Blackjack Awakening part Two
- Thread starter mdlbj
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
Yes I did - YOU are the NEW BARFARKEL!mdlbj said:
This David Miller, how old? Wondering if he's the same Miller I sold timeshares with in Hawaii, circa '78. zg
zengrifter
Banned
Oh, right - YOU are Miller. Chibi-san not so smart! zgmdlbj said:
zengrifter said:
This is why 4 queens, and the back-off comes with beer and dinner. Also a free ride to wherever you need to go.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/mar/23/must-be-21-entertain-idea/
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
What's up with this?
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:
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:
zengrifter
Banned
They used "count-adjusted" BS, according to one of the interviews of "Mickey Rosa". zgcardcounter0 said:
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.
Money management is a key emphasis at their seminars; almost overly talked about.
The gorillas were betting when they were told which is actually one of the best ways to play in todays casino environment.
Money management is a key emphasis at their seminars; almost overly talked about.
The gorillas were betting when they were told which is actually one of the best ways to play in todays casino environment.
cardcounter0 said:
zengrifter
Banned
According to Chan, they eventually used NON-INDEXED '+count-bet-adusted' basic strategy.mdlbj said:
Can someone enlighten me - CE indices, as opposed to EV indices, are the same as RA indices, correct? zg
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.cardcounter0 said:
As far as the seminars, they do mention indice play but stress to not bother with that until you know BS cold along with your counting system. Deviating from BS improperly can be very costly. Money management is a huge part of what they teach, and any beginner would be able to implement a well managed scheme based on just the basics they teach.
I will say this, they do simplify things for those starting out to where they could play a winning game without ever running a sim. However as one advances from that I suggest they look into getting a little more in depth with sims and strategy to get the most optimal plan for each game played.
zengrifter
Banned
Say what? Need someone to answer my question, please (CE#s vs. RA#, are they the same?). zgmdlbj said:
Ps - The 'adjsured part' is what I said - "count-adjusted-BS" is a modified BS FOR COUNTERS ONLY.
Last edited:
Sonny
Well-Known Member
I believe they are the same. They both use the player's CE to adjust the indices for risk tolerance.zengrifter said:
I believe the table offset that mdlbj is talking about is a TC adjustment for betting purposes only. Similar to the "bet the TC-1 in green" concept that Uston describes.
-Sonny-
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
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.
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 a level 1 count when running and maintaining a team, especially a high level team, is the absolute most efficient way to run a team. Only a limited number of indexes were needed as only positive situations were played. Learning the negative would have been pointless. There is no such thing as ramping the bets on a TC+1 basis. They do teach a TC-1 betting ramp for ease of use, but that doesn't mean that it was exclusively used by the MIT teams of the past.cardcounter0 said:
Implementing a simple but effective system is a key to success while running anything where you have many people involved and wish to main a high degree of quality control. If Ray Kroc, founder of Mcdonalds had chosen to open a high end restaurant I'm sure he could have gotten by making a nice living. Instead he took a simple concept, implemented a simple plan that basically he could plug any kid into, and made simple fast food. So instead of just being comfortable, he was rich enough to buy a small country. By far surpassing anything that he could have done with opening some type of high end lavish,expensive, you're hip if you eat there place. The concept may seem crude, but the ideology and pure vision it takes to accomplish such things are quite complex. The whole logistical and inner workings of the MIT teams could be compared to my Ray Kroc example, And not coincidentally, in both cases they made millions.
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
Does Ray Kroc run $900 seminars telling you to open up a cheap hamburger stand in order to crush the restaurant world?
As you pointed out, there are some things that have to be done simple, and less profitably, when running a team. Does an individual want to pay $900 and learn and use methods that are optimal for a team, or should he buy a book for $20 and learn the optimal methods for a single player?
If you open up 1 restaurant, do you open up a McDonalds and grind out a meager income (one that if you had 10,000 of these McDonalds open, you would become rich like Ray Kroc) or do you optimize your methods, not keep it simple for the team, and open up the high end eatery for a good living?
Is the expensive seminar in question about how to set up and run a team, or is it for individuals?
As you pointed out, there are some things that have to be done simple, and less profitably, when running a team. Does an individual want to pay $900 and learn and use methods that are optimal for a team, or should he buy a book for $20 and learn the optimal methods for a single player?
If you open up 1 restaurant, do you open up a McDonalds and grind out a meager income (one that if you had 10,000 of these McDonalds open, you would become rich like Ray Kroc) or do you optimize your methods, not keep it simple for the team, and open up the high end eatery for a good living?
Is the expensive seminar in question about how to set up and run a team, or is it for individuals?