this was the day i finally realized spaceporn was so stupid and stubborn that he would never concede an argument even when faced with incontrovertible mathematical evidence that someone playing blackjack "wrong" does not affect other people at the table. on this fateful day spaceporn got gakked out and spent the entire day arguing with multiple poasters in multiple subthread wastelands that a person playing blackjack sub-optimally would fuck up a card counters strategy. behold the majesty, the stupidity, and the stubbornness, of our favorite 20th year shitlaw associate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284687)

If you are using 5 decks to play blackjack, and someone next to you is card counting, and you *irrationally* make a play that doesn’t make sense, you are using cards that the counter would have reason to count out and expect elsewhere, at least until the decks were exhausted and reshuffled.

Earls point was that I am correct only insofar as a player plays a small number of hands before retiring. He argued that it all comes out in the wash on longer games. but my point remains.

It is literally reality testing that I’m telling you. I don’t know what else I can say.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284780)

But what is clear is that recalibration would be required under either scenario.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284803)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284863)

you're just not smart enough to understand why.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46285100)

Also demonstrates a total misunderstanding of card counting; it’s not like you’re actively predicting what the next card is, it’s knowing where you are in the deck and adjusting strategy and betting accordingly based on the OVERALL situation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284763)

several people explained this to him. this example is my favorite as the poaster clearly explains how card counting works in a simple and easy to understand way, and even maintains his composure and doesn't make fun of sp, yet sp *STILL* can't get it and just continues to dig his heels in and repeat the same nonsense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284769)

If what you want to say is that no one is a machine like that to the degree that my irrational play makes a difference to them, that’s fine. But my math is correct. It’s pretty straightforward you just don’t like me so will never acknowledge that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284798)

Remember the card counter isn’t going to know how long or how short you will be in the game at the time you make your irrational play that disrupts his count and his expectations/predictions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284815)

What an absolute fucking moron

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284875)

Folks, they're not sending their best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284879)

But nobody who is seriously and successfully playing blackjack would think that way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284896)

For avoidance of doubt, my claim is that, while it may be psychologically understandable to be annoyed with the guy before you for 'wasting' a card that would have helped you on your turn, it's no more rational than being annoyed with the guy before you for hitting a good card when it made sense for him to hit.

(It may be more psychologically understandable because a guy who shows 11 and hits into a face card and a guy who shows 19 and hits into a face card have both 'robbed' you of your face card, but it's understandable why one of them would and not why the other would).

I'd further argue that the card counting thing is a non sequiter since card counting is about a generalized sense of when conditions are more favorable to the player than otherwise, but not about a given hand. The thing to remember is that while card counters can be quite successful, it's still a strategy with a lot of abstraction and room for error. It's not like card counters don't lose hands of blackjack when they're not trying to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284957)

but as the thread clearly says and as is oft repeated to him, the whole point is whether the frustration is rational or not. and it wouldn't be.

also, as was often explained to him, the bad player is just as likely to have taken a bad card. the bad player is just as likely to hurt you or help you.

since the maths are beyond spaceporn's understanding i tried to poast examples of card counters saying that that other people's play has no effect on the card counter's play. if spaceporn can't understand the math on why this is the case, surely experts unanimously agreeing about it would convince him, right? but no, of course not. the entire world, including the experts he's talking about, are wrong, and he's right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284935)

If i wrote more clearly I wouldn’t have the same poasting volume.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284914)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&mc=124&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284888)

Incredible find. Wow hahahahahahahahhahaha

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46284927)

under this theory, the counter is inconvenienced by previous players simply for seeing additional cards, although not for incorrect play - the counter should be just as pissed at someone with a <11 hand hitting correctly against a dealer 7-10 as someone with a 16 hitting against a dealer 6. in fact, the mere presence of any other player in this scenario is a negative to the counter, who would prefer to come in to a hot deck and play multiple hands across the entire felt.

this specific subset analysis ignores that the other players may yet drive the deck more positive and that positive and negative decks should occur with equal frequency, driven by the other players.

also, high-deck games and the cut card mean any change driven by other players hitting is so marginal as to be noise. these are all distinctions spaceporn did not seem to catch.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46285011)

but there is no reason for someone to be rationally frustrated at someone "wasting" cards in a hot deck. after all, a card counter could choose to play every hand on the table if he wanted to avoid playing with other people. but this is exactly the opposite of what card counters do. they want to play with other people, because the more people are playing the faster the deck is used, and the quicker for a counter to reach a point where it's hot without having to bet on neutral or cold decks. this is why wonging (only joining a game when the deck is hot) is so popular and would be employed by every card counter if it didn't make it so obvious that a player was counting. if a card counter could, they would sit back and just observe games and only sit down to play when the deck was hot. thus, any marginal rational frustration that would come from an irrational player "wasting" cards in a hot deck is more than mitigated by the fact that additional players, regardless of how they are playing, benefit the card counter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#46285133)

i wonder when he get the 4th cir opinion he called his client to say they won?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#47490445)

btw, any movement on whether playing blackjack suboptimally is bad for card counters at the table?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265626)

does a person at a blackjack table who hits/stands when he shouldn't impact a cardcounter?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265646)

More to the point you need help. Seriously. You are gonna die alone without a companion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265655)

Your mental health issues are out of control. Can you even work with all that pathology buzzing around

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265673)

can you specifically explain what you're saying then? what is the "adjustment?" and i assume the "swerve" is the other player misplaying.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265683)

you said the "unexpected adjustment" was not altering your bet size. the only other decision a player makes is how to play his cards. do you think a single card taken from a deck that "shouldn't have" would change how a card counter decides to hit/stand?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48265756)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5336839&forum_id=2most#48336067)