I don't drink Kool-Aid :-)

And in fairness...there's that concept again, :-)

The Ace Prediction Saga was an advanced form of advantage play that rightly deserved to be under the microscope. The target audience was hardly recreational players, e.g., the housewife, ironworker, and yes, even the occasional coal miner.

And although I understand where Norm is coming from, I have yet - and to be fair again, it's early today and maybe most of the math guys won't see this thread for a day or two - hear from any mathematician that - .26% is greater than +.001. I might change my mind when some mathematician convinces me so, but until that day, regardless of how much money casinos have, and whether or not I or anyone may end up losing or even playing with a negative expectation, if I start out with a positive eV, as opposed to a negative eV, that's better than a negative eV.

The OPP is not for everyone, it's for ANYONE. Just like learning the HiLo system of counting, it's not for everyone, it's for anyone who decides to learn it.

The question is, why would someone learn anything?

They decide to learn because they want to. Why would they want to? Because they learned, or heard, or read, that their results will be better one way more than another way.

It's a process. And anything that helps people who walk into a casino and either lose less, or win more, should be embraced by those who have been, or who are walking down that path before.

It's not a moral issue, although for some I'm sure it is. It's the right issue. Why else do web sites such as these exist? They exist to help, not hurt.

If helping a person who occasionally plays BJ play with more awareness, then this is a good thing. This is helping players to win.

If that's kool-aid drinking, then sign me up for some more. As I'll take all the help anyone wants to provide, and if it's solid and free, so much the better.

cheers
bfb

It contained what even I considered to be a tasteless cheap-shot and I took it down.

(Hard to believe I know.)

:) Most sorry for the inconvience. I better quit for awhile!

Take care.

OPP is certainly not for ANYONE. Playing a poorly performing strategy and attempting to gain an advantage requires a very large spread. Playing BS correctly, you flat bet. If a person is a recreational player that just wants to extend time at the tables, he/she is better off flat-betting BS than being talked into a large spread.

People are different. You cannot make blanket statements that A is better than B without knowing the goals of the player. But before we even ask the goals of the player, we need to know how the strategy performs. This is a simple concept. Get the correct numbers first. What is the resistance all about?

> It contained what even I considered to be a tasteless cheap-shot and I took it down.

.. that tasteless cheap-shot, part and parcel, included you. I try real hard to be nice.

BTW, tell Stalker, as Syph would say, to try and keep up. It's not my website and I'm not selling anything.

that as a counter, I'm just dense. :-) He didn't really say that exactly, but the dense part - for me - in this instance, is probably accurate.

Until I see the sims that no one seems to want to share, and for the record, I have no desire or time to run them myself, I'll just have to conclude I'm a moron, and a dense one at that.

In a post below, I addressed the concept of flat betting by ploppies. They don't exist. So even if the OPP (and of course it does) requires bet spreads, then I don't see how that makes any difference, as the bet-spreading BS/ploppy, by your own inference, is also raising their RoR and increasing their loss rate, assuming of course, that they're playing with negative eV. I may be wrong there, as I am a moron. A dense one at that. :-)

There is a real world of difference between the theoretical, i.e., the math and theory we learn in a classroom/on a computer, and the real world of live casino blackjack. There are situations, where if there were, e.g., five players, and nothing but small cards cover the felt, with splits and doubles, and depending where in the shoe you might at, that a smart "ploppy" might conclude that there are a lot of "big cards a coming" and raise their bet to the moon.

He/She gets a BJ, and they look awfully smart - to themselves, and to anyone else who's looking. Why, becasue they have a brain. They're allowed, contrary to NV. state law, to think :-)

I was playing SD not long ago, and in the first round, all four aces were dealt. Someone at the taable says, "well, there's the hope of any BJ's." The dealer responds, with a straight face, "Why, you one of those card counters?" I responded, "yea, and didn't you know that it's illegal to have a brain?"

Common sense plays a role in all of this. 'nough said.

bfb

"Correctly" You have to assume correct OPP play versus correct BS. Correct BS is flat-betting. Incidentally, I will have more to say about the table full of small cards situation after V4 is announced.

Used to be a guy named Gary that between announcements of his multiple deaths hawked several systems based on streaks. Essentially progressions. He claimed they worked. Well, if the definition of works is that they had positive EV, he was right. It is possible to build a strategy that works based solely on streaks with a positive EV that is trivial to play. I took a look at his systems and they were all based on weak counting phenomena even though no cards were counted. Far easier than OPP. One problem, the spread is huge; and thus the risk. So, even with a positive EV, you will lose without an enormous bankroll.

There is another problem with EV as generated in most sims. People attracted to simple systems generally have a small bankroll. They are likely to bust out. If you are counting, you are most likely to bust out with a positive count because that's where you bet the highest. That means that you will bust out when the count is still high and miss playing out the rest of the shoe in a high count situation. This distorts the TC frequencies. In fact, the EV with a limited bankroll is lower than the EV created in most sims since they assume no bankroll limit. CVData has a mode to measure this. If you set a bankroll and session limit criteria, it will force a shuffle when such a bust occurs. You can see the effect on TC frequencies and EV.

It simply isn't enough to have a positive EV. That's why we no longer talk about systems in terms of EV. We talk in terms of win rate.

that people actually care about this as much as they do. A guy made up a system that is easy to use but does not perform well at all compared to other systems. He isn't selling anything. Fortunes will not be won or lost on this. It is a curiosity. Congrats to the guy for making up a system and testing it.

I can understand perhaps half a dozen posts on this. This must be a slow time in the blackjack world. Perhaps everyone has already made enough money on the year that they are happy and have nothing better to do.

"I was playing SD not long ago, and in the first round, all four aces were dealt. Someone at the taable says, "well, there's the hope of any BJ's." The dealer responds, with a straight face, "Why, you one of those card counters?" I responded, "yea, and didn't you know that it's illegal to have a brain?"

Common sense plays a role in all of this. 'nough said.

Nope. Math Prof says you should leave your common sense at home and just bet with the count. Really. He did!

That the OPP has generated some interest on the boards, or that the Golden Touch Speed Count generated a dozen or so seminars at $895 a pop, and rave reviews by several top experts?? ;) ;)

ETF

rave reviews by several top experts

Can you name one? Even a bottom expert:)

This new card-counting system is a major innovation in counting theory and methodology -Snyder

.. and is also the first major development to come out of ET Fan's PowerSim software �Snyder

This could turn all those ploppies who went so far as to almost learn basic strategy into real card counters. -Snyder

But for anyone who feels that's too much effort, the OPP is certainly more than 75% simpler for around 75% of the gain. �ETF

As shown in the table above, the new system has a betting power equivalent to 82+% of the standard Hi Lo system �the article

---------

What amazes you the most MB; that Blackjack Forum (I'm being kind here) would blow it this big or that the math geeks saw something immediately, that was so obvious and, well, misleading, that they chimed in?

Obviously this thing needed a little less baised light shown in.

> Congrats to the guy for making up a system and testing it.

I agree, bravo Carlos; nice job. Keep thinking outside the box.

However, Carlos, just a word. I understand why you only want to use 'open source software' but next time someone offers you CV for free -take it. It's OK. Maybe if you had, this discussion would have only taken 12 posts or so as MB thought it should.

Well, we could start with our host here, Al Rogers, Editor of BJ21.com.

Then there's the WizardofOdds himself, Michael Shackleford. Scraping the bottom, I guess, in your view.

Or how about John Grochowski, weekly gaming columnist and best selling author? Or Dr. Don Catlin, professor of Mathematics at University of Massachusetts? Not on your "approved list" of masters, I guess.

Sad.

ETF

Well, we could start with our host here, Al Rogers, Editor of BJ21.com.

First, I have never seen Al post anything at all on BJ. He's a top expert? Besides, bj21 is paid $3,000 a year for a rave "review" of Dan's software. Al Rogers offered to replace that "review" with one for CV if I paid him $3,000. I don't do business like that. Is this what you consider a rave review from a top expert? (The quotes around review are from him, not me.)

Then there's the WizardofOdds himself, Michael Shackleford. Scraping the bottom, I guess, in your view.

What is it with these constant snide comments? I've met Mike and have worked with him. He is clearly a BJ expert and a Helluva nice guy. But, he has never simmed Speed Count and has not "raved" about it.

Or how about John Grochowski, weekly gaming columnist and best selling author?

Ahh, you left out that he is paid by Scoblete owner of the Speed Count. Don't you think you should have mentioned this?

Or Dr. Don Catlin, professor of Mathematics at University of Massachusetts? Not on your "approved list" of masters, I guess.

Is he on yours? Has anyone ever heard of him? Well I have. He is also paid by Scoblete, owner of Speed Count. He created the fake "sim" of the Scoblete Craps Five Count. Who's scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Sad.

Yes it is sad. All I have done is point out that the numbers are wrong in the OPP article. Don't you think people have a right to know this? Now you, for some reason, have attacked me. Along with Stalker and T-Man, in a very gross manner. This is a BJ forum. What is it that you have against the Blackjack posts on a Blackjack forum? Why all these attacks? Do you really expect no one to comment on an article making wild claims about a major breakthrough in BJ? Posts that you get 80% of the gain of HiLo learned in the car on the way to a casino? Are we all supposed to just shut up and ignore the errors? Why attack the messenger?

paid Pi Yee Press, not paid him.

1- Would canned CV run OPP a year ago?, more, would any canned software run OPP?

2- I would like that many of you check you email trash files or span files. Probably you will get a surprise when a you read that a guy from Venezuela asked why he is winning more than the expectation in real games, and describing the OPP. NO ONE, except Arnold Snyder took care of it. The original letter was first written to Ask the Wizard, but at that time, that section was clossed.

As we use to say here in Venezuela: "If may mother-in-law had 16 tires, she would be a nice truck"

"I would give you my software for free...."
"It would take only 12 posts......"
All these these comemnts and many more that I have seen here are exactly the same: Reactions against things that could happen!

OPP is published, sims are public, there are no secrets. It was never designed thinking in the proffesional, athouhg I have learned that some are willing to use it for backcount.

Norman: Why you don't release a new version of you CV so any body (that can pay for it) can run their own sims on OPP? It would be better than making opotition acting and saying everywere that it does not work (is it because it was not developed using you software?)

Norman: Why you don't release a new version of you CV so any body (that can pay for it) can run their own sims on OPP? It would be better than making opotition acting and saying everywere that it does not work (is it because it was not developed using you software?)

Afraid I don't quite understand this question. I believe I have been extraordinarily polite to you. Rather than post the errors in your sims publically, I contacted you privately. I very politely and patiently explained the problems. I gave you the opportunity to correct errors before they came out in public; as obviously they would. I offered you all four of my BJ products for free. You rejected the opportunity, rejected the concept of SCORE, rejected the software and I now find myself under attack from the fight site.

Carlos, CVData can indeed sim OPP. But Don, Cacarulo and I thought the concept was disappointing. I have already explained why I did not make the option visible. BTW, there is nothing unusual about this at all. I have numerous undocumented features in all of my software for many reasons. The shuffle tracking analysis code was hidden for five years before I opened it to the public. Had you contacted me I would have told you, as I have several people in the past, that the concept is in my opinion not of great value. Had you insisted, in all liklihood I would have given you a copy of CVData with a key-sequence that would make the option visible. (Depends on when as it takes effort to convert it from an internal switch and I would have had to QA CVData to make certain it didn't affect other users.) Like the key sequence that makes the gorilla player drill visible in CV. I have donated dozens of copies of CVData to people over the years.

Carlos I still believe that you have a clever mind, albeit rigid. And I say this despite the fact that in your post you attack me. You put words in my mouth and question my motivations and question my integrity. All because I merely stated the correct numbers after giving you a chance to correct them on your own. If you are going to claim a revolution in BJ theory and methodology, you are going to have to expect people to make comments. I find it amazing that everyone in the field is expected to just accept this article without comment. That is no path towards progress.

I have been out of all the discussion and made only two or three posts and only answered one, actually not yours, but using your words that was directly referring me.

When you publish something, it is there for critics, and I accept the critics. All the sims are public and any one can make the corrections and arrive to the conclusion they think are correct. I am not hiding and I am answering all questions as I can. I am receiving an average of 15 mails daily and I tray to answer all.

When I asked for help, only one person answered.

The rest is pure imagination....

My father, 50 years ago teach me that before answer I should Hear and Read and understand, so my answers are related to what I have been asked.

Take this as a constructive critics: in most of your answers to many of the posts, not only in this trend, you tend to answer only the part that will enhance your point of view but discards many of the statements of your counterpart.

When discussions are oriented in this way, it is simply impossible to reach to constructive conclusions and always ends in personal confrontation instead of ideas confrontations.

I am not interested at all in personal confrontation, as I told you privately, I had enough with the ones I have with my ex-wife.

When I asked for help, only one person answered.

I never saw you ask for help. But I responded anyway.

The rest is pure imagination....

What is pure imagination?

Take this as a constructive critics: in most of your answers to many of the posts, not only in this trend, you tend to answer only the part that will enhance your point of view but discards many of the statements of your counterpart.

Absolute nonsense, that would be completely contrary to my purpose. I ignore some insults and unuseful comments. Everyone should. Point out something I should have answered and I will gladly do so.

I am not interested at all in personal confrontation, as I told you privately, I had enough with the ones I have with my ex-wife.

Neither am I. And my comments have all been designed to help. And like everyone else I'm tired of the childish attacks from the fight site where I cannot even respond. If you are not interested in "confrontation" why did you insinuate that I would only support a system designed with my software? That is a nonsensical statement completely contrary to my history and as confrontational as you can get. I have even complimented direct competitors of mine on numerous occasions. I think BJRM is a great piece of software. And not only is John a competitor, we are not friends. I have complimented the Omega II simulator many times and even advised people to buy it over my own in the past. I suggest books by people that I don't like instead of those by my friends when I think it appropriate. I call it as I see it. Personal motivation has no part of it.

All I have done here is post the correct numbers and answer questions. No good deed goes unpunished.