Las Vegas GF Chat Room

By the way kew: I saw where you're still SO bothered by Alan taking you to the woodshed over your "counting two tables" baloney that you just had to bring it up as another one of your fabricated "anti-AP" faults of his.

Yet, why is it you have always steered clear away from Druff--someone whose opinion you apparently hold in very high esteem--and who's continually come out and asserted that it's not feasible, equitable, or possible for a card counter to keep the count at two tables--enough to be of any value whatsoever? And for a myriad of reasons too. Like if hands are being dealt at both tables at the same time; partial counts are useless when you can't see around and thru people and objects; and when paying attention to the hands you're actually betting and playing keeps you from seeing even visible cards "over there". And I'll add one big one that puts your claim in total BS territory: that theory means you're basically "Wonging" another table. How invisible do you have to be to be a card-counter who's constantly swiveling your head back & forth, and NOT also be noticed jumping tables?

Why don't you just admit it was an interesting theory put forth by other BJ players in order to build their brand, and one that has never been successfully executed by anyone worth their salt.

I commend Alan for understanding this and for trying to get you out to a casino in the middle of the night (you just said you enjoy the "graveyard shift", right?) to prove your point. But, as you ALWAYS do, you chickened out because you didn't want your lies video taped. And then you were forced into downgrading your claim--several times.

Please wise up.

 

Dan Druff is your authority on blackjack play? really??? For the most part I like Dan Druff. I don't agree with his "free speech" policies, nor that of this forum and it administrator because in today's world free speech equals hate speech and that leads directly to the hatred and demonization of entire groups of people which results in the slaughter of innocent people as we just saw in Colorado the other night at the Gay Club, or the gay club shooting at Pulse in Florida, or the synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh a couple years ago and Texas this year, or the slaughter of primarily Latino population in shootings in El Paso and Uvalde this year, the Uvalde shooting targeting Latino children. The hate emanating from these forums and social media in general is another issue though.

Dan Druff is a Poker Player as far as I know. I understand he does some other AP things like video poker, but have never heard him mention playing blackjack at all. If he plays blackjack, I would doubt it is at the level that would be employing such an advanced technique as tracking multiple tables. As far as this topic, I hold Dan Druff no more knowledgeable that you or Alan who both have stated you don't play blackjack. Anyone you list who doubts this technique is quite simply someone not really qualitied to know and understand.

And there even are some people that know and understand blackjack that have not heard of this tracking two tables technique. Wizard is one such player. And it surprised me at the time. Although honestly, I don't know all that much about Wizards advantage play history. I don't think there was all that much blackjack card counting play.

My own brother who has successfully counted cards for a living for 6 years now, has no interest in tracking a second table. He is smart enough to understand the concept, just doesn't want to be bothered. So it isn't even unanimous among blackjack players, BUT and this is a big BUT, among players that have stated they do it or have done it (really is less and less opportunity every day), those players are all very experienced top notch blackjack players. Now I know your hatred of me and everything about me prevents you from admitting I am a very experienced blackjack player, who has made a living at blackjack for 19 years now. I think you know it, but will never bring yourself to admit it.

This technique just is not that complicated. Once a player is to the point experience-wise that he understands the benefit of moving around from game to game, it is just a natural progression to start looking for that next opportunity before the current play ends.

MickeyCrimm, talks about some machine advantage play, that is completely beyond my grasp of understanding. Same with Mr. Grosjean. But because I don't understand it, I don't question whether it can be done. Those of you that do are speaking from ignorance.

Here is another example. Several years ago, I unintentionally blew up a play regarding the continuous shuffle machines, when I revealed that a specific casino was cheating. I had no idea that there were AP's actually playing that to an advantage. It was generally thought CSM were unbeatable. Even after the technique was shown and explained to me, my first though was no one could do that. Well guess what, three years later, there is all kinds of talk on the blackjack forums (too much talk) of just how this technique works.

So that Dan Druff wasn't familiar, or You and Alan, or anyone else that isn't an experienced card counter means absolutely nothing. Just some people talking from ignorance. Not unusual for you. And frankly, not unusual for Alan, may he rest in peace.

 

Oh, and "partial counts": I will try to keep this one shorter.

Another topic that Alan and yourself, simply don't understand so you speak from ignorance.

Standford Wong proved mathematically, beyond any doubt what-so-ever, the value of partial counts. It is the basis for a technique that became known as wonging. It isn't a theory or guess. It was proven beyond contestation.

But even before Wongs work, every count, used by every card counter, dating back to before I was born, and the games of single deck dealt to or nearly to the last card has been...wait for it....a partial count. For 40 years now and the birth of multideck 4, 6, 8 deck blackjack games, every count is a partial count because anywhere from a deck (good games), to 2+ decks (worse games) are cut out of play, and never seen, nor counted.

As simply as I can explain it (and you still won't accept it), all you need is to see enough cards to know that the remaining cards, including those that will never be played, contain more high value cards. Seeing as few as one round of cards, 10-12 cards can determine that. The more cards seen the better, but it only takes a few to determine an advantage.

But again, people like you will say whatever, based on ignorance. So have at it.

 

You're funny kew. I rip a layer of your very thin skin away, and you nervously rattle off more lies than queers have curly little hairs stuck between their teeth after eating another sicko man's asshole.

The truth with your belief about Druff is as everyone sees it as: if he says something you agree with or makes up a big lie for instance, about him being not too much of a coward to have met with me because he, eh-em, FELL ASLEEP , then you claim he's the ultimate authority and his word is pure gold. HOWEVER....when he scolds you for trashing Alan after he died, or when he doesn't do the kew-libtard thing and cancel anyone who criticized your bullshit and gives precise and clear explanations and proof of your many many lies--or in this case, he opines about how foolish your two-table claim was (as jbjb also did by the way, while he walked on eggshells in the process)--then you just cannot hide your disdain for him.

Anyway--why aren't your asking red why he hasn't put my current NFL record into his "Singer 68%" thread yet? I mean, aren't you afraid the ones who don't read it over here might miss out on yet another Singer accomplishment in the gambling world? OR ARE BOTH YOU AND HE TOO EMBARRASED, AND YOU DONT WANT TO UPSET DAN!!?

This'll be GREAT when my minimum 68% is attained after week 18! In fact, I'm expecting red will blog it as well as spread it around, you know, like he did and does when I said I did it over a 2-season period and would do it again to prove it....and he felt big by mocking me for it?

Who's your daddy kew?

 

Frankly, as far as pips and paint, I don't see what would be so extraordinary about counting two tables. I think with some decent but not overwhelming practice that I could do it. It's not acuity impossible. it's not multi-tasking impossible. It's not mathematically impossible. You don't have to be Rain Man.

All counts are partial counts. All you are doing is keeping a rough count and waiting for a clear advantage..

 

Bbbbut.....kew says his counts are "99% accurate!

 

V, you're easy to decipher. Something isn't good at the MrV home. Don't do an Alan please. Or an arci's wife. Or an arci's son. You're WAAAY too addicted to posting as an instigator to suddenly just STOP! to do some kind of a mental reset. Especially when kew is getting lambasted and tortured across every gaming forum imaginable.

 

Well THAT is Rob making shit up. He seems quite desperate.

 

Exactly Redietz. The way to think about this is to think about all the different call in teams over the years. A spotter would be watching and tracking 4, 5, 6 games and the when one went +EV, call in a player with a signal telling him the count.

So when the spotter signaled a count of +14, was it really +14? Tracking multiple tables probably not. It just doesn't matter if he missed a card or two and it was really +13 or +12 or maybe he missed a card the other direction and the real count was +15. Just doesn't matter. All these counts would be significantly +EV.

No different for the solo player tracking a second table. He is just playing both roles, spotter and player called in.

Guys like Singer who have no experience with this kind of thing, are choosing not to believe something because they don't want to believe it for whatever reason. THAT is what we are dealing with here.

 

So now we have counts that are "rough" counts, and suddenly there are "spotters" as explanations for being able to "count two tables simultaneously". Who needs accurate counts anyway? It's like Mike & Ike trying to book the same hooker at the same time.

Remember gents, kew stepped into this by claiming he was making money by counting two tables at the same time. But once common sense stepped into the conversation, the claim has very understandably been watered down more than a kew bubble bath.

By the way, according to the Spacey movie, the MIT team got CAUGHT by using spotters. But of course, in the kew world of gambling as backed up by a sympathetic redietz, casinos let that go these days just so card counters can increase their advantage. In fact, they even turn a blind eye to the counters who jump between tables!

I wish Alan were here to enjoy this....

Oh---I forgot to mention: I use a "rough analysis of the data" to get to a near 70% ATS this NFL season. Who needs accuracy??

 

LMAO!! Now Rob thinks the Hollywood version of events is factual and making his arguments based on Hollywood movies.

 

What I've been told is that almost nothing in the movie was accurate, including the ethnicity of the MIT team, which is one reason they had trouble "hiding."

 

Both you apologists make no attempt at explaining why you think the movie was wrong. That type of thing is what every wannabee does when their arguments are weak, indecisive, and illogical. That goes against simple common sense, when one of you needs to perpetuate a pristine reputation, and the other struggles thru a failed, warped life of lies and weakness.

 

Oh for God sakes. The inaccuracies and oddities if the movie "21" have been discussed ad nauseam throughout the blackjack community and forums, especially in the time just after the movie came out. There are many.

But perhaps the one big one most connected to what Rob is referring to is that in the movie the spotters would sit down at a table to play, flat betting so as to not draw attention and then signal the "big player" when the count was good (+EV). Upon the big player then joining the table, the spotter would exit, so as not to be eating additional cards during the +EV rounds.

It has been a while since I have seen the movie but if memory serves, the Lawrence Fishbone character, who was playing the real Andy Anderson, who worked for Griffin Detective Agency (and was white BTW), caught the whole group by reviewing the tapes and noticing that every time the big player sat down, betting big, the same other player (spotter) was already at the table and quickly exited. THAT was completely made up for the sake of the movie.

While it is possible to have a spotter tracking only one table while playing, every team I am familiar with from Tommy Hylands, which has been operating for 50 years, to the different versions of MIT teams (yes there were different versions spread out over decades) to many European teams like the famous Chech team, to more recently known teams like Holy Rollers all used spotters standing behind games spotting, numerous tables and then calling in the "big player" without ever sitting down. Why would you have a spotter spotting one table when he/she could be spotting up to as many as 6 with multiple times the chance of identifying a really +EV table.

Single spotter sitting at the table, calling in the "big player" was something made up just for the movie and very different from the way the spotters really operated. That was just typical Hollywood stuff.

But I do believe the movie "21" sort of exposed the whole spotter/call in player technique, but that is another story.

I don't fault you Rob for not knowing this. You are just out of your lane in any kind of discussion about these things you really don't know about. Your ignorance and comments based on your ignorance of the subject are just driven by your hate for me.

 

To expand on this just a bit, several times very early in my career, which would have been just after the movie came out, I was recruited to join two different teams. This would have been a good opportunity for a counter in my position, still early in career and still building a decent bankroll to make some coin greater than what I could make as a low limit solo player.

But I quickly realized that these teams wear recruiting what I call "throw away players" to spot for them and when the throw away players were burned out, they would well.... throw them away and move on to new spotters. the risk was all with these throw away spotters. Very little chance of any kind of career after being burned out and exposed as a throw away spotter. So I never accepted those offers.

But I do believe this throw away spotter or if you don't want to use that term, just going through many spotters was a direct response of the spotter/big player call in approach being exposed in that movie.

 

I just read a synopsis of the fictional parts of the 21 movie, and NONE of them were related to how they got caught.

This doesn't surprise me. It's not unusual for people who claim to be savants of the game or really, any game, to attempt to appear so much smarter than other authors, producers, or writers who produce a work on the subject.

Kew, you yourself have experience with this type of behavior as it relates to me, as well as several others.

In 2019 I released info on how I'd been playing the DU bug very secretive and profitably for over 5 years, I fully explained every detail of the play, including previously unknown properties of the play) as well as put out a correction on how the Wired article described the operational sequence.

But you thought you were smarter than me by claiming the most ridiculous of assertions, and all because you wanted to do or say anything so the reality was not in fact, realized. And just as with other things I've accomplished in gambling, you just lie and lie and repeat the same lies, with no proof whatsoever, over and over again. Such behavior only shows envy and hate.

This movie pushes you and others to the same limits. You people so desperately NEED to appear smart and right, yet none of you do anything but assert.

Queers tend to do that, right?

 

You read a synopsis of what by whom? I don't care what movie buff people think or say. I am telling you what is fact vs fiction from a real experienced, professional player. And despite what you say, I know that you know that is what I am.

You quote the "wired" article a lot. I know that jumps out front and center when someone googles double-up bug. There were 5 or 6 good articles that I read, newspaper accounts, even covering the investigations and trial. Anyway, I am not interested in rehashing you and the double up bug "claim".

Rob I am going to tell you this one time and one time only. I have continued to engage with you, answering your trolling with trolling of my own, and at times trying to explain things like you were a normal person, in part because I never believed you to be as nasty a person as you appear, as for some reason you want people to think. Maybe that is who you really are, maybe it isn't. I don't know. I always just figured it was for attention and at times to deflect.

At this point, I no longer really care. I can no longer engage with a person spewing this kind of hate. As I stated this morning, the hate that is now commonplace on social media and that includes internet forums, demonizing entire groups of people by everything from sexuality to religion, to skin color/nationality, is literally contributing to people being slaughtered. Maybe the individuals that actually carry out these murders are severely mentally ill. Actually, strike that, because there is no doubt about that, but they are reading and being told that it is ok to hate and go to such extremes more and more....every day in fact.

I am not making a judgement on if this is who you really are, with this kind of hate, or have other motives, but I can no longer interact with anyone spewing this kind of hate, offering justification to kill people just because they may be different than the person hating. Different race, color of skin, worship or love differently. I just can't do it any longer. If this is who you really are and not just some internet persona, I will not interact with you any more. peace to you Rob.

 

I’m on under a week , any takers?
I’d also take before the new year, any takers? Easy money people, easy money.
Any bookies out there ?
Rlmao.

 

Those wheels are spinning hard.

 

Don't pull a Sky Pilot on us V. You're to good of a pot stirrer to stop posting.