Can a set win goal affect strategy?
Say you sit down at blackjack with an absolute win goal. For the sake of argument, let's say that your win goal is ten units.
Since you have a set win goal that's so reasonably low, is there additional value in splits and double downs compared to normal? Is that additional value enough to go against basic strategy on some plays in order to get one step closer to your goal?
Possible examples: Doubling ten against a face, splitting 7s against an 8, maybe even (audaciously) splitting faces against a 6. You certainly give up percentage points by making these plays, but is getting one step closer to your win goal valuable enough to justify that risk?
Thoughts?
Quote: DeucekiesHere's an interesting topic I discussed with a friend.
Say you sit down at blackjack with an absolute win goal. For the sake of argument, let's say that your win goal is ten units.
Since you have a set win goal that's so reasonably low, is there additional value in splits and double downs compared to normal? Is that additional value enough to go against basic strategy on some plays in order to get one step closer to your goal?
Possible examples: Doubling ten against a face, splitting 7s against an 8, maybe even (audaciously) splitting faces against a 6. You certainly give up percentage points by making these plays, but is getting one step closer to your win goal valuable enough to justify that risk?
Thoughts?
I set high win goals where I will leave the casino if I hit it, which is ridiculously rare...sometimes it costs me, but maybe not, cuz I probably wouldn't have considered going home without getting close to a goal. A goal should absolutely not affect strategy, period.
Quote: DeucekiesHere's an interesting topic I discussed with a friend.
Say you sit down at blackjack with an absolute win goal. For the sake of argument, let's say that your win goal is ten units.
Since you have a set win goal that's so reasonably low, is there additional value in splits and double downs compared to normal? Is that additional value enough to go against basic strategy on some plays in order to get one step closer to your goal?
Possible examples: Doubling ten against a face, splitting 7s against an 8, maybe even (audaciously) splitting faces against a 6. You certainly give up percentage points by making these plays, but is getting one step closer to your win goal valuable enough to justify that risk?
Thoughts?
Yes, it happens that I raised this specific issue yesterday in another Blackjack thread here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/9878-is-the-double-down-portion-of-a-bet-always-ev/
The discussion starts at around Page 3.
There is also a link to strategy calculator in that thread that optimizes your blackjack strategy for target reaching, rather than optimize it to minimize house edge.
Basically you are looking to minimize the ratio of house edge/variance, rather than house edge only.
So if you get double downs that increase house edge only a little but increase variance a lot, then the above quotient becomes smaller and a it's better play. On the other hand if the house edge increases a lot but variance only a little, then the above quotient increases and you shouldn't make that play.
Quote: Jufo81Yes, it happens that I raised this specific issue yesterday in another Blackjack thread here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/9878-is-the-double-down-portion-of-a-bet-always-ev/
The discussion starts at around Page 3.
There is also a link to strategy calculator in that thread that optimizes your blackjack strategy for target reaching, rather than optimize it to minimize house edge.
Basically you are looking to minimize the ratio of house edge/variance, rather than house edge only.
So if you get double downs that increase house edge only a little but increase variance a lot, then the above quotient becomes smaller and a it's better play. On the other hand if the house edge increases a lot but variance only a little, then the above quotient increases and you shouldn't make that play.
OMG does this guy follow me around? Standard deviation shifts left, creating more negative variance than positive in comparison to basic strategy; you can create bankroll variance by increasing the size of bets without the added effect of increasing the chances you will lose. In other words, THERE IS A WAY TO INCREASE YOUR CHANCE OF LOSING, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU WILL LOSE MORE THAN YOU NORMALLY WOULD! AND YOU CAN MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE YOU ARE NOT LOSING ON PURPOSE. THIS IS NOT REALLY DIFFERENT THAN HAVING A GAMBLING PROBLEM, UNLESS YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I am flagging all nonsense blackjack posts that contradict me in a thread from now on, unless by an OP. Unlike other subjects, I am an expert on this topic in these forums....there's a heck of a lot of noise to shout over sometimes.
To the OP, setting a win goal is generally not recommended for anyone of any skill level. For those with high skill, we know win goals are meaningless because it is one continuous session without end. For those with low skill, you are likely to lose more at any given time, so you should never have a goal; a stop loss features the same deficient reasoning in that you will eventually reach that point, why not just hand over the money and not play? Obviously, you are playing for fun, but that fact does not make blackjack 'goals' reasonable. More to the point, violation of basic strategy will always reduce your chances of reaching your 'goal'. However, refraining from making some proper defensive splits (such as 8,8 v. 10 or 3,3 v. 2) has been recommended by a small MINORITY of experts for the casual player who describe similar goals to yours.
Quote: BizzyBOMG does this guy follow me around? In other words, THERE IS A WAY TO INCREASE YOUR CHANCE OF LOSING, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU WILL LOSE MORE THAN YOU NORMALLY WOULD! AND YOU CAN MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE YOU ARE NOT LOSING ON PURPOSE. THIS IS NOT REALLY DIFFERENT THAN A GAMBLING PROBLEM, UNLESS YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I am flagging all nonsense blackjack posts that contradict me in a thread from now on, unless by an OP. Unlike other subjects, I am an expert on this topic in these forums....there's a heck of a lot of noise to shout over sometimes.
Sorry to say this but you are really starting to make yourself look like an idiot, so perhaps it's better to cease posting about this to not embarass yourself any more than you already have. For example if you don't even know what the term element of risk means, which you proved yesterday that you don't, you are not qualified to make any posts about this topic.
Quote: BizzyBMore to the point, violation of basic strategy will always reduce your chances of reaching your 'goal'.
Nope, you are wrong. Plain and simple.
Quote: Jufo81Sorry to say this but you are really starting to make yourself look like an idiot, so perhaps it's better to cease posting about this to not embarass yourself any more than you already have. For example if you don't even know what the term element of risk means, which you proved yesterday that you don't, you are not qualified to make any posts about this topic.
Nope, you are wrong. Plain and simple.
Flagged. I would appreciate a more direct personal insult. Am I an idiot?
Stop giving novices bad advice that any good player knows is blatantly wrong. I might be making myself look rude or confrontational, but everyone knows you are just making stuff up to support some sort of system you imagine really works. I'm not the one who wants to keep talking about it. Quit hijacking people's threads about your betting system. Make a thread in "Betting Systems." There aren't many proto-ploppies, but you see them from time to time, spreading their disease.
Quote: BizzyB
Stop giving novices bad advice that any good player knows is blatantly wrong. I might be making myself look rude or confrontational, but everyone knows you are just making stuff up to support some sort of system you imagine really works. I'm not the one who wants to keep talking about it. Quit hijacking people's threads about your betting system. Make a thread in "Betting Systems." There aren't many proto-ploppies, but you see them from time to time, spreading their disease.
If you think that what I wrote is some kind of fake betting system it shows even more how clueless you are. If "everyone knows" then why isn't anyone backing up your rants?
It's you who has hijacked these threads with your rants. I am the only one in this thread who gave OP actual answer to his question.
Anyway life is too short to address your rants. I hope you stop following me to every thread.
Quote: Jufo81If you think that what I wrote is some kind of fake betting system it shows even more how clueless you are. If "everyone knows" then why isn't anyone backing up your rants?
It's you who has hijacked these threads with your rants. I am the only one in this thread who gave OP actual answer to his question.
Anyway life is too short to address your rants. I hope you stop following me to every thread.
flagged
Quote: BizzyBflagged
You don't need to tell us that. Just do it. If enough people flag it, it may raise the moderators investigation, and remove the post from view.
Quote: thecesspitYou don't need to tell us that. Just do it. If enough people flag it, it may raise the moderators investigation, and remove the post from view.
If you have been following the discussion you would realize that it is BizzyB's posts that should be removed. He writes "flagged" because he cannot come up with a better argument to justify his claims.
Quote: Jufo81If you have been following the discussion you would realize that it is BizzyB's posts that should be removed. He writes "flagged" because he cannot come up with a better argument to justify his claims.
I don't really care whose posts should be removed. Just saying that writing 'flagged' is pointless.
Quote: thecesspitI don't really care whose posts should be removed. Just saying that writing 'flagged' is pointless.
Yeah of course it is. Bizzyb is just trolling me.
If you have to ask, then you know the answer.
If we consider your bankroll over time a random walk with drift (downwards), there may be times you want to temporarily jump up the variance at cost of EV. However, those are RARE.
Here is my rule of thumb (given you wish to reach plus n units):
1)Play proper BS and hope the variance swings you to your goal unless both 2 and 3 apply:
2) You are currently at +(n-2) including the bet currently out there (so before the hand you were at +8 units in your example)
3) Either d, or all three of a, b, and c
___a) BS says "hit"
___b) You have a hard total of 8, 9, or 10 OR any soft total
___c) If the BS square you are in is adjacent to any square which is "double"
___d) Split 99 against a 7 and 1010 against 4, 5, and 6
I'm not sure about these moves, but they feel right to me. I can't think of a reason to ever change a hit vs stand decision unless you are counting cards.
Quote: endermike
Here is my rule of thumb (given you wish to reach plus n units):
1)Play proper BS and hope the variance swings you to your goal unless both 2 and 3 apply:
2) You are currently at +(n-2) including the bet currently out there (so before the hand you were at +8 units in your example)
3) Either d, or all three of a, b, and c
___a) BS says "hit"
___b) You have a hard total of 8, 9, or 10 OR any soft total
___c) If the BS square you are in is adjacent to any square which is "double"
___d) Split 99 against a 7 and 1010 against 4, 5, and 6
I'm not sure about these moves, but they feel right to me. I can't think of a reason to ever change a hit vs stand decision unless you are counting cards.
Your rule of thumb seems good, especially when you are 2 units short of target. But there is an exact mathematical solution to this. It boils down to comparing how many extra hands you are expected to have to play if you don't double down versus how much this expected number of hands is reduced by doubling down. As each new hand you play costs you money in house edge, you should try to aim to reach the target in fewer number of hands by doubling more.
Quote: Jufo81But there is an exact mathematical solution to this.
Yes, I was hoping to not get called on this. Most definetly we could solve for all such scenarios, but that seems like a lot of work, and I decided to be lazy. I started looking at the convolutions required for analysis of split decisions when more than 2 units short and realized it would be a huge problem and that the odds of those rules ever coming into play are miniscule. Also we would need to specify he number of decks and have different rules for each.
I did a couple minutes analysis and was hoping to give OP a "microwave analysis."
Quote: endermikeYes, I was hoping to not get called on this. Most definetly we could solve for all such scenarios, but that seems like a lot of work, and I decided to be lazy. I started looking at the convolutions required for analysis of split decisions when more than 2 units short and realized it would be a huge problem and that the odds of those rules ever coming into play are miniscule. Also we would need to specify he number of decks and have different rules for each.
I did a couple minutes analysis and was hoping to give OP a "microwave analysis."
My understanding is, and I could be wrong, that the solution is to minimize ratio: house edge/variance. So you could add some double downs to the basic strategy and calculate what the new house edge is and what the new variance is. The optimal strategy table is where the ratio of these is minimized. This would be easy if you have a tool that tells you the house edge and variance of a custom strategy table.
Quote: Jufo81My understanding is, and I could be wrong, that the solution is to minimize ratio: house edge/variance. So you could add some double downs to the basic strategy and calculate what the new house edge is and what the new variance is. The optimal strategy table is where the ratio of these is minimized. This would be easy if you have a tool that tells you the house edge and variance of a custom strategy table.
It is a bit more complicated than that. The optimal strategy is the one which maximizes the probability of the random walk crossing the threshold level. It is best solved with a dynamic programming approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
Interestingly, one should also deviate from BS and be more conservative when at +(n-1). This means not doubling and less splitting when at +9 if the goal is +10 and there is no additional value to getting to +11 (or more).
Quote: endermikeIt is a bit more complicated than that. The optimal strategy is the one which maximizes the probability of the random walk crossing the threshold level. It is best solved with a dynamic programming approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
I see, interesting. I've studied Dynamic programming but forgotten much of it.
Quote: endermike
Interestingly, one should also deviate from BS and be more conservative when at +(n-1). This means not doubling and less splitting when at +9 if the goal is +10 and there is no additional value to getting to +11 (or more).
I thought about this too. In my past plays if I want to reach some specified target and I am one unit short of it, I usually bet only half so that I am always two units below goal. If I win, I split the bet in half again until the bet becomes very small. This way I reach the goal with the first successful double down. It's probably not optimal either as it increases number of hands played waiting for that double down but it's mostly for psychological reasons to avoid the devastation of busting when having made it so close.
Quote: DeucekiesSo it sounds like with the exception of BizzyB, we agree that there is something here. Very interesting. Thanks, folks. Continue to weigh in please.
Note that in the long term, this strategy will cost you money. You are throwing away EV in order to make it more likely that you reach your goal.
Under some very strange situations this might be worthwhile. Like, maybe you bet somebody $1000 that you could buy in for $100 and double your money. Or maybe you owe the mafia $10k and they will kill you if you don't pay by midnight.
However, under normal circumstances, these goals are terrible ideas and at the end of several sessions, all that EV that you have thrown away adds up and you will be down a lot more than you would have been by just following basic strategy.
Remember that basic strategy optimizes for "lose as little money as possible". When you deviate from this, you lose more money.
Quote: DeucekiesSo it sounds like with the exception of BizzyB, we agree that there is something here. Very interesting. Thanks, folks. Continue to weigh in please.
Remember these changes are rare and slight.
Three question which will help in further analysis:
1) How much are you coming to the table with? That is, how many units worth of bets?
2) Also, are you wiling to change the amount you bet up or down to reach your goal? Or is flat betting your only option?
3) Should we assume the idea is to play until you bust out (no bets left) or get to the +n units? Is there a chance of quitting before that? And if there is a chance of quitting early do you care what your bankroll is at the time of breaking off? Or should we assume that at some point you will return with whatever you left with and start again as if it was all one long session?
I agree with the consensus analysis that there are positions where you should deviate from basic strategy in order to improve your chances of hitting a win goal. This is clear if you consider being 1 unit away from your goal (for example, you should refuse all doubles).
But I want to say that this is not really a good idea! Win goals are artificial things gamblers create, and are not practical tools in a recreational gambler or AP's tool-belt. The only realistic(?) circumstance I can think of where you need a win goal is if you are gambling for some life-altering purpose (e.g. Run Lola Run), and you will not gamble for a long time after you hit your win.
Otherwise, you should adopt the philosophy that there are no true sessions, and just play until it isn't fun anymore, or your edge disappears. Deviating from BS to meet some session win goal may make you feel clever in the short-term, but is a long-term mistake.
edit: I got Ninja'd.
Quote: thecesspitYou don't need to tell us that. Just do it. If enough people flag it, it may raise the moderators investigation, and remove the post from view.
True, but maybe he'll just quit on his own.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNote that in the long term, this strategy will cost you money. You are throwing away EV in order to make it more likely that you reach your goal.
Under some very strange situations this might be worthwhile. Like, maybe you bet somebody $1000 that you could buy in for $100 and double your money. Or maybe you owe the mafia $10k and they will kill you if you don't pay by midnight.
However, under normal circumstances, these goals are terrible ideas and at the end of several sessions, all that EV that you have thrown away adds up and you will be down a lot more than you would have been by just following basic strategy.
Remember that basic strategy optimizes for "lose as little money as possible". When you deviate from this, you lose more money.
LOL. I admit it, I was wrong. It is positive EV to violate basic strategy when you under the threat of death...I haven't quite finished memorizing the 'new book' yet.
Quote: endermike
1) How much are you coming to the table with? That is, how many units worth of bets?
Let's say buy-in ten units, win goal ten units (double up). That way any losing session (other than your first time) will only lose what you won on the last session.
Quote:2) Also, are you wiling to change the amount you bet up or down to reach your goal? Or is flat betting your only option?
Two possibilities: flat-betting (probably smarter), and martingale neg-prog (obviously dumb in the long run). One or the other, no going back and forth.
Quote:3) Should we assume the idea is to play until you bust out (no bets left) or get to the +n units?
Exactly. Double or nothing.
The casino where I work is nice enough to let its dealers gamble there when off the clock, so occasionally you see dealers sit down at tables and try to knock out a quick $100 before work so they don't have to wonder if they'll have a good tip night or not. This is where the win goal is practical.
Quote: dwheatleyI'll weigh in:
I agree with the consensus analysis that there are positions where you should deviate from basic strategy in order to improve your chances of hitting a win goal. This is clear if you consider being 1 unit away from your goal (for example, you should refuse all doubles).
But I want to say that this is not really a good idea! Win goals are artificial things gamblers create, and are not practical tools in a recreational gambler or AP's tool-belt. The only realistic(?) circumstance I can think of where you need a win goal is if you are gambling for some life-altering purpose (e.g. Run Lola Run), and you will not gamble for a long time after you hit your win.
Otherwise, you should adopt the philosophy that there are no true sessions, and just play until it isn't fun anymore, or your edge disappears. Deviating from BS to meet some session win goal may make you feel clever in the short-term, but is a long-term mistake.
edit: I got Ninja'd.
Yes, technically this is true. If you are one unit away from your arbitrary win goal, refusing to double will increase the likelihood of winning the hand.
Quote: DeucekiesSo it sounds like with the exception of BizzyB, we agree that there is something here. Very interesting. Thanks, folks. Continue to weigh in please.
This is why I heavily weighed in, so that you wouldn't believe the wrong info. I guess you did. No one disagrees with me, except one guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. As I'm reading, other people had intelligent things to add.
Quote: DeucekiesLet's say buy-in ten units, win goal ten units (double up). That way any losing session (other than your first time) will only lose what you won on the last session.
Two possibilities: flat-betting (probably smarter), and martingale neg-prog (obviously dumb in the long run). One or the other, no going back and forth.
Exactly. Double or nothing.
The casino where I work is nice enough to let its dealers gamble there when off the clock, so occasionally you see dealers sit down at tables and try to knock out a quick $100 before work so they don't have to wonder if they'll have a good tip night or not. This is where the win goal is practical.
Win goals are not practical. Dealers are ploppies. Your highest chance of doubling up is to bet half of your money on one hand until you reach your goal, or until you bust out. The longer you play, the more likely you will lose. I'm getting the sense you do not want an answer that is true or tested or mathematical, as your question has been answered several times. I'll let the ploppies fill you in on their madness.
Quote: BizzyBDealers are ploppies.
I can do without the name calling, thanks.
Quote: DeucekiesI can do without the name calling, thanks.
Sorry, I was speaking from experience, not about you in particular.
Quote: BizzyB
Yes, technically this is true. If you are one unit away from your arbitrary win goal, refusing to double will increase the likelihood of winning the hand.
Nope it's a bad idea, because it increases the house edge to around 3%. You should split the bet half instead. Please stop giving people bad advice that costs them money.
Quote: BizzyB
This is why I heavily weighed in, so that you wouldn't believe the wrong info. I guess you did. No one disagrees with me, except one guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. As I'm reading, other people had intelligent things to add.
Other people have said pretty much the same things as me. The fact that you keep harping me shows that you are still trolling here.
Also you aggressively attacked me when I proposed that deviating from BS increases your chance to reach goal - so yes - everyone here IS disagreeing with you.
Quote: Deucekies
Two possibilities: flat-betting (probably smarter), and martingale neg-prog (obviously dumb in the long run). One or the other, no going back and forth.
The most effective way to play would be just bet half of the difference of your current balance and target and adjust your bets after every bet, so that the first 2-unit win reaches the goal.
Quote: deheathley
But I want to say that this is not really a good idea! Win goals are artificial things gamblers create, and are not practical tools in a recreational gambler or AP's tool-belt. The only realistic(?) circumstance I can think of where you need a win goal is if you are gambling for some life-altering purpose (e.g. Run Lola Run), and you will not gamble for a long time after you hit your win.
Otherwise, you should adopt the philosophy that there are no true sessions, and just play until it isn't fun anymore, or your edge disappears. Deviating from BS to meet some session win goal may make you feel clever in the short-term, but is a long-term mistake.
How about if I am offered a +EV offer that is valid only until the end of that day but it will cost me $500 to enter and I only have $400 to spare? I've been there myself. While gambling $400 to $500 is negative EV, it is actually positive EV if you factor in the fact that it then enables you to invest into the +EV opportunity.
Another common situation where you play for a target is two-tiering a casino bonus (aggressive betting to reach target balance followed by grinding through the wagering requirement). In that scene gambling to a target balance is daily bread and butter.
Double 9 vs. 2
Double A6 vs. 2
Double A7 vs. 2
All these take only a minor hit to house edge when doubling.
A more interesting scenario might arise in some bad Blackjack variation. For example consider if you play a game where Blackjack pays only even money or if all ties lose (this version is offered where I live). As each new hand carries a house edge of 9% you might really double aggressively to avoid playing more hands.
Quote: Jufo81Nope it's a bad idea, because it increases the house edge to around 3%. You should split the bet half instead. Please stop giving people bad advice that costs them money.
Quote: BizzyB
This is why I heavily weighed in, so that you wouldn't believe the wrong info. I guess you did. No one disagrees with me, except one guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. As I'm reading, other people had intelligent things to add.
Other people have said pretty much the same things as me. The fact that you keep harping me shows that you are still trolling here.
Also you aggressively attacked me when I proposed that deviating from BS increases your chance to reach goal - so yes - everyone here IS disagreeing with you.
The most effective way to play would be just bet half of the difference of your current balance and target and adjust your bets after every bet, so that the first 2-unit win reaches the goal.
How about if I am offered a +EV offer that is valid only until the end of that day but it will cost me $500 to enter and I only have $400 to spare? I've been there myself. While gambling $400 to $500 is negative EV, it is actually positive EV if you factor in the fact that it then enables you to invest into the +EV opportunity.
Another common situation where you play for a target is two-tiering a casino bonus (aggressive betting to reach target balance followed by grinding through the wagering requirement). In that scene gambling to a target balance is daily bread and butter.
Flagged. Are you Ion Saliu? Cuz you must be one of the worst blackjack players in the country, insisting on developing views on blackjack completely contrary to reality. Not doubling ONE hand, unknown as to what it is, increases the house edge by 3%? OK...btw, this is why I try to inform people who have questions, because people like you say stuff that is so completely wrong. You are so terrible at this game, a game of probability and you just make up stats. No one agrees with you on anything. A few people have been extremely generous with not slamming you, and trying to respect a way-out-there point of view, but your factual inaccuracies are piling up. Ask another counter if anything you say is accurate. I left this open for the ploppies, and you are king. Don't address me please.
Quote: BizzyB
Flagged. Are you Ion Saliu? Cuz you must be one of the worst blackjack players in the country, insisting on developing views on blackjack completely contrary to reality. Not doubling ONE hand, unknown as to what it is, increases the house edge by 3%? OK...btw, this is why I try to inform people who have questions, because people like you say stuff that is so completely wrong. You are so terrible at this game, a game of probability and you just make up stats. No one agrees with you on anything. A few people have been extremely generous with not slamming you, and trying to respect a way-out-there point of view, but your factual inaccuracies are piling up. Ask someone if you anything you say is accurate. I left this open for the ploppies, and you are king. Don't address me please.
Here we go again ;) If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread perhaps it's better that you don't post here anymore. I will notify the moderators about this behaviour and the fact that you are attempting to side-track every discussion with your personal vendetta. Also you are not allowed to flag posts simply if someone disagrees with you. This is violation of forum rules.
Quote: Jufo81Here we go again ;) Besides you are violating forum rules by flagging posts simply based on that someone disagrees with you. I will notify the moderators about this.
For name calling and trolling. Please notify. I've used 'please' several times asking you to stop.
Quote: BizzyBFor name calling and trolling. Please notify. I've used 'please' several times asking you to stop.
Perhaps we should start a poll who the troll is here ;)
Quote: BizzyB
I am flagging all nonsense blackjack posts that contradict me in a thread from now on, unless by an OP.
FYI this is not a valid reason to flag a post. You are abusing the forum rules.
The only rule that's been broken is abuse of flagging. Flagging is for the removal of offensive material, not the removal of an opinion you don't agree with.
Y'all have different opinions. You're free to attack said opinions. You are not free to bash each other personally or try to convince others who is and who is not an "idiot".
Feel free to justify and back up your positions on win goals and their affect on strategy. Argue til the sun comes up, if it pleases you. Just keep it simple, keep it on topic, and keep off the flag button.
Quote: FaceStop.
The only rule that's been broken is abuse of flagging. Flagging is for the removal of offensive material, not the removal of an opinion you don't agree with.
Y'all have different opinions. You're free to attack said opinions. You are not free to bash each other personally or try to convince others who is and who is not an "idiot".
Feel free to justify and back up your positions on win goals and their affect on strategy. Argue til the sun comes up, if it pleases you. Just keep it simple, keep it on topic, and keep off the flag button.
Can a blocked person see what i write? Point taken, but I do not see patent nonsense, trolling, and name calling as 'opinions'. I will take your advice, however, and not flag.
Quote: FaceStop.
The only rule that's been broken is abuse of flagging. Flagging is for the removal of offensive material, not the removal of an opinion you don't agree with.
Y'all have different opinions. You're free to attack said opinions. You are not free to bash each other personally or try to convince others who is and who is not an "idiot".
Feel free to justify and back up your positions on win goals and their affect on strategy. Argue til the sun comes up, if it pleases you. Just keep it simple, keep it on topic, and keep off the flag button.
Exactly! I would add that one should focus on debating the actual topic itself. If you read Bizzyb's post three posts above where he is calling me the worst blackjack player ever, it's clear that such crap doesn't belong here, and a moderator should protect me from having to read that kind of trolling.
Quote: BizzyB
Can a blocked person see what i write? Point taken, but I do not see patent nonsense, trolling, and name calling as 'opinions'. I will take your advice, however, and not flag.
Aha, and you don't see yourself having done any of these?
Quote: chickenmanYes, if he hasn't blocked you or the thread
Well that is dumb. What is the point of blocking someone? At least his nonsense is outta sight outta mind.
Quote: BizzyBAt least his nonsense is outta sight outta mind.
You're catching on... once you've blocked sufficient trolls (3 or 4 is probably adequate) this site actually reads very nicely, is informative and entertaining. What's not to like?
Quote: chickenmanYou're catching on... once you've blocked sufficient trolls (3 or 4 is probably adequate) this site actually reads very nicely, is informative and entertaining. What's not to like?
Unfortunately he is the biggest troll himself.
Quote: BizzyBAt least his nonsense is outta sight outta mind.
The only thing everyone is waiting now is that you also stop posting here and stop derailing the thread.
Quote: BizzyBThe deviant is blocked. Can he see this post? I think his real name is Ion. Technically, that is name calling.
He can see yours unless he blocks you. Blocking will cause anything he writes to come up as a link that says something similar to "Click to view", in other words, you won't see what he writes. Unless, of course, someone quotes him, in which case, you will see it.
Nonsense in and of itself is cause for no concern. Poor advice is not against any rule and is bound to come up. If you think advice is poor, or if you know it's flat out wrong, you are encouraged to post and show why. That is quite the purpose of the forum. But getting angry at, or even worse, acting out on that anger, is not only fruitless, it leads to a position where people risk being suspended.
You both, Bizzy and Jufo, have been the target of each other. No need to point out who said what, we all saw what was said. And rehashing will only perpetuate the rift. So let's just let bygones be bygones, and carry on with life. Do feel free to continue arguing about the subject matter. Do not enter the realm of making it personal.
Dimplomacy. It's fantastic =)
Quote: chickenmanYou're catching on... once you've blocked sufficient trolls (3 or 4 is probably adequate) this site actually reads very nicely, is informative and entertaining. What's not to like?
Uh, oh you called him a troll. He should be protected by the moderators by such foul...blah blah...the house gains a 3% extra edge when you, just once, fail to double a 9 v. 3...blah blah. And the friggin OPs probably don't even appreciate I'm givin them the correct info either, not worth it. Let him rant all he wants, i wont even see it.
Quote: Face
Nonsense in and of itself is cause for no concern. Poor advice is not against any rule and is bound to come up. If you think advice is poor, or if you know it's flat out wrong, you are encouraged to post and show why. That is quite the purpose of the forum. But getting angry at, or even worse, acting out on that anger, is not only fruitless, it leads to a position where people risk being suspended.
You both, Bizzy and Jufo, have been the target of each other. No need to point out who said what, we all saw what was said. And rehashing will only perpetuate the rift. So let's just let bygones be bygones, and carry on with life. Do feel free to continue arguing about the subject matter. Do not enter the realm of making it personal.
The thing is that in the previous thread here I politely gave him plenty of mathematically sound explanations but he just wouldn't hear any of it and couldn't give any reasonable argument back.
