SplitFaceDisaster question answered

[Dummy]

I strongly suggest that you schedule an appointment with your psychiatrist after he comes back from visiting his psychiatrist.

I stopped talking about my system a long time ago. It has no application to other types of systems. I just try to talk about what has applications to other systems.

I have been talking about applying other peoples research in this thread. But because I never said it was Griffin's, Carlson's, or Schlesinger's research the dumb shits attack it and say they need proof. The proof was put out there a long time ago. They know it and accept it. All you have to do is look up RA indices, Risk averse insurance, alternating bet ramps, and effective methods of betting cover in the famous books. The fact that you probably know all these books and didn't understand them enough to know the concepts when you read about them suggests you have a problem.

All I added was an analogy of how making these changes alters the way your wins and losses stack up in the same way any betting system would. If you forgo some doubles and splits with big bets out until they generate more EV you will win more of those rounds while giving up the TC(s) that have the highest percentage of lost doubles or splits with big bets out and the lowest gain in EV without giving up much EV. If you use wins and/or losses as a bet change trigger in certain instances you will affect how results stack up the same way it does for ploppies that do the same. You are an idiot if you don't understand that. You have no ability to analyze things objectively if you find fault with something simply because I said it, even though you know it is true when others prior to me said the same thing scattered around in well respected books.

The only thing I mentioned that I don't think was published was RA surrender with big bets out. But I am sure those that researched it use it. I find it interesting that they didn't share what they found. Trading a little EV when you have your biggest bets out to eliminate all those lost big bets for lost half bets has a big stabilizing effect on downswings with big bets out. That is why surrender is so powerful for counters. Why limit that power to just when it is plus EV to do so. After all the power is not just from the increase in EV. The power mostly comes from the reduction in variance for your worst hands, which are fairly certain losers, especially for the big variance producing bets, your big bets.

 

[Dummy]

And on another blackjack forum, that he uses a different handle (this BTW is something most AP's don't do)

I don't have the same Email address that I had a long time ago. I don't remember my password from way back then so the site can't send it to me, because it will go to an Email address that I can't access. So I had to come up with another handle. I chose one from my college days that I thought people would have fun with rather than some slightly altered version of my original handle. I came up with some funny slightly altered ones as well, but I was hoping to change my posting style to short posts and leave the garbage attacks behind me. Well I got outed so no point in expending a lot of effort trying to change my posting style. Those that complain about my posting style can blame the person or people that outed me. Most of them probably wanted a change in my posting style and feel so smart for outing me. It is ironic that these people were why my posts here are now my typical writing style instead of more like what they say they would like.

 

[psyduck]

Dummy, if it has been published in books, don't you think other people have already read it? You really think people such as those here are dumb and only you are the smart ass? Don't you think serious players have already simulated the games they play from all angles? So you don't think so because they have not talked much about their findings? How many people have the kind of urge to talk like you?

You have made a huge fool of yourself by the endless boring and vague BS posts. It is your choice if you choose to continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[BoSox]

Dummy in post #21 wrote:
"Now don't you feel silly. I didn't intentionally set you up. But when you challenge all the major contributions and established concepts simply because I talked about the effects of using them, you either show your ignorance or your blinding bigotry."

I have been talking about applying other peoples research in this thread. But because I never said it was Griffin's, Carlson's, or Schlesinger's research the dumb shits attack it and say they need proof.

In the manner, in which you presented the Master's work was a complete insult to the Masters themselves. The words the authors put in their books was a far cry from the full meaning in the way you incompetently put it to suit your own twisted purpose in that second paragraph. In the future do everyone a favor and just directly quote the authors. Were you just looking to start a fight? That is a big question because the way you often write causes a lot of confusion for interpretations. Here is that second paragraph again:

"A creative AP can do the same by how he chooses to apply his count system. To some extent you can choose the ride to much the same long run. You can alter bet sizes. You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning. Raising a bet after wins and lowering bets after losses costs EV if the bets aren't optimal, but can be good cover because another reason for bet moves is obvious. What it also does is shift where and how you win and lose money on the way to the long run. All those nightmare shoes where you get a monster count and can't win a hand. guess what you didn't raise your bet. That huge lose is made into a small lose. But that shoe where wins and losses alternated you know lose the difference between your two bet sizes for each TC very other round. And that shoe where you won non stop you may play with even higher bets, if your last round won bet is more than your normal bet and your last round lost bet is less, causing larger upswings. If your winner bet and loser bet average to your optimal bet EV is unchanged but variance is increased. But swings are actually changed in a favorable way. That is a judgment call, but cutting the amount lost in your massive losing shoes and replacing them with even more massive winning shoes and more moderate losers is something I prefer for both longevity and certainty of BR growth. "

 

[psyduck]

When Dummy talks about EV, he means Exaggerated Value.

 

[Dummy]

Dummy, if it has been published in books, don't you think other people have already read it?

So you are saying you never heard of RA indices, RA insurance, maximizing the likelihood of growing your BR, and the effect of making more accurate decisions on betting and BR growth? That is all I have been describing. I just added the use of some more information gathered and using the information in nontraditional ways to increase betting accuracy and playing decision accuracy and applying those same concepts to those results for my system, but I haven't been taking about my system unless other people bring it up. Of course if they bring it up I will talk about it. If you are tired of hearing about it then stop mentioning it.

What I described in this thread, when other people weren't bringing up my count, is like comparing the gain between Hilo and Hiopt2/ASC. Hiopt2/ASC gathers more information and uses extra techniques in processing some of the extra information that Hilo doesn't use. You act like you can't understand why Hiopt2/ASC performs better. You should be embarrassed by not being able to understand there is improvement and be able to estimate how big the improvement is. I don't want to talk about my system because nobody else has access to it. Given this what difference does quantifying the gain make. You either go that is more than I thought or it is BS. From past experience I know how that will go. Why go down that road when it not relevant to other people's play. Bosox has made sure I get that and I am trying only to post things that are useful to the way other people play.

 

[psyduck]

So you are saying you never heard of RA indices, RA insurance, maximizing the likelihood of growing your BR, and the effect of making more accurate decisions on betting and BR growth?

Where did I say that?

but I haven't been taking about my system unless other people bring it up. Of course if they bring it up I will talk about it.

Ok, what is your system?

 

[Dummy]

Where did I say that?
Ok, what is your system?

That is obvious bating. I have talked enough about my system over the years that you should know how my approach differs from others. As Bosox made me understand it is not helpful to lack about my system when others lack both the skill to do it and the knowledge.

I am happy to see many have developed systems based on my ideas, some of which contacted me in the process of developing their systems others gleaned enough from my posts to go forward without any more input from me, and all that I know of are reporting that the improvement was well worth the effort for them. The effort is not small so that says a lot. I never told any of them my system. I just discussed the advanced concepts my system uses with them. I don't know if what I do is the best application of my approach. Why put them in a box when developing their own system when they might come up with something much better?

If you are really interested in developing your own version using my concepts you can contact me privately and I will explain some things to you. Obviously the people that went to all the trouble to develop their own system understood the concepts well enough to believe a ton of R&D and developing different very difficult counting skills would be worth the reward way down the line. I am happy that the results didn't disappoint them.

 

[BoSox]

I don't want to talk about my system because nobody else has access to it.

That is a tricky point. What you do talk about is all the advantages and opportunities that are open to you. Often you talk about how you yourself play your system and how you accomplish your objectives. Doing things such as making max bets in neutral counts. Hopefully, people are glad for you but cannot relate to the subject matter in the same aspect. One way or another you are still talking about your own system.

 

[psyduck]

That is obvious bating.

No baiting. I really do not know what your system is.

I have talked enough about my system over the years that you should know how my approach differs from others.

No doubt you have talked more than enough about it, but it is all talk without details.

 

[Dummy]

Doing things such as making max bets in neutral counts.

Boy you have a very long memory to come up with that one. That defines the problem here. You are living in the ancient past rather than seeing what is going on now. A comment about that now would be to say how valuable breaking the correlation between betting count and playing count is. Those situations are pretty rare. I don't even use the 2d approach using information gathered for betting for BJ unless the balanced side count has a high magnitude. It would need to be really high magnitude for that. I was most likely talking about extremes to show the range of what the system could do. Often points are made by taking things to the extreme. Don just did it on this forum. Or you might be going back so many years that I wasn't talking about BJ. If you form a quick opinion and never change it you won't get far in life. Many first judgements are very wrong or need to be modified with more information later. Also situations change and the opinions of intelligent people change with them. It is a big personal shortcoming to never change your opinions or judgements as time changes things or gets you more information. That ability to re-assess situations as they change is the cornerstone of being a successful AP. You should probably work on that if you want to be serious about adapting to changes to the game or taking advantage of new opportunities that present themselves. After all, you have to notice the change to take advantage of it or not be hurt by it.

 

[Dummy]

No baiting. I really do not know what your system is.

I have never told my system to anyone except a handful of full time pros that are close to me. I would explain the approach if you are interested in developing a system based on the same approach. After all I have no idea if my system is at the top of using this approach or the bottom. I don't want you to be boxed into what I do nor do I want everyone to be doing it. By explaining the approach you can tailor a system to your preferences, which should make it easier for you and you might figure out something much more effective. Just contact me privately. But only if you are interested in developing your own system. I am not interested in discussing with people that want to attack my ideas because they can't understand them. I am happy to explain them until you understand them at what point you can choose to agree or disagree without proof. If you understand I can answer questions as you develop your own system. Hopefully you will come up with something even better than I did. You would have the benefit of starting with a goal in mind. I just made decisions for unrelated reasons that worked out very well.

 

[BoSox]

Doing things such as making max bets in neutral counts.

Boy you have a very long memory to come up with that one. That defines the problem here. You are living in the ancient past rather than seeing what is going on now. A comment about that now would be to say how valuable breaking the correlation between betting count and playing count is.

On 12/16/18 on the other site, you started a thread with an 11 paragraph post this is what you wrote in the first paragraph.

"
Positive effects on downswing variance of waiting to double at a high bets

I have been not helpful trying to get a point across so I will use data from a matchup to illustrate the point. I chose this matchup because it illustrates the point I am trying to make as the index is the highest frequency TC and the first downswing averse index is also a RA index and the second downswing averse index appears to have a steep price tag. But a closer look shows it really is a cheap way to stack your largest contributors to variance in favor of upswing variance while reducing downswing variance. The EV maximizing index is TC 0 but the best playing count from the info gathered is a combined count so so bets are not at all correlated to the count and I could have anywhere from a minimum bet out to a maximum bet when the playing TC is at the index of 0:"​

​

Three, I do not make up false stories.​

 

[Dummy]

Three, I do not make up false stories.

No you didn't. Like I said it was a post where it represented the outer limit of the bet range. It is possible to have a max bet out when THE PLAYING COUNT is 0 for a particular matchup. For another matchup the playing count could be +14 for that same round. On matchup adds the side count and the other subtracts twice the side count. Obviously the point I was trying to make didn't get heard. If anyone read the thread I realized the approach I was trying to express, which was a RA approach for big bets out, had little application for ace reckoned counts and not much for ace neutral counts. You needed a big bet out at the index. I hadn't thought through how other people play enough to realize an opportunity that is there for my approach is rarely there for most other approaches because it required being at a doubling index with a big bet out. It could happen at deep pen with a big change in the count after you make your bet and before you make your playing decision, and with more uncommon doubles and splits. But that is rare. I pointed out when I realized that it had little application to most counts and when it applied. I just never played an ace reckoned count so I never realized how many opportunities to improve are not available to simple approaches. Having your bets correlate 100% to your plays doesn't only make you easier to spot, it also closes a lot of opportunities for improving your play. But that should be no surprise to anyone. Simplicity is a trade off with utility and playing strength. That is just the way things are.

 

[BoSox]

Obviously the point I was trying to make didn't get heard.

Eleven paragraphs attempting to get your point across I at least give you an A for the effort.

 

[psyduck]

Dummy, so far you are just a story writer. You are unable to give a single example to demonstrate your lengthy posts, something like "say this match up or situation, if you use a simple count you don't see the advantage. With my system there is an advantage hidden in there and this is why". Until then you are just telling a fairy tale story.

 

[Dummy]

Dummy, so far you are just a story writer. You are unable to give a single example to demonstrate your lengthy posts, something like "say this match up or situation, if you use a simple count you don't see the advantage. With my system there is an advantage hidden in there and this is why". Until then you are just telling a fairy tale story.

Whatever. You got to read the bare bones of the approach without revealing my system. If you wanted to develop your own system I would have taken it off board and you would have been shown a lot more. I deleted it now. I don't want the wrong people to see it and make countermeasures to make the game unplayable for most people. That has been a fear that Bosox has expressed a few times.

I try to give people concepts. The concepts worth depends on the system it is applied to and the game conditions it is used against. Giving stats on what that gain is for me doesn't help you assess what the gain is for you. That is a basic concept that everyone should know. People that just don't want to attack others because of who they are have done the sims and those that thought my concepts looked worth the effort for them used whatever concepts they where looking into. Many have thanked me later for helping them finally find a winning game.

Then we have you. You just bitch about concepts that you don't use and never bother running a sim to base your bitching on. You attack the concept without basis. What you describe seems more like you looking in the mirror at your posts attacking me than my posts. I learned a long time ago to not give much detail on an open forum. I saw games being protected from my advise on the forums. That doesn't help anybody. So I am vague in the open forum. Per Bososx request I don't publish my numbers for two reasons he pointed out. If nobody else can use my system who can it possibly help. Second, if the casinos see them they may take countermeasures that hurt everyone.

So I post the way I do. There are a lot of pros that have seen my sim results or know I am the real deal. I don't ask them to vouch for me but occasionally one will tell someone that I am not full of shit. So I try to help people see what avenues might be worth puruing so they can check it out for themselves. I wouldn't respect someone that just took one persons word for it without checking it out for themselves, just as I don't respect someone that is dismissive without checking something out for themselves. My goal is to help people think outside the box and get creative, which is the key to beating a multitude of casino games. I am not here to hand anyone a map and say do this and you will win. There is a lot more to winning in a casino while counting cards than counting cards. Any AP worth his salt should know that. Probably 75% is the non-counting part of the game. When I teach someone to be an AP, I teach them to count first. Then when they are good at counting and are frustrated with their results I teach them how to win in a casino. I found they have to get one thing down pat before you get them thinking about the other part or it hampers their progression.

 

[psyduck]

IF you stop the same meaningless long BS bragging posts, I do not give a rat's crap if you reveal your detail or not. You are just too dense to get the point. Your behavior of posting makes it hard to believe that you have higher than average intelligence.

 

[Dummy]

IF you stop the same meaningless long BS bragging posts, I do not give a rat's crap if you reveal your detail or not. You are just too dense to get the point. Your behavior of posting makes it hard to believe that you have higher than average intelligence.

Your posts continue to show you have the worst judgment imaginable. This a prime example. I know. You are making a judgement. As usual you are so very wrong. But at least you are consistent. I will give you that.

 

[21forme]

Guys, let's not encourage T3's endless posts and turn this into another "The T3 show - if you can't dazzle them with brilliance , baffle them with bullshit," aka BJTF.