If you don't get the cards you will not win

Those �math� guys and PhDs who performed the initial computer studies did not recognize the essential fact, which I will not reveal to you on an open board, that leads a player to win more hands then lose. Nor did they realize that the cards in their run did not reflect reality that is: If you don't get the cards you will not win

Further more, They could not and did not discover that there are crucial aspects of the game that are predictable, with reference to both current and future round action. Their betting system were based upon a surreal, random world, unreflective of reality, in which a player would never know what card would come next, let alone what cards would likely be dealt after a shuffle.

Another huge mistake blackjack�s early and even current computer researchers are doing is that of assuming they could arrive at a simple card strategy by applying generalizations, based upon millions of simulated hands, to each specific card situation

Now, The probability of what is likely to occur in a given round of action is very different from the probability of what will occur in a 100 million simulated hands of action. When you make a bet, you cannot bet your money on a collective result of 100 million sim because your actual bet rides on the results of one particular round.

Yet, this is exactly what their generalized card strategy taught you to do: to make card decisions as if were betting on collective results of millions of hands, in spite of the fact that the vast number of those rounds have nothing in common with the realities you face at any given moment. Well, this approach require you to deny what your eyes are seeing and that is: If you don't get the cards you will not win but if you get those cards you will WIN

Puiu (BMW 850)

they can win on skill alone-I have not seen it yet, but they clain it.

I only wish there were more players who think like you.

... you must put yourself into a 'winning-state-of being'... BE THE TREND! G

I agree that over the long run card distribution, streaks, and any deviation from the norm will be negated if you average out the results and will revert to the mean. But if you bet your money solely on the long run mean results you are not playing with a full deck.

It is like this:
If I put your top part of your body in a oven at 110 deg and your bottom part in a bucket with icy water at 40 deg at the same time and keep you there for a while. Then, I give you a break and put your bottom part in the oven and tout top part including the head in icy water and keep you there for awhile.
Well, on average your body is exposed at (110+40)/2 = 75 deg temperature and I should assume, according to the BJ long run theory logic that you should feel very comfortable over the long run if I keep treating you that way.

You see, things may average out in the virtual world but in the real word if you apply the same theory you will not get the same results that the computer is telling you. And, in the process you may perish.

If you are still convinced to bet your money on the outcome of 100 millions hand sims then you are not playing proficiently first, and second you will definitely not survive unless you have an unlimited bankroll. But, you still are not an effective and proficient player to begin with.

BMW 850

You don't need to be very lucky. As long as you aren't extremely unlucky you'll do okay.

If you are thinking in the long run if Puiu is right or not you will
get old , but in a short time he`s predictible: is wrong.
---Puiu, can you send me that cards , please ?----

If you are what you pretend to be Bellagio Floor Guy or so �, I assume that you probably know very little, if that, about the game you supervise.

Anyway, your bankroll will go up and down at random but will still follow a pattern for much more then a single round. And the Ws & Ls pattern has got nothing to do with the value of the count. You will have winning or losing streaks of the same magnitude in both counts. You will NOT win more hands in positive vs. negative and the other way around: you will not lose more hands in negative vs. positive counts. This is a fact!

To manage to beat the game, a proficient player has got to play and bet in a narrow range style of play else he�s got not a chance to be a consistent winner. And you know it!

Even if you are the best so called card counter in the whole world but if you play hand after hand for hours and hours one on top of each other you will not make it unless you win more hands then you lose.

I still don�t believe you that you are the Bellagio Floor Guy but if you are I can tell you that I beat you bad, very bad and probably you don�t even suspected me at the time. And further more, I can tell you that I didn�t play every hand that come out from the shoe. The most I played was about 40% or even less.

Well, I am aware that I won more hands that I lost over my entire BJ career. I�m not a dreamer about the fact that I�ve won because of the fact that I�m using card counting. I would lie if I would tell you that I�ve won because of CC. No! I have won because I won more hands that I lost. I use the CC for playing decisions only on Insurance, double downs and some splits.

What good is to bet by the count and go down to �10,000 and if and only IF you will win more hands in the future only then you will come up to even and probably a little more? Well, then you do your $ profit / $ action to come with your ROI (return on investment) of about 1.25%. So much waste of time and useless work for what? .., when you could have won that amount of $$ in much less time and you would generate a much greater percentage return.

Is that proficiency?

BMW 850

I was playing BJ together with L.Revere in Vegas when I was under 21 before you knew what a deck of cards was. But, that's not the point.

The point is, in your simplistic way of analyzing things, showing a complete inability to reason or think clearly, you equate quality with quantity. And, that is the biggest mistake that most card counters make.

I couldn't care less how rich the count is, if I don�t win I will bet the minimum and if I continue to lose I will change table at �5 units per table. I earn more in two days playing like that than you will ever earn in two months betting by the TC.

BMW 850

Those �math� guys and PhDs who performed the initial computer studies did not recognize the essential fact, which I will not reveal to you on an open board, that leads a player to win more hands then lose. Nor did they realize that the cards in their run did not reflect reality that is: If you don't get the cards you will not win.

1) a player wins more hands then(sic) loses -- Prove it.
2) Those math guys and PhDs didn't recognize this -- Prove it.
3) Their run did not reflect reality -- Prove it.
4) Those math guys and PhDs didn't recognize that either -- Prove it.

Put up or shut up.

ETF

When you say that over the long run everything converge to the mean and when you simulate the long run using computers you get that mean showing up at the end of 100 million rounds, I believe you! And, I also believe you that when we look back over a simulation we can assume that over the long run the cards distribution to the players was equal and random because of our RNG (random number generator) used in our software.

But in reality the cards that we get are not random and exactly this non randomness of cards distribution create the streaks that we all have witnessed over many times. When you don�t get the cards for long periods of time is when you get a non random distribution and when you get the cards more then normal that is also a non random distribution. And, exactly this creates ups and downs in your bankroll.

If the distribution would be random the way the PhDs wants you to believe according to their RNG, then here is the proof:
For a table with 4 players against the dealer over a span of 260 rounds of BJ, every player including the dealer should receive every card from the deck without repetition. Another words, the player from first base should have received only once all the cards from the deck. The same thing apply to the next player and the next � etc.

Well, we know that this is not happening at all and we also now that some players will get some cards more then once while others wouldn�t. This nonrandom effect determine if you win more hands or if you lose more hands over the short range. And, subsequently determine if you win or lose money regardless of you count.

Well, no PhD have told you this yet that if you are able to capitalize on the fact of �getting� or �not getting� the cards you can make a lot of money and play much more proficient vs. betting by the count regardless what cards you get.

Further more, according to CC logic it makes no difference if you get at the next hand a 16 or a BJ or a 16 vs. A or 15 vs. 6 while the dealer is pulling 5 cards 21 or your 56 vs. 4 and you draw a deuce four time in a row when you double down. Well, everything will converge to the mean in the long run and as long as you bet more money during positive counts you will be fine. No! No! Because, if you continue to bet your chips according to this logic you are not playing with a full deck. And, in reality is similar like playing with a deck from where the big card are missing. When you don�t get the cards for long periods of time is like you continue to accept the fact that the big cards were removed but you don�t care because eventually somebody will put them back over the long rum.

You see!, The more you play during those periods the more money you will lose. The less you play the more you will save. Now, when you get a above normal good cards and when the dealer gets busted more then the norm and the more you bet and play the more money you will make being able to offset the result in your favor by a greater percentage that any card counting system will ever be able to do for you.

So, you see why you got to be selective and not playing every hand that comes out from the shoe? Of course you do and understand, but what you do not know is how to do all this. This is the secret that no PhD have ever figure it out and told you how. When you will know how to win more hands then lose, ONLY then you will be a proficient and winning player. Else you will be a loser regardless if you count or not. Unless you become a computer with unlimited bank that gets happy with 1.2% edge at the end of your life, you are not playing with a full deck my friend!

BMW 850

bs going thru ur cranium?

-Did you mean 99% of the ploppies that get upset if someone sits down at "their" table, because it will mess up the "flow" of the cards?
-Maybe you meant 99% of the misguided fools that follow JP's advice. (Similar to the group above, except that at least the ploppies didn't have to buy a book to learn to play poorly!)
@^/
Or perhaps you meant 99% of the drunks at the casino bar
.....or 99% of the pit bosses who've turned down your request for a comp to their $3.99 buffet.
What I know you didn't mean was 99% of the players with a long term BJ advantage.
Admit it Frank, you just pulled some random number out of thin air.
Its more nonesense from the man who's already given us "The Flaw".
@^!
Cyclops

there are alittle over 8, 500 counters that are consistant winners.
Now out of the millions of counting books sold, that indicates that
only about .5% are winners. SOOOOooooo 9944/100% pure losers.
The half percent matches DUMB LUCK. Figures are from this board.

you what he found. He may be looking atthe flaw or he may have found a second one. SHOW the world and the game gets worse.

get the sub-conscious to do some amazing work.