Snyder flails BJAP and slays GBV (aka John May) *LINK*

[zengrifter]

EXCERPT-
GBV: Many classic books on advantage play have serious fundamental errors.
Snyder: Case in point, your book, where you present yourself as a "professional gambler."
--------------------------------------
Re: GBV's defense of his endorsement of McDowell's book
posted by TheBish on 01-20-2005 20:18

I am replying to GBV's post of 1/19 (Re: ETFan, MathBoy, Syph, Sohrab et al.) not primarily as a continuation of my review of McDowell's book, but because I find GBV's response to my review particularly dishonest. I think his response goes to the heart of what is going on with the endorsers of this unfortunate book, and so it needs a response.

...continued at link -

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The numbers I got

I tried to run the numbers myself on single-key ace sequencing a while back. In a 6 deck game, I got a number very similar to what I believe McDowell's was; around 13 per 100 or about double the probability of getting an ace at random on the first card only. Since only the first card is affected I declared this to be the equivalent of two extra aces per deck for the player only. Two extra aces per deck doesn't give you a 4% advantage but you're definitely in positive EV territory, and since these two virtual extra aces apply only to the player and not the dealer, it should drive the EV even higher. I reckoned about 2% in a 6D game, considerably less in an 8D game and considerably more in a 4D game, all this assuming you can find a dealer with a reasonably good riffle which I sure haven't been able to do. Requiring 50 to 60 aces per 100 to get 4% advantage I do not understand, because if getting an ace on yor first card gives you a 43% advantage (it's on bjmath.com), then getting an ace on your first card 50-60% of the time is going to give you a Christ of a lot more than 4%.

 

[stainless steel rat]

from an outsider looking in

There is a lot more to this than just aces and probability, IMHO. There are serious personality issues that I don't begin to understand, don't want to understand, and don't intend to ever try to understand. Best advice is to stand back far enough that you don't get hit with a wild punch.

I didn't understand the 60 aces per 100 math. Assuming a shoe of nothing but aces and 10s, you'd get an A the first card 50 of every 100 times. If BJ continues to pay 3:2, I'd play with that shoe and not bother counting.

 

[zengrifter]

Say Mayor...

...were you one of the "expert-endorsers" of BJAP? zg

 

[The Mayor]

Never claimed to be an expert

I never claimed to be an expert at S.T., and most certainly am not such.

To quote myself:

"... the information in this book was material I had always hoped to figure out myself some day. Here it all was, laid out in plain and easily understandable terms. The other side was that once out, casinos would take counter measures to insure that these techniques would no longer work. Such information is rarely made public."

I am in the process of figuring it out right now for myself for the single deck game (I wrote some C code)... I have a post that I may make soon that gives up a little of what I have been working on (or maybe not...).

There are precious few experts in S.T., and their most precious gems will *never* be put in a book.

 

[Sun runner]

Endorsements

Never 'claimed to be an expert at ST'ing?' That's kind of lame ain't it?

to quote you quoting yourself:

"... the information in this book was material I had always hoped to figure out myself some day. Here it all was, laid out in plain and easily understandable terms. The other side was that once out, casinos would take counter measures to insure that these techniques would no longer work. Such information is rarely made public."

What exactly did you expect the public to think when an implied well known blackjack authority like yourself writes words such as these? Let me tell you what most would think ...

- that you had finally found the (accurate) information you had been looking for

- that these techniques do work and are accurate; so much so casinos will now start defending against there play.

- that such (accurate) information is rarely made public (but now has been)

- that you had read the book, analyzed the book, and found it to be accurate.

So, is it an endorsement or isn't it? I'm not sure any longer!?

 

[zengrifter]

I would say that he was in good company...

... IF John May and the sainted Robo hadn't also endorsed the thing. zg

 

[zengrifter]

PS- I bought BJAP (largely on the strength of...

... the Mayor's endorsement), but it was beyond my ability to utilize, so I gave it to Barfarkel. zg

 

[Sun runner]

A few things

1. Thanks Mayor, for running my comment above as it wasn't directed positively toward you. I respect that. Much more than others on other sites have had the nuts to do.

2. I read the Mayor's full review and I read the language lifted from the review by the publisher and I am left with only one thought .. are you kidding me? The book buying public is getting screwed.

Arnold Snyder apparently really never meant to say all those nice things about Schlesinger's work for all those years .. the Mayor now says hey, I never SAID I was an expert.

Thanks guys.

3. I'm not a math geek (oh really) but I believe BJAP is a lot better than the folks at BJFOL are going to tell you it is but not nearly as good as the endorsers would lead you to believe it was.

Snyder does make an excellent point (no doubt he'll be thrilled to have me endorsing him) about using any advanced techniques like these and that is you had better practice your ass off and never put into play anything you are guessing at. Placing max bets at the wrong time will tear your head off.

4. I'm glad the Mayor and Norm are speaking again. Ain't life grand?!