fsscout said:
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.
