I was wondering if the AP world would buy into a system where you could be tested and earn a license to be called an AP. It could be broken up into categories of counting and different advanced techniques. It seems to me that just about anybody can call themselves an AP and can give out advice and info whether its bogus or not. But if one was to be certified in the area of playing of which they speak, you could be assured it wasn't bullsh*t. And if someone wanted to start a team all they would have to do is check the certification of the players applying for the job to know if they were qualified. I know this sounds silly and I'm not totally serious about it but it seems it would weed out the posers and validate the true players. I don't know how something like this would really work but I think maybe Sonny could figure it out.
License to play
- Thread starter JoeV
- Start date
The idea does ammuse me somewhat and yes it could have benifits, but the reality is that it wouldn't be feesable.
Think about it, just in team play there are so many variations, what would qualify you to be an expert at team play? Or would you get different certification for different types of team play? What about the types of team play out there that haven't yet been made public knowledge?
And who would decide the standards of play required to gain certification? Do we judge by the MIT standard, or by Don Schlesinger's standards or any of the hundreds of other teams? Who's to say which is better? Very subjective really and so very difficult to standardise.
The other side to it is very few players who could actually gain any certification would be comfortable coming forward and putting themselves in front of any judge to do so. Firstly most of us like our privacy and secondly, what benifit would someone gain from this other that being able to shut up other posters? I can't see how it could possibly financially benifit any player other than to charge for advice and there'd be plenty of scope for corruption in that area.
Still in interesting idea.
RJT.
Think about it, just in team play there are so many variations, what would qualify you to be an expert at team play? Or would you get different certification for different types of team play? What about the types of team play out there that haven't yet been made public knowledge?
And who would decide the standards of play required to gain certification? Do we judge by the MIT standard, or by Don Schlesinger's standards or any of the hundreds of other teams? Who's to say which is better? Very subjective really and so very difficult to standardise.
The other side to it is very few players who could actually gain any certification would be comfortable coming forward and putting themselves in front of any judge to do so. Firstly most of us like our privacy and secondly, what benifit would someone gain from this other that being able to shut up other posters? I can't see how it could possibly financially benifit any player other than to charge for advice and there'd be plenty of scope for corruption in that area.
Still in interesting idea.
RJT.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Then what would we do with our Voodoo forum? :laugh:JoeV said:
I love the idea, but I have a feeling such a license would not change the amount of garbage on the internet. It would just give the bogus APs something else to brag about. It would just change this:
"STFU! I’ve been using my system for years and I’m still winning 80% of my sessions!!!”
to this:
"STFU! I'm a level 5 AP with a third degree tracking classification and 1200 experience credits!!!”
We’re not improving the art of AP, we’re just turning it into a D&D club. And besides, no self respecting AP would want to be caught with a valid AP license!
-Sonny-
Last edited:
Due to the nature of the business Joe this might not be a good idea. First off I don't think any would agree as to who is going to be the final word on certification guidelines. Next, I don't know of many that want to be put on any record as being an AP, regardless if its among members of their own. There should not be a need for validation as an AP. If you are honest with yourself you will know if you are one or not. And more importantly you will be able to recognize those that perpetrate the fraud as you gain experience. There can be something gained from even those that are not quite as skilled as they say. Remember learning what not to do can be as valuable as learning what to do. With time and your own experiences you'll find its not too hard to separate the two.
That is why we have moderators to weed out the voodoo. And if you aren't sure if someone has bogus advise you can buy a book.JoeV said:
It is easier to test somebody yourself then to make them get a certification. Futhermore, if I am going to give somebody my bankroll to use I'm going to test them anyway, license or not.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
One thing that would be feasible is a written test for AP's. Maybe a hundred or so multiple-choice questions of the nature:"Which is the better game?" Which is the correct play?" "What is the best thing to do if...?" This would be a uniform and less subjective way to figure out who knows what they're doing.
Sort of like the MMPI, but for Advantage Play instead of Abnormal Psychology.
Sort of like the MMPI, but for Advantage Play instead of Abnormal Psychology.
I'm not so sure about the lack of subjectivity. I think what you would see is people like Don Schlesinger and Stanford Wong doing well in this very theoretical test (depending on the questions selected of course) even though it's well known throughout the community that neither of these gentlemen was ever that greatly proficient at the game, having far greater success writing books and players like Ian Anderson who has been a hugely successful practical player having their scores undermine their actual knowledge. I'd certainly wouldn't turn down advice from any of those mentioned above, but truth told, when choosing between practical results and theortical understanding - i know which i'd rather have.Automatic Monkey said:
Then of course you have people like James Grosjean who has both.....
RJT.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
It is impossible for a player who does not know playing strategy and strategy variations, bet sizing theory and game selection criteria to be a successful AP. Especially these last two are the major reasons for failure as a card counter.RJT said:
How is it well-known that Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger were never greatly proficient? I have never watched either one of them play. Are they in the habit of announcing when they're going to be in the casino so others can come and judge their proficiency?
How is it well-known that Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger were never greatly proficient? I have never watched either one of them play. Are they in the habit of announcing when they're going to be in the casino so others can come and judge their proficiency?[/QUOTE]
Because you've never seen them play is that to mean its not true? I don't think they need to announce their presence among those that live in their community, and Monkey you don't live there. They're both great theorists with tons of knowledge, but Wong never was a money player, and Schlesinger made more money managing better players on his teams then he did actually playing. Its just my take on it so of course you will question it, but those in the know will agree.
Because you've never seen them play is that to mean its not true? I don't think they need to announce their presence among those that live in their community, and Monkey you don't live there. They're both great theorists with tons of knowledge, but Wong never was a money player, and Schlesinger made more money managing better players on his teams then he did actually playing. Its just my take on it so of course you will question it, but those in the know will agree.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I got the feeling that Ian Anderson could pull index plays out of his ass all day long, it just wasn't the focus of either of his books. And Schlesinger seemed to be a fairly serious player, back in the day. He's just also incredibly interested in the academic trivia.
SilentBob420BMFJ
Banned
totally unrelated, but this reminds me of when i was younger and my friends and i couldnt get into R movies, and i had a great idea.. you go to the theater with your parent, and they sign you up for a "my son can see any movie he wants" card, and both you, your parent, and the theater sign it, and then you just show that card to the ticket booth if your under 17.. its so stupid that parents cant even buy R tickets for their kids, they must see the movie with them.. of all the things going on in todays society, they are preventing kids from seeing a few boobs, swearing, and violence.. oh ya that will do tons of good!JoeV said:
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Or all the stories of his experiences in the casino could be bull, intended to embellish the book. How would anyone know? We just have to take their words for it. I mean, all of these guys have provided us with valuable AP advice but you have to consider their bookwriting careers to be separate ventures from their AP careers thus all that is revealed in one may not necessarily be part of the other, and vice versa.EasyRhino said:
In my paradigm of the great player, he(?) shows up out of nowhere, does his thing aggressively and skillfully, and disappears as quick as he came with no one really sure who he was or what he did. Win or lose, he got his EV in with no talk or boasting. Maybe he just won $30K on a baccarat sequencing technique and told all his friends he just lost $10K trying dice control, and they think he might have some irrational gambling tendencies. Or he told them he won $20K counting, who knows? I'm sure there is at least one such player reading this message. :grin:
Not true. There's more to being a winning player that just knowing the theory. A lot of authors were and are better at the theory than they ever were at applying it. Some people just don't look/act naturally when handling large denomenations at the tables and if you can't pull off playing the big bets without drawing attention you'll never make the money.JoeV said:
I'm not saying that you don't need to know about the game - the more you know the stronger you game will become up to a point, but i am saying that you don't need to be an expert on the theory to have the ability to take the casinos to the cleaners - that's a skill that you can't learn from a book and it's a skill that many people will never have.
RJT.
SilentBob420BMFJ
Banned
if you read in the beginning of any book, it says "the names, dates, and EVENTS/DETAILS have been changed"Automatic Monkey said:
sure, this is meant to mean extremely specific details that would give them away, but they can use it to their advantage, but thats not saying they can be sued for lying or anything, its just makes them look like less of a liar by being able to point to that footnote
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Well said guy, spoken like a true AP.RJT said:
Its definitely one thing to analyze blackjack, but a completely different ball of wax to be successful at it!
Most BJ players learn just enough to lose.
But really, how would you define success? Is the only reason theres such a thing as a blackjack hall of fame is because back in the day, good games were offered?
I assure you, had i had the oppurtunity our pedecessors did i would probably be enshrined into the BJ hall-of-fame myself.
I dont know, it just seems know matter what you do or how hard you try. Your just gonna come up a liitle short because the conditions of todays games.
jack said:
Success all depends on what you want to achieve, but if we're talking about the standard 'play for a living' then nothing short of making enough money to live off cuts it.
I don't think that the HOF members necessarily got there for the money they won, in fact i'd say that most didn't. So i don't think it's fair to argue that they got there due to opportunities that don't exist today. If you really want to look down that line, many of the opportunities that we are aware of today had never even been considered when many of these guys were playing, or at least had only begun to be developed.
And the opportunities still exist. There are still games out there that offer 90% penetration, there are still single pass shuffles, there are still places that you can sequence, there are still places that don't cover the back card, there are still places that will allow you to cut less than a deck and there are still places that don't neaten up the stack after the shuffle. And this is not to mention that as long as dealers are dealing hand dealt games and hole cards there are always going to be exploitable dealers. So to say that the opportunities don't exist anymore, is kinda like saying that kids aren't as fit today because of computers. The outdoors is still there, you just got to be willing to go explore it.
RJT.