maybe "partial phony" would have been better
I'd like to apologize to Geoff Hall for the phrase "complete phony." That's an exaggeration and I'm sorry. Geoff Hall has made a tremendous contribution to the casino world by introducing BJ Switch, which is indeed an interesting game. Geoff has also participated on many boards in threads not even related specifically to marketing his games.
That said, Mr. Hall, I think you have been less than straight about your loyalties, in the sense of trying to appear to be friendly to all sides, while simultaneously stonewalling the AP community on BJ Switch. I'm OK with stonewalling the APs as long as you admit that your interests are completely aligned with the casinos, whose interest is in sucking money from gamblers and not allowing anyone to beat BJ Switch. Let's look at the statements:
Geoff Hall: "Why would I post 'Average' switch strategy when it contains incorrect 'Switch' decisions ? The correct 'Switch' strategy can be found on WOO."
Do you understand the difference between a "computer-optimal" strategy and a "human-feasible" strategy? Your statement is like saying, "Why would I develop a communal strategy for Caribbean Stud, when the correct 2.4% edge strategy can be found in Griffin&Gwynn?" Many people have bemoaned the lack of a reasonable set of rules that could get them to within a few tenths of a percent of computer optimality for BJSwitch. You have several times hinted that a such a set of rules exists, even said that you would then post it, for instance, here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592&page=4
But when someone asks for it again (many have asked over the years), no help is offered:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12848
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=13646
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592
Now maybe you don't even have the type of rules set that the players want, in which case you should just say so, instead of saying that there's no need for it because the WoO already has a strategy. And if you don't have such a set of rules, then you can't throw around numbers stating that you've compared strategies and find that the loss is only a few tenths with human play. How did you get that number--by having the computer comb through thousands of decisions and assume that players would miss some percentage of the "tough" ones? Where is the set of rules? Do you have a reasonable set of rules (say, 30 or fewer rules), and will you post it here? If not, then you can't simultaneously tout how reasonable BJ Switch is, and say that it's in a totally different league from 6:5 and other player-raping games. Using Arnold's rules (the only explicit ones I've seen published), and typical rules (i.e., not as good as Casino Royale), the player would be in the -1.4% ballpark. Ouch! Still great for the tourists, but not for most of the people here, I would hope.
Indeed, when people talk about wanting a "basic strategy" for BJ Switch, they are usually talking about such a set of rules, NOT the charts saying that they should hit 12 v 4, etc. I have NEVER seen any published set of rules, other than Arnold's, and Arnold's system as written isn't good enough.
Now on to some other points:
newb99: "I'm not quite sure why you're so venomous about someone who has invented a game"
Inventing a game was a great thing, I have no problem with that. On these boards, it's pretending to be something that one is not that rubs lots of us the wrong way. That is the very definition of "phony." That's what I find irritating.
newb99: "but who hasn't provided advice to a small minority of professional "gamblers" (I appreciate APs don't gamble but play according to odds, although that's how most people in the world see APs I'm sure) on how to take his customers, who presumably pay him a royalty, to the cleaners. I'm surprised you're surprised?"
I'm not surprised. Nor do I have any different expectation. I merely prefer that he be upfront about his loyalties, and not pretend to be helpful to the counting community. You are absolutely right that pro gamblers are a small minority, and Mr. Hall should absolutely not be catering to us in any way. And the casinos should not even worry so much about us. The AP tail does not wag the casino industry dog.
newb99: "To give this guy a drubbing for not providing detailed information on the wheres and hows to APs of how to beat his game seems to me to be a tad unreasonable. As I said, I don't know him, but decribing him as a "complete phony", because he doesn't satisfy your particular want, is uncalled for."
My "particular want" is not that he supply vulnerability information about the game; I know that that is not in his best interest, and I'll handle that part anyway. My "want" is that he be a bit more honest with his loyalties. His pretending to be friends with all sides is what makes him phony. He can't have it both ways here.
newb99: "Mr Hall could always have developed a ruleset that resulted in a 4%+ OTT HE, in which case you'd be more than justified to throw a bun at this statement."
Mr. Hall's choice of rules sets is certainly not motivated by his benevolence towards the player's community, except insofar as making the game popular enough to survive and expand. He has a perfect alignment of incentives with the casino; it just so happens that for the casinos to maximize profit, they can't always rape the players, but if they could, they would. (And sometimes do!)
newb99: "Oh, and by the way, I'm probably one of the degenerate masses you refer to in your response, certainly not an AP - I play for the challenge not to earn an income, treat BJ and other table games as a form of entertainment and don't consider casinos to be ATMs. Sorry if you find that offensive."
I don't find that offensive in the least. I think it's great that you play for fun, and try to find ways to improve, AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND that it's not meant to be an income for you. There's nothing wrong with that at all. And because you don't come on here, for instance, pretending to be a knowledgeable professional, you won't invite attacks from me or anyone, because you are not a phony at all. You do what you do and don't pretend to be otherwise.
Geoff Hall: "The prominent math' guy is Karel Janecek, creator of SBA."
Ahh, I thought so. Karel was an even BIGGER phony when BJSwitch first came out. He ABSOLUTELY pretended to be buddy-buddy with the counters while giving them no information whatsoever. In fact, he at first tried to mask his involvement in the game. His very first post on the web sites was "Hey guys there's this great new game blah blah blah." People did some digging and then had to call him on the carpet to admit that he had a developer's interest in the game. Janecek's transgressions are not yours, but that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about right there. No one would fault Janecek for doing paid numbers work to help you develop a game, or for declining to help you either. Either role would be acceptable. Where most of us take exception is when he comes along with a post about this great game, and even says that it should be of interest to us counters, while hiding his involvement and intention to thwart any analysis of counting the game.
In response to ExCAA's "Now, I know some more dangerous players that he did not give information to"] Geoff Hall: "I'd like to see proof of that. There has been information that I don't know the answers to but I've never refused to give information out."
My words there don't say that you withheld information that you have in your possession; I said you "did not give information to" some more dangerous players. Now maybe you didn't have the information they wanted (though I don't think you'd have given up the information they wanted even if you had it). But the point is, unlike Kasi who says you answered every question he had, we cannot make that same statement for some of the counters who had questions. I won't mention their names, as they are not part of my crew, but I'll ask a question here: Can you tell me the EORs for the Casino Royale game (the CSM non-countable one)? I'll make it multiple choice. You have two possible answers: (1) Do not have those numbers, or (2) Have those numbers but will not give them out.
Geoff Hall: "When have I ever pretended to be a friend ? As Kasi states, I don't even know him, or what he does, nor any of the posters here."
PUUUHHLLEEASE don't play semantic games. Obviously when I say "friend," I am not implying that you guys go out for coffee, or that you necessarily know anyone here personally. Do you understand the meaning of the word friend in the sentence, "Obama is a friend of the poker community." It doesn't mean anyone here knows him.
Geoff Hall: "You make me sound like I'm garnishing their trust in an evil plan to con them into losing money on the game."
Aren't you?? I have heard that at night you sit on a throne cloaked in flames, with gargoyles and undead pit bosses at your feet, and the souls of thousands of onetime gamblers trapped in a bottle screaming. By now it should be obvious to everyone here that you are evil incarnate. Are you saying I heard wrong? I doubt that, because my sources are impeccable.
Geoff Hall: Quite simply, I spend time, unlike other games inventors, in answering questions they ask."
I think there are many games inventors who also answer questions regarding their games. For instance, I talked with Derek Webb in person when Three Card Poker came out, and he correctly told me Q64 was the BS (though many casino dealers said otherwise). And why wouldn't you spend time answering nonthreatening questions? It's in your best interests to do so, and I think it's great that you do. And you have contributed extensively on many other threads on these and other boards over the years.
ExCAA previously said: "OK, you want to bet? If we open the betting up to members of this forum as well, I wonder if more money would be wagered on my number, or yours. Your vague statement about the 0.5-0.6% additional loss (didn't you say 0.1-0.3% in a previous thread???? hmmmm) proves my point exactly!"
Geoff Hall: "You are again incorrect. 0.1 - 0.3% is ADDED to the base edge for an 'Expert' switcher. The 0.5 - 0.6% is for 'Average' switching. So, the game at Casino Royale, at 0.16% for 'Computer' switching, will be played between approx' 0.26% - 0.76% depending on the skill level. Why would I post 'Average' switch strategy when it contains incorrect 'Switch' decisions ? The correct 'Switch' strategy can be found on WOO."
OK, my statement was a misinterpretation of your terms, as I wasn't considering there to be much a difference between "expert" in one post and "average switcher" in another. The point is that you claim that the human gives up a few tenths vs. computer switching, and yet you NEVER provide a list of rules allowing a human (expert or average, take your pick) to accomplish this. Then, you said you'd give a list of 15 or so numbers/rules that would define a reasonable switch strategy. Then you said the numbers weren't on your laptop, and you had to go away on a trip, and so on:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592&page=4
Then you said you'd provide it by email! Hmmm. Why not just post it? I think a reasonable switch strategy, such as the type that could be printed on a brochure in the casinos, would be a great starting point and help boost the popularity of the game.
Geoff Hall: "Again, where do you get the buddy-buddy from ? I simply answer questions,"
Except when you don't.
Geoff Hall: "albeit basic to someone of your self-proclaimed expertise, in the same way other posters here do."
In the future, I may use the handle "SPE" if that's OK with you.
Geoff Hall: "No, Harrah's didn't tell me. The information came from a highly regarded player in the Blackjack community. I asked Harrah's to use a CSM - it's you who does not know the full story but would rather throw wild guesses at the situation instead of asking what happened."
Your idea of "highly regarded player in the BJ community" and mine are probably two totally different things, but that's beside the point. I fully admitted that I don't have any inside info, and that I would ask around. If you already have the full story, then I won't bother to ask around. Your divulging that your source was an AP does not change my point that it is unlikely that you have the full story. Why would Harrah's remove a game that gets hit by counters, instead of just using a CSM? In fact, I think your info source being the AP is definitely limiting. (Counters, for instance, wrongly thought Luxor removed LS on their DD due to counters years ago.) But no matter, has HARRAH'S given you an explanation as to why they couldn't use a CSM, or protect the game in some other way? It should have been easy for them to keep an eye on one or two tables. They haven't taken traditional blackjack away, and that's been hit by counters. I'm not speculating what Harrah's really thought. I'm asking you.
Geoff Hall: "Maybe it's down to certain (very) recent posts on this site ?"
So you won't give this info to the legitimate players, because you took offense to what I wrote? I don't get it. Or perhaps you don't to help ME out with information. Trust me--withholding information/numbers from me makes no difference, as I am going to run my own numbers in any case.
Geoff Hall: "I've given out this information out in the past and a lot more besides."
Yeah, but by some miracle coincidence, not the information that would help counters, despite attempts to APPEAR to be helpful to them. Like HiLo indices that turned out to not be HiLo indices, and for a game of unspecified rules.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592
And then, of course, there's the deafening silence when it comes to an explicit, human-feasible switching strategy, and that's something that even the non-APs are begging for!
Geoff Hall: "Just think how popular you would be if you posted the count indices for the game ? Or is there a reason why YOU wouldn't do that ? If not, then go ahead and post some information that I have not answered in the past - that way you can show everyone that you are the 'buddy' that should be listened to."
I intend to do exactly that. (Not the part about showing everyone what a 'buddy' I am.)
