in this link: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/frequency-distribution-of-number-of-cards-dealt-heads-up.55891/#post-496328London Colin said:
xengrifter said:
Peter, you quoted my reply, not Don's, in support of your proposed breakthrough of simplicity.Peter JF said:
All someone would have to do is change an index or the way TC is calculated and they would not be stealing your property (if it got IP protection). Basically you would protect you specific idea but thousands of ways to barely alter it and basically have the same product or possibly an improved version of your product would be totally legal. This makes IP protection a waste of time and money.London Colin said:
Well there are 'proprietary' counting systems, so there must be some way to have ownership. From what I can see this is often done by direct training and confidentiality agreement. Maybe others can add more to this than me but that is what I see on-line.London Colin said:
A mathematical formula cannot be copyright protected. No one "owns" A = pi*r^2. Similarly, the tags to a count system are in the public domain and cannot be "protected." But, if the author then goes on to do intellectual work, such as devising the strategy deviations and publishing indices for the system, then that work can be protected. And, of course, if he/she holds seminars, such as what was done for Speed Count, and publishes materials to accompany the course, then that printed matter is also subject to copyright laws.Peter JF said:
Thanks for the input again Don, very useful. I am getting use to the negativity... that would only make so much sweeter if it was of value in the end. But I agree for you it will have no value, you are way above such a simple system that I would need to count well (almost effortlessly). I am just glad there are a lot more of us of much less calibre than you intellectually, or it would be a lonely plant for me lol. I am still hoping it has some value in that it will actually give an advantage and a significant one in relation to the effort required to implement it.DSchles said:
DSchles said:
OK Gronbog has the count strategy to test... I think it might take a while to set up as it is not a normal count table. I have just got to get the basic strategy variation table done for him when he is ready. But I have him the bet spread table to use to start with (which of course can be optimised with his tests). Let's wait and see then.xengrifter said:
He is ready NOW...Peter JF said:
I am basing this on the balanced count upon which the quick count is based. I did some work on this last night and have the tables ready. I have not sent on to Gronbog yet as I want to check over these and edit a little for simplicity. I have already taken out some of the extremes of the counts that make it cumbersome and don't add much value. I think there can be some more pruning done there under simulation to get it down further to keep even the play variations quite simple and manageable. However, its nothing surprising on that side as you might expect, but anyway at least that is also don now. But like I said, this might take some setting up by Gronbog as the approach to the count is novel.xengrifter said:
Cheers mate,Peter JF said:
This system works much better than any card counting system for making money lol... I think I am going to put the price up... I think it is worth more than Don's book (in terms of payback), but I don't think I will push it that far. Buy a copy now before the price goes up if interested! Don's book is much more technical than mine though, so maybe justifies the extra dollars for that alone.Taff said:
