logically.

Wh is it that everyone only quotes a book..that another man wrote, and never tries to improve things themselves…If Revere,Griffin, Wong,etc,etc never wrote any books, and never tried anything...where would all of you be posting now?

If I had been born 40 years earlier then I might have had a chance, but it looks like Thorp (et al) beat me to the punch.

And, in a way, each person throughout history has improved things intheir own way. The HiLo counting system has been improved by Harvey Dubner, Julian Braun, Ed Thorp, Lawrence Revere, Allan Wilson, Stanford Wong, and a few others along the way. There are many techniques that we discuss on this website that have never been published. So when does Sonny’s big book get published? Well, I’m not going to make the same mistake Ken Uston did! I’m going to make a fortune then tell everyone how I did it, not the other way around. Some of the strongest techniques are the ones that people aren’t talking about! Believe me, they are out there. And I’m sure you will find a few too.

Still, I agree with you that it is very important for people to come to their own conclusions and not just blindly believe what others have written. However, there is also no need to reinvent the wheel. Some of the greatest mathematical minds have been studying this game for the past several decades. All of the hard work has already been done. I encourage you to research their work, but don’t expect to find any mistakes or loopholes. It can be very comforting to find that the basic theories behind gambling are sound (and to see exactly why firsthand), but it can also be very frustrating to learn that “everything they said was true.”

If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it....it wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last. But "looking" for "better" cannot hurt.

I agree completely. You remind me of myself many years ago (except a bit less arrogant:laugh. I was extremely excited about BJ and couldn’t wait to learn everything there is to know. Seven years later I have only scratched the surface, but I do have a good understanding of the mathematical rules that govern the game. I wish you luck in your search for truth, and I look forward to seeing you again when it leads you back here.

-Sonny-

 

[shadroch]

If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it....it wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last. But "looking" for "better" cannot hurt.[/QUOTE]


Ready to admit your 'advice' about playing happy tables and reading non-existant tells is simply wrong?

 

[halcyon1234]

Wh is it that everyone only quotes a book..that another man wrote, and never tries to improve things themselves.

For the same reason that people quote Physics books rather than coming up with the equations themselves.

Not that the search for knowledge is bad (nor should it be discouraged), but just be careful that you aren't just re-inventing the wheel. The great thing about Blackjack is that it's a known quantity. We know exactly what makes up a Blackjack deck, and exactly what rules it must follow. It's very easy to plug it into a computer, and simulate anything over billions of hands relatively quickly.

If you are serious about a theory, your best steps are to:

1) Make sure it hasn't already been proven/disproven. (The books you have on order, plus the Internet, is the best way to go)
2) Get a copy of something like BlackjackSim, learn it inside out, then test your theories. Remember scientific method. Come up with a theory. Search for data that proves or disproves it. Revise your theory. Lather, rinse, repeat.
3) If you come up with something that works, make a few million from it, then another few thousand from the book rights (in that order! :laugh: )

 

[Bojack1]

The bottomline here Captain is, you have to walk before you run. You have yet to do a true count conversion at a live table yet, and you insist at trying to invent groundbreaking methods. My advice if you want it is, slow down, stop trying too hard to impress your detractors, and learn and perfect an established counting system. Once you do that you might see more clearly what some of the others are talking about. I will also offer you this, most of the successful pros out there are not performing calculus type equations at the table. Winning at this game may not be real simple, but the basic guidelines on giving yourself the advantage are. Again I ask you this question, If your current system of play has been so successful that its your only source of income, why the big rush to change it because of a few disagreeing posts on a message board? Once you can truly answer that, than I think you can move on to trying to be a real AP.

 

[RJT]

This count has already been invented. I can't remember exactly which book it was - although i suppect Blackjack Wisdom or Blackbelt in Blackjack - but Arnold Snyder discusses inventing a count that allowed him to know the exact composition of the remaining cards in the deck. The problem with it was that even though he knew the exact cards remaining, he couldn't work out what to do with the information in any reasonable amount of time.
Try processing a standard count, with TC conversion and a couple of side counts - you'll find that managing all that information at the table while trying to look like just a regular player will be very very difficult. It's nice to think that knowing all that extra info would make you so much better, but it will just bog you down rather than supercharge you.

RJT.

 

[Sonny]

…Arnold Snyder discusses inventing a count that allowed him to know the exact composition of the remaining cards in the deck. The problem with it was that even though he knew the exact cards remaining, he couldn't work out what to do with the information in any reasonable amount of time.

Ah yes, Snyder’s Folly. Here’s a link to that article:

"Well," I explained, "I know you've got eleven tens, three aces, four deuces, one 3, four 4s, two 5s, two 6s, two 7s, one 8, and three 9s remaining…But I can't make my insurance decision till I tally up all these damn numbers and figure out the ten ratio."

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm

-Sonny-

 

[captheathmalc]

:::Chuckles::: Well, it looks like I have some things to reply to.

Yes, but just because you don’t bust doesn’t mean that you’ll win. The dealer is equally likely to not bust so you will need to have a very good hand to beat them. Not busting is only half the battle.

I agree completely. You remind me of myself many years ago (except a bit less arrogant:laugh. I was extremely excited about BJ and couldn’t wait to learn everything there is to know. Seven years later I have only scratched the surface, but I do have a good understanding of the mathematical rules that govern the game. I wish you luck in your search for truth, and I look forward to seeing you again when it leads you back here.

-Sonny-

Interesting reply Sonny. Yet, I have been playing BJ for approximately 16 year. And I'm not arrogant, though if that is how you choose to see me, that is okay.

As for Julian..... I knew about him before I knew about blackjack. And, yes...at the time, he was a whiz (Suely the reason IBM hired him to begin with), yet I have found quite a few mistakes in his work...... as have many others.....BTW...I am speaking strictly mathematical theory here...not BJ.

If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it....it wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last. But "looking" for "better" cannot hurt.

Ready to admit your 'advice' about playing happy tables and reading non-existant tells is simply wrong?[/QUOTE]

Am I ready to admit that I am wrong? Look Shadroch...if you wish to ignore what I have said, that is fine..... Does a "Happy-Table" affect your play...maybe not...but, in my experiences, I win more at that type of table. There are tells....whether you wish to believe it or not is irrelevent. I am not trying to convince you that I am right....rather, I don't have a vested interest either way. So, you can ignore everything I say...and write it off as "ploppy-talk", or whatever other colorful metaphor you wish to apply.

For the same reason that people quote Physics books rather than coming up with the equations themselves.

Not that the search for knowledge is bad (nor should it be discouraged), but just be careful that you aren't just re-inventing the wheel. The great thing about Blackjack is that it's a known quantity. We know exactly what makes up a Blackjack deck, and exactly what rules it must follow. It's very easy to plug it into a computer, and simulate anything over billions of hands relatively quickly.

If you are serious about a theory, your best steps are to:

1) Make sure it hasn't already been proven/disproven. (The books you have on order, plus the Internet, is the best way to go)
2) Get a copy of something like BlackjackSim, learn it inside out, then test your theories. Remember scientific method. Come up with a theory. Search for data that proves or disproves it. Revise your theory. Lather, rinse, repeat.
3) If you come up with something that works, make a few million from it, then another few thousand from the book rights (in that order! :laugh: )

OMG!!! You are comparing physics to BJ theory. Comparing a factual science to a theoretical science is not conducive to a good argument.

For instance... At any given time during a BJ session, you cannot definitely know what the next card is going to be.

Is physics, it is just the opposite. We know exactly what will happen in a given situation.

I could go much deeper into this difference, but since this isn't a physics-forum, I doubt that anyone is interested anyway.

As for your "suggestion" to me to use simjack...... the only thing I have to say to that is that you obviously haven't studied the game as much as you want me to believe, or you would never have recommended such an elementary program.

The bottomline here Captain is, you have to walk before you run. You have yet to do a true count conversion at a live table yet, and you insist at trying to invent groundbreaking methods. My advice if you want it is, slow down, stop trying too hard to impress your detractors, and learn and perfect an established counting system. Once you do that you might see more clearly what some of the others are talking about. I will also offer you this, most of the successful pros out there are not performing calculus type equations at the table. Winning at this game may not be real simple, but the basic guidelines on giving yourself the advantage are. Again I ask you this question, If your current system of play has been so successful that its your only source of income, why the big rush to change it because of a few disagreeing posts on a message board? Once you can truly answer that, than I think you can move on to trying to be a real AP.

Once again...my statements/posts have been slandered!!!! I never said I was going to "change" what I currently do, and never indicated I was in a "rush" to do anything either. What I did say was this: "I will look into counting systems more, and see if there is anything I can add , that will give me a larger advantage. Make sure you know what you're quoting before you go sticking words into people's mouths!

As for you believing me, or believing that BJ is my only source of income..... I don't really care what you think or believe. A fact is a fact. And if so many of you were so interested in verifying what I say is wrong (as opposed to assumptions, slanders, and out-right lies), then why have none of you so-called "AP's" approached me at any of the Casinos I named that I would be at....I was there! Want more info??? Still want to prove me wrong...anyone??? I'll be at the Belterra on Wednesday night... I'll where the same blue sweatshirt,blue-jeans, and the Ohio State cap.

On February 8th, I'll be at Circus Circus in LV; the 9th I'll be at the Mirage.

February 26-28 I'll be in AC, I'll move between the Taj-Mahal, and Tropicanna.

Again...I always wear the Ohio State cap, and 99% of the time Blue-jeans.

So...someone PLEASE walk-up to me, and verify to the rest of these millionaires that what I say is true. (Use my nickname: Capt.)


-out-

Ah yes, Snyder’s Folly. Here’s a link to that article:

"Well," I explained, "I know you've got eleven tens, three aces, four deuces, one 3, four 4s, two 5s, two 6s, two 7s, one 8, and three 9s remaining…But I can't make my insurance decision till I tally up all these damn numbers and figure out the ten ratio."

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm

-Sonny-

Yes, I saw that Sonny..... and as I said...I never said it would be easy.

And take into consideration Snyder's relative weaknesses:

As he said: "...I have trouble doing more than a couple things at a time..."