Archives of CardCounter.com message forums

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 1951 to 1980

Reality TV: Man Vs. Vegas
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 02:07:59 (#14347)

A High Roller Who Attempts to Exact Revenge on Las Vegas

Las Vegas Sun | 18 October 2005

LAS VEGAS, Nevada -- Even after losing more than $3 million in a gambling frenzy over a three-year period in the late '90s, Daren Leverenz still thinks he can beat Las Vegas. He's even constructed a TV series around that belief, "Man Vs. Vegas," which debuts Friday night at 10 on CMT (Cox cable channel 57).

Leverenz is the star of this eight-show series, in which he attempts to win back the fortune he lost from 1997 to 1999. He has since repaired his finances and liquidated all of his assets to build a nest egg of about $1 million for his made-for-TV venture.

In the series Leverenz grabs tourists at random -- at ATMs and in elevators -- and hands them several thousands of dollars to play on his behalf.

"If they win, I give them some of the profits," Leverenz said during a phone interview from his office in L.A. on Monday. "But they never lose their own money. I want them to share in the experience of being on this roller coaster."

Leverenz, who made a fortune through investments in the dot.com market in the '90s, became a self-described adrenaline addict during his gambling forays. A birthday bash in which he turned $2,000 into $180,000 got him started; near the end he lost $250,000 in a single day the week Bellagio opened.

The 35-year-old resident of the San Fernando Valley town of Calabasas has filmed the series at the Plaza and Aladdin. His favorite forms of gambling are blackjack and baccarat, and he's learned to enjoy craps and poker. But he'll wager on any form of gambling -- even betting on NHL games -- and is unafraid of trying to beat the Vegas odds.

"It's all about attitude," he said. "You have to always be positive."

Sounds good, but our money is on Vegas.

I already saw a show
Posted by Easy Money on 03-Nov-2005 22:04:17 (#14356)

The man strikes me as being an ego maniac who is not much more than a stupid idiot who was fortunate with his gamble on the 90's dot coms.

I have no respect for such ignorance.

Double hands
Posted by BradRod on 03-Nov-2005 15:39:31 (#14350)

I made the mistake recently of playing at a table where each player has 2 betting circles and so the option of playing 1 or 2 spots at will ( without having to occcupy another seat and without having to bet double the minimum bet ). Of course ploppies may complain about the in and out effects on the "natural" flow of the cards.

I realized after a while that this was no place for an advantage player to be sitting. What happens is that in effect you are at a table with up to 10 other players. This may be good for getting through the low card part of the shoe more quickly but when the count does get high you look out over a table of sadly under utilized faces and tens. This became real clear to me when in one hand there were pairs and doubles dealt to most of the full table. Nearly none of the players wound up making a decent hand out of all those opportunities in a high count - - except of course for the dealer who wiped everyone out. When play in tha hand was over the count had dropped to mediocre.

Has anyone else encountered this table layout ? Anyone know anything about the math of playing with 10 other players. It seems to me to dillute the gsme so that blackjacks occur less often, bust outs are a more frequent event, and splits and doubles are unsuccesful. Is this just my subjective observation or is there some math to back it up ?

When I moved to a regular table my performance improved right away.

RE: ten spots
Posted by Sun Runner on 03-Nov-2005 17:00:40 (#14351)

> Anyone know anything about the math of playing with 10 other players.

Guessing you are talking shoes. I've never seen the layout you refer to but I can't imagine a SD/DD game on it. If so, the ten spots would make a SD/DD game unplayable (generally.)

I'm not long on math skills but I'd say the only down side to playing with ten other players in a shoe game is the overall slow down in the play. I'm thinking you should still get your share of naturals and am hoping your improvement in play, when you switched off that table, was either due to selective memory or the positive EV coming to you quicker.

We'll see.

On a game like this...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 21:11:04 (#14352)

... you would like to bet 4-hands in +counts. Notwithstanding, your beleif that your +count advantage was somehow negated in the example given is not scientific. zg

True Count Theorem
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 04-Nov-2005 12:13:01 (#14363)

It would indicate to me that the count is equally likely to get better or worse between the time you put your bet down and the end of the hand. In illustrative terms, if the count is good, the dealer can grab a handful of cards from anywhere in the shoe and and start dealing, with equal likelihood of dealing high cards. So I wouldn't worry about the math changing if you're counting on a game like that.

They have a couple of 12-spot tables like that at Mohegan, and I like them for backcounting, simply because the cards move faster than normal and there's less time waiting and watching. Also less time playing (because good counts evaporate quicker) which gives you some protection from heat, when there is heat.

are 10 spots better than 12?
Posted by Dewayne on 04-Nov-2005 16:50:36 (#14371)

Where I play they have 6 sets of two spots, which is good and bad, when it is busy, it is easier to find an open spot because they will only let you play a maximum of your two spots, instead of some idiot hogging 2 or 3 of the 6 spots on the old layout. I also go back and forth between 1 and 2 spots(especially fun right after the dealer breaks) to get rid of some or all of the other players. When its slow, it's great because you can play 2 spots at $10 or $15 instead of having to bet 2 hands of $25. Back counting is even more boring waiting for all the decisions and its hard to see all the hands to count.

I feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. By the way, I don't know if it had anything to do with it or not, but about a week before they started phasing in the new layouts, I suggested it to the pit because it was so hard to play 2 hands at a time. Then viola, I got what I wished for. How often does that happen?

Dewayne

Scam System of the Week... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Nov-2005 21:28:40 (#14353)

... goes to Michael Stone "The Wizard". zg
---------------

Pssst...can you keep a SECRET?.. the strategies revealed here are used ONLY from casino Pro-Players, who make at least $2,000 a night at the craps table.

"Discover The Unrevealed Secrets
Of Dice Controlling And Learn How
To Pocket Up To $250 Per Hour
Every Time You Play Craps!"

World-Famous 15-Year Dice Controller, and Casino Annalist PROVES that Anybody (Even YOU!) Can Make a Small Fortune at the Craps Table With His Easy-To-Use, 100% Money-Making Guaranteed Craps Winning System..

... continued here: http://www.crapswinningsystem.com/

Dice control for online craps???? [Belly laugh] *NM*
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 03-Nov-2005 21:58:43 (#14355)

The problem is...
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 08:25:47 (#14360)

that charlatans like Scobelete make a lot of money off this crap. And it probably tars the reputations of others in the advantage community as well, because these people call themselves advantage players/instructors.

All these shooters 5 count and progression systems that these people pimp are screwing players who are already being raped by casinos.

I've worked as a dealer before, and once on roulette, I spun black 36 times in a row. You should have seen all the ploppies plopping down their cash on red. The drop on my game was over $75,000. No one was betting black since the last 21 spins were black and red just had to come next.

Brillo, you dont beleive in...
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Nov-2005 14:35:06 (#14366)

...Scobolete-type 'dice control'? Dtanford Wong does. zg

When's the next convention...
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 19:25:00 (#14373)

I want to hang with the Mad Professor, Heavy, Mickey D. and the boys. I think the Casino Royale has 100X's odds. They will have to file for bankruptcy if this crew ever shows up.

[url]http://www.dicesetter.com[/url]

Monkeys are into throwing crap
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 05-Nov-2005 02:06:23 (#14378)

The theory seems logical. If you can do the exact same thing with the dice every time, *first approximation* you should get the same number every time. I say first approximation, because you can't account for air currents. You can also apply spins to the dice like a pitcher does to a baseball which will tend to keep the dice centered around one axis. If you can bias the dice towards the 4-3 axis on come-out you should get a significant advantage. The only problem is testing it. Let me see a dice controller throw a 7 a standard deviation away from random, and then throw a 2 or 3 a standard deviation away from random, and I'll consider buying.

OK...
Posted by Brillo on 05-Nov-2005 08:03:04 (#14379)

After you decide on your spin, and factor in the air current, are you aiming for a particular spot on the alligator to keep these dice on axis? Let's hope all the drunks keeps their hands high, or all these precise calculations will go out the window.

My assumptions
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 05-Nov-2005 15:51:54 (#14382)

I would treat the back wall the way a scientist treats a crystal. You think of it as an infinitely repeating pattern of atoms, and you are not trying to hit any particular atom with your x-ray beam. But you get a repeatable diffraction pattern with the x-rays no matter where on the crystal you hit, even though you can't make any assumption about any particular x-ray photon.

Each dice is going to either hit one of 4 facets of the bumps on the back wall, or it will hit one of the bumps head on. If the dice are spinning around an axis, they will likely continue spinning around the same axis after the collision. Maybe the direction will be reversed, but the axis will not change due to the conservation of angular momentum.

If I were to guess at what the most effective way to control dice on come-out would be, I would: make the axis of spin horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of motion, with front spin (just imagine a bowling ball with front spin going down a bowling alley), and the axis would be the 1-6 axis. I would aim to hit the felt first, sort of roll towards the back wall and bounce back, hopefully still spinning around the 1-6 axis but with the directions reversed. This would bias the dice away from a 1 or 6, and thus reduce the probability of crap because you can't throw crap without a 1 or 6. I'm sure you can influence the point roll like this as well. Is it enough to get an advantage over the house? Beats the hell out of me, and I'm not planning on standing around throwing dice all day for 100 years to find out.

He obviously meant to say "mice" control *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 04-Nov-2005 10:28:27 (#14361)

Again [Belly Laugh]!!! *NM*
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 04-Nov-2005 14:09:48 (#14365)

"Anallist" *LINK*
Posted by BlackJackHack on 04-Nov-2005 13:03:34 (#14364)

Mr. Stone may be a wizard with the dice, but he needs a remedial spelling class.

Casino Security in Rural Missouri......
Posted by phantom007 on 04-Nov-2005 04:03:55 (#14358)

If you want to know where I live, just triangulate the FARTHEST point from the casinos in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Tunica....and you will be pretty darn close.

Anyhow, not much High-Intellect gambling conversation goes on around here. Lots of scratch-off lottery players, and of the few who do go to casino's, most are "Self-Proclaimed Slot Experts"....."all ya'all gotta do is watch a machine not hit for a while"....then move-in when it is due.

Stopped into a local bar this week. Was working on lowering my HDL Cholesterol, when an older gentleman two seats away scooted over to sit next to me. My first thought was....well, not pure.....I prefer my weiners with a bun, and without NUTS!

Anyhow, Mr. X just wanted some local info.....weather, property values, crime, etc. As the conversation went on, he is recently retired, has made a bundle on the rise of property values in CA, and is looking for property on which to retire, raise horses, etc.

As the conversation went along, he mentioned that his career had caused him to move alot....NJ, LA, NV, MS, and now CA.....were in Mississippi???...TUNICA!

What do you do???....Retired Surveillance Director!

A few beers turned into a few more. Mr. X had worked in Surveillance since the early 80's, and usually as the "Chief". I admitted my CC skills, and of course, that my name is Eliot J. His wife is a VP at a DT-LV store, and will retire in a couple of years. His last job was at an Indian Venue in CA, and he and their daughter are staying there until she finishes high school....then they want to move to MO, where property values are relatively cheap, raise horses, etc.

We both agreed that CC's are a minimal threat to Casinos....coming in a distant third to Employees and Cheats. Interesting info. that he gave me included:

(1) He was surprised that I got heat at Low Spreads. Spread, not play or camoflage plays is what THEY usually look for.
(2) Said that Camera's CANNOT see through red clothing (contradicts Cellini).
(3) Mississippi cannot bar CC'ers, only Flat-bet, mega-shuffle, short-shoe, etc. Hope this is true, but I doubt it, since their games are good.
(4) Lots of politics in Casino employment...like explains his frequent moves.
(5) Be careful of "Girls" who want to give you a BJ back up in your room....first, they may be planning on lowering your B/R....second, they are often GUYS! DAMN.....at least I did not get my B/R lowered.

He did not agree with me, that Casinos would make more profits by offering GOOD games.

Whatever, a pleasant diversion in my intellectual void. Oh, and Eliot J. now has a week of free RFB at a DT store!

ph.007

Point (3) is False...
Posted by Dog Hand on 08-Nov-2005 12:13:19 (#14413)

(3) Mississippi cannot bar CC'ers, only Flat-bet, mega-shuffle, short-shoe, etc. Hope this is true, but I doubt it, since their games are good.

phantom007,

I wish this were true as well, but I can tell you from personal experience that it is false.

Dog Hand

yeah..
Posted by stainless steel rat on 10-Nov-2005 13:38:05 (#14449)

However, in all the destruction down there, I hope a few computer "notes" were misplaced or wiped out along with the casinos. :)

When things open back up, I'm waltzing in as though nothing had ever happened, anywhere.

Remember the place down there you were 86'd from back before Katrina? Had the same result the week before the storm myself, and I was not spreading like you did in that particular game (I think your spreads are from a wild man, but that's another topic). :) Something changed there as I was allowed to play about 3 rounds before the PB walked over with a frown. Apparently I had tripped some warning during a previous session or something. And no, while I did use a player's card, it wasn't mine. A certain family member was barred and doesn't know it. :) I hope it was forgotten in the ruckus... :)

No idea who/what will re-open down there although recent flyers from the Beau claim they will be back next year or so... But I wasn't kicked out there...

Let's Hope You're Correct!
Posted by Dog Hand on 11-Nov-2005 14:36:19 (#14474)

SSR,

Sorry to hear you got caught, too... let's hope all is forgotten before they reopen!

Fortunately, I've been on a post-hurricane tear elsewhere!

Dog Hand

I'm hoping...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 12-Nov-2005 23:04:21 (#14504)

I have heard horror stories about massive court record losses, credit record losses, and so forth. Not to mention forensic evidence loss, in forensic labs. Etc.

We have a shot. :)

I hope they were more concerned with saving the chips and cash and forgot about player's club notes and the like. If the casino I am talking about re-opens, I'll let you know what happens as I'll pop in fairly quickly "just to see". I suspect a pretty good turnover in personnel as well, since most have moved elsewhere rather than starve...

One minor worry. The Beau has been sending flyers. So they didn't lose anything. Hope the "smaller" guys did. :)

Blackjack Tournaments
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 08:15:57 (#14359)

Is anyone a fan of these? I've never entered one but I read about one going on at the Sahara and the details sounded enticing so it made me curious. The only drawback seemed to be that you had to get a player's card and show ID to enter. Are there other drawbacks to them? Is playing in them a waste of time or even stupid? Just wanted to get the grizzled vet point of view.

First of all...
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Nov-2005 14:38:07 (#14367)

... why would you be hesitant to obtain a Sahara p-card?

Secondly, to more precisely answer your queation, do you know anything about tournament play? zg

I'm not hesitant...
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 19:17:45 (#14372)

I've just never signed up for any player's cards before. Cellini's article about them sort of turned me off to them.

And no, I don't know much about tournament play.

Tourneys
Posted by Sun Runner on 04-Nov-2005 14:55:05 (#14368)

Generally, I think tournamnets can be a great way to build/grow a bankroll. They usually require little if any entry fee, if given any time at all to preperation and study you are a better player going in than at least half the field, and some of the payoffs can be substantial.

If you are a 'grizzled veteran', already have a decent BR, can make better use of your time, wish to keep your identity private .. then maybe not so much.

Look at the tournament you are comtemplating. If you could place in the money four out of ten times .. would it be worth it? I think that is easily doable.

BTW, personally I think the idea that playing in a tournament automatically 'outs' you to the pit is a little too paranoid. Many times the people winning the local BJ tourney is some mom or pop who got lucky. If they don't know you previously at the tourney stop you should be able to come off just like that -lucky.

One last thing -this may be a little bizzare, but so what -I was watching the WSOP (1st prize $7.5 million, are you kidding me!) and heard someone say something like 'this is the modern day gold-rush.'

I think they are right and, I think it applies to BJ tournaments today. Some of these local tournaments have prize pools of a couple hundred thousand dollars being paid out over just seven or fourteen places. There is one I'm aware of in 2006 where first prize is $400,000, and it is no where NEAR the Hilton.

An advantage player goes where the advantage is. It used to be straight SD BJ in Vegas. Recently, bonus hustling the 'net was big. I think now, right now, BJ tournaments have a big positive EV for good players.

I'd 'out' myself for $400,000.

:) Good luck.

I've never...
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 19:41:10 (#14374)

particpated in a tournament at a casino of any sort. I once watched a Pai Gow tournament for several minutes at the Hilton, but that is as far as my experience goes.

Several good tourney books...
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Nov-2005 21:13:46 (#14392)

... now exist - start with Wong's Casino Tournament. And in the meantime, describe the Sahara tourney rules - prize pool, entry fee, etc. and we can analyze. Do you count? If so, what system? zg

As far as I know...
Posted by Brillo on 07-Nov-2005 19:44:11 (#14403)

$25 buy-in, $10 re-buy, includes buffet comp. 1st $1,000, 2nd $500, 3rd $250 and 4th and 5th also win money I believe. I think there are 3 rounds, each consisting of 20 hands and then a final round.

I am still trying to get really good at Hi-Lo. I would like to begin to study other systems as well.

Oh, these are mini tourneys...
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Nov-2005 21:48:18 (#14408)

... there are several around town weekly... good opps to learn tourney play (AFTER YOU READ UP ON THE STRATEGY!) BTW, counting is of NO USE in a tourney, its based on a different principal... but its still skill-based of a different sort.

I won a mini at Silverton a while back - last round - I size up the other players and realize I've got one shot IF I bet all my chips and win... dealer pushes 1/3 of my bet back, I was over the limit, I get 8-8 vs. Ace, I doubled for less and caught the 5! Hahahahahah!

Start with Wong's Tourney book. zg

Add'lly
Posted by Sun Runner on 08-Nov-2005 11:54:59 (#14412)

> I am still trying to get really good at Hi-Lo.

If you are 'still trying to get really good' at HiLo quit worrying about the pit and the survelliance. You are a long way away from them connecting you with money leaving their casino.

Play some tournaments; you'll get in the casino and get a lot of invaluable experience just hanging around and playing some on the cheap. And you might accidently start a BR.

> I would like to begin to study other systems as well.

Why? HiLo works. Find a good system, learn it cold, and then move on .. maybe.

Good luck.

HiLo is ALL you'll ever need...
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 01:07:45 (#14425)

... I recommend HiLoLite from Snyder's Blackbelt. zg

Cash transaction report or DONT PANIC !!!
Posted by BradRod on 04-Nov-2005 15:43:29 (#14369)

I was recently backroomed and barred at am Indian reservation casino. We are working on a legal settlement for the illegal detention. Indiam reservations have their own laws that seem to do a good job of protecting them from claims of damages by limiting them to claims for monetary losses only.

I think that part of the reason that I received this kind of attention from this place was that although I was a fairly regular player in this small casino I always refused to get a player's card and that really buggrd them. I really must get a fake i.d.

I was concerned that the incident would expose me in other venues where I regularly play and am known by my real identity. After a cautious interval I starting going back to some of my regular places. The other night I sat down to play and was still trying to find my comfort level after the barring incident. I turned in my player card and the PC came back to say that the system did not recognize me. She asked for my driver's license. Starting to get nervous about this I handed it to her. I was continuing to play as I was watching my license gat passed around in the pit area with some conversation that I could not make out. I kept thinking to myself "don't panic. be cool".

Finally it was down to 2 people. Pit supervisor ? shift supervisor ? they were standing close to me. Looking at my license, looking at the computer terminal, going in to a drawer for some paper work I did not recognize, strategizing with each other. I kept playing as cooly as i could and wondering what would happen next.

Finally the guy comes up to me and tells me that I am barred from playing there. Because there were not (yet) any other security people around to control the situation and/or escort me out I somehow felt that this was not related to the incident at the other place and probably not related to counting. So I asked him "barred ? why ?"

He said that the last time that I was there (about 5 days earlier) I refused to provide them information that they requested. I argued the point with them for a while because that never happened. This was all happening while I was sitting at the table. They made me lose my count in the shoe as I remember the cards were not falling so well anyway. The other players and the dealer were more interested in the argument than in the game. And after a while there were some more security people standing by.

It turns out that after I had left in the prior session somebody discovered that I had bought in for more than $10 k, the threshold at which you have to start filing a cash transaction report. They put the notation on my account and that was what triggered the red flag on my player account.

The 10 k buy in occurred because I was actually having a good night but with a high fluctuation. Each time I got enough ahead I would cash in my chips.(I always cash in my chips under $1000 at a window per time to keep below the reporting limit) But then each new time that I sat down at a table I bought in fresh and those repeated buy ins were what accumulated to just over 10k. The lesson is hold onto some chips if you are going to keep playing instead of buying in repeatedly..

They said that if I would fill out a form with my SS # for their files that I would be welcome to stay and that they value me as a player and would rather that I not just leave as I threatened to do. That seemed to me the best thing do in the situation. So I filled out the form , stayed and played.

While I was still playing at the same pit and table where this took place I noticed a Griffin type player profile sheet being passed around in the pit area. I could not tell if it was my photo or not. It looked to me like it might have been ( a handsome white guy with short hair and larger than average ears from what I could see ) . I again got nervous thinking that all this attention had caught someone's notice who might have seen a bulletin about me. After a while they just stuck the sheet in a drawer and left me free to play.

In at least 3 previous times at this casino I remember noticing that I was being watched for counting. A very obvious looking casino staff person who knew how to count would be standing right in the blind spot over my shoulder and counting the shoe to see how my betting corresponds to the count. When I noticed this I took evasive action either by straight betting into a high TC or by using a dynamic system where over the course of 5 hands my bets averaged out to a reasonable bet for the count but the fluctuations from one hand to the next would not make sense to someone looking for betting variations to change only with the TC.

So hopefully even if that was my wanted poster they were looking at they still viewed me as just a player who has unusual betting habits and has been lucky and they are just waiting and hoping to get their money back.

That night I took this casino for over $3000. A very satisfying result and no cash transaction reports were filed.

CTRs
Posted by Sun Runner on 04-Nov-2005 16:40:26 (#14370)

> That night I took this casino for over $3000.
> A very satisfying result and no cash transaction reports were filed.

In it's proper sense, a cash transaction report would not be filed on a $3,000 event anyway.

None the less, how would you know? It is not encumbant on them to notify you of the filing. Now that they have your information, they have the ability, and the right, to file a cash transaction report on your activity anytime it is warranted. Your only notice will be when your copy comes in the mail.

Finally, a CTR is not the worse thing that can happen. Managed properly, they should not be an issue and should be avoidable, but even so, they are not an indication of money won or money lost. All they imply is that you were transacting business, in cash, that night. It's not against the law.

BTW, I'd like to kow how the litigation comes out.

This didn't have anything to do with counting...
Posted by Brillo on 04-Nov-2005 20:00:00 (#14375)

I don't know about Indian Casinos, but floor people in Las Vegas will lose their gaming cards if they don't follow the proper procedures if you buy in for more than $10,000. They are required by law to ban you if you refuse to show ID. Any heat probably had more to do with the question of who you were, and whether or not you were laundering money.

Interesting Optical Illusion *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Nov-2005 00:37:21 (#14376)

If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, you will only see one color, pink. If you stare at the black + in the center, the moving dot turns to green. Now, concentrate on the black + in the center of the picture. After a short period of time, all the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you will only see a green dot rotating if you're lucky! It's amazing how our brain works. There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don't disappear. This should be proof enough, we don't always see what we think we see.

Very nice! It's happening in the eye
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 05-Nov-2005 01:51:24 (#14377)

The green dot is of a color that is right near the peak response of the human eye, and the pink dots are actually magenta, which is a mix of violet and red which are at the low ends of the response. Once your eye starts holding still, the green one temporarily bleaches the color receptor cells in your retina as it moves around. Notice the green dot sort of erases the magenta ones as it spins around, the first time the magenta dots disappear. What a nice effect.

If you have a lightweight monitor, focus your eyes until the dots disappear, then rotate your monitor slightly around the focal point. The magenta dots will come back, because they're being focused on a different part of the retina.

Taken from one of my old quotes..."Far Out!" *NM*
Posted by Praying Mantis on 05-Nov-2005 14:38:49 (#14381)

UFO??
Posted by Cyrano on 06-Nov-2005 02:05:55 (#14384)

Take a look at the 3'oclock circle. Near the top of that circle, there seems to be a green right triangle right before the circle disappears.

Yes, the illusion within the illusion. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Nov-2005 21:14:44 (#14393)

Not an illusion.
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 07-Nov-2005 06:07:43 (#14396)

I Put it in Photopaint, went frame for frame.

Whenever the spot counter-clockwise to to the 12,3 and 9 o'clock spots is missing, there is some sort of visible artifact, like the triangle.

My Gawd...There's one at 12 o'clock, as well! *NM*
Posted by Praying Mantis on 06-Nov-2005 22:14:03 (#14395)

does anyone know about John May and....
Posted by joey joe joe jim jam on 05-Nov-2005 22:14:20 (#14383)

"Get the edge at blackjack" a book he wrote,
a pal of mine has it but it seems like a load of garbage,is it?
Ive heard this John May is a total fraud,not really a pro gambler but just another guy that wrote a gambing book,
i mean these days my auntie Marge could publish a gambling book,they are 2 a penny.
Can anyone enlighten me?

Decide for yourself for $4.
Posted by The Mayor on 06-Nov-2005 10:28:44 (#14385)

> "Get the edge at blackjack" a book he wrote, a pal of mine has it but it seems like a load of garbage,is it?

You can buy it off the Amazon site for $4 and decide for yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566251516/qid=1131294326/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6766248-2719238?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Some reviews are posted there as well. Some think he is a "super dooper gambler man". Many think quite the opposite.

By request
Posted by The Mayor on 08-Nov-2005 19:12:26 (#14421)

By personal request, I deleted the thread that responded to my post. Again, this site does not permit personal attacks of any sort. Then again, the merits of a piece of work are well within the limits of what is allowed. The topic of this thread is the quality and content of John May's book, not John May as a person, nor any other individual or website.

Thanks to all for your understanding.

--Mayor

It would appear that JMay (aka Green Baize Vampire)...
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Nov-2005 16:43:14 (#14386)

... has limited real-world experience and yet professes the opposite. As for his GTE@BJ, it is little more that a catalogue of AP summaries with limited application direction. It is a book of 3rd-tier importance among BJ literature. zg

3rd-Tier? I think you're being Kind
Posted by Praying Mantis on 06-Nov-2005 22:11:48 (#14394)

"has limited real-world experience and yet professes the opposite. As for his GTE@BJ, it is little more that a catalogue of AP summaries with limited application direction. It is a book of 3rd-tier importance among BJ literature. zg "

If you want a jolly, definitely get the book. (Following comes right out of the pages of the book...emphasis are mine)

Scoblete writes the forward and describes May as an advantage player with at "attitude". He's a gambling "gunslinger" who makes his living shooting the casinos.

Then May writes about card steering..."It was related to me by a highly successful professional gambler and maverick theorist known to me only as the Green Baize Vampire who described the play as HE organized it."

"One of the most powerful and until now, one the greatest secrets of advantage play, is called the stacker play. It is a highly advanced team technique again taught to me by the MYSTERIOUS Englishman known as the Green Baize Vampire. The Vampire described the technique to me as it was carried out during one of his team's most successful coups."

HHHmmmm, Green Baize Vampire a.k.a. John May?

There are other humorous things in the book. To be fair, there is a lot of good information, as well, but nothing that can't be found in other books by more reputable authors.

My 2-cents.

Yes, I was being kind. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Nov-2005 21:39:34 (#14406)

Book review by Nick Christenson *LINK*
Posted by Sonny on 09-Nov-2005 09:52:25 (#14428)

I personally felt that the book was vague and contained a bit of misleading information. Although much of the book is solid I don't think it offers anything that cannot be found elsewhere in other more reputable books.

But don't take my word for it. Check out the link below for another book review.

-Sonny-

Christenson says of GTE@BJ - *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Nov-2005 03:17:18 (#14441)

"The book ends up being like a survey course, where the reader is informed about the existence of each of these techniques, but none of them are covered in sufficient depth to truly benefit the reader."
--------

AND that says it all. zg

Technology can't beat us, casino cheat says *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Nov-2005 17:07:26 (#14387)

Technology can't beat us, casino cheat says

By Will Sturgeon
CNET News.com | November 4, 2005

A self-proclaimed casino cheater has criticized the effectiveness of many technologies touted as anti-cheating measures--including controversial solutions like RFID and facial recognition--and suggested they are doomed to expensive failure.

Richard Marcus said he is "more or less retired" but is still widely regarded as a leading authority on casino cheating. Marcus scammed a reported $5 million in Atlantic City, N.J., Las Vegas, London and Monte Carlo over a 25-year period.

Despite seeing a raft of high-tech measures brought in to thwart his kind, Marcus warned the casinos that they're making the wrong bet by backing technology.

But that doesn't mean the cheaters will prosper, he said.

"Almost everybody gets caught," said Marcus, who has never been convicted of any crime against casinos. "But it's not because of the technology. Casino cheats are desperate people, and they do stupid things. Most people get caught because they get too much exposure."

"I don't have to go back into a casino to know my moves will still work," Marcus said. His stock trick relied upon sleight of hand--that is, switching high-denomination chips for lower-value chips in a bet that had won. At his peak, his team used a technique known as pastposting to replace three black $100 chips with two brown $5,000 dollar chips beneath a single black chip. That meant $300 liabilities were reaping payouts from $10,100.

Such a technique theoretically could be spotted by radio frequency identification technology or optical readers in chips, but Marcus said it's unlikely that will ever be the case.

The same, he says, is true of improved surveillance techniques and advanced facial recognition, which Marcus claims is easily outfoxed. "Facial recognition is an absolute zero. There's not one person alive who's ever been caught by facial recognition," he claimed.

Marcus argued that technology is still only as good as the casino's workers, who he fooled for years. If cheaters don't draw too much attention to themselves, quickly getting onto and then away from the table, it's unlikely their records will be checked.

"And even if they do check, I'd be long gone," Marcus said. In fact, having technology to fall back on is actually making pit bosses and dealers less attuned to what might be happening right under their noses, he argued.

"These people rely upon their technology too much," he said. "There is no room for maneuver in their thinking. I don't have to fool the camera or the technology, I only have to fool the dealer or his pit boss. If I fool them, the technology doesn't come into play."

However, one casino, Las Vegas' new Wynn resort, has put RFID technology in all its casino chips. Marcus said he believes this will do little more than improve management of chips within the cage. He suggested it will be too fraught with difficulty to use effectively at the tables, citing as examples other systems that have come and gone, proving more trouble than they were worth.

"Let's say they do eventually get this stuff working on the table. A really good cheating team is going to come up with some way to screw around with the chips and the signal," Marcus said.

Similarly, he agreed that it's possible to run systems and behavioral analysis identifying the difference between luck and probable cheating, as the chief information officer of casino giant Harrah's has claimed. But Marcus said an experienced cheater won't stick around waiting for those findings come to light.

"If somebody is winning excessively, then obviously there is more of a chance that cheating is going on," Marcus said. But he expressed doubt that any cheat who knows the trade well would stick around exploiting an improbable "lucky streak."

The greatest value casinos will get from high-profile security rollouts is the deterrent factor, which should immediately eliminate the low-hanging fruit of the cheating world, he said.

"Most cheaters, when they hear about technological advances being made by the casinos, get scared. They change their game or their tactics, or they move on to something else," he said.

===============
Chips for cheaters

High-tech betting chips such as this one are designed to deter counterfeiting, card-counting and other bad behavior. The casino industry is just the latest to find new uses for RFID technology.

Credit: Progressive Gaming International

I'm a BAAAAAAD boy
Posted by Sonny on 07-Nov-2005 09:47:22 (#14397)

> High-tech betting chips such as this one are designed to deter
> counterfeiting, card-counting and other bad behavior.

Do they have any devices that deter bad reporting?

-Sonny-

current conditions?
Posted by brett on 06-Nov-2005 18:17:10 (#14388)

Was wondering how to find out the current conditions in Vegas. Going there soon and would like to save time. Thanks for any help. Good luck to all!

CBJN *LINK*
Posted by Titaniumman on 06-Nov-2005 20:18:28 (#14389)

Current BlackJack News is the service provided by BJ21 featuring a paid network of reporters. Many of these reporters discuss their reports on the CBJN forum. They are reputable Greenchippers and are known in the community.

Stanford Wong's reporters throughly canvass all of the casinos in Las Vegas just prior to the fresh CBJN edition which comes out on the third of each month.

If you plan to only purchase one copy, order it on the third of the month that is just prior to your trip.

Me, I keep a permanent running subscription to support such a fine service.

Here's the link to BJ21's catalog so that you can choose their single issue, 3 month, or 12 month subscription:

Oops. Here's a link that works. *LINK*
Posted by Titaniumman on 06-Nov-2005 20:23:08 (#14390)

This one should work.

Brett - Recommendations
Posted by zengrifter on 06-Nov-2005 21:10:58 (#14391)

Tell us what your stakes, BR size, high bet, and system are and we'll make some recommendations. zg

Only in California... (LINK)
Posted by The Mayor on 07-Nov-2005 11:38:34 (#14398)

Meetings at Casino Raise Questions
# Some say it looks bad for L.A. County sheriff's officials, who enforce gaming laws, to hold gatherings at Commerce gambling hall.

By Stuart Pfeifer, Times Staff Writer

Gamblers at the Commerce Casino's high-limit Texas Hold 'Em tables didn't appear to notice as armed sheriff's deputies shuffled past them on their way toward a red-carpeted stairwell. Some deputies were in uniform, guns holstered at their waists or strapped to their thighs...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-casino7nov07,0,2826154.story?coll=la-home-local

Commerce is a fine hotel... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Nov-2005 21:17:18 (#14405)

... with excellent meeting facilities. zg

That's quite a "PIC"
Posted by The Mayor on 08-Nov-2005 13:23:52 (#14414)

I can only wonder what the cover of Playboy will be like that comes out the same week as that issue of Time...

Answer
Posted by stainless steel rat on 09-Nov-2005 14:22:22 (#14429)

Headline for same month's issue of playboy:

Wanna see where Clinton kept his cigars?

(Lewinsky spread photos inside)

Victoria's secret same month:

See our monogrammed pantys endorsed by Monica:

Monogram:

Bill's Humidor

Etc.

what's the *PIC *
Posted by BradRod on 09-Nov-2005 15:38:55 (#14430)

that has everyone so excited ? all i see is a time cover with bush getting on a plane

captions...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 09-Nov-2005 19:04:15 (#14433)

The caption says:

"Bush resigns"

"the nightmare is over"

(the picture is in between those two lines).

I personally prefer a president that is screwing the radical Islamists as opposed to one that is screwing his intern.

Your personal preference is... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 20:06:42 (#14436)

... seriously &*!%#^!! zg

---------------
"I personally prefer a president that is screwing the radical Islamists as opposed to one that is screwing his intern."

..
Posted by stainless steel rat on 09-Nov-2005 20:43:49 (#14438)

a famous quote:

"While I don't agree with what you are saying, I will defend with my life, your right to say it."

From a conservative to a liberal.

I don't take any of this personally, myself. I agree with some things Bush does, I disagree with others. I suspect it would be _impossible_ to find a president I agreed with 100%. Even if I were in the oval office, I am sure I would later wish I had done something different. All past presidents have had their bad decisions, and their good decisions. Bush is no better or worse in this regard. But at least he is not waffling. After all, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, et. al. have _all_ in the past 6 years said "We _know_ Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he will use them." This is not something "new".

Love the quote! ... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 23:46:05 (#14440)

...

ditto
Posted by stainless steel rat on 10-Nov-2005 09:10:33 (#14443)

as did my dad, a world war II vet that fought in the Normandy invasion on D-Day, etc...

Too many prefer censorship, I prefer freedom myself. :)

BTW
Posted by stainless steel rat on 10-Nov-2005 09:15:10 (#14444)

I believe the quote is generally attributed to Voltaire, and goes like this:

I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it

Or something very close to that...

Not Voltaire...
Posted by The Mayor on 10-Nov-2005 09:57:01 (#14445)

From a website I found...

The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.

Tell that to the...
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Nov-2005 11:32:29 (#14447)

... Las Vegas Tribune (see header) -
http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20051021/headline1.html

good research
Posted by stainless steel rat on 10-Nov-2005 13:28:39 (#14448)

what I would expect from a fellow academic. :)

I got tired of clicking on links. And too many have taken "poetic license" with that quote and slightly changed it and used it as though it were their original work.

First human being...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 09-Nov-2005 21:00:41 (#14439)

... to contract the Tobacco Mosaic virus as a venereal disease.

2 questions
Posted by godfather on 07-Nov-2005 14:02:01 (#14400)

1. What is the estimated ROR with the K-O full system for the following game?

Backcounting 4.5 / 6, H17 DAS LS with a spread of 1 - 2 - 4 - 4,4 - 8,8 - 12,12

for a 2,000 unit bank?

2. When will the latest revised edition of Humble's WGBJB be out?

Thanks

Without sim or BJA... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Nov-2005 21:16:18 (#14404)

... I would say about 1.6u/100hands with virtually NO RoR. But that info alone must be tempered with regard to variance, and the possibility of a protracted negative swing and the possibility of being upside down for 100s of hours. You would be far better off to backcount such a game and enter with 4u at the pivot.

Okay gang what is his RoR? zg

reverse-kelly betting
Posted by Myooligan on 08-Nov-2005 21:27:12 (#14422)

Okay gang what is his RoR? zg

Is there a way to size George's bets that minimizes his advantage while ensuring a risk of ruin of 100%? Not that he isn't doing just fine on his own. . .

Injected by your friendly casino
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 08-Nov-2005 22:45:47 (#14423)

If you thought bad variance makes you feel sick, check this out! Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the casino, they're waiting there with a needle for you. Perfectly safe, it's all been inspected by the Mohegan Health Department. They even accept comp points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Den Flu & Pneumonia
Clinic Dates Put On Hold

Due to shortages in the supply of vaccine, the flu and pneumonia clinic scheduled for November 10th in the Wolf Den at Mohegan Sun has been cancelled and the clinics scheduled for November 17th, December 1st and December 8th are on hold. For more information on future flu and pneumonia clinic dates and vaccination availability please click here.

Thursday, November 10th 10:00 am - 2:00 pm cancelled
Thursday, November 17th 10:00 am - 2:00 pm on hold
Thursday, December 1st 10:00 am - 2:00 pm on hold
Thursday, December 8th 10:00 am - 2:00 pm on hold

If vaccine becomes available, the flu and pneumonia clinics will be held on the dates listed above in the Wolf Den at Mohegan Sun from 10:00am to 2:00pm. No reservations are necessary. These will be walk-in clinics that are open to members of the public 21 years of age and over with no restrictions.

The charge for the clinic will be $30.00 per flu shot and $46.00 per pneumonia shot. Medicare will be accepted for flu and pneumonia shots. ConnectiCare, Anthem, Health Net, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its federal associates will be accepted for flu shots only. Player's Club points will be accepted for the shots as well.

Don't take the flu shots! *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 01:04:10 (#14424)

"The way to prepare yourself and protect your family from this influenza is
not a vaccine or anti-viral drug. If vaccines and/or anti-viral drugs are
offered to you, please refuse them. These actually reduce your immunity."

--------------

From Laguna Journal

IMPORTANT HEALTH INFORMATION
Critical information concerning the Avian Influenza
Prepare for Avian Influenza!

By Jonathan Campbell, Health Consultant

Various U.S. and U.N. agencies and the Council on Foreign Relations are
spreading the word that the Avian Influenza, if it breaks out this fall or
winter, could be as severe as the worldwide Spanish Influenza epidemic of
1918, and they are predicting hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide.

This influenza, currently isolated in China, is a hemorrhagic illness. It
kills half of its victims by rapidly depleting ascorbate (vitamin C) stores
in the body, inducing scurvy and collapse of the arterial blood supply,
causing internal hemorrhaging of the lungs and sinus cavities.
It has spread to Europe since this article...

Most people today have barely enough vitamin C in their bodies (typically 60
mg per day) to prevent scurvy under normal living conditions, and are not
prepared for this kind of illness. (Vitamin C deficiency is the root cause
of many infant and childhood deaths worldwide, and it is the root cause of
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS.)

The way to prepare yourself and protect your family from this influenza is
not a vaccine or anti-viral drug. If vaccines and/or anti-viral drugs are
offered to you, please refuse them. These actually reduce your immunity;
vaccines contain many toxic components, such as aluminum and mercury,
and anti-viral drugs interfere with critical body processes. Historical evidence of vaccinations has shown that they actually increase the chances of becoming severely ill. The best way to prepare for influenza is by enhancing your immune system and increasing the amount of vitamin C in your body.

...continued here (mid-page) - http://www.lagunajournal.com/

---------------
Below, photo evidence that the bird-flu has already struck Southern California!

Seriously off topic...
Posted by The Mayor on 09-Nov-2005 15:53:25 (#14431)

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41*33

KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

This sort of thing belongs in...
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 16:14:43 (#14432)

... THE ZENZONE!!!! zg

I agree...
Posted by Mayor on 10-Nov-2005 15:30:49 (#14452)

ZG,

Please re-open the ZZ somewhere so that those of us with the urge have somewhere to go. This includes your pictures of GB.

Since both the non-BJ and ZZ pages were taken down, it is only appropriate to allow off-topic posts here, but both myself and management have not really figured out the scope of what we are comfortable with. Our growing pains are evident.

Thanks,

Mayor

OK, maybe I will, BUT FIRST - The Science Vs Religion Hoax
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Nov-2005 22:56:09 (#14455)

Smug Man Vs Straw Man -
The Science Vs Religion Hoax

By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
11-10-5

At a recent lunch meeting with a friend, I was asked to identify a single ability or asset human beings must have in order to live successfully. Put to this test, my initial instinct was to blurt out such answers as, "Love! Courage! Forgiveness! Inner peace!" But I forced myself to pause for a moment of introspection, and almost immediately, the answer came to me.

"The greatest asset anyone can have is the ability to tell what is true from what is not."

And my friend raised his eyebrows, seemingly both in pleasure and surprise. He agreed that this is this the most essential ingredient to successful living -- and furthermore, it is a quality that much of humanity has always lacked.

We have difficulty distinguishing between truth and falsehood, because so often, our real choices are misrepresented. If one is told that the path to truth can only be found on roads A or B -- but in reality, both roads lead to a bottomless chasm -- what true choice does one have?

This problem is exacerbated in contemporary society, where a handful of huge corporations have bought the majority of TV, radio, and print media. Meaningful debate is stymied by the (often deliberate) misrepresentation of our choices. Incredibly complex and multi-layered issues are distorted so that they appear as simple matters of black and white, either-or.

In political discussions in the U.S., people who call themselves either "conservative" or "liberal" take turns engaging in polemics and ad hominem attacks. Rarely do popular political commentators offer positive ideas for action, but endlessly accuse one another of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and sleaziness. This breeds divisiveness and close-mindedness in the populace, feeding the myth that a "two-party," left or right political system is the only possible reality in America. And it actively discourages true intellectual vision -- a desire to learn as much as possible wherever that path might lead.

This perversion of reality by popular media touches every area of human interest. Take, for instance, recent coverage of the so-called Science vs. Religion debate. This phrase is used with increasing regularity, as natural disasters, terrorism, fears over coming "pandemics," and warfare have many wondering if we are living in the "end times" prophesied in the Bible. The phrase is also used to frame the evolution vs. "intelligent design" debate - a debate forged by a kind of hidden cooperation between the two sides. Both are happy to "debate" the question, as if the debate precludes other possibilities. One side or the other MUST be correct. For most in the news media, all of this comes down to choosing either the literal interpretations of scripture advocated by Christian fundamentalists versus the disciplined, rational, feet-on-the-ground observations of respected scientists. It's simply a case of "blind faith" vs. "rationality."

Personally, I have no religious beliefs, and I am happy to see the "historical accuracy" of the Bible put to the test by science. But I don't think it is "irrational" either to believe in an active "intelligence" in the universe, or to question the tenability of popular scientific theories such as Darwin's model of evolution by "natural selection." In fact, I suspect that the Evangelicals framed the debate in these terms because they know that most humans have a dependable level of good sense: most will not accept the idea that mere biological mechanics could account for the unfathomable sophistication of living organisms. So if you side with intelligent design, the Evangelicals think they win, which is nonsense.

I agree that a literal interpretation of Biblical accounts, including the story of Creation, is not tenable. But I will not be tricked into believing that the best alternative to religious dogma is atheism and its counterpart materialism (the belief that physical matter is the only reality). In truth, science lends no support at all to the materialist's ideology. Increasing numbers of scientists are exploring questions of spirit and consciousness, and their findings contradict the empty and disconnected Universe envisioned by materialists.

The movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" achieved immense popularity because it spoke for what so many individuals have long recognized, even if they could not express the conviction in words: that there is more to "reality" than the three-dimensional world. "What the Bleep" featured scholars like Dr. Masaru Emoto, who has demonstrated that thoughts and feelings have a measurable effect on physical matter (i.e. water.) Also featured were esteemed scientists like quantum physicist John Hagelin, Ph.D., who discussed a study in Washington D.C., which showed a direct correlation between a group's practice of transcendental meditation, and a reduction of crime in their area. (For an overview of this study, see www.istpp.org/crime_prevention).

Other scholars whose works argue against the philosophy of materialism include Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (the psychic connections between humans and their pets), Dr. Gary Schwartz (psychic mediums and the afterlife), Dr. Larry Dossey (the effects of prayer on physical healing), and Dr. Raymond Moody (life after life). None of these researchers have provided "proof positive" of God or a spiritual dimension, but they certainly have experience that goes above and beyond the blind faith of institutionalized religion and/or materialistic science.

But of course, true spiritual discovery is not about proving or disproving this or that "phenomenon" in the eyes of others. Even if it were possible to empirically prove the existence of God, I don't believe this would necessarily be of benefit to the human race. To live a spiritual life, one need not believe in "mystical" or "supernatural" principles, but only to devote oneself unconditionally to seeing the truth in every situation.

And more and more people are waking up to this not-so-little secret. Many spiritual guidebooks have emerged in recent years which teach a philosophy contrary to the Christianity of modern Evangelicals. In my opinion, the works of people like Eckhart Tolle ("The Power of Now"), David R. Hawkins ("The Eye of the I"), and the spiritual manual "A Course in Miracles" are of more value than any religious doctrine, because they deal directly with a destructive thought system. ACIM states: "You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What you do comes from what you think."

And what I think is that the inane Science vs. Religion debate has little or nothing to tell us about the nature of God, spirit, or the Universe as a whole. Skepticism of the Bible is NOT a repudiation of spiritual reality. I have no use for dogma -- scientific OR religious. Given the choice between a smug man and a straw man, I choose neither.

Nonsense
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Nov-2005 10:40:20 (#14463)

This author quotes a number of studies that have been thoroughly debunked.

For example, Dr. Larry Dossey (the effects of prayer on physical healing). Dossey directly assessed if patients had improved or not, with prior knowledge of which group they were part of.

The TM study has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked as well. Many times.

Articles like this one only show the ignorance of the writer, and if one believes them, show the unwillingness (or laziness) of the reader to critically consider the cited sources.

You can do better than to post tripe like this, ZG.

'Tripe' indeed, where do you come by your info?
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Nov-2005 10:56:34 (#14466)

I ask because the Dossey study (I read the book) as well as the TM data, I beleived to be valid science. Where (please)? zg

---------

Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July 1993

"Analysis of 1993 data, controlling for temperature, revealed that there was a highly significant decrease in HRA crimes associated with increases in the size of the group during the Demonstration Project. The maximum decrease was 23.3% when the size of the group was largest during the final week of the project. The statistical probability that this result could reflect chance variation in crime levels was less than 2 in 1 billion (p < .000000002). When a longer baseline is used (1988-1993 data), the maximum decrease was 24.6% during this period (p < .00003). When analyzed as a separate variable, robberies did not decrease significantly, but a joint analysis of both HRA crimes and robberies indicated that violent crimes as a whole decreased significantly to a maximum amount of 15.6% during the final week of the project (p = .0008). Analysis of 1993 data, controlling for temperature, revealed that there was a highly significant decrease in HRA crimes associated with increases in the size of the group during the Demonstration Project."

Full summary here: http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/

Exactly!
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Nov-2005 11:35:12 (#14468)

There are articles ad-nauseum debunking Dossey and TM and all the other "bleep" pseudo-science.... all you have to do is look...

Here's one on Dossey (sheesh, just do a google search, you can find 100's of articles debunking his work):

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2004-03/reality-check.html

The TM study is a tougher nut. The study is already 12 years old, so most of the articles are not on the web. But, you can start with:

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Robert L. Park. 230 pp. Oxford University Press, 2000, $25.

Etc...

To keep this simple, just start by reading this book:

# Why People Believe Weird Things
# Paperback: 306 pages
# Publisher: W.H. Freeman & Company (September 19, 1998)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0716733870

--Mayor

CSICOP! (The "paradigm police") Puhleese...
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Nov-2005 16:19:01 (#14477)

"Everything about CSICOP purports to be scientific -- objective, fair, independent, investigative, rational. In reality, CSICOP is the home of the Paradigm Police, a kind of Pseudoscience-Central that deals in fundamentalist prejudice, opinion and bias, informed by a single, central hidden agenda -- to debunk at any cost any phenomenon, evidence or theory that touches on the list of taboo subjects that CSICOP has drawn up as forbidden."
-- from http://www.alternativescience.com/csicop.htm

--------------

Eliot - I think that your eductaion process has rooted you too firmly of late in a materialistic-SCIENTISM paradigm... probably time for another LSD trip!

BUT anyway, Masaru Emoto's work is but one of many that PROVE that thought DOES AFFECT MATTER. zg

...Masaru Emoto's work here - http://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp

------------

scientism

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

... from http://skepdic.com/scientism.html

P.E.A.R & Global Consciousness Project
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Nov-2005 17:12:25 (#14481)

... excerpted from The Science Of Collective Consciousness by Robert Kenny
http://wie.org/j25/kenny.asp

"Dean Radin, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Lab, and Roger Nelson's Global Consciousness Project have taken research into consciousness "field effects" even further—into the realm of mind/matter interactions—by conducting a series of intriguing experiments with random number–generating (RNG) computers. RNGs can basically be thought of as sophisticated coin-flipping machines, programmed to issue zeroes or ones randomly. That is, just as if you were to flip a coin one hundred times and could expect the "heads" and "tails" sides to come up fifty times each, so it is with an RNG—producing, on average, an equal number of zeroes and ones. Ordinary people, however, have used the power of thought alone to create order out of this randomness, causing RNGs that were sometimes thousands of miles away to issue significantly more of one number over many trials, simply by intending to do so."

---------------

GCP -
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/
http://www.parapsych.org/members/r_d_nelson.html
PEAR -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab
http://www.mtec-ag.de/dasneueste.asp?lang=eng

Intelligent Design *LINK*
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 09-Nov-2005 19:13:15 (#14434)

Here is another tidbit about intelligent design that I found quite enlightening.

-Shaggy

Seriously - Mathematics of Evolution (according to HOYLE and others)
Posted by zengrifter on 09-Nov-2005 20:00:09 (#14435)

A Knighted Astronomer's Fight Against Neo-Darwinism,
Using Mathematics As His Weapon.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
a review by Gert Korthof | 3 Dec 2004
--------------
"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
-- Fred Hoyle
-----------------

There isn't any outsider who penetrated so deep in population genetics as astronomer- mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle, with such a mathematical knowledge, with such an integrity to find out the truth, and without distorting his subject of investigation.

Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticise the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed. This is fortunate because his Evolution from space(1981) and Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work(1982) are out of print.

... continued here - http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm

------------------

And then there's Sir Francise Crick -
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/neurobiology.html
(from The Francis Crick Papers
From Molecular Biology to Neurobiology, 1976-2004)

"Crick was drawn by his longtime friend Leslie Orgel into yet another field, the study of the origins of life and of evolution, a field to which Orgel had devoted his career. It was an area of science that, like molecular biology and neurobiology, attracted him because he found there a similar need for a unifying theory. No less did he find there cause to argue against creationist or, as he called them, vitalist views, the belief that life was created and sustained by an animating, metaphysical force whose existence could not be proven. In a book entitled Life Itself, published in 1981, Crick posited instead that life on earth originated from microorganisms deliberately seeded by a higher civilization via unmanned spaceships. Crick called his speculative theory "directed panspermia," a reference to the idea of "panspermia" advanced in 1907 by Svante Aarhenius, who suggested that life on earth had been seeded by microorganisms drifting through space. Crick's theory proceeded from the fact that the genetic code is uniform across almost all species and thus likely evolved from a small original or intermediate population, and from the second fact that the earth is less than half the age of the universe, allowing time for life to evolve elsewhere first before it evolved here."

---------------

An Exploration of Different Theories of Evolution
here - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/baird.html

"Another alternative to neo-Darwinism, is Brig Klyce's theory of strong panspermia. According to Klyce's theory of strong panspermia, " microorganisms from space provide the new genes necessary for sustained macroevolutionary progress on Earth" . (5) In strong panspermia, evolution does not rely on random point mutations, but rather on horizontal gene transfer. (3) Microorganisms (possibly bacteria) from space insert a gene into another organism. The new gene may give the organism the capacity to better adapt to its environment and thus evolve. Bacteria on Earth perform horizontal gene transfer in place of reproducing sexually. (6) Bacteria can sometimes carry out a type of horizontal gene transfer called conjugation which can occur between bacteria and eukaryotic cells in which long fragments of DNA are transferred. (6) There have even been cases where a virus will invade a cell and its genetic material will be incorporated into the host cell's genetic material and benefit the host cell. (6) Klyce believes this phenomenon took place between organisms on Earth and bacteria from a different planet, and resulted in macroevolution. (4)Klyce feels his theory of strong panspermia can answer the issues that neo-Darwinism fails to address. " Many eukaryotic genes…seem to come from nowhere," observes scientist W. Ford Doolitle. (5) According to Klyce, these genes didn't come from nowhere; they came from another planet. The discovery of some genes that appear older than they should be according to the fossil record, leads Kyce to the conclusion that these genes were brought by bacteria (that had probably started evolving much earlier) from another planet. (5) Klyce believes his theory of strong panspermia --since it relies on the replacement of entire genes rather than point mutations-- would match the actual pattern of evolution. (3) Strong panspermia also might be able to account for the sudden bursts of evolution. An influx of bacteria from outer space would cause a rapid replacement of different genes and cause widespread changes in organisms resulting in accelerated evolution."

"Statistically, the life that exists on earth today is highly, highly, HIGHLY improbable. As mathematician David Belinski points out " from a mathematical point of view, Darwinian theories appear far too weak to have brought about the remarkable structures evident in living creatures." (17) If one assumes that all life arose out of random generations of proteins then there's a problem. First of all, every known example of genetic mutation either produces no noticeable change or causes death (or in rare cases undoes the mistake of a past mutation). (19) Yet, Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations creating lots of biological advantages. The ratio of useful proteins to possible random proteins is 1:10500. (18) Therefore, barring incredible luck, it would take about 10500 trials to produce one useful protein when a cell needs a minimum of one to two thousand proteins. (18) Hence, life appeared on earth (and evolved) too quickly for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be completely correct."

... more here - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/baird.html

Case for "panspermia" - Hardy lichen shown to survive in space
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Nov-2005 11:57:57 (#14506)

"The experiment adds weight to the theory of panspermia – that life could somehow be transported between planets, perhaps by hitching a ride on an asteroid."

---------------

Hardy lichen shown to survive in space

10 November 2005
NewScientist.com news service

Lichens can survive unprotected in the harsh conditions of space, a European Space Agency experiment discovers.

The organisms are a composite of algae and fungi. They are commonly found on the surface of rocks on Earth and can survive in extreme conditions such as high mountains latitudes. Lichens are the most complex form of life now known to have survived prolonged exposure to space.

In an experiment led by Leopoldo Sancho from the Complutense University of Madrid, two species of lichen – Rhizocarpon geographicum and Xanthoria elegans – were sealed in a capsule and launched on a Russian Soyuz rocket on 31 May 2005.

Once in Earth orbit, the lid of the container opened and the samples were exposed to the space environment for nearly 15 days before the lid resealed and the capsule returned to Earth.

The lichens were subjected to the vacuum of space and to temperatures ranging from -20°C on the night side of the Earth, to 20°C on the sunlit side. They were also exposed to glaring ultraviolet radiation of the Sun.

"To our big surprise, everything went fine after the flight," says Rene Demets, ESA's project scientist for the Foton project. "The lichens were in exactly the same shape as before flight."
Hitching a ride

In space, the lichens turned dormant and did not metabolize, but once returned to Earth, they returned to their normal activity and their DNA appeared not to have been damaged, Demets told New Scientist. All of the lichen appeared to endure the ultraviolet radiation, even those receiving the most exposure.

Lichens have a tough mineral coating that could shield them from UV rays. They are also made from individual organisms layered on top of one another, so outer layers may provide protection for underlying cells. The organisms have already been shown to be capable of withstand high levels of UV radiation on Earth.

The experiment adds weight to the theory of panspermia – that life could somehow be transported between planets, perhaps by hitching a ride on an asteroid. It also indicates that organisms similar to lichens might be able to survive on the surface of Mars – at least during the planet's summer.

Symbiotic relationship

Although the Martian atmosphere is very thin, it is filled with carbon dioxide, which is necessary for lichens' photosynthesis. The lichens might not survive on Mars for long, however, because of low oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

In the 1980s, experiments carried out on NASA's Long Duration Exposure Facility satellite showed that certain bacteria are hardy enough to endure space. Rocco Mancinelli, a microbial ecologist with the SETI Institute in California, who has also done experiments with micro-organisms in space, says he is not surprised to see lichens survive outside the Earth's atmosphere.

The algae and fungi that make up lichens exist in a symbiotic relationship. The algae provide the fungi with food while the fungi offer the algae a cozy living environment.

Backwards in Kansas, Forwards in Pennsylvania *LINK*
Posted by BlackJackHack on 10-Nov-2005 09:07:11 (#14442)

At least the morons who voted in favor of teaching intelligent design in Dover, PA have ALL been voted off of the school board. Of course, the downside is that it may render moot the Pennsylvania court case in which the teaching of intelligent design was likely to be held to be unconstitutional.

Think you got it backwards
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 10-Nov-2005 14:58:04 (#14450)

Research into the possibility of an intelligent designer of what we see around is is a worthwhile endeavor of the highest order. It may be a little steep for schoolchildren, but so is evolutionary biology. Adults should not be using the minds of children as the battlefield of their vanities and all kinds of ideas should be presented in schools, without hostilities.

Kansas - moving forward to the 1600s
Posted by BlackJackHack on 11-Nov-2005 12:09:41 (#14470)

"all kinds of ideas should be presented in schools"

we need to present both sides of the following issues:
(a) the earth is round vs. (b) the earth is flat
(a) the earth revolves around the sun vs. (b) the earth is the center of the universe (remember, Galileo was excommunicated for espousing the former position, which was at odds with church doctrine)

If we are to expose our children to new ideas, why not also teach the Hindu creation theory? Why not the creation theories of the 250 different tribes on New Guinea? Shouldn't our children benefit from their considerable wisdom? Or should they only benefit from the wisdom of what happens to be the local majority religion?

Actually, there IS a place for children to learn about those ideas - a class on comparative religion.

Oh, I forget, intelligent design is science, right -- science that magically materialized immediately after the courts held that "creationism" was religion (creationism and creation science seem to have mysteriously disappeared). The creation theories of the majority religion are still religion, no matter what you try to call them, and should not be taught as science.

Anyway, I wish Kansas the best of luck in trying to attract high-paying tech jobs. Kansas will need it.

Closed-mindedness is not a virtue
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Nov-2005 01:17:35 (#14494)

I don't recall anyone suggesting that we teach the religious perspectives on the origin of the universe and of man to schoolchildren. And I'm of the mind that no one at a lower educational level than the very best high school students is prepared to be taught metaphysics of any kind, theoretical physics, advanced information theory (these things being the fundamentals of intelligent design science), OR modern evolutionary biology. Most adults are not prepared to study this kind of material.

So lets not BS each other. The extremists on both sides (that is, the religious and atheistic extremists) are trying to show each other who's boss and using kids as the pawns. Elementary school is a place to learn use of language, mathematics, reasoning skills, and not a place to cover PhD level material because there is no way to present it to children as anything other than dogma. In order for education to be legitimate the student must have some ability to challenge what he is being taught, to say "I don't think so Professor, can you prove what you just asserted?" and no child can do that with either Darwinism or ID.

We should be "open minded" to valid competing scientific theories, but not to religious dogma masquerading as science
Posted by BlackJackHack on 13-Nov-2005 11:09:51 (#14505)

"I don't recall anyone suggesting that we teach the religious perspectives on the origin of the universe and of man to schoolchildren"

Precisely my point - ID is nothing more than the Old Testament creation myth with a new name (creationism didn't pass constitutional muster, so now it's called ID) - it is religion. Science starts with empirical observation followed by a hypothesis (if not a conclusion) that explains the evidence. Religion starts with a conclusion and then does whatever it can to attempt justify it with empirical observation while necessarily disregarding any contrary evidence.

I would have no problem teaching competing scientific theories alongside evolution, but ID is NOT a scientific theory. Among serious scientists, there are differences of opinion about certain fine points of evolutionary biology, but there are no differences of opinion about the basic premise of evolution that the better adapted organisms will survive to pass on their genetic traits, any more than there is a difference of opinion on the existence of gravity, or whether the earth revolves around the sun (the latter used to be the souce of considerable tension between science and religion until religion threw in the towel).

Frankly, evolution is NOT very complicated, and could be easily understood by even mediocre high school students. Teaching biology without teaching evolution, moreover, would be a joke -- like teaching U.S. history without mentioning the Civil War or slavery because they are too controversial or divisive. Virtually every trait of every biological organism has a function that enhances its prospects for survival and breeding.

"The extremists on both sides (that is, the religious and atheistic extremists) are trying to show each other who's boss"

So, those who espouse teaching evolutionary biology are "atheistic extremists." Wow.

Please don't try to equate scientists who devote their lives to the study of biology (and the other sciences) with the fundamentalist extreme right (the American Taliban) who are the least "open-minded" people in our society, and seek to impose their religious beliefs on others through our public institutions. The fundamentalist right has a big problem with evolutionary biology because it contradicts Genesis. Unlike scientists, they don't seem to have any interest in physics, organic chemistry, mathematics, or other areas of scientific inquiry. Why isn't there a vigorous debate about the teaching of "multiple viewpoints" in physics , organic chemistry and computer science? Because the religious right does not give a crap about them.

However, "ID" is an elegant name...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Nov-2005 21:37:28 (#14517)

... that can provide for more than just a psuedonym for the fundamentalists' creationism (a rather unintelligent backwater mythology IMO) IF we place the evolutionary sense within the context of a "unified theory of consciousness".. everything must be recognized as consciousness, not merely matter and energy, thus there is an underlying intellegence of the highest order... in everything... including one's higher brain center(s) and heart.

Of late I've taken a keen interest in the "directed panspermia" of Zacharia Sitchin, Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick and others.
-- zg(took the red pill)

Sensational Human Genome Discovery and...
THE CASE OF ADAM'S ALIEN GENES
here - http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
Online video series here - http://www.mars-earth.com/sitchin.htm

Ps - The Mayor started this!

Not understanding science
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Nov-2005 19:53:49 (#14513)

Science is the opposite of closed-minded. One goal of science is to give natural explanations for observed phenomena. Take away the word *natural* and it ain't science. It's the supernatural, or religion, or philosophy, or just wacky. But it ain't science.

Give a *testable* hypothesis, under conditions where the test can be repeated, and make sure the hypothesis is a condition that can be *falsified*, then we have a criteria for a scientific discussion. Without these conditions, it is something else, and belongs elsewhere in education.

Because religious belief cannot be falsified, it is not science, and does not belong in a science curriculum. Include it all you want in a *religious studies* or *comparative religions* course. But it is not science, so does not belong in a science course.

Finally, evolution has given many benificial consequenes. Medicines, foods, agriculture, and many other tangiable benefits have come from the theory of evolution. Those are *tangiable* benefits that would not exist without the use of evolutionary theory. What tangiable benefit has the theory of creation given? Is there a medicine, a plant, a bomb, or a product that exists because of this theory? And don't say "religion" is a product that has benefits, because that kind of circular reasoning works equally well for any noun (pizza is a product that has benefits, but it isn't taught in science class, similarly, all metaphors have benefits.... ), and renders religion a tautology without meaning (which is essentially my view anyway).

I really dislike this thread. It is nothing more than the voodoo science of the ploppys encroaching into much more precious areas of life than the tables. Keep voodoo off this site. Please have this discussion anywhere else but here.

-Mayor

Just one last thing
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 13-Nov-2005 22:18:05 (#14519)

There may be some misunderstanding here as I did not once state or suggest that evolutionary theory is non-scientific or should not be taught, or that religious perspectives on origins should be taught as anything other than a religious perspective.

What I'm talking about is a more general theory of origin of humans, life, and all matter. You can call it metaphysics or philosophy, but NOT religion (although metaphysics and philosophy do not a priori exclude any kind of answers or questions) because we're not looking specifically for a deity or object of worship. Although philosophy as itself cannot be proven, the logical extensions of philosophy are the source of mathematics (Euclid's postulates, and non-Euclidean postulates that are also valuable) and mathematical conclusions are the basis of science. We can prove that things evolve by observation, but we are not yet sure of why they evolve, where we can expect them to evolve from here, and if and why only living things evolve. Some people pan the term "intelligent design" without even being sure what those two words mean and what the differences are between that which is intelligent and that which is designed, and that which is not. There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence nor do we know if we would even recognize non-human intelligence if we encountered it. (Advantage play has evolved- would it have done so if we weren't intelligent? Just a question.) These are the questions that need to be asked by the philosophy before they can be answered by the science. If they end up bolstering the argument for some religion (and I am not religious, by the way), so be it.

Yes I know schoolkids aren't ready for metaphysics but they aren't any more ready for evolutionary biology. I'd rather teach both in proper measure. OK, I'm done being that pain-in-the-ass child who wants deeper answers, thanks!

No, thank YOU! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Nov-2005 22:21:21 (#14521)

I'd like to meet that child!
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Nov-2005 20:32:30 (#14514)

>student must have some ability to challenge what he is being taught, to say "I don't think so Professor, can you prove what you just asserted?"

Student asks: Professor, can you prove 1+1 = 2?

Having taught mathematics to would-be teachers for 15 years, I doubt more than a tiny handful even understand the equation 1+1=2, let alone prove it. I attempt to give them some background, to discuss abelian groups and the Grothendick construction of the integers from Peano's axioms. But honestly, I'm not sure that many get it. I'm not sure I fully understand the equation. I also teach it to my Sophomore students here at UCSB. In this case, I approach it via set theory, where we define 0 to be the cardinality of the empty set, 1 to be the cardinality of the power set of the empty set, and 2 to be the untion of 0 and 1. After that, we need to discuss equivalence relations in order to understand =, and binary operations are functions of two varaibles, so we have to go through all that to understand what + means. Finally, I can prove 1+1 = 2. That's to college students. I go through this proof to make a point to them. I'm not sure you get it.

Now what is it you want the high-school teacher to prove?

I will also admit, in 27 years of teaching, I have never had a student arrogantly disbelieve me and ask for proof. They may ask for clarification of a point they don't understand. Teachers are just presenting results proven by others, and often defer to the scholars for such proof when necessary.

As for evolution. One does not "prove" evolution. It is too complicated for that. It's like saying to "prove" biology, or "prove" history. It is an area of study inside of which are countless individual hypotheses that are tested using the standard scientific models, and found to either hold up or are discarded. Out of this myriad of understanding, there may be a couple areas that evolution hasn't been able to fully understand yet, but that's what's scinece is all about -- exploring the unknown. The huge body of firmly understood and proven aspects of evolution do not suddenly become suspect because one other thing isn't fully known or understood.

--Mayor

Is it truely accurate to say ...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Nov-2005 22:19:15 (#14520)

... that there is a:
"huge body of firmly understood and proven aspects of evolution"?

That may sound like a totally inane question, but I am heartened nonetheless that it was Fred Hoyle who first coined the "Boeing 747 from the junkyard tornadoe" analogy, and not some backwater fundamentalist. zg

too big a stretch
Posted by stainless steel rat on 14-Nov-2005 13:29:04 (#14530)

I have for years heard the theorists make those kinds of statements (i.e. a tornado thru a junk yard, enough times, will leave a perfectly functional 747 at least once out of an infinite number of trials, or a roomfull of monkeys and typewriters will eventually produce Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

My take is a bit different.

An infinite number of tornadoes will just produce an infinite number of messes passing thru a junkyard.

An roomfull of monkeys will just produce a room full of monkey crap, although with random sampling this is at least a plausible hypothese.

The 747 is too big a stretch however. A tornado is incapable of producing a working LSI silicon chip. No number of random events could produce such a thing since the basic physical requirements (pure silicon, zero contaminants during the plating process, extreme temp requirements, etc) are just not going to occur in a tornado.

What Some Scientists Say about Neo Darwinism
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Nov-2005 14:22:12 (#14533)

What Some Scientists Say

According to most mathematical calculations, a universe 100 billion years old is still not old enough for a simple single cell to have developed on earth. Even attempts to synthesize RNA, an information carrying molecule, in the laboratory have also been unsuccessful. Life has not been explained through chemical origins.

Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the number of interactions available since the beginning of the universe. The mathematical probabilities are so small that we ought to see no life at all at this stage of the earth's history. The probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is also too small to consider possible. Random assembly is therefore ruled out of the question.

Fred Hoyle comments, "The current scenario of the origins of life is about as likely as the assembly of a fully functional (Boeing) 747 by a tornado whirling about in a junkyard." The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to predict what we actually currently observe. Schutzenberger, a mathematician writes, "There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged by the current conception of biology.

Hubert Yuckey, an information theorist, argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life be considered a given "quantity," like matter or energy. He and some other mathematicians have challenged evolutionary biologists with the extreme improbability of the origin of life by chance chemical reactions, and of the improbability of the origin of all known species by random mutations. If the real "units of life" are bits of information (that is, the messages coded on DNA rather than the DNA molecule itself), evolutionary biology may take quite a different turn in the future.

A very mathematical "information theory" has been developed to solve problems in storing and transmitting information, as do computers and telecommunication systems. Some scientists are applying information theory to help unravel certain unsolved problems in biology, such as prebiological selection, similar in concept to the biological natural selection of Darwinism. They are also studying the self-organized properties of complex chemical systems, and searching for ways to reduce the minimum complexity needed for life. The goal is to find a sensible plausible theory to explain the origin of life. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick writes, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going."

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981]).

outdated
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Nov-2005 15:38:30 (#14536)

>ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981]).

Right, 1981.

Catch up on what's current and stop posting nonsense. Please! And if you don't completely understand the Biochemistry involved, stay out of the argument until you do.

Really? 1981?
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Nov-2005 16:49:06 (#14537)

Can you describe a single discovery in the last two decades that significantly tends to validate "neo-Darwinism"? If you have to ask a co-worker, thats ok. zg

-----------

OOPS, I found one, (probably just anomalous) -

Evolving Before Our Eyes
Songbirds and salamanders bolster Darwin's theory
that change in habitat can create 2 species from one

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

SFGate.com | March 26, 2001

When Charles Darwin pondered the wonderfully diverse beaks and bodies and lifestyles of the finches on the Galapagos Islands, he wrote these classic words:

"Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds one species had been taken and modified for different ends."

It was an idea that was to strike him again and again because, in the 13 different species of Galapagos finches, the young naturalist saw the living results of creatures adapting to pressures imposed by varying environments.

Now three California scientists, led by Darren Irwin of the University of California at San Diego, have explored a very different race of birds around the Himalayan mountain range. The scientists say they have discovered the most compelling evidence yet to buttress the theory Darwin elaborated in his epochal volume "The Origin of Species," which ignited a revolution in human thought.

... continued here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

Pat Robertson Curses Dover, Pennsylvania *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Nov-2005 10:42:08 (#14464)

Pat Robertson Curses Pennsylvania Town
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3641

Speaking of Black Jack
Posted by BradRod on 10-Nov-2005 17:59:01 (#14453)

Has anyone ever gotten hustled while they were on a good streak of winning ?

I have been approached a number of times and finally got myself taken by a very pretty Asian woman. I'm not sure if she was noticing me while I was playing but I did notice her and offered her a ride over to anther casino.

we wound up spending most of the weekend together. I got comped a luxury hotel room that I shared with her. She treated me very nicely in and out of the room.

I needed to buy some new clothes because I had spent too long in the clothes that I was wearing and hadn't packed anything. She insisted i buy some nice clothes and picked them out for me, did my hair up with a stting gel, shave, etc. Things I do not generally care that much about for myself while I am playing. But then she said she wanted new clothes too. I must say she certainly did not pick out very expensive things - $40 worth of nice pants and a top. that I paid for - looked nice on her.

She had me take on a better posture at the bj table. I never noticed that I tend to lean my head on my arm (s) too much. Said that looked like a loser's pose.

We shared some comped meal with a guy we just met and his date - a cocktail waitress he had just picked up. I usually do not socialize with people I meet in a casino but we actually had a good time together.

I wound up doing well on the trip, she did not and i wound up staking her $600. i told her it was just a loan and she got upset with me when I refused to stake her anymore money. she was betting the way that I've seen other Asian players bet which is definitely not advantage playing. I kept telling her to hold off and not to bet until I tell her to but she had her own game to play and did it at a $50 table. I could not throw more money after the money that i had already seen go into the house chip tray. She kept promising to pay the money back but i have not seen or talked to her since.

It was the most expensive cheap date that I have had but i do not even mind it all that much.

Ah you met a grifter!
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 11-Nov-2005 01:40:07 (#14458)

The closest I ever came to this situation was once leaving the table with a whore at Foxwoods. My purpose was to look like more of a loser. They already have me pegged as a compulsive gambler and an alcoholic, and to be a whoremonger as well would identify me as the perfect loser who will always be welcome. After I left the casino I ditched the whore by saying I saw my wife's car and she had better run. (I'm not married.) If I want to give away money and make a woman happy I'll give a big tip to the waitress. At least their appreciation is always sincere.

The problem we run into at the table is a need for admiration for the amazing things we are doing, but we have to do it all in secret. So an admiring woman can be irresistable. Although I'll flirt with women as part of the deal, I never fornicate when I'm out on a blackjack trip because of all the potential for loss. You can be robbed, drugged, or blackmailed.

Not exactly
Posted by BradRod on 11-Nov-2005 07:27:07 (#14461)

I've encountered grifters or just simple chip hustlers. This woman was obviously not a professsional and not doing it for the money. There was something innocent about her. She was looking to win back her blackjack losses and she seemed to enjoy my company as much as i did hers. I did take basic precautions against loss though. just in case she did have other intentions.

Playing with her did offer good cover. She was very sociable at the table and the pit crew and many dealers knew her as a high betting player.she took alot of attention away from me

She was not...
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Nov-2005 09:49:43 (#14462)

... untypical of females, especially Asian, whom I have encountered in similar scenarios. zg

A dealer ....
Posted by BradRod on 11-Nov-2005 11:23:33 (#14467)

was hinting to me that she would do something special for something better than a tip at the table. She was flirting quite a bit. Making double entandre comments about stacking the tips "on top" and how she likes it that way. Similarly about "back door" "BJ"s. , etc.

She was not being very clear except that she thought she could be fired for saying or doing somethings..Panhandling at the table ?, prostitution ? I kept looking to see if she was flashing the hole card or not.

She was whining about not having enough money to get to the end of the month and would I meet her after her shift. Her brother was floating around the casino that night so I could "give the money to him but tell me how much you gave him because he will not tell me the truth". And she would meet me later

She was the relief dealer, so I mainly only saw her about 20 minutes every hour. It was fun to play along with this to see where it would get but, I really knew that whatever it is this woman was trouble. Eventually each time she came along she was more and more depressed. Eventually the end of her shift came and I did not see her again that night.

I saw her about a week later at another casino where she was losing heavily at blackjack. She came over and gave me a kiss . She was quite drunk compalined about being broke as s**t and walked away.

Was this in CT? I may have met her
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 11-Nov-2005 14:27:32 (#14473)

A drunken woman I met at Mohegan also kissed me, and told me she was a dealer at Foxwoods. She was gambling compulsively. I wanted to hook up with her and I'd be willing to pay her for PENETRATION (the important kind) but she was too drunk to even understand what I was talking about. She then started havering crazily at the table, calling all men pedophiles, so I decided to abort this mission. Too unstable.

Which means "exactly"
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Nov-2005 11:40:31 (#14469)

The way you know they are a grifter is if they can convince you 100% they are not a grifter. That's the true essence of "grifter-ism" and only the best grifters can attain this perfect state, the "zen grifter" attains his enlightenment by becoming one with his grift.

Question. Are you 100% certain this was a woman? Unless you felt between its legs, you will never really know. And if you can't know that, what else might you have overlooked?

--Mayor

I can only say for sure...
Posted by BradRod on 11-Nov-2005 13:16:49 (#14472)

that she was a woman.

Eliot
Posted by suicyco maniac on 11-Nov-2005 15:05:30 (#14475)

Are you 100% certain this was a woman? Unless you felt between its legs, you will never really know. And if you can't know that, what else might you have overlooked?

R U speaking from personal experience? :-) Sorry I couldn't resist.

Most assuredly yes
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Nov-2005 15:47:18 (#14476)

This is from personal experience...

The Adam's apple should have been a dead giveaway...

and the jaw, brow line, size of hands, height
Posted by VerdugoJohn on 11-Nov-2005 16:43:07 (#14478)

several tip offs...but Adams apple is easiest to spot...

take the Mayor's advice...read the Golden Gate to learn how he almost got duped when he was just trying to be a nice guy

i too had a close call...when i was much younger i took a trip to Tijuana with some other young fools like me...of course we stopped into the strip clubs...it was much than any other club i've been in...we sat down at a booth and took in quite a site...of course there were girls on stage dancing, but at a table near ours a soldier/sailor (must have been from San Diego) had a whore who was bare from the waist up and he was sucking on her chest, then he lowered his kissing to you know where...yuck, deathwish man, this was in the late 80's before there was a treatment for AIDS...anyway, as we were stunned watching, another slender whore came up, sat on my lap and open-mouthed kissed me...all i could think was how dirty!! i had her leave, and ordered a double scotch to kill germs...two guys at the booth behind me looked over and laughed at me...said i had just been kissed by a guy...i refused to believe it then, but i think it was possible...it did not make the confirming grab, but the whore was lean, not plumpish the way the other in the joint were...so perhaps...

since then the guydar is always turned on...and i have never again gone into an outlaw joint like that...only respectable joy houses...you see, i have standards...

The only way you can tell for sure...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 11-Nov-2005 17:27:37 (#14483)

... is if she menstruates. They can surgically fake everything else and if you are drunk you might not realize. No surgeon has yet to come up with a way to simulate "riding the cotton pony."

If some freak like that came up to me and tricked me into kissing or touching, I would lay a beating on him so bad nobody would recognize him when I was done, because I consider that a form of somebody trying to turn me out and there is only one way to deal with that.

you mention laying a beating on someone...
Posted by VerdugoJohn on 12-Nov-2005 13:20:39 (#14503)

well there is a follow on story about that at the same joint whose moral is you don't do fights with the locals in a place like Tijuana...

when we got back to LA, we told the guys we worked with about the experience...so a couple of weeks later 4 of the guys go down there on a Friday night loaded with $50 cash (a relative fortune) set to have great time and find the same place. And anyway, one of the group has a whore sitting on his lap in no time...Jim, another of the group, wants the same service as well, so he grabs a woman passing by...mistake, he grabbed a waitress, who slapped him in the face and said "I am not a punta!" Jim, red-faced, was cool and let it go...but not Joe, who has set ideas about male pride and the place women have in the world (he had been divorced twice by the age of 26 you see)

When that same waitress passed by again, Joe stuck his foot out to trip her...she fell, got back up and threw a beer bottle onto the center of the table where is shattered, cutting Jim and another guy on the arm...the waitress ran out of the place...the guys figured they better leave fast, and on there way out the bouncers followed them out to the street...there was the waitress and a local cop...they offered a bribe--refused--and were take to the police station...

so they sat in the police station, giving a report to an officer who pretended to type up a report--pretended as the typewriter had no ribbon--and then sat waiting...after two hours the sargent came in and said to them "you broke the law, now you have to go to jail...you will go before the judge when he gets here...but he will not be here until Monday, so you w

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

Threads 1951 to 1980

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 1951 to 1980

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game