Yes I did - YOU are the NEW BARFARKEL!mdlbj said:Did you like the piece about Chan Li and I ZG?
I was 6 in 78zengrifter said: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! zgmdlbj said:I was 6 in 78
zengrifter said:Why 4Qs??
Mirage and Wynn only based on limited or superficial analysis.
What is Jet? zg
six? yep that was probably you he tryed to sell the shares to. :joker:mdlbj said:I was 6 in 78
They used "count-adjusted" BS, according to one of the interviews of "Mickey Rosa". zgcardcounter0 said: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:
cardcounter0 said: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.mdlbj 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.
That would be partially the table offset that QFIT opposes not sure what the -adjusted part is. .zengrifter said: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
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: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?). zgmdlbj said:That would be partially the table offset that QFIT opposes not sure what the -adjusted part is. .
I believe they are the same. They both use the player's CE to adjust the indices for risk tolerance.zengrifter said:Need someone to answer my question, please (CE#s vs. RA#, are they the same?). zg
In what way? Didn't look any different to me?mdlbj said: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)
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: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.
Great, now every thread looks like a SilentBob post. Turn it off! :laugh:mdlbj said:Using (Dead link: Gizoogle.com) to read this thread makes it much more interesting.