Successful Non-Counters

[ihate17]

Simple question, complicated answer

Well, we have simple Basic Strategy-how many people are using it? There are simple counts, why aren't people using one of them?

FUHGEDABOUDIT asks why people do not learn basic stratgegy or a simple counting system.

It is similar to asking why people do not always try to do their best in every thing they do in their lives. Easily, I could say that people are just lazy and that would honestly cover a lot of ground, but what are we talking about here? A game, an unimportant part of life for the normal, a simple game. Besides being lazy people have tons of other things they would rather do than devout a few hours and learn basic strategy. We have myths drummed into us from birth and most believe that the only way you can win in a casino is simply be in the right seat at the right time. Many have heard that blackjack can be beat by cardcounting but much of the public either thinks that counting is illegal or you have to be math genius to pull it off. Casino propaganda also helps paint the image of happy lucky people winning and the advantage player as a criminal or sleazy at best.
People learn to play blackjack generally by playing without ever searching out information concerning best methods or even the odds of the game they play. They learn by mimicking what other players, who learned the same way, do. These mistake laden methods then become the norm for that player unless he takes serious steps to correct himself.
Even for those who take a stab at cardcounting find many obstacles. They might not first learn basic strategy completely, and might find themselves not suited to it as it becomes work instead of fun, for them.

Then there is the major misconception brought about by casino paranoia. I have met people who tried counting with the belief that as a cardcounter, the casino will become your personal ATM machine. That they will win virtually ever session they play and that is why casinos have taken such strong countermeasures. Little, is further from the truth and disillusionment often causes them to quit.

Perhaps there are as many answers to your questions as there are people playing.

ihate17

 

[Sonny]

I lost more in a single session using it [Kiss-III] than I ever lost before or after-which left me wondering if I could do just as well using Walter Thomasons Positive Progressive Betting System With Quit Points and do just as well without the mental stress of counting.

Both systems are subject to the same variance inherent in the game. The short-term results for both can be wild in both directions, but the long-term results for both have been well documented.

I’m not saying that Thomason’s system won’t win money in the short-term, it might, but that is true of both systems (or any system for that matter). I’m also not saying that his system is worthless. If you don’t want to count cards then it might be a fun way to pass the time. Unfortunately, it will also burn through money eventually if you let it. Entertainment rarely comes for free.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

To get back to the original question:

I have no interest in card counting due to the fact that it is very hard to pull off these days with multiple decks and CSM's, I also like to keep it simple and fun.

I think you may be looking for answers in the wrong place. If you are looking for a fun and simple way to make money, blackjack is not the way to go. The bare minimum of skill and knowledge takes lots of reading, studying, practice and dedication. In short, it takes work. There are dozens of ways to beat the game, many of which do not involve counting. None of them are simple and very few of them are fun. They all require lots of monotonous practice. Unless you really enjoy practicing BJ (and some crazy people do ) you will not enjoy being an Advantage Player.

If you just want to sit down and have fun at the tables then card counting is not for you. Unfortunately, it probably means that you won’t be able to get much of an advantage either. You can try to maximize the value of comps and coupons, and maybe buy a few good hands from your neighbors, but that’s about it. Getting an advantage in this game is not easy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to be a BS player. Many people feel that the small expense is well worth the entertainment value of an exciting vacation, and knowing proper BS makes you better than 95% of the people who play in casinos. Just be aware that this is a price for your entertainment.

-Sonny-

 

[Mimosine]

I have used a count-Kiss III from Fred Renzeys' great book Blackjack Bluebook II.

---

I'm saying I sometimes wonder if it's that much more effective than Positive Progression Betting With Quit Points to make it worth the headaches-literal and figurative headaches.

you obviously didn't read the first half of BJBBII.

quitting points make no sense from a mathematical point of view.
no one, no one has shown that ANY progression is useful for beating blackjack. from a theoretical point of view with an unlimited BR and unlimited table max, then perhaps a martingale would work, as far as postive progressions go, there is no mathematical basis backing them up, sad but true.

p.s. i'm completely open to the possibility that they could work, but until there is proof that they do, then i just won't believe it. counting on the otherhand has been demonstrated both in theory and practice to win money, can this be said of progressions? stop limits?

 

[QFIT]

I appreciate your well made points. I have used a count-Kiss III from Fred Renzeys' great book Blackjack Bluebook II. It's a good counting system-with that said I lost more in a single session using it than I ever lost before or after-which left me wondering if I could do just as well using Walter Thomasons Positive Progressive Betting System With Quit Points and do just as well without the mental stress of counting.Please understand-I'm certainly not saying that card counting doesn't work- I'm saying I sometimes wonder if it's that much more effective than Positive Progression Betting With Quit Points to make it worth the headaches-literal and figurative headaches.

Thomason's system is no more effective than a rabbit's foot. That is not meant as any kind of insult or put down. It is a mathematically proved fact. If you want to gamble for fun - fine use whatever superstitions that turn you on. But books like 5th Century BJ cause harm when gamblers believe the lies that quit points and progressions give you an edge. Believe it if you wish. And believe that cigarettes are good for your health. Or, chose to believe the mathematicians and doctors instead.

 

[Sonny]

from a theoretical point of view with an unlimited BR and unlimited table max, then perhaps a martingale would work…

I’ve heard many people say that (people who are a hell of a lot smarter than me), and indeed it makes sense from a theoretical point of view. You would need an infinitely large bankroll to absorb the infinitely long losing streak you would eventually hit. But, from a practical standpoint, if you spend an infinite amount of time chasing your losses, you will technically never win them back. I mean, if it is an infinitely long losing streak then it will never end, yes? Technically, the martingale still fails because you will never win that last hand.

Of course, all the above is just my silly babbling. It just got me to thinking.

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

It's a good counting system-with that said I lost more in a single session using it than I ever lost before or after

I've lost more than ever before when counting, also.

Because I'm betting more.

And that's mainly because I've won more, so I can afford to bet more.

(but, to be fair, I was a $5 max guy before I learned how to count)

 

[positiveEV]

I’ve heard many people say that (people who are a hell of a lot smarter than me), and indeed it makes sense from a theoretical point of view. You would need an infinitely large bankroll to absorb the infinitely long losing streak you would eventually hit. But, from a practical standpoint, if you spend an infinite amount of time chasing your losses, you will technically never win them back. I mean, if it is an infinitely long losing streak then it will never end, yes? Technically, the martingale still fails because you will never win that last hand.

Of course, all the above is just my silly babbling. It just got me to thinking.

-Sonny-

If you have an infinite bankroll then why would you waste your time trying to make so little money? There are online casinos with 1¢ blackjack and some go up to $1,000 (maybe some even more I haven't checked them all) so by playing these you could play like you had 100,000 1¢ units but you would make about a dollar a day with a small chance to loose $1,000 every times. Now if you are multi-millionaire why would you do the same with a $100 unit?

 

[FUHGEDABOUDIT]

Ok

Mimosine-I've read every page at least twice and I think Blackjack Bluebook II is the best book on the subject ever written-but I can still think.
EasyRhino-Point taken.

 

[Mimosine]

I've read every page at least twice and I think Blackjack Bluebook II is the best book on the subject ever written-but I can still think.

most definitely, and you should

before i ever knew a damn thing about BJ other than BS, i thought that stop limits made sense. if i lose $XX then i should stop, if i win $YY then i should stop. for me the explaination of why this doesn't make sense was very very tough for me to grasp until i read through a few examples from a few different sources. i still don't understand it perfectly, but i had to accept it since i couldn't disprove it. i guess that is my point, there may be things that we don't completely understand about the game, but to win - these things have to be accepted and followed to the letter.

 

[FUHGEDABOUDIT]

Mimosine

I appreciate your input. Thank you.

 

[sagefr0g]

....

before i ever knew a damn thing about BJ other than BS, i thought that stop limits made sense. if i lose $XX then i should stop, if i win $YY then i should stop. .....[/I]

i still think they make sense although they wont help you overcome the house edge or give you an edge for that matter.
what they can do however is provide for you a playing field for which you are comfortable. in so much that a stop limit limits your play that can be construed as hurting you if playing time is premium for you, which it would be if you are a professional. other players however can enjoy short term benifits that professionals don't have the luxury to indulge in. luxurys such as short term goal achievment or short term avoidance of 'large' loss's.

 

[shadroch]

As my gambling BR is really just a part of my overall trip BR,I impose stop-loss limits,as I enjoy eating at least twice a day.I once walked from a monster count even though I had money in my pocket.I had lost more than I'd budgeted for the day,and really couldn't take a chance on losing more as it would effect the quality of the trip.

 

[Brock Windsor]

from a theoretical point of view. You would need an infinitely large bankroll to absorb the infinitely long losing streak you would eventually hit. But, from a practical standpoint, if you spend an infinite amount of time chasing your losses, you will technically never win them back. I mean, if it is an infinitely long losing streak then it will never end, yes? Technically, the martingale still fails because you will never win that last hand.-Sonny-

So if a frog is 3 metres from the wall and with each jump he jumps halfway closer to the wall does he ever touch the wall??? A lot of blackjack gurus believe in mathematics the same way the Pope believes in God, it starts to get a bit impractical. Alas no one has ever been able to prove to me where the short run is sure to stop and the long run is sure to begin.

 

[Brock Windsor]

from a theoretical point of view. You would need an infinitely large bankroll to absorb the infinitely long losing streak you would eventually hit. But, from a practical standpoint, if you spend an infinite amount of time chasing your losses, you will technically never win them back. I mean, if it is an infinitely long losing streak then it will never end, yes? Technically, the martingale still fails because you will never win that last hand.-Sonny-

So if a frog is 3 metres from the wall and with each jump he jumps halfway closer to the wall does he ever touch the wall??? A lot of blackjack gurus believe in mathematics the same way the Pope believes in God, it starts to get a bit impractical. Alas no one has ever been able to prove to me where the short run is sure to stop and the long run is sure to begin.

 

[QFIT]

So if a frog is 3 metres from the wall and with each jump he jumps halfway closer to the wall does he ever touch the wall???

No.

 

[sagefr0g]

So if a frog is 3 metres from the wall and with each jump he jumps halfway closer to the wall does he ever touch the wall??? A lot of blackjack gurus believe in mathematics the same way the Pope believes in God, it starts to get a bit impractical. Alas no one has ever been able to prove to me where the short run is sure to stop and the long run is sure to begin.

extemely interesting guestion being it is about frogs and all :joker:
frogs are like people when they are approaching a goal. it's one hop forward and two hops backwards.
by doing the halfway thing eventually the frog gets so close to the wall that the distance to travel is smaller than the frog is big. at some point on an atomic level the frog will reach the scale of distance for which the uncertainty principle makes it uncertain to tell if the frog is touching the wall or not. there would be no way to judge how far is halfway.

 

[QFIT]

extemely interesting guestion being it is about frogs and all :joker:
frogs are like people when they are approaching a goal. it's one hop forward and two hops backwards.
by doing the halfway thing eventually the frog gets so close to the wall that the distance to travel is smaller than the frog is big. at some point on an atomic level the frog will reach the scale of distance for which the uncertainty principle makes it uncertain to tell if the frog is touching the wall or not. there would be no way to judge how far is halfway.

Ah, but the uncertainty principle only comes into play if you are observing the frog. If you simply assume that the frog is indeed jumping half way each jump as stated, the answer is no. But a sage frog wouldn't engage in such an experiment

 

[ChefJJ]

I like how Brock's rhetorical question gets answered, but not the one regarding short run/long run probability.

To be honest with you, Brock, I feel the same way. Some people use standard deviation and come up with this calculation of how many hours of play; but some probably just say they've hit the long run when their win rate = their EV. Theoretically, I'm not convinced that anyone reaches the long run...of course, there's a lot of degenerates out there that can give it a run for its money! :sad:

good luck

 

[Sonny]

Theoretically, I'm not convinced that anyone reaches the long run...

Technically, I’m not convinced either. From my understanding, the long run is just like that frog trying to get to the wall. He gets closer and closer, but never actually gets there. But at some point he will be so close that he is “close enough” to the wall that it doesn't matter. The long run in blackjack may never be precisely reached, but there are various confidence levels that can. It all depends on how close you need to get to feel comfortable. Would a 90% chance be “close enough?” How about 95%? Maybe 99.8%? You’ll never get to 100%, but most people can reach a level that they are happy with. You may reach your long-term EV much sooner than you expect, or it may never come (maybe you average $24.99/hr instead of $25) but you can at least give yourself a fighting chance.

-Sonny-