Teams?

[Automatic Monkey]

For anyone actually interested in learning professional level blackjack, it is imperative to be able to objectively evaluate his or her own skills. Unfortunately, this is no small task. Psychologists argue that "self-assessment" is the least effective way to evaluate skills, because of self-serving biases.

There is a really interesting article on the topic available online from the APA (American Psychological Association), called, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments."

Link below:
(Dead link: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf)

Good Luck

I think this is one of the reasons we solo counters don't get too upset about getting backed off. I've had my skills evaluated many times, and it usually results in a call to the pit and me being asked to play any game but blackjack. If this never happens, you're probably not playing aggressively enough, or playing very badly.

 

[traynor]

I think this is one of the reasons we solo counters don't get too upset about getting backed off. I've had my skills evaluated many times, and it usually results in a call to the pit and me being asked to play any game but blackjack. If this never happens, you're probably not playing aggressively enough, or playing very badly.

The article was more for the reference of self-proclaimed "experts" who seem heavy on the theory end, and rather light on the real-world application end (despite claims to the contrary).

I think you may have missed the point of evaluation; being pegged by Homer or his cousin Jethro, the pit boss, is more a failure of demenanor than playing skill. The evaluation I was referring to is a spin on an analysis done a few years back, in which the play of a number of fairly serious players (all of whom considered themselves the sharpest tack in the box) was objectively studied.

The purpose was not exclusionary; we had one person who consistently outperformed the other team members, and we wanted to know why (obviously, so we could bring everyone on the team up to that level). It was a real eye-opener.

The article makes the point that self-image and ego can go to monumental lengths to hide incompetence and lack of skill, and that the individual who is deficient in a specific area is the one person least able to recognize that deficiency.

For example, you imply that if one manages to extract obscene amounts of money from casinos on a regular basis, if they are not hassled, they are either "not playing aggressively enough, or playing very badly." You keep the attention and the glory--I'll settle for the obscene amounts of money.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

Well said. Do you have any advice or sources for more info on better teaching and learning methods?

-Sonny-

Let me dig. It may take a few days.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

unfortunately i haven't got 'there' yet. i think what holds me back is fearfullness and my controlling nature.

best regards,
mr fr0g

Not fearfulness, but rather a lack of reliance on "non-conscious processing." Think of blackjack like catching a thrown ball. You practice, you internalize a "sight picture," and you catch the ball. Simple. You cannot consciously process all the information required to catch the ball. Apply the same thing to blackjack. Like Milton Erickson used to say, "You already know how to do it. You just need to apply what you already know to a different activity."
Good Luck

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The article was more for the reference of self-proclaimed "experts" who seem heavy on the theory end, and rather light on the real-world application end (despite claims to the contrary).

I think you may have missed the point of evaluation; being pegged by Homer or his cousin Jethro, the pit boss, is more a failure of demenanor than playing skill. The evaluation I was referring to is a spin on an analysis done a few years back, in which the play of a number of fairly serious players (all of whom considered themselves the sharpest tack in the box) was objectively studied.

The purpose was not exclusionary; we had one person who consistently outperformed the other team members, and we wanted to know why (obviously, so we could bring everyone on the team up to that level). It was a real eye-opener.

The article makes the point that self-image and ego can go to monumental lengths to hide incompetence and lack of skill, and that the individual who is deficient in a specific area is the one person least able to recognize that deficiency.

For example, you imply that if one manages to extract obscene amounts of money from casinos on a regular basis, if they are not hassled, they are either "not playing aggressively enough, or playing very badly." You keep the attention and the glory--I'll settle for the obscene amounts of money.
Good Luck

Wait a minute, I think you are misconstruing what I said about the relationship between playing profitably and being backed off. (I'm referring to the world of straight counting here.)

First of all there is no demeanor that can forever hide the fact that you are betting more when you have an advantage and betting less when you don't. Let's use SD as an example: I can go to Reno and spread 1:2 and not make enough money to make it worth my time, or I can spread 1:10 and earn a huge win rate but not be able to stay very long at the good games I find. Or I can spread 1:4 and make a decent amount of money and endure being shuffled up on or asked not to play once or twice per day. Or I can not play with an advantage, be welcomed everywhere and lose my money. I prefer the third option. This is not seeking "attention and glory" but the reality of balancing risk with reward, and there is no drunk or tourist act that can hide a 1:10 spread in a SD game, sorry.

Again this is for straight counting- if you are using advanced techniques I know the risks and relationships between risk and reward are different, different for every technique. Some like holecarding can be very profitable if you are good at it, and get you arrested even if you are not. Cut-card and sequencing techniques can look like cheating, especially if you are using a multiple-key technique that requires a very large max bet and in turn has a noticeably high rate of predicting an ace. But in counting profit requires aggression. Think of backoffs as like penalties in a football game- sure, being penalized too much can cost you a game, but if a team is never being penalized at all it tells you they are not playing aggressively enough. A good team has a low rate of penalty for discipline and organization issues like unsportsmanlike conduct and extra players on the field, and a moderate rate of calls for off sides and pass interference that indicate a desire to get a jump on the opponent.

 

[kender]

hole carding is illegal?

Automonkey said:
"Some like holecarding can be very profitable if you are good at it, and get you arrested even if you are not."


I thought that it was legal as long as you don't mess with the cards to help you see the hole card....? What other forms of AP are regularly talked about but not legal? I would prefer to stick to completely legal AP, which is why I ask.

 

[traynor]

Wait a minute, I think you are misconstruing what I said about the relationship between playing profitably and being backed off. (I'm referring to the world of straight counting here.)

First of all there is no demeanor that can forever hide the fact that you are betting more when you have an advantage and betting less when you don't. Let's use SD as an example: I can go to Reno and spread 1:2 and not make enough money to make it worth my time, or I can spread 1:10 and earn a huge win rate but not be able to stay very long at the good games I find. Or I can spread 1:4 and make a decent amount of money and endure being shuffled up on or asked not to play once or twice per day. Or I can not play with an advantage, be welcomed everywhere and lose my money. I prefer the third option. This is not seeking "attention and glory" but the reality of balancing risk with reward, and there is no drunk or tourist act that can hide a 1:10 spread in a SD game, sorry.

Again this is for straight counting- if you are using advanced techniques I know the risks and relationships between risk and reward are different, different for every technique. Some like holecarding can be very profitable if you are good at it, and get you arrested even if you are not. Cut-card and sequencing techniques can look like cheating, especially if you are using a multiple-key technique that requires a very large max bet and in turn has a noticeably high rate of predicting an ace. But in counting profit requires aggression. Think of backoffs as like penalties in a football game- sure, being penalized too much can cost you a game, but if a team is never being penalized at all it tells you they are not playing aggressively enough. A good team has a low rate of penalty for discipline and organization issues like unsportsmanlike conduct and extra players on the field, and a moderate rate of calls for off sides and pass interference that indicate a desire to get a jump on the opponent.

VERY interesting post. Your experience and mine are substantially different, in that "exposure" is almost equivalent to "lifetime barring"--complete with photo opportunities. I don't know what kind of stakes you are playing for, but if I could get by with being asked not to play, I would alter my approach considerably.

I understand (and appreciate) what you are saying, but you are presenting a fundamentally different view of casino response than I have seen (at anything from $100 up). At $500/1000, a little "aggressive play" will get you serious attention from any number of casino employees. There is very little wiggle room.

What kind of casinos do you play in?
Good Luck

 

[sagefr0g]

The purpose was not exclusionary; we had one person who consistently outperformed the other team members, and we wanted to know why (obviously, so we could bring everyone on the team up to that level). It was a real eye-opener.

i gotta ask what was this person doing that made him/her such a stellar performer?

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
unfortunately i haven't got 'there' yet. i think what holds me back is fearfullness and my controlling nature.

best regards,
mr fr0g

Not fearfulness, but rather a lack of reliance on "non-conscious processing." Think of blackjack like catching a thrown ball. You practice, you internalize a "sight picture," and you catch the ball. Simple. You cannot consciously process all the information required to catch the ball. Apply the same thing to blackjack. Like Milton Erickson used to say, "You already know how to do it. You just need to apply what you already know to a different activity."
Good Luck

oh boy Mr Trayner bellls an whistles are going off in my mind like crazy on this one. what was that movie.... Lost In Space .... i think it was with the robot every once and while going off "Danger, Danger Will Robinson Danger!" :laugh:
anyway what you say is making sense. but perhaps i'm still a little confused on this issue. i mean we are talking card counting here. that is a conscious activity. so that part of it has got to be performed consciously and the verification processing needs to also be conscious. where does the non-conscious processing integrate into the picture?
i've often heard counters relate that the process becomes 'second nature', effortless, ect. i believe this is what you are getting at. seems i just missing a full understanding of how to get there. i'd be cautious as hell about trying such an approach in a casino with real money :yikes: on the table. perhaps i'll experiment by attempting it with the computer.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Cass]

VERY interesting post. Your experience and mine are substantially different, in that "exposure" is almost equivalent to "lifetime barring"--complete with photo opportunities. I don't know what kind of stakes you are playing for, but if I could get by with being asked not to play, I would alter my approach considerably.

I understand (and appreciate) what you are saying, but you are presenting a fundamentally different view of casino response than I have seen (at anything from $100 up). At $500/1000, a little "aggressive play" will get you serious attention from any number of casino employees. There is very little wiggle room.

What kind of casinos do you play in?
Good Luck

$500/$1000 level? Shit where I play they get a different response when i bet my grey chips at my $5,000/$10,000 betting level. Oh yeah, my dick is bigger than yours too. :joker:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Automonkey said:
"Some like holecarding can be very profitable if you are good at it, and get you arrested even if you are not."


I thought that it was legal as long as you don't mess with the cards to help you see the hole card....? What other forms of AP are regularly talked about but not legal? I would prefer to stick to completely legal AP, which is why I ask.

Holecarding is legal (providing you are not in collusion with the dealer) but some police and security people don't see it that way. The great James Grosjean spent a few days in the county joint for holecarding. There are cops out there that believe even card counting is illegal, so keep in mind you are never completely safe from arrest and abuse if you are an advantage player.

This is why if a dealer makes an error and you profit from it, you must never, ever tip them! You endanger both yourself and the dealer because if it is suspected the dealer is intentionally making the errors in exchange for a tip, you can both face felony charges.

 

[traynor]

$500/$1000 level? Shit where I play they get a different response when i bet my grey chips at my $5,000/$10,000 betting level. Oh yeah, my dick is bigger than yours too. :joker:

Is there a point to this comment? There is a specific hierarchy of anxiety level in casino personnel defined by wager size. That can be $5-10 in some small casinos, $25-50 in others, and $100-200 at most of the strip casinos in LV. At Bellagio's and NY, $500-1000 is acceptable, but scrutinized. Even more so in AC.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

i gotta ask what was this person doing that made him/her such a stellar performer?

best regards,
mr fr0g

Higher win percentage. Routinely winning more hands over time than the others. ("Over time" means by daily and weekly results, not necessarily hourly.)

Good Luck

 

[traynor]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
unfortunately i haven't got 'there' yet. i think what holds me back is fearfullness and my controlling nature.

best regards,
mr fr0g


oh boy Mr Trayner bellls an whistles are going off in my mind like crazy on this one. what was that movie.... Lost In Space .... i think it was with the robot every once and while going off "Danger, Danger Will Robinson Danger!" :laugh:
anyway what you say is making sense. but perhaps i'm still a little confused on this issue. i mean we are talking card counting here. that is a conscious activity. so that part of it has got to be performed consciously and the verification processing needs to also be conscious. where does the non-conscious processing integrate into the picture?
i've often heard counters relate that the process becomes 'second nature', effortless, ect. i believe this is what you are getting at. seems i just missing a full understanding of how to get there. i'd be cautious as hell about trying such an approach in a casino with real money :yikes: on the table. perhaps i'll experiment by attempting it with the computer.

best regards,
mr fr0g

You may be interested in going back to some old books by John Scarne, describing some of what he accomplished "consciously." There is a fairly strict hierarchy of learning:
unconscious incompetence - "I don't know what I need to know"
conscious incompetence - "I know what I need to know, but I don't know how to do it"
conscious competence - "I can do it, but it takes my full attention"
unconscious competence - "I can do it without thinking about it every moment (like driving or catching a thrown ball)"
Good Luck

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Higher win percentage. Routinely winning more hands over time than the others. ("Over time" means by daily and weekly results, not necessarily hourly.)

Good Luck

Daily and weekly data tell you exactly nothing about the skill level of an advantage player! Nor does the number of hands they win. A skilled counter sitting at the same table with a Basic Strategy player will win approximately the same number of hands.

You need over a month of full-time data to get a reasonable feel of whether a player is a winning or a losing player by just his record, and many months or perhaps years of looking at the records of full-time players to have a reasonable chance of telling the difference between a good player and a better player. By then it's too late.

 

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
i gotta ask what was this person doing that made him/her such a stellar performer?

best regards,
mr fr0g

Higher win percentage. Routinely winning more hands over time than the others. ("Over time" means by daily and weekly results, not necessarily hourly.)

Good Luck

right sir. i figured as much. but what i was really asking is what were the traits that was contributing to this person's success?

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

You may be interested in going back to some old books by John Scarne, describing some of what he accomplished "consciously." There is a fairly strict hierarchy of learning:
unconscious incompetence - "I don't know what I need to know"
conscious incompetence - "I know what I need to know, but I don't know how to do it"
conscious competence - "I can do it, but it takes my full attention"
unconscious competence - "I can do it without thinking about it every moment (like driving or catching a thrown ball)"
Good Luck

ah yes now i understand. well i'm here conscious competence - "I can do it, but it takes my full attention" and i want to get there unconscious competence - "I can do it without thinking about it every moment (like driving or catching a thrown ball)"
how am i going to do that? do i just jump in the pool and sink or swim or is there some sort of pathway one follows to reach that level?
i think as far as driving and being able to do it second nature is that it's one always has the status of the car in the back of ones mind then when a safety priority situation arises one brings the driving to the major focus of the mind.
hmm i think i getting the idea. thank you.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[EasyRhino]

i think as far as driving and being able to do it second nature is that it's one always has the status of the car in the back of ones mind then when a safety priority situation arises one brings the driving to the major focus of the mind.
hmm i think i getting the idea.

Yeah, I just thought of that the other day after almost contributing to a major accident on the freeway.

Normally, when I'm driving (and not trying to navigate), I can listen to the radio, and still drive just fine. The aspects of driving are all touch (wheel/pedal) and visual (scanning the road and traffic), plus after a while, it tends to rely on primitive lizard-brain memory to remember/sense when other cars are around you. Listening to the radio is all auditory, and seems to be working on a totally different level, so the two activities are compatible.

I think that's the goal to be at with counting.

(As for the accident, the good news is it was just a near miss, and I think that when I was changing into a lane that was almost full of car, it was because the other drive had been making a very fast move in from two lanes over. I hope. However, I was actually consciously thinking when I made that move. ).

 

[Cass]

Higher win percentage. Routinely winning more hands over time than the others. ("Over time" means by daily and weekly results, not necessarily hourly.)

Good Luck

This looks like a Newbie comment. daily and weekly? I would say 1000 table hours is a pretty good determination of how well someone can play.... And even that I would not say is the LONG term. My last twenty hours of play I've been making 3x what my EV is supposed to be. Does that mean I must be a really great player? NOt bloody likely!

 

[traynor]

Daily and weekly data tell you exactly nothing about the skill level of an advantage player! Nor does the number of hands they win. A skilled counter sitting at the same table with a Basic Strategy player will win approximately the same number of hands.

You need over a month of full-time data to get a reasonable feel of whether a player is a winning or a losing player by just his record, and many months or perhaps years of looking at the records of full-time players to have a reasonable chance of telling the difference between a good player and a better player. By then it's too late.

No. Daily and weekly records are extremely useful in creating profiles.
Good Luck