The math gurus are saying

The math gurus are saying that trends do exist, but that no one can pre-determine when a trend will occur. I personally favor the Follow the Trend method, playing on what the last result was. That way when a trend does occur, I will be on it. This way I don't have to try and predict a trend. This method continue to work for me. I have not found anything better except maybe to use card counting for when to double and for Insurance when my count gets to +3 or above.

I have winning years playing this approach, I see no reason to believe that using only card counting or any another method will do better.

Yes, card counting works and over the long run everything will migrate around the median but betting solely by the count it can wipe your bank out in no time. The fluctuations are huge and the reward is minuscule to begin with. If you don�t get the cards on high counts when you double down or split, especially when you split A,A then you can lose a lot of your chips in the process.
If you don�t get the card when you DAS then you are in big trouble. So, regardless of the count I increase by bet only if I won the previous hand and only if I see that the cards run the way you would like in a positive count. If my count is into positive and the dealer is not busting more then normal and if I don�t get the big cards on my double downs and splits then: What good is a ten rich deck?

Like last night for example: Playing in Vegas a great Double Deck following my method and getting up to over $8,000 in 3 hours. Take a break and meet a friend that lure me into another great game on the strip where you have 2 decks S17 and Later surrender. He�s luring me into it that the game is great. I know that game and I know that has the potentially to be a great game.
Well, we both get together to play that game and decided to go purely by the count to �take advantage� of the good stuff in this BJ science so to speak. Well, you�ll not believe the fluctuations and the misery that has happen when the count indicate a rich situation and I get low cards on my doubles. Big TC above +7, I have the max bet out, I get 9,9 and the dealer is showing an Ace: buy Insurance and is no T in the hole. Well, let me split the 9s like the books says and I get garbage ( an 8 and a 7) giving me 17 and a 16. Well, I lost both hands plus the insurance that was half of my max bet, in total I lost 2.5 max bets for no reason whatsoever. Oh!, before entering in that round I didn�t won the previous hand and I dare to bet another max.

Anyway, I reverted to my method of playing after that and managed to recover the damage that I created using the �fine science� of card counting. This happen with me many times when sometime I�m inclined to go back to the �correct� way to play this game.

That's Bunk! That is no science in betting by the count. Win or don't win, that's your gage of how much to bet on the next hand.

Puiu

to use count for playing descisions rather that bet "control".

I wonder why it is that casinos feel threatened enough by card counters to make a point to find them and bar them from playing blackjack.

Yet I have never, in all of my time at the tables, seen or heard of anyone backed off for "playing the trends".

Puiu has plagiarized me before, so I tried to find if the post above was plagiarized. I find his conduct to be highly unethical, and feel he should be banned from posting (if not pursued legally) for his continuing misconduct.

Please give me an explicit sentence to type into Google to check the document above, indeed, would you please find the document the above is plagiarized from and post the reference.

Thanks,

Mayor

Sometimes you have to have google.com show the omitted results. I believe that his phrase about going with the flow should provide some results. I would do this myself--again--but I am using a library computer that has a very fast connection, but a very slow video card at the present time. It really sucks when I have multiple windows open. That is why I posted my How to Google Puiu instructions, in the hopes that multiple complaints will put him in cuffs soon.

Take a look at my new post please of course, in the thread above--IMHO it is time to hammer the screen as in the Super Bowl 1984 Macintosh ad! It is BTW amazing how ML and Cyrus misquote me, Cyrus does have a redeeming humorous intent though, that...

I am doing research into past NV rules of civil procedure as well as doing a requested critique of Wolfram's new book tracing the evolution of physics from the behavior of Life (the computer game) type automata. Believe it or not my posting on bj21.com is just part time, using what I like to call vultured time. You can see how I am so disingenously underestimated.

I am really tired and sick to argue and fight for this nonsense. Let�s talk serious about what to do.

Card counting works but it will work much better in conjunction with at least another parameter. It is not enough to know that the count is high and to start plunging big bets on the felt. It just not works that way. It is a very primitive way to look at this game. Now, I relay don�t know for sure how to go after another parameter that in conjunction with card counting to be used in this game. The only thing that I�m aware is that the deck has got to come your way for you to win, especially in ace-ten rich situations. To know the deck is positive is not enough. It may be OK for a computer because if betting more on positive in the long run it will show a profit into the chips, but we as players got to have at least another reference besides the TC. I know, it is not a big science to be able to observe that the game is running in streaks and also is not a big science to bet more on positive if you won the previous hand. But at least is some kind of another parameter.

Even if the count it show you a richness in ace-ten but if you don�t get the cards at the critical moment, like on doubling down and splits and if the dealer�s is not busting at a higher rate during positive counts and also if you don�t get a little more BJs during positive counts then, you�ve got to make some adjustments in your play.

I mean, there�s no point to bet more while you are getting hammered into the ground. And also there�s no point to cut the bet down during negative counts if you keep winning hand after hand after hand Has got to be in our arsenal another parameter that together with card counting to be used in estimating our bet and play. Got to have some other tool.

Think about how ridiculous would be if you go to your doctor for a check-up and the only thing he will do is take your blood pressure and if it looks good he declare you in good medical condition. Wow!, letter on you die of a stroke because your high level of cholesterol. Now, the human body is a very complex machine but BJ also is a very complex game. Think about all the 52 possible card combinations and also the order of the cards that can and WILL give you different results regardless of the count. The only difference is that the count will have some impact over the long run but over the short run can and WILL have some devastating effect.

The doctor�s diagnostic it may be correct if over the long run you do not develop cholesterol or other malignity. You will survive and have a good life if your blood pressure is where suppose to be. �,But, hey! .. we have to know more to be able to call BJ-card counting a �science�! � We cannot keep pounding the only single 40 years old tool called �card counting� and build a science around it, because it is not a �science�
Has got to be more then one parameter involved and has to be much more complex then that.

I have no idea exactly what, �.., but I suspect!

Puiu

where this game exists, couldn't find it listed in CBJN.
Take a break and meet a friend that lure me into another great game on the strip where you have 2 decks S17 and Later surrender.
Thanks in advance for the help.

If you don't believe the way I play and think�, that's OK and fine with me. You don't have to!

Do whatever you do. Count and bet by the count. I don�t care! But, I strongly believe that the bet control shouldn�t be related only to the count.

Puiu

this post was already posted in a comment by Barny Vinson (hmm maybe not him too), about applying a craps betting system to blackjack, on starchip.com I searched "follow the trend," and added to the search "blackjack." That post was an endorsement of the betting system originaly.

I then went back to starchip.com directly and was only able to find the links to the craps betting system sections. Perhaps someone already had googled Puiu before I did?

on what page down, in the google responses, will a website that had Puiu's alleged original post showup?

Sometimes he waits until a website has taken down a post before he posts his copy of it here.

"Life (the computer game) ... the Super Bowl 1984 Macintosh ad ... vultured time ... Barny Vinson ... starchip.com"

And all you wanted to know was how to search the web!

After looking again at table 94 from PBJ (1994 edition)and learning
from this table that "Trying to bet more when you are winning or
less when you are losing is an exercise in futility" (SW), it seems
to me, that one of the danger that neophytes and beginners like me
do we have here, is to be bamboozled among 'experts' like you.
Who shall we believe, Puiu?
Z