Just another bogus system
> Triangle Blackjack is different because it doesn't hard count small
> and large cards to gain an advantage. Triangle Blackjack also
> doesn't rely on a running count of small vs. large cards to gain an
> advantage. Instead, Triangle Blackjack relies on a combination of
> events in the current round or combination of two consecutive
> rounds virtually ignoring what occurred previously.
That sounds great! I'll ignore all the information I know about the shoe and just focus on the current hand. Maybe I'll start doing that with my bank accounts as well. I'll ignore all the checks I previously wrote and only deduct the check I am writing now. I'll be making money in no time!
> First, it almost completely eliminates raising your bet when the
> running count and/or true count is high but the remaining cards
> are non-random.
That is absurd. You are ignoring all the cards that you have already seen so you really don't have any idea what the rest of the cards are going to be. If I have seen 200 cards come out of a 312 card shoe then I have a very good idea of what the remaining cards are. The results will therefore be less random. If I ignore 190 of those cards and only look at the 10 cards currently on the table then the results are going to be MUCH more random than if I had complete knowledge of the remaining cards. The more information you have the less random the results will be. This system makes every hand you play seem like the first hand of the shoe and therefore more random than any legitimate system.
> Importantly, the required events still accomplish the fact that
> the next round should favor the players.
I'm afraid not. The events from one hand will very rarely overcome the multiple events that occurred in the previous hands, especially after one deck has been dealt out. By ignoring all the cards you have already seen you will be raising your bet after only one good hand. If the results of the previous hands were very negative, which is usually the case, you will be raising your bets when you are still at a disadvantage. Here's how the formula looks:
Bigger Bets x House Edge = Bigger Loss
Pretty intuitive, right?
> Secondly, and most importantly, the required events that must occur
> before ramping your bet almost always indicate the strong
> possibility of natural 3-2 blackjacks or double down opportunities
> occurring.
I don't even know where to start with this one!
First of all, this system does not "almost always" indicate a strong advantage. As I have explained, it actually interprets several unprofitable situations as being profitable.
Secondly, how can it indicate a strong possibility of blackjacks AND double downs? If it indicates a rich section of tens and aces then you will not be doubling down as often. Would you double down on a hard 20 or 21? What about a pair of aces? Hopefully not. You would only double down with two small cards such as 6,5 or A,6 (Remember, aces are considered high cards for betting but small cards for playing). You will actually have fewer opportunities for double downs in this circumstance.
> Considering all players at the table, the expectation is better
> than 50% that at least one player will be dealt a natural
> blackjack.
That is simply not true. Besides, I don't care about the other players, I want MY blackjack! This guy keeps using misleading statistics and vague terms like "almost always" when describing how his system performs. That is a sure sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
This is just another one of those Leon Dubey style "situational" betting strategies that have been proven to be worthless time and time again. This system is "almost always" a waste of time.
-Sonny-