percentage of income poll
- Thread starter kewljason
- Start date
Gotta tell you, I’m getting real tired of the “real pros” self-classification. When BJFO started, they loudly proclaimed that they were the “real pros.” Still on their front page. When they restarted the website after the initial blowup, the very first post denigrated every other BJ site. This was followed by photos of the moderators of other sites placed online. To “prove” they were the real pros, they had to put down everyone else. There are some people still stuck in this mindset.
There are people that are actually long-time, highly successful pros. Like bigplayer and alienated and many, many others, that don’t go around claiming that they are “real pros” while denigrating the skills or playing choices of others. And, they’re highly civil people that help others. If there are people here that actually have fallen for the line that to be successful, you must also be uncivil, this is simply not true. Fact is, you might note that the "real, real pros" never call themselves pros. They don't feel a need to.
I called for a “truce” six years ago. It was met by a post saying “no.” I still have it up at: http://blackjack-scams.com/html/call_for_a_truce.html.
There are people that are actually long-time, highly successful pros. Like bigplayer and alienated and many, many others, that don’t go around claiming that they are “real pros” while denigrating the skills or playing choices of others. And, they’re highly civil people that help others. If there are people here that actually have fallen for the line that to be successful, you must also be uncivil, this is simply not true. Fact is, you might note that the "real, real pros" never call themselves pros. They don't feel a need to.
I called for a “truce” six years ago. It was met by a post saying “no.” I still have it up at: http://blackjack-scams.com/html/call_for_a_truce.html.
Last edited:
Now that the ad hominems are paused, let me discuss the concept of risk a bit. Don talks a great deal about the intricacies of risk in his book. He barely touches the surface of what he taught during his career and puts in practice in his new venture, which actually trades risk-based futures on the Chicago exchange. But, let me talk about personal risk, since that is at the heart of AP. ZG, you obviously have personal experience with the risk/reward ratio. More than any of these self-proclaimed pros have felt. There is much I like about this country – and some I don’t. One I like is the concept that risk is acceptable, when the payoff can be worth the risk. That is why I have often taken risks with over a 50% RoR. And, I have restarted my life a couple of times as a result.
As to the claim that I am some sort of academic, math-head that does not take risks and only understands and plays with numbers. I would say that is a bit off-base. Fact is, I do not have a high school diploma, or even a GED. Forget an advanced degree in math or stats. I left high-school shortly before the end of my senior year. I then went to work at an Ivy League university in a position that required that you either have a master’s degree or be enrolled in a master’s program. They offered to make me a student – even at a graduate level when I said no. Never considered it. I took the risk of going on my own. (Well, it would have also bored me to death, making it a higher risk. And boredom is the largest crime.)
Risk is a personal thing. How you deal with the game of BJ is a part of each player’s “chakra,” for lack of a better word. We have different goals, levels of risks, short-term and long-term desires, mental make-up, skills, backgrounds, fall-back positions, personal obligations and responsibilities, etc., etc. Trying to pigeon-hole APs is pointless.
Everyone here is different. I have made highly critical posts of pure scams and outright ridiculous claims. But, I see no reason to criticize a person’s posts if they fall within his stated goals. Why would I try to tell a poster that he must share my goals or he is [insert insult here]?
As to the claim that I am some sort of academic, math-head that does not take risks and only understands and plays with numbers. I would say that is a bit off-base. Fact is, I do not have a high school diploma, or even a GED. Forget an advanced degree in math or stats. I left high-school shortly before the end of my senior year. I then went to work at an Ivy League university in a position that required that you either have a master’s degree or be enrolled in a master’s program. They offered to make me a student – even at a graduate level when I said no. Never considered it. I took the risk of going on my own. (Well, it would have also bored me to death, making it a higher risk. And boredom is the largest crime.)
Risk is a personal thing. How you deal with the game of BJ is a part of each player’s “chakra,” for lack of a better word. We have different goals, levels of risks, short-term and long-term desires, mental make-up, skills, backgrounds, fall-back positions, personal obligations and responsibilities, etc., etc. Trying to pigeon-hole APs is pointless.
Everyone here is different. I have made highly critical posts of pure scams and outright ridiculous claims. But, I see no reason to criticize a person’s posts if they fall within his stated goals. Why would I try to tell a poster that he must share my goals or he is [insert insult here]?
zg, on the concept of risk, incidentally, you might be interested in another blog that I started several months back at www.volx.us/volatilityblog/. Of course it looks like my BJ blog.
Last edited:
QFIT said:
zg, on the concept of risk, incidentally, you might be interested in another blog that I started several months back at www.volx.us/volatilityblog/. Of course it looks like my BJ blog.
***
Now, onto more important matters.
I found a post of yours regarding the NRS formula for shuffletracking:
"I am sorry but you seem to have no knowledge of the NRS treatment for shuffle tracking. Whenever you are in the playzone your divisor is the effective shoe size, which is equal to the theoretical playzone in the case when a poor slug is cut out of play."
-ICountNTrack
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=16776&page=2
Josh had made mention that after cutting out a 26 card segment of low cards totalling +10 in a four deck shoe, one could add 1/2 deck to the discard tray, and start the running count at +10.
Let's see if he was right:
d=4 (decks)
q=3 (size of playzone)
k=0 (size of slug in playzone)
x=0 (running count of slug in playzone)
b=.5 (size of slug outside of playzone)
y=10 (running count of slug outside of playzone)
d`=3.5 (number of decks that can potentially enter the playzone)
N=q^2(d`-k) / [(q-k)^2 + k(d`-k)]
N= 3^2(3.5 - 0) / [(3)^2 +0(3.5 - 0)]
N= 3.5
The extended NRS formula agrees with what Josh suggested.
Simply stated, the initial divisor is the shoe size minus the slug tracked.
***
We can also verify that our running count should begin with the +10 cut out of play:
r = -(N/q)[1 - (q - k) / (d` - k)]
r = -(3.5 / 3)[1 - (3 - 0 ) / (3.5 - 0)]
r = -.167
f = (q - k) / (d`- q)
f = (3 - 0) / (3.5 -3)
f = 6
TC = [r(x-fy) + A] / (N - L)
TC = -.167 (0 - 6(10) + A / (3.5 - L)
TC = 10 / 3.5
Simply stated, the initial running count amounts to the value of the slug cut out of play.
***
I don't bother with the NRS formula myself. I prefer a Cookbook approach for tracking, but this requires considerable time and patience to develop the skills, and even then, some favorable conditions to apply effectively. However, for beginner trackers, I think the NRS formula is an excellent extension to counting. Read Alienated's paper, and embellish with a few trips over at bjmath.com.
There are a few other tricks to get beginners started, but this should be enough for now. I'll check back when I get the chance, I apologize for my scarcity as of late.
Been a little busy.
Best,
Syph
Last edited by a moderator:
Once you stop with your condescending attitude you will be more welcomed,
I am must say I am rather flattered you spent that much time trying to find a little mistake of mine in a dead thread and give me a lecture about the NRS equation.
Given that i have written simulator that treat the NRS equation. I messed up with the effective shoe size because i was using a different equation (the most general NRS equation). i should have stuck to the extended NRS equation which is nothing but a special case rearrangement of the more general equation.
[/QUOTE]
How that "Cookbook" method working out for you, have you made millions using it like Synder and Co have?
I am must say I am rather flattered you spent that much time trying to find a little mistake of mine in a dead thread and give me a lecture about the NRS equation.
Given that i have written simulator that treat the NRS equation. I messed up with the effective shoe size because i was using a different equation (the most general NRS equation). i should have stuck to the extended NRS equation which is nothing but a special case rearrangement of the more general equation.
How that "Cookbook" method working out for you, have you made millions using it like Synder and Co have?
Last edited:
I'd say I boost my income 10-20% with my blackjack and poker play. It's nice to have a hobby that pays, rather than sinking money into a hobby. It pays better than my 401k. It's nice to have extra money, can buy a few more things and of course cheap trips to Vegas many times a year (just have to pay for the flight and expenses, hotel and food is comped) that pay for themselves and then some. I'd love to live for 6 months or so in Vegas and support myself through blackjack and poker, just to see if I could.