name |
message |
date |
| McFlaherty |
I'm in the midst of mastering the hi-low counting system, along with an ace side-count. I'm almost ready to add the ace side-count when I'm in the casino, but I still don't have the tables for when to deviate from bs. Is there any general rules I can learn before I get a hold of and memorize the tables. |
2003-07-17 21:01:34 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
wow... STILL no reply.. what's pretty shocking... I thought by now someone would have answered me!!! |
2003-07-17 20:33:01 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
hombre, i for one totally agree with your sound reasoning as it seems very right to me!! How are you getting 12.5%? That is the % of time that we'll be getting good runs using either Dahl or 007 with just AVERAGE cards? only thing about that is that 12.5% is very little ... anyway to bump that UP to a more favorable advantage to us? i know we cant help the cards being dealt... but anyway to up that a little bit?
Also, I might go tomorrow... how much is good to bring if I plan to play at the $25 min. tables using Dahl's Progression (or 007)???
SLD: sorry man... email me with your SN as I have to add you to my buddy list in order to speak to you... (my settings are set like that to avoid SPAMmers)... |
2003-07-17 18:50:26 |
| el hombre confusado |
when i spreadsheet out 007 v dahl's, it appears that dahl's is the stronger of the two. assume a $10 unit and eliminate splits, doubles and winning blackjacks from both progressions for a moment. in 007 you have to win three bets in a row to secure a profit. if you only win two bets in a row, you breakeven (+10 +10 -20 = +0). in dahl's you only have to win two in a row to secure a series profit (+10 +10 -15 = +5). but in either case you have to get to three wins in a row to get into the heart of the progression (a place in the progression where you can really begin to achieve some "significant" gains -- again keeping doubling and splitting out of the comparison as they will boost the results in all scenarios -- mas o menos -- equally). this means you'll find the sweet spot in dahl's or 007 roughly (.5 * .5 *.5 = .125) 12.5% of the time. so 12.5 % of the series you play put you on track to bring in some big gains. in the other 87.5% of the series, you're not going to get hurt too bad (or not at all in breakeven cases) -- you're limiting your losses and biding your time for the 12.5% of the time when you can get a run going. (you may win more than 12.5% of the series but that would then be due to better than average cards -- again which would benefit all systems presumably equally). using zebra, and the same assumption set, you only have to win one hand to get into a series that can deliver big gains -- which means (using the same assumption set) that (.5) 50% of the time you can get into the sweet spot of the progression after one bet. will one of you statistical guys -- mr ed? tell me if my thinking passes logic 101? |
2003-07-17 17:31:54 |
| sld007 |
bug - I just tried to im you and it said that you were unavailable, Whatsup with that? |
2003-07-17 16:33:25 |
| Grifter |
Bug - I agree with SLD ......I think someone is "jackin' us around'" using your handle. |
2003-07-17 16:25:31 |
| sld007 |
bug - I'm in my car now checking my pda for emails. Will have to im you when i get home tonight. |
2003-07-17 16:11:33 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
sld, I sent you it... *waiting for your IM* :)
Well, yeah I think I'll cut it off at 3x then. When you won 2K, were you also pretty lucky with your cards going along with your FLAWLESS BS playing? That's quite nice. I have never been more then $1000up. Next time I'm up that much I need to FUCKING STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Heh... |
2003-07-17 16:08:35 |
| alex |
[Removed b/c it was SPAM. Go away spammers.] |
2003-07-17 16:07:31 |
| sld007 |
bug - are we seeing double or is it Miller time already? |
2003-07-17 16:07:21 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
sld, SERIOUS of course... and I was wondering what's the bad part of Dahl's progression?
Grift, WTF are you talking about? |
2003-07-17 16:05:40 |
| slld007 |
sld007 jr. - that was not me...but I guess that I deserved that! |
2003-07-17 16:05:04 |
| slld007 |
bug - Well...the "bad" part is the last big bet that you lose. Many critics don't like Dahl because if you ever GET that high up (which is hard enough to say the least) you end up taking that big hit at the end. Now, arguably, you have already won a whole bunch of cash at that point but why should you have to lose so much when you can cut off the progression at say 3x or 4x. Since, as you say, you pretty much never win more than 6 hands in a row any way, it seems like a good idea to cut your "wins" (and therefore your losses) at 3x or 4x. |
2003-07-17 16:04:07 |
| sld007 jr. |
with big boobies? |
2003-07-17 16:01:00 |
| sld007 |
bug - send your im name to sld007@airmail.net and we can converse further on this matter. |
2003-07-17 16:00:01 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
sld, SERIOUS of course... and I was wondering what's the bad part of Dahl's progression?
Grift, WTF are you talking about? |
2003-07-17 15:59:15 |
| sld007 |
bug - are you really a chick? |
2003-07-17 15:58:22 |
 |
|
|
