name |
message |
date |
| Doc |
I agree with the betting strategy part SLD, may be hard to do without writing a new program, just for kicks I martingale the bets to see how high I get or how quick I get busted. It may be nice to add a 'highest bet level won' catagory to the high score lists. |
2003-08-01 11:43:53 |
| Walter Thomason |
DD: Actually, Fred Renzey worked with me during the formative stages of this book and suggested this counting system because it's simpler to use than HiLo without giving up much in accuracy. Also, I wanted a very simple system that a novice could use if he wanted to replicate my work. |
2003-08-01 11:43:12 |
| Desert Dog |
Neil, if you keep it the way it is, you need a button at the bottom for "previous page" as well as "next page". |
2003-08-01 11:36:49 |
| sld007 |
Neil - I like the way it is. Don't change it. What you need to fix is the Game. There are a number of BS errors in it. Also, although I know its purpose is to be a tutorial on BS, perhaps it could be revised to include some form of betting strategy as well. Flat betting is no fun and very unrealistic from an advanced player's strategy paradigm. |
2003-08-01 11:27:51 |
| Desert Dog |
Thanks, Walter. I am enjoying your book very much. (I've ordered Fred's too.) I had naively thought there was a way I could compare betting strategy outcomes if I could just design the right kind of excel spreadsheet, but never could figure it out. Your book confirms that it couldn't possibly be that easy, and you did the hard work for all of us. One question right now -- the method you chose for the counting player -- "Black Ace", start at +8, don't increase bet until positive 20 -- why that instead of the more common high/low? |
2003-08-01 11:23:31 |
| Midnite |
Neil- Yes, it looks like a change in format is in order. Doc's idea of a monitor (post buster) is also a good idea. They have them on the other sites and any post with vulgarity and profanity are promptly busted. |
2003-08-01 11:18:29 |
| Walter Thomason |
DD: Good summation of the debate. I consider Fred Renzey to be a good friend, have played at the tables with him, and have the highest respect for his gambling expertise and writing skills. That being said, Fred and I have debated the pros and cons of progressive betting for years, including a magazine article in Midwest Gaming and Travel that summed up our positions on the issue. We respectully "agree to disagree" on many issues, but never stooped to the name-calling and profanity recently posted on this board and often posted on other sites. Personal attacks, in my opinion, destroy the credibility of the posters and are totally unnecessary. |
2003-08-01 11:12:13 |
| Desert Dog |
Good posts today from both Doc and SLD. Let's defuse this. As for Bug and his style, don't forget, guys and gals, in a forum, questions are as useful as answers. Maybe I have a higher tolerance than others because I have teenage sons. Cool down, everyone, and let's get back to the business of helping eachother all walk away from the tables as winners. Our enemy is not eachother, it's the suits in the casino accounting offices. Nor is our enemy the dumb players who don't have the sense to realize this game takes a lot of study. We're just taking our cut of their money before the casino keeps most of it. |
2003-08-01 11:10:13 |
| Doc |
SLD, I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the situation, I tried to word my initial request in terms that were infact what I felt were complimetary, 'complex and challanging' are good things to say where I come from, and thier misinterpretation puts your esteem of your friend in doubt, anyone can be 'baited' its your responses to that baiting that matter. And there are no worries, I have already made the decision to have no interaction with this person and won't refer to his situation again. My embarresment over having two well known authors contribute to the board at the same time these unfortunate exchanges took place prodded me to take some action. Thanks you also for getting back to the business of learning blackjack, I really do appreciate that. |
2003-08-01 10:49:59 |
| ZIPPER |
BUG ITOLD YOU THEY'D VOTE YOU OUT IF GIVEN THE CHOICE |
2003-08-01 10:37:54 |
| Desert Dog |
Streaks happen often, and progressive betting capitalizes on that, but it can kill you on choppy stretches where wins and losses alternate. In Walter Thomason's book far more of the shoes in the 5000 hand test had streaks of four or more either way, than had no streaks of that length. My own recent experience using the conservative Dahl progression in Vegas gave me favorable (though not as high) outcomes similar to what sld007 got using a slightly more aggressive version. Still, Fred Renzey's right that the outcome of your last hand has nothing to do with the next. Progression experts don't say that it does. They say that because streaks do occur so often, adjust your bet to max advantage and retreat if the tide is turning. It doesn't always work, but counting doesn't always work either. Sometimes the dealer wins when the shoe is rich in high cards, and sometimes the player wins when it's lean. Still everyone here probably agrees that over the long haul the only true way to get the upper hand is to count. But that sure isn't my idea of "recreational". It's hard work. If I intended to make my living this way, I'd practice counting until I could do it like Rain Man. |
2003-08-01 10:29:31 |
| zebra |
i'm with doc -- bug, you bring a lot to the table, including a ton of immature namecalling, vulgarity, rants, challenges, etc. except for the advanced basic strategy post, i can't think of much you've contributed in the way of solid "advice" (check spelling) but have mainly ranted at others on the board or asked for "sure-fire" answers from the heavyweights on the board. i'm writing you off as well. |
2003-08-01 10:26:40 |
| sld007 |
Doc - Leave the bug alone. He's forgotten more about BJ then you will ever know. Yes, he's a bit profanity-laced at times, but hey buddy this ain't the Baltics, free speech, remember. And oh by the way, zipper, GREAT post to zebra, dude! That gandhi comment was priceless! Look, we all get bent out of shape every know and then and I agree that the purpose of this site is to encourage the free discussion of ideas about Blackjack....BUT sometimes to make an omellette you gotta break some eggs and let off some steam. Like I have been playing BJ forever, and although I greatly respect Fred Renzey, I feel that he unfairly attacks progressive betting as an alternative to card counting. He, like Wong, Thorp et al, cast dispersions upon us progressive bettors like we are some sort of snake oil salesman in the proverbial wild west, pedalling our wares to the rubes of the plains. Au contraire, Fred, I have used some form of progressive betting scheme (most recently my 007 progression - x,x,2x,2x,3x,3x,4x,4x, and back to x) for about 10 years now and I can safely say that I walk out of a casino with more money than I came in with about 63% of the time (with no headaches from card counting). Can a counter say that? I don't think so. However, I don't look down on counters, so why do counters look down on us? Maybe because they couldn't sell their books if everyone turned to progressive betting!!! |
2003-08-01 10:01:14 |
| Doc |
Because I thought you were you were bigger than this childish behavior, apparently not, you have lost one more person on this board willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, SLD, he's all yours, enjoy him.
|
2003-08-01 09:36:17 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
Doc... why are you only pointing the finger at *ME*? Sheesh, I'm not the one who even started that rant if you recall, it was Mondello who said I "bug" him, apparently with my solid advise and tips on this forum that he obviously understands nothing about. If you notice, I *DID* drop it by not responding to his last idiotic comment for awhile, so next time it'd be nice if you took that into effect before telling me to "drop" it. Bent over backwards? Gimme a FUCKING break. That's why they call it a "forum" because people ask and answer questions. Now to *YOU* they might have been complex, but to everyone else who actually understands what I'm asking it certainly isn't complex so GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, MATE. |
2003-08-01 08:58:29 |
| Renzey |
You can get Blackjack Bluebook II from Amazon.com. It's the #1 selling B/J book of 192 B/J titles offered there. $16. To Mike; Yes, any form of sizing your bets according to how many high cards are left will outperform any betting progression. And any short term is just a small random piece of the long term. Finally, I really don't care who's at 3rd base or how he/she plays. All a crazy player does is just shuffle the cards a little bit more before the dealer gets his draw card. You must understand that there is absolutely nothing "ordained" about the next card in the shoe. |
2003-08-01 08:58:22 |
| Grifter |
nada, T. |
2003-08-01 06:58:08 |
 |
|
|
|
