Vegas Trp Report

[ZeeBabar]

All a college degree is supposed to say is if you toss me the reference material I can teach myself. Dr Zee, you claim to have an advanced degree but you never seemed to learn the only thing a college degree is supposed to say about you, that you can teach yourself. A high school diploma says if you spoon feed me something I can probably get it. Now Dr Zee start to live up to your claim of a college education and use the resources you have before asking basic questions. If you asked the same questions siting reference material that you looked at but couldn't quite decipher or weren't sure you got right people would have a different attitude toward your posts. Your lack of the ability or desire to try to teach yourself is why you get the treatment you do. Many have said you are a troll and the responses you get is what you are trying to evoke. Given your claim to an education beyond college and lack of ability to use reference material I am starting to see their point. I had you pegged as a high school drop out based on your lack of desire to teach yourself rather than ask to have everything spoon fed to you. What is it you tell your college students and even high school students, "Read the reference material before the lecture so you can get the most out of both". As a supposed sometimes college teacher you shouldn't need to be told this.

we all have our flaws, and one of mine is that, when my car (orBj) does not start or feels wrong, I don't start doing research or teaching myself to fix the car, I pull into a shop or ask friends who are better mechanics then I. BJ or AP is recreational for me and when I can get answers by posting a question instead of teaching myself through other ways, then I do it. Some answer the question (and I appreciate that), some who are unable to simply go to the next thread and elect to write about who they think I am or resort to name calling or attempts to humiliate me, I understand their need to cyber bully me (after all, my UG major was psychology and my graduate work was in Counseling). Some simply cannot address the question or move to the next thread, they elect to attack the poster.

[Three]

Yeah, they pull out their Zee bashing clubs pretty quick. You will find you get a much better understanding of the things you ask about if you do the research yourself or before asking.

[KJ]

And some get so pissed that others disagree with them about the count debate they leave the site. But first their argument becomes a personal attack and creation of a fictional straw man to lampoon. It is pretty pathetic. The point of a debate is to present all sides of an issue.

Having a hissy fit and storming off the site because other opinions are expressed does show something about someone's character just as resorting to personal attacks shows someone is arguing a weak position or are simply intolerant to those that have a different perspective.

Why are you trying to draw me into another round of this. Norman doesn't want it and there is no point.

It ISNT about a count debate or not accepting that others have different opinions or views. It is about your discussion, and views misleading new players/members. There is a place for the discussions that you want to engage in....it's called Advanced Strategies, Theories and Math. This is clearly where almost all of your discussion belong.

The general section on a site like this, that is attracting many new members and players and has become the entrance point to card counting for so many, is NOT the place for such discussions. The argument that you guys make for not wanting your discussion in that advanced session, which is obviously the appropriate place for it, is that the discussion will receive little traffic because most of the newer members aren't paid subscription members. And THIS is exactly the point of why it belongs there.

If a member isn't serious enough to pay the $3/month subscription, then how serious is he about card counting? For these members the general discussion section should be about general and simple card counting practices and principals and that is mostly Hi-lo or K-O or something along those lines. When a player is ready to explore the things that you constantly talk about, they won't be asking the elementary questions and making the almost painfully simple posts that lead to these 'debates'.

A lot of people in the community curse John Patrick or Frank Scoblete or a couple of the other authors that have lost all credibility and feel like running into some of their work is the worse thing a new counter/AP can do. I believe you have trumped them all. I believe reading your posts is about the worse thing a new counter can do. It will point him in the wrong direction and guarantee he has no chance of succeeding at card counting.

You have won, so please stop trying to draw me in. You have your platform for misleading the newer players and trying to impress, whoever it is that you are trying to impress and there is nothing I can do about it.

[Norm]

KJ, I just plowed through T3's last 50 posts and saw discussions on many things, none of which have anything to do with his complex strategy. I really don't understand why you keep harping on this. Or why parts of this thread, out of context, are being bashed elsewhere. The picture you draw of this site is simply not valid.

Funny thing is that one site claims that no one ever discusses anything here except simplistic straight counting, and the other complains that complex strategies are always discussed.

[Freightman]

I

Why are you trying to draw me into another round of this. Norman doesn't want it and there is no point.

It ISNT about a count debate or not accepting that others have different opinions or views. It is about your discussion, and views misleading new players/members. There is a place for the discussions that you want to engage in....it's called Advanced Strategies, Theories and Math. This is clearly where almost all of your discussion belong.

The general section on a site like this, that is attracting many new members and players and has become the entrance point to card counting for so many, is NOT the place for such discussions. The argument that you guys make for not wanting your discussion in that advanced session, which is obviously the appropriate place for it, is that the discussion will receive little traffic because most of the newer members aren't paid subscription members. And THIS is exactly the point of why it belongs there.

If a member isn't serious enough to pay the $3/month subscription, then how serious is he about card counting? For these members the general discussion section should be about general and simple card counting practices and principals and that is mostly Hi-lo or K-O or something along those lines. When a player is ready to explore the things that you constantly talk about, they won't be asking the elementary questions and making the almost painfully simple posts that lead to these 'debates'.

A lot of people in the community curse John Patrick or Frank Scoblete or a couple of the other authors that have lost all credibility and feel like running into some of their work is the worse thing a new counter/AP can do. I believe you have trumped them all. I believe reading your posts is about the worse thing a new counter can do. It will point him in the wrong direction and guarantee he has no chance of succeeding at card counting.

You have won, so please stop trying to draw me in. You have your platform for misleading the newer players and trying to impress, whoever it is that you are trying to impress and there is nothing I can do about it.

KJ
I know several high end counters who have evolved beyond their introductory card count counting strategy. I know a few who evolved and gravitated towards hi lo. I also know several high end counters who have started and continue to use Hi lo, and for quite well. The old adage of "the best card counting system is the one that you can execute flawlessly", continues to hold true. There's no point in your getting your shorts tied up in a knot over a card counting debate.

As far as the TThree count system is concerned, there are few counters, if any, who know it, much less execute it. Regardless of that point, there are those, including myself, who find its concepts interesting. Though I have no intent of switching over, I also see some value in debating it, for the simple reason is that there may be something I can glean from it, and adapt to my situation. I think you are not giving newbies enough credit as to what is, or is not appropriate for their skill levels, or for that matter, what may be possible.

New counters are likely to start off their card counting career by gravitating towards that system found during their initial research. For me, that was hi lo. For others, red seven, ko, or whatever. At some point in time, they may or may not gravitate towards some other system for whatever reason. For me, that was halves.

Now, you have "quit" this site several times over the last couple of weeks. For you to maintain credibility, either just quit, or, let bygones be bygones and hop back in. If you decide to hop back in, then get rid of that chip on your shoulder. Personally, I think the site is better off with you than without you. Obviously, that choice is yours.

[Norm]

Geeezous...would someone please run a 6 deck sim on....

Not that simple. The concept that there is but one correct count is a bit silly. Let’s see you attack Lucky Ladies with the Crush Count.

Edit: The Crush Count was designed for the Over/Under 13 side bet.

[Freightman]

J

It seems the primary concern of the long standing debate between T3/KJ is relevant to 6 deck games played -maybe 2. At least one could post a viable SCORE in lieu of their diatribe. I would think it would lessen your stress long term as well.

I never read where Lucky Ladies or any additional ploys were even offered by either as a sidebar.

We're talking two of the greatest blackjack minds in the US. Don S plays full indices RPC but says Ill 18 is ample. Norm, developed FELT which offers a happy medium between Don's "plays and says."

Norm, you've already achieved national acclaim as "the" greatest software producer ever. But these posts serve an underlying message that it is not necessary. Blackjack, like any successful endeavor, requires a lot of work...and patience. You've supplied the tools that allows one to learn, profit, lessen stress, and improve their game. There is no free lunch, no pain no gain, and you get out of it what you put into it.

Buy the products and go to work.

The debate really has nothing to do with Norms software, nor is it a debate about slight differences in SCORE between systems. It's more about effectiveness and ease of use. Again, the best system is in the eye of the beholder. Norms software provides optimal solutions for numerous count systems - that are not designed to compete with other count systems, but rather maximize a users betting ramp with that persons system of choice.

What I do find interesting, as effective as Norms software is, that you can't program everythîng. In other words, I think sims can be beaten.

I'll leave that debate for another day, and would certainly welcome Norms input.

[Norm]

SCORE measures efficacy of a strategy. It does not talk to the individual skills of a player. Some players have trouble with side counts, some don't. Some have trouble with TC conversion. Some don't like negative numbers. Some don't like wide ranges of numbers. Some don't like multi-level counts. I don't see the point of one-size-fits-all. If it was all cut and dried, we would just say play six-deck games with specific rules, at a specific casino, with this cover, at these stakes, with this spread, with this act -- and close the site.

[Norm]

What I do find interesting, as effective as Norms software is, that you can't program everythîng. In other words, I think sims can be beaten.

I always want to hear things along this line.

[Freightman]

I always want to hear things along this line.

I'll phone you next week - sooner or later we should tag up. Prefer that as I know some will not buy into my thoughts, and would rather avoid the Shitstorm in a thread.

You will either agree, or disagree with some of my thoughts - might already be built in and just don't know it?.

[Freightman]

I'll phone you next week - sooner or later we should tag up. Prefer that as I know some will not buy into my thoughts, and would rather avoid the Shitstorm in a thread.

You will either agree, or disagree with some of my thoughts - might already be built in and just don't know it?.

Actually, think I'll try to put it into an email next day or so

[Norm]

OK. But, I'm not taking out the Ebola code.

[Three]

KJ, I never made comments aimed at new players to go with a complex count. I answer each post I refer to with the info that is relevant to the poster. I refuse to answer a poster like he is a newbie when he is not. I have told newbies to start with a simple count with the option to evolve into more complex approaches if they so desire when the time comes. I have also told newbies that if the simple approach isn't working for them they are probably making mistakes so moving to a more complex approach would only increase their problems. There is no one size fits all answer as you like to paint it. What the best count is for any individual depends on many factors as I said in the post you took your quotes from. You seem to have some kind of deep rooted issue with people whose (yes it is not who's) views perspective differs from yours to come up with a fictitious or delusional take on a long posting history. As long as you are here you can give any newbie that takes posts intended for others the correction they may need. If not you, then others may do it as I have done in the past. It would seem you think "General" discussion means very specific counts only. Where I went to school general is an all inclusive inclusive term. As for the comment of the $3 being an indication of how serious a counter someone is, some of the most senior members (in age, BJ experience and commitment) choose not to pay the $3. Stereotyping them all into one homogenous group shows a tendency towards generalization, to use a nice word. My first few word choices that came to mind are a little too emotionally charged to be appropriate in a polite forum. Generalization is a close enough fit. That means to include all of the people that don't pay the $3 not just the ones that you think are convenient. I hope you get what general and generalization actually means. As an adjective or a noun:

1) General (adjective): Including or affecting all or most people, places or things; Universal.

2) Generalization (noun): A general statement or concept derived by inference from a small number of specific cases. Taking something specific and applying it broadly.
i.e. "All casino personnel are stupid". "Everyone that is unemployed is lazy". "All politicians are crooks". Statements like these often get the one making the comment generalized as insensitive to use another nice word and another example of the use of generalization.

LOL
After all the BS that was made up about me that I endured reasonably well I hope I could expect those that perpetrated the attacks to have a sense of humor. At least I am trying to be funny and not just attacking because I don't like people disagreeing with me. Now the forum here is a nice civilized place for discussing all sides of AP issues. Different philosophies are used and championed by many successful AP's. I am sorry if my joking around bout the simple approach got under your skin. At some point a few months back I figured out the jesting comments were not taken well and changed my tone a bit. I guess I was too slow on the uptake. The ridiculous nature of this recurring debate just begged for humor but I guess it was lost on much of my audience. Like most I think it is funny to rib people but unlike some only if it doesn't bother them. Once I can tell the humor is hurting people I stop. Unfortunately I don't always pick that up a quickly as I would like.