BJ21.com Free Message Board

Math Prof.....It is a count based upon the following:

Posted By: Crackerjack
Date: 9 Jun 01, 2:19 pm

In Response To: I agree (MathProf)

2 Card Pat hands
2 Card Non-pat hands
Drawn out Busted Hands
Drawn out Stand Hands
as played by all the players and the dealer.

It does not take into account the individual cards that make up each hand.

According to the Pro, it also does not matter the other player's level of play. If a player stands on a soft 17 against a dealer 10, then it would not matter as far as the count is concerned. That kinda buffaloed me at first.

I don't consider it a weak counting system at all.
The Pro claims an average +2% EV.
So far, my data backs that up.
And I know my data is based upon a limited sample.

I would appreciate your evaluation. If you think it is still weak, tell me why please.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

Messages In This Thread

• The Pro's Hand Count Without A Running Count System -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 9:19 am
  • Postbusters could you leave this up? -- Maverick -- 9 Jun 01, 11:26 am
    • I agree -- MathProf -- 9 Jun 01, 1:11 pm
      • Math Prof.....It is a count based upon the following: -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 2:19 pm
        • And each round stands alone -- Maverick -- 9 Jun 01, 3:40 pm
          • this will weaken it even further -- StrayFrog -- 9 Jun 01, 3:59 pm
        • Since your data is limited -- Midwest Mogul -- 12 Jun 01, 7:12 am
  • Crackerjack - You have to tell them -- Maverick -- 9 Jun 01, 11:28 am
    • For a link... -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 12:14 pm
      • Why would the post be busted? -- In Hiding -- 9 Jun 01, 3:49 pm
        • Then this page should be called the card-counters page not misc BJ -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 11:59 pm
          • No! -- MathProf -- 10 Jun 01, 7:22 am
      • Re Link -- Portland -- 10 Jun 01, 12:10 am
        • That is incorrect -- Crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 12:35 am
    • I'm with Maverick on this -- In Hiding -- 9 Jun 01, 12:33 pm
  • Some additional interesting data... -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 1:59 pm
    • Your "total won (lost)" line is confusing. -- In Hiding -- 9 Jun 01, 3:31 pm
      • Thanks, I will keep that in mind with any updates (nt) -- Crackerjack -- 9 Jun 01, 3:36 pm
    • Who many decks were simulated here -- Doubtful counter -- 9 Jun 01, 11:55 pm
    • You are wasting your time -- Parker -- 10 Jun 01, 11:30 am
      • Well if nothing else, it has been good practice -- crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 2:02 pm
        • Very confusing. -- Titaniumman -- 10 Jun 01, 2:49 pm
  • Decks (?) -- Doubtful counter -- 10 Jun 01, 12:17 am
    • Yes -- Crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 12:44 am
      • Cracker - thanks, 6 deck. -- Doubtful counter -- 10 Jun 01, 2:35 am
        • It would not work with a CSM -- Crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 5:54 am
          • Why not? -- BobbyC -- 10 Jun 01, 1:24 pm
            • Then again, it might....hmmmm -- crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 1:43 pm
        • A suggestion! -- Crackerjack -- 10 Jun 01, 6:05 am

BJ21.com Free Message Board is maintained by Pi Yee Press