Vegas shutting down again rumor
Quote: MJGolfAre you asking about the "theory" of clumping? Wong has a section on his analysis that totally debunks it.
I'm interested to know if either the dealer or players have a mathematical advantage during the sequence when the clumped 10-value cards are being dealt.
My understanding of your reply is that Wong asserts that clumping has no net effect...am I correct?
If yes, then did Wong offer a mathematical explanation for that assertion?
Quote: coachbellyRegarding the ASM's clumping of 10-value cards...during the period when the clumped section of the shoe is being dealt, do either the dealer or players have an advantage?
If one knows when the high cards will clump and come out, then one has an advantage, similar to shuffle tracking. Apparently some APs were taking advantage of this, while it was active.
Quote: 21formeLibel requires a false statement that defames. What have I said that's not true?
I suppose your insults represent your understanding of the truth, but they are straight-up insults nevertheless.
Quote: 21formehe appears to be a hack/compulsive gambler...I suggest you let it go and let Alan wallow in his ignorance.
Quote: 21formeIf one knows when the high cards will clump and come out, then one has an advantage, similar to shuffle tracking. Apparently some APs were taking advantage of this, while it was active.
I suspect that the clumps were easy to recognize if expected.
If a player's strategy is to play with an advantage, and aggressively exit when the advantage expires, then why would such a player object to the clumping?
Why would a casino clump the cards to create an advantage for the players?
Hack? Is that an insult?
Compulsive gambler: Alan is on record as saying he has won several 100k jackpots but still never had a winning year. That is a pretty strong case of a compulsive gambler. Also, his own son used that term to describe Alan on another forum. And let's not forget...Alan got married at a craps table in a casino. These are a pretty strong case of a compulsive gambler.
I like Alan, despite his continuing to challenge me on a subject he is ignorant to. But come on....it is what it is.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis can be easily resolved. Anyone who is reading this go to the casino of your choice, sit at a middle seat, and report back how well you can see the cards at the nearest table.
You must be sitting. Standing behind a table doesn't count. Redietz once reported what he could see at two tables when standing.
If you can view the cards at the nearest table while sitting, proceed to step two:
Next, watch the cards at the other table while you watch the cards at your own table. Dont miss any hands at your own table. Dont let them catch you turning your head at an angle to view the other table so they might get wind of what you're doing or you delay your own game. And for heaven's sake, dont let any other player get in your field of vision.
Report back.
Just do it. Judge for yourself.
I'm going to correct this, just slightly but importantly. I was standing because the tables were empty and I didn't think the casinos I checked would appreciate me sitting in chairs at closed tables for no discernible reason. So I was standing, but I CROUCHED so as to be at sitting level. I did put cards on empty adjacent tables and whip out my tape measure, but I did it quickly so as not to disturb anyone. I thought actually plopping into seats was probably a step too far.
With my admittedly lousy eyes, I could see cards at other tables. Tables varied by distance, but even at the most distant of the tables, I could tell paint from not paint at the farthest seat. At the closer tables, I could make things out pretty well at the closer seats.
I agree that people should try it themselves. Take a tape measure and a deck of cards. Wander in various casinos. Place the cards on adjacent tables. Stand and crouch to seat angle level and see how easily you can or cannot see the cards at the adjacent table. Or just measure the tables and then go home and test what you can see at those distances.
The most valuable (and obvious, duh) thing I learned from the original discussion was the truism that all counts are partial counts and have some utility. That is obvious, but as a non-blackjack player, it had never actually occurred to me.
Quote: kewljHack? Is that an insult?
Yes it is, the term "hack" is used as a pejorative attack, especially among writers and journalists.
Alan is not ignorant to the subject, he is specifically challenging your claim of ability to simultaneously count two tables at TI.
He visited TI, examined the layout, and even took photos to present evidence that your claim was dubious.
Your response back then, as it is to this day, was to insult him by name-calling.
Now it seems a mentor of yours has taken the insult tack as well...ignorant, compulsive gambler and hack are all intended as insults, whether they come from you, another member, or a relative.
And that is what it is.
Quote: MDawgVegas might as well be closed right now - it's 113 degrees there. Who would want to go in that heat?
Las Vegas hits 113, breaks daily record, ties hottest day of 2020
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/weather/las-vegas-hits-113-breaks-daily-record-ties-hottest-day-of-2020-2095498/
I just got off the golf course about an hour ago. It was 106 degrees when we finished at 10:30. The humidity was high so a little uncomfortable at the end of the round.
Quote: coachbellyI'm interested to know if either the dealer or players have a mathematical advantage during the sequence when the clumped 10-value cards are being dealt.
My understanding of your reply is that Wong asserts that clumping has no net effect...am I correct?
If yes, then did Wong offer a mathematical explanation for that assertion?
I'm hoping you have Professional Blackjack. There are at least two versions/editions but in the 1994 edition; printed in 2013, look at his discussion starting on p. 239. He talks about streakiness and non-random shuffling, etc. There are many charts that follow talking about the effect of different orders of cards.
Also there is this opinion:
http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/card_clumping.html
Not trying to upset KJ (LOL) but this is the guy who created CVCX and CVBJ plus wrote the book, Modern Blackjack. Irregardless of his forum, he is definitely an expert in the field.
Quote: DeMangoAnybody else notice, when Alan gets in trouble, coach shows up?
What's your point?
A recent series of posts here, before this discussion, were in disagreement with Alan.
Quote: 21formeWhat I know of you is what I've read on the forum. I know you've been gambling a long time and in a recent post, you wrote about playing craps and being welcome in all casinos. Libel requires a false statement that defames. What have I said that's not true?
You libeled me by calling me compulsive and a hack. You made a personal attack.
If you think you did nothing wrong post under your real name instead of trying to defame me under a screen name.
And thank you for confirming you dont know me which means all you did was make an uninformed comment designed to hurt my good name and reputation.
That fits the criminal libel law.
Quote: DeMangoAnybody else notice, when Alan gets in trouble, coach shows up?
You know what is even stranger than coach belly ALWAYS showing up to support Alan? They both just repeated the same incorrect fact in the last 2 hours.
Quote: AlanMendelson
BUT KEWLJ HAD ME GO TO TREASURE ISLAND where the tables were in a straight row with four to five feet apart and you'd have to twist your head like Linda Blair in the Exorcist to see the action on your left or right.
Quote: coachbelly
Alan is not ignorant to the subject, he is specifically challenging your claim of ability to simultaneously count two tables at TI.
He visited TI, examined the layout, and even took photos to present evidence that your claim was dubious.
The casino Alan visited WAS NOT TREASURE ISLAND.
When this topic was being discussed on another forum 3 years ago, on 8/09/17 at 3am, Alan posted the following:
"Kewlj you told me to go to any casino on the west side of the strip from TI to Mandalay Bay, so I chose the Mirage because I am Platinum and I got free valet parking. I told the valet I would be just a few minutes, so he left my car right there by the main door, and it was waiting for me when I came out a few minutes later".
In 2017 Alan posted that he went to Mirage. But today both Alan and coach belly seem to remember that Alan went to Treasure Island. What are the chances of that?
Quote: kewljBut today both Alan and coach belly seem to remember that Alan went to Treasure Island.
I didn't remember it, I just read it in this thread.
But I do clearly remember the anti semitic insult you used back then, when he politely challenged your claim.
But does it make a difference now?
I'm asking everyone to make their own decision by going to the casinos of their own choice, sit in the middle seat of a BJ table and tell us if you have the ability to see the cards on any nearby table to the extent that you think you could maintain a count while both tables are in action?
That's all. See for yourself what your line of sight is while sitting. See for yourself your field of vision with other players. See for yourself how much you'll have to turn your head during play and not delay your own game or give away that you're a counter. See for yourself if the dealers are dealing at a pace that allows you to play your hand and count your own table while also counting the next table over.
Actually take a seat and try this.
Please sit. No standing behind a table.
I dont care what casinos you go to.
Quote: coachbellyI didn't remember it, I just read it in this thread.
But I do clearly remember the anti semitic insult you used back then, when he politely challenged your claim.
And that has to do with what?
First of all your timing is all screwed up. The incident you are referring happened years later. I made a poor joke. I apologized to Alan and he accepted my apology. So what is your point?
Quote: coachbellyI didn't remember it, I just read it in this thread.
But I do clearly remember the anti semitic insult you used back then, when he politely challenged your claim.
And that has to do with what?
First of all your timing is all screwed up. The incident you are referring to happened years later. I made a poor joke. I apologized to Alan and he accepted my apology. So what is your point?
Quote: AlanMendelsonIn one of those posts I was wrong. It was TI and not Mirage. If I posted Mirage it was in error.
But does it make a difference now?
Absolutely it makes a difference. The night you ran out to a casino at 3am, you said you went to Mirage. Now you say T.I. It plays to YOUR credibility.
So happens neither of those casinos is in my primary rotation, nor was at the time. I do occasionally play at one of them. I only said the west side of the strip because those are all casinos that have blackjack tables next to each other and in close enough proximity that a player could track a second table.
The picture you took was a joke. You were NOT seated at a table as you claim, you were standing behind it. You can tell by the angle. And despite that you intentionally took a blurry photo of a table 4 feet away, that in no way represents what the human eye sees. If you can't see a card on a table 4 feet away, well, I am not going to say anything other than that is you. I can and 90% of the population, even those without great vision would be able to.
About the only useful thing that came from that blurry picture is that you could see the felt of the next table. If it wasn't intentionally blurry, anyone could have read the felt....meaning this "lip" of the table argument that you have come up with is debunked by your own blurry picture. lol.
Even if they are sitting in an empty pit they can sit, look, turn their head, etc.
In all the years we discussed this NO ONE ever said they actually sat at a middle seat and looked.
The closest we got was Redietz saying he STOOD behind a table.
Let people take a seat and look.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThere is no need to argue anything that happened years ago. I'm asking everyone to go to casinos of their own choice and determine themselves if they could even see the action on another table. Please see my previous post.
Stupid argument. A fair number of players have come forward, even in this thread and said they have employed this technique. Other well known players have gone on records saying the same.
I would like to hear from Wizard. He did enough card counting that he has probably employed this technique....not all the time, but when conditions permitted. And if he hasn't, I'll bet he is familiar with players that have.
I don't know why you continue to challenge this, just because a novice like yourself, who by his own admission, doesn't play much blackjack, nor count cards can't grasp it, doesn't mean squat.
There are machine AP, like Axelwolf, just to throw out a name, that do things that I absolutely can't comprehend. That doesn't mean what they do isn't possible. (and for the record, I know Axel is more than just a machine AP....just using that as an example).
People can post any claim they want to on a forum.
I'm only asking people to look for themselves.
Is that a problem for you?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou dont have to be a blackjack player or a card counter to sit at a table and look for yourself to see what you can see.
People can post any claim they want to on a forum.
I'm only asking people to look for themselves.
Is that a problem for you?
no not at all. I hope some people do. It is just kind of funny, the one person interested enough to go to a casino and look, even measured with a tape measure (not sure what that was about? but OK) said he could clearly see the next table. And what was your response, you challenge him.
You will never be satisfied Alan. You are hell bent on challenging me.
Quote: kewljSo what is your point?
Alan, by virtue of his public broadcasts, is a relatively well-known public figure.
He's been defamed here, a member made an uninformed comment designed to hurt his good name and reputation, and you've condoned it.
My point is that your default reaction to a disagreement during polite discussions has been to insult and name-call, so you readily condone and encourage similar behavior in other members who you agree with.
I just came back from reviewing a thread on "the urinal" forum (my name for that site of endless pissing patches) and see you went through this same discussion with Alan for over 30+ pages. He didn't get it then; he won't get it now. You will never convince compulsive gamblers that your system is better than theirs, or you can do something they can't.
Quote: kewljno not at all. I hope some people do. It is just kind of funny, the one person interested enough to go to a casino and look, even measured with a tape measure (not sure what that was about? but OK) said he could clearly see the next table. And what was your response, you challenge him.
You will never be satisfied Alan. You are hell bent on challenging me.
I believe that was Redietz who STOOD behind a table but did not take a seat.
If I stood behind a table I could see the cards at both tables because of my field of vision and didnt have to play. I did this.
Sit, kewlj, sit.
Quote: 21formeKJ - I've given you this piece of advice in the past - just let it go.
I just came back from reviewing a thread on "the urinal" forum (my name for that site of endless pissing patches) and see you went through this same discussion with Alan for over 30+ pages. He didn't get it then; he won't get it now. You will never convince compulsive gamblers that your system is better than theirs, or you can do something they can't.
Here's something you may enjoy 21forme. That forum you call "the urinal"....that was Alan's forum. He founded that forum. We have him to thank for it's existence. Lol
Quote: MJGolfI'm hoping you have Professional Blackjack. There are at least two versions/editions but in the 1994 edition; printed in 2013, look at his discussion starting on p. 239. He talks about streakiness and non-random shuffling, etc. There are many charts that follow talking about the effect of different orders of cards.
Also there is this opinion:
http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/card_clumping.html
Not trying to upset KJ (LOL) but this is the guy who created CVCX and CVBJ plus wrote the book, Modern Blackjack. Irregardless of his forum, he is definitely an expert in the field.
Ok, here is the problem, MJGolf. When I or anyone says "card clumping", most people think of the 10 value card being clumped. And that is occurring. And we all know the outcome of that. Players will lose the hands when the small card clumps are coming out because players will be standing a lot while the dealer pulls 5 card 19s, 20s, 21s. Also the players will be doubling there 2 small card totals, only to get a another useless small card, while the dealer makes his hand. And then of course the high value clumps come out and you push 2 or 3 rounds of 20.
But what isn't talked about, and I didn't really want to get into it, is the ability to keep Aces clumped with small cards. A machine that is clumping cards successfully, you will see far fewer blackjacks, for both player and dealer. The 3-2 payout for blackjacks for the player is a huge deal. It is actually where most of a card counters advantage comes from. That is why we bet higher when aces and 10 value cards are due. In decks that are set up to produce fewer blackjacks the house edge grows tremendously. That game you think you are playing with about a .5% house edge is really far greater.
look clumping occurs naturally and that's what Wong and Norm were looking at. That is very different from intentional clumping that reduces frequency of blackjacks, That is cheating. That is all I am going to say.
Quote: kewljBut what isn't talked about, and I didn't really want to get into it, is the ability to keep Aces clumped with small cards. In decks that are set up to produce fewer blackjacks the house edge grows tremendously.
If the Aces are clumped with the small cards, then do either the dealer or players have an advantage when the clumped section is being dealt?
I'm not asking about the entire shoe, which I believe you are referring to here, but the clumped section...who has the edge for the clumped section?
Quote: 21formeIf one knows when the high cards will clump and come out, then one has an advantage, similar to shuffle tracking.
Unless it feels like it's going to pay off, sometimes trying to do this is not worth it, because I end up losing both counts, whereas if I'm back-counting just one table I almost never lose it. Sometime I just want to see if I can still do it, what with age and vision issues making it not as easy as it used to be. But simultaneously counting two tables at the same time, with these limitations, is certainly possible. I can do it.
The two added factors that complicate it are playing at one table while counting two, and the physical distance implicit in sitting at the first table instead of standing between them.
And let's not forget the Lip.
My devotion and dedication to the craft is nowhere near that of many people I read and respect on this and other forums. I don't spend as much time at it as I could, and my native abilities are sorely lacking. Someone seriously pursuing this trade, with an inbred natural talent, would certainly be able to do this. There are probably not a lot of people who could. A lot of folks think they can play the cello, but there is only one Yo Yo Ma.
We'll never see a performance of this feat. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself if you think it can be done. I'll never see it, but I'm sure that someone can do it.
Quote: coachbellyIf the Aces are clumped with the small cards, then do either the dealer or players have an advantage when the clumped section is being dealt?
I'm not asking about the entire shoe, which I believe you are referring to here, but the clumped section...who has the edge for the clumped section?
You are asking the right questions. If you are in a clump of low cards mixed with aces, the house advantage is definitely greater. I'll leave it to someone like Wizard, or Doghand, or Wong or Norm to calculate just how much.
It is kind of like with traditional card counting. The player is looking for a positive count representing a player advantage or +EV situation. But when the count goes negative, you have gone the other way, the house edge becomes larger. Many of us exit the game at that point. But there are players that play through those negative counts (higher house edge) by adopting altered playing strategy or negative index plays. This is never enough to turn the game positive or even back to the normal house edge, all you can hope to do is reduce the increased house edge by a bit. In other words, while it may help it is inferior to not playing those rounds at all.
Now a negative clump mixed with aces, would be similar, in my opinion. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY such a clump, you could alter you play in a way that would have you hitting more stiffs, even against a dealer bust card, looking for a lower card of which there are an abundance of. Think hitting 13, 14 vs dealer 4 or 5...that type of thing. That may reduce some of the increased house edge, but is unlikely to be a strategy that turns that clump +EV. And again that would be if you could identify such a clump BEFORE it came out.
But the short answer is no, this kind of clumping done intentionally increases the odds in favor of the house. And again, this does happen as part of random play or shuffles, but if it is being done intentionally, that is non-random and cheating. I don't think you would ever get the gaming commission to say the "cheating" word. Best you could hope for is they would say it is a non-randowm shuffle and the casino industry had to stop doing it. That is the battle.
Quote: racquet
And let's not forget the Lip.
No....let's definitely forget about the Lip. lol.
Unless you are 3feet tall, whatever the proper term is, today....maybe "little person", the Lip is a non issue. Anyone 4 foot tall or taller can see over the lip and see the felt and cards. Alan coming up with "seeing over the lip" or saying stupid things like a player needs x-ray vision or super vision to see cards on a table 4 feet away are the very things that prove he is not being objective.
Quote: kewljIf you are in a clump of low cards mixed with aces, the house advantage is definitely greater.
And if you are in the inevitable clump of high cards, is the player advantage greater?
Quote: coachbellyAnd if you are in the inevitable clump of high cards, is the player advantage greater?
No because the ace distribution is not random. If the aces were not part of any clumping exercise and were randomly distributed, the then yes a clump of high cards (with normal distribution of aces) would be advantageous to the player. But with reduced blackjack capability, even a clump of 10 value cards only (no aces) is not +EV.
The 3-2 blackjack payout is a big deal. If you remove or reduce the frequency of that from the normal 1 in about 20, you are changing the odds, pretty significantly in the house favor.
Once you accept that, then all you need to know is any shuffle machine that has the ability to rearrange cards back into a ace through King sequence (like when they come out of the box) has the CAPABILITY to arrange the cards into any sequence desired. And every shuffle machine being used has the ability to arrange cards back into sequential order, leaving us at the casino industry or manufacturers "word" that they are not further using that capability to arrange cards in a non-random sequence further favoring the house.
Quote: kewljNo because the ace distribution is not random. If the aces were not part of any clumping exercise and were randomly distributed, the then yes a clump of high cards (with normal distribution of aces) would be advantageous to the player. But with reduced blackjack capability, even a clump of 10 value cards only (no aces) is not +EV.
I don't agree with this. For example, if you are counting a DD game with an Ace sidecount (THAT I can't do on two tables at the same time), even if all the aces are gone, but the count is still positive, it's +EV. I don't recall the exact number, but this was discussed on BJTF at one time, and I beleive Don came up with a number like 50% of the "normal" edge per count if all the aces were gone.
When I play, I only adjust my playing (and INS) decisions based on the ace sidecount, not the betting.
Quote: 21formeI don't agree with this. For example, if you are counting a DD game with an Ace sidecount (THAT I can't do on two tables at the same time), even if all the aces are gone, but the count is still positive, it's +EV. I don't recall the exact number, but this was discussed on BJTF at one time, and I beleive Don came up with a number like 50% of the "normal" edge per count if all the aces were gone.
When I play, I only adjust my playing (and INS) decisions based on the ace sidecount, not the betting.
I don't think that is right. We are told that the majority of a card counters edge comes from the increased blackjacks during high positive counts of extra high cards AND Aces. That is why we bet big at those times. The increase in successful doubledowns also plays a part but it is distant to the increase in blackjack at the 50% bonus paid. If you take away that increase in blackjacks or more precisely the 50% bonus, you are taking away most of the advantage.
Here is another way of looking at it. A regular blackjack game, let's stick with your double deck example, the house edge off the top is just under .5% (for H17). What happens when you make that game 6:5? The house edge soars to almost 2%. So what would happen if blackjack paid even money (instead of 3:2)? the house edge would soar to what? 3%? I'll leave it to the math guys, but that is one hell of a big house edge to overcome. One that card counting and identifying a clump of 10 value cards only can't overcome. This is basically what you have if you remove the 3:2 bonus for blackjacks. No?
Quote: kewljNo....let's definitely forget about the Lip. lol.
Unless you are 3feet tall, whatever the proper term is, today....maybe "little person", the Lip is a non issue. Anyone 4 foot tall or taller can see over the lip and see the felt and cards. Alan coming up with "seeing over the lip" or saying stupid things like a player needs x-ray vision or super vision to see cards on a table 4 feet away are the very things that prove he is not being objective.
Yes, the other table is four feet away. But you are supposed to be sitting in the middle seat. Now seeing all the cards at another table are more than four feet away.
How tall are you? I'm 5'10".
How many players are at your table and how many players are at the other table. What cards are they blocking?
You're playing your hand. The dealer at the other table is also dealing. Cards could be in the air or on the table simultaneously at both tables.
Dont forget you're in the middle seat so pull your Linda Blair act and twist your head right or left to look at the cards at the other tables.
Dont forget the lip, or the chips on the table or the drinks in the drink holders.
Yes... counting cards on two tables is easy. Even a caveman can do it... and not be detected.
Lip. Service.
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, the other table is four feet away. But you are supposed to be sitting in the middle seat. Now seeing all the cards at another table are more than four feet away.
How tall are you? I'm 5'10".
How many players are at your table and how many players are at the other table. What cards are they blocking?
You're playing your hand. The dealer at the other table is also dealing. Cards could be in the air or on the table simultaneously at both tables.
Dont forget you're in the middle seat so pull your Linda Blair act and twist your head right or left to look at the cards at the other tables.
Dont forget the lip, or the chips on the table or the drinks in the drink holders.
Yes... counting cards on two tables is easy. Even a caveman can do it... and not be detected.
Lip. Service.
Alan, I am not going to reveal how tall I am, nor my hair color, color of eyes ect. I am an active player in this town.
I have explained the middle seat advantage ad nauseum on the other forum. I'll do it again, here for you but I am getting tired of your games. If you are seated at the middle seat of a table, the furthest seat back mind you because of the arch of the table, then the table next to you is NOT at a 90 degree angle as you like to portray. The players at the table next to you, especially the middle seat (furthest back) might be at a 90 degree angle, but that is not where you are looking. You are looking at the felt of the table, which is in front of the players, which is probably at a 45 degree angle or so.
I don't know about you, but I do not need to spin my head around like the exorcist to see something 45 degrees to my right or left. As a matter of fact, I don't have to move my head AT ALL! It is right there in the line of sight of just looking straight ahead.
The ONLY thing blocking me from seeing the surface of the next table at a 45 degree angle would be if someone is sitting in the next to last seat (on a table to my right) or the second seat (on a table to my left). And even if someone is in that "key" seat, at times you can still see, by shifting slightly. At times you can't. I have always said WHEN CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT.
Here is the only thing you get credit for today: Lip service. That was funny. I appreciate your humor, Alan.
I am not encouraging anyone to track a second table. Do you know my brother has been successfully counting cards for 5 years (or is it 4...I don't remember). I taught him to count cards and I never taught him or suggested he track a second table. Never even discussed it until today when because of this discussion, I asked him, if he ever looked at the next table to see how the count was going at that table? His answer was no, should he be?
Here is the thing about tracking a second table. It is a natural progression for experienced players. As I said, my brother hasn't reached that point yet, although he probably will start thinking about it now. lol In today's world of blackjack card counting the play all approach (sitting at one table playing through all counts) is pretty much a thing of the past. That style requires a huge bet spread and makes a player easily detectable. Any successful serious player today is doing some sort of exiting of negative counts. And that means finding a new table. Once you start doing that it is a natural progression to start looking for that next table or opportunity even before you have hit your exit trigger. It is something that just kind of clicks.
AND it is the benefit of a simple count, that is a level one count with no side counts. 21forme mentioned side counting aces at a double deck game. I do that too. With only 8 aces, it is almost hard not to notice when they come out and if the remaining cards are rich or depleted in aces. BUT, if there is a tracking of a second table opportunity, I drop the side count.
Backcounting and that is what this is, works best with a simple level 1 count like hi-lo. That is why most successful teams use it, including all the MIT teams. Hey those are pretty smart guys, ever wonder why they use such a simple count? Because it works best for this. lol. This is a big reason why I am a proponent of level 1 counts. Well that and diminishing returns for more "advanced" counts. Higher level counts can increase your win rate by 10-15%, IF you don't make too many mistakes that eat up that increase, but something like tracking a second table and being able to jump immediately to a better opportunity, seeing more high positive counts (+EV) can increase your win rate 50% or MORE. But you can only do that utilizing a simpler level 1 count. What is the saying? Keep it simple stupid. KISS
Quote: AlanMendelsonKewlj I only ask for the forum members to go to casinos of their choice and look for themselves.
Alan, no one is even reading this thread. there aren't many blackjack players here to begin with, Maybe a few more than the urinal forum but not many. Most players including AP's have moved on to other things. The only reason, I participate is that it may help one or two or maybe even one or two at some point in the future that manage to stumbled on such a thread. I am not trying to convince you.
Quote: kewljAlan, no one is even reading this thread. there aren't many blackjack players here to begin with, Maybe a few more than the urinal forum but not many. Most players including AP's have moved on to other things. The only reason, I participate is that it may help one or two or maybe even one or two at some point in the future that manage to stumbled on such a thread. I am not trying to convince you.
Urinal forum?
That's not a typo?
A forum about pissing?
Quote: darkozUrinal forum?
That's not a typo?
A forum about pissing?
Urinal forum is the nickname that 21forme gave to another forum that you sometimes participate at. lol
It isn't difficult to track the count on the next table over for a few rounds at the start of their shoe.
