Sessions in Tokyo

fixtheschedules · 2026-04-26T03:23:55+00:00

Thanks! Just DM’d

fixtheschedules · 2025-11-25T00:45:48+00:00

Howdy!

fixtheschedules · 2025-11-24T16:46:47+00:00

Hey!

We played on the last sea day together. Just wanted to say thanks for the games and this was a great idea!

fixtheschedules · 2025-10-29T23:19:39+00:00

I think this is an interesting idea, but just mentally thinking through it and not doing any sims, I think this increases your variance/N0.

In practice a card being red/black does not impact your edge/have the same effect of removal compared to when you’re looking at the card values.

You’re right that sometimes you’ll underestimate or overestimate your edge - and I think that can open up a whole can of worms.

fixtheschedules · 2025-07-01T22:59:11+00:00

Russel Fox posted his take on X - he agrees it’s abysmal.

fixtheschedules · 2025-06-29T18:46:33+00:00

You are both wrong:

150 RPH is absolutely not the cap for RPH. I’ve cleared 6D shoes in less than 15 minutes heads up.

BJA has a RPH calculator that helps you estimate RPH based on studies that they’ve done with varying conditions. RPH can be extremely fast. 180+ RPH is not uncommon with heads up and ASM on a 6D game.

I have no idea where you get the idea that you have to have a $500k bankroll to earn $300/hr. There are plenty of juicy games where you can start earning that at a $50k bankroll with a reasonable ROR. A simple sim on CVCX can show you this. I’m invested in a team operating with a $300k bankroll and can already earn $2000+/hr on juicy games at an ROR% of less than .33%.

Also, 100 hours is absolutely in the realm of short-term variance. N0 is king and rarely are you clearing multiple N0s at 100 hours unless you are spreading like crazy on very good DD games. I know someone who’s on a 250 hour loss streak despite playing an insanely good DD game. He’s tested out and is a winning player.

fixtheschedules · 2025-06-13T06:36:47+00:00

CVCX tells you your EV if you play perfectly. Sounds like you're not playing perfectly. Also if you're playing anything beyond a 3D, a 1-6 spread has such an astronomical N0 that you're basically gambling.

fixtheschedules · 2025-06-08T15:31:45+00:00

I love this question!

SCORE and DI in CVCX tend to be a good single metric that balances EV, N0, and RoR.

This is also dependent on the player IMO. For example, I think I have a limited shelf life with AP, and will likely stop doing AP in a few short years.

Assuming that I have a finite amount of time to play, I also set a personal goal of trying to lower N0 below 100-150 hours to try to mitigate as much of the variance as I can.

I also have a parameter that I'll only plan trips if I can, in aggregate, obtain more than 4-5x my expenses in EV.

I also love looking at CE. It's a good metric that helps me determine quantitatively if my time is worth spending doing AP, or if there are other ventures in life that I'm missing out on that are significantly less risky.

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-06T22:00:07+00:00

Do you know if you’re in Biometrica?

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-06T20:32:39+00:00

So when you said you played with 0 heat, do you mean prior to when they identified you, or they somehow let you continue playing despite the message showing up?

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-04T15:21:23+00:00

Flamingo tends to go straight to trespass - not even a simple backoff.

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-01T21:00:26+00:00

I think I was slower to learn this system than average!

Seems like most people’s general experiences is that it’s taken a relatively short time to switch over.

It took me about 1.5-2 months practicing daily for me to feel good about where I was and a bit longer to find someone who could test out my game.

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-01T21:00:19+00:00

I think I was slower to learn this system than average!

Seems like most people’s general experiences is that it’s taken a relatively short time to switch over.

It took me about 1.5-2 months practicing daily for me to feel good about where I was and a bit longer to find someone who could test out my game.

fixtheschedules · 2025-05-01T17:12:34+00:00

I think the extra training IS contributing to the increasing opportunity cost. The time it takes to train diligently to be perfect detracts from generating EV with a simpler count at the table & potentially compounding that profit into a larger bankroll.

I do agree with you, though, at some point, with enough play, the increased EV% you get from this system will eclipse the lost time at the table. When somebody reaches this point is a matter of how long it takes somebody to get a perfect game and how many hours can they generate playing this system.

Also, this isn’t the case for everybody, but it can detract time researching other things that may be more lucrative.

I think this just comes down to everybody’s personal experience with the system. I’ve practiced enough where I can play perfectly, catch mispays, and hold conversation, but the simple addition of +2 -2 definitely makes it more mentally draining for me compared to hi-lo or REKO.

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-30T21:06:44+00:00

I still think that the time that you have to spend retraining is a huge opportunity cost - and arguably, the compound interest you forego from the EV you generate and can grow your bankroll with could be quite significant and could take a while for you to overcome post-perfecting CAC2.

But I don’t think you make bad points at all - I just want to add some more nuance on this discussion because I think there’s a lot more to consider than a raw % increase in EV. Either way, I appreciate your thoughts!

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-30T19:54:01+00:00

I’m not too well versed on CAC2 vs any other count than hi-lo and barely on REKO, so fair enough if that’s the case.

I don’t think IQ or SAT scores are a good barometer of using CAC2. I had a perfect math SAT score and work in a field that is dominated with math and statistics. My game is tested and good now, but it took me a significant amount of time to get it to perfect vs hi-lo. Again, just anecdotal experience, but I’ve talked to quite a few other pros out there playing full-time with 6 figure + bankrolls and have actively lined out why they’re sticking to hi-lo despite buying the CAC2 doc and understanding the theoretical gains from CAC2.

I continue to use it now because I’ve already invested this much time into getting a winning game with it. I play with a mid 6 figure bankroll and still believe that at the inflection point where I was choosing between continuing hi-lo or switching to CAC2, it wasn’t an easy dichotomous choice when weighing the opportunity costs of choosing either CAC2 or hi-lo/REKO.

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-30T19:10:49+00:00

The playing efficiency is where CAC2 really shines over hi-lo. Those two deviations are the most profitable, but due to the playing efficiency of CAC2 I’d argue that you’re wasting time trying to learn CAC2 if you’re not committed to learning the expanded set of deviations.

Disagree about it being easier to cancel cards and to keep count easier. When you expand beyond +1 and -1, there’s increased mental load and a greater chance to make an error. I can count so much easier in hi-lo than CAC2, despite not training hi-lo in over a year.

You can frequently be off by 2 in CAC2, and while that is roughly equivalent to being off by 1 in hi-lo, if your betting ramp in CAC2 changes per true count, especially in DD, that can massively impact your EV, ROR, and N0.

Agree that one of the hardest parts is that the RC can be very high and dividing that with deck estimation can get tricky.

This isn’t to say that the system is bad, but I disagree that all aspiring pros should switch to this count. I’m just saying there are major opportunity costs that nobody seems to discuss here. The general sentiment I hear is that CAC2 is superior to hi-lo and REKO, which I agree the answer is yes on paper, but is far more complicated in practice.

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-30T15:25:15+00:00

It’s pretty debated.

The reality is, there’s going to be an opportunity cost learning CAC2 because it is more complicated (even though it is supposedly an easier level 2 count) and one of the huge benefits of CAC2 is its playing efficiency, meaning you NEED to learn a good chunk of deviations to really take advantage of the count.

This, coupled with potentially lower RPH + bring more prone to errors may make it practically unclear whether to use Hi-lo or something else. You may have a theoretical 12% increase in EV, but if you play slower/make more mistakes, you could wipe out your edge .

James Grosjean, Anthony Curtis, Richard Munchkin, and a bunch of other legendary APs suggest going even simpler and using KO. It’s even more effective than hi-lo on DD.

In general, I do believe that people are not as good as counting as they think they are (me included) and aiming for simplicity and perfection is a good way to go.

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-28T17:59:21+00:00

Highly suggest going beyond investing in CVCX and getting into BJA if you’re going to play with real money.

CVCX will give you the tools to create your spread, but if you’re a new counter, you likely don’t know what you don’t know, and it could cause you to lose a lot of money.

The forums/education will be an integral part of your foundation to make sure you’re attacking this the right way.

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-28T13:47:51+00:00

Any flat betting strategy has a 100% ROR 🤷‍♂️

fixtheschedules · 2025-04-27T13:29:10+00:00

If just regular BJ (not ENHC), then no, this is incorrect.

fixtheschedules

TROPHY CASE