Karel: Response to the imputation below

[Karel]

I would like to comment to the imputation made by Mathprof below. First let me explain the whole situation.

Two and half years ago I was contacted by Geoff Hall, a teacher of mathematics and also a blackjack player, concerning simulating a new game called BJ switch which he had designed. If my information is correct, Geoff Hall founded the "Casino Games" company. I think that BJ Switch was the main reason for existence of this company. I agreed to create a custom version of Statistical Blackjack Analyzer (www.sba21.com) to simulate this very special variation of blackjack.

All my business proposals are related to Casino Games. I have no affiliation, nor do I work for or consult for, the company named Playtech. At some point I indirectly learned about its existence in the sense that it is related to offering BJ Switch on the Internet, but in fact never even paid much attention to its existence.

By no means do I have any affiliation or do any consulting work for any casino. Furthermore, I really do not see any potential of conflict of interests with my presence as a blackjack players and counters affiliate. In fact, I can just see the potential of extra benefit of developing a new game for advantage players, in case the game turns out to be beatable.

I would like to stress that I have no affiliation to casinos and it is not in my interest to inform any casino if I potentially learn on these or other pages about strategies how to beat BJ Switch. Thus, there is not even a potential of a conflict of interests hurting blackjack players. The one potential conflict of interests would be to provide the customized version of SBA to all players, even though the company Casino Games, ltd., has its interests in the development. I can potentially do so at some point in the future if I get a permission to do so.

My involvement in the development of the new game BJ Switch has never been a secret, and I even mentioned this some time ago in a discussion on bj21. It never even occurred to me that somebody could consider my involvement to be a potential threat to privacy or security of other BJ players. That is the reason why I forgot to explicitly mention my BJ Switch affiliation when joining the group of BJ masters, although I repeat that it was nothing hidden. I consider this omitting to be an error on my part.

Nevertheless, I strongly refuse any accusations of making an error in judgment by participating in the development of the new game BJ Switch. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my participation. I assume that these accusations can appear only as a result of a deep misunderstanding of the situation.

Below are some specific comments to Mathprof?s post:
I am referring to the relationship between Karel and PlayTech. They are a company which is marketing the game Blackjack Switch to casinos. Their promotional materials list Karel as their Mathematical Consultant.
To repeat, I have no direct relationship with PlayTech. The www.blackjackswitch.com site has been the site of Casino Games ltd. I think that, for marketing purposes, it is reasonable that I am listed there for ?software & mathematical analysis?, but I have already asked Geoff Hall not to be listed as ?mathematical consultant?.

Your promotional material on this Web site states clearly

"What's more, our resident experts are committed to dedicating their time and efforts almost exclusively to Don's Domain."

To many of us, consulting for companies like this does not seem consistent with a "commitment" to work "almost exclusively" for the membership.
This probably does not even deserve a comment. Firstly, I do not do ?consulting for companies like this?. But mainly, twisting a somewhat ambiguous statement in the sense above is rather ridiculous. It is very surprising to see such an intentional or unintentional manipulation of words and meanings to come from a person like Mathprof.

Sincerely,

Karel Janecek

http://wwwl.sba21.com

[MathProf]

I had thought that Viktor wanted us to suspend a discussion of these issue until such time as he could confer with Don. I think this is a reasonable request, and I was planning not to discuss it any further. However, since you are continuing, I fell a need to respond to some points.

First, I did make an error in confusing the organization relationship between Play Tech, Casino Games Ltd, and yourself. I apologize for that. Thank you for setting the record straight on that point.

However, I am not sure that that changes the substance. Did you have some reason to believe that "Casino Games Ltd." was in the business of doing anything other than developing games to sell casinos? Are you saying that you were duped? If so, then that certainly be a defense of your actions. But the defense "I was duped" implicitly recognizes the legitimacy of the questions, which it appears that you still don't accept.

People like Stanley Ko and Olaf Vancura are generally viewed as working for the "other side" through the AP community. Now to the best of knowledge, they do not work for casinos. They work for companies that sell to casinos. Ko consults and does analysis for game developers. Olaf is a top executive (maybe a VP?) for Mikhon gaming. But we generally view them as "working for casinos".

Now about my statement about RGE and the Masters panel. From what I can tell, part of the reason for the establishment of this website was to general dissatisfaction with BJ21. Don left Wong's website some time ago, and set up the Masters panel, partly to offer an alternative to BJ21.

Historically, one of the criticism toward BJ21 has been their attitude toward people on "the other side". Don and Arnold were particularly vocal about that. Several years ago, Don made a stink about Stanley Ko being on Green Chip, and Ko resigned under pressure.

Given the history of RGE, and its long-standing criticism of Wong, many of use assumed that this site would be different. I think many in the AP community are genuinely surprised that RGE would condone their Masters' working for the "other side", as described above. It really repudiates much of what it stood for.

Now I want to put this into a little perspective. There have been some personal criticism of you by some others that I think was inappropriate. I won't repeat it here. Some people have even suggested that players boycott SBA. I also think that is ridiculous. SBA is a fine product.

I have nothing against Ko or Olaf. I encourage people to buy Olaf's (and Ken's) book. I have had lunch with Ko in the past, and may do it again in the future. But I think we would all surprised if one of them showed up on the Masters panel at RGE.

[J Morgan]

> recognizes the legitimacy of the questions, which it appears that you still don't accept.

By giving us background on his relationship with Hall, PlayTech, BJSwitch, etc., Karel has implicitly accepted the "legitimacy" of these questions.

With any casino connection, the key is to find the conflict of interest. TOAA already identified it below: Will Karel help protect BJSwitch by thwarting our analysis or telling Hall what vulnerabilities to fix? He has said that he will not. By itself, having provided a tweaked SBA to develop a game does not harm the players' community. The more new games out there, the better.

>People like Stanley Ko and Olaf Vancura are generally viewed as working for the "other side"

To even mention these people on the same page as Karel is ridiculous. Here's an example of a conflict of interest that hurts players: When asked by a player to testify as an expert witness on the mathematics of Three Card Poker, Ko refused, citing his employment with Shufflemaster (the owner of the game). Here's a player facing bogus double felony charges, possibly facing a multi-year prison sentence, and Ko isn't even willing to contribute his mathematical knowledge in court. Don't even get me started on Olaf. Ko and Olaf have no conflict of interest--they're complete casino side.

[Cyrus]

"With any casino connection, the key is to find the conflict of interest."

More important is to find the potential for conflict of interest.

"TOAA already identified it below: Will Karel help protect BJSwitch by thwarting our analysis or telling Hall what vulnerabilities to fix? He has said that he will not."

The scenarios in which Karel would have to choose sides are numerous. I'm certain that these scenarios are not too tough to identify.

"By itself, having provided a tweaked SBA to develop a game does not harm the players' community. The more new games out there, the better."

I think this is too generic, and too generous. Face it : You are not going to discuss anything remotely associated with BJS with Karel anymore. Or any other game for that matter; at least not as comfortably as you would discuss it with, say, Don.

That should count for something, even for non-counters.

[MathProf]

> To even mention these people on the same
> page as Karel is ridiculous. Here's an
> example of a conflict of interest that hurts
> players: When asked by a player to testify
> as an expert witness on the mathematics of
> Three Card Poker, Ko refused, citing his
> employment with Shufflemaster (the owner of
> the game). Here's a player facing bogus
> double felony charges, possibly facing a
> multi-year prison sentence, and Ko isn't
> even willing to contribute his mathematical
> knowledge in court. Don't even get me
> started on Olaf. Ko and Olaf have no
> conflict of interest--they're complete
> casino side.

I am sorry to hear that KO was not able to help you. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, that the structure of his relationship led him to decline.
But I must say that his refusal to testify came long after Don drove him out of Green Chip. Can it be used as a justification for that?

Perhaps your view is that it was clear back then that the structure of Ko's relationship activities would place him in this kind of situation. I see the logic in that position, and I can understand it.

But my question is: Is the structure of Karel's relationship with "Casino Games" and "Play Tech" somehow different. Would he be able to help players in their legal defense under similar circumstances. Would he be able to make copies of his customized version of SBA available to the defense? Have you reviewed the structure and documents of this relationship, so that you can actually say that there is no conflict of interest?

I appreciate the fact that there is a big difference between Karel and Ko regarding the scale of these activities. The problem is that we don't know that there is just one BJ Switch situation? Maybe there are 10 of them? Would you see that we would then have a problem? Your posts, and the others which have been supported have Karel, seem to suggest that activity is OK. I don't see anything in your post which suggests that this type of activity should even be limited?

If everyone would just admit that this was inappropriate behavior, then we could get on to discuss methods of limiting it. But until then, we are left with the image that this is just the Tip of the Iceberg.