Blackjack Singer the gunslinger

I don't care who cares. Least of all Just Boring stupid.

 

Don S writes to KJ: You have a different understanding of my comments than you ought to. You read a single article, which you now take as the Holy Grail, and have decided that, because someone wrote something that you have interpreted as you see fit, it applies to every human being on the face of the earth, and that's just plain ignorant.

Tater asks JBS. So what does your buddy know about math?

 

Don S continues: You're incredibly naive to think that someone motivated to learn or apply a level-two, level-three, or even level-four count couldn't do so as skillfully or more so than someone using level one. The thought of such a claim is patently absurd. It's like saying that the most skillful Olympic diver couldn't possibly do a triple somersault with a double twist more skillfully than you could a swan dive. What would possess you to make such a ridiculous statement?

Could you honestly be so gullible as to think that you could see a jack and a four and cancel them to zero any more "skillfully" than I or ten thousand other players could call the same pair zero using level two?

Finally, if you were to win such a contest because you were half my age and had better vision, how would that in any way advance your argument? To win that contest, you would have to go up against someone whose only difference from you would be to use a level-two count, rather than a level-one one, but with all the other variables removed, to make it a true apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, how would you know that you "won" because "the human brain can't count level two as well as level one," as opposed to you won because you're up against a 72-year-old who wears glasses?

Tater says: I can do it.

 

Rob. We went to see Bob Seger tribute last night at Atlantis. Highly recommend if you comes across them in your travels.

 

We got an invite to that concert. Love seeing them. We saw them at MGM LV around the late '90's. Just an excellent show.

 

Rob made 2 very interesting posts #123 and #124 at VCT in the Legal Opinion from Mr. V thread.

Math is about thresholds and the long term. Winning is about identifying advantages and is done short term. Of course one wants math on their side. But a much deeper math finds the advantages.

This is true in sportsbets, blackjack, real estate, stock market, even employment, and relationships. It's all gamble. But the harder one works and deeper they dig the better results.

I always consider it a part time job.

 

Finding value. Identify and pull the trigger.

 

Moses, short-term vs long-term. The best and easiest example continues to be roulette.

Can a player walk into a casino, bet black for 3 spins and win 2 of those spins for a short-term profit? Of course.

Could that player duplicate that every single day for a year. Of course NOT.

I don't know if you have read Rob Singer back beyond the KJ attacks that you admire, but Rob has always claimed a player can win short term (like the 3 roulette spins example) and then duplicate that over and over and over. Like the second part of the roulette example, it doesn't work that way.

 

In your example kew, this is where you fail to recognize the value of--and even the existence of--human factors as related to gambling.

Since you kept it simple with the roulette example: you assume the player will bet red for instance, and that red will not continually come up two out of 3 spins on a player's every stop at the table.

However, human factors allows us to CHOOSE black when we want to also. And who's to say continuing to alter our choice at random intervals will not allow us to win more than we will lose?

Think about it.

 

OMG! Are you really arguing this decades ago disproven nonsense?

 

Now Singer has let the cat out of the bag. We'll only be able to bet red going forward. What the hell -- they're my initials, anyway.

 

Weird. Just plain weird.

You two are the anti-christs of math and science. Exactly where did I say "red" needs to be bet every single time.

 

In 2002 I put a deposit down on house in construction. I think the price was around $350k.

I wanted to build on an upstairs patio so I went into the golf course home to see what that addition would take. The realtor was very nice as the were only two home left for sale. The model was $600k. My kids went nuts. DAAAAD YOU GOT TO BUY THIS HOME.

To make long story short this buyer was holding up the builder trying to stretch him out and nickel and dime him. The agent was very frustrated the way the phone conversation was going.

I joked "if you gave me the same price you gave them I will write a check right now." The had just gone out of contract for the 3rd time. Builder sold it to me for $400k. It went up to $1mil in two years.

Point is, had I not looked at probably 150 homes in that area I wouldn't have recognized the value. The math suggested the first deal was a good deal. Hard-work and paying attention to detail made the 2nd deal a great deal.

Samething in blackjack and sportsbets.

 

And there is also value in alternate holds in certain hands of video poker that ever-so-slightly go against the math, but because the OPPORTUNITY is there for a better end result, the prepared mind is able to make a choice.

In comparison, a coin flip has no human factors involved because there are no choices to be made

 

Playing cards don't have emotions either you fool. Your "choices" are piss-poor.

 

Riveting revelation. Knowing what's been played and still remains is essential in a game of people played with cards. The choice often depends on the dealer tendency.

 

Rob. I would love to have a discussion with Monet from VCT about hockey. Do you happen to know if he is on other sites like GF or WOV under a different hanlde?

 

No I don't. I almost never read WoV, but if you'd like I could leave him a message on VCT to get in contact with you.

 

That would be great. Thanks Rob.