Flash's Post In A Previous Thread Needs Further Discussion

Flash's post was posted on November 23, 2012, titled "The Facts And A Healthy Measure Of Skepticism," needs a response. Flash was talking about a Level 1 counting system and the problems associated with it.

Flash wrote "The game with GOOD conditions is still a game where your card counter edge is going to be below 1% as there plays you cannot make like doubling soft 20 and splitting faces, and your spread needs to be "polite" to maintain longevity and we cannot estimate cards/decks played as accurately as a computer does."

Flash, you are lumping together every player who only uses a Level 1 count system in their arsenal, such as his or her level of experience, which games they are playing, their level of wagering, their spread used, and in which casinos they are playing for tolerance levels, etc.

Flash, you are also (whether you realize it or not) are attempting, very poorly, to discredit the excellent book Black Jack Attack, Playing the Pros Way, by Don Schlesinger. Specifically, Chapter 10, The World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation, considering the research that has gone into it by the author, as well as the respected John Auston. What is wrong with you?

"Playing efficiency with a Level 1 counts tends to hover just above .50%."

True playing efficiency is an important aspect of CC, which is 13% of the gain attributable to card counting and cannot be ignored. Flash, you conveniently forget to mention Level 1 counts like the High Low have a 97% betting corr. efficiency and gains 87% attributable to card counting, along with basic strategy alone.

BoSox

Flash's views on this subject are pretty well known by now. He has completely adopted what he believes is the Grosjean philosophy that no serious card counting AP can succeed using a level one count. Personally, I believe he is either taking some of Grosjean's comments out of context or is failing to fully understand Mr Grosjean's meaning, but no matter, he can believe what he likes.

I support myself through AP means, and the majority of that play involves card counting. I use a level one count, Hi-lo. So I am living proof that these statements are incorrect. I actually switched back to hi-lo after playing a level 2 count for 18 months. There are a number of other players that are members of this site as well as other sites that Flash participates on, that are in a similar position of 'serious' card counting AP's, that either support themselves through such means or strongly supplementing their incomes, that also use level one counts. For some reason Flash completely dismisses myself and these other members, because we do not fit into his and what he believes is Mr Grosjean's narrative.

I have given up discussing and debating the topic with him, Mr Bosox. He has made up his mind. He doesn't believe in bigfoot and there is nothing you, nor I, nor bigfoot himself, can say will change his mind. lol

I'm glad there is someone out there on my side. Although I can survive on my own. I'm glad you are here though. I recall we were supposed to get together to talk about blackjack. I hope your wife is doing well and feeling better. We will have to meet.
Sincerely,
Robbie

Wow, all this time I thought all this time that you were supporting Flash. Although I have no animosity against Flash, I do not understand his attacks. I made a misstatement about splitting which was obviously made in error.

Robbie

With a level 2 system, the NO value will arrive faster.

I believe that what you say in your first paragraph is essentially what Don Schlesinger has said on this board.

Flash comes off a little opinionated in his posts at times to the point that I'm concerned about people like poor Robbie developing a persecution complex over it. Yes, he is a cantankerous old coot but please take none of it personally because his heart is in the right place... He truly cares about others becoming better players and puts a lot of time, completely uncompensated into helping others, which I have never done or even considered doing, so this says a lot about this crazy old dude.

This is a guy with half a century of gambling experience that was climbing over the fence into the local horsetrack when he was 14 and shit like that! He has seen a lot in his time to say the least but in regard to blackjack, he's seen and reviewed every counting style imaginable to include things that are not public knowledge and has seen the best examples of the people that practice them. He personally uses and advocates HiOpt2 but I think him seeing things such card sequencing demonstrations that are mind blowing, seeing me blow through the cards and rattle off exactly whats there with pinpoint accuracy, etc. has swayed his opinion.

Flash is a very pleasant person to talk to and hang out with in person, ask anyone that knows him. When he is trying to make a point on here he often comes off as sort of arrogant though. He's a retired doctor, PHD sort of guy and highly intellectual... I've really enjoyed picking this guy's brain apart to see what's in there at times! Even though he is in his "cantankerous old coot" years, a lot can be learned from listening to his ramblings to say the least. Don't allow him coming off seemingly terse to dissuade you or feel like he is out to give you a hard time because he's not, he's trying to help you.

This issue with level 1 versus other more advanced counts has been an ongoing debate over many years and hundreds of pages on the topic. It all comes down to what an individual is comfortable with, capable of, etc. and you out there as an individual need to find the niche that suits you is all. I feel that the longevity factor may be much more critical than the counting method and the two are closely related or tied into one another but I've seen that only briefly touched on during these debates on counting methods. Hopefully out of all of this people will make their own evaluation of what works for them and become better players able to rationalize what all the options and possibilites are.

your percpective, Ivan. I have not personally met Flash, although we have comunicated online for several years now, in private exchanges as well as through a number of sites that we both frequent. He has been very generous with me, sending me a lot of useful material and has in general been very supportive of me. I like Flash and like to think we are internet friends.

I respect him a great deal and appreciate and value his opinions. I CAN appreciate that he thinks a level 2 count is worth HIS effort. I have a little problem with him insisting that it is worth everyone's. I have a much bigger problem with him stating as fact, something along the lines that no serious AP uses a level one count or no serious play can succeed using a level 1 count, when he knows several who do. As you (and I am sure everyone who cares to) know by now, I use a level 1 count. I CHOOSE to play a level 1 count. I have used a level 2, so I am aware of the possible gains and what simulations say. I personally don't believe ALL of that gain translates from the world of simulation to the world of real play, but that is all subjective and opinion. I also believe it matters less, with the mediocre games that I play most. In other words there is more to consider that just the results of simulations. Anyway, didn't mean to jump into this debate again. My point being don't tell me players can't succeed using a level one count, when some of us are. The term 'succeed' is also subjective. Maybe that's the problem. lol

but I still haven't embraced the philosophy that a level 2 count is better. In one of my earliest discussions via email w/ Flash, he alluded to the position that Grosjean has taken on level one systems being inadequate.

Interestingly, as I read my copy of Beyond Counting, it seems that he (Grosjean) totally embraces KO as a "keep it simple" effective count. Furthermore, I know of another poster on this board, one of Grosjean's big player's associates, that also uses KO (W/COBJ) for shoes. I find it very unlikely that he would be "allowed" to do this as a member of that squad were KO not effective.

That said, Flash is quite generous with information and is a great guy, IMO.

As I had stated early in our cantankerous posts I know ( I don't think ), I know that we could get along as blackjack players and the main thing is to win money from the casinos.

I'm not a full-time player at all. In fact, I may play two weeks a year. But I consider myself to be a skilled player. Re: counting method:

1) I track Remaining Cards with decent accuracy, even for 6-decks.
2) I use a Hi-Lo count, but divide by # cards remaining to go from True Count to Running Count (per 100 cards). This is very close to +/- per 2 decks. For me, this works. The net figure I get tells me the concentration of the remaining decks.

3) I have not used a two-level count. Some pros swear by it. I believe the pros would say that the two-level adds 20% to their annual income. So, +150k becomes +$180k, roughly. Well worth it, I'd think, if that's your vocation.

4) There has been some discussion on here re: the 678 box side-count. I could envision it adding value on the 12/13 near-index decisions. But the frequency/severity can't be a huge edge. And I can't see it being humanly possible to track this efficiently.

5) I try to side count Aces vs SD or DD. Mechanically, I try to do it via foot movement. 4 on far left, move right for each Ace that comes out. Sometimes too uncomfortable for me. Anyone have a better way to do it, other than just mentally counting down 4-3-2-1?

You count each card that has been played to determine the number of cards remaining? Can you do that and keep track of the of the count? And then you divide what, by the number of cards remaining to go from the TC to RC? Why would you go back to the RC? Wouldn't it be easier to just look at the decks that have been played in the discard rack to estimate the number of decks left in the shoe?
For your final question, use the alphabet.

When sidecounting I use the letters A-B-C-D, but I only side 7s in single deck games.

Ivan, thank you for your opinion on Flash. I believe your thoughts on Flash are correct. Your last paragraph in your above post is excellent.

However, I would like to ask you about a post you made on November 22, 2012, on the same subject titled "Multitasking." Near the end of the paragraph you wrote "You are an exception to the rule, KJ--- Out of the thousands that have attempted to take on Godzilla with a pellet rifle, you are one of the few that have won (in my opinion). It's not an easy road you travel as a lone counter, so I'll stick with my elaborate methods."

My opinion, for what it is worth, I also have tremendous admiration for KJ and what he is doing, and think he is, indeed, an exception to the rule. I am referring strictly to his ability to provide a nice living for himself through card counting.

I think, Ivan, you were downplaying his method of attack. Sir, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of us using pellet rifles that are not glamorous as yourself but are successful card counters using our Level 1 counts subsidizing other incomes. Personally, I know at least a dozen.

BoSox

Don Schlesinger, and the late Bootlegger, and the late Math Professor unselfishly answered players' questions for many years on this board--Don still does. Ivan, in your above post, you stated that you personally have no desire to go out of your way to help other people. So why are you here?

BoSox

I have two problems with LevelOne Counts (and don't get me started on unbalanced counts.):

A. They make it too easy for the Pit Critters & EITS to catch you.

B. The inaccuracies are costly in the long run and the short-run alike.

The reason that I am so vociferous and strident is simply my empathy for the legions of peeps
who learn (what I consider) an introductory-level count.

I believe that publishers promulgating "EASY" counts do a serious disservice to novice counters;
radically increasing their chance of abject (financial) failure.

We are your captivated audience.

adjustment I read about in Thorp was SD: stand on 77 vs 10. Because you've exhausted 50% of the 7s you need for 21.

what my break-even point is. 3, w/ 100 cards remaining. That's Running Count of 3.00.

Rough translation for edge = 3/4 = .75...minus Edge off the top. As long as the net is more than marginally +, time to leverage your bets up.

Too many approximations for me on 80 cards left, 120 cards left. I prefer the precision. At least I've convinced myself of that. My testing and live results are good, better than I could reasonably expect.