Oh i'm sorry......did you say something? I must have dozed off. Warn me first if you plan on writing mounds of boring useless nonsense, I can use it as an all natural sleep aid. Better yet I could print it out on some soft 3 ply and use it as.............oh never mind. Keep up the good work, insomnia is a real heath issue, glad you have found a cure.fsscout said:To QFIT
First off I would like to say I respect you and FLAS1296 for your knowledge of the game and the strict scientific approach you both adhere to concerning blackjack. Also I have purchased the Casino Verite Blackjack Software and without a doubt it is the best program I have ever used.
Unfortunately both you and FLASH1296 are misinterpreting what I am trying to point out and have jumped to incorrect conclusions. That could be my fault since I wasn't specific or clear enough. First off you need to understand that I first starting card counting in the early eighties before I moved to Las Vegas in 1995. I probably took 20 trips to Las Vegas and 2 or 3 trips to AC over that period of time each lasting a full week. I literally played a minimum of 8 hours a day. Obviously not something recommended. At first I used a simple plus/minus count then learned the Omega II system. I considered myself a very good player but not great. I rarely had a losing week and when I did lose it was small. The majority of times I made enough to pay all my expenses and sometimes significantly more. You both need to stop treating me like a novice who is trying to make an easy dollar at the blackjack tables. Granted I have not devoted my life to blackjack and studied the game as thoroughly as you have but I have an excellent knowledge of the game and what it takes to win at it.
Once I moved here I was fortunate and got a good job right away so I basically stopped playing balckjack for about 15 years. I figured it wasn't worth spending a few hours a week playing so I could make an extra 50 or 60 dollars since I didn't need the money plus I was working a minimum of 50 hours a week. Today it is a different story since the construction company I worked for closed it doors 3 months ago and the prospects of finding a good job soon is not likely. I was an estimator and project manager so I worked with numbers day in and day out. Before going out in the real world I have refreshed my blackjack knowledge and did quite a lot of practicing. I found out that I am not capable of using the Omega II system as well as before and have gone to a one level count. I feel confident with my counting and play adjustments.
I will take your recommendation and throw out all the books I have that were written by Ken Houston, Edward Thorp, Arnold Synder, Bryce Carlson, and the likes of these frauds. Thanks for the advice. By the way I have no Idea who Sclobete, Patrick and Silberstang are. The only book that wasn't written by the above mentioned frauds is one book by Harvey. I was curious as to what this guy had to say. In my opinion his research was probably bogus and confusing at best. I did find it interesting that some one the things I was witnessing at the tables were touched on by him. So I brought it up for discussion and thought it might be worth investigating. Then you and FLASH got bent out of shape and your scientific minds couldn't handle such an idea. You guys kill me and I find it very amusing on how easily your feathers get ruffled. I hope you don't approach life as rigidly as you approach blackjack, if you do I feel sorry for your mates.
I can't remember the exact date but one trip I took in the late eighties I noticed that it appeared that the cards were no longer shuffled as thouroughly as in previous years and both my losing and winning streaks (excuse the non scientific term, I only have a Bacholor's degree) were longer than in the past. I was leaning towards the idea that once a group of cards got clumped together they basically remainded that way for a period on times despite shuffling. Obviously in the long run one should still get the expected mathematical statistics but you will get there with unusually longer losing and winning periods. One of the biggest frauds in the history of blackjack, Arnold Synder, talks about card clumpimg and the importance of watching how they get shuffled. What a fool!!!!
I find it interesting that many professionals such as Revere, Anderson, etc talk about ending a session once you lose a certain number of units even if it occurs in a very short period of time. Why do they talk about that, Is it possible that they have experienced long losing streaks and you need to cut these losing streaks short? Unfortunately they don't explain in detail their reasoning other saying it is a money management issue which really shouldn't be a factor since everything should work out in the end. Stopping play for a period of time because one has lost a little bit of money really shouldn't have an effect as to whether you eventually lose your entire bankroll. Are they being cautious and not saying that it is not uncommon to have a long losing streak and once it starts who knows when it may end. Of course if they ever said that they would be ridiculed by the staunch scientific advocates. Revere clearly states not to play against a dealer you do not like. Obviously there could be a number of reasons why Revere says that. Could it be that the dealer constantly shuffles up on him or could it be that the dealer seems to be "hot" all the time. Of course he would get a lot of heat if he used the word "hot".
You completely misunderstood what I was saying when I stated "I find it hard to believe that anyone is capable of creating accurate real condition research as Harvey claims when it comes to blackjack." The point I was making is that there are too many variables involved in recreating actually playing conditions such as how the cards are shuffled and how the cards may have been clumped. Harvey claims he can do this which is hogwash. Yes you can run simulations on how to play the game with different true counts. Your analogy that " We simulated the landing on Mars. We simulate dams and bridges and airplanes before they are built." has nothing to do with simulating real (let me emphasize "REAL" not possible) playing conditions when it comes to blackjack." In all due respect that analogy was way off base.
What you and FLASH1296 are failing to consider is the human element in blackjack. You also refuse to recognize that cards are often clumped and often poorly shuffled which may increase the likelihood of longer winning and losing periods. All I know is that when I started to play blackjack once again it just seemed that the I was experiencing unusally higher than normal consecutive losing hands as well as winning hands. Under ideal conditions what happened yesterday has no bearing on what will happen today when it comes to chance. I am just saying is the game of blackjack still a game of chance as it was in years past. Now don't jump on me for saying blackjack is a game of chance, I know that counting cards takes the chance out of the game.
Let's talk about your statement " I had one session at B where the count was monstrous, I kept getting DD opportunities and lost them all with max bets out. This is entirely explained by the math and CANNOT be avoided by labeling dealers or tables as 'hot' or 'cold.' These are gambler terms, not scientific terms." Obviously the low cards were clumped together. The count got higher and higher and yet the small cards kept coming out. I am wondering if the reason why these cards were clumped was due to a less than thourough shuffle and the cards were clumped like this for an extended period of time. I am making the assumptions that these DD opportunities were spread out over numerous shoes and not just one shoe. That is a possibility that you absolutely refuse to consider since you cannot factor that into your computer simulations and scientific research. These are variables that cannot be truly simulated, only approximately simulated or guessed at. Going back to your analogy about building a plane. I am sure it can be simulated what the effects would be if a certain bolt or more than one bolt is not properly rivoted or tighten which of course has nothing to do with blackjack.
By no means am I saying that card counting should not be used. It is the only way I know of that allows you to win in the long run and I don't buy into any progression betting system. I am simply saying that the cards do not seem to be falling as randomly as they should and there could be a reason for that. Is there a possibility one may experiece more consective wins and loses under today's conditions than is mathematically expected. Like I said before I have slightly adjusted my betting pattern due to the streaks that I have been witnessing and so far it has worked. It may not work in the long run and if that is the case I will go back to my old betting strategy which is based purely on the true count.
So loosen up a bit you guys, stop being so full of yourselves. Don't get your panties in a bunch when someone says that a small adjustment may be benefical when attacking today's game. Again I am not saying a drastic change needs to be made to proven card counting methods, maybe just a little tweeking, only time will tell. I can't wait to hear from you guys.
Richard Harvey?
- Thread starter b
- Start date
Oh i'm sorry......did you say something? I must have dozed off. Warn me first if you plan on writing mounds of boring useless nonsense, I can use it as an all natural sleep aid. Better yet I could print it out on some soft 3 ply and use it as.............oh never mind. Keep up the good work, insomnia is a real heath issue, glad you have found a cure.fsscout said:
@ maz, what is the point of flaming in a thread like this, where the discussing parties are both being civil. It's just disrespectful and rude. Harvey got banned in the first place for being way over the top with his insults and voodoo spew, but flaming is still flaming.
I am enjoy reading this debate between QFIT, Flash, and fsscout.
If you don't like reading and it bores you, then there is a simple solution... don't read it.
If you don't agree with what fsscout is saying point out the flaws in a constructive manner as QFIT and Flash are doing, rather than being condescending.
On topic
There is a big difference I believe between "streaks" due to shuffles, and following those clumps of cards with shuffle tracking. One could simply get up from the table at one of the "bad clumps" of cards due to the dealer making a bunch of hands, where as the tracker may perhaps get up because he KNOWS the clump isn't favorable to the player. Coincidence imo. Unless you have the knowledge of tracking why play off hunches? Its the same as people getting upset over one of my index plays when the count is ridiculously high. In their mind, they get up from the table because the dealer is making hands due to my mistakes, without knowing, no matter what anyone at the table does, the deck is in favor of the player. All voodoo.
I am enjoy reading this debate between QFIT, Flash, and fsscout.
If you don't like reading and it bores you, then there is a simple solution... don't read it.
If you don't agree with what fsscout is saying point out the flaws in a constructive manner as QFIT and Flash are doing, rather than being condescending.
On topic
There is a big difference I believe between "streaks" due to shuffles, and following those clumps of cards with shuffle tracking. One could simply get up from the table at one of the "bad clumps" of cards due to the dealer making a bunch of hands, where as the tracker may perhaps get up because he KNOWS the clump isn't favorable to the player. Coincidence imo. Unless you have the knowledge of tracking why play off hunches? Its the same as people getting upset over one of my index plays when the count is ridiculously high. In their mind, they get up from the table because the dealer is making hands due to my mistakes, without knowing, no matter what anyone at the table does, the deck is in favor of the player. All voodoo.
DeTalores said:
I'll tell ya what sweetie, if you don't like my posts ignore me. fsscout said "if you think I'm a fool I'd love to hear your feedback". Well I gave it to him. I believe he is a fool, that writes boring foolish stories about nonsensical ideas that he refuses to aknowledge. I refuse to get into a banter back and forth with an irrational thought process. So I voice my opinion as a vote towards absurdity. Let all those that love to write long dialogue of argument waste time trying to make someone who will not, and does not see the err of his ways, see the light. Not for me pal. This is voodoo section for a reason. You ask for my opinion you get it. Don't like it, don't friggin ask. I have no tolerance for fools, nor will I debate facts with someone who has no comprehension of them. Just like I will not try to teach calculus to a 1st grader, if its beyond comprehension its just a waste of time. I can gaurantee what I write here in the voodoo section can be comprehended by all. You get that..........good.
This is a very hostile crowd. I try to point out something to think about and in some eyes I am an idiot and I get totally misrepresented. Qfit makes ridulous analogies. FLASH talks to everybody like he is a genious and everybody else is an idiot. I don't know where MAZ came from but it is obvious he likes to read the posts and insult the writer. Amazing!!! What a group of snobs you guys are.
I pretty much anticipated this. It has been very entertaining. You guys act like you own this board and heaven forbid if someone new tries to discuss an idea that may be a little different than you're strict approach to the the game. As a result I get insulted, treated like a moron and told that I need to be educated. I am a firm believer in card counting. I don't advocate Harvey's hogwash. I just said maybe he has made a couple of points to think about.
The only person who seems to understand what I am pointing out and who has offered a constructive answer is DeTalores. As far as I am concerned all you other guys have an agenda to put down anybody who questions your strick approach to the game. I am sorry but I think the majority of you guys are snobs and incapable of conducting an intelligent discussion without distorting my view. Maz you have personally convinced me that posting to this board is a waste of time and you're insulting approach to other posters is sickening. After reading most of Maz's posts I get the impression that he is a know it all who probably needs to give everybody the impression he is a successful person. I have met and dealt with a lot of people like this and unfortunately most of them can't manage a relationship with the opposite sex and have few if any friends. They are to busy posting "I know it all statements on various boards". Sorry Maz but I know you a lot better than you think.
It has been fun and I will continue to post to this thread as long as some of the decent people and even the snobs reply to my posts. Otherwise I have better things to do and will no longer visit this message board again. Congratulations Maz and the like, you managed to get rid of another person. How many does that make?
I pretty much anticipated this. It has been very entertaining. You guys act like you own this board and heaven forbid if someone new tries to discuss an idea that may be a little different than you're strict approach to the the game. As a result I get insulted, treated like a moron and told that I need to be educated. I am a firm believer in card counting. I don't advocate Harvey's hogwash. I just said maybe he has made a couple of points to think about.
The only person who seems to understand what I am pointing out and who has offered a constructive answer is DeTalores. As far as I am concerned all you other guys have an agenda to put down anybody who questions your strick approach to the game. I am sorry but I think the majority of you guys are snobs and incapable of conducting an intelligent discussion without distorting my view. Maz you have personally convinced me that posting to this board is a waste of time and you're insulting approach to other posters is sickening. After reading most of Maz's posts I get the impression that he is a know it all who probably needs to give everybody the impression he is a successful person. I have met and dealt with a lot of people like this and unfortunately most of them can't manage a relationship with the opposite sex and have few if any friends. They are to busy posting "I know it all statements on various boards". Sorry Maz but I know you a lot better than you think.
It has been fun and I will continue to post to this thread as long as some of the decent people and even the snobs reply to my posts. Otherwise I have better things to do and will no longer visit this message board again. Congratulations Maz and the like, you managed to get rid of another person. How many does that make?
creeping panther
Banned
Fss
There is no reason to leave this site, read and learn as I do, and I learn so much here, even after steady play for 15 years now. If you leave it will be at your own expense.
My best,
CP
You are wrong about Maz. He is probably one of the top 2 players in the world, extremely intelligent, and that is just his posting style.fsscout said:
There is no reason to leave this site, read and learn as I do, and I learn so much here, even after steady play for 15 years now. If you leave it will be at your own expense.
My best,
CP
fsscout, although some of the words may seem harsh, I don't believe Flash and QFIT were personally attacking or insulting you. Although "voodoo" has been brought up so many times before so I'm sure they are sick of people coming in and saying "this works, i've been doing it for years" and them having to repeat themselves.
Basically this is the voodoo section of the website, flame wars always start in here. Discuss it, otherwise don't be in this section reading.
If someone is stubborn enough to believe in their voodoo rather than the math, its their money. The longer threads go on without constructive criticism or interesting discussion topics, people get frustrated and turn to insults.
Basically this is the voodoo section of the website, flame wars always start in here. Discuss it, otherwise don't be in this section reading.
If someone is stubborn enough to believe in their voodoo rather than the math, its their money. The longer threads go on without constructive criticism or interesting discussion topics, people get frustrated and turn to insults.
You know what my beef is man? Its the fact that you approach this as a child trying to skate through something. You are basically saying I know what I'm doing is wrong and are expecting a pass because of your seeming honesty. But in the same breath you try to quantify your actions with irrational excuses for why you do these things. You are either wrong or right, and you don't get credit for honesty when you are hedging on the truth. You claim to be an experienced counter, so your ignorance in this is inexcusable. I do not treat new players with such disdain, I would try to help those who have yet to learn to accept mathematical solutions to figurable problems. Yes, there are ways to figure out less than random shuffles, yes there may be ways to take advantage or walk away from certain shoes, but guessing on streaks is not it. Being too lazy to learn why an event happens and how to handle it is one thing, advocating nonsensical unproveable methods, pisses me off. It is you who are guilty of being a dreadful know it all bore as you will not listen to those who actually know better. Again to be equated with a child that will not listen to a parent, with the childs though of the parent is wrong because grown ups think they know it all. In most cases the parent is right. And my alleged 60 year old son, I am right. Instead of voodoo streak watching, how about working a little bit and delve into what mechanics of the cards you can learn to maybe truly identify what may be coming your way instead of guessing. So quit your crying about unfair posters. It is you that does not know how to think intelligently outside the box. Its not about sticking to just rigid counting methods its about sticking with rigid mathematical proabilities and learning how to play this damn game outside of lazy ass +1 -1 okay why am I losing lets guess now scenarios.fsscout said:
QFIT
Well-Known Member
fsscout said:
Of course it can be simulated. Of course it is included in my research. Why would you think that I would ignore reality? Numerous voodoo books make this absurd claim that it is not possible to simulate BJ and that the counting authors don't understand "real" BJ. Harvey's writings are full of this nonsense. The fact that they don't know how to do something does not mean everyone else is incompetent.
Qfit and FLASH, I was out of line with my last post and I apologize to you two. Maz's post really upset me and I responded innapropriately. The times I responded to others in a negative way was after I was treated that way first. Maybe I should have been a little more diplomatic. I raised a question "In today's game is it possible that more consecutive losses and/or wins are happening at an unusual rate?" That question still has not been directly answered. Instead I got disertations about luck and my choice in reading material has been questioned when in fact I only have one book that wasn't written by a well respected player or expert such as Thorp, Anderson, Carlson, etc.
Instead of getting a direct answer people have been jumping to conclusions and labelled me as a Harvey advocate. Qfit, I never compared Harvey to Houston,etc. I said many times that in my opinion Harvey's research is hogwash but has he touched on a couple issues worth discussing? Guys, like I said before loosen up a bit and stop flying off the handle just because I have asked a question that you may not like or think is silly.
I will take creeping panther's post as a fact and acknowledge that Maz is highly intelligent person and a world class player. Unfortunately his lack of people skills and attacking style makes him appear to be just the opposite. To my new daddy, Maz, if you have any real children I hope you haven't severely brow beaten them. Again, Maz like some other's have jumped to conclusions or misunderstood me. Let me rephrase one of my questions "I have basically been out of the game for 15 years so is blackjack a different game than before in terms of poor shuffling and card clumping? To me it appears that way." Simply question. Is it possible to get an answer without being labeled as a lazy child and a voodoo supporter.
I know I have more homework and practice to do. Although I feel my play has been good since I started playing blackjack again, I also realize I am not at the level I was at in the 80's. One of the reason's I joined this board is to get some insight regarding today's game. I never expected the hostile approach some have taken.
DeTalores and creeping panther thanks for your posts. Also Qfit and FLASH I do appreciate your input despite the incorrect assumptions you have made about me. Maz I hope you work on your people skills just like I need to work on my game and stop being so intolerant, that doesn't help anyone.
Let's start fresh and I am willing to accept some constructive criticism without the attacks and once again I apologize for my attacks. I must confess I have enjoyed the banter and some of my posts were intended to get a fire started and as a result I have seen human nature at it's best and worst. But you have to admit that it has been entertaining and even amusing at times.
Instead of getting a direct answer people have been jumping to conclusions and labelled me as a Harvey advocate. Qfit, I never compared Harvey to Houston,etc. I said many times that in my opinion Harvey's research is hogwash but has he touched on a couple issues worth discussing? Guys, like I said before loosen up a bit and stop flying off the handle just because I have asked a question that you may not like or think is silly.
I will take creeping panther's post as a fact and acknowledge that Maz is highly intelligent person and a world class player. Unfortunately his lack of people skills and attacking style makes him appear to be just the opposite. To my new daddy, Maz, if you have any real children I hope you haven't severely brow beaten them. Again, Maz like some other's have jumped to conclusions or misunderstood me. Let me rephrase one of my questions "I have basically been out of the game for 15 years so is blackjack a different game than before in terms of poor shuffling and card clumping? To me it appears that way." Simply question. Is it possible to get an answer without being labeled as a lazy child and a voodoo supporter.
I know I have more homework and practice to do. Although I feel my play has been good since I started playing blackjack again, I also realize I am not at the level I was at in the 80's. One of the reason's I joined this board is to get some insight regarding today's game. I never expected the hostile approach some have taken.
DeTalores and creeping panther thanks for your posts. Also Qfit and FLASH I do appreciate your input despite the incorrect assumptions you have made about me. Maz I hope you work on your people skills just like I need to work on my game and stop being so intolerant, that doesn't help anyone.
Let's start fresh and I am willing to accept some constructive criticism without the attacks and once again I apologize for my attacks. I must confess I have enjoyed the banter and some of my posts were intended to get a fire started and as a result I have seen human nature at it's best and worst. But you have to admit that it has been entertaining and even amusing at times.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
No problem. In answer to your question, no Blackjack is not a different game than before in terms of poor shuffling and card clumping. In fact, and unfortunately, shuffling is better than it was 15 years ago. And there is no difference in overall "clumping." Existing clumps are now more likely to break up than they used to be, but they are also more likely to be created. All of which is meaningless unless you are tracking.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Snyder's Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook is probably the best source in print. There is also some good (but technical) info here:fsscout said:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/playing/shuffle.htm (Archive copy)
You'll also find some good sources in this thread:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=3995
-Sonny-
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
if you're already experienced with deck estimation and dividing stick with a balanced count. Especially if you want to get into shuffle tracking. An unbalanced count will add extra steps in there and probably won't be worth the switch. Plus KO won't do you much good in preparing yourself for Omega II.fsscout said:
Thanks, I used Omega II before my long blackjack layoff (15 yrs) and struggled with it now that I started playing again. Need more practice time. I was just wondering if KO was a good count to use for the short term until I get up to speed or if a simple plus minus count works just as well or better.Deathclutch said:
If you think Richard harvey is bad...
JSTAT's at it again: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1267720938
JSTAT's at it again: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1267720938
Sonny
Well-Known Member
And here:21forme said:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1267326807
And, of course, the thread where he lashes out against everyone including Arnold Snyder:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1264129994
I certainly don't regret my decision.
-Sonny-
Tarzan
Banned
JStat and Richard Harvey
http://www.examiner.com/x-18051-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner~y2009m8d22-Blackjackinfocom-silences-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner?#comments
OOps... I don't know if the link worked. I will copy and past this:
Blackjackinfo.com silences San Francisco Blackjack Examiner
August 22, 11:32 AMSan Francisco Blackjack ExaminerJohn StathisPrevious
Next
8 comments Print
Email
RSS Subscribe
Subscribe
Get alerts when there is a new article from the San Francisco Blackjack Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use. Email Address
Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use
AP PhotoJSTAT was barred from posting at blackjackinfo.com for having opposing views on 7/28/09. He did nothing to break the rules there. A moderator named ICountNTrack, who should be called Deputy Barney Fife (Don Knotts of the Andy Griffith Show), wrongly arrested the good guy. The charge, claiming hi-lo is not the great count it is cracked up to be . Too bad Sheriff Taylor is not to be found there.
Hi-lo can be converted from the modified Ten Count (JSTATII). Using this conversion makes the Ten Count at least equal to hi-lo. What makes it stronger is the perfect insurance and blackjack frequency ingredients. For instance, an even count with two extra aces above the average at close to 3 decks left at a 6 deck game, we will have an advantage at the .26 house edge games on the Las Vegas strip. Instead of receiving blackjacks of 4.74% off the top of the shoe, blackjacks will arrive 5.55% of the time at about 3 decks. A .81 difference! .81-.26 gives us a .55 advantage while using perfect basic strategy and surrender. JSTATII identifies the positive situation while the hi-lo player does not. JSTAT has won for 20 years using this model.
JSTAT can't believe he was barred from a blackjack message board for speaking the truth! Bad for business? He did not break any of the posting rules. JSTAT learned from blackjack guru and mentor Arnold Snyder to be polite under adversity. Snyder gave him a break by publishing some of his casino writings in his Blackjack Forum. They are both retired letter carriers and are on friendly terms. Snyder's site is to be trusted.
But writing a negative review on examiner.com about blackjackinfo.com is strong in JSTAT's heart. Major contributor on this message board Zen Grifter, is a convicted $80 million swindler. "The Zen Zone" is dedicated to him on the site. Dalton also replies on the other sections of the board. If Dalton can wipe out "little old ladies" bank accounts, why would this site care about newbies seeking advice? Bjinfo's administrator Ken Smith's association with Dalton is disturbing for new card counters . Which leads me to this confession. This article will affect all blackjack message boards, including Snyder's. Can JSTAT have his forgiveness when published?
Comments
Pancho Villa says:
Richard, I read your links... thoroughly even. If you deviate from the mathemathics of it and use nebulous, unsubstantiated trains of thought bordering on "magical mystical" notions or "gamblers fallacy", you can expect some criticisms from these devout "by the book and by the math" sort of guys. It was wrong for them to bar you though, not giving you a chance to make your point(s). Several people on the site HAVE read your books as it turns out though. From what I saw of your initial posts you were vicious and outwardly hostile. In your links, you crack on people that put together some of the building blocks of modern blackjack... do present day physics professors bust on Isaac Newton and call him an idiot that rode the "short bus"?
March 6, 8:44 PM
Richard Harvey says:
I got banned from the site for objecting to libelous attacks by a competing writer whose advice I challenged and Moderator Sonny who made accusations based solely upon malice (he had not read my books nor the sites he denigrated without having visited them!). Matter of fact, none of those commenting on me had read my books - the definition of ignorance. I hold blackjackinfo.com liable not for the libelous remarks and for supporting the libeler and banning me (effectively preventing me from defending myself). They should really be called blackjackDISinfo.com.
March 3, 9:06 AM
Jstat is apparently upset that nobody at bjinfo would agree that he is quite the grand wazoo of blackjack with his "10count". Richard Harvey chimed right in with his grievances against all those that oppose him and not give him sufficient credit where credit is due for his "circle of 13" and other various "innovative" blackjack theories.
With both of these guys, I think it's a matter of capitalizing on pushing their system, after all, many blackjack authors of any true notoriety have made more money hawking their books than they have made playing the game.
I prefer laying low and NOT teaching my system or techniques. Why do I want the world at large to know exactly what I do and how I do it and let the cat out of the bag? It's a complex deviation from the Gordon/DHME count anyway, little known and even less understood. I have no need of celebrity or notoriety status and for darn sure don't wish to do anything to jeopardize the longevity of what I do. Neither of their systems hold a candle to Gordon/DHME style counts but I won't be writing any books soon and have no need to prove any points about it, no need to beef myself up to the public in order to push a product on them... I only wish to be able to quietly continue to do my thing unencumbered in any way. Should I ever want to publish something or feel some need to divulge sensitive data to the public at large, I hope I can at least do it with dignity and not go batsh*t cujo f*cktard at all and any that may oppose me.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18051-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner~y2009m8d22-Blackjackinfocom-silences-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner?#comments
OOps... I don't know if the link worked. I will copy and past this:
Blackjackinfo.com silences San Francisco Blackjack Examiner
August 22, 11:32 AMSan Francisco Blackjack ExaminerJohn StathisPrevious
Next
8 comments Print
RSS Subscribe
Subscribe
Get alerts when there is a new article from the San Francisco Blackjack Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use. Email Address
Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use
AP PhotoJSTAT was barred from posting at blackjackinfo.com for having opposing views on 7/28/09. He did nothing to break the rules there. A moderator named ICountNTrack, who should be called Deputy Barney Fife (Don Knotts of the Andy Griffith Show), wrongly arrested the good guy. The charge, claiming hi-lo is not the great count it is cracked up to be . Too bad Sheriff Taylor is not to be found there.
Hi-lo can be converted from the modified Ten Count (JSTATII). Using this conversion makes the Ten Count at least equal to hi-lo. What makes it stronger is the perfect insurance and blackjack frequency ingredients. For instance, an even count with two extra aces above the average at close to 3 decks left at a 6 deck game, we will have an advantage at the .26 house edge games on the Las Vegas strip. Instead of receiving blackjacks of 4.74% off the top of the shoe, blackjacks will arrive 5.55% of the time at about 3 decks. A .81 difference! .81-.26 gives us a .55 advantage while using perfect basic strategy and surrender. JSTATII identifies the positive situation while the hi-lo player does not. JSTAT has won for 20 years using this model.
JSTAT can't believe he was barred from a blackjack message board for speaking the truth! Bad for business? He did not break any of the posting rules. JSTAT learned from blackjack guru and mentor Arnold Snyder to be polite under adversity. Snyder gave him a break by publishing some of his casino writings in his Blackjack Forum. They are both retired letter carriers and are on friendly terms. Snyder's site is to be trusted.
But writing a negative review on examiner.com about blackjackinfo.com is strong in JSTAT's heart. Major contributor on this message board Zen Grifter, is a convicted $80 million swindler. "The Zen Zone" is dedicated to him on the site. Dalton also replies on the other sections of the board. If Dalton can wipe out "little old ladies" bank accounts, why would this site care about newbies seeking advice? Bjinfo's administrator Ken Smith's association with Dalton is disturbing for new card counters . Which leads me to this confession. This article will affect all blackjack message boards, including Snyder's. Can JSTAT have his forgiveness when published?
Comments
Pancho Villa says:
Richard, I read your links... thoroughly even. If you deviate from the mathemathics of it and use nebulous, unsubstantiated trains of thought bordering on "magical mystical" notions or "gamblers fallacy", you can expect some criticisms from these devout "by the book and by the math" sort of guys. It was wrong for them to bar you though, not giving you a chance to make your point(s). Several people on the site HAVE read your books as it turns out though. From what I saw of your initial posts you were vicious and outwardly hostile. In your links, you crack on people that put together some of the building blocks of modern blackjack... do present day physics professors bust on Isaac Newton and call him an idiot that rode the "short bus"?
March 6, 8:44 PM
Richard Harvey says:
I got banned from the site for objecting to libelous attacks by a competing writer whose advice I challenged and Moderator Sonny who made accusations based solely upon malice (he had not read my books nor the sites he denigrated without having visited them!). Matter of fact, none of those commenting on me had read my books - the definition of ignorance. I hold blackjackinfo.com liable not for the libelous remarks and for supporting the libeler and banning me (effectively preventing me from defending myself). They should really be called blackjackDISinfo.com.
March 3, 9:06 AM
Jstat is apparently upset that nobody at bjinfo would agree that he is quite the grand wazoo of blackjack with his "10count". Richard Harvey chimed right in with his grievances against all those that oppose him and not give him sufficient credit where credit is due for his "circle of 13" and other various "innovative" blackjack theories.
With both of these guys, I think it's a matter of capitalizing on pushing their system, after all, many blackjack authors of any true notoriety have made more money hawking their books than they have made playing the game.
I prefer laying low and NOT teaching my system or techniques. Why do I want the world at large to know exactly what I do and how I do it and let the cat out of the bag? It's a complex deviation from the Gordon/DHME count anyway, little known and even less understood. I have no need of celebrity or notoriety status and for darn sure don't wish to do anything to jeopardize the longevity of what I do. Neither of their systems hold a candle to Gordon/DHME style counts but I won't be writing any books soon and have no need to prove any points about it, no need to beef myself up to the public in order to push a product on them... I only wish to be able to quietly continue to do my thing unencumbered in any way. Should I ever want to publish something or feel some need to divulge sensitive data to the public at large, I hope I can at least do it with dignity and not go batsh*t cujo f*cktard at all and any that may oppose me.