BlackjackInfo.com
The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website
Home
Basic Strategy Engine
Rules of Blackjack
Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game
Card Counting
Interviews
Blackjack Blog
Message Boards
Blackjack Tournaments
Gambling Online
Newsletter Archive
Books & Software
Get Strategy Cards
These archives of the CardCounter.com message boards are provided as-is for reference. If you want to discuss anything about the posts, please post a message to the BlackjackInfo.com message forums.
Threads 121 to 150
Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by ace on 20-Nov-2002 16:48:40 (#753)
Can someone run down for me a summary of the counting laws in both AC and LV.
What can they do if they catch you etc. Never read a good summary of this but would be interested as I visit both places an equal amount during a year.-
Re: Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 20:00:38 (#758)
In Las Vegas they can read you the tresspass act and tell you that you will be arrested if you return to the property. That's about it, from a legal standpoint. If they ask for your ID, you can say no. If they ask you to remain on the premisis, you can leave. If they force you to go to a backroom, you can file felony abduction charges. However casinos often illegally transmit your digital image, your financial information, and other private information, without your consent in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (see article by CardKountr on this site).
And more, of course.
--Mayor
-
Re: Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by Cardkountr on 24-Nov-2002 13:31:55 (#984)
Although AC Casinos cannot "bar" you or read you the Trespass Law simply for being suspected as a skilled player as they do in LV, the AC casinos can legally take other actions such as cutting the shoe in half or more, restricting you to one hand, reshuffling anytime, or a flat bet restriction for you. They can employ any one or multiple actions cited above.
NJ law requires the casinos to offer a 10 to 1 spread on any game with less than a $100 min, therefore once they identify you as a counter, in lieu of a flat bet restriction, the casino can just changes the table min to $5 with a $50 max and then ask everyone else at the table (other than you) if they want permission to bet higher than the new posted limits while combining the other permissible actions to thwart you. So essentially it is tantamount to the same effect as a barring.
May all the dealers blackjacks occur while you're in the bathroom!!
Card.
-
counting in small local casinos
Posted by PaddyBoy on 20-Nov-2002 19:42:35 (#755)
Hi all,just found this site and have read a lot of posts and feel i will be reading and posting a lot more.I have posted a bit on BJ21 and RGE but i feel these sites are too much into the technical side of the game and lose sight of the human side.Anyway can i introduce myself?I live in Europe and got interested in BJ around this time last year thru the online casinos.Anyway througout this year have played at about 130 online casinos and have made about 6000 euros from them(dont have it now though as i havent been working since Febuary).I have played all the good bonuses and now this source of income has almost dried up!
I am fascinated by BJ and other games which can be beaten so when i get back to work i want to build up a bankroll and try to make a bit from my local casinos.I did a bit of counting during the summer but just came out about even.I would like to start with a BR of 5000 euros as i have heard of all the 1st time counters that start off with to small a BR and lose it fast.
My local casinos are small but have ok rules and from what i see below is that your act is very important.
during my stint in the summer i was genuinely friendly towards dealers and ploppies.but there must be more to it than that,to get away with keeping your max bets out during a high count (while losing hand after hand) and min betting during lows(and winning hand after hand) what kind of act do i need?some sort of progressionist?A guy who chases loses?
How can i blend in well with the ploppies and get a good spread?
Also the shuffles in these places are not great so i would be interested in techniques such as ace and shuffle tracking.After i get my act together!
-
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by darksun on 20-Nov-2002 19:55:37 (#756)
I'm just curious, but what kind of rules do these casinos offer?
-
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 19:56:01 (#757)
Welcome, it is great to have you here. I have no experience in European casinos, but there are several who visit and post here who do. But the commonality of act should be universal (or nearly so).
First, make sure you are really getting a good game before you play. The variety of rules in Europe range from incredibly poor to exceptional: it is even broader than what you find in this country.
Next, get the book "Burning the tables in Las Vegas." There is a new edition coming out in which the author talks about mid/low level play. At any rate, the book is devoted to getting away with it for the long run.
Next, experiment. Try a variety of things, see which draw heat, which work in your casinos. For example, if you only Wong on busy nights, you find your return is high with virtually no heat. But if you play long stints during quiet times, you will need an excellent act.
Next, make sure you are technically sound, and have an adequate bankroll. You should not even begin to consider making this a living with a bankroll under 10K, and probably 20K is more like it. You have to be able to bet 2 hands of $100 each before you earn a decent living wage, and it just goes up from there.
Next, never stop learning.
Finally, really listen to the advice you get, here and at bj21, rge21. There are some incredibly experienced and knowledgeable people who post at these sites. What they have to say is worth more than you can imagine.
With best regards,
--Mayor
-
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by Paddyboy on 20-Nov-2002 20:34:12 (#760)
Thanks.I am not thinking about making a living just a bit of extra money.
is not really possible to wong in but wonging out is viable.There are 3 i play at.rules are casino A;4D,S17,DAS,D9,10,11 only,ENHC and ES10.Casino B:the same with 6D.Casino c:same as a but with H17.Nice to have ES10,Casino a and b are really small 2 tables each,Casino c has about 7 so more opportunities for wonging there.
Casino B has a rule which pays you 80 euros if you get a 7 card hand,anyone know the odds of this?and 30 euros for a 7-7-7.I dont change Bs for this as i dont know if i should!
There is another casino but the pen is crap so i dont play,they have a poker room though i will try that during Xmas.
Regarding ploppies here they always seem to stand too much on 15 and 16 v dealer highs.They also seem to dissect every hand after the dealer has played,such as "oh if i stood on the 14 and then you hit the 15 then the dealer would have bust",they also seem to have little competitions to see who figures out how the dealer would have bust "Ah yes William is right, if Mildred hadnt doubled and if I split the dealer would have bust,good chap John."
Are ploppies in the US as anal as this?
I am going to try a lot of this when i start playing to blend in,although this even seems a lot more complicated than a level 4 count!
-
THANK GOD FOR PLOPPIES
Posted by learning to count on 20-Nov-2002 20:58:46 (#761)
I love it when they come in with 500 or more buy ins. They start betting drinking and being obnoxious. I had one tell me last trip theat his friend sitting across at first base was an expert in black jack and he read all the books. This was out loud that even survelliance heard it and they have no microphones. Well they both dumped at least a grand in red and green chips in about twenty minutes between them. ALL the while when they won a hand they would yell and cheer like banshees. The PC told them no problem with the cheers but not in his (me) ear. When they were ready to leave. I could not resist asking where I could buy the book.
Ploppies are great for cover. I had two oriental ploppies walk up pull out what looked like several thousand in rolled up hundreds and buy in for eight hundred a each. They bet like banshees yacking loud in chinese each time they won or lost. Great cover for me. When they bet BIG I bet large. They lost I won. I went unnoticed they were offered free buffets. Gotta love them ploppies!
-
Sounds like Germany? Ya? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 21:22:33 (#763)
-
I was thinking Ireland
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 21:48:01 (#765)
Given the "Paddy" part of his name and his articulate English.
-
Re: I was thinking Ireland
Posted by PaddyBoy on 21-Nov-2002 00:10:51 (#772)
close i am Irish but live in England.The Irish are called "Paddies" here.
Are we still called "Micks" in the states?
-
-
-
-
Doubles, splits, and matchplays (repost)
Posted by zengrifter (Theef) on 20-Nov-2002 21:24:49 (#764)
Theef raises a good question which I have reposted here, anyone? zg
-------------------
Doubles, splits, and matchplays
Posted By: Theef
Date: Wednesday, 20 November 2002, at 11:31 a.m. rge21
When the floorman will only let you double your $25 matchplay for $25, instead of $50, or when you are allowed/forced to split for only $25, are there any BS doubles or splits that are no longer advisable? Are there any defensive splits that BECOME advisable?
I'd be shocked if this question hasn't been asked before, so a link to an earlier thread will do fine if you have one.
-
Re: Doubles, splits, and matchplays (ANSWER)
Posted by zengrifter (J Morgan) on 22-Nov-2002 01:28:50 (#821)
I thought maybe we'd find the answer here first, but here it is anyway. zg
-------------
Posted By: J Morgan
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, at 8:59 p.m. rge21In Response To: Doubles, splits, and matchplays (Theef)
If you have $25 live cash + match-play coupon, but you can double or split for only $25 instead of $50, the deviations to BS are (S17 play precedes slash, H17 play follows slash):
IF COUPON IS RELINQUISHED ON PUSHES:
12 v. 3 H/S; 16 v. T S; A2 v. 5 H; A2 v. 6 H/D; A4 v. 4 H; A8 v. 6 S. DAS: 22 v. 8 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 44 v. 5 H/P; 66 v. 7 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A PC. NoDAS: 66 v. 2 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A PC.IF COUPON IS SAVED ON PUSHES:
11 v. A H; A2 v. 5 H; A2 v. 6 H/D; A3 v. 5 H/D; A4 v. 4 H; A7 v. 2 S; A7 v. 3 S/DS; A8 v. 6 S. DAS: 22 v. 8 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 44 v. 5 H; 44 v. 6 H/P; 66 v. 7 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A S/PC. NoDAS: 22 v. 3 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 66 v. 2 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A S/PC.PC means to sPlit the hand containing the Coupon. All these changes would amount to about a nickel on your $25 match-play coupon.
The upcoming BJF will have an extensive article on all this. Some of it gets very complicated.
Uston interview
Posted by MLB Scout on 20-Nov-2002 22:01:31 (#766)
Im looking for a copy of the 1981 60 Minutes interview with Ken Uston. If you have a copy, please email me. I will pay for all costs. Im also looking for "The Uston" it's a BS reference wheel that Uston marketed in the late 70's. Both items are for my personal collection, and NOT for re-sale.
Thanks...
MLB
-
Re: Uston interview
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 22:05:34 (#767)
Let me know if you find the 60 Minutes piece, may use it with the docufilm project. Are you around the local neighborhood currently? zg
-
Re: Uston interview
Posted by MLB Scout on 20-Nov-2002 22:26:20 (#769)
Yeah, I just got in from LV. Mostly phone work this week as we have a couple of block buster deals in the works. I'll email you my new cell number. I would really love to spend some time with you and the princess sometime soon. Dinner and a couple Captain Morgan's?
MLB
-
Re: Uston interview
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 22:41:50 (#770)
Another one of them cubano pitchers? zg (ps, you are on)
-
-
Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by JayMan on 21-Nov-2002 03:16:12 (#774)
I just finished reading the book, "Bringing Down The House". I must say it was a real page turner, and I found it extremely entertaining. After doing alot of research and reading other BJ books I have discovered that these MIT brainiacs were amazingly successful using a very basic hi-lo system with team play. Am I missing something??? Is this book really true??? Is team play really viable??? Could this be more fiction than fact????
Any and all thoughts would be great,
JayMan-
Re: Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 07:42:27 (#775)
I enjoyed this book as well, though I couldnt help think how much was embellished to make a good story sound great. Still, I read it in two sittings, I could barely put it down. Regardless of what was true or not true, it was very entertaining to read.
-
: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by hammer on 21-Nov-2002 09:30:11 (#778)
Yes,
true,GOES TO SHOW all the funky systems of ao11,halves,etc,maybe not
worth the trouble. And they play 6deck. But the real
point is large bankroll-over a million to start-Do you have that??
-
Re: : Bringing Down The House.....--__PW_FORM_DATA
Posted by Dave--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__ on 21-Nov-2002 14:52:25 (#795)
Could be that they are just saying that they used hi-lo because if you got a great system they aren't going to give out their secret. If you have a team of 10 or so students from one of the most highly selective schools in the country, just think what those guys are capable of. They were raised with computers and are very gifted mathematically. I'm thinking that they made up their own system or something.
--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__
-
HiLo w/ 40+ indices is a standard *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Nov-2002 22:21:43 (#817)
-
-
-
-
Re: Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 21:10:09 (#814)
I just checked out advantage player.com site. Mr. schlesinger says that the MIT team was very successful and that the book is very close to the truth. Interesting thread there.
what a night
Posted by Shell on 21-Nov-2002 10:03:46 (#779)
Thanks for everyone reply my first post last time. Although some stones did
bruise my forehead.
I went the casino yesterday night, played from 6:30 to 10:30 Pm. It was a
tough night, most of my table-mates could sit there for no more than 2 hours.
One asian bought in $400 and lost within 30 minutes, actually his bet was
spread from 10 to 40, wasn't so bad.
handle/avoid this. My bet was from $5 to $40, the pit boss didn't give me
a damn. lost $70.
-
Re: what a night
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Nov-2002 15:55:57 (#836)
It is really difficult to keep up with the count while other players or the dealer wants to chit chat with you. It is getting easier though the more I play.
In what order do you count?
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 10:09:32 (#780)
Interested in what order people track shoe games?
Do you keep track after the first cards come out, then track the seconds?
Do you wait until all hands are out before play starts?
Do you go hand by hand as play starts?
Interested to get some opinions as to what works for people.-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 10:24:28 (#781)
Interesting question. I have a firm rule. I only count the cards after the dealer has exposed them. For example, if a person flashes his cards because he wins a side bet, I do not count them, but if he doubles down and places his cards face up, I then count them. I always wait, even if I see the cards, for the cards to be finally turned up on the table. This is my personal way, just discipline. The only exception I make is in pitch, when I am considering an insurance play, I will then take any information that comes my way.
--Mayor
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by MrPill on 21-Nov-2002 10:36:20 (#783)
Mayor,
Shoe game. See my other post in this string.
Pill
-
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by MrPill on 21-Nov-2002 10:30:59 (#782)
Ace,
In a face up game I will wait until all players have the first two cards dealt out, or close to it. As you get more proficient with your count, you gain the ability to look at a table full of cards and eliminate the cards that cancel each other out on sight in a level-1 or an unbalanced count. This may happen with one players cards, or it may be the 2 cards from one player and the 2 cards from the player next to him.
And then don't forget the dealers up card. Sometimes I will also use this to cancel out a players card in the running count.
This process should take you only a few seconds.
Pill
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 10:39:31 (#784)
Thanks Pill. Essentially what I have been doing is what you describe. I have been dealing 7 hands to myself out of my 6 deck shoe. I give myself 2 seconds before I wipe the cards away. What I am getting fairly good at is quickly maching up the aces/faces and low cards as well as not even looking at the 7 - 8 - 9.
The "good" thing is the friends I tend to always play with are very slow players, so it gives me a bit of extra time, though through practice I hope not to need it.
Thanks for the reply.
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Nov-2002 13:18:08 (#789)
This is the method I use as well. If I can see the ploppy's cards next to me I count them also while he is still holding them.
-
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by Theef on 21-Nov-2002 12:37:00 (#788)
In a face-up game I count every card as it is dealt. As a backup I try to remember what the count was at the start of the hand, and if I get confused I count them again after they're all dealt while the ploppies are taking their sweet time.
In a face-down game I count my own hand and every other card as it is turned over. If I glimpse another player's cards I count them and curl one of my toes to remind myself not to count them again when he turns them over. Even if the guy's hand sums to zero, so double-counting it wouldn't matter, I give myself the curled-toe signal for the sake of consistency.
Counting the cards as soon as you see them is harder than waiting until they're all dealt for some people, but it's much more reliable in my experience. Otherwise, sooner or later you'll run out of time and have to count six cards in a half second between the dealer's fingers while he's scooping them up.
-
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by jnubro on 21-Nov-2002 17:53:29 (#799)
I use my left hand to store the count after all hands are collected. I let this hand rest on my thigh under the table and use a combination of finger,knuckle and wrist positions. Whether the fingers are in a very slight push vs. pull state indicates whether the count is pos vs. neg, thumb=1...pinky=5, any one or two finger combination makes a number from 1-9, raised vs collapsed knuckle and wrist position takes care of tens. Sounds harder than it is...works for me, anyway.
I find it indispensible for keeping the "main" count accurately between each hand. I adjust my left hand stored count during play only for blackjacks and busts since these cards are removed from play. I only mentally adjust the left hand stored count for any cards that I happen to spy including my own hand.
When a round is over I quickly count all the cards as the dealer reveals them but do so based on zero and just add the positive or negative number to whatever my left hand stored count is. I reconfigure my left hand for the new stored count and relax.
I find this method enables me to socialize while playing because I only have to count in spurts instead of trying to keep track of which cards I haven't already counted while trying to remember the current count. I found I couldn't resist adjusting the count for cards I happened to spy; but then I couldn't always remember which cards I didn't count yet and what the running count was before I lost track.
We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 11:50:57 (#787)
We have met the enemy.
So despite your standing on hard 14 vs 7, your body language and mannerisms have attracted the pit's attention. Sorry, but since he was standing 10 feet away at the podium, he didn't even see you stand on soft 18 that last round. He walks over to stand behind the dealer, crosses his arms, and starts staring directly at you. He is boring a hole into you with a grim look on his face.
You make the classic anti-heat counter move -- flat bet the rest of the shoe, and just play basic strategy. Of course, the pit really had no way to know what spread you were betting before, he wasn't paying attention to that. Besides, he doesn't know what the count is, he wasn't watching the cards, for all he knows the count might be negative, and you should be flat betting. All you are doing is demonstrating that you do know basic strategy.
Let's step back and examine the dynamics of the situation. The pit suspects something. They are staring at you. This is because they are not sure, and they are trying to confirm what they suspect. Your reactions are what they are trying to gauge.
Let's look at some typical ploppy reactions:
>Seeing the pit boss coming, 3rd base yells out, "Boy am I hot tonight!", as he doubles up on his next bet.
>Smiling broadly at the pit boss standing there (after all the pit is the giver of comps, the ambassadors of fun of a nights entertainment, the hander-outer of the free show tickets, the source to the free buffet), 2nd base says, "Can we get a new dealer? This guy hasn't busted for the past five hands?"
>1st base never notices the pit boss, he is too busy trying to figure out if he should split his 2s against the dealer's Ten, and is still grumbling about the last round when 3rd base stole the dealer's bust card. He is also trying to keep up some clever banter with the cocktail waitress, while keeping an eye behind him on his wife playing the slot machines a few rows down. Pit boss? What pit boss?
Contrast with a typical counter reaction:
>Making sure that you don't make any eye contact with the man glaring at you, you radically alter your betting patterns, and start flat betting. You start putting chips into your pockets, only planning on playing a couple more hands, until you can 'slip away' from this heat. You pause on a hand, "Should I stand on this 15 because this the count calls for it, or hit it because that is basic strategy?" Afraid to alert the looming pit boss, who is probably just watching for a move like that, you decide to hit. Your former rapid-fire play style has changed. You now seem to be thinking about simple hands, as sweat starts to break out on your brow.
I mean you might as while just jump up, knocking your chair over, and scream, "YES, I'M COUNTING CARDS. I ADMIT IT!" Then rapidly run for the door with pee running down your leg. Even if you leave quietly and discreetly, the Pit has done its job. You have removed yourself from play. The pit's suspicions were confirmed. The threat has been neutralized. AND HERE IS THE BEAUTY OF THE STARE TECHNIQUE: They didn't have to say a word. The ploppies didn't even realize anything has happened. They are still sitting at the table, laughing, joking, grumbling and crying, while they continue to give their money to the casino. They don't have a clue that they just witnessed a back off.
Okay, here are some hints:
I used to have a girl friend who gave me the ‘evil eye’ when my behavior didn’t meet with her approval. After a while, I learned that a mean look didn’t break any of my bones, cause internal bleeding, cuts, scrapes, or even minor bruises. A mean look is completely harmless. Not content with just my own observations, I searched the medical literature. NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM HAVING A FROWNY FACE STARE AT THEM! So when you are getting the stare, and you win your next hand, LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE PIT BOSS AND LAUGH REAL LOUD – HAW HAR AHAW HAW, as you scrape up your winnings. (the pit is now confused, you aren’t acting like the typical counter, now are you?)
Maybe the pit boss isn’t actually staring at you anyways! Maybe he got tired of holding up his chin at the podium, has walked over to your table, and has now zoned out, staring into nothingness, as he realizes what a truely boring job he has with nothing to do. So do your duty, give the pit something to do – Look directly at the pit boss, AND ASK FOR A COMP FOR 2 FOR DINNER!
At this point the pit now has a couple of choices:
1) Grant your request and go write you a comp.
2) Tell you to get a comp you need to play longer and bet more. (At this count? Gladly!)
3) Walk away with a disgusted look on his face. (Great, while his back is turned, I think I will spread to two hands)
4) Escalate the whole deal, and tell you no more blackjack.
The last is least likely, but it now gives you the perfect response. “SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU KNOW HOW TO PLAY AND WHAT A COMP?”, direct this comment to poorest basic strategy player at the table, for the benefit of all the others, “PLAY A REASONABLE GAME AND THEY WANT TO THROW YOU OUT, WHAT KIND OF RIP-OFF JOINT IS THIS?”
Of course, you have your chips picked up and are moving towards the door while you say this ....
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 13:24:38 (#790)
I ask your permission, sir, to archive this as one post when you have completed it. Thanks in advance.
You are welcome to send it to me and I will format it for a permanent place on this site.
By the way, my anti-boss-staring move is to increase my bets as the count gets more negative.
Best,
--Mayor
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 13:59:14 (#792)
These posts were given freely to your site. Any and all posts with the word 'Enemy' in the subject line, are yours to do with what you will.
Feel free to cut and paste and stick them all together, with whatever formatting you feel is necessary.
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 14:02:23 (#793)
In that case, please let me know what name you would like attached, and any short biographical info you would like added at the top.
Thanks.
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 14:44:41 (#794)
Name? You need my name? The 3rd shift boss never asked for my name to give me a lousy comp, I left my ID in my room, and my girlfriend is around here somewhere using my player's card on the slots. Guess I'll just go back across the street, the host over there has been real good to me, gives me just about everything I want, that's why they get most of my play. ;>)
Abraham de Moivre -- will be fine, I don't think he will be suing me. ;>)
Let's just say I am a free-lance contract type employee, who doesn't sweat periods of unemployment between assignments, anymore. For the past four years, I have been able to fall back on Blackjack for periods of time, in order to support my lavish lifestyle. When employed, I use Blackjack as a part-time job to supplement my income.
I owe Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger a large debt for showing how to open the doors to the casino vaults. I am an observer of people and behavior, and have studied what the casino marketing type folks are looking for, and want, from their customers. I have found that by playing certain roles, I can dramatically increase my longevity, despite a winning record.
It is not what you are, or what you do - It is what they think you are and what they think you do.
Thanks for the site!
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 15:17:46 (#796)
You said: Name? You need my name?
What I wanted was the name you wanted me to write the posts under. Of course, I did not expect it to be your real name -- but for all I know, you are Celini, or someone else with a highly well known "name", and I wanted to give you the opportunity to use that instead.
Thanks again,
--Mayor
-
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 15:38:37 (#797)
From the grapevine, I have heard that most of the 'Celini' posts are a fraud.
No, I am not a recognized 'name'. Like the most 'best' spy or the 'best' bankrobber, etc. -- You wouldn't know or recognize my name.
Ego has left a long time ago, I'm in this for the money ;>)
-
-
-
-
-
excellent one
Posted by Shell on 21-Nov-2002 13:26:49 (#791)
should be archived.
-
Re: excellent one
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 15:49:15 (#798)
Great post, thanks
-
Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 18:21:21 (#801)
I am going on a cruise and I found out that there is a Casino on board. The game is as follows:
1) 8 decks, 1.25-1.5 cutoff; sometimes one deck cut off.
2) split and resplit any pair, thrre times into four hands
3) split aces only once
4) double down on any two card combination
5) double after a split except on aces
6) dealer stands on s17
Miscelaneous: insurance, no surrender allowed.
Any advice would be appreciated. Mayor at what true count would you bet max in this game? I know this is a great wonging opportunity. I calculated it a disadvantage of -.408 for 8 decks off the top.
-
Re: Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:18:21 (#805)
If it is true that you only get 1.25 decks cut off sometimes, this is a fantastic game.
Max bet at TC = +5.
Patience and Wonging are called for. Don't expect too much -- it can take a long time to get that monster count, but when you get it expect it to stay for a while. Be willing to put out the big bets for most of a very long shoe, and hold on!
--Mayor
-
Re: Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:37:15 (#810)
Thanks Eliot. Last june I played this game or I should say I wonged in and out. You are right I back counted for a long time before I found plus 1 TC. Plus five is rare. I cant remember it going that high for more than a couple of shoes. As far as the 1 and quarter cut it happened usually late after one am and only two tables open. The only other game with a low ror was the coin toss machine...haha!
-
Kelly criterion
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 18:22:57 (#802)
Any one like to explain it in english as it pertains to betting in blackjack.
-
Re: Kelly criterion
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:21:21 (#806)
The Kelly criterion refers to the bet size that most quickly grows your bankroll. It takes only two variables into consideration, the current size of your bankroll and your current advantage. Based on these two numbers, it produces a correct bet. Using this system comes with a 13.5% risk of ruin (losing your entire bankroll), but the shortest mean time to doubling your bankroll as well. It is a wild ride and very few play full-kelly. If you play "full kelly" based on 1/2 of your bankroll, and leave the other 1/2 in reserve, your risk of ruin reduces to under 2%. Many do this.
Hope this helps,
--Mayor
-
Thank you! *NM*
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:31:10 (#808)
-
BJ in London
Posted by jnubro on 21-Nov-2002 19:02:46 (#803)
Has anyone played BJ fairly recently in London who can recommend any
places to play? I have never been to London and have no idea what kind
of BJ is available.
-
Re: BJ in London
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:29:49 (#807)
I was in london in march of 98 and march 0f 99. I tried to go to a Casino but I was advised at the door that they were for memebers only and you needed a ecorted member invitation. From what I gathered six decks, dbl on 9,10,11. Bad cuts and sweaty. If you go to Stanford wongs bj21 and look in the freepage archives I remember there was an international page there should be info. Also check rge pages as well. London is great. Never a boring moment. If you are a military/history buff dont miss the Imperial war museam.
uston simple +/-
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 19:36:17 (#804)
I am wondering where I could get the exact basic strategy deviations for the Uston simple +/-. I find it impossible to get straight answers from his book for a 6-8 deck game, DAS, DA2, S17, Late Surrender, and when these deviations should be made. I.e. what should be running or true count?
Thanks,
Z
-
Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:35:38 (#809)
PROFESSIONAL BLACKJACK ANALYZER
<Version: PBA 4.3.7>
Results for file: C:\PBA437\USTON.txt
November 21, 2002
The following rules were specified in the rules menu:
R>---------------------------------------------------
6- deck shoe
Insurance offered
Dealer stands on soft-17
With dealer blackjack, player...
Loses one bet max
On ties, player pushes, except...
Loses with 22-26
Resplit to make four hands
Resplit aces allowed
Doubling allowed on aces
OK to split unlike 10s, like J-Q
Check hole card under 10, A
Double any hard total
Soft doubling allowed
surrender two cards
late surrender against 10
late surrender against A
initial hand only
After splitting...
Double any hard total
Soft doubling allowed
Double two cards only
Shufffle used was: Random Swaps
Dealt to 78 cards remaining.
R>--------------------------------------------------
The following counting system was used:
C>--------------------------------------------------
System name: Uston
Count indices...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
Minimum count for playing decisions: -20
Maximum count for playing decisions: 20
C>--------------------------------------------------
B>---------------------------------------------------
The following strategy tables were obtained:
A>----------------------------------------------------
A> INSURANCE INDEX
Insure hands at counts greater than or equal to 6
A> HARD HIT/STAND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
21 S S S S S S S S S S
20 S S S S S S S S S S
19 S S S S S S S S S S
18 S S S S S S S S S S
17 S S S S S S S S S S
16 S S S S S 17 H 14 1 8
15 S S S S S H H H 9 11
14 S S S S S H H H 16 15
13 -2 S S S S H H H H H
12 6 3 -1 S S H H H H H
11 H H H H H H H H H H
10 H H H H H H H H H H
9 H H H H H H H H H H
8 H H H H H H H H H H
7 H H H H H H H H H H
6 H H H H H H H H H H
5 H H H H H H H H H H
4 H H H H H H H H H H
3 H H H H H H H H H H
2 H H H H H H H H H H
A> SOFT HIT/STAND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,10 S S S S S S S S S S
A,9 S S S S S S S S S S
A,8 S S S S S S S S S S
A,7 S S S S S S S H H H
A,6 H H H H H H H H H H
A,5 H H H H H H H H H H
A,4 H H H H H H H H H H
A,3 H H H H H H H H H H
A,2 H H H H H H H H H H
A,A H H H H H H H H H H
A> HARD DOUBLE
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
12 - - - - - - - - - -
11 D D D D D D D D D 0
10 D D D D D D D D 8 6
9 2 -1 D D D 7 17 - - -
8 - 17 12 8 4 - - - - -
7 - - - - 19 - - - - -
6 - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - - - -
3 - - - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - -
A> SOFT DOUBLE
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,10 - - - - - - - - - -
A,9 - 16 13 10 8 - - - - -
A,8 17 10 6 3 0 - - - - -
A,7 0 D D D D - - - - -
A,6 4 D D D D - - - - -
A,5 - 6 D D D - - - - -
A,4 - 11 0 D D - - - - -
A,3 - 14 5 D D - - - - -
A,2 - 15 7 2 D - - - - -
A,A - 14 8 4 0 - - - - -
A> PAIR SPLITS
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,A P P P P P P P P 8 7
T,T - 16 13 10 8 - - - - -
9,9 P P P P P 6 P P - 7
8,8 P P P P P P P P 12* -2
7,7 P P P P P P 8 - - -
6,6 P P P P P - - - - -
5,5 - - - - - - - - - -
4,4 - 15 6 -1 P - - - - -
3,3 0 P P P P P - - - -
2,2 P P P P P P 7 - - -
A> SURRENDER (HARD TOTALS)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
21 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - -
19 - - - - - - - - - -
18 - - - - - - - - - -
17 - - - - - - - - - 4*
16 - - - - - - 9 -1 R R
15 - - - - - - 15 5 0 -1
14 - - - - - - 20 11 5 6
13 - - - - - - - 19 13 19
12 - - - - - - - - - -
11 - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - -
9 - - - - - - - - - -
8 - - - - - - - - - -
7 - - - - - - - - - -
6 - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - - - -
A>----------------------------------------------------
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:39:14 (#811)
Mayor, Any suggestions on software to figure out max bet true counts and such?
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:58:53 (#812)
Just about any out there can do it, it is not a big deal. PBJA, SBA, Casino Verite, 6-7-8. But you don't need any software to answer your question because I'll tell you. For Hi-Lo, max out at +5 without surrender and +4 with surrender. Done!
The tougher task (much tougher!) is to actually put those max bets out there when the count says to.
--Mayor
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 21:07:25 (#813)
Okay okay Plus seven and I lost my nerve. All I can say is wait to next time maybe in january I will see you at yolies. HAHA> LTC
-
-
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 21:41:28 (#815)
THANK YOU, MAYOR!
Now, can somebody help me interpret the charts?
And is there a difference between 6 and 8 decks?
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 21:59:50 (#816)
For practical purposes, there is no difference between 6 decks and 8 deck indices or basic strategy. (There are some difference between 2 and 6 deck BS though).
What question do you have about the charts? I will help if you ask a question I can answer.
--Mayor
-
Re: Here it is...
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 22:42:28 (#819)
I am new to this. I have Uston's book and figured simple +/- would be a good place to start. So, I would play basic strategy and keep a running count. I would deviate from it in both betting and playing when the count reaches say +/-20 (?). Which would mean that I would have a + strategy and bet say 4 units and deviations such as staying on a 12 vs. 3, 16 vs. 10 etc. And a minus strategy and a bet say 1 unit and deviations like hitting 4,4, and 13 vs. 2,3, etc. When the running count is between -20 and 20 then just play basic strategy and 2 unit bets. I was looking to verify my deviation strategies, particularly surrender on plus and minus counts for Foxwoods rules. Basic strategy tells me to surrender 16 vs. 9, 10, A and 15 vs. 10.
How would I read your surrender chart? I just don't know what those numbers mean.
Sorry for my ignorance.
Thank you for your help!
Z
-
Re: Here it is... HERE
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 00:17:59 (#820)
HERE, borrowed (loosely) from JGrossjean's 'RunningHiLo' page 34 -
1. Buy insurance w/RC +10 or higher
2. Stand on 16v10 w/RC +2 or higher
3. Stand on 15v10 w/RC+11 or higher
4. Surrendar 16v9/10/A w/RC -1 or higher
5. Surrendar 15v10/A w/RC -1 or higher
--------------------
6. Bet the RC -2 chips (ie, RC=+4 bet 2u)
7. Max bet of 10u @ RC of +12
8. When RC of -6 exit to a fresh shoe
9. Best to bet -0- w/RC of +2 or lower
--------------------Would someone like to proffer a guess as to the RORuin playing this way with a starting bank of 500u? I would guess it to be 33%+ zg
-
Re: Here it is... HERE
Posted by Z on 22-Nov-2002 07:24:21 (#822)
OK. I give up. Maybe there isn't an Uston Simple +/- system.
I.e. 3 bet sizes (1,2,4 units), 3 strategies (-,Basic,+) and keeping a running count.
It seems that I should learn a matrix of strategies with a running count. I am still unclear about bet sizes, I think bet=RC is a bit radical. 33% element of ruin is unacceptable. While I am at it, should I just convert to true count as well? Anyone know the difference between the playing accuracy of RC vs. TC?
Thank you for your patience and help guys,
Z
-
Re:duce RISK by 75%+...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 13:05:41 (#830)
...by doubling the BR #units to 1000. zg
Re: Here it is... HERE - RoRuin...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 13:07:44 (#831)
...can be reduced by 75% by DOUBLING the BR to 1000u. zg
-
-
-
-
-
A better suggestion
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 22-Nov-2002 09:56:21 (#823)
Get "Knockout Blackjack".
An unbalanced count that is also 1-level, no TC conversion.
Much more clear on what and when to bet and play.
More effective on getting the money than the +/- in RC mode.
-
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 10:54:42 (#827)
...or my preference for a newbie - Red7 as contained in 'Blackbelt in BJ' zg
-
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...Red 7
Posted by MrPill on 22-Nov-2002 11:17:39 (#829)
Here! Here!
Red 7 has been, and continues to be, a "comfortable" system for this casual player. It has performed well for me over this past year and hopefully will continue to in the future.
Pill
-
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...Red 7
Posted by joe_r_black on 22-Nov-2002 16:36:18 (#837)
Red 7 is the perfect count for 6-8 deck games with mediocre to poor penetration.
-
Red7 vs KO?
Posted by AcesFool on 19-Jan-2003 23:27:10 (#2701)
i just read BB in BJ by Snyder. if both red seven and KO are equally strong, wouldn't it be better to just use KO since I dont have to worry about Red/black.
Also, if I'm only playing, say once a month at foxwoods, is their any point to using high/low with a true count conversion?
finally, do you surrender 8,8 vs. 9,10,A or split? (Foxwoods)
-
Red Sevens vs. Knockout vs. Hi-lo
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 21-Jan-2003 20:36:17 (#2737)
This is one of the most frequently asked questions by beginners and novices alike who are contemplating the use of a simple system. Many "experts" have often recommended that "it doesn't matter which count you use, just pick one you are comfortable using..." or something of the like. I believe when contemplating the use of counts of _similar difficulty levels_, which count is best for you should ultimately be decided by several factors:
- Advantage play methods you intend to employ in the future
- Modifications to "base" count you intend to add in the future
- Playing style
- How often you playI'll briefly comment on each factor, to give you an idea of what I mean.
A simple example of the first point is if one is planning on adding shuffle-tracking to his arsenal...the obvious choice would be the balanced option, hi-lo (some research I am conducting, which stems from earlier work by Pete Moss and Michael Hall on unbalanced ST'ing, may alter this, but is beyond the scope of this post). Another example would be a zealous player who wants to use sequencing ON TOP of counting methods...he would be much better off using an unbalanced count, so he only needs to keep a simple running count on top of his sequencing info.
A simple example of the second point is a player who intends to incorporate some sort of "pseudo" or "quasi" true count in the future. IMO he would be better off with the +4 unbalance of KO, rather than the +2 unbalance of R7. My reasoning for this is that with the KO pivot you are always _exactly_ accurate with your max bet out, and fairly accurate at other points because of the "quasi" TC adjustments. With Red Sevens, we will be _exactly_ accurate at lower bet levels, and only fairly accurate at point of max bet.
As for playing style, it should be fairly obvious, as I and others (including Dr. Brett Harris) have pointed out the great utility of the Red Seven's +2 unbalance for Wonging purposes. Red Sevens would be the obvious choice for the player who's primary style of play is backcounting. Another example would be a player who uses Schlesinger's "White Rabbit" metholodogy, and might want to use hi-lo so they are always _exactly_ accurate at 0.
The final point should also be fairly obvious, a player who plays very infrequently would be advised to stick with a running count system, as their deck estimation would be very gross with limited practice.
These points can each affect each other, and I'll post some more thoughts later.
ANS
Surrendering 8,8...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 22-Jan-2003 02:39:13 (#2755)
"...finally, do you surrender 8,8 vs. 9,10,A or split? (Foxwoods)"
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this question in my previous post. Basic Strategy tells us the only time we would surrender 8,8 is against an Ace, with H17, two or more decks. So in your case, do not surrender 8,8.
If you are using surrender indices, then there will be a point where surrendering 8,8 will become the favorable option.
-Hi-Lo-
8,8 v 9 >= +7
8,8 v T >= 0-KO(8 deck)-
8,8 v T >= -5
I'll post a follow-up with the Risk Averse numbers if you'd like.
ANS
-
-
-
-
On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Nov-2002 10:20:39 (#824)
Dear group,
Lately there has been a meltdown at several Internet web sites devoted to holding discussion groups focused on Blackjack. First there was the problems at bj21 that forced them to close their free pages. Then the fully moderated status at rge21 that recently saw the moderators openly flaming published and respected individuals, followed by cross flames occuring on different web sites. In October, there were posts at this site that forced security measures to be put in place as well that restrict posting (e.g. you cannot be using an anonymous IP). And now, it seems, it is Yahoo's Card Counter Cafe's (CCC) turn.
On 11/20 the CCC changed to a fully moderated status. I would personally like to ask CCC to reconsider this move. Freedom of speech is the most precious right we have. My experience with rge21 (the only other fully moderated site) is that they do not hear the very clear information about the weaknesses of their site precisely because they do not allow public discussion of those issues. If a site needs to grow, it also needs the full participation of its membership in discussions concerning its growth -- and that can be tough.
For example, rec.games.blackjack.moderated was ultimately shut down due to a law suit (by Doug Grant) because his posts were not being acceptd. That is how dangerous this step is! CCC and Yahoo are subjecting themselves to litigation from those who feel they have been unfairly censored.
And thus, it is my firm belief that this is not an appropriate step for CCC at this time, and I ask the moderators and those in charge to reconsider this step. Silencing public debate at a time of change is not the way to work out the current problems, please reconsider.
Best,
--Mayor-
My stupid opinion
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 22-Nov-2002 10:36:31 (#825)
I think this site has the potential to be THE site for blackjack discussion.
bj21 free pages have contained what you find underneath a garbage can for the past several years.
rge21 has it's own philosophy, and it is not about sharing knowledge.
CCC is too much about ego stroking, and has poor software for a discussion.This site could be the best. Everyone here seems to be friendly, polite, and actually interested in BJ, not who is more 'respected' than who. The Mayor seems to be keeping a good handle on things.
Let's spread the word -- this is THE SERIOUS BJ site.
-
Re: My stupid opinion
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:18:51 (#868)
"I think this site has the potential to be THE site for blackjack discussion.
bj21 free pages have contained what you find underneath a garbage can for the past several years.Yes, I think this site is fantastic. You can keep off topics on the second board, and it is focused on blackjack. When you respond to a message only the person that you respond under gets it in their email so the group doesn't get every message sent to them.
"rge21 has it's own philosophy, and it is not about sharing knowledge.
CCC is too much about ego stroking, and has poor software for a discussion.Agree, agree, agree.
"This site could be the best. Everyone here seems to be friendly, polite, and actually interested in BJ, not who is more 'respected' than who. The Mayor seems to be keeping a good handle on things.
Let's spread the word -- this is THE SERIOUS BJ site.This board is in it's infancy and there is a lot of new excitement. I hope we can keep this site happy and homie and watch it grow.
-
Re: My stupid opinion
Posted by Paddyboy on 23-Nov-2002 21:14:19 (#898)
as a newbie to this site i agree completely with you.i have posted at bJ21 but it seems there if you say 1+1 is 2,someone will post that you are wrong(probably just to mess).I post a Rge21 but if you disagree with one of the big boys there or say anything that is not 'nice" your post is busted
A friend of mine has posted at ccc but now is fed up because posts do not come up automatically and take a few hours to register.Yes i think this will be a great site.but for it to rise above the rest there must be concentration on beating the casinos.
I cant stand going to a forum and seeing the most knowledgable people bickering among themselves.It is happening with john May and victor Nacht at the moment and Zen Grifter and CCC.For newcomers this is disheartening.
Mr.A says this can be done,Mr.B says no it cant.Then Mr.As buddies come along with facts and semi facts,likewise with Mr.B.Then Mr.c,d,e,f and on and on give their opinions and in the end they are all creating factions of this belief or that.
Iniatially i thought it was funny but now i think this is seriously jeopardising the respectability of these BJ pros.
In other words let us have meaning discussions and not resort to calling names.Imagine any casino bosses looking at these flames,they must be having a luagh.
Let us concentrate on beating casinos instead of beatinfg each other!
-
Thanks, and...
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:17:52 (#955)
I am allowing this one thread on the subject, as a good will gesture to try and help jumpstart CCC again. But this type of dialog will spread no further on these pages, you have my word!
--Mayor
-
Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by learning to count on 24-Nov-2002 09:56:04 (#971)
HERE HERE! CHEERS! CHEERS! Now lets play. HIT me. stand. aaaaah bust.OH well next hand. hmmmm +7tc hmmm max bet max side.....QH QH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
-
-
-
The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ?
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 10:58:51 (#828)
From: zengrifter
Subject: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ?
To: blackjackcardcounterscafe@yahoogroups.com
---------------
4th Notice (CC.com)*
---------------
As of the evening of 11/20/02 the Yahoo!CCCafe took on a decidedly DIFFERENT moderating style - when several members of CCCafe began to voice concerns about the current moderator's behavior, and then subsequently engaged in a duly-seconded member's vote, the subject criticsm and votes were removed by one or more of the following CCCafe moderators: John May, Rob McGarvey, THopper, or Ted Forester.Simultaneously, the operation of the communications and posting functions of CCCafe have been interrupted and altered to require EVERY POST to be approved.
As a principal and major contributor to the subject forum, I must protest and call into question -
1) which (if any) of the CCCafe moderators are in agreement with the new CCCafe 'totalitarian-protocol'?
2) which (if any) of the moderators have authorized the apparent capricious and selective post-busting agenda of late?
3) what was the result of 11/20/02's member vote to remove the 'active' CCCafe moderator?I urgently invite all concerned CCCafe members to weigh-in on this important community matter and seek answers to the above so that we may assess the continued viability of the Yahoo!CCCafe community and the current selection of moderator(s) appointed there.
sincerely, zg
------------
*This Notice has been posted at CC.com as a matter of public record ONLY - Prior notices have been refused publication at Yahoo!CCCafe by that forum's current moderator(s). Poster specifically requests that ALL discussion of CCCafe affairs be NOT carried on at the CC.com forum - further, the opinion(s) reflected within this Notice relect soley upon the Poster and NOT CC.com or its administrator.
------------
-
Love Letter to McRobo
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 05:58:17 (#1427)
--- blackjackpro2000 wrote:
> Listen Doltster, Daltster, whateverster, you posted the casino
> FIRST. I don't get a kick back from this casino. Your warning is
> identical to mine, and you don't even point the "ploppies"
> to the free money. It's not your game bro.
>
> Get off of my case ZenGangster (He's a Con Artist™) Why don't you
> just admit you are calling me out to have a go at me? Just in need
> of a little attention again? I think I can help you there....grin
-------------------My Open Love Letter to
The (REAL) Robo McCoyYour previous disclosure, from the old CCCafe, was adequate,
sufficient, and defacto 'approved' - to assume a lesser standard now
is inappropriate.Regarding My ™-slogan for you, I borrowed it from Bob Stupak He's
Polish™ - it worked for him and it seemed to work for you when I
advertised your Fs&As book at bj21, recently.When I referred my Dad in Samoa to your online soirree (one of MANY
friends and relatives I have referred and continue to refer), he
called me to ask about one of the promotions that you had recommended
and said the 200 members could take a certain online casino for
$20,000.My Dad asked me if wasn't that still only $100 per member?
I replied oh well, he's Canadian - and it hit me - The He's Canadian™
School of Online Couponomics and BR funds arbitrage and virtual
capital consolidation.Seriously, McRobo, I have only ever taken offense when you attacked
me outright, which has been often since (no not "sence") late last
year. Nor have I taken offense when you explain the joys of
profiting from Canadian/US exchange-rate differential, though cringe
I do... as I also cringe when when start that Jesus-yoodling
raterfarian rock `n roll trap-crap-rap, as also I do when you call
Teddy Binion "BINNY", but I do not take offense, nor do I when you
poke fun at me which I honestly enjoy.When it comes to market branding, the ™-handle-slogan already is true
to a ti for me - The Grifter™, Zengrifter, make sense? (no
not "sence")But yours (BlackjackPro) is oddly misleading - you are NOT, by
classic nor resourceful definition a "pro" - you are an intermediate
semi-part-timer with incredible insight, creativity, and dedication
and with a HEART that embraces all who you come into contact with -
with the good news of Jesus, card-counting, and of course
YOU, `Shoeless Joe from Hannibal Mo'.Thus, by adding the offsetting 'He's Canadian™' we achieve a unique
and differentiated yet tempered MARKET BRANDING, disclosed yet
loveable - adding an underlying UNDERSTANDING with which to grasp the
CHAOS that is otherwise YOU.A unique market positioning indeed. (even Forbes says I'm a marketing
genius, not to mention LAT, NYT, WSJ, etc.)And while I am on the subject of loveable you, do you recognize the
dawning revelation of my public love letter here to you?Except one more love-hate thing that really makes me cringe, my skin
crawl, its - 'grin' - thats right - GRIN - 'grin' is NOT a proper
newsgroup 'emotive' - FROM NOW ON USE A G***MN SMILEY FACE :-) YOU
JOHN DENVER CAKES-ON-THE-GRIDDLE HILLBILLY COUNTRY-COUNTER KOOK FOR
JESUS! grinListen up Real Robo, Adi Da loves you and so do I!
zg
-
moderators
Posted by george I. on 22-Nov-2002 14:49:27 (#833)
I think that the moderators should have their own domain of discussions on the board, some are better on EV and other on math. A brainstorming you cannot have if each poster tries to take the control of a discussion and also a voting system will make the board very funny,
George I.
-
Re: moderators
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:15 (#870)
"I think that the moderators should have their own domain of discussions on the board, some are better on EV and other on math. A brainstorming you cannot have if each poster tries to take the control of a discussion and also a voting system will make the board very funny,
George I.
Very well said.
-
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Nov-2002 14:53:29 (#834)
I hope the readers really get that I (and this site) remains totally neutral on the issues raised in your post. I am happy to allow the discussion here, however, I will certainly have very little patience if individuals carry their flame wars to new turf.
Let's treat this like neutral territory, you are in the Switzerland of Blackjack sites -- now start figuring it out!
--Mayor
-
Robo FLAME COMMENTARY
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 06:02:50 (#1428)
Robo FLAME COMMENTARY
From: zengrifter
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:37 am
Subject: Re: Full Details w (FLAMING ROBO)COMMENTARY BEGIN
> > The previous !!!***NOTICE***!!! was removed by yourself,
> attempting
> > to cover-up your past.SCARY
I recently had someone ask me about you,
> whom
> > I told about your charges. He was very upset that he
> > didn't know this before he met you....yes, just as I was before I
> > made plans to team up with you.FREAKY
> > If you were advertising it you would have used a link
> > like you did on Queens onLine casino post.CRAZY
> > You were doing him a big favor, and quite possibly helped me out
in
> > the process.GRATITUDE
$20,000 is equal to around $32,000 up here.
HE' CANADIAN™
> > I know you take it as an attack. It is an unfortunate part of
> > warning other players about your past scammings cons and
> racketeering
> > charges.JUSTIFYING
As far as spelling goes, you also make mistakes. Check
> > your recent post telling me to warn people about basic "startegy"
I
> > think it was. Also see your post #23, the one that started the
> whole
> > thing. This post is full of your spelling mistakes.MINE ARE TYPOS
> Sure it bothers you. Why would you bring it up if it didn't?
PARANOIA
I'm
> > across the lake from Rochester NY in the biggest city in our
> country,
> > and when I make $1000 totally on credit it's more like $1,600.CANADIAN COUPONICS
> > not a farmer as you would try to make me out as, but I'm also not
a
> > street crawler like you are.SOMEBODY SAY HILLBILLY
> > I am a writer and a musician and I think I came
> off
> > pretty well for a white boy.GO WHITE BOY GO WHITE BOY
I do get kind of spiritual and feel
> > the "force" a lot around Christmas.PAGAN HOLIDAY, YULETIDE CHEER
> I know that my relationship
> with
> > the most powerful source of LOVE bothers people like you, so I
have
> > toned it down out of respect so you can feel what you like to
feel.DID SOMEONE SAY COP OUT?
> > Basically a stolen term to refer to yourself as, but yes,
> definitely
> > you.STOLEN FROM FORBES
I'm about to metatag it to you, and it shall follow you
> around
> > as long as there is the Internet.RETURN TO SCARY
> A pro knows when to avoid playing as well as when to play.
> I
> > use a count that remains superior to yours. I focus my attention
> on
> > the areas that provide the greatest EV, return on investment that
I
> > can.PRO @ WORK -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4543
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4545
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4547
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4998
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/6203>I do not hide behind the mask of a counter like you do to
> > prevent people from knowing what you really are, looking for
> > unsuspecting people to email to get them to join bankrolls so you
> can
> > scam their money from them. You ARE a professional.A VENGEFUL PARANOID
> > The chaos is created by you struggling away from what you really
> are.I"M TRYING BODHISATTVA, NO WAIT, I"M TRYING NOT TO TRY, NO WAIT...
> > even Forbes says I'm a marketing
> > > genius, not to mention LAT, NYT, WSJ, etc.)
> >
> > That's what they said before they realized what you really are.
> > Then they
> > followed up with scammer, con man, etcNO, BEAR BREATH, IT WASN'T LATER - DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SPOUT YOUR
OWN UNREAL CONCLUSIONS? (WHICH IS MORE AND MORE OFTEN)> > I Like to end with a smile... Like
> > you do when you depart with a pocket full of someone's cash "for
> > the
> > team."ARE YOU CHANNELING? ARE YOU POSSESSED OF DEMONS?
> > It seems to me that your
> psychopathic
> > needs are coming to a head and you need to make a new score to
get
> > your high, to get the flow of the compulsive gamblers toxin one
of
> > your post describes."FEED MY PSYCHOPATHIC NEEDS" WOWIE FREAKY SCAREY GUY!
> >
> > I really don't have the time for this, but thought I would
> entertain
> > you one last time.THANK YOU CHURCHMASTER, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?
> Without an audience it is not as much fun for
> you
> > is it? I would like this little war to carry on somewhere else,
> but
> > you won't have that now will you?THIS TOO IS NOW AT BJFLAME, WAS IT AS GOOD FOR YOU AS IT WAS FOR ME?
LOVE, ZG(KARMA-PURIFIED BY ROBO-FLAME)
-
Where CCCafe may have gone wrong...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 17:05:49 (#843)
... was its lack of TOS or guidelines that posters and moderators could mutually agree and rely upon. zg
-
Re: Where CCCafe may have gone wrong...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:01 (#873)
"... was its lack of TOS or guidelines that posters and moderators could mutually agree and rely upon. zg
They are all there in the Yahoo! agreements.
-
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:30 (#871)
"I hope the readers really get that I (and this site) remains totally neutral on the issues raised in your post. I am happy to allow the discussion here, however, I will certainly have very little patience if individuals carry their flame wars to new turf.
I think that is what you want, but it is very hard to start a discussion with your own opinion on a subject and remain neutral. ;>
"Let's treat this like neutral territory, you are in the Switzerland of Blackjack sites -- now start figuring it out!
--Mayor
What a concept. The Swiss tell you the Germans wouldn't attack them because every man had a rifle and was a sharp shooter. I have also heard it was simply because they were hording pulled gold teeth, wedding rings, and other riches. I know you Mayor from one conversation, and know you are neutral, but the Swiss, Germans, and all of their allies can turn your house into a war zone.
-
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by joe_r_black on 22-Nov-2002 16:43:28 (#839)
I think when the sole postbuster and moderator is left, after deleting other people's posts, with 60% of the posts orginating from the mederator that it is safe to say there is no longer any discussion going on on the discussion board.
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 16:46:17 (#841)
Good point. But is was bad manners that ended the free pages at BJ21.
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:16 (#874)
"I think when the sole postbuster and moderator is left, after deleting other people's posts, with 60% of the posts orginating from the mederator that it is safe to say there is no longer any discussion going on on the discussion board.
You may be right, but now it is 100% BJ. What is missing is the off topics, political infighting, and personality clashes. Someone said the board is dead and to come on over here where BJ in alive and well and living in Switzerland ;> Important to stick with blackjack, and let the other things sliiiiiiiide. If people want gosip and politics, watch the evening news, or start your own board as the Mayor has.
-
-
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:03 (#869)
I will simply say this: moderators are not voted into or out of office on boards. Anyone can open a board, join it, or leave it.
-
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 16:38:10 (#838)
Well Well we are getting off the main theme here: Mathmatical and logical discussions of advantage play.
Mayor with all due respect you do moderate and do censure any BJ mythologies, BJ rubbish and mischevous type posts.
Free speech was originally something for street corner box criers. Free speech is political in nature. It was created so as to "not stop" the common citizen from stating his oppinion for or against the governing powers that be. This and the right to vote are mainstays in our democratic process.
With this we were also given the right to private property and our personal rule over it. This according to great political thinkers such as Locke created capitalism. When we mix our labor with something that we make our own we produce a valuable object that we can exchange for other values; Thus we have capitalism. Capitalism is protected like private property is protected. This site is owned by the mayor it is his property and his valuable item which he chooses to do what he wishes. He has so far made it free for use. No where do I see any issues of freedom of speech here or the mayor to have a responsibility to be the free speech moderator.
If the mayor offered this site for a fee and did not allow someone to state his oppinion then there would be civil issues of fraud and theft.
It is interesting that a web site was sued for restricting someones free speech. I dont know about that situation but in this day and time any one can sue for any thing. I would be interested in seeing the issues in that law suit. It must be based on some type of financiel quarrel. The person in question probably paid to be on the web site that offered posting and then he was not allowed to post or he was deleted due to the owner of the site judgeing his posts not to be the same vain of the site.
This site is new and pure. It needs moderation and it may need censure from time to time. The one thing we have here is the right to discuss what we all love to do: "beat the house". I applaud the mayor and his patience and inginuity in the inner workings of this site. Lets all keep our home here clean and full of intellectual logical theories of advantage play. Oh by the way the mayor does allow "intellectual" endeavors on the non bj page. Zengrifters article on intuition was very interesting and edible. This just my oppinion and I hope I am allowed to give it. I love this site because even a begginer like me can learn to count.
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:40 (#875)
"Well Well we are getting off the main theme here: Mathmatical and logical discussions of advantage play.
Yes, dollars per hour this ain't. Add all this to the hours you do play and do the math.
"Mayor with all due respect you do moderate and do censure any BJ mythologies, BJ rubbish and mischevous type posts.
Good news.....
"Free speech was originally something for street corner box criers. Free speech is political in nature. It was created so as to "not stop" the common citizen from stating his oppinion for or against the governing powers that be. This and the right to vote are mainstays in our democratic process.
"With this we were also given the right to private property and our personal rule over it. This according to great political thinkers such as Locke created capitalism. When we mix our labor with something that we make our own we produce a valuable object that we can exchange for other values; Thus we have capitalism. Capitalism is protected like private property is protected. This site is owned by the mayor it is his property and his valuable item which he chooses to do what he wishes. He has so far made it free for use. No where do I see any issues of freedom of speech here or the mayor to have a responsibility to be the free speech moderator.
Well put....
"If the mayor offered this site for a fee and did not allow someone to state his opinion then there would be civil issues of fraud and theft.
No money, no contract.
"It is interesting that a web site was sued for restricting someones free speech. I dont know about that situation but in this day and time any one can sue for any thing. I would be interested in seeing the issues in that law suit. It must be based on some type of financiel quarrel. The person in question probably paid to be on the web site that offered posting and then he was not allowed to post or he was deleted due to the owner of the site judgeing his posts not to be the same vain of the site.
"This site is new and pure. It needs moderation and it may need censure from time to time. The one thing we have here is the right to discuss what we all love to do: "beat the house". I applaud the mayor and his patience and inginuity in the inner workings of this site. Lets all keep our home here clean and full of intellectual logical theories of advantage play. Oh by the way the mayor does allow "intellectual" endeavors on the non bj page. Zengrifters article on intuition was very interesting and edible. This just my oppinion and I hope I am allowed to give it. I love this site because even a begginer like me can learn to count.
An awesome post. All it takes is one criminal, like Sammy Bin Ladden, to start things up, and then you have to do something about it. Sometimes you only have limited resources to work with. Is it 25 million for his head now?
-
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:18:40 (#867)
Dear group,
"Lately there has been a meltdown at several Internet web sites devoted to holding discussion groups focused on Blackjack. First there was the problems at bj21 that forced them to close their free pages. Then the fully moderated status at rge21 that recently saw the moderators openly flaming published and respected individuals, followed by cross flames occuring on different web sites. In October, there were posts at this site that forced security measures to be put in place as well that restrict posting (e.g. you cannot be using an anonymous IP). And now, it seems, it is Yahoo's Card Counter Cafe's (CCC) turn.
Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there.
I think board politics and personality issues should take a back seat to what the board is there for. That is what is happening now. I too have failed (as you just have) to stay out of these areas.
"On 11/20 the CCC changed to a fully moderated status. I would personally like to ask CCC to reconsider this move. Freedom of speech is the most precious right we have. My experience with rge21 (the only other fully moderated site) is that they do not hear the very clear information about the weaknesses of their site precisely because they do not allow public discussion of those issues. If a site needs to grow, it also needs the full participation of its membership in discussions concerning its growth -- and that can be tough.
I understand these issues very well, but there is a limit. A blackjack board is there to learn about blackjack, not about highschool politics or about hurting peoples feelings.
"For example, rec.games.blackjack.moderated was ultimately shut down due to a law suit (by Doug Grant) because his posts were not being acceptd. That is how dangerous this step is! CCC and Yahoo are subjecting themselves to litigation from those who feel they have been unfairly censored.
If you take a look at the Yahoo agreements you will see that the moderator has certain rights. Actually obligations.
"And thus, it is my firm belief that this is not an appropriate step for CCC at this time, and I ask the moderators and those in charge to reconsider this step. Silencing public debate at a time of change is not the way to work out the current problems, please reconsider.
Let the public debate be done here then if you feel this way. We've been over it numerous times and it is getting old.
Best,
--Mayor
-
Of St.Robo and CCCafe (long-articulate-critical)
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 21:51:37 (#900)
Rob McGarvey writes -
>>Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there. <<
---------------ZG responds -
Where it went from there was that St.Robo posted at CCCafe that I was "causing trouble" at CC.com. Subsequently, Robo posted at CCCafe that The Mayor had "removed several-dozens of [zengrifter's] posts," which is NOT true yet he refused a retraction of those statements when presented with the truth from Mayor.
Robo has effectively run-off ALL of the remaining knowledge-based CCCafe posters with his semi-lucid posts, and his presence here at CC.com is primarily an irritant to other reasonably-knowledgeable counters, whereas newbies may not properly initially distinguish his homespun-quackery from bonafide counter knowledge and expertise.
The real culpability for Robo's out-of-control behavior at CCCafe may rightly lie with the ineffable John May who essentially placed Rob well above his competence-level as a moderator, and who has never answered or addressed the concerns that the remaining pros have articulated repeatedly at CCCafe regarding the issue of Rob's moderator-competence and multiple previous threats of censorship. In light of the current and continued attacks upon John May's credibility, knowledgable parties are free to speculate as to May's reasoning or lack thereof.
I note as well that Rob has thus far failed to account for or address the criticisms and issues that I specifically posed in my Totalitarian Notice further up in this discussion.
As of this writing Robo is NOT allowing any communication that is critical of him to be placed at CCCafe, though he presumes to post what he wants there (and now here), regardless.
The CCCafe is now Robo's, to the victor goes the spoils, but I know that I speak for several here when I state that Robo's participation in discussion at CC.com makes this a LESS-DESIRABLE venue for quality-discussion.
Robo, as the self-professed "fundamentalist Christian" that you are, you have proven to be very much like many in your genre - hypocritical, arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant - your poor style combined with your apparent lack of discernment-powers and inability to come clean is distasteful and unbecoming of you and bothersome, as well, to many here at CC.com, at CCCafe, and elswhere throughout the BJ web-communities.
sincerely, zg
Ps - included below are the off-the-cuff responses, to my Totalitarian CCCafe notice, from the two senior CCCafe moderators disavowing any knowledge of Robo's recent and continued misbehavior at CCCafe:
---------------------------------------------
- Ted Forester responds -
Ted on Totalitarianism
Posted By: alienated on 23 November 02, 3:15 a.m. in response to: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ? (zengrifter)As a "socialist/anarchist", at least according to my bj21 profile, I feel compelled to confirm that I am an enemy of almost everything, including totalitarianism. Accordingly, I would never contemplate busting anyone's post.
Seriously, though, this is news to me. Can you reveal anything more about the situation? Is it just a technical change by Yahoo or something more sinister? Certainly, I would be very much opposed to systematically biased treatment of any CCCafe poster.
Regards,
Ted
--------------------------------------
John May respondsNot my doing...
Posted By: John May <sys381@yahoo.com> on 23 November 02, 4:16 a.m. in response to: Red Ted on Totalitarianism (alienated)
...and I can't believe its Rob or T-hopper. So I guess its a hacker or a system change.
-
This is What You are Good At
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 22:36:20 (#910)
You have been attacking me since I revealed your criminal past and how it makes you an undesirable team player, which is the main reason you are on these boards. Your moderator status was taken away from you for a good reason. I am not a Saint. My religion has nothing to do with this.
I do not want you to turn the Mayors board into the same thing you have turned the CCC into. Let's agree not to speak to or at each other anymore shall we?
-
NO DICE...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:44:20 (#914)
... you need to come clean if you are posting here, diverting attention to half-truths about me will NOT back me off. zg
-
-
-
To ZG and Rob
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:21:25 (#958)
I would like to state that although ZG has made a couple of posts that did not respect the no Mythology doctrine of this site (and were busted), at no time have I ever considered ZG a trouble maker here. In fact, he is a welcomed and respected contributor. I am aware of his past and reputation, as are many. That simply does not matter here. His past is not a reason to treat him any differently here if he posts valuable and worthwhile information for the readership.
Likewise, I have spoken with Rob on the phone, and genuinely like him. His dedication to the game and his moral backbone ring true with me (though you wouldn't know it from my smiley face), and I am happy to have him here as a poster.
So, for the record, you are both welcome here, I like you both, and I encourage you both to continue discussing your issues (in this thread only), with (and this is my hope) an eye towards resolution of these issues. At least, that is my hope. Any flames or other carrying on in other threads that are disruptive to the positve spirit I wish to maintain here will be (the "b" word). Thank you for your understanding.
Best wishes to both of you, and to the future of CCC,
--Mayor
-
Re: To ZG and Rob
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 08:14:10 (#967)
Thank you Mayor! Have a great day ya'self.
-
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by alienated on 24-Nov-2002 01:50:47 (#960)
I don't know the ins and outs of this matter, but it seems from some of ZGs posts both here and at bj21.com that recent posting attempts by various CCC members have been thwarted. Rob, can you shed any light on this matter? Is this a deliberate policy or simply a technical glitch with Yahoo? I am somewhat perturbed that as a moderator I may inadvertantly be contributing to the frustration caused to CCC members.
If anyone would like to communicate with me privately on this matter, feel free to email me at:
I apologise to The Mayor for posting this here. I tried to post the same at CCC but couldn't seem to get it onto the board. (I am sure this was my own incompetence, not the actions of anybody else, since I have moderator status over there.)
It seems a pity to be burdening The Mayor's site with these internal difficulties rather than airing our views at CCC, but of course this is not possible if members are not free to express their opinions. I am grateful for The Mayor's tolerance (and also Stanford's at bj21.com) for allowing some communication between us at their sites.
Regards all,
Ted Forrester
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 08:11:39 (#966)
Hi Ted.....
Didn't know you were alienated here ;> I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there. Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to.
I am busy this AM. We should talk later on. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by alienated on 24-Nov-2002 10:06:38 (#975)
Hi Rob.
"Didn't know you were alienated here."
In 'name' only. Actually, I chose that handle the first time I ever posted at bj21.com. The choice had nothing to do with any website. Just the way I was feeling at the time. With the interaction made possible for us lonely gamblers with all these websites, the handle is increasingly becoming a misnomer, but I stick to it for old time's sake...
"I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there."
To be honest, I'm not really sure what's going on. But with the recent debate I realised I should probably sign in at CCC. Once there I simply noticed that there were some posts 'pending', so I approved them. I'm not sure what you mean by the board being "back on to moderation". (?) Is it really necessary for posts to await 'approval'? It seems rather draconian.
"Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to."
I would never bust one of your posts, Rob. Out of the question. Nor would I bust posts by any of the other regulars. I hope it's clear from past correspondence and my previous posts that I have a great deal of respect for all the regulars and moderators at CCC, including yourself and ZG. Surely you haven't forgotten my exuberance over your book!!!???
"I am busy this AM. We should talk later on."
Sure.
"It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>"
I thought my sleeping habits were a safely guarded secret... No, not at all, though I will admit to receiving a slight shock when I saw my (other) handle associated with accusations of censorship, etc. Imagine how that makes an "anarchist/socialist" feel!!!??? Though, I guess, as an enthusiast of the 'free' market, you wouldn't know about that... :-)
Regards,
PS to The Mayor: Thanks for letting us have this thread re: CCC. I understand it's annoying/tiresome for other posters/readers. From now on my posts will be strictly BJ, at least on the BJ Message Board.
Ted
-
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 14:47:32 (#987)
Hi Rob.
"Didn't know you were alienated here."
In 'name' only. Actually, I chose that handle the first time I ever posted at bj21.com. The choice had nothing to do with any website. Just the way I was feeling at the time. With the interaction made possible for us lonely gamblers with all these websites, the handle is increasingly becoming a misnomer, but I stick to it for old time's sake...
#I know of the alias but didn't connect it to you. I am happy that you don't feel like you used to.
"I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there."
To be honest, I'm not really sure what's going on. But with the recent debate I realised I should probably sign in at CCC. Once there I simply noticed that there were some posts 'pending', so I approved them. I'm not sure what you mean by the board being "back on to moderation". (?) Is it really necessary for posts to await 'approval'? It seems rather draconian.
#I checked the site and saw some new posts go up, and saw that you approved them. I responded to them and my posts went up right away, so this means the switch was "turned on." Then my final post didn't go up automatically, so someone put the switch back to off, which is where it is at now. As you stated earlier, you porbably sat on it by accident or something....smile
"Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to."
I would never bust one of your posts, Rob. Out of the question. Nor would I bust posts by any of the other regulars. I hope it's clear from past correspondence and my previous posts that I have a great deal of respect for all the regulars and moderators at CCC, including yourself and ZG. Surely you haven't forgotten my exuberance over your book!!!???
#No, never my fine man. I am trying to keep the board "clean" of personal problems and highschool politics. ZG says my posts were busted, I said his were busted, he wants to overthrough me since I am the only mod doing anything over there, sends letters to his anal butt plug community so they can come on over and have a wet farting contest at the CCC.
"I am busy this AM. We should talk later on."
Sure.
"It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>"
I thought my sleeping habits were a safely guarded secret... No, not at all, though I will admit to receiving a slight shock when I saw my (other) handle associated with accusations of censorship, etc. Imagine how that makes an "anarchist/socialist" feel!!!??? Though, I guess, as an enthusiast of the 'free' market, you wouldn't know about that... :-)
#I can live with anarchism, socialism, capitalism, all of the isms known to man since I am none of those ideas. Given any job to do, I try to focus on how to do it with everyone's interests involved, plus my own, and sometimes, as anyone would, am willing to fight for it. You must understand this as an anarchist. I find that when an anarchist attacks a peaceful person, or a capitalist, or a socialist, or a moderator, that they think that the person is bound by their beliefs and will not fight back. Sun Tzu is laughing at me, I can hear him right now, the wrotten demon. Censorship is a word, like prejudice is. It is how it is used that makes it good or bad. Prejudging a person because of their skin color is not good. Keeping cigarette butts out of the evening salad is always good news. There are those that like to eat butts with their salad, and they are free to do so anyplace but at our house.
Regards,
TedPS to The Mayor: Thanks for letting us have this thread re: CCC. I understand it's annoying/tiresome for other posters/readers. From now on my posts will be strictly BJ, at least on the BJ Message Board.
#Yes, thanks. I think the Mayor in his own way likes the drama, but has kept it under control, which I respect. Drama Control, what a concept! ;>
~the end~
-
You tickled me 8-)
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 14:54:23 (#989)
You said: "I think in his own way the mayor likes this drama..."
There is a ring to truth in that. What I like is for people to work on their dramas, and not let them hang. When issues are raised and there is not opportunity or a forum for the issues to be cleared, then this has the potential to become an all out flame war, crossing many different sites and threads. Not only the CCC, but many other flames, cross this boundary, including the Nacht/May flame, the Schlesinger/Cant flame, the Grant/RGBM flame, and many others. Flame control is what its all about, and my way of handling this is to allow it here in this thread and bust it elsewhere on this site. Thus, those who have something to say will keep it to this thread, and have a forum for their thoughts where they are not censored, but will still understand that this site is primarily about blackjack, not personalities.
--Mayor
-
Re: You tickled me 8-)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 15:09:51 (#990)
grin I can set up something similar for the CCC. Actually zengriper has set up his BJ Flame War site. I can put a link up to it from the front page of the CCC to let people air their dirty laundry. I think he has about a dozen members at this site.
I have a sense of humour as I see you do too.
-
-
-
-
Strange Rumblings.
Posted by Hinoon on 22-Nov-2002 21:24:30 (#854)
So, I've been reading all of this. I'm a new face here, and not anyone of any note at the tables. But, this is a forum, and you have to participate in order for these things to work.
First, there have been some brilliant effing posts lately, by Abraham de Moivre, Zengrifter and Mayor, just to name a few. Those are the things that keep acolytes like me coming back. There's no amount of thanking I can do, so instead, I'll encourage you all to write more.
Second...I don't even know what the Yahoo CCCG *is*. Obviously it degenerated into a mess. Lots of forums do this. No matter what the subject is (though often the subjects are in the "low profile" arena), sometimes, groups just breakdown...little ego wars and the like. Rules get broken, toes get stepped on. Mayor has done an admirable job of clarifying his position as owner/moderator. He's posted his personal information, which...in this day and age...take balls. Mayor isn't a faceless name in the digital ether. He may edit a few words (and it's tempting to type a list to see which ones they are...hehehe), but at least his rules are clear.
I agree with his postion on not "outing" scam artists. It's destructive and creates dischord. What he does is debunks poor or faulty logic. He says, "Progression betting doesn't work...and here is why." And he does so in a clear and accessible manner. So...when Joe McScam tries to sell you a progression system...you don't NEED to know that he's trying to rip you off. You know his system doesn't work. By pointing out the fallicy behind the technique, you undermine the vehicle for the scam. Pointing fingers and naming names may feel good in a vindictive way...but does little to solve the problem. As many on this page point out...assuming a new identity in this world is an easy thing to do.
So...back to the game and this site. What does the group feel about the increasing traffic/celebrity of a group like this? Obviously, it's great to have fresh voices and new ideas. Mayor has next to no advertising support, so it's probably not paying his rent to have new faces. I wouldn't have found this page if not by luck (or some factor of probablity, for all of you pureists). But my experience with this kind of open forum is that, after a point, the celebrity is the undoing. Particularly since, to some degree, the anonymity factor has been reduced by the forum rules. How does all of this change the game? Rules in Vegas are getting worse. A lot of casinos are introducing the continuous shufflers. Is this a result of the growth of advantage play?
I don't know.
MGM has bought the MIT book's film rights. Will that effect the teams and groups playing once the scheme is made very public? (there's a parallel here that has to do with drug runners who want drugs to stay illegal so that they can maintain a profit...but I just can't make it work)
There will always be more suckers than pro's. There will always be people like me who only 'kind of' know basic strategy and +/- counting and thus lose their bankrolls in the details. But in a big way, the less "common knowledge" card counting is, the more mythical, the less likey the casinos are to change their rules to combat the real players out there.
Anyways, it's Friday night. I'm not making much sense. Time to go home.
If anything coherent comes out of this post it's that I appreciate the info here, and want to see it thrive and learn as much as I can. I hope that this forum CAN be the Switzerland of counting pages.
Cheers-
even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 21:38:55 (#855)
I guess when you open a site and want to discuss how to breed chickens someone always has to take the discussion to a lofty social political level of debate. We just cant keep it at the chicken ranch and exchange ideas on whether its better to leave the light on at night or to turn it off. So as to further a more romantic atmosphere for fowl love making. I just dont get it do chickens know that the universe in infinite and that thier level of existance is that above the egg or did the egg come first. Oh i'm sorry this site is about counting cards or what. How about registering your handle like the mayors wants. Its his site. LTC
-
Re: even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by hinoon on 22-Nov-2002 23:01:04 (#859)
I thought the chicken ranch closed down...or was that the mustang?
hmm.
excellent points tho.
*off to register my screen name*
-
Re: even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by learning to count on 23-Nov-2002 07:43:45 (#880)
By the way hi-noon I thought your post was very clear and honest. When I posted I was being sarcastic about the recent rise in trolls that are more interested in starting long drawn out debates on issues that are derived from thier own frustrations and boredom. I was in agreement with you. I also want people to register and be active. Even trolls can add to the soup.
As far as your comments on blackjack I was a ploppy who thought you could beat slot machines if you used progressions at one time. When I started learning about blackjack my first book was "so ya wanna be a Gambler" by John Patrick. Then One day while going through a used book store I obtained a couple of used books by a guys named Thorp and Uston. That was it. JP went into the garbage and my ploppy days faded. I have found out one thing about this game. Blackjack is easy to learn how to lose at. It is a BITCH to win at. The journey is a blast!!!!
You appear to be one that will learn how to win you have the right attitude. The only thing that most have to understand is you have to find and learn the "right information". You have to practice and you have to find someone or a "website" to mentor you. This site has improved my game. I am having
incredible experiences and I am seeing the theory of counting come alive. In turn I am self analyzing and improving very rapidly. If you want it its there inside of you and with the help from your friends. LTC
-
-
-
Re: Strange Rumblings.
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Nov-2002 00:10:02 (#862)
Thank you for your clear and supportive thoughts. You said a lot of things better than I have been able to, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
--Mayor
-
QUAKE II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:43:46 (#881)
Come on over and take a read thru the messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/
Mayor I am sure you don't mind a little link back as we have them on our site to yours. Lots of room in cyberspace for everyone. It is not set up as nicely as this site is, but the info is there if you have the time to sort thru everything else.
I will be promoting this board in my newsletter at the end of the month, and will also try to put a hub together of some kind if I get the time for it. I should be playing BJ online!! Discipline, discipline..... A framed page that will load say 4-6 different boards at once.
-
St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:31:40 (#909)
Rob McGarvey writes -
>>Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there. <<
---------------ZG responds -
Where it went from there was that St.Robo posted at CCCafe that I was "causing trouble" at CC.com. Subsequently, Robo posted at CCCafe that The Mayor had "removed several-dozens of [zengrifter's] posts," which is NOT true yet he refused a retraction of those statements when presented with the truth from Mayor.
Robo has effectively run-off ALL of the remaining knowledge-based CCCafe posters with his semi-lucid posts, and his presence here at CC.com is primarily an irritant to other reasonably-knowledgeable counters, whereas newbies may not properly initially distinguish his homespun-quackery from bonafide counter knowledge and expertise.
The real culpability for Robo's out-of-control behavior at CCCafe may rightly lie with the ineffable John May who essentially placed Rob well above his competence-level as a moderator, and who has never answered or addressed the concerns that the remaining pros have articulated repeatedly at CCCafe regarding the issue of Rob's moderator-competence and multiple previous threats of censorship. In light of the current and continued attacks upon John May's credibility, knowledgable parties are free to speculate as to May's reasoning or lack thereof.
I note as well that Rob has thus far failed to account for or address the criticisms and issues that I specifically posed in my Totalitarian Notice further up in this discussion.
As of this writing Robo is NOT allowing any communication that is critical of him to be placed at CCCafe, though he presumes to post what he wants there (and now here), regardless.
The CCCafe is now Robo's, to the victor goes the spoils, but I know that I speak for several here when I state that Robo's participation in discussion at CC.com makes this a LESS-DESIRABLE venue for quality-discussion.
Robo, as the self-professed "fundamentalist Christian" that you are, you have proven to be very much like many in your genre - hypocritical, arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant - your poor style combined with your apparent lack of discernment-powers and inability to come clean is distasteful and unbecoming of you and bothersome, as well, to many here at CC.com, at CCCafe, and elswhere throughout the BJ web-communities.
sincerely, zg
Ps - included below are the off-the-cuff responses, to my Totalitarian CCCafe notice, from the two senior CCCafe moderators disavowing any knowledge of Robo's recent and continued misbehavior at CCCafe:
---------------------------------------------
- Ted Forester responds -
Ted on Totalitarianism
Posted By: alienated on 23 November 02, 3:15 a.m. in response to: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ? (zengrifter)As a "socialist/anarchist", at least according to my bj21 profile, I feel compelled to confirm that I am an enemy of almost everything, including totalitarianism. Accordingly, I would never contemplate busting anyone's post.
Seriously, though, this is news to me. Can you reveal anything more about the situation? Is it just a technical change by Yahoo or something more sinister? Certainly, I would be very much opposed to systematically biased treatment of any CCCafe poster.
Regards,
Ted
--------------------------------------
John May respondsNot my doing...
Posted By: John May <sys381@yahoo.com> on 23 November 02, 4:16 a.m. in response to: Red Ted on Totalitarianism (alienated)
...and I can't believe its Rob or T-hopper. So I guess its a hacker or a system change.
-
Re: St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 00:31:01 (#938)
Although I appreciate your perspective, as I also appreciate Robert's, I hope that all threads related to these issues will be in the space alloated for this discussion in the thread below. In other words, please do not carry that thread outside of that discussion. Please reserve that single discussion for all the claims, counter-claims, etc., you wish to present with regard to issues surrounding CC and CCC.
Thanks!
--Mayor
-
Re: St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:45:50 (#942)
fair enough. zg
-
-
KO vs Hi-lo
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 21:41:38 (#856)
I use hi-lo and I play mainly six deck shoes. From what I read KO is better than hi-lo. I have heard other oppinions that KO is weak when playing shoes but strong for single deck. Can any one elaborate. Thanks LTC
-
Re: KO vs Hi-lo -OVERALL...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 22:01:00 (#857)
... KO is slightly weaker than HiLo. zg
-
Re: KO vs Hi-lo -OVERALL...
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 22:12:46 (#858)
Is hilo better for deviation indices on a shoe game than KO.
-
yes *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 23:58:02 (#860)
-
Re: KO vs Hi-lo Differences
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:35:28 (#878)
Hi Lo requires you to divide your Running Count to come up with a True Count, and in the end will give you a better understanding of what you are doing than KO with the one running count. Hi-Lo is also a good jump off point for higher levels of counting, which require you understand a True Count, or TC for playing and betting purposes.
-
-
Hello to Everyone Here
Posted by bigplayer® on 23-Nov-2002 02:45:50 (#864)
I just wanted to drop a quick line to say hey...nice Website Eliot.
-
Holla Back
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:31:16 (#877)