11 Great books, most purchased here, most still gem mint and never read, spent over $200 on these assorted books, all new editions!!!!
If you have the money to handle the variance(which is huge) in Blackjack, then you don't need the money in the first place. Therefore, there is no reason to play it and certainly not study it. I think you should call Goodwill for a pick up. But maybe even they don't want those. I've forced to join the ranks of Panama Rick for all the same reasons.
> Therefore, there is no reason to play it and certainly not study it.
Blackjack as a straight counting play-all one trick pony may be a tough row to hoe on a small bankroll (but really, hasn't it always been) .. but no reason to play or study it?
I'm far from full-time, don't get around much, and am stuck with the BJ games available to me. And they generally suck to the naked eye. But I would not be aware of the opportunity a few of them present had I not studied; and I do play them.
> I've forced to join the ranks of Panama Rick for all the same reasons.
Where did Rick go, no limit hold'em?
> I've forced to join the ranks of Panama Rick for all the same reasons.
Where did Rick go, no limit hold'em?
He had some unfortunate results in the last year that devoured much of his BR, and with a son going to college, had wisely chosen to put the money into his son's education and bow out of bj for a while.
Panama Rick was an excellent poster on the GC pages, and I made it a point to read every message he submitted.
He'll be missed, but I'm sure he'll return to the game and to GC in due time.
Hopefully, he'll take the time to drop a message on the free page and let us all know how he's doing.
Miss ya, PR, hope you're doing well.
Regards,
drumz1
Counters have to lose in the end.
When the count calls for the big bet, that's where you make the money. It's also the point at which you're most vulnerable. A couple of sessions losing the big bets and it's all over.
The problem is counters don't know how to adjust for being ahead of expectation. They don't even know (IF) they're ahead of expectation.
You're required to put out the big bet ad infinitum.
The problem is counters don't know how to adjust for being ahead of expectation. They don't even know (IF) they're ahead of expectation.
This makes no sense.
> A couple of sessions losing the big bets and it's all over.
Not if the player has a sufficient bankroll. Why do you think we spend so much time calculating optimal bets and reasonable RORs? Why do you think we�re always searching for the best SCORE and the smallest N0? Do you think it�s fun? Hell no! We do it because it is essential to survival. If he bets properly there is no reason for a smart player to ever go broke. He may reach a point where his EV is no longer worth the effort, but he would quit playing before going broke.
> The problem is counters don't know how to adjust for being
> ahead of expectation.
Actually, that�s built right into the Kelly Criterion. Ever heard of it? As you bankroll fluctuates, so does your betting ramp. Any good player knows that.
> They don't even know (IF) they're ahead of expectation.
I think every Advantage Player knows what his hourly EV is. It is very simple to know whether you are above or below that after any given session, and most will know how many SDs it represents.
> Counters have to lose in the end.
Only if they don�t know what they�re doing�
-Sonny-
I'm afraid you'll be joining PR in the dugout watching the other players. The object of the game is to win not survive.
Kelly Criterion will have you ramping up when you're ahead of expectation, taking you to a higher heigth from which to fall. If you lower your bet ramp because of losing, it'll take a long time to get back to where you were, assuming you don't have another devastating loss.
It doesn't matter what ramp you're using; if you're ahead of expectation a correction is in the works.
It doesn't matter what ramp you're using; if you're ahead of expectation a correction is in the works.
Oh, yes, the cards know who you are and how you did yesterday, last week, last month, or last year. They are very smart, those little pieces of cardboard.
Just because a person does better that his or her expected value doesn't mean he is then going to lose more than he or she is expected to. It is possible (in fact even probable) to regress back to the expected value while still continuing to meet expectations (which will win in the long run if expectations are positive).
For example, take a coin flip. If after 10 flips of the coin I have guessed correctly 7 times, my win rate is 70% which is 20% above expectation. If over the next 10 flips I perfectly meet expectations and win 5 my overall record will be 12 out of 20 or 60% (10% above). My win rate is falling closer to expectations even though I have just met expectations for the last ten flips. If over the next 100 flips I again perfectly meet expectations (50 out of 100) my overall win rate will then be 62 out of 120 or 51.67% (1.67% above). My win rate is slowly falling and regressing back to the expected average even though my results have not fallen below expectations.
The concept is the same when dealing with positive expectation. Short term "good luck" is tempered not by then expected "bad luck" but by the overwhelming results of the long term expectation.
Furthermore, if I correctly call the flip of a coin seven out of ten times, the odds of me correctly calling the next coinflip are still 50/50. The coin doesn't remember what the last ten flips were and how I called them.
This is simple probability.
Whether winning or losing the percent is always going to be low as the number of hands increases.
In BJ 98% of all hands offset each other. There is only 2% up for grab. What counts is how much of the 2% are you winning or losing.
When you include the 98% offset hands it just misleads by hiding the real figures.
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't allow for a losing player to catch up and win or a winning player to eventually lose.
Regards
The two percent isn't up for grab; it's to be overcome.
Counters are trying to increase their bet on one of the 45 hands that the player is destined to win. The win needs to include a spread to overcome the two extra hands the dealer is going to win.
When the increased bet is placed on a losing hand, then the counter has to recover the misplaced bet and still overcome the two extra hands the bank is going to win.
Based on 100 hands for sake of argument and leaving out variance.
The 78 clicks were to kill the highlight.
Care to tell us what happened? It's a sudden about-face from your other postings.
