Why was post deleted?

The post below was deleted, but I can't find any for the deletion. I was merely trying to start a discussion and allow ML to explain why $5000 SCORE blackjack games are theoretically, as well as practically impossible. Please explain the deletion.

---

There is no possible way for a game of blackjack to have a $5000 SCORE? Holecarding and nextcarding aside - you would claim there is no possible method, and no possible promotion that would yield a $5000 SCORE? Is this correct?

---

(1) Trying to post as EI3urro and misslead people into thinking you are El Burro?

(2) Trying to stir-up needless controversy where ML has already appologized for being wrong (and needs to try this again;-)?

(3) Having an IP address that indicates that you are actually someone else who is fond of disruption?

(4) Trying to setup a strawman in your post instead of asking a genuine question?

(5) Already setting up grounds to dispute the answer no matter what answer was made (see your last paragraph)? (What is setting holecarding and nextcarding asside when all counting includes an element of predicting the same?)

All of these are only the most likely possibilities that come to my mind.

First, we have to leave stupid promotions aside. There could be a really stupid promotion, handing out ace first card coupons and allowing unlimited use. That would probably be better than $5000.

I have been wrong many time before as I was wrong in my estimation of how often a talented hole carder can find such a game. An invariant five per cent Ev game which is about the best a 100% hole carder can do if he uses reasonable amounts of play cover to hide hole carding, not hitting seventeens against a twenty and things like that, has a SCORE of $2500. Knowing the count from traditional counting or shuffle tracking would add little because it would only apply to stiffs against stiffs. Maybe an ace or two could be steered in a shuffle so a little more could be added. I can conceive of no mathematical way a 100% hole carder could ever add enough to get to $5000. A dealer gets a lot of nineteens, twenties, and twenty-ones.

ML: "An invariant five per cent Ev game which is about the best a 100% hole carder can do if he uses reasonable amounts of play cover to hide hole carding, not hitting seventeens against a twenty and things like that, has a SCORE of $2500."

Such an edge would produce such a SCORE.

ML: "Knowing the count from traditional counting or shuffle tracking would add little because it would only apply to stiffs against stiffs."

Agreed - not enough to double the SCORE.

ML: "I can conceive of no mathematical way a 100% hole carder could ever add enough to get to $5000."

I can conceive of a mathematical way to increase the SCORE: increase the player's edge. For a $5000 SCORE a player would need an edge of about 7%. Unless Grossjean's numbers are wrong, a 100% hole carder has an edge greater than this, even with very heavy cover (much more than I would ever use) - see BC p.115.

And after all, there are more powerful methods than holecarding out there too.

I think I've heard enough of you and the great Grosjean about this 5 thousand score crap.
Are you guys really and truly a pro trying to impress me about this strange infrequent trip your on?

Yeah, Big Howard and El burro,our true heros showing the most important thing of all..........................wisdom.

Heck anything is possible...but only if.

This is the way I analysed the math. Double exposure comes close to the with better rules except, of course the push rule that costs 9% so the upper limit is about 8.5% seeing every hole card. Now perhaps a hole carder might hit all seventeens, eighteens, and nineteens when he knows the dealer is higher but that certainly tips something. Also the player loses when he busts hitting stiffs against a known pat hand and that happens often. Also, the dealer outdraws your pat hand from a stiff pretty often. Roughly lumping, I come up with the expectation being about 5%. If Grosjean says seven, I would not disagree with that as he has done the actual work and that would translate to about $5000.

But another portion of the definition of SCORE arises, 100 hands played back to back for an invariable win rate per hour. You need two dealers spelling each other, both of whom are readable. If this happened, SCORE would be drastically diminished because it is a function of the square of Ev.

Last time I remember, BC claimed 13% using perfect hole card
strategy. However, as you said, hitting 17s-20s and doubling
down 5s against 10s is a tad bit living on the Austin Powers side.
He still claims 7-9% even if you use heavy cover.

There is no use going on Green Chip anymore ML. I learn more on Red
Chip than on Green Chip.

Like why are you laying such a bad trip on El Burro? It's not cool man and it's more like something the casino cubes would do. The postbusters here are cool cats and they'll only bust one if there's a reason. Laying the explanation trip on them is a real downer though. If they busted it, they had a good reason. Peace

...will the SCORE have to drop. You simply must segregate time spent with regular dealer from time spent with others. Regular dealer is on 40 min. The relief comes in for 20. You play the first pack of relief until you determine if it is going negative. If it is positive, you play it with regular counting techniques. At TC -1 you leave table for a 12-15 minute bathroom/smoke/whatever break. You return 17-19 minutes into relief delear's time to be present when the readable dealer returns.

I believe this scenario is plausible and workable.

oh no!! the great net detective has discovered what was obvious about five years ago

better to play 75 hands per hour with few negative rounds (or crappy pen) than play 100 hands hour play-all.

But SCORE is decreased by 25%. SCORE includes correction factors for hands actually played per hour and presumes you can play all the hands dealt or observed in Wonging situations. A $1000 SCORE game has turned into a $750 SCORE game if you cannot read everyone who deals in that hour.

however if playing 75h/hr with EV of 1.5x or playing 100h/hr with EV of 1.0x you would actually have a higher overall score (depending on variance) in the game with fewer hands wouldn't you?

You make more money :-). But a limitation on hands played affects SCORE which was the only point I was making.

which you arguably could when taking such breaks. You are just betting zero.

There within' of hands observed lies the problem of assuming all hands played are negative when visiting the restroom.

If you leave the shoe at a slightly negative ev you may miss out on several advantage bets that should have been placed according to the "Score",thus cutting into EV. Matters get more misleading against double deck.

It is best to consider hands observed when leaving the table at higher negative counts. This will dramatically increase your confidence level of assuming "hands observed" in respect to SCORE. Using a strategy as such- ML's comment about SCORE would be false. Play-all does not increase ev it lowers it.