My final goodbye to Rob McGarvey

T

toddler

Well-Known Member
I've put if off for unknown reasons, but it came time to give a final scan and review of my Rob McGarvey Outlook folder before committing it to the digital round file. There's pictures of those beautiful kids and his wife, Rob's new house and the work which was being done, his mother and father. I wonder what they're all doing right now. All our back and forth correspondence on family, food and fun.

Here's hoping Rob is looking upon us with a smile on his face. I miss the young man.

Goodbye, Rob.
 
T

The Mayor

Well-Known Member
Good comparison!

Seeing as Don twice compared me to John Patrick, comparing me to Don and apply transitivity yields a theorem...

Actually, I just wanted to get in the "sensical" comment, since that has long been a question about this funny English language I've had.

--Mayor
 
S

stainless steel rat

Well-Known Member
in that case

I don't feel so bad. He only called me "pig headed" in a discussion about whether I should quote Wong's Hi-Lo indices as opposed to the new floored ones in BJA3 (I had quoted Wong's, because that is what Norm uses in CVCX/CVData and that is where my data was coming from).

Clearly being pig-headed is not _nearly_ as bad as being compared to Patrick, so I feel pretty good now.

:)
 
T

The Mayor

Well-Known Member
With utmost respect

In spite of Don's dubious sensitivity when it comes to his interactions with people he meets over the Internet, he is worthy of the highest respect for his work on behalf of blackjack theory. Quirkyness seems to be a prerequisite for genious. My comments are made about Don because his comparisons and words sting, even though they are ludicrous.

(Given this, I wonder in what ways you are quirky, SSR? You certainly have done as much for Computer Chess programs as Don has done for Blackjack.)

I have a good friend (a touring musician) who gave me a piece of advice. I have become a fairly competent musician, and others look up to me. I have been known to be very short with people who don't play in tune or on the beat, or bother to practice. My friend said to me: "You've gotten pretty good, Eliot. You are now an ambassador for this music. Above all, be nice." I think those words apply equally as well to those in positions of respect in Blackjack.

--Mayor
 
S

stainless steel rat

Well-Known Member
my "quirks".

Let's take two cases.

questions asked by "blackjack beginners". The first from AP.com, the second from Wong's site.

1. Which game will produce the smallest bankroll fluctuation, SD, DD or 6D?

I responded "single-deck". Just look at the CVCX sims and look at the standard deviation per hour. SD is smaller.

Don responded "oh no, in a SD game you would have a higher bankroll variance." Why, I asked. Because, you would bet twice as high because it is a better game, and even though the standard deviation is smaller for a SD game, when you multiply by 2x bigger bets, you get a bigger number. I said "that's silly for a beginner, he wasn't going to vary his bets depending on the game, he was going to bet $5 and choose between SD, DD or 6D. That went nowhere. But it caused him/Parker to "eliminate" me on ap.com. :)

2. What is the correct hi-lo index to double 11 vs A? I responded +1 for S17, +0 for H17, which come from either pro BJ or the tables in CVCX/CVBJ. "no says he, the correct index is -1, and is in BJA3." I said "your index might be better, but doesn't it make more sense to quote the source everyone uses for Hi-Lo, namely PBJ? "there is no main source for Hi-Lo" was his response. Later another similar question answered by "bigplayer" "you ought to look at the Hi-Lo 'bible' pro BJ by wong..." But Don didn't try to correct him. :)

So yes, there are quirks.

If you look up my "computer chess" answers over the years, I don't supply answers like "you are just wrong, and you ought to be able to see why." and so forth. There are better ways to answer questions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top