Yes I did - YOU are the NEW BARFARKEL!Did you like the piece about Chan Li and I ZG?
Yes I did - YOU are the NEW BARFARKEL!
This David Miller, how old? Wondering if he's the same Miller I sold timeshares with in Hawaii, circa '78. zg
Oh, right - YOU are Miller. Chibi-san not so smart! zgI was 6 in 78
Why 4Qs??
Mirage and Wynn only based on limited or superficial analysis.
What is Jet? zg
I was 6 in 78
They used "count-adjusted" BS, according to one of the interviews of "Mickey Rosa". zgDid they really advise to NEVER deviate from basic strategy at these seminars???
My understanding was the MIT teams generally tried to crush the games crudely with large bankrolls (which is also why they preferred shoe games - PE is less important or profitable) and then wondered why they got backed off -- hence the constant need for a ever changing cast of players.
I can see the clowns after attending one of these seminars and running into a super high count -- bettting table maximum (I wonder how much bankroll management they teach? MIT players were all backed and didn't have to worry about that aspect, they just bet what they were told) -- and then ...
HITTING 16 VS THE DEALERS TEN!!!
:laugh:
Did they really advise to NEVER deviate from basic strategy at these seminars???
My understanding was the MIT teams generally tried to crush the games crudely with large bankrolls (which is also why they preferred shoe games - PE is less important or profitable) and then wondered why they got backed off -- hence the constant need for a ever changing cast of players.
I can see the clowns after attending one of these seminars and running into a super high count -- bettting table maximum (I wonder how much bankroll management they teach? MIT players were all backed and didn't have to worry about that aspect, they just bet what they were told) -- and then ...
HITTING 16 VS THE DEALERS TEN!!!
:laugh:
According to Chan, they eventually used NON-INDEXED '+count-bet-adusted' basic strategy.My understanding is that if you are not counting, you should never deviate from BS. If you are counting, use CE adjusted numbers plays. Also, they crushed the games systematically. Over an 8 year give or take time frame.
According to Chan, they eventually used NON-INDEXED '+count-bet-adusted' basic strategy.
Can someone enlighten me - CE indices, as opposed to EV indices, are the same as RA indices, correct? zg
Did they really advise to NEVER deviate from basic strategy at these seminars???
My understanding was the MIT teams generally tried to crush the games crudely with large bankrolls (which is also why they preferred shoe games - PE is less important or profitable) and then wondered why they got backed off -- hence the constant need for a ever changing cast of players.
I can see the clowns after attending one of these seminars and running into a super high count -- bettting table maximum (I wonder how much bankroll management they teach? MIT players were all backed and didn't have to worry about that aspect, they just bet what they were told) -- and then ...
HITTING 16 VS THE DEALERS TEN!!!
:laugh:
Say what? Need someone to answer my question, please (CE#s vs. RA#, are they the same?). zgThat would be partially the table offset that QFIT opposes not sure what the -adjusted part is. .
Need someone to answer my question, please (CE#s vs. RA#, are they the same?). zg
Using (Dead link: Gizoogle.com) to read this thread makes it much more interesting.
(Dead link: http://sites.gizoogle.com/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackjackinfo.com%2Fbb%2Findex.php)
This post is all false speculation. As far as the MIT teams go they were far from crude even if they were only using a level 1 hi-lo count. On top of that they were ultra conservative with their betting given the bankroll they were using.
Okay, they weren't crude except they used a 1 level count on shoe games, used a counter's BS or limited number of indexes, and ramped bets on a TC+1 basis instead of trying to determine an optimal ramp. So other then their count, procedures, and betting they were state of the art.
Using (Dead link: Gizoogle.com) to read this thread makes it much more interesting.