person1125 said:
Would you say though that for a beginner (has just learned BS, has learned some counting, but yet to try in the casino) BJA is ok? I read it and found it interesting, but I am just starting out. Maybe the spreads and table conditions he gives are unrealistic, but they show you that conditions are important and that the bigger the spread you employ gives you also better results.
You're better off just sticking with
Blackbelt in Blackjack and ignoring the wrongheaded advice in
Blackjack Attack. Schlesinger makes plenty of valid theoretical points in his book (which have all been made elsewhere anyway), but he also makes many unrealistic assumptions about conditions and what really is the optimal way to play. His advice on playing methods and camouflage and so no is really bad, and is actually harmful to the newbie.
Another question: the other tactics you say are out there, things you need or should learn to be a very good BJ player - are they all in print somewhere on how to learn or at the very least the basics are somewhere to be found?? In your opinion after conditions and counting what would you say a person should learn next?
No, it's not
all in print. I'd really advocate card steering, as it is probably the easiest advantage over and above card counting to consistently find in casinos today. It's also something you can pull off on your own, without the need for a team, if you target the right games. It just takes hours and hours of practice, and it can also be applied to games other than blackjack.
Comp and coupon and promotion hustling is also great for someone on a short bankroll.
Mimosine said:
Yeah, NOW.
As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the Kipunji has changed in any measurable way for over 100,000 years. And that's just one of dozens, if not hundreds of species of monkey. Several have undergone no measurable change in the last 100,000 years.
3. Saying that one organism has undergone more evolution than another is far from meaningless. you can measure quantitatively how much one species has diverged over a given period of time and make conclusions from these changes. Mutation is a statistical process, recent reports indicate that evolution is far more complicated (as you even allude to!), thus as i stated some species very closely related to humans have undergone more mutations, have become more evolved is a quite relavant and true statement.
Your reading comprehension is about as good as your understanding of biology, apparently. You've completely neglected the premise I stated that evolution is a process that is characterized by both the acceptance and rejection of mutation. Thus, since populations are always being subjected to evolutionary pressures, when a species rejects a change, it is an evolutionary step just as it is when it accepts a change. It's still moving forward, so to speak. It's like a car that comes to a T-intersection and can either make a 90 degree turn or proceed. If all you are measuring is the turns, then it will appear the state of the car is unchanged. But, in evolution, this would be incorrect. One must measure those times when the car proceeds forward without changing direction, those times where the change is rejected. Thus, all organisms are equally evolved. A human with a mutated gene that is new and unique is not more evolved than all other humans. He is differently evolved, but we're all still equally evolved.
