zengrifter
Banned
Dams burst, airplanes crash, nuclear reactors meltdown, space-shots explode...QFIT said:
can you not provide better examples? Never mind, lets keep this on topic! zg
Walter Thomason Needs Feedback
- Thread starter zengrifter
- Start date
- Status
can you not provide better examples? Never mind, lets keep this on topic! zg
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, there is more. So, now that a gambling system book is written, people use the brilliant new discovery. If played accurately (with a large enough bankroll) 41% of those people will win and 59% will lose after 5,000 hands. (About the same number that use BS.) Some of the 41% that win will write the author testimonials swearing the system works and thanking the author. Those that lose will not say anything out of embarrassment and move on to the next ridiculous system. This reinforces the author’s opinion of his own system, as he now has players telling him how wonderfully the system works.zengrifter said:
Science?
1. Learning or study concerned with demonstrable truths or observable phenomena.
2. Any or all of the natural sciences.
3. Any branch of knowledge conducted according to scientific method.
4. Any methodological activity, discipline, or study.
5. Any skill or technique that may be developed through systematic learning.
6. Knowledge, especially when gained through experience.
No mention of mathematical simulations, or math at all in this definition... hummmm.
Webster's definition of science:QFIT said:
1. Learning or study concerned with demonstrable truths or observable phenomena.
2. Any or all of the natural sciences.
3. Any branch of knowledge conducted according to scientific method.
4. Any methodological activity, discipline, or study.
5. Any skill or technique that may be developed through systematic learning.
6. Knowledge, especially when gained through experience.
No mention of mathematical simulations, or math at all in this definition... hummmm.
zengrifter
Banned
Thank you Swami Pastrami. But why must you keep repeating the obvious?QFIT said:
Don't you understand that science will never trump art? zg
zengrifter
Banned
Its a great quote, don't you think?shadroch said:
If Walter doesn't want it I may use it to open the
BJ chapter of my upcoming Beyond Voodoo zg
"Blackjack is much more than the probable occurrance of a card or the predetermined size of the next wager. It is, in my opinion, an ART FORM, which requires the understanding, appreciation, and application of any and all "mediums" available to the artist."
-- Walter Thomason
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Good grief, you don't even understand the definition of Science after looking it up. The word mathematics comes from the Greek word máthēma which means "learning, study and science." Simulations, more properly called monte-carlo methods, are algorithms used to solving mathematic and statistical problems. Definitions 1 through 5 above apply. Are you actually now claiming that math is not scientific? This would at long last explain your insistence that your system works, despite all the evidence and mathematic proofs.Walter T. said:
walters progression.
Yes It was I, Since I purchased the book some 6 years ago, I have been using Walter's Progression, plus the Quit Points,(for exit) and have been getting good results.
Of course you have days when the cards do not fall as you would like, but that is the game; The only fault I found with the quit points was that many times I found that I was losing capital, in what I call negative dribble, this is where I would lose 3 hands and win 1, then lose 2 hands and win 1 or be on my 4th loss and win 2, but all the time I was gradualy losing capital, but never got stopped out by 4 loses in a row, so to counter this I stop play when I lose either 4 in a row or $100. I have noticed that some sessions I have never had 4 loses in a row, sessions are for about 2 to 3 hours, but several times I have had 4 loses in a row within the first 10 minutes, in fact once I had my first 4 hands were loses, but other than that I do cause some concern for the pit bosses here who cannot understand how I can sit at the table for 2 or 3 hours and still win, they do not like progression betters, because we are using their money to win more;
I did mention previously that I play only on CSM's here as there are no shoes, and I have found that the progression fits very well with these, and I believe it is because the Strategy was formuled with a full deck of 52 cards, and the CSM's have always 6 decks, less the cards just played, and this seems to make the game flow in sinc with both the strategy and the progression betting;
I feel that most folk are missing the point here, and trying to make this into something that it is not; as I mentioned, and so did Walter, and this is the reason why progression works, runs of wins and loses occur all the time, and all we do is to follow the trend, we are just observing what is happening, and taking advantage of it.
Trying to compare this with anything else is not correct, we are only being aware of what is happening at the table Now, and using our power of observation, and running with it, when it stops we go back to our minimum unit again;
Nothing complicated about what we do, just good play;
I believe that if you can count cards, then that is very good, and does have very good results, but for those that cannot, for what ever reason, then progression is the other way to play and enjoy that game.
Elkobar..
Hi Zengrifter, & Walter;zengrifter said:
Yes It was I, Since I purchased the book some 6 years ago, I have been using Walter's Progression, plus the Quit Points,(for exit) and have been getting good results.
Of course you have days when the cards do not fall as you would like, but that is the game; The only fault I found with the quit points was that many times I found that I was losing capital, in what I call negative dribble, this is where I would lose 3 hands and win 1, then lose 2 hands and win 1 or be on my 4th loss and win 2, but all the time I was gradualy losing capital, but never got stopped out by 4 loses in a row, so to counter this I stop play when I lose either 4 in a row or $100. I have noticed that some sessions I have never had 4 loses in a row, sessions are for about 2 to 3 hours, but several times I have had 4 loses in a row within the first 10 minutes, in fact once I had my first 4 hands were loses, but other than that I do cause some concern for the pit bosses here who cannot understand how I can sit at the table for 2 or 3 hours and still win, they do not like progression betters, because we are using their money to win more;
I did mention previously that I play only on CSM's here as there are no shoes, and I have found that the progression fits very well with these, and I believe it is because the Strategy was formuled with a full deck of 52 cards, and the CSM's have always 6 decks, less the cards just played, and this seems to make the game flow in sinc with both the strategy and the progression betting;
I feel that most folk are missing the point here, and trying to make this into something that it is not; as I mentioned, and so did Walter, and this is the reason why progression works, runs of wins and loses occur all the time, and all we do is to follow the trend, we are just observing what is happening, and taking advantage of it.
Trying to compare this with anything else is not correct, we are only being aware of what is happening at the table Now, and using our power of observation, and running with it, when it stops we go back to our minimum unit again;
Nothing complicated about what we do, just good play;
I believe that if you can count cards, then that is very good, and does have very good results, but for those that cannot, for what ever reason, then progression is the other way to play and enjoy that game.
Elkobar..
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Websters:Walter T. said:
Mathematics: The science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
Monte Carlo: of, relating to, or involving the use of random sampling techniques and often the use of computer simulation to obtain approximate solutions to mathematical or physical problems especially in terms of a range of values each of which has a calculated probability of being the solution
1. You are in disagreement with both mathematicans and the dictionary. To claim that math is somehow not scientific is beyond belief.
2. No you most certainly did not use the scientific method, as has been demonstrated to you hundreds of times over the years.
Not really....
I've read many posts from many people who attempted to be card counters and complained that they didn't win, so I guess they weren't embarrased about losing. I've NEVER received a letter or post from anyone who tried my system and felt that I misrepresented its potential, and I've received dozens of letters and dozens of posts over the years.QFIT said:
zengrifter
Banned
Its still a great quote! Beautiful, actually! zgWalter T. said:
QFIT
Well-Known Member
I know, even though you have in fact misrepresented the book hundreds of times and omitted the facts that many people have told you your book is flat-out nonsense and supplied proofs that your results are incorrect. And what a shame it is that you keep telling us this when it has been proved to you as having no meaning. And you have recently posted on four BJ sites.Walter T. said:
In a recent interview I was asked this question:
Interviewer: I understand your software is designed as a simulation of live play in order to teach players card counting. Do you hear a lot of success stories from players winning at the tables thanks to your software’s training?
Norm: I hear them, and I NEVER repeat them. I don’t like sites that provide anonymous references like “I won so much I bought a house in Vegas – Joe H from Florida.” Card counting is not trivial. If you don’t have the patience and discipline, it won’t work for you and I don’t want to give anyone the idea that advantage play is an easy path to riches.
zengrifter
Banned
Of course it is. zWalter T. said:
g- Status