2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[Mr. IWS]

BOLZORZ!


http://saltlakecity.craigslist.org/lss/2570272589.html

[MMA_scientist]

^ win 10u 88% of the time. Lose 100u 12% of the time.

The sad thing is that people will probably contact the guy. There are so many delusional morons out there. One of my buddy's favorite hobbies is to sit 3rd base at a crowded BJ table and play horribly and watch every one get pissed. It is good times. It is amazing how little the dealers know about the game too, they buy the voodoo more than your average player.

[MMA_scientist]

That side kick into the fence was so awesome.

[SPX]

^ win 10u 88% of the time. Lose 100u 12% of the time.

The sad thing is that people will probably contact the guy. There are so many delusional morons out there. One of my buddy's favorite hobbies is to sit 3rd base at a crowded BJ table and play horribly and watch every one get pissed. It is good times. It is amazing how little the dealers know about the game too, they buy the voodoo more than your average player.

LOL@PeopleGettingPissedAt3rdBasePlayer

I do know that that's a phenomenon, though. It's not one I have ever understood.

But I have to admit that I am always interested whenever I run across a betting system. I've got some serious books on pro blackjack (Blackbelt in Blackjack and Blackjack Bluebook II, for instance) but I think I have even more that are focused on betting systems. There's still some part of me that feels like maybe someday someone can come up with something that really does work.

I remember I even had to skip work for a few days a few years ago because I was obsessed with this system in this book called The Most Powerful Blackjack Manual. I stayed up all night for several days manually dealing out like 10,000 blackjack hands, recording the results, and comparing the results of the system to flat betting. This was all based around the author's claims that after 10,000 hands his system should consistently show about an average 2 unit gain for every 80 to 100 hands. Unfortunately, it did not.

I actually e-mailed the author and asked him about this and his response was basically, "You didn't do it right."

[SPX]

That side kick into the fence was so awesome.

I agree. I lost like 5u on that fight, and yet, when I just saw that gif I still felt compelled to almost spit out the pizza in my mouth due to an urge to laugh.

[Mr. IWS]

I was waiting for an body outline of him running through the cage like in the cartoons back in the day.

[SPX]

Cane getting knocked out like that is on the level of fail of Tavares getting knocked out by Roller.

[Svino]

That side kick into the fence was so awesome.

I also like how Yamasaki neatly plants his foot behind Nedkov's before shouldering him backwards.

[SPX]

Svino, I figured it was just a matter of time before you showed up, but I thought it would be because of the gambling discussion, not Cane getting humiliated in front of his Brazilian countrymen.

[Svino]

Svino, I figured it was just a matter of time before you showed up, but I thought it would be because of the gambling discussion, not Cane getting humiliated in front of his Brazilian countrymen.

Well then just let me add that this:

I stayed up all night for several days manually dealing out like 10,000 blackjack hands, recording the results, and comparing the results of the system to flat betting.

Is totally the reason we went and invented computers.

[SPX]

Ha.

Well I don't have any software that will generate hands of blackjack. Also, there is some discussion about the differences that may exist between hand shuffled decks and computer shuffled "decks" because hand-shuffled decks are usually not shuffled well enough to be truly random. A lot of people think this is a myth or that the effect is so slight that it really has no bearing on the game.

In any case, here's one guy's take:

http://www.borisbj21.com/Page8/page8a.html

[Svino]

Ha.

Well I don't have any software that will generate hands of blackjack.

Well, you could write your own. And I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't find that someone else has done most of the work already.

Also, there is some discussion about the differences that may exist between hand shuffled decks and computer shuffled "decks" because hand-shuffled decks are usually not shuffled well enough to be truly random.

It wouldn't shock me if that were true, but I'm skeptical, especially considering he says some stuff that doesn't make sense, his statistics can't be verified, and he's trying to sell a product.

[MMA_scientist]

The fact is that betting progressions DO work. The reason they ultimately fail is because of table limits. If you took away table limits, most of them would work.

[SPX]

Well, you could write your own. And I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't find that someone else has done most of the work already.

Well I could write my own in the same way that I could run a marathon or fuck Jessica Alba. It's a theoretical possibility but something serious would have to change in order for it to become an actual reality.

I know there are such programs out there. They have been using computers to prove the effectiveness of card counting for years. But I don't have access to one.

It wouldn't shock me if that were true, but I'm skeptical, especially considering he says some stuff that doesn't make sense, his statistics can't be verified, and he's trying to sell a product.

I really have no idea if it's true or not, but I've read enough stuff from the pro-card-clumping crowd to at least be open to the possibility, especially if you have a really sloppy dealer.

I think the only way to ever know for sure though is for someone to use a dealer-style shuffle and deal out a million hands manually and then compare that to a million computer hands.

[SPX]

The fact is that betting progressions DO work. The reason they ultimately fail is because of table limits. If you took away table limits, most of them would work.

Yeah, provided you have a big enough bankroll. I mean, no one REALLY loses 20 hands straight.

Not all progressions are negative progressions, though. Some are positive progressions where you increase your bet on a win instead of a loss.