Streaks? Am I thinking like a ploppy?
- Thread starter p8ntballsk8r
- Start date
Bjc
Very simple, you hit:laugh: You sure are not gonna stand.
If you have gotten to near a max bet, by chipping up the positive way that I do, you would have won so much at this point that you would be a very happy AP. But in reality you will never get anywhere near a max bet the way I do it, but if you do... great.
BJC, you play a $25 min table, if you were to win in neg and you were play all or near play all, your next bet would be $30, win, $36, win $42, win, $48, count goes +2, bet is $72..,,you slip the green under the white and reds,,,I like even numbers... and I do not drink from paper cups.
CP
Very simple, you hit:laugh: You sure are not gonna stand.
If you have gotten to near a max bet, by chipping up the positive way that I do, you would have won so much at this point that you would be a very happy AP. But in reality you will never get anywhere near a max bet the way I do it, but if you do... great.
BJC, you play a $25 min table, if you were to win in neg and you were play all or near play all, your next bet would be $30, win, $36, win $42, win, $48, count goes +2, bet is $72..,,you slip the green under the white and reds,,,I like even numbers... and I do not drink from paper cups.
CP
Last edited:
Billy
Not really, if you have a very trackable shuffle, or if your skillz and confidence are such that you can win no matter what the count, or if conditions are such that you cannot wong out willy nilly.
I have said for years there are games I can beat no matter of the count, and often flat betting, such as at a certain dd game I love to play.
Please do not be so eager to judge.. Billy, or for that matter to go along with the CW.
CP
Not really, if you have a very trackable shuffle, or if your skillz and confidence are such that you can win no matter what the count, or if conditions are such that you cannot wong out willy nilly.
I have said for years there are games I can beat no matter of the count, and often flat betting, such as at a certain dd game I love to play.
Please do not be so eager to judge.. Billy, or for that matter to go along with the CW.
CP
My belief
"STREAKS", like "LUCK", are purely chimerical.
They only exist AFTER the FACT, that is to say in the (unknown) future.
The future does not (YET) exist; so as such "STREAKS" and "LUCK" do not exist.
"STREAKS" and "LUCK" are merely convenient <?> misleading LABELS that we apply to observations that impress us,
but lure us away from empirical discoveries of mathematical foundations.
If I win a lottery I am lucky. If I am then killed (a moment or a year later) while trying to cash it, I am unlucky.
I cannot be both now, can I ?
Before the winning numbers were drawn I was not lucky, and before I was killed I was lucky !
"STREAKS", like "LUCK", are purely chimerical.
They only exist AFTER the FACT, that is to say in the (unknown) future.
The future does not (YET) exist; so as such "STREAKS" and "LUCK" do not exist.
"STREAKS" and "LUCK" are merely convenient <?> misleading LABELS that we apply to observations that impress us,
but lure us away from empirical discoveries of mathematical foundations.
If I win a lottery I am lucky. If I am then killed (a moment or a year later) while trying to cash it, I am unlucky.
I cannot be both now, can I ?
Before the winning numbers were drawn I was not lucky, and before I was killed I was lucky !
Hmmm
In the Realm of Practicallity...I agree totally with the above statement... Philosophically there may be room for thought about some events being predetermined or predestined by circumstances or forces that may not be understood. It is always dangerous to be absolutely sure about anything.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that streaks do exist in the future as well as luck. We just may not know how to predict or define either accurately. :whip:
In the Realm of Practicallity...I agree totally with the above statement... Philosophically there may be room for thought about some events being predetermined or predestined by circumstances or forces that may not be understood. It is always dangerous to be absolutely sure about anything.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that streaks do exist in the future as well as luck. We just may not know how to predict or define either accurately. :whip:
Reminds me of the story of the Taoist farmer...
This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"
A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"
The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"
A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.
A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"
The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"
A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.
I agree that very little holecarding can by done just be "accident," but I think this is an interesting topic to explore for a moment. What's the justification for using card counting to beat blackjack? Obviously, the casinos don't intend for you to be able to obtain an edge in the game, but you've discovered a loophole that gives you that ability. So if you're skilled enough to do it, and the casino's not skilled enough to catch you, you're good to go. Even though the game isn't being played "on the square" in the casino's eyes, you've not cheated in any way.
Many people look at holecarding as cheating because you have to actively scout weak games where extra information is being given. I was initially leaning somewhat toward this school of thought because often, the only justification of what seems like slightly less-than-legitimate techniques is, "the casino will gladly take your money if you make a mistake..." However, if you think for a second, you'll realize that people that scout games for HC opportunities are no different from a card counter that buys CBJN to find the best penetration and rules, a shuffle tracker that looks for dealers with a predictable and trackable shuffle, a sequencer that finds dealers that can't conceal cards during the shuffle or before the cut, or a casino that gives premium comps and mailers to their players playing at the highest disadvantage (slot players) and refuses the business of players that win a lot or win consistently. All forms of AP require the capitalization on a particular weakness, whether it's easily beatable games, low heat, or bad dealers.
Many people look at holecarding as cheating because you have to actively scout weak games where extra information is being given. I was initially leaning somewhat toward this school of thought because often, the only justification of what seems like slightly less-than-legitimate techniques is, "the casino will gladly take your money if you make a mistake..." However, if you think for a second, you'll realize that people that scout games for HC opportunities are no different from a card counter that buys CBJN to find the best penetration and rules, a shuffle tracker that looks for dealers with a predictable and trackable shuffle, a sequencer that finds dealers that can't conceal cards during the shuffle or before the cut, or a casino that gives premium comps and mailers to their players playing at the highest disadvantage (slot players) and refuses the business of players that win a lot or win consistently. All forms of AP require the capitalization on a particular weakness, whether it's easily beatable games, low heat, or bad dealers.
This is an interesting topic, indeed. My opinion of holecarding has changed in the short time I have played the game. I am sure six years ago I would have thought it bordered on cheating. You set out to gain an advantage by getting info that you weren't supposed to have. But really that is card counting too. Somehow to me, holecarding just seemed different, somehow less ethical.
After witnessing the behavior of the casino industry during my brief six year career, I am now of the opinion that anything goes. All is fair in love and war and this most definately is war. :laugh: I mean seriously, look at the rule changes they have imposed, from h17, to 6-5 payout, first for single deck, and now even shoe games. This game barely resembles blackjack as it was invented. Add in things like preferential shuffling, which is just flat out cheating by their own rules and as I said. All is fair now.
Somehow to me, holecarding just seemed different, somehow less ethical. After witnessing the behavior of the casino industry during my brief six year career, I am now of the opinion that anything goes. All is fair in love and war and this most definately is war. :laugh: I mean seriously, look at the rule changes they have imposed, from h17, to 6-5 payout, first for single deck, and now even shoe games. This game barely resembles blackjack as it was invented. Add in things like preferential shuffling, which is just flat out cheating by their own rules and as I said. All is fair now.
My thought on this subject has also been shifting. Right now I lean toward cheating. The reason is the player tries to see the hole card that the house tries to hide. Not showing the hole card is built in the game. The game is designed to be played without knowing what is in the hole. In contrast, the house shows you all cards in shoe games. It is also part of the game design. What information (such as count) the player can extract is up to the player.
I have nothing against hole card players. If they can see/guess the hole card with good accuracy, it is the casino's fault for not doing a good job.
I have nothing against hole card players. If they can see/guess the hole card with good accuracy, it is the casino's fault for not doing a good job.
Imagine you walk into a casino and watch a few dealers. Most are cutting off 1.5 decks on the 6D games, but you notice a dealer that consistently cuts less than a deck from the shoe. All other things being equal, which table do you sit at? Now suppose that this casino has a policy that dictates that the dealer give penetration based by notch, but this dealer ignores the notch. Do you play the table with extra information that the casino has expressly trained their dealers to hide from the players (extra cards dealt), or do you seek out this dealer, knowing that you can profit more by counting in this game than the ones utilizing proper cutting procedure?
I think almost all counters would agree that using this extra information is not cheating. If you see dealers that are not protecting their hole card, and you know how to use that information, why not play against that dealer? You're still using information you're not supposed to have, but you benefit more from it.
I think almost all counters would agree that using this extra information is not cheating. If you see dealers that are not protecting their hole card, and you know how to use that information, why not play against that dealer? You're still using information you're not supposed to have, but you benefit more from it.