Prolonged losing streak

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#21
Counting_Is_Fun said:
This is Dalmation from Blackjack The Forum posting his usual, pretend BJ story.
He posts this same story every few months using different names, and on this forum too.
He dreams about playing BJ, and always posts this same story using different versions.
While I have heard of this Blackjack the Forum ;) , I am not super familiar with the going on there nor all the characters. :D

But even so, when I answer a question or share experiences or opinions based on my experiences, I do so not only for the benefit of the usually newer player that may be posting, but in the hopes that someone else reading, either currently or even at a later time, might find my response useful and beneficial.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#24
johndoe said:
1-3 is a nice spread if you can make it profitable, since it reduces heat. What I'm much less sure of is the viability of avoiding all low counts in a DD game, especially one this deeply dealt.
Everything johndoe say is true. As a player who aggressively exits shoe games which is my preferred game and makes up the majority of my play, the same strategy just isn't feasible on double deck games. If you try to play that way on double deck, exiting all or most negative counts, the rounds you play will be horrendously small. You will always be sitting out or switching between games.

However there are other things you can do with double deck that you can't do with shoe games. Spreading both ways for example, meaning your wager at a 0 true count is not your minimum wager and you reduce bet further during negative counts, so you can get through just a few hands on that deeply dealt double deck game at minimal cost, without exiting and giving up the opportunity.

Let me use numbers...random numbers.

@ TC 0 = $100
@ TC 2 = $200
@ TC 3 = $300

As Johndoe said above, a 1-3 spread is nice. Very few casinos will have any problem with a 1-3 spread and that is what they are going to see on any times through the cards where the the cards go positive. Starting bet (off the top $100, spread to $300.

Now add in the second part which is spreading the other way.

@ TC -1.5 to -2 = $50
You could go further and drop to $25 or table minimum at TC -3 but I generally stick just to the one reduction to minimize total variation of bets.

Ok, so now obviously TOTAL spread is 1-6 ($50 - $300), but the count would have to go first to TC -2 and then to TC +3 all within a few hands for them to see that full spread in a single time through the cards (between shuffles). The count fluctuates more in double deck but still that rarely happens. Much more common is that on one time through the cards they will see a 1-3 spread ($100-$300) and another they will see a reverse 1-2 spread ($100- $50). Neither of those spreads will be much concern and no one is going to put that together until you have shown this spread several times both ways, and by that time it is time to move on.
 
#25
Things have gotten worse. Bankroll battered down to 77k and lower due to incoming expenses. I can't believe this is happening to me. My future was looking promising, that promise ripped away in a month and now I'm struggling to survive.
 
#26
DSchles said:
Is it possible that you'll ever stop posting this nonsense?

Don
Actually your book hurts people more than help them when they play at casino clumping cards. Encoder/decoder mismatch leads to the disaster. People should not assume casinos don't cheat. When they always lose at some casino, STOP PLAYING THERE.
 
#27
You should simulate the exact games you're playing using CVData not CVCX.
I suspect the numbers you get in CVCX when using "Back-Counting" imply that you get back into the game after first exiting it. When I see on your first posted diagram "Back-Counting" 88.9% entering at zero and leaving at -2... It should read more like 68-70%
On your third diagram, you are showing MORE TC +1 than TC -1 ???
How do you estimate the counts?
 

LC Larry

Well-Known Member
#28
BJgenius007 said:
Actually your book hurts people more than help them when they play at casino clumping cards. Encoder/decoder mismatch leads to the disaster. People should not assume casinos don't cheat. When they always lose at some casino, STOP PLAYING THERE.
Stop with this bullshit. You've been spouting this tripe for years and have yet to show one piece of evidence to support your retarded claims. "Clumping" as you say, is a natural part of shuffling. If cards never came out "QQKT6JJ72AA4TTTQ", then that wouldn't be random.
 
#29
LC Larry said:
Stop with this bullshit. You've been spouting this tripe for years and have yet to show one piece of evidence to support your retarded claims. "Clumping" as you say, is a natural part of shuffling. If cards never came out "QQKT6JJ72AA4TTTQ", then that wouldn't be random.
Besides Zen count, I also have two side counts, one count 8 and 9 together and one count ace. So I can see how cards are distributed in full spectrum. It is like I am flying the airplane while Don is driving a car. I see much more than he does. It is my belief that some casinos can alter the distribution of cards so the card clumping can hurt people who count cards. Basically I keep my major playing on hand-shuffled game and use it as baseline. Then when I went to ASM occasionally, I can see the difference. Especially on how aces and 8/9 mid cards distribute.
 
Top