New Posts

[moo321]

A few people got offended when they read my blog posts, because I criticize "experts." However, it's important to notice that I'm not criticizing them in their areas of expertise (I actually recommend buying their books), I'm criticizing them outside of their expertise. That's why most people end up getting past their shock, and realizing I care more about helping new players than *****footing around to avoid hurt feelings.

We have:

The Danger of Rigid Thinking

Cheating Methods: Short Shoes

How Wizards Can Avoid The Wrath of Muggles

Protect Your Ability To Play

Why Pros Use Simple Systems

Why You Should Read Casino Industry Publications

and more!

If anyone has a subject they'd like to write about, submit it for publication. We'd love to share articles from the gambling world.

[Frank Galvin]

Thought provoking approach, and I give you credit for your willingness to challenge the otherwise reverred orthodoxy of the AP community.

However, your decision/inadvertent failure to allow visitors to post comments questioning or challenging your stated positions, casts dark shadows of doubt upon the merit of your critiques against these AP and card counting scholars' work.

Please reconsider the lack of any ability presently being afforded to visitors to your site for their provision of feedback to your blog postings. The merit of your posts should be able to withstand critical review, in turn challenging you to enhance your statements, or to reconsider same, and either retain same in their entirety, modify, reverse, or withdraw from all or a portion of your originally staked positions.

Sincerely,

An (hopefully) Objective Reader and Consumer of a multitude of Opinions

[ZeeBabar]

I agree with Frank but with a very good moderator. Some folks are prone to nastiness.

[Freightman]

I agree with Frank but with a very good moderator. Some folks are prone to nastiness.

And others are prone repetitious dribble which creates, what OP opines as nastiness.

[moo321]

However, your decision/inadvertent failure to allow visitors to post comments questioning or challenging your stated positions, casts dark shadows of doubt upon the merit of your critiques against these AP and card counting scholars' work.

Thank you for the heads up. I updated the page settings so it should be easier to post comments now (before it was requiring an e-mail).

Down at the bottom of the page (way down) where it says "Leave a Reply." Let me know if you're still having any trouble.

[Frank Galvin]

Do you require legal name, or usernames as most people use in forum (e.g. - Ryemo, tthree, ZeeBabar, etc.)?

[moo321]

Do you require legal name, or usernames as most people use in forum (e.g. - Ryemo, tthree, ZeeBabar, etc.)?

It will make things easier if you use the same alias. Otherwise, you will come up as “Anonymous.” But, you can do whatever you want.

[DSchles]

"I'm criticizing them outside of their expertise."

And, I assume you're the authority on what their levels of expertise are and aren't. My biggest amusement on this and other sites are people who assume they know for how long, how often, and for what stakes I have played this game. So here's a heads-up for you: whether you think so or not, you don't know ANY of the above.

Don

[moo321]

Don, I genuinely hope you're killing it on $5000 games. I tell people to buy your book on my website, in spite of my reservations about some areas. You have personally made me a lot of money, and I don't mean you any ill will.

But we have very different concerns and goals. I have guys coming into my class telling me they're afraid to spread 1-15 in red on a shoe game because they think it's gonna get them heated up. They're afraid to back-count at all (a playing approach which you recommend at length), because they think they shouldn't do anything too "blatant."

Can you help me out and write up a post explaining the proper context for your advice?

[JohnGalt1]

Moo, thanks for the links.

I enjoyed reading the blogs. I read blackjack and horse race handicapping blogs, and belong to a few forums.

One criticism with your site is the small and light colored fonts.

Since it's not ink, and costs no more to use large and dark fonts, please consider making this change.

My eyes will thank you.

[fjrider]

Thought provoking approach, and I give you credit for your willingness to challenge the otherwise reverred orthodoxy of the AP community.


An (hopefully) Objective Reader and Consumer of a multitude of Opinions

Posted just because I have been thinking that word, orthodoxy, a lot lately in conjunction with card counting. I've actually named it the "Thorp Orthodoxy". 1962, 55 years ago.

[DSchles]

"They're afraid to back-count at all (a playing approach which you recommend at length), because they think they shouldn't do anything too 'blatant.'"

So here's what I don't understand. How or why does that become MY fault? What did I do to merit the kind of piece you wrote? BJA3, p. 93: "My conclusion is obvious. First, I wouldn't make any mistakes at all. But, if forced to, I'd damn well make an 'error' where the percentage difference was rather small (say 0 to 4%) and the hand did not come up too frequently."

"Can you help me out and write up a post explaining the proper context for your advice?"

I don't see that as being necessary. Everything is in the book. Over the years, I've answered hundreds of questions -- from people who have BJA3 -- the answers to which are all in the book. I understand that not everyone has the patience to read thoroughly, from cover to cover, everything that's in it. People pick and choose and, when they do, they miss things. The primary purpose of all parts of the cover chapter was to quantify the cost of cover so that counters and non-counters alike could put a price tag on what, if any, cover they might want to use, and whether or not they were willing to forgo the extra revenue in order to preserve longevity.

For years, the debate has raged on BJ sites as to whether players at any level, but especially at the red-chip level, could afford, or even needed, any cover at all. And there is more than one side to the debate. There is no "correct" answer and surely not a one-size-fits-all approach. But, I will tell you categorically, that if you fall on the side that says that playing for small stakes makes you immune to back-offs and that you shouldn't worry about cover at all, then we'll simply agree to disagree. Try spreading $5 to $10 at El Cortez, and let me now how that works out. Let me know if you last ten minutes. So, situations vary. And, if you want to teach that pit bosses and surveillance have no interest in the small fry and can't be bothered watching their games, that is your prerogative. I have a different point of view. My opinion is that casinos don't exist to intentionally let ANYONE make money, and that, in most cases (there are always exceptions), if a casino determines that you are negative expectation to their bottom line, they have no interest to continue to let you play, whether for $10 or $10,000.

To me, in today's casino environment, with advanced technology and surveillance what they are, with corporate ownership what it is, that opinion and that advice are stronger now than they were when I wrote anything in my book. And, with the pathetic rules and conditions what they currently are, no one has to explain the math to me. I know that too much cover can be inimical to your bankroll; I know that, for small stakes, every dollar you forgo makes it all the more impossible to overcome travel expenses and make enough money to have a positive expectation. So, if you want to advocate balls against the wall, no cover, and just go for it, that's perfectly fine. It would never be my advice to anyone, but it's fine to disagree.

What bothers me -- and, obviously, others who wrote to protest against what you wrote, on this site and others -- was a somewhat condescending attitude that makes it seem like I'm naive or ignorant on the subject, or that I wasn't thinking about things like this before people like Grosjean were even born. Pick your heroes carefully, my friend.

Don

[moo321]

Don, I understand that you wrote with the intention of simply giving information on how much certain playing mistakes might give away. You're not trying to mislead anyone, and I don't think I've ever accused you of that. It's about the practical effect of your advice.

Regardless of intent, is it possible that your advice, and that of many other authors, has had the effect of misleading new players into typically giving up more than half of their EV?

Do you think that your advice on p.293 might possibly put some players on the wrong path?