Someone playing incorrectly is just as likely to help you as hurt you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067031)

But I don't count--I'm not that smart or observant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067129)

But in reality most proles aren't really counting anyway, so it doesn't matter. Also, you shouldn't be "counting" under casino rules anyway, per se.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067139)

You may argue that it's practically impossible to count cards like that, but I actually agree w you. That's why I said what I said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067185)

And you are a "lawyer," right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067203)

But no one is counting cards like that so as a practical thing it doesn't matter.

But yes, technically, if a person were counting cards, it might make a difference to the person that you didn't follow usual protocol because your action changes the likelihood of drawing another card in a way different from had you simply stood.

But as I said, in reality no one is doing that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067175)

It doesn't change the probabilities at all ex ante. Your random card has already been assigned in both scenarios and for both scenarios the random card is random

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067180)

Sometimes I'm either too smart or too stupid for this board, but in either event I lack the wisdom to avoid engagement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067211)

If you are counting it makes a difference because you then have to reappraise the likelihood that you will or will not get certain cards. That's all I'm saying. It's basic probability dude.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067234)

TBF, I think we are talking at cross purposes about the same thing ultimately. I'm surprised no one has realized that.

I am saying it doesn't make a difference.

The only way it would make a difference at all in any aspect of the game would be if the other player was running a complicated assessment of the relative probabilities of drawing each card. He would have to amend his calculations if you hit and took a card out of the realm of probability. that amending of probabilities could either be more or less favorable to him than it was previously. This adjustment of probabilities may or may not affect his decision to hit or stand.

BUT, as a practical matter, no one is that smart and it's silly for proles to get mad because no one is actually running that assessment in their head. And if they are, they shouldn't be!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067405)

Understand all I'm saying is that you deviating from the usual course of play modifies the probability that the player next to you will or won't get a more or less desirable card.

And if they were actually counting--which they aren't--this modification on the respective probabilities of drawing certain cards would cause them to reappraise their next move in light of your deviation and draw.

It's basic probability, folks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067198)

We seem to be missing each other.

Regardless of what card comes up on the prole's fuck up, the probability that the next player will or will not draw a certain card has been modified ASSUMING THE PLAYER IS COUNTING CARDS.

But no one is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067224)

That's where you are getting lost.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067228)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067251)

Yes, a player in front of you playing non-optimally *alters* the next card you were going to get, but the card is still random. The other player hitting/standing like a dumb prole is just as likely to help you, hurt you, or have no effect on your ultimate result.

Random is random. A skilled card counter knows when the deck composition is leaning in their favor and thus bets more, but the sequence of cards laid out from the moment they determine the deck is “hot” is still a random sequence. Other players moving the button by 1-2 cards will flip would be wins to losses and vice versa, but no more (or less) so than when they do the same on a cold deck or one that’s just been reshuffled and still has ALL of the cards in the shoe.

You are wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067551)

All I'm saying is, to use your term, if a naive player makes a wrong play that shifts the flavor of the deck from favorable to nonfavorable for the next guy, and the next guy is aware of that, that's why he would get mad at the player next to him. And he might make decisions on how to play a currently unfavorable deck and those decisions would be different than how he would have played before. And be irritated he has to change his appraisal to one less favorable to him now that the composition of the cards remaining has been changed.

Honestly, I'm not wrong. Either I'm not explaining it well enough or someone here is being aspie or there are a couple people who don't understand probability or who constitutionally can't think beyond the cliche or what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067626)

Anybody worth a damn at counting cards wouldn't fall prey to such emotional thinking

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067702)

1) when player before plays incorrectly, the card counter may have to reassess his decision based on the additional cards pulled - could be annoying.

2) while the decision to play badly does or not does not have any impact on whether it will help or hurt the card counter, after the player plays badly, additional cards will have been removed from the stack which can either make it more likely or less likely that the counters previous determination (that the deck is hot or not) is still likely to be the case, and that can be annoying?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067654)

Thought I was losing my mind w the responses here. I think they get argumentative just because they think "SP is dumb there's no way he's right"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067667)

If Player A (prole) plays irrationally, it can change the makeup of the deck such that Player B (card counter) will have to alter his strategy. But the prole's irrational play is equally likely to swing the deck from cold to hot as hot to cold (or from hot to hotter or from cold to colder).

Whether Player A plays optimally or not has no bearing on Player B's expected return, because it all comes out in the wash.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067764)

But your second paragraph "Whether Player A plays optimally or not has no bearing on Player B's expected return, because it all comes out in the wash." makes no sense in light of the first paragraph, because you are still trying to hang on to your original position. First paragraph directly contradicts second. Can you see how?

We are only talking about instances where other players get mad because you made an irrational play. They would get mad not when favorability increases, right? They would get mad when it decreases for them based on your bad play.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067800)

They are at least now conceding that the decisions of a bad actor change the favorabilty/unfavorability rating for the player who is counting cards thereafter. It took forever to get to this point at least.

Whether the counter is mad at the poor player for playing irrationally and tilting the balance unfavorable (in such a situation) or is simply mad that the balance has now tilted unfavorable isnt really material to the original discussion and frankly is a lot less interesting.

At leats now we can all agree that YES, the player who plays irrationally Changes The Assessment for a Card Counter. Which was my original point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067901)

Up until this moment, the general consensus was that 1 applied. I dont care whether 2 applies or not. my concern was that no one seemed to understand that number 1 above isnt really mathematically correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42068047)

Well, you can say the player shouldnt get mad because 1) it makes no difference to the probability assessments for a card counter, or 2) it's irrational for the counter to get mad because it's just a game jeez.

Up until this moment, the general consensus was that 1 applied. I dont care whether 2 applies or not. my concern was that no one seemed to understand that number 1 above isnt really mathematically correct.

As for card counting--no "what i originally said was that if someone gets mad because i make an irrational play I say to them so what you arent counting cards anyway" thats what prompted the initial bevy of innumerate responses which I've been responding to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42068078)

FWIW i think the car pulling in front of one comparison is apt. Why did this dumbass irrationally pull in front of me--now i have to tap my brakes.

That guy shouldnt get mad either. It's just the nature of driving that some people will pull in like fools. Right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42068122)

If a retard pulls in traffic he SHOULD know it's going to fuck your shit up and it definitely will fuck your shit up.

For it to be analogous, the retard's decision to pull into traffic would NOT affect the probability you'll have to slam on the brakes at all at the time he makes the decision. the probability of you "losing" (or having to slam on the brakes) is not affected by the retard's decision. it is fully out of the retard's hands. you would have been as likely to need to slam on the brakes if he's just stayed in his lane. i repeat, the act of him staying in his lane would have fucked you with equal probability as pulling into yours. is this making sense to you now?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42069185)

True or false--> you are a lawyer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42070253)

true or false: are you shitlawyer who can't make partner after 20 years?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42070268)

"You know what they say, guys: 'What do they call the guy who graduated dead last from UVA, struck out at OCI and is a 20th year shitlaw associate?' A LAWYER, guys! I'm still a lawyer and nobody can take that away from me!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42070308)

A counter has to continue tracking low and high cards no matter what. That’s just called maintaining the “count.”

Whether the players in front draw more cards or fewer cards than they should, the counter must keep the count for EVERY card drawn. Thus, there is obviously no impact on strategy but also no “annoyance” — every card that some other player’s play makes them track was a card they were going to have to track anyway. That is the bedrock essence of what maintaining a count is.

People are so bad at probability holy fucking crap

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067713)

Still, MOST people ITT do get it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067789)

If what you are saying is that it is irrational to get upset at the probability changing against your favor after a bad play, because the decision to do so made no difference before the fact - I agree with you. You aren't annoyed at what the person did, you are annoyed at the results of chance, just as if you did not pull a card you preferred yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067805)

the second annoyance is irrational, because you are mad at the result not the decision. And the result is based on chance. Same as the non counter idiot getting mad that his card was stolen effectively.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067861)

-His irrational play may have put you in a less favorable position, but it's equally likely to have put you in a more favorable position

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067872)

The irrational play of another player affects the favorability/disfavorability quotient for subsequent players who are engaged in counting cards. When the remaining cards are now less favorable globally because the niave player hit when he should stand, yes, the card counter is going to get irritated, and yes it affects his probabilities for his own play.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067913)

except that they could just as easily be MORE favorable. holy fucking god you're so fucking dumb.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067921)

It's clear to me you are now backtracking a little bit. I'm not expecting an apology but you can at least stop w the "spaceporn is stupid" schtick ITT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067955)

The fact that the favorability is now LESS and not MORE is equally probable so being MAD about the result is irrational because the player playing badly had no effect on you. You would be as rational to be upset about the way the cards were ordered after shuffling. Are you seriously not understanding this??

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067978)

"It does not put you in a less favorable position overall. People have explained this to you like 20 ways ITT. You are objectively, mathematically wrong."

You now say it could be less favorable or it could be more favorable. (But if its more favorable the counter isnt going to get mad)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42068009)

Happens to the best of us.

I think you initially conflated the idea that 10 heads in a row has no effect on the likelihood of flipping a head the 11th time around w the current situation. So you went w the cliche, misapplied it, and you and a few others argued it pretty hard.

But I'm not going to spend more time talking to an innumerate guy who just called me stupid a half dozen times.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42068101)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/cjmme/iama_card_counter_and_serious_casino_advantage/c0t1vpn/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJy1AJETKvE&ab_channel=BlackjackApprenticeship

does the unanimous agreement of the experts matter to you at all? or are you still convinced that you're right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&forum_id=2).#42067962)