Walter Thomason Needs Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Déjà vu is palpable. As it did ten years ago, this discussion has become pointless. But, I thank Walter for giving me some insight into the thoughts of a progression system advocate. I have summarized my thoughts in my personal blog (that I haven't bothered to announce before) at http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/blog.php. Hey, if Lady Gaga and Sarah Palin have blogs, why can't I mumble musings too?:)
 
I've read a ton of blackjack books over the years. Walters' Blackjack for The Clueless was THE FIRST blackjack book I read-it truly inspired me to get more involved in the game. I enjoyed 21st Century Blackjack-and if I remember correctly he stated in it that he knows card counting works but couldn't understand why counters didn't keep an open mind concerning his progression system. (this is from memory,forgive me if my quote is off a bit) He was always great about answering my letters containing questions about the game-before I owned a pc-lol! Anyway-since reading Blackjack Bluebook II and employing the KISS III count I just can't sit at a table and not count-that's just the way it is-but I must say I've won and lost counting and using Walters' system. Maybe we do need to keep an open mind.:joker:
 
prankster said:
...and if I remember correctly he stated in it that he knows card counting works but couldn't understand why counters didn't keep an open mind concerning his progression system....
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is exactly the problem. It's like saying "I know vegetables are good for you, but I can't understand why health experts don't keep an open mind concerning my advice to ingest arsenic.:)

Seriously, would you keep an open mind about jumping off a building?
 
In Vegas as we speak, another successful trip playing purples. Using Walters system and his quit points saved me, thank you
 
QFIT said:
Sorry, but this is exactly the problem. It's like saying "I know vegetables are good for you, but I can't understand why health experts don't keep an open mind concerning my advice to ingest arsenic.:)

Seriously, would you keep an open mind about jumping off a building?
Click to expand...

QFIT-
Sometimes you have to think "outside the box" Jumping off a building never was a problem for anyone who jumped-it's the sudden stop that proves to be less than beneficial!:joker:
 
Now, Now fellaz,
Hey, I have seen progression bettors make a ton of money! Especially, when they are sitting at a table with someone that is more than a counter..

Blackjack is an art form.

Let's face it blackjack is a game of more than science for some. It doesn't really matter whether or not you are keeping count perfectely or using some type of progression system, your gambling on the unknown. Unless of course, counting is just a small part of your arsenal..

So guys, what the hell does it matter? Yes counting is a stronger system that gives you a 1 to 2 percent edge when applying it in the casino. But just as well it's a gamble. Progression systems really don't give you much more of an edge, but you are fluctuating bets, so that may be some edge, just depends on when your system tells you to bet more. (The secret is counters know this time.) :whip:
 
prankster said:
QFIT-
Sometimes you have to think "outside the box" Jumping off a building never was a problem for anyone who jumped-it's the sudden stop that proves to be less than beneficial!:joker:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but gamblers love cliches like "think outside the box." If you can't use logic, claim you are somehow using advanced thinking. But, you could use that cliche for any hairbrained scheme. Like, raising your bet whenever a blonde walks by. That's thinking outside the box. It's also stupid.

Thinking outside the box is something that I have always encouraged. But, I emphasize "thinking." Acting on random nonsensical irrelevancies outside the box will get you nowhere. Just because something is different doesn't make it somehow better. It still must be based upon logic.
 
QFIT said:
Sorry, but gamblers love cliches like "think outside the box." If you can't use logic, claim you are somehow using advanced thinking. But, you could use that cliche for any hairbrained scheme. Like, raising your bet whenever a blonde walks by. That's thinking outside the box. It's also stupid.

Thinking outside the box is something that I have always encouraged. But, I emphasize "thinking." Acting on random nonsensical irrelevancies outside the box will get you nowhere. Just because something is different doesn't make it somehow better. It still must be based upon logic.
Click to expand...

Lighten up.:joker:
 
QFIT said:
Sorry, but gamblers love cliches like "think outside the box." If you can't use logic, claim you are somehow using advanced thinking. But, you could use that cliche for any hairbrained scheme. Like, raising your bet whenever a blonde walks by. That's thinking outside the box. It's also stupid.

Thinking outside the box is something that I have always encouraged. But, I emphasize "thinking." Acting on random nonsensical irrelevancies outside the box will get you nowhere. Just because something is different doesn't make it somehow better. It still must be based upon logic.
Click to expand...

Norm, nobody is saying that your math and sim is not 100% correct. I would take, say 25 units loss or win in 100 hands as a streak. But to you you would explain it as variance and within so much of standard deviation. But is BJ and life based only on math. To you it is. Because you live only in the world of math. If it is not in math then it doesn't exist.

Walter is saying there is some other things like flow of cards, streaks, stop loss limits and progression betting. This is the real world. Of course in theoretical math only, there are no such things. There are many thing in life that science and math cannot explain. I have tried to explain this to you. But you don't believe what I said. I can only add that the more you know about science and math the more you will know how little mankind know about science and math. So your previous statement that all complex theories have been explained in math by great mathematician is a shocker to me. Perhaps it would take a Prof. Stephen Hawking or a London Colin to convince you on this. If this is thinking outside the box then I am with Walter and not with you and iCountnTrack. I have not tried Walter's progression system so I cannot judge how good it is.

But I am a flat bettor as I am not a gambler. I would prefer to give the casino the 0.50% HA which works out to $4 per point awarded than go with the variance. But in the casino just about everybody else goes with progression betting. This is the real world.
 
Mr. T said:
Norm, nobody is saying that your math and sim is not 100% correct. I would take, say 25 units loss or win in 100 hands as a streak. But to you you would explain it as variance and within so much of standard deviation. But is BJ and life based only on math. To you it is. Because you live only in the world of math. If it is not in math then it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, I live in the real world based on reality. I do not live in a fairytale world where math/science are replaced by magic.

But in the casino just about everybody else goes with progression betting. This is the real world.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the real world, most players ignore reality. And the casinos rake in billions.

You cannot imagine how funny it is to hear people claim that the "real world" is not mathematical. The only thing outside of the "world of math" is the world of fantasy. Have you actually read any of Hawkings works? Claiming he would agree with you is hillarious. Look at his most recent statements.
 
Mr. T said:
You said it all. If it is not math/science it is the fairytale world of magic
Click to expand...

Yes, by definition. The casinos live in the real world of math. As you say, most players live in a make-believe world where math doesn't work. That is why the casino wins.

I think I now understand why you keep bringing up complex scientific theories, like quantum mechanics, that you don’t understand. In secondary school, we went to science class like good little boys and girls, and we were taught nonsense about electrons being tiny little balls that rotate in shells and matter cannot be destroyed or created. We were taught this because it is easy to understand. And let’s face it, secondary school science teachers are not math giants. When we get out of school, we hear about string theory, and other such concepts, and realize it is contrary to what we were taught. It appears that you think this means that they are not in the realm of math because they are not in the realm of what you were taught is math/science. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of this advanced science is pure math. It was created by mathematicians using mathematics. You seem to think that Stephen Hawking would agree with you that this is somehow outside of the world of math. That is the opposite of the truth. Read Hawking’s recent discussions where he explains the human concept of gods in mathematic terms.

Everything, and I mean, everything is in the realm of math by definition. Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. How can anything not be a part of that? New conjectures are created as scientific discoveries advance the knowledge of man. But, if it exists, then math applies.

“Streaks, stop limits, progressions, etc.” all exist within the realm of math. They are all explained by and can be calculated by math. Progression system authors do not understand the math, and therefore claim they are somehow outside of the realm of math. Yes, progression players have given up on math. But, do not think for one second that Stephen Hawking has given up on math.
 
How do I respond to this. It would appear that you know as much or more than me about math. O.K. you have the last word here.
 
Good question.

zengrifter said:
Walter, does your 21st Century BJ system require a significantly smaller BR than counting, in say a 2D game? I would recommend that a proficient counter have 600+ units min for a 2D game spread 1u-2x4u.

Who else swears by Thomason's 21st Century BJ? Tallman? zg
Click to expand...

In my book I compared the results of a positive progressive bettor with a $20/30/40/50 spread, a flat bettor betting $20, and a card counter with a $20 to $240 spread. They all played the same 102, 6-deck shoes. They all had the same win/loss/push record at the end of Shoe #102. The only difference in the three players was how much they chose to bet on each hand and their motivation for betting that amount.
Without applying a quit point strategy (quit play after 4 consecutive losses and wait for the start of the next shoe), I looked at how often each type of player could have quit playing at the end of a shoe with some of the casinos money (a net profit for the session), and the maximum bankroll required from each player to survive losing periods.
Results were as follows:
Number of times each type of player could have quit play with some of the casino's money --Flat Bettor= 5, Progressive bettor= 26, Counter Bettor=23.
Maximum bankroll required to survive losing periods -- Flat Bettor=$1,710, Progressive Bettor= $1,425, Counter Bettor -- $3,640.
So, to answer your question, my progressive bettor needed a bankroll of $1,425 in order to stay in the game and finish playing all 102 consecutive shoes of play. At 60 hands played per hour, my guy (girl?) in this 71 hour marathon session would have needed $1,425 in cash in order to stay the course.
By the way, my progressive bettor DID NOT show a profit from 5,000+ hands of play; he actually lost $30. But he lost less than the other 2 players.
As a rule of thumb, I feel comfortable with 60 to 80 times my base bet for a four hour session.
 
Norm, you're missing the point.

QFIT said:
Indeed. Using Walter's system, 6D, S17, DAS, 80% pen. the odds of winning or losing after 5,000 hands:

Win 41%
Lose 58.9%
Push 0.1%

Same game, HiLo, Ill18, spread 1-15:

Win 65.25%
Lose 34.7%
Push .05%

So, if Walter dealt himself 5,000 hands, there is a 41% chance that he would have won with his test. Unfortunately, winning that one time he apparently thinks "proves" his system works, even though the majority of the time 5,000 hands would show a loss. If the author loses, then he could alter the rules and try another 5,000 hands. Pretty soon, he will win and think he has a winning system. This is, in fact, what is behind so may of these books and why their conclusions are false.
Click to expand...

My book is all about a comparative analysis of three different betting strategies, NOT rather or not my system produced a profit. In fact, my player actually LOST money after 102 shoes of play. If you had read the book you would have known this.:):)
 
Walter T. said:
My book is all about a comparative analysis of three different betting strategies, NOT rather or not my system produced a profit. In fact, my player actually LOST money after 102 shoes of play. If you had read the book you would have known this.:):)
Click to expand...

Your book claims that your system beats flat-betting. The preface of the book actually claims it can be "superior to card counting." It does not and is not. Your "comparative analysis" is wrong. This was explained to you in detail ten years ago by many people.

You end the preface with "If you accept what you read and have trust in the validity of my research, do what I do -- try Positive Progression betting, and enjoy winning for a change!" So let us stop this fiction that you haven't claimed your system to be a winner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top