Our local casinos have a tabloid-style "newspaper" with articles about gaming. I thumbed through one recently and saw an article about playing BJ by a guy I never heard of, full of voodoo and misinformation. I thought to myself this is perfect for the casinos. What's next - giving out Basic Strategy cards with incorrect information? Guess who was the author of the article!
Richard Harvey?
- Thread starter b
- Start date
Richard,
I did read Cutting Edge Blackjack. I must admit it was painstakingly laid out and well illustrated. But sticking in my craw were the places where you seemed to me to misinterpret the workings of basic probability and conditional probability. And your strategies were built on what seemed to me to be those misinterpretations.
I don't know. You are definitely a blackjack nonconformist/rebel. Maybe you're just a genius who's way ahead of his time, along with the likes of Doug Grant, Jerry Patterson and E. Clifton Davis. But to my knowlege, the best technology we have can't find credence in their or your strategies. I don't have to be right about your being wrong. But it's my very educated belief that I am. If I'm wrong, I would think you'd want to convince me that I am.
If you'd like to post some concise substantiation of why present counting systems are in error and your methods are more spot-on, I would like to see it here for all to read. I will reply in respectful honesty.
I did read Cutting Edge Blackjack. I must admit it was painstakingly laid out and well illustrated. But sticking in my craw were the places where you seemed to me to misinterpret the workings of basic probability and conditional probability. And your strategies were built on what seemed to me to be those misinterpretations.
I don't know. You are definitely a blackjack nonconformist/rebel. Maybe you're just a genius who's way ahead of his time, along with the likes of Doug Grant, Jerry Patterson and E. Clifton Davis. But to my knowlege, the best technology we have can't find credence in their or your strategies. I don't have to be right about your being wrong. But it's my very educated belief that I am. If I'm wrong, I would think you'd want to convince me that I am.
If you'd like to post some concise substantiation of why present counting systems are in error and your methods are more spot-on, I would like to see it here for all to read. I will reply in respectful honesty.
Suggestion
Just for laughs, why doesn't someone spring for the 75 cents and then pick apart his book with a microscope? From what 21ForMe said about an article he saw by this guy, I'm sure it would be entertaining. Do an objective book review, giving the guy a "fair shake".
I have a good idea of what the objective analysis would work out to, though. 21ForMe and Flash are no dummies. They are both no nonsense mathematical guys whose opinions I trust. There are so many bogus "systems" and misinformation out there that it's amazing but for a mere 75 cents? I have paid a lot more than that to get a good laugh and be entertained... it could be like getting admission to a comedy club for only 75 cents! Order his book, Flash... put up the 75 cents, review it then let me borrow it the next time we see each other and I will run a full analysis of it. I'll even split the cost of it with you! We'll post the findings on here, giving Richard the chance to REALLY hate you.
Just for laughs, why doesn't someone spring for the 75 cents and then pick apart his book with a microscope? From what 21ForMe said about an article he saw by this guy, I'm sure it would be entertaining. Do an objective book review, giving the guy a "fair shake".
I have a good idea of what the objective analysis would work out to, though. 21ForMe and Flash are no dummies. They are both no nonsense mathematical guys whose opinions I trust. There are so many bogus "systems" and misinformation out there that it's amazing but for a mere 75 cents? I have paid a lot more than that to get a good laugh and be entertained... it could be like getting admission to a comedy club for only 75 cents! Order his book, Flash... put up the 75 cents, review it then let me borrow it the next time we see each other and I will run a full analysis of it. I'll even split the cost of it with you! We'll post the findings on here, giving Richard the chance to REALLY hate you.
Yeah, he might have been given plenty of rope... 
Richard's ego obviously needs far more than average respect from his book readers, and more importantly for him, far more from those who have not yet had the pleasure of reading his wonderful new blackjack ideas. Did Richard say how much he won from them last year?
PS. Sonny, can Richard be extended a sort of temporary parole or something and given some rope? (Presuming he won't get cranky again and start threatening people here again, of course.) This was getting interesting.
Richard's ego obviously needs far more than average respect from his book readers, and more importantly for him, far more from those who have not yet had the pleasure of reading his wonderful new blackjack ideas. Did Richard say how much he won from them last year?PS. Sonny, can Richard be extended a sort of temporary parole or something and given some rope? (Presuming he won't get cranky again and start threatening people here again, of course.) This was getting interesting.
HAHA! I read the exact same articles. I get excited when I see a new issue out and skip right to his section. It has become so entertaining to read about his crazy ideas and see him rip on AP. Lately he has been promoting a seminar he is going to hold that costs around $400. It would be funny to get a bunch of AP together and show up to it. He seems crazy to me...
Waste of money and time
Pay $400 to be entertained, Mr. Hitthat??? Uhm... NO! I am having a hard time justifying the 37 cents along with the time. The bad part is that Flash will likely have me cover the thirtyEIGHT cents and he only does the 37 cents plan!
I detect a sort of narcissist personality in ol' Harv' in my opinion. He does not deal well with anyone being critical of him ("I'll get my lawyer on you... you... shoeshiner you, Flash!"). Vicious toward anyone who may question him and yet incredibly critical of all others, feeling somehow justified. To pay him homage by handing him $400 is to elevate this, after all if he is truly a legend in his own mind...
Him knocking the "red7" count? The red7 count was designed to be simplistic, basic, and easy to learn and was never purported to be as effective as more advanced methods. This is the sophmores picking on the freshman all the way! To make everyone else look as bad as possible in order to make you look better is just not the way to go and most rational people know that, with the remainder of rational people being able to see right through this. Enough psychological evaluation for one day though... My interest is perked and I am willing to pick apart one of his books and go the 38 cents to do it darnit! You don't know... he may have some valid theories and what if his math works out? Then again, what if this is actually only part of his evil plot to rule the world? After all, get enough of those shoeshiners together paying you homage and you've got yourself a cult! The possibilites are endless I tell you~!
Pay $400 to be entertained, Mr. Hitthat??? Uhm... NO! I am having a hard time justifying the 37 cents along with the time. The bad part is that Flash will likely have me cover the thirtyEIGHT cents and he only does the 37 cents plan!
I detect a sort of narcissist personality in ol' Harv' in my opinion. He does not deal well with anyone being critical of him ("I'll get my lawyer on you... you... shoeshiner you, Flash!"). Vicious toward anyone who may question him and yet incredibly critical of all others, feeling somehow justified. To pay him homage by handing him $400 is to elevate this, after all if he is truly a legend in his own mind...
Him knocking the "red7" count? The red7 count was designed to be simplistic, basic, and easy to learn and was never purported to be as effective as more advanced methods. This is the sophmores picking on the freshman all the way! To make everyone else look as bad as possible in order to make you look better is just not the way to go and most rational people know that, with the remainder of rational people being able to see right through this. Enough psychological evaluation for one day though... My interest is perked and I am willing to pick apart one of his books and go the 38 cents to do it darnit! You don't know... he may have some valid theories and what if his math works out? Then again, what if this is actually only part of his evil plot to rule the world? After all, get enough of those shoeshiners together paying you homage and you've got yourself a cult! The possibilites are endless I tell you~!
If Richard Harvey actually wrote those previous posts I do not have much respect for him. His cocky attitude and "demand for respect" is a real turn off. I do feel though he has made some good observations in regards to blackjack. I bought his book "Cutting Edge Blackjack". It is not an easy read but there are issues he touches on that I myself have often thought about.
I am a low stakes counter. I live in Las Vegas, almost 60 years old, and recently lost my job. I don't quite have enough money to officially retire so I started to play blackjack again with the intent to suppliment my income. I am not going to bore you with my specific financial situation but after some thorough analysis I have concluded that if I can make about $300 a week playing blackjack I can avoid getting a real job once my unemployment runs out and my Social Security kicks in.
I have read dozens on books about blackjack and picked up some great pointers. The majority of books come to the same conclusion - in order to win at blackjack you need to count. I totally agree with this premise but that is not to say that Richard Harvey does not have some helpful suggestions and observations. After a lenghty lay off from blackjack I once again realized that blackjack is very streaky and Mr. Harvey addresses that issue. I have to agree, to a certain extent, that cards do tend to stay in a certain pattern even after a shuffle. These patterns can be good for the player and of course bad for the player. I found it interesting that he notes that certain seats at a table (not any one specific spot, it varies) tend to get bad hands over and over. How many times have we been the victim of getting stiff hands for a fairly lengthy period of time or the player to our left or right is the poor guy catching all the trash?
I have no intent to throw away everything I have learned in terms of card counting but I have employed some of Harvey's ideas into my play and it has helped in increasing my profits at least in the short term. I will let you know if it works in the long run. One example is that when I am in a winning streak my minimum bet will be higher even in small negative situations and my overall betting will be higher in general. Also I leave a table fairly quickly when the dealer makes his/her hand at an unusually high rate or I am getting an unfair amount of stiffs and constantly busting. I think the majority of you have often said that this negative pattern can't continue and yet it does. On the other hand how many times have we hit a hot streak where we win a high percentage of hands and counting isn't necessarily the reason we are winning?
I can't say that Harvey's so called intense research and charts are for real or whether it is something he has made up. If you read his book closely he doesn't dismiss card counting nor does he totally abandon BS. In fact his "Circle of 13" actually advocates card counting except he doesn't call it that. I feel he offers some legitimate ideas, but you need to pick and choose what ideas are worth incorporating into your play. In conclusion I think it is worth reading Harvey's books, it may give you a little more insight on how to attack the game of blackjack. There is a lot of stuff in the book which I feel is garbage and impossible to use in a real game.
Obviously his attitude stinks and many con men get abusive when challenged, so I can understand if many of you feel it isn't worth your time to read his books. All I can say is that I won't dismiss his ideas entirely and maybe you can pick up a couple of pointers from him that can help.
I am a low stakes counter. I live in Las Vegas, almost 60 years old, and recently lost my job. I don't quite have enough money to officially retire so I started to play blackjack again with the intent to suppliment my income. I am not going to bore you with my specific financial situation but after some thorough analysis I have concluded that if I can make about $300 a week playing blackjack I can avoid getting a real job once my unemployment runs out and my Social Security kicks in.
I have read dozens on books about blackjack and picked up some great pointers. The majority of books come to the same conclusion - in order to win at blackjack you need to count. I totally agree with this premise but that is not to say that Richard Harvey does not have some helpful suggestions and observations. After a lenghty lay off from blackjack I once again realized that blackjack is very streaky and Mr. Harvey addresses that issue. I have to agree, to a certain extent, that cards do tend to stay in a certain pattern even after a shuffle. These patterns can be good for the player and of course bad for the player. I found it interesting that he notes that certain seats at a table (not any one specific spot, it varies) tend to get bad hands over and over. How many times have we been the victim of getting stiff hands for a fairly lengthy period of time or the player to our left or right is the poor guy catching all the trash?
I have no intent to throw away everything I have learned in terms of card counting but I have employed some of Harvey's ideas into my play and it has helped in increasing my profits at least in the short term. I will let you know if it works in the long run. One example is that when I am in a winning streak my minimum bet will be higher even in small negative situations and my overall betting will be higher in general. Also I leave a table fairly quickly when the dealer makes his/her hand at an unusually high rate or I am getting an unfair amount of stiffs and constantly busting. I think the majority of you have often said that this negative pattern can't continue and yet it does. On the other hand how many times have we hit a hot streak where we win a high percentage of hands and counting isn't necessarily the reason we are winning?
I can't say that Harvey's so called intense research and charts are for real or whether it is something he has made up. If you read his book closely he doesn't dismiss card counting nor does he totally abandon BS. In fact his "Circle of 13" actually advocates card counting except he doesn't call it that. I feel he offers some legitimate ideas, but you need to pick and choose what ideas are worth incorporating into your play. In conclusion I think it is worth reading Harvey's books, it may give you a little more insight on how to attack the game of blackjack. There is a lot of stuff in the book which I feel is garbage and impossible to use in a real game.
Obviously his attitude stinks and many con men get abusive when challenged, so I can understand if many of you feel it isn't worth your time to read his books. All I can say is that I won't dismiss his ideas entirely and maybe you can pick up a couple of pointers from him that can help.
R. Harvey does a disservice to those who stumble across the absurd (non-empirical) notions that he peddles.
Players, especially those who are novices, are easily influenced by "stuff and nonsense".
fsscout, Once you start using terms like "streaky" I suspect that you too have been
partially taken in by this 'snake oil salesman'. It is a common misconception.
Almost all of the people who play blackjack are moderately to profoundly innumerate.
It is obvious that they will accept words that they can understand, (in spite of the underlying
concepts being fuzzy at best), when matters of probabilities are beyond their ken.
I wish that my mathematical abilities would serve me better than they do;
but what can one expect from someone who completed but two
graduate statistics courses and failed to "Ace" either one ? [pun unintended]
Players, especially those who are novices, are easily influenced by "stuff and nonsense".
fsscout, Once you start using terms like "streaky" I suspect that you too have been
partially taken in by this 'snake oil salesman'. It is a common misconception.
Almost all of the people who play blackjack are moderately to profoundly innumerate.
It is obvious that they will accept words that they can understand, (in spite of the underlying
concepts being fuzzy at best), when matters of probabilities are beyond their ken.
I wish that my mathematical abilities would serve me better than they do;
but what can one expect from someone who completed but two
graduate statistics courses and failed to "Ace" either one ? [pun unintended]
To FLASH1296
Like I said I have read dozens of BJ books by renowned players. Some of these authors have stated that if you are hot keep playing and if the dealer is hot then leave. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this but it went something like this "If your about to sit at a table and the other players say the dealer is hot then believe them and move on." To me this means at times there are streaks, and these top professionals recognize this.
I see that you have listed BJ Professional as one of your occupations, so I have to assume that you have thousands of hours of play under your belt. Can you deny that there were many times when you couldn't win for hours, maybe days, even in high positive count situations or there were times you won an usually high percentage of times no matter the count? Is it possible that every time you played the exact mathematical expectations occured even in the short run? If so then excuse me for using the word "streaky" because it is obvious you have never experienced an unusual good or bad streak.
In my opinion "Cutting Edge Blackjack" is full of ridiculous concepts and unsupported research. I find it hard to believe that anyone is capable of creating accurate real condition research as Harvey claims when it comes to blackjack. Have I been partially taken in by Harvey - Yes and No. In my opinion he simply has stated a few things that top notch professionals have said before, the only difference is that he shouts it out while others only have mentioned it in a sentence or two. The majority of his book is hogwash and I can understand your disdain for him especially with your background.
I know that card counting works and if done corectly the expected probablities will occur in the long run. The only adjustment I have made in my play after reading Harvey's book is that I get a little more aggressive with my betting in what appears to be a hotter than normal period and I back down my betting or simply leave the table when things are not going so well. This is not a new concept and I know many top level professionals play similarly as it has been touched on in many must read blackjack books. Sorry if this is unscientific but sometimes things are not as black and white as you would want them to be especially in the short term.
If you think I am a fool then I would appreciate your feedback.
Like I said I have read dozens of BJ books by renowned players. Some of these authors have stated that if you are hot keep playing and if the dealer is hot then leave. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read this but it went something like this "If your about to sit at a table and the other players say the dealer is hot then believe them and move on." To me this means at times there are streaks, and these top professionals recognize this.
I see that you have listed BJ Professional as one of your occupations, so I have to assume that you have thousands of hours of play under your belt. Can you deny that there were many times when you couldn't win for hours, maybe days, even in high positive count situations or there were times you won an usually high percentage of times no matter the count? Is it possible that every time you played the exact mathematical expectations occured even in the short run? If so then excuse me for using the word "streaky" because it is obvious you have never experienced an unusual good or bad streak.
In my opinion "Cutting Edge Blackjack" is full of ridiculous concepts and unsupported research. I find it hard to believe that anyone is capable of creating accurate real condition research as Harvey claims when it comes to blackjack. Have I been partially taken in by Harvey - Yes and No. In my opinion he simply has stated a few things that top notch professionals have said before, the only difference is that he shouts it out while others only have mentioned it in a sentence or two. The majority of his book is hogwash and I can understand your disdain for him especially with your background.
I know that card counting works and if done corectly the expected probablities will occur in the long run. The only adjustment I have made in my play after reading Harvey's book is that I get a little more aggressive with my betting in what appears to be a hotter than normal period and I back down my betting or simply leave the table when things are not going so well. This is not a new concept and I know many top level professionals play similarly as it has been touched on in many must read blackjack books. Sorry if this is unscientific but sometimes things are not as black and white as you would want them to be especially in the short term.
If you think I am a fool then I would appreciate your feedback.
I am sorry, but these are frauds. They may be "renowned," but they have no idea what they are talking about. I don't mean to be insulting, but you need to be more selective about the books you believe. (I am curious about the books you claim are written by renowned players.)
Sorry again, but this is absurd. Of course every time you play results will not be the same. This is clearly stated in all math analyses. And I am certain Flash has experienced this because we all have. I had one session at B where the count was monstrous, I kept getting DD opportunities and lost them all with max bets out. This is entirely explained by the math and CANNOT be avoided by labeling dealers or tables as 'hot' or 'cold.' These are gambler terms, not scientific terms.
Why. We simulated the landing on Mars. We simulate dams and bridges and airplanes before they are built. Do you really believe that a simple card game cannot be simulated? This proves that Harvey is a fraud. He denies science and math and claims his empirical evidence is superior to the numerous PHDs in the field.
Sorry again, but this is absurd. Of course every time you play results will not be the same. This is clearly stated in all math analyses. And I am certain Flash has experienced this because we all have. I had one session at B where the count was monstrous, I kept getting DD opportunities and lost them all with max bets out. This is entirely explained by the math and CANNOT be avoided by labeling dealers or tables as 'hot' or 'cold.' These are gambler terms, not scientific terms.
Why. We simulated the landing on Mars. We simulate dams and bridges and airplanes before they are built. Do you really believe that a simple card game cannot be simulated? This proves that Harvey is a fraud. He denies science and math and claims his empirical evidence is superior to the numerous PHDs in the field.
fsscout, it's funny that you suggest this, because there is a thread that kewljason recently posted in which he is struggling with idea that his prior "lucky streak" is way above EV and "should" be balanced out in the near future with bad cards so as to put him back on track.
and you are saying that when you are winning then you are likely to keep winning, which is kind of the opposite of what kewljason was talking about
and you are saying that when you are winning then you are likely to keep winning, which is kind of the opposite of what kewljason was talking about
I am certainly not calling you a fool, or anything else for that matter. I am responding editorially. I am addressing the vast majority of recreational BJ players.
In your second sentence, you state " authors … if you are hot keep playing and if the dealer is hot then leave."
Absolutely NO expert would make such an absurd statement.
Doing so reveals him to be a phony, interested only in selling his books.
"Hot dealers" do not exist, unless they are running a fever.
NO expert grants any credence to "streaks". That sort of misconception is one of the underpinnings of what we call "Voodoo" gambling theories.
I imagine that the authors that you imagine are experts are actually self-aggrandizing energetic self-promotors like R. Harvey.
Names like Sclobete, Patrick, Silberstang, et al spring to mind. Yjere is no shortage ofsSelf-styled experts with dubious expertise at anything beyond getting their books published.
Credentialed, respected, gambling experts include names like Wong, Schlesinger, Snyder, Epstein, Wattenberger, Griffin, etc.
Above, you state, " … excuse me for using the word "streaky" because it is obvious you have never experienced an unusual good or bad streak. " The reality is that what you imagine to be "unusual" is NOT unusual. Any experienced blackjack pro has experienced long series' of consecutive wins and losses. They are NOT unusual. Indeed, they MUST happen now and again. IF they did not sometimes occur that would be more noteworthy then when they do happen. Some card counters experience months of winning sessions while some suffer by months of losing sessions.
I am just pontificating about how innumerately (some) people think about (some) things (some) of the time.
"streaks" do not exist any more than "luck" exists. These are purely illusory. They are merely empty fuzzy hollow words. Whenever a word is applied to something that no longer exists, than that word or phrase (or the underlying concept) is chimerical. Assigning words to things that do not exist is not only the realm of theologists.
Think of it this way. [a hypothetical situation]:
I buy a lottery ticket and I win a pile of money.
You may say" "Wow. You are lucky"
Later, I get robbed and lose all of the money.
One might say: "Boy are you unlucky"
The next day I inherit a big pile of money.
Someone is sure to say: "What a lucky guy you are"
Later that day my M.R.I. report indicates that I have pancreatic cancer.
I might say to myself: "I am so very unlucky."
So … am I lucky or am I unlucky? I am neither. Just like everyone else. You cannot rationally assign a trait or an attribute or a descriptive characteristic to a person based on things that took place that he was, to some degree, involved in.
I have had several positive and negative experiences that people, (maybe even myself) assign adjectives like "lucky" (or "fortunate" or "damned" or blessed, etc.) to.
When it comes to streaks the reality is similar. Streaks only exist in hindsight. Obviously nothing in the past "exists". Even a memory does not exist until you recall it in the present. A streak does not exist until after it occurs when one can assign the term "streak" to it.
Mathematicians can predict precisely how many so-called "streaks" can be "expected" over the "long run" with any game and set of rules.
It is a matter of Z-scores, but, as I said, it is a matter of mathematics that I am ill-suited to present. Here is an interesting example of the "stinkin' thinkin' re" probability over the short haul:
Imagine the following commonplace scenario. You are an observer at a craps table where your friend is tossing the dice. You observe that he has thrown 12 [a pair of sixes, also known as "boxcars" or "midnight"). He had bet a dollar "hop bet" paying 30 to 1. He then proceeded to throw again. He repeated the bet and once again wins $30.
At this point your friend didn't know if he was "lucky", (having won $60), or "unlucky" because he didn't "parlay" the winnings - betting the $31 that he had after the first winning roll. The winning parlay would have paid him $31 x 30 = $930. [Ignoring the "real odds" payoff of $37 x 36 = $1,332]. The odds of winning that parlay is 1,295 to 1. He believes that he must have been very "lucky". Was he? The odds are exactly 1,295 to 1 but ONLY if predicted in advance ! If he had been throwing the dice all day, over the course of 12+ hrs. he saw > 600 throws of the dice. Had he thrown them about 1,300 times he would be about "EVEN MONEY" to throw back-to-back 12's - meaning he is as likely as not to see successive 12's rolled. Having seen substantially less than 1,296 rolls, he would be an 'underdog' but obviously it will not be surprising if he rolls two sets of double-sixes.
In your second sentence, you state " authors … if you are hot keep playing and if the dealer is hot then leave."
Absolutely NO expert would make such an absurd statement.
Doing so reveals him to be a phony, interested only in selling his books.
"Hot dealers" do not exist, unless they are running a fever.
NO expert grants any credence to "streaks". That sort of misconception is one of the underpinnings of what we call "Voodoo" gambling theories.
I imagine that the authors that you imagine are experts are actually self-aggrandizing energetic self-promotors like R. Harvey.
Names like Sclobete, Patrick, Silberstang, et al spring to mind. Yjere is no shortage ofsSelf-styled experts with dubious expertise at anything beyond getting their books published.
Credentialed, respected, gambling experts include names like Wong, Schlesinger, Snyder, Epstein, Wattenberger, Griffin, etc.
Above, you state, " … excuse me for using the word "streaky" because it is obvious you have never experienced an unusual good or bad streak. " The reality is that what you imagine to be "unusual" is NOT unusual. Any experienced blackjack pro has experienced long series' of consecutive wins and losses. They are NOT unusual. Indeed, they MUST happen now and again. IF they did not sometimes occur that would be more noteworthy then when they do happen. Some card counters experience months of winning sessions while some suffer by months of losing sessions.
I am just pontificating about how innumerately (some) people think about (some) things (some) of the time.
"streaks" do not exist any more than "luck" exists. These are purely illusory. They are merely empty fuzzy hollow words. Whenever a word is applied to something that no longer exists, than that word or phrase (or the underlying concept) is chimerical. Assigning words to things that do not exist is not only the realm of theologists.
Think of it this way. [a hypothetical situation]:
I buy a lottery ticket and I win a pile of money.
You may say" "Wow. You are lucky"
Later, I get robbed and lose all of the money.
One might say: "Boy are you unlucky"
The next day I inherit a big pile of money.
Someone is sure to say: "What a lucky guy you are"
Later that day my M.R.I. report indicates that I have pancreatic cancer.
I might say to myself: "I am so very unlucky."
So … am I lucky or am I unlucky? I am neither. Just like everyone else. You cannot rationally assign a trait or an attribute or a descriptive characteristic to a person based on things that took place that he was, to some degree, involved in.
I have had several positive and negative experiences that people, (maybe even myself) assign adjectives like "lucky" (or "fortunate" or "damned" or blessed, etc.) to.
When it comes to streaks the reality is similar. Streaks only exist in hindsight. Obviously nothing in the past "exists". Even a memory does not exist until you recall it in the present. A streak does not exist until after it occurs when one can assign the term "streak" to it.
Mathematicians can predict precisely how many so-called "streaks" can be "expected" over the "long run" with any game and set of rules.
It is a matter of Z-scores, but, as I said, it is a matter of mathematics that I am ill-suited to present. Here is an interesting example of the "stinkin' thinkin' re" probability over the short haul:
Imagine the following commonplace scenario. You are an observer at a craps table where your friend is tossing the dice. You observe that he has thrown 12 [a pair of sixes, also known as "boxcars" or "midnight"). He had bet a dollar "hop bet" paying 30 to 1. He then proceeded to throw again. He repeated the bet and once again wins $30.
At this point your friend didn't know if he was "lucky", (having won $60), or "unlucky" because he didn't "parlay" the winnings - betting the $31 that he had after the first winning roll. The winning parlay would have paid him $31 x 30 = $930. [Ignoring the "real odds" payoff of $37 x 36 = $1,332]. The odds of winning that parlay is 1,295 to 1. He believes that he must have been very "lucky". Was he? The odds are exactly 1,295 to 1 but ONLY if predicted in advance ! If he had been throwing the dice all day, over the course of 12+ hrs. he saw > 600 throws of the dice. Had he thrown them about 1,300 times he would be about "EVEN MONEY" to throw back-to-back 12's - meaning he is as likely as not to see successive 12's rolled. Having seen substantially less than 1,296 rolls, he would be an 'underdog' but obviously it will not be surprising if he rolls two sets of double-sixes.
To QFIT
First off I would like to say I respect you and FLAS1296 for your knowledge of the game and the strict scientific approach you both adhere to concerning blackjack. Also I have purchased the Casino Verite Blackjack Software and without a doubt it is the best program I have ever used.
Unfortunately both you and FLASH1296 are misinterpreting what I am trying to point out and have jumped to incorrect conclusions. That could be my fault since I wasn't specific or clear enough. First off you need to understand that I first starting card counting in the early eighties before I moved to Las Vegas in 1995. I probably took 20 trips to Las Vegas and 2 or 3 trips to AC over that period of time each lasting a full week. I literally played a minimum of 8 hours a day. Obviously not something recommended. At first I used a simple plus/minus count then learned the Omega II system. I considered myself a very good player but not great. I rarely had a losing week and when I did lose it was small. The majority of times I made enough to pay all my expenses and sometimes significantly more. You both need to stop treating me like a novice who is trying to make an easy dollar at the blackjack tables. Granted I have not devoted my life to blackjack and studied the game as thoroughly as you have but I have an excellent knowledge of the game and what it takes to win at it.
Once I moved here I was fortunate and got a good job right away so I basically stopped playing balckjack for about 15 years. I figured it wasn't worth spending a few hours a week playing so I could make an extra 50 or 60 dollars since I didn't need the money plus I was working a minimum of 50 hours a week. Today it is a different story since the construction company I worked for closed it doors 3 months ago and the prospects of finding a good job soon is not likely. I was an estimator and project manager so I worked with numbers day in and day out. Before going out in the real world I have refreshed my blackjack knowledge and did quite a lot of practicing. I found out that I am not capable of using the Omega II system as well as before and have gone to a one level count. I feel confident with my counting and play adjustments.
I will take your recommendation and throw out all the books I have that were written by Ken Houston, Edward Thorp, Arnold Synder, Bryce Carlson, and the likes of these frauds. Thanks for the advice. By the way I have no Idea who Sclobete, Patrick and Silberstang are. The only book that wasn't written by the above mentioned frauds is one book by Harvey. I was curious as to what this guy had to say. In my opinion his research was probably bogus and confusing at best. I did find it interesting that some one the things I was witnessing at the tables were touched on by him. So I brought it up for discussion and thought it might be worth investigating. Then you and FLASH got bent out of shape and your scientific minds couldn't handle such an idea. You guys kill me and I find it very amusing on how easily your feathers get ruffled. I hope you don't approach life as rigidly as you approach blackjack, if you do I feel sorry for your mates.
I can't remember the exact date but one trip I took in the late eighties I noticed that it appeared that the cards were no longer shuffled as thouroughly as in previous years and both my losing and winning streaks (excuse the non scientific term, I only have a Bacholor's degree) were longer than in the past. I was leaning towards the idea that once a group of cards got clumped together they basically remainded that way for a period on times despite shuffling. Obviously in the long run one should still get the expected mathematical statistics but you will get there with unusually longer losing and winning periods. One of the biggest frauds in the history of blackjack, Arnold Synder, talks about card clumpimg and the importance of watching how they get shuffled. What a fool!!!!
I find it interesting that many professionals such as Revere, Anderson, etc talk about ending a session once you lose a certain number of units even if it occurs in a very short period of time. Why do they talk about that, Is it possible that they have experienced long losing streaks and you need to cut these losing streaks short? Unfortunately they don't explain in detail their reasoning other saying it is a money management issue which really shouldn't be a factor since everything should work out in the end. Stopping play for a period of time because one has lost a little bit of money really shouldn't have an effect as to whether you eventually lose your entire bankroll. Are they being cautious and not saying that it is not uncommon to have a long losing streak and once it starts who knows when it may end. Of course if they ever said that they would be ridiculed by the staunch scientific advocates. Revere clearly states not to play against a dealer you do not like. Obviously there could be a number of reasons why Revere says that. Could it be that the dealer constantly shuffles up on him or could it be that the dealer seems to be "hot" all the time. Of course he would get a lot of heat if he used the word "hot".
You completely misunderstood what I was saying when I stated "I find it hard to believe that anyone is capable of creating accurate real condition research as Harvey claims when it comes to blackjack." The point I was making is that there are too many variables involved in recreating actually playing conditions such as how the cards are shuffled and how the cards may have been clumped. Harvey claims he can do this which is hogwash. Yes you can run simulations on how to play the game with different true counts. Your analogy that " We simulated the landing on Mars. We simulate dams and bridges and airplanes before they are built." has nothing to do with simulating real (let me emphasize "REAL" not possible) playing conditions when it comes to blackjack." In all due respect that analogy was way off base.
What you and FLASH1296 are failing to consider is the human element in blackjack. You also refuse to recognize that cards are often clumped and often poorly shuffled which may increase the likelihood of longer winning and losing periods. All I know is that when I started to play blackjack once again it just seemed that the I was experiencing unusally higher than normal consecutive losing hands as well as winning hands. Under ideal conditions what happened yesterday has no bearing on what will happen today when it comes to chance. I am just saying is the game of blackjack still a game of chance as it was in years past. Now don't jump on me for saying blackjack is a game of chance, I know that counting cards takes the chance out of the game.
Let's talk about your statement " I had one session at B where the count was monstrous, I kept getting DD opportunities and lost them all with max bets out. This is entirely explained by the math and CANNOT be avoided by labeling dealers or tables as 'hot' or 'cold.' These are gambler terms, not scientific terms." Obviously the low cards were clumped together. The count got higher and higher and yet the small cards kept coming out. I am wondering if the reason why these cards were clumped was due to a less than thourough shuffle and the cards were clumped like this for an extended period of time. I am making the assumptions that these DD opportunities were spread out over numerous shoes and not just one shoe. That is a possibility that you absolutely refuse to consider since you cannot factor that into your computer simulations and scientific research. These are variables that cannot be truly simulated, only approximately simulated or guessed at. Going back to your analogy about building a plane. I am sure it can be simulated what the effects would be if a certain bolt or more than one bolt is not properly rivoted or tighten which of course has nothing to do with blackjack.
By no means am I saying that card counting should not be used. It is the only way I know of that allows you to win in the long run and I don't buy into any progression betting system. I am simply saying that the cards do not seem to be falling as randomly as they should and there could be a reason for that. Is there a possibility one may experiece more consective wins and loses under today's conditions than is mathematically expected. Like I said before I have slightly adjusted my betting pattern due to the streaks that I have been witnessing and so far it has worked. It may not work in the long run and if that is the case I will go back to my old betting strategy which is based purely on the true count.
So loosen up a bit you guys, stop being so full of yourselves. Don't get your panties in a bunch when someone says that a small adjustment may be benefical when attacking today's game. Again I am not saying a drastic change needs to be made to proven card counting methods, maybe just a little tweeking, only time will tell. I can't wait to hear from you guys.
First off I would like to say I respect you and FLAS1296 for your knowledge of the game and the strict scientific approach you both adhere to concerning blackjack. Also I have purchased the Casino Verite Blackjack Software and without a doubt it is the best program I have ever used.
Unfortunately both you and FLASH1296 are misinterpreting what I am trying to point out and have jumped to incorrect conclusions. That could be my fault since I wasn't specific or clear enough. First off you need to understand that I first starting card counting in the early eighties before I moved to Las Vegas in 1995. I probably took 20 trips to Las Vegas and 2 or 3 trips to AC over that period of time each lasting a full week. I literally played a minimum of 8 hours a day. Obviously not something recommended. At first I used a simple plus/minus count then learned the Omega II system. I considered myself a very good player but not great. I rarely had a losing week and when I did lose it was small. The majority of times I made enough to pay all my expenses and sometimes significantly more. You both need to stop treating me like a novice who is trying to make an easy dollar at the blackjack tables. Granted I have not devoted my life to blackjack and studied the game as thoroughly as you have but I have an excellent knowledge of the game and what it takes to win at it.
Once I moved here I was fortunate and got a good job right away so I basically stopped playing balckjack for about 15 years. I figured it wasn't worth spending a few hours a week playing so I could make an extra 50 or 60 dollars since I didn't need the money plus I was working a minimum of 50 hours a week. Today it is a different story since the construction company I worked for closed it doors 3 months ago and the prospects of finding a good job soon is not likely. I was an estimator and project manager so I worked with numbers day in and day out. Before going out in the real world I have refreshed my blackjack knowledge and did quite a lot of practicing. I found out that I am not capable of using the Omega II system as well as before and have gone to a one level count. I feel confident with my counting and play adjustments.
I will take your recommendation and throw out all the books I have that were written by Ken Houston, Edward Thorp, Arnold Synder, Bryce Carlson, and the likes of these frauds. Thanks for the advice. By the way I have no Idea who Sclobete, Patrick and Silberstang are. The only book that wasn't written by the above mentioned frauds is one book by Harvey. I was curious as to what this guy had to say. In my opinion his research was probably bogus and confusing at best. I did find it interesting that some one the things I was witnessing at the tables were touched on by him. So I brought it up for discussion and thought it might be worth investigating. Then you and FLASH got bent out of shape and your scientific minds couldn't handle such an idea. You guys kill me and I find it very amusing on how easily your feathers get ruffled. I hope you don't approach life as rigidly as you approach blackjack, if you do I feel sorry for your mates.
I can't remember the exact date but one trip I took in the late eighties I noticed that it appeared that the cards were no longer shuffled as thouroughly as in previous years and both my losing and winning streaks (excuse the non scientific term, I only have a Bacholor's degree) were longer than in the past. I was leaning towards the idea that once a group of cards got clumped together they basically remainded that way for a period on times despite shuffling. Obviously in the long run one should still get the expected mathematical statistics but you will get there with unusually longer losing and winning periods. One of the biggest frauds in the history of blackjack, Arnold Synder, talks about card clumpimg and the importance of watching how they get shuffled. What a fool!!!!
I find it interesting that many professionals such as Revere, Anderson, etc talk about ending a session once you lose a certain number of units even if it occurs in a very short period of time. Why do they talk about that, Is it possible that they have experienced long losing streaks and you need to cut these losing streaks short? Unfortunately they don't explain in detail their reasoning other saying it is a money management issue which really shouldn't be a factor since everything should work out in the end. Stopping play for a period of time because one has lost a little bit of money really shouldn't have an effect as to whether you eventually lose your entire bankroll. Are they being cautious and not saying that it is not uncommon to have a long losing streak and once it starts who knows when it may end. Of course if they ever said that they would be ridiculed by the staunch scientific advocates. Revere clearly states not to play against a dealer you do not like. Obviously there could be a number of reasons why Revere says that. Could it be that the dealer constantly shuffles up on him or could it be that the dealer seems to be "hot" all the time. Of course he would get a lot of heat if he used the word "hot".
You completely misunderstood what I was saying when I stated "I find it hard to believe that anyone is capable of creating accurate real condition research as Harvey claims when it comes to blackjack." The point I was making is that there are too many variables involved in recreating actually playing conditions such as how the cards are shuffled and how the cards may have been clumped. Harvey claims he can do this which is hogwash. Yes you can run simulations on how to play the game with different true counts. Your analogy that " We simulated the landing on Mars. We simulate dams and bridges and airplanes before they are built." has nothing to do with simulating real (let me emphasize "REAL" not possible) playing conditions when it comes to blackjack." In all due respect that analogy was way off base.
What you and FLASH1296 are failing to consider is the human element in blackjack. You also refuse to recognize that cards are often clumped and often poorly shuffled which may increase the likelihood of longer winning and losing periods. All I know is that when I started to play blackjack once again it just seemed that the I was experiencing unusally higher than normal consecutive losing hands as well as winning hands. Under ideal conditions what happened yesterday has no bearing on what will happen today when it comes to chance. I am just saying is the game of blackjack still a game of chance as it was in years past. Now don't jump on me for saying blackjack is a game of chance, I know that counting cards takes the chance out of the game.
Let's talk about your statement " I had one session at B where the count was monstrous, I kept getting DD opportunities and lost them all with max bets out. This is entirely explained by the math and CANNOT be avoided by labeling dealers or tables as 'hot' or 'cold.' These are gambler terms, not scientific terms." Obviously the low cards were clumped together. The count got higher and higher and yet the small cards kept coming out. I am wondering if the reason why these cards were clumped was due to a less than thourough shuffle and the cards were clumped like this for an extended period of time. I am making the assumptions that these DD opportunities were spread out over numerous shoes and not just one shoe. That is a possibility that you absolutely refuse to consider since you cannot factor that into your computer simulations and scientific research. These are variables that cannot be truly simulated, only approximately simulated or guessed at. Going back to your analogy about building a plane. I am sure it can be simulated what the effects would be if a certain bolt or more than one bolt is not properly rivoted or tighten which of course has nothing to do with blackjack.
By no means am I saying that card counting should not be used. It is the only way I know of that allows you to win in the long run and I don't buy into any progression betting system. I am simply saying that the cards do not seem to be falling as randomly as they should and there could be a reason for that. Is there a possibility one may experiece more consective wins and loses under today's conditions than is mathematically expected. Like I said before I have slightly adjusted my betting pattern due to the streaks that I have been witnessing and so far it has worked. It may not work in the long run and if that is the case I will go back to my old betting strategy which is based purely on the true count.
So loosen up a bit you guys, stop being so full of yourselves. Don't get your panties in a bunch when someone says that a small adjustment may be benefical when attacking today's game. Again I am not saying a drastic change needs to be made to proven card counting methods, maybe just a little tweeking, only time will tell. I can't wait to hear from you guys.
I apologize if you feel insulted by what FLASH and I have said. But, you have misread the literature. Comparing Ken Uston, Edward Thorp, Arnold Synder, Bryce Carlson with Harvey makes no sense. The first four believe in science and the last writes absurdities and centuries old gamblers' logic. NONE of the first four would have ever suggested that you should follow streaks. Your statement that "You also refuse to recognize that cards are often clumped and often poorly shuffled which may increase the likelihood of longer winning and losing periods" is flat out absurd. I specifically pointed out that we do believe this. ALL good books point this out. Read my book and reread the other books. My software duplicates real-life casino shuffles. Including any and all bad shuffling that you can imagine. You can program in bad grabs, bad splits, bad interleaves. I put in massive effort to create real shuffles and simulate them for billions of hands. I even simulate the effect of the differences in interleaving based upon the increasing angle of the thumb as the riffle proceeds. BUT, it is voodoo to claim that you can follow streaks. Harvey makes absurd claims based on playing a tiny number of hands. He writes the same anti-math nonsense that bad gamblers have stated for centuries. We have put massive effort into measuring these effects. He dealt some hand at his kitchen table and makes wild claims based on tiny amounts of data.