Question on climbing walls and Blackjack

[Tapped Out Again]

Lol lvcruiser, apparently you're pretty riled up.

 

I'm try not to be long winded, but you referring to me as an 'amateur' certainly raised my eyebrow, so I had to read your posts more seriously. Just a couple things:

 

The 'small card swing' was a typo obviously, I meant erasing your small card swing or hitting a face card swing. Don't go pick on my mispellings next.

 

You were off by .2% in your estimation of the basic strategy advantage. You say you don't care about the exact numbers, but I don't see a 'professional' brushing this huge a number off as irrelevant in terms of game selection. That's 20% of your profit and you don't care to calculate it? I'm confused. I mean, when I mumbled .65 off the top of my head and it turned out to be .61(plus RSA) I was embarassed that I was off by .04.

 

As to using other players for cover, every little bit helps. Cover is always the number one concern but perhaps you are an acting god who never gets heat playing alone so I nod my head to you.

 

As to single level vs. 2-level counts, I've recently starting to favor the former because of the literature and some recent simulations I've run myself which shows negligible/non existent gains, vs. the 'human error/fatigue' other side of the equation. But count systems are like religion so this is no place to argue it.

 

Regardless of the count system your 'example' of a swing doesn't apply. As even in the worst case scenario of 1 deck remaining a positive or negative count would only drift toward 0 by 20-25%, on the average. You apparently didn't understand this point and used a positive to negative example which doesn't make sense. A + count will still be +, and a -, still -. Your betting decision stays valid, and your playing decision isn't affected since you included the new cards. The real reason playing short-handed is so much better is the hands per hour, and not this.

 

Also, blaming bad players hitting or staying wrongly for ruining your playing conditions is a myth that only clueless players believe in, it's debunked first thing in any blackjack literature. I didn't mention it in my previous post because I couldn't believe you, apparently a real counter, meant it. Now that I see you do, plus the fact that you blamed a $1600 to $200 swing night on these same bad players says to me you don't have a grasp of statistics either.

 

So you apparently thought I was an 'amateur' because of a typo and because you look down on 1-level counts. But now that I see you have so many fundamental fallacies, I have no choice but to lump you with the typical math deficient gamblers who think short term hot streaks equals genius.

 

Sorry buddy. I apologize to the rest of the forum members for getting this thread so off track, but thank you all for all the info. This'll be my last post on this thread.

 

Btw, Tapped Out Again referred to my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu training, but think whatever freudian thoughts you like.

[marciemi]

As a total non-blackjack player, I don't think the thread is off track (other than the rock climbing question which is why I clicked on the thread in the first place), but fascinating. My son & I were watching a blackjack tournament on TV yesterday and trying to figure out some of the rules and terminology. Just listening to that and reading these posts makes me realize that blackjack is more confusing than trying to (re)learn algebra with him this year was! Guess that's why I stick with the quarter slots until my $20 runs out! Good luck to all of you!