Blackjack required reading

FLASH1296 · Mar 20, 2009

Flash Speaks:

InPlay said:

"When you make reckless statements and slander a man's work either you explain yourself or an apology is in order to Mr. Renzey."
Second of all nobody asked you. If you can explain it feel free to ramble on dude."

Nothing I posted was "reckless".
I stand by what I posted.
I did not "ramble".
Reexamine my post.
I did not "slander" anyone.
You obviously meant "libel".
Consult a dictionary.
Anyone who publishes a book knows that there are no slander or libel claims that apply, irrespective of what is said or published.

"Nobody asked me" ? Of course I was asked.

"Apologize" ? I think not. An apology is what one makes when one does something regrettable, not when one is taken to task for expressing his viewpoint when one is fully qualified to do so.

If you expect me to regret expressing an opinion, you must have me confused with a sheepish 20-something who has been playing BJ for a few years.

Stophon said:

"if the latter three aren't good what other books would you suggest? Is bj essays by malmuth a good read?"

I did not say that "Blackjack for Blood" was no good. I said that it was "difficult" (for a novice player). The book needs to be updated, but it is written very well and Advanced Omega II is one of the finest systems ever devised, especially for "pitch" games.

I said that K.O. is an "alternative" to Hi-Lo. They are of roughly equal power.

Re: recommendations, I I would suggest starting with "Professional Blackjack" and quickly add "Blackjack Attack", 3rd ed. Later, [much later], if the interest in BJ does not flag, "Blackbelt in Blackjack" is the way to go - stepping up to the ZEN Count. I also feel that "Theory of Blackjack", 6th ed. should be read dozen times by every BJ player, including those who never got beyond High School math.
There are real facts there, not exaggerated claims.

I dislike unbalanced level one counts; but if the student is a casual low stakes player they will suffice. If the player expects to visit a casino once a week and play for red chips for a few hours, it is hardly the same as a player who has saved up a substantial bankroll and intends to play 1,000+ hrs. per year betting light to moderate "green". That player needs to invest time and energy in mastering a balanced Level Two Count, e.g. ZEN.

On this forum we have players at every level of skill and knowledge, but certainly most of the readers of this thread must be classified as beginners.

As far as Malmuth's book of essays goes, it is rather dated and has some O.K. material, but do not set your expectations too high, it is all "old hat"

Tribute said:

" ... makes more sense than most books."

Making "sense" simply means that the book was not challenging.
There are swarms of people who feel that The Bible "makes sense"
but that does not mean that one needs to believe what it says.

InPlay goes on to say:

"Please explain this to us. You endorse KO but say avoide other. You endorse Hi-Lo. What are we missing ? Looking at the Hi-Lo score compared to Kiss3. Don't know the score on KO COLOR. How could YOU put a blessing on one when they all LOOK the same!"

I did not "endorse" K.O.
I simply said that it was an "alternative" to Hi-Lo.
That is a "neutral" statement.
Is English your primary language or do I need to define these words for you?
Where did I "endorse" Hi-Lo ?
I did not "bless" any system.
As far as "scores", etc. there is much more to BJ than sterile statistics.
I imagine that you are years away from being able to fathom the fine points of BJ. At this stage you are struggling to understand basic statistical concepts.
You could assist yourself in understanding BJ at a deeper richer level, presuming that you someday learn to focus on the forest, and not the trees.
Poker players who are skillful intuit this with ease.
As long as BJ stats refer to "expectations" over the "long run" our play does not comply very well with the "Law of Large Numbers"

This thread is about BOOKS, not systems.

A system may be good, but if it is presented with exaggerated claims, questionable statistics or coupled with poor advice, etc. then the BOOK,
(not the count), cannot be recommended.

non-self-weighter · Mar 20, 2009

Flash,

Thanks

Tarzan · Mar 20, 2009

Gay Rape Blood Feud

I never heard that term in my life until coming onto this site. Now I see a certain person's name and that phrase instantly comes to mind and I laugh aloud.

I have always just focused on the count I use and not gone into the details of others. If I am reading a blackjack book and a section goes into a specific count (other than what I use), I simply skip over it. It is said to go with a count that is comfortable for you, while still being as effective as possible. Many blackjack books go back over some of the same basic material and what you read in one you can often find in another to some degree of related subject material. Just a few of the right books instead of every blackjack book known to modern man and then go hard and heavy into the practical application right away instead of reaching for the next book (Unless you just enjoy reading for the sake of reading in which case you should fill out your library of blackjack books with a few other odds and ends so you can study the transcendental meditation aspects of the early works of Henry David Thoreau while you are at it).

JSTAT · Mar 20, 2009

stophon said:

Yeah, you overlooked Ed Thorp. Thorp's first edition of "Beat The Dealer" published in 1962 is a great book. His Ten Count should be in everyones arsenal. The 1966 revision contained the High/Low count by Harvey Dubner. Thorp said that his Ten Count and High/Low "are of comparable power" on page 94. Then he went on to say "Your results improve further if you adjust your bet size for an excess or shortage of Aces" on page 118. Thorp implies here that his Ten Count is better than High/Low. The revisionists such as Stanford Wong and computer sim hawkers conclude that Hi-lo is more powerful than Thorp's Ten Count. Who is telling the truth? "Beat The Dealer" should be on top your list.

JSTAT

Sonny · Mar 20, 2009

stophon said:

It depends on what you’re trying to learn. Here are some sources for information about different techniques:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=21994

There are also card counting book recommendations in the FAQ thread and a link to a book review website in the Free Resources thread.

-Sonny-

johndoe · Mar 20, 2009

JSTAT said:

What is the BC and PE of Thorp's 10-count? More importantly, how susceptible is it to error compared to a simpler system like hi-lo?

I still don't know what your problem is with simulations. But insulting folks like Wong by calling him a "sim hawker" is way out of line. Do you still believe that sims are useless, and inaccurate?

"Beat the Dealer" is a good book to read for historical reasons, but the counts and techniques there are hopelessly obsolete. JSTAT has a long history of promoting bad strategy here.

JSTAT · Mar 20, 2009

johndoe said:

I am promoting Edward O. Thorp's best seller book "Beat The Dealer". If you want to lump me in with Thorp as "promoting bad strategy", I plead guilty. Computer sims are linear and too rigid. Sims can't react to assymetry situations in real world casinos. Everything is structured. Rigid things tend to break. If only sevens and twice as many eights remain in a deck, basic strategy from sims says to hit. Breaking the player. Thorp says in "Beat The Dealer" on page 45, "you are cetain to win if you simply stand on the two cards you will be dealt...If he holds (7,8) or (8,8) he will bust if he draws either a Seven or an Eight-the only choices. Thus the dealer busts and you win." Playing blackjack is an art, and as we all should know computer sims are not creative. To throw all eggs into one basket such as computer sims will lead one to financial ruin.

JSTAT

Sonny · Mar 20, 2009

JSTAT said:

This is coming from someone who has never used a simulation program. I can speak as both a person who has used simulation programs and written them. That comment is completely false and uninformed.

JSTAT said:

First of all, that is simply not true. In the situation you describe the player could be dealt 7,7 and receive another 7 for 21. In order for that example to work you must limit the number of cards remaining and use a very specific subset. You completely misunderstood the point of Thorp’s example, which is only good for a tiny subset that will never occur in the real world.

Secondly, the computer will only hit if the user tells the program to hit. A good program is fully capable if determining the proper strategy for any deck subset. How do you think Thorp found out about that example? Did you even read his book?

-Sonny-

gibsonlp33stl · Mar 20, 2009

What JSTAT?

Blackjack has nothing to do with art...unless of course you consider mathematics and probability art.

I take back part of that, using cover and avoiding detection...art and a little acting are definitely useful...but when it comes to choosing a system and evaluating which mathematically will earn you the most money, art is nonexistant.

bjcount · Mar 20, 2009

gibsonlp33stl said:

Check out the dictionary for the meaning of skill - synonym for skill is an "art".
skill n.
Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience.

An art, trade, or technique, particularly one requiring use of the hands or body.

Just like your excellent guitar playing Mr. Gibson Les Paul, is a form of "art".

Not for nothing but this topic (Jstats means and methods) is really getting old. It broaches every thread here and on GC. Isn't it enough already.

BJC

bjtocki · Mar 20, 2009

I agree that Blackjack is an art, it's a really tough art with a lot of risk! :grin:

Card counting is probably only 5% to 10% part of the whole BJ skill to be a serious AP. There are so much more in it. It's about determination, persistence, knowledge, experience, good health, emotion, passion, planning, discipline, socializing, acting and skills. I have done all kinds of business and have several different skills, but to me, being a BJ AP is the hardest of them all.

johndoe · Mar 20, 2009

JSTAT, you couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

If you really don't think blackjack is a mathematical game that's well described and easily and accurately simulated, you should just stay in the Voodoo forum and not offer horrible advice to new people who may not know better.

JSTAT · Mar 20, 2009

johndoe said:

You are right! Edward O. Thorp and his advice from "Beat The Dealer" is horrible advice. Thorp belongs in the Voodoo forum. We wouldn't want newbies discovering the truth from a book that has sold over 1 million copies. An MIT professor who published how to beat blackjack with mathematics should be exiled to Voodoo status. What is this, the Twilight Zone?

JSTAT · Mar 20, 2009

bjcount said:

Not for nothing but this topic (Jstats means and methods) is really getting old. It broaches every thread here and on GC. Isn't it enough already.

You say that Thorp's discovery is really getting old and it broaches every thread on BJ21 and Blackjackinfo. Why the resistance to a subject that goes against the grain? Thorp's cover-up of beating 21 is alive and well at these minor sites. When will it end? I've Twittered some my comments on this thread for the whole world to see. People love a good conspiracy.

johndoe · Mar 20, 2009

JSTAT said:

It's *your* advice, and misinformed opinions of sims and other count systems that is flatly wrong and belongs in the Voodoo forum.

Like I said, Thorp's book is good historical reading, but his count methods are very obsolete, and not very practical in modern games (they weren't all that practical in his day either). There are much more effective, reliable, and simpler count methods available now.

Studying Thorp for counting would be a little like using Newton's Principia as a college textbook to learn physics. But at least the rules of physics haven't changed, like BJ has..

JSTAT · Mar 20, 2009

Sonny said:

I've used computer simulation programs. One demo sim named CVData left out all the fives. Other programs can't figure out blackjack frequencies and apply it. I've dealt millions of hands over the 30 years and my results are different. I use asymmetry as shown in Thorp's "Beat The Dealer". I am a winner in the long run in real casino play.I modified Edward O.Thorp's Ten Count and his math works fine, thank you. "Beat The Dealer" should be the first book an aspiring counter should read.

JSTAT

bjcount · Mar 20, 2009

bjcount said:

JSTAT said:

Jstat please don't twist my words. I have no opinion on whether your way or Thorp's way works better. Just the continued bickering on both sites is a waste of time.
If you want to tell people how great your way is then write a book and sell it like everyone else does. Lay it out for everyone to see. Someone will surely work out a sim for it and the proof will be in the pudding.
If it's only good for pitch games, then sell it for pitch games.

The arguement always goes back to the beginning, your video. We know you remade it and that's great. If there's no errors in it now that's great too. It was your fault that the other member's heckled you because of your basic errors in the original video. Now we continue to hear how great it is and how you developed some of the plays.

Show us the strategy.

Show us the way to the dark side Darth Vadar, otherwise drawback your light sabar and give it a rest.

Now you got me in this mess too, geez what a waste of time.

BJC

bjcount · Mar 20, 2009

JSTAT said:

Um.... JSTAT. With all due respect but your intelligence level, if you really believe what you said by this remark, is really starting to show.

If you "purchased" the program it would not have left out the fives. The site specifically states that the demo version leaves out the fives. It is a demo version so you can see how it works, what it can do for you, etc., not run accurate sims, get the results, and then never purchase it.

That would make no business sense, would it?

Similar to touting a GREAT counting system, hawking it on every site, and then not selling it.

BJC

gibsonlp33stl · Mar 20, 2009

I'm confusing myself here...

Obviously depending how you define art, certain parts of blackjack may fall within or out of that realm. I was disagreeing with JSTAT saying that a sim doesn't work b/c blackjack is an art and therefore the sim is too restraining. I think BJ is a remarkable skill, and there is certainly a lot of "art" involved in sucessfully being an AP and combining the various necessary skills. I guess I was speaking more of the decision on actually playing the blackjack. If you are using a certain count, and you know your two cards, and the dealer's upcard...then deciding whether to hit, stay, etc. is not art. There is no creativity allowed there - only a right and wrong decision. If you look at something like guitar playing or music...50 different artists would play the same solo within a song 50 different ways and they could all come out sounding amazing. In BJ, when it comes to making decisions...there is only a right and wrong. I'm only saying this within the context of different counts, and comparing them via sims. Maybe I'm just being very confusing and am confused myself...but main point is that if a sim says that one count is mathematically more profitable than the other one...then applying "art" cannot disprove that.

But it should be noted, the overall AP experience could definitely be described as an art form....but this in no way takes away from the validity of sims b/c this particular form of art that we all study, is driven by mathematics.

sagefr0g · Mar 20, 2009

art & science

i love this thread, lol. it's right dab plumb in the middle of where i find myself, lol.
who was it said, "everything is everything" or "life is what you make it"?

but yeah, the science part of blackjack and maths and maybe playing like a robot and seeing everything play out like a script sort of thing, yeah it can be that way.
to my memory when i was strictly playing orthodox one got to the point where one could pretty much decipher the hand writing on the wall. lots of times it looked pretty dismal too, or maybe things look pretty good and you take your shot and it does or doesn't play out well, stuff like that, but knowing long run how things should end up or what all kind of stuff might or might not happen.

or maybe one isn't so proficient skill wise and screws things up a bit and what ever the consequences of that might be.
one thing for sure is there is a lot to be said for the theory and proper practiced of AP stuff.

another interesting thing about it all is that ok yeah maybe one might screw things up or not but the possibility exists and nobody's hands are tied from getting a bit creative as far as all this stuff goes. maybe as far as the art question of the matter goes the tools of advantage play and the knowledge about it can be employed in a creative way.
if you take some bankroll and some orthodox way of playing there is gonna be some risk involved to where there is always the element of a gamble involved. say you play perfect orthodox and lose your bankroll. doesn't that beg the question of what if i did something else? kind of it screams out that there just might be some degree of freedom of action hidden within the uncertainty involved.

just me i guess, i would just say at some point the AP orthodox approach got to be like you had to play it hands off just do what your supposed too sort of thing even if it meant heading straight for disaster with no control.
so that specter not sitting well with me and wrong headed as it may be i decided at least till i'm proven wrong that i'd take a hands on approach to the game and if nothing else have an illusionary sense of control over matters.
for what that's worth, maybe nothing in terms of dollars and cents but maybe a lot as far as peace of mind.

Blackjack required reading

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member