A more important question:
What spread does it take to make OPP +EV, period, in a good 6D shoe game?
.png)
What spread does it take to make OPP +EV, period, in a good 6D shoe game?
Well that depends entirely on the progression. Most progression players actually don't play with a large spread. They try it once, get busted and use the very light progressions that tend to move up and down. OPP would bore these people to death anyway, because nearly all bets are one unit. Unless you are playing 1960s type rules, a weak counting strategy's ramp is nearly all bets at min and a few at max with almost no ramp. This due to the weak betting correlation.
I suspect that most people who learned counting from that book -- or the myriad of similar books that were popular in the 70s -- had about the same results I did: We got our asses handed to us, with a smile and a free buffet.
Nope. I sincerely doubt it. Simple fact: "most people" who play with any kind of edge at all, will wind up winners in any given time frame. Now, it's certainly possible someone could read the article and not learn enough to gain an edge. But the article wasn't promoted as a full blown system. The title is "A New Approach To Card Counting." A new approach isn't a finished system.
Now, ET Fan, if that happened to me today and I posted about what I was doing and asked, "So, if I'm playing with an edge, how come I got my ass kicked?" I really think that either you or Arnold Snyder could explain that very well: "Oh Roger, Roger, Roger, a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing! Simply stated, the expectation may inherit the Earth in the long run, but variance is king of the short run, and in Blackjack, very few recreational players will ever get anywhere near the long run. But the biggest problem in your case is you're just playing too weak a game with too small a bankroll."
I might take that tone if the poster had a rude, know-it-all attitude. But normally I'd just explain to them that they'd been unlucky -- which sounds like what happened to you. I might try to nudge somebody to a more powerful system, but I have always, and will always, celebrate every form of advantage play. For example, I defended e-kid's right to use a stop-win, since I believe he's a recreational player who nonetheless plays with a small edge.
Even if the most we could accomplish was a 0.0% edge, I'd be pleased to lend emotional support to any player who wants to assail the casinos that way, taking a spot from a real loser. Over time, any half-serious player will stumble on some advantage plays that are so obvious nobody will talk about them on an open board -- simple techniques with a greater impact than the best counting system. Even if they don't, I support them taking up space, getting free drinks, and helping put casinos out of business.
But here you are today, ignoring what's been learned in the last 30 years, "celebrating" that with a mere few hours of practice, recreational players will be sent out to bet $160 (!) on one hand at a $10 table, because after all, they have an edge and they're playing with a system that's "almost as good HiLo?"
Does the fact that I use Hi-Lo instead of Halves or AOII, mean I'm "ignoring what's been learned in the last 30 years"? I don't see much difference. And I don't know why you put celebrating in quotes. I really don't.
The 16 to 1 spread was just one suggestion for a new approach. An article on the internet is not in the same category as a finished system in book form. New suggestions can be made and tested, and the text will rapidly evolve. The ruin factor is a joke. It won't even come into play, for the vast majority of recreational players. 95% of the recreational players I know don't care enough about wins and losses to even bother with record keeping.
I never thought the primary purpose of these boards was to educate pro or semi-pro gamblers.
ETF
Your comments could just as easily apply to counters.
Your expertise as a counter and programmer are evident, but your comments about progressions are strictly ploppy.
BTW does your new software accommodate non-counters?
I was thinking that by setting all counting values to one, I could possibly use your software and still use the other settings.
The article wishes to compare OPP with a professional level strategy. That is the comparison. Compare OPP as stated with HiLo as it is played. Comparing it to HiLo with no insurance and no indexes is simply a dishonest trick since that is not how it is played and is not a professional level anything.
I was shocked to hear you say the article compares OPP with a professional strategy, so I went back and reread every word written on www.blackjackforumonline.com about OPP and specifically searched for the terms "pro " "pros " and "prof". Here's what I found:
-----------
From OPPC:
OPP is for beginners.
I am not intending to make this a professional level count.
From Arnold Snyder:
I don't expect it to turn neophytes into pros, but they will have a real tool for getting an edge on the house...
Pro players who are betting much larger amounts, and who are putting lots of action on the tables are concerned with these things. I just don't think any of this would apply to OPP players.
Note that we are not promoting this as a new count for pros to use. This is the count to teach your wife or girlfriend who cannot or will not learn a traditional card counting system...
-----------
That's it.
You want to compare OPP with full indexes and call it a simple system? You can't have it both ways.
Obviously, you are the one trying to have it both ways. If you want Hi-Lo to have indices, then add valid indices to OPP. OPP is still much simpler than Hi-Lo if you add indices to both. Not to mention true count conversions.
The article was very clear in stating it was comparing Hi-Lo with no indices versus OPP with no indices. If you want to add indices to Hi-Lo, then I retract my statement about the simplicity of OPP. Under those circumstance, OPP is no longer 75% as hard as Hi-Lo, it's less than one-third as hard as Hi-Lo.
OPP has 40% of the win rate of HiLo. That is an accurate, fair statement.
Hard to fathom how anyone could believe that.
MathProf ran the sim and you make accusations against people that simply want to put out the numbers.
He ran an OPP sim. He didn't run the Hi-Lo numbers, and he didn't put them up together with the OPP numbers in a chart to make it look like a fair, accurate comparison. MathProf has too many scruples to pull any such stunt.
ETF
I swore I would never again respond after some of your earlier dishonest attacks and made the mistake of trying one more time. The posts on the fight site clearly indicate that they are pushing the concept that OPP has 80% of the power of HiLo. Your posts in particular. How can you deny this? The article clearly attempts to push this. It has 40%. MathProf's sim does indeed show this against published, undisputed numbers. You stated
"He ran an OPP sim. He didn't run the Hi-Lo numbers, and he didn't put them up together with the OPP numbers in a chart to make it look like a fair, accurate comparison. MathProf has too many scruples to pull any such stunt. "
The first part is a lie and the second a churlish insult. Read his post again. He said the game was known to have a SCORE of higher than 100. He did indeed compare them. He gave two numbers 42.8 and over 100. Do you really need a chart?
ETF, you have falsely claimed that Speed Count has been raved about by top BJ experts. Yet, Arnold Snyder said that they are fleecing people. Why are you repeating here the phony ads for a seminar that fleeces people? Why are you calling my post "Unconscionable" when all I have done is repeat the data in MathProf's sim and warn people of the consequences? Think about the harm done to ploppies when they read this disgusting hype. And, for the sake of anyone that might believe the hype, admit that ZERO top BJ experts have "raved" about the Speed Count. Withdraw that harmful claim. Or rethink the term "Unconscionable."
1) MathProf gave the score of over 100 in a completely different context. He didn't even specify Hi-Lo.
2) The 80% in the article makez NO mention of SCORE. SCORE is just one statistic. It is not the only statistic.
3) Here is the link to the reviews you claim don't exist:
http://goldentouchblackjack.com/reviews.shtml
I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether these are "raves" or whether these people qualify as experts. The link to the page reads: "Professional reviews of the course and Speed Count by leading blackjack experts." Apparantly, in your view, Tamburin is lying, Pronovost is lying, Snyder is lying, the reviewers are all lying, OPP is lying, I am lying ... just on this topic! Your previous trashes include T-man, MathBoy, Radar, the XBasic programming language ... it goes on and on and ...
Here is the link to the MathProf post with SCORES:
https://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1131761652
bj21 readers, unfortunately you have to do your own research. Once upon a time, there were three reliable, tough but fair minded sites providing sound blackjack advice. Today, there is too much money in the gambling advice business. And too many mouths to feed. Follow the money.
ETF
all twisted because he got another bad haircut. Maybe it's his "time of the month". Or, he forgot to take his pills again.
"I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether these are "raves" or whether these people qualify as experts. The link to the page reads: "Professional reviews of the course and Speed Count by leading blackjack experts." Apparantly, in your view, Tamburin is lying, Pronovost is lying, Snyder is lying, the reviewers are all lying, OPP is lying, I am lying ... just on this topic! Your previous trashes include T-man, MathBoy, Radar, the XBasic programming language ... it goes on and on and ..."
"Nope. I sincerely doubt it ['We got our asses handed to us']. Simple fact: 'most people' who play with any kind of edge at all, will wind up winners in any given time frame."
Please clarify: Are saying is that you sincerely doubt that a player who has "any kind of edge at all" ever has a greater than 50% chance of ruin, or are you stating an opinion (as if it were a "simple fact") that you sincerely doubt that the necessary conditions apply to "most people who play with any kind of edge at all?"
We can digress down that path if you like, but I'd really prefer to focus on the larger issue: Today's player has mathematical tools for analysizing questions about risk of ruin, and he has a tool (SCORE) for using that kind of analysis to put two systems on equal footing before comparing their wins rates. Yet you don't seem to see much value in using those tools (at least in the case of OPP!); you seem to be quite content to simply compare EV under arbitrary bet ramps.
That's your prerogative, of course, whether we're talking about how you make your decisions or how you give advice to new players. But Norm started this ruckus by stating what I would consider a "simple fact": Using that kind of analysis to claim that OPP delivers "82% of the power" of HiLo is extremely misleading, to say the least. Norm goes on to state what is clearly his personal opinion, not a "fact," that under the kind of analysis that I had thought was generally accepted as "best practice" today, he would not recommend OPP to new players. Now, if you were to come back and say that under that same kind of analysis, you would still recommend OPP to new players because it's so much easier to learn and use, I'd accept that as a defensible opinion, regardless of my own opinion. But that's not exactly what happened, is it?
1) MathProf gave the score of over 100 in a completely different context. He didn't even specify Hi-Lo.
That is completely false. Ask him yourself instead of making these absurd claims.
2) The 80% in the article makez NO mention of SCORE. SCORE is just one statistic. It is not the only statistic.
It is the accepted one. Read MathProf's post. He accepts it. Only BJF doesn't.
3) Here is the link to the reviews you claim don't exist:
http://goldentouchblackjack.com/reviews.shtml
Where did I say this didn�t exist. What is the purpose of making stuff up like that? I responded in detail and instead of responding to my post you ignore it and falsely claim I said the reviews don�t exist. I don�t get the point.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether these are "raves" or whether these people qualify as experts. The link to the page reads: "Professional reviews of the course and Speed Count by leading blackjack experts." Apparantly, in your view, Tamburin is lying, Pronovost is lying, Snyder is lying, the reviewers are all lying, OPP is lying, I am lying ... just on this topic! Your previous trashes include T-man, MathBoy, Radar, the XBasic programming language ... it goes on and on and ...
It�s an ad. Do you actually believe every ad for every gambling system you read? And I don�t see what the end of the paragraph is about at all. Why put words in my mouth? Discuss what I actually said. Stay on focus.
Here is the link to the MathProf post with SCORES:
https://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1131761652
Exactly. Did you read it? It says "Conventional Count Systems will SCORE above 100 on this game" Exactly what I said it said and what you denied it said.
bj21 readers, unfortunately you have to do your own research. Once upon a time, there were three reliable, tough but fair minded sites providing sound blackjack advice. Today, there is too much money in the gambling advice business. And too many mouths to feed. Follow the money.
Follow what money? What on Earth are you accusing me of now? I have zero financial interest in any forum. Period. What has this to do with money? If I wanted to make money, I'd hail the system and progressin systems and put them in my software. It would take less than an hour and I could make a pile of money fleecing people. I don't do that. But, BJF is one of the largest online casino portals in existence. They are the largest advertiser on card-counting terms. Don't believe me, type Card Counting into Google. They make their money by talking people into gambling online. And give almost no advice to these suckers. I guess they think this is "advantage play." The over 100 casinos whose affiliate ads they host agree.
Look, you guys made a mistake. Arnold bought an article on what he thought was a new system. He took the figures from a newbie in the field and published them without getting anyone to check them. Now you are doing everything you can to smear anyone that merely points out the right numbers. Look at the horrendous lies just put on the fight club by Radar. She is now attacking Don again. He hasn�t posted a word on the subject. She drags up the McDowell book again falsely claiming that we had anything to do with it. Complete fabrications. She claims I have never said negative about the Speed Count before. The Hell I haven�t. I have made numerous comments about it in the past � all negative. And she posts this slander where I am not allowed to respond. Why can�t you guys just deal with the numbers? Why the coordinated attacks and fabrications?
BJ is far more complex than you make it out to be. That is why the subject has attracted so many brilliant folk. Mathematicians that spent years studying the subject before publishing a "system." You seem to think that no one should comment on what was called a "major revolution." Well, sorry MathProf will. And others will. And I suggest you read what they actually posted.
Apparantly, in your view, Tamburin is lying, Pronovost is lying, Snyder is lying, the reviewers are all lying, OPP is lying, I am lying ... just on this topic! Your previous trashes include T-man, MathBoy, Radar, the XBasic programming language ... it goes on and on and ...
He, Don, & Viktor have also trashed his host here, Stanford Wong and this site, BJ21, where he advertises. Norm has even tried to encourage others to threaten Stanford with frivolous legal action.
"What has this to do with money? If I wanted to make money, I'd hail the system and progressin systems and put them in my software. It would take less than an hour and I could make a pile of money fleecing people. I don't do that"
If you did put them into your software, progression players could see for themselves if their progression system works or not. They are more likely to be fleeced by not having software to test against.
Software is just a tool. I don't think anyone would accuse you of fleecing if you produced one. A software developer should produce software and not pontificate.
"Look at the horrendous lies just put on the fight club by Radar. She is now attacking Don again. He hasn�t posted a word on the subject."
You are right about the attacks. I had not seen name-word-"play" used as a put-down for quite some time! ("Scheisslinger, Whataliar, and Scamrunner" -- wow!)..
But isn't this post here by Don ?
What is it about Norm's posts that you're not following? The above is patently false. Have you ignored everything that Norm wrote? To compare apples to apples, you'd be using the same spread for Hi-Lo, the same bankroll, the same optimal bet spread and optimal unit for each system, and OPP wouldn't possibly achieve anywhere near 80% of Hi-Lo. Pay attention!
Please clarify: Are saying is that you sincerely doubt that a player who has "any kind of edge at all" ever has a greater than 50% chance of ruin, or are you stating an opinion (as if it were a "simple fact") that you sincerely doubt that the necessary conditions apply to "most people who play with any kind of edge at all?"
Neither. I'm saying what I said. To wit: "most people who play with any kind of edge at all, will wind up winners in any given time frame." You give me an edge and a time frame (# of rounds) and I'll calculate the probability they'll be in the black. It'll be greater than 50% for anything over 10 rounds or so. Naturally, this assumes they keep playing.
But yes, I'll say very very few people are literally "ruined" by blackjack. Most people assume their bankroll must be cash or liquid assets, rather than their lifetime net worth after living expenses, which is the mathematical meaning. I suppose you can define "bankroll" any way you want and get some insight from the calculation, but that's not ruin as I've seen it defined in any responsible texts. You had some bad luck, but you weren't ruined. You lived to play another day.
Your premise that "most people who learned counting from that book -- or the myriad of similar books that were popular in the 70s -- had about the same results I did: We got our asses handed to us, with a smile and a free buffet." was not based on good math, unless the books espoused losing systems.
We can digress down that path if you like, but I'd really prefer to focus on the larger issue: Today's player has mathematical tools for analysizing questions about risk of ruin, and he has a tool (SCORE) for using that kind of analysis to put two systems on equal footing before comparing their wins rates.
But that's just the point. He did NOT put the systems on equal footing. If, say, KO were compared to Hi-Lo this way, without comparable indices and bet ramps, KO fans would be screaming bloody murder.
Yet you don't seem to see much value in using those tools (at least in the case of OPP!); you seem to be quite content to simply compare EV under arbitrary bet ramps.
I see value in SCORE, provided it's applied fairly and equally. I don't worship SCORE. There is no one statistic that tells you everything you need to know about a game. It doesn't exist. For example, try applying SCORE to a negative EV game. You get nonsense -- higher positive SCORES for lower negative EV. Yet, there needs to be ways of comparing negative EV games.
That's your prerogative, of course, whether we're talking about how you make your decisions or how you give advice to new players. But Norm started this ruckus by stating what I would consider a "simple fact": Using that kind of analysis to claim that OPP delivers "82% of the power" of HiLo is extremely misleading, to say the least.
The word "extremely" takes it out of the realm of simple fact, and into the realm of bias, IMHO. If Carlos had consulted me before publishing his system, I would have counseled him to standardize for risk. But 40% is every bit as misleading as 82%. More so, since the 40% came from someone who knows better.
Norm goes on to state what is clearly his personal opinion, not a "fact," that under the kind of analysis that I had thought was generally accepted as "best practice" today, he would not recommend OPP to new players. Now, if you were to come back and say that under that same kind of analysis, you would still recommend OPP to new players because it's so much easier to learn and use, I'd accept that as a defensible opinion, regardless of my own opinion. But that's not exactly what happened, is it?
Right -- what you described is not what happened. Norm did NOT use generally accepted best practice in his comparison, and he knows it. He was just hoping nobody would notice.
ETF
... I'll pray for you; you pray for me.
Do your own research, kids.
ETF
I won't respond to T-Man. But why are you supporting this fiction? This is a complete fabrication without an atom of truth. Same as T-Man's phony posts under aliases saying he is a newbie player with a complaint against his former employer. Same as his posts claiming his ex-employer's wife lives in a trailer. Why do you feed his insanity? You harm him more than you harm his intended victims.
Your entire post shows you have no understanding of risk. Your claim at the end that I am a liar is absurd. MathProf ran the sim, not I. He is the one that came up with 40%, not I. Read his post. Why do you continue to spread the lie that I came up with fake numbers and that I know better when it is MP that posted his sim reults? It agrees with my estimate.
Now you have posted to BJF where I cannot respond that I said Mike Shackelford is not an expert. A complete lie. My exact post was "I've met Mike and have worked with him. He is clearly a BJ expert and a Helluva nice guy." What is the purpose of posting outright lies? Why do you do this? Think about your own words - "follow the money."
