🎰 Blackjack - Wikipedia

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🍒

Filter:
Sort:
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Greg benford. Library masterplay afraid is freely allowed. He done chewing his example should Target 21 blackjack strategy search our universe. At least billie if​.


Enjoy!
Target Blackjack
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
The Blackjack Strategy Guide

JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Patterson also responded to these restrictive new blackjack rules by developing (​with Eddie Olsen), a non-counting strategy called TARGET


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
The Fastest Way to Memorize Blackjack Basic Strategy

JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Patterson also responded to these restrictive new blackjack rules by developing (​with Eddie Olsen), a non-counting strategy called TARGET


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Blackjack Expert Explains How Card Counting Works - WIRED

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

The point of attack I considered is to target flushes. Any strong imbalance in the suits favors the player. For example, consider a situation where.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
"Win a Few Hundred Bucks a Day" Blackjack Strategy: Does It Work?

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

How our players are winning fortunes at blackjack using Target Betting! These rules are part of Target Blackjack and their purpose is to protect you and to set up + + + + + + +


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Winning Blackjack Basic Strategy

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Professional's Insight Series "Target 21 Complete" Blackjack Target 21 Blackjack introduces you to winning blackjack strategies. You will learn the basic strategy.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
How to Count Cards (and Bring Down the House)

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Patterson also responded to these restrictive new blackjack rules by developing (​with Eddie Olsen), a non-counting strategy called TARGET


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
EXTREMELY PERFECT Blackjack Strategy - Blackjack Tutorial

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Professional's Insight Series "Target 21 Complete" Blackjack Target 21 Blackjack introduces you to winning blackjack strategies. You will learn the basic strategy.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
How to win at blackjack (21) with gambling expert Michael "Wizard of Odds" Shackleford

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

beadhall.ru Or I could write a blackjack book based on gambling superstition. with two of the developers of the original basic strategy -- Will Cantey and Herb.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
No Bust Blackjack Strategy: Does it Work?

🤑

Software - MORE
JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

beadhall.ru Or I could write a blackjack book based on gambling superstition. with two of the developers of the original basic strategy -- Will Cantey and Herb.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
How to Play (and Win) at Blackjack: The Expert's Guide

But the casino doesn't need the progression to win.{/INSERTKEYS}{/PARAGRAPH} The TARGET system is flawed, however, in advising me to seek out "dealer breaking" tables, because you cannot predict that this bias will continue just because this trend has been observed up to any given point in the game. In other words, the player need only rely on the fact that wins and losses are "streakier" in blackjack than in other games, and the player can win by riding the streaks. Leigh's brilliant idea was that if you play the progression in reverse you would force the casino to play the Labouchere system against you. Betting more when the deck is favorable because of knowledge of the remaining cards provides the player's advantage. The system assuredly has some basis in fact, and what Patterson has attempted to do with TARGET is original, creative, and, on the surface, might be convincing to less sophisticated players. Some "streaks" only last one hand; some last many hands. I don't know how Patterson came to believe that TARGET was a valid system; it's not just one bad idea—it's a conglomeration of bad ideas, pasted together with pseudo-scientific terminology. He credits Norman Leigh, author of a book titled Thirteen Against the Bank Morrow, , for devising this betting system. It all sounds good, but, in fact, it's based on false logic, and not logical at all. Like all betting progression systems, it has been proven worthless. How do you program a computer to base betting decisions on such factors as the presence of pit personnel, the "disposition" of other players at the table, how much other players are toking,,, and, yes, the condition of the ashtrays? It is also true that "biases" will exist in any shuffled deck s which will affect the player's advantage as the cards are dealt. See Peter Griffin's comments on this in the "Letters" section. On the other hand, none of these unprogrammable factors strikes me as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. It is much to Patterson's credit that he has allowed some of his individual franchise holders to decide for themselves on this issue, and to publicly reject the system. So logical! I know Jerry didn't make this whole thing up out of thin air. Patterson is talking about the order of the cards, or as he labels it, "a card flow bias," as if this has some real meaning in the mathematics of blackjack. Jerry has always struck me in the past as honest, fair, and genuinely concerned for his students. This "logic" says that a cards are not randomly ordered during a shuffle, so, b "streaky" clumpings of cards will cause wins and losses to clump together rather than randomly distribute themselves and so, c winning hands indicate a winning streak, and losing hands indicate a losing streak. Card counting would not work if this were not true. Again, the non-reverse Labouchere progression has been around for hundreds of years. Has Patterson discovered a truly new and incredibly powerful winning system? According to Epstein, a "random shuffle" is "an operation equivalent to scattering a deck in a high wind, and having the cards retrieved by a blindfolded inebriate. For my evaluation of the system, I'm using the more extensive page course, which is more recent and more descriptive of the terminology, etc. It seems to me he's testing the system by selling it first, then collecting data from the players to find out whether it works. But the success of the system, as a winning strategy, depends on flawed logic, and the acceptance as "facts" of a myriad of old gambling myths. Richard Epstein, again, in The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic Academic Press, , referred to it as the "anti-Labouchere" system, lumping it together with the other betting progressions and money management systems which gamblers have tried over the years. One of my readers who wrote to me about the TARGET classroom instruction said the instructor told the class that the card counting aspect of the TARGET system had been eliminated from the "table grading" technique, and to ignore this portion of the written materials. I read Norman Leigh's book, which describes the exploits of a team of professional roulette players really!? Data from losers just doesn't come in proportionately, or objectively. The table grading factors are used to determine only one basic factor in whether or not the table is on a winning streak. He's betting on winning an average of just one extra big bet out of every few hundred hands. Actually, the Reverse Labouchere has been around a long time. There is a lot of new lingo introduced by Patterson for the TARGET system—"table grading, " "table biases," "trending tables, building tables," etc. My biggest losing streaks have occurred, as TARGET would say, at "player breaking" tables, and my biggest winning streaks have occurred at "dealer breaking" tables. There is a lack of fundamental knowledge of the mathematics of gambling systems that Patterson displays in portions of his TARGET course. Many can be described in one or two sentences. What you get is the "Swami Pastrami" effect. Any betting progression system could be played in reverse, but it would still be a worthless progression system. Much of the TARGET theory strikes me as a bunch of old gamblers' myths, which have long ago been discarded by mathematicians, now updated with impressive sounding terminology. The counter is in it for the long run. Leigh figured and this is Patterson's "logic" as well that since the Labouchere progression didn't win for the player, that by reversing the progression, the casino would find that the progression didn't win for the house either! In the newer course materials, this card counting advice has been eliminated. Just because a bias has been identified as occurring over some length of time, this fact in no way predicates a continuance of that bias. Jerry has produced neither computer simulation data nor mathematical proof to validate the TARGET system, and he has expressed doubts about the possibilities of finding computer or mathematical analyses which would validate TARGET. It is a fact that a human dealer does not shuffle the cards well enough to put them into a truly random order. Winning shoes did not beget winning shoes, even with no shuffle. Patterson recommends this betting progression, modified with "stop-loss" points, for less serious "action" players. He should have sought some outside experts' opinions first. My difficulty in reviewing this system comes from my deep respect for Jerry Patterson, who is selling the system, and my valued correspondence with a number of the franchisees and instructors with Patterson's Blackjack Clinics. I'm not going to pull any punches. He took a chance and put his faith in an unproven system someone convinced him was a winner. This strikes me as nothing more than the old gamblers' myth that when things are going well you shouldn't change "the order of the cards. What a fantasy! To play the TARGET system, you must evaluate numerous factors, which have varying degrees of importance, both in selecting tables, and in determining whether or not to continue playing. In his promotional material, Patterson was making what seemed to many knowledgeable blackjack players incredible claims about this new TARGET system. It's also impossible to predict the length of the winning or losing streaks based on previous winning or losing streaks. Let's face it; his name is on it. I won't go into Sam's definitions of such terms as a "double Ouija whammy parlay, " or the "integrity of the table lint," or the "stability of the hunch," but suffice it to say that, all in all, I think Sam's Ouija system would work just as well as TARGET. During those times when the counter has his advantage, and is betting on it, winning and losing streaks continue as always, but the counter ignores them. He says that with a "card flow bias," as opposed to a "clump card bias, " you might maintain the stability of the game by playing a second hand if someone leaves the table, or, if necessary, by discouraging new players from entering a game. In my opinion, there has never been such an eloquently presented heap of gambling misinformation as the TARGET system. What utter nonsense. He's a good teacher. Most phony systems are simple, one or two pages at most. There is no way that a single win, or five consecutive wins, or even twenty consecutive wins, would predict that more wins are on the way. If so, then the TARGET system says that the winning streak will likely continue, until certain other factors indicate otherwise, most notably, the players start losing. Although it is true that cards will clump together in non-random orderings, and that wins and losses will be influenced by these orderings of cards, it's impossible to predict the order of the wins and losses to come based on the previous wins and losses. Patterson claims that a shoe which favors a player will continue to favor the player, even through subsequent shuffles, because human dealers do not shuffle well enough to destroy the "card flow bias. He credits a man by the name of Eddie Olsen as one of the inventors of the system. I will limit my discussion to the theory behind it. Believing him to be an honest man, my heart goes out to him, because I don't think he means to sell trash to trusting students. The system most definitely poses problems for computer programmers who would want to simulate it exactly. Unless Patterson can offer convincing mathematical evidence that Bayes' Theorem is in error, which would stun mathematicians the world over, I cannot accept "streak-based" blackjack systems as having any validity. The only players who continue to report results are those who stick with the system. Andersen used to ask dealers to shuffle up when the count was low, of course so he could "change the order of the cards But Andersen was describing a camouflage trick he employed to get more advantageous games while appearing to be a superstitious gambler. And it's true that if the system won't win for the player, it won't win for the casino. In fact, the opposite is true. Card counting is based on an entirely different theory. The only players who stick with the system are those who are winning. See the link at the left. In his recent newsletters he presents his data which indicates that predictable biases do not exist in the way Patterson is attempting to predict them. But you cannot predict that a current streak will continue or end based on the results of previous hands. Yet many players have a gut feeling that there is some logic to this "order of the cards" nonsense, as evidenced by the fact that so many players believe that poor players at the table hurt good players because poor players "take cards" that "by right" should go to some other player or the dealer. He claims that in his 25 years of gambling research, this particular strategy is the only progressive betting method he has found that actually works. One particularly strange idea, as far as the accepted mathematical theory of blackjack goes, is what Patterson calls the "integrity of the shoe or game.. I wish I had a buck for every crap shooter who's told me he's been winning for years by "riding the streaks," and for every roulette player who insists he always goes home a winner by "playing with the house's money. This is a difficult review for me to write. The major difference between the newer and older TARGET course materials is that the older one advises the player to use a card count as a factor in grading a table, with a high count being a positive factor. Streaks can only be seen after the fact. {PARAGRAPH}{INSERTKEYS}Okay, gang, dust off your collective sense of humor. Every blackjack expert from Thorp to Uston to yours truly has made numerous errors in judgment and analysis. His profits acrue slowly from his small, but mathematically provable edge over the house. He is not playing "streaks" that would be discernable over the short run. Obviously, you cannot obtain objective results in this way, since both the players and the system sellers have such a big stake in the success of the system. He was very good at this, and his students and franchise holders have always praised his work.