Just when I thought Vegas was legit
- Thread starter ZenKinG
- Start date
An "idle shoe shuffle" is common to be asked for amongst ploppies and is often times granted by the house. A courtesy shuffle can be requested but it's best to request one when you're losing and the dealer is on a hot streak. These types of shuffles are offered less frequently but granted once or twice to a good customer or a lamenting table and is m0re likely to be granted towards the end of a shoe. Another measure the house uses to "restore the flow of the cards" for the player is to ask them if they would like them to burn a card. They will ask this if you have already requested a few shuffles.
Long story short, don't ask for too many shuffles. Every now and then when you show up to an idle shoe and maybe towards the end of a shoe if you have been getting your ass kicked.
Long story short, don't ask for too many shuffles. Every now and then when you show up to an idle shoe and maybe towards the end of a shoe if you have been getting your ass kicked.
This is a stupid thread. Getting a high count doesn't mean you are likely to win in itself. That means there is a better chance that the cards coming have more good cards than bad cards. Winning is more about the change in RC per round. If the TC is really negative but the cards that come out are predominately high cards you are far more likely to win that round. If the TC is very positive and the round has lots of low cards you are very likely to lose that round. The pre-bet TC is just an assessment of the entire pack of remaining cards. Your actual results will depend on what cards come out on any given round. You ever heard of shuffle tracking? The edge for STing is about an order of magnitude higher than that of counting because you don't make bets based on the composition of all the unseen cards, you make bets base on what you know about the composition of the next round. The real measure of what your expectation for the cards you played is if the RC dropped during your play. If it didn't you should expect to lose.
So if you wong in at a TC of +2 one deck in the RC is +10. If it is still a RC of +10 or higher at the end of the round, it was not an advantage round despite whatever anticipation you had that it would be an advantage round. So the question is how high was the RC when the cut card came out. If it was high the part of the shoe you played and bet heavily into was largely if not totally disadvantage rounds. Of course if the deck had more 4 and 5 in it you would also expect the RC to go up until it got too high. If the RC went down and you lost, that means you played advantage rounds no matter how the deck might be loaded. Your losses weren't from a loaded deck. So as you can see your results are absolutely meaningless when it comes to spotting a loaded shoe. A loaded shoe will show a long bias to end shoes with a positive RC. But you will need a massive sampling to have much certainty from tending to end shoes with a positive RC on average. The deeper the cut the quicker you can get to a significant degree of certainty. If you understand what you are doing this should be obvious to you. ZenKing, after reading posts acrossed many other forums it is pretty clear you may be able to execute counting by formula but your true understanding of what you are actually doing is lacking.
So if you wong in at a TC of +2 one deck in the RC is +10. If it is still a RC of +10 or higher at the end of the round, it was not an advantage round despite whatever anticipation you had that it would be an advantage round. So the question is how high was the RC when the cut card came out. If it was high the part of the shoe you played and bet heavily into was largely if not totally disadvantage rounds. Of course if the deck had more 4 and 5 in it you would also expect the RC to go up until it got too high. If the RC went down and you lost, that means you played advantage rounds no matter how the deck might be loaded. Your losses weren't from a loaded deck. So as you can see your results are absolutely meaningless when it comes to spotting a loaded shoe. A loaded shoe will show a long bias to end shoes with a positive RC. But you will need a massive sampling to have much certainty from tending to end shoes with a positive RC on average. The deeper the cut the quicker you can get to a significant degree of certainty. If you understand what you are doing this should be obvious to you. ZenKing, after reading posts acrossed many other forums it is pretty clear you may be able to execute counting by formula but your true understanding of what you are actually doing is lacking.
Wow! A high TC doesn't mean i'll win more often?? I never knew that [/sarcasm]. You come across as someone who just learned about counting and now are taking all the things you learned to 'show off' to yourself that you know what you're talking about without really knowing much other than parroting your recently learned information. Proof of that is you even tried to educate me on the ideology of shuffle tracking when I never even mentioned that one time.
This thread was NOT about not winning in a high TC, so instead of twisting the thread to try and make yourself sound smart on a particular subject, actually read what I wrote instead. It was about the amount of consecutive times it hit a high TC shoe after shoe on an 8 deck game. The frequency for that to happen is not only rare, but in my last 1200 hours or so, I cant recall that ever happening. 7 straight shoes it went above +2 TC with 6 of them happening right from the start. Thats beyond suspicious, but who am i kidding, im the king of rare exceptions wouldnt be surprised if this was just another unlucky rare event to happen to me as a troll after losing.
This thread was NOT about not winning in a high TC, so instead of twisting the thread to try and make yourself sound smart on a particular subject, actually read what I wrote instead. It was about the amount of consecutive times it hit a high TC shoe after shoe on an 8 deck game. The frequency for that to happen is not only rare, but in my last 1200 hours or so, I cant recall that ever happening. 7 straight shoes it went above +2 TC with 6 of them happening right from the start. Thats beyond suspicious, but who am i kidding, im the king of rare exceptions wouldnt be surprised if this was just another unlucky rare event to happen to me as a troll after losing.
If you are going to try to repeat what I said at least do me the courtesy of not editing down my statement to lose its context. I said a high count doesn't mean you are likely to win in itself. If your lack of understanding is so deep I have to spell it out for you I will this one time. My entire post was showing when you actually played with an advantage as opposed to you expected to play with an advantage. You can have a TC of 20 but if the good cards are behind the cut card you never played with an advantage despite having that expectation.
I have played for days and had an advantage in pretty much every shoe and I have played for days and rarely seen an advantage shoe. It is called variance. Random includes every possible outcome. You need a large data set to prove something is not random. In this situation how big a sampling depends on how many cards remain never seen. If you see every card one shoe is all you need. The more unseen card the larger the sample needs to be to show things are not random. You results will never be an indication of a loaded shoe and it would take a huge sample for things to even start to converge with 2 decks cut off as you indicated. By even suggesting that your results or an eight shoe sampling would be even remotely significant you show you don't understand anything about what it takes to prove you are being cheated. In retrospect every second in the casino can be seen as impossible odds. Example: The last 20 cards were Ah, 2s, 5d,9d, ..., Kc. The odds of that happening are higher than me winning the lotto so it must be cheating. You can say that for whatever the last 20 cards were. Well guess what, the odds of any past event happening is 100% because it happening is a given. The odds of predicting the next 20 cards will fall in that order is astronomical. I think even you can understand that. Think about that the next time you say that any event that happened is out of the ordinary. This is why you need a very very large sampling to make any assessment of what already happened. If you wait for something to seem unusual and think about that small sampling in retrospect of course you will think it is odd. That is what made you think about that small sampling to begin with. You need a massive sampling to make the odd event or sing of events that happened and caught your attention to mean anything.
Think about the law of large numbers. You are flipping a coin and eventually you know you will get 20 tails in a row. It just happens to happen very quickly or in the situation that caught your attention the first at a point in your sampling. If you include that string as the start of you records you will see a bias in results favoring heads but after enough trials the results will approach 50% heads and 50% tails. That is not because tails are now more likely. That is because the ratio of that 20 tail head start will become less and less significant as the denominator grows:
20/20 = 100% tails
80 more flip at 40 heads and 40 tails, 60/100 = 60% tails
900 more flips at 450 tails and 450 heads, 510/1000 = 51% tails
9000 more flips at 4500 tails and 4500 heads. 5010/10000 = 50.1% tails
90000 more flips at 45000 heads and 45000 tails, 50010/100000 = 50.01% tails
This is easy to understand and shows why a very large sampling is needed to prove a bias. Even thinking a sampling of 8 shoes shows anything of any significance just shows you don't understand. Everyone participating in the thread explained this in many different ways but you still are unteachable. This fits 100% with a very large sampling of your past posts across many forums. So I can say with a very high degree of certainty you will still not understand and come back with a post saying I am wrong that simply proves nothing other than you still don't understand.
I have played for days and had an advantage in pretty much every shoe and I have played for days and rarely seen an advantage shoe. It is called variance. Random includes every possible outcome. You need a large data set to prove something is not random. In this situation how big a sampling depends on how many cards remain never seen. If you see every card one shoe is all you need. The more unseen card the larger the sample needs to be to show things are not random. You results will never be an indication of a loaded shoe and it would take a huge sample for things to even start to converge with 2 decks cut off as you indicated. By even suggesting that your results or an eight shoe sampling would be even remotely significant you show you don't understand anything about what it takes to prove you are being cheated. In retrospect every second in the casino can be seen as impossible odds. Example: The last 20 cards were Ah, 2s, 5d,9d, ..., Kc. The odds of that happening are higher than me winning the lotto so it must be cheating. You can say that for whatever the last 20 cards were. Well guess what, the odds of any past event happening is 100% because it happening is a given. The odds of predicting the next 20 cards will fall in that order is astronomical. I think even you can understand that. Think about that the next time you say that any event that happened is out of the ordinary. This is why you need a very very large sampling to make any assessment of what already happened. If you wait for something to seem unusual and think about that small sampling in retrospect of course you will think it is odd. That is what made you think about that small sampling to begin with. You need a massive sampling to make the odd event or sing of events that happened and caught your attention to mean anything.
Think about the law of large numbers. You are flipping a coin and eventually you know you will get 20 tails in a row. It just happens to happen very quickly or in the situation that caught your attention the first at a point in your sampling. If you include that string as the start of you records you will see a bias in results favoring heads but after enough trials the results will approach 50% heads and 50% tails. That is not because tails are now more likely. That is because the ratio of that 20 tail head start will become less and less significant as the denominator grows:
20/20 = 100% tails
80 more flip at 40 heads and 40 tails, 60/100 = 60% tails
900 more flips at 450 tails and 450 heads, 510/1000 = 51% tails
9000 more flips at 4500 tails and 4500 heads. 5010/10000 = 50.1% tails
90000 more flips at 45000 heads and 45000 tails, 50010/100000 = 50.01% tails
This is easy to understand and shows why a very large sampling is needed to prove a bias. Even thinking a sampling of 8 shoes shows anything of any significance just shows you don't understand. Everyone participating in the thread explained this in many different ways but you still are unteachable. This fits 100% with a very large sampling of your past posts across many forums. So I can say with a very high degree of certainty you will still not understand and come back with a post saying I am wrong that simply proves nothing other than you still don't understand.
Once again, you're explaining statistical concepts Im already aware of. I understand how all of that works and having a large sampling size, etc., but in this case even in the short run something like this this was so improbable that it warrants extra attention. You should always be a bit paranoid when an anomaly happens because we know there are casinos out there who do in fact cheat and that this industry has shown that multiple times. When something that hasnt happened in the past 1200 hours of play finally happens, it warrants extra attention regardless of it being a small sample size.
Lastly i didnt take or edit your post out of context, i dont know what youre referring to. Maybe if YOU didnt edit out my post out of context, everyone can see right after I said I was being SARCASTIC since I already knew that you are NOT more likely to win in a high TC. But actually in fact to nitpick, at high TC's such as +5 or higher, you actually WILL win more rounds than not and thats been proven by sims. You also try to re-explain your point coming to the same conclusion as if you are just trying to argue. Whether or not the cards are behind the cut card is irrelevant, it's still the same initial bet advantage. We are talking about the TC theorem here not dissecting on a round by round basic of getting small cards as your first card etc.
Lastly i didnt take or edit your post out of context, i dont know what youre referring to. Maybe if YOU didnt edit out my post out of context, everyone can see right after I said I was being SARCASTIC since I already knew that you are NOT more likely to win in a high TC. But actually in fact to nitpick, at high TC's such as +5 or higher, you actually WILL win more rounds than not and thats been proven by sims. You also try to re-explain your point coming to the same conclusion as if you are just trying to argue. Whether or not the cards are behind the cut card is irrelevant, it's still the same initial bet advantage. We are talking about the TC theorem here not dissecting on a round by round basic of getting small cards as your first card etc.
Last edited:
As I said you have confirmed my prediction that you would come back with a response that showed you didn't understand.
Well this is true in the long run and as a prediction of future events. If you understood what I posted you would understand that it is not rue when cherry picking the past and it is not true when retrospective shows the high cards being expected were behind the cut card. Your post was not about the long run or about predicting the future. It was after every short run loss you start whining about being cheated and how improbable a run is. That run is not that improbable. At 5 shoes per hour 1200 hours of play has 6000 shoes. You are in fact under the expectation for 8 shoes in a row that hit TC +2 and have you lose for a 6000 shoe sampling. So your reasoning is if you haven't seen something as often as you should when that which is overdue finally happens the lack of its presence in your sample is proof that it should not have happened. So, in the future, we can expect when you haven't seen an event that occurs once every 1000 times that hasn't occurred in your sample for a 2500 event sample. The fact that you hadn't seen it as frequently as you should for your sample size is proof that it shouldn't have happened at all. The lack of understanding is just unbelievable but none the less totally expected given the history of your posts. The nature of rare events is they will happen way less than expected for a long time and may happen several times in a short time. The rarer the event the larger the sample required for the data to converge on a valid long run prediction. Your observation tells you it is a somewhat rare event. It happens once in a modest sampling and you believe that is conclusive evidence of cheating. You really really don't understand the statistics involved.
If you don't think the playing zone not being representative of the TC doesn't change the results you should expect on that shoe. You really understand vey little. Your premise was you should have won based on the TC you bet into. You only should have expected a win in retrospect is if the cards you played through are representative of the TC you bet into. And that is still a long run expectation not a guarantee of a win in the short run.
I will make this easy. Your results on 8 shoes and the TCs you saw on successive shoes have nothing to do with proving a stacked deck. What does confirm a stacked deck is the average RC at the cut card in a sample size that increases with the number of unseen cards when the cut card comes out. At two decks cut of 6 or even 8 decks out that sample would need to be massive. 8 shoes is an insignificant sampling as everyone has told you.
It doesn't seem you have the disposition to handle the variance of the game. You should either get over that, as most AP's do after a short amount of AP exposure, or consider another profession. You can expect massive swings. Some places you will struggle to ever win at for a long time. Later those same places are likely to become your "lucky honey hole". That is just the nature of the endeavor. If the swings affect you, you probably will not perform very well. We are not computers. We are human beings that can get affected by our emotional state. There is no crying in AP BJ.
Well this is true in the long run and as a prediction of future events. If you understood what I posted you would understand that it is not rue when cherry picking the past and it is not true when retrospective shows the high cards being expected were behind the cut card. Your post was not about the long run or about predicting the future. It was after every short run loss you start whining about being cheated and how improbable a run is. That run is not that improbable. At 5 shoes per hour 1200 hours of play has 6000 shoes. You are in fact under the expectation for 8 shoes in a row that hit TC +2 and have you lose for a 6000 shoe sampling. So your reasoning is if you haven't seen something as often as you should when that which is overdue finally happens the lack of its presence in your sample is proof that it should not have happened. So, in the future, we can expect when you haven't seen an event that occurs once every 1000 times that hasn't occurred in your sample for a 2500 event sample. The fact that you hadn't seen it as frequently as you should for your sample size is proof that it shouldn't have happened at all. The lack of understanding is just unbelievable but none the less totally expected given the history of your posts. The nature of rare events is they will happen way less than expected for a long time and may happen several times in a short time. The rarer the event the larger the sample required for the data to converge on a valid long run prediction. Your observation tells you it is a somewhat rare event. It happens once in a modest sampling and you believe that is conclusive evidence of cheating. You really really don't understand the statistics involved.
If you don't think the playing zone not being representative of the TC doesn't change the results you should expect on that shoe. You really understand vey little. Your premise was you should have won based on the TC you bet into. You only should have expected a win in retrospect is if the cards you played through are representative of the TC you bet into. And that is still a long run expectation not a guarantee of a win in the short run.
I will make this easy. Your results on 8 shoes and the TCs you saw on successive shoes have nothing to do with proving a stacked deck. What does confirm a stacked deck is the average RC at the cut card in a sample size that increases with the number of unseen cards when the cut card comes out. At two decks cut of 6 or even 8 decks out that sample would need to be massive. 8 shoes is an insignificant sampling as everyone has told you.
It doesn't seem you have the disposition to handle the variance of the game. You should either get over that, as most AP's do after a short amount of AP exposure, or consider another profession. You can expect massive swings. Some places you will struggle to ever win at for a long time. Later those same places are likely to become your "lucky honey hole". That is just the nature of the endeavor. If the swings affect you, you probably will not perform very well. We are not computers. We are human beings that can get affected by our emotional state. There is no crying in AP BJ.
For the millionth time I dont need to be educated about the basis of a large sampling size and being 'due' for anything. Of course you're never 'due' for anything, that's gamblers fallacy. I know how all of that works. You seem to have some serious reading comprehemsion issues and simply assume and go into defensive mode. Once again no need to educate me on topics ive learned a long time ago.
Lastly my premise was NEVER about me expecting to win just because the TC was high. Not once have I ever stated that in my OP, but of course you use that to try and argue with me. Just keep walking
Lastly my premise was NEVER about me expecting to win just because the TC was high. Not once have I ever stated that in my OP, but of course you use that to try and argue with me. Just keep walking
Last edited:
The very premise of your OP and the fact that you keep defending it shows that you don't understand. If you did you wouldn't have made the post to begin with and wouldn't be defending it.
You played for a long time and finally saw something you expect to see at any point in a large sampling. You then used the fact that you hadn't seen it yet as the reason it could never happen. If you play long enough you see all the rare events. I don't get many events I haven't seen before but even after several decades of play I still see something new every now and then. I have seen what you describe many many times. I just had a discussion with another big time pro about this after it happened to me recently. I said it happens about once a year. His response was he thought it happens more like once every nine months on average. Of course we play more deeply cut games than you were. The hourly is higher but the swings are far more severe. I don't play games cut that poorly. If you properly use cover you can just play very deeply dealt games. If you think cover costs too much, pretty soon you are mostly playing shit cut games. The added EV of being able to play the best games more than makes up for what cover gives up to do so. If you were mentored you would understand that.
You played for a long time and finally saw something you expect to see at any point in a large sampling. You then used the fact that you hadn't seen it yet as the reason it could never happen. If you play long enough you see all the rare events. I don't get many events I haven't seen before but even after several decades of play I still see something new every now and then. I have seen what you describe many many times. I just had a discussion with another big time pro about this after it happened to me recently. I said it happens about once a year. His response was he thought it happens more like once every nine months on average. Of course we play more deeply cut games than you were. The hourly is higher but the swings are far more severe. I don't play games cut that poorly. If you properly use cover you can just play very deeply dealt games. If you think cover costs too much, pretty soon you are mostly playing shit cut games. The added EV of being able to play the best games more than makes up for what cover gives up to do so. If you were mentored you would understand that.
So now we're talking about something differently? What happened to me ever stating that I expected to win just because the TC is high? You criticize others for putting words in your mouth but youre the one doing it to me. I already know who you are just by the way you type.
Regarding this current topic about me never seeing something and then claiming it is cheating once the rare event does happen does not mean I dont understand the whole concept of a large sampling size and that you will eventually see everything. I understand anything can and will happen if you play long enough, but the paranoid nature in me shot off red flags, that's all and if you always think this industry is all rainbows and unicorns, you're in for a rude awakening of getting massively cheated.
Your idiotic self immediately tried to discredit my knowledge of the game and claim that I dont understand the game just because of this thread, but you never considered the paranoid nature in me. Like I said keep walking Tthree and keep using your multi parameter bullshit side counts. Take your phantom millions and go do a GWAE episode to broadcast your fake results. You also dont even play regular 21, you play Spanish, which is completely different where side counts can be used more effectively, but you still completely overstate everything.
Regarding this current topic about me never seeing something and then claiming it is cheating once the rare event does happen does not mean I dont understand the whole concept of a large sampling size and that you will eventually see everything. I understand anything can and will happen if you play long enough, but the paranoid nature in me shot off red flags, that's all and if you always think this industry is all rainbows and unicorns, you're in for a rude awakening of getting massively cheated.
Your idiotic self immediately tried to discredit my knowledge of the game and claim that I dont understand the game just because of this thread, but you never considered the paranoid nature in me. Like I said keep walking Tthree and keep using your multi parameter bullshit side counts. Take your phantom millions and go do a GWAE episode to broadcast your fake results. You also dont even play regular 21, you play Spanish, which is completely different where side counts can be used more effectively, but you still completely overstate everything.
If you play for about 40 years counting cards and haven't made a million dollars, average $25K a year, something is wrong with you. Other than the last 3 years where I made 1/4 of that it leaves $75000 in 37 years. About 20 years of which was in the heyday of BJ most of which a count as simple as the A-5 count was all sounded to win consistently. That is $20K a year most of which was the heyday of blackjack. The unbelievable thing would be if I didn't make more money. If you would think anything through you would see how it almost has to be true. If you don't post the wins of some other pros don't think for a second that makes their wins not possible. You have never been mentored on the stuff you will never find in books or online so you are leaving a lot of EV on the table and having a lot more variance than you need to have. Lower EV and higher variance is a terrible combination. It kills SCORE and drives n-zero through the roof. I trust you understand that.
There is mostly pitch games where I do most of my playing. I like shoes for their lack of heat but there isn't anything but really bad SP21 around here. H17 SP21 with no redouble is supposed to be a total waste of time from what I hear. And that is even a rare find. I wasn't aware there was any side count strategy info for the game SP21. It is hard enough to get it for BJ. I guess you may know more than I do about some things. Either that or you are talking about things you don't know anything about again. Perhaps you could produce a side count strategy chart for SP21. I would love to see how it differs from the few side count strategies that I can find for BJ.
Besides the typo on the number you failed to include the steps afterwards. I am a big Leonard Skynard fan as well so don't think the reference was lost on me. Mister, I will walk and take those three steps toward this thread's door as you are suggesting. Every word someone that knows more than you tells you is a waste of energy. I will not waste any more energy on trying to help you.
There is mostly pitch games where I do most of my playing. I like shoes for their lack of heat but there isn't anything but really bad SP21 around here. H17 SP21 with no redouble is supposed to be a total waste of time from what I hear. And that is even a rare find. I wasn't aware there was any side count strategy info for the game SP21. It is hard enough to get it for BJ. I guess you may know more than I do about some things. Either that or you are talking about things you don't know anything about again. Perhaps you could produce a side count strategy chart for SP21. I would love to see how it differs from the few side count strategies that I can find for BJ.
Besides the typo on the number you failed to include the steps afterwards. I am a big Leonard Skynard fan as well so don't think the reference was lost on me. Mister, I will walk and take those three steps toward this thread's door as you are suggesting. Every word someone that knows more than you tells you is a waste of energy. I will not waste any more energy on trying to help you.
We all know your other username on other forums is Tthree and most recently changed to three. It's not hard to see by the way you speak, elongated posts, and your lack of reading comprehension abilities.
If having the last word means so much to you all the time, go ahead and have it. The ones who need the last word are usually the ones most insecure about what they're speaking about or debating. Have fun with your fake millions. You should go ahead and schedule a youtube podcast with Munchkin and Dancer, you'll fit right in with all the frauds who go on there.
If having the last word means so much to you all the time, go ahead and have it. The ones who need the last word are usually the ones most insecure about what they're speaking about or debating. Have fun with your fake millions. You should go ahead and schedule a youtube podcast with Munchkin and Dancer, you'll fit right in with all the frauds who go on there.
Haha. I thought you were being clever with a veiled Leonard Skynard reference. But now I see that you were trying to insult me by linking me to some forum outcast. Whatever. You are pretty funny calling yourself a fraud because you were on gambling with an edge under your alter ego LoneWolf. I guess you are trying to turn the posting to humorous. I will play along and laugh at the forum outcast reference instead of being offended. You had me going before you poked fun at yourself as well. Now I see your absurd comments were an attempt at levity. lol