ZenMaster_Flash: The Man, The Myth, The Legend.

[spiderman]

Unless you have experience using them, I would suggest you might want to withhold your opinion. Mine comes from experience and would suggest you are wrong.

If you do have experience with this type of concept then PM me and we can share information.

I don't have the ability to PM on this site. I have extensive knowledge of the evaluation process at some of the top casinos in Las Vegas through close friends employed in that field for many years. The process involves quite a bit more than using technology to track the advantage and player movement of money in relashionship to the advantage. There is also quite a bit of emphasis placed on identifying players working together and not just analyzing who is at the table at any given time but who might have been there prior or immediately after. Unfortunately advances in technology have made it rather easy to identify players working together.

Admittedly, my expertise is Las Vegas and to lesser extent, other jurisdictions in the U.S. Perhaps in other countries, where technology has not yet "caught up" you can still get away with this kind of team attack for some period of time.

[Stealth]

I have extensive knowledge of the evaluation process at some of the top casinos in Las Vegas through close friends employed in that field for many years.

Does this imply you are now, or have been, a casino employee in or around surveillance?

[Three]

These concessions "I make mistakes" and "simple systems get the money" are nice, a little late as they are, but really doesn't do a whole lot of good for someone who might have been banned and had his reputation dragged through the mud, based on these "mistaken claims" does it?

I mean really, is this enough? Misleading statements that lead to the complete blow up of this site and all that followed and "I make mistakes" covers it?

You are twisting my words. I never lied. I made comments about experimental new techniques before the simulation had caught up enough to back up what I was saying. Obviously the comments weren't based on sim data but were based on actual playing experience. When the software caught up I posted based on that instead of personal experience. Obviously basing comments on actual play will always be flawed. So what I just said is I posted too soon due to my exuberance. That was my mistake. I believed what I said, so it wasn't a lie, but it was flawed due to being based on an insignificant sampling from using actual results. When the software caught up I use simulated results and what I posted was based on the sims results.

Now if the member, who everyone knows is a sock from the anti-semite site, will stop attempting to derail another thread can we move forward. After all this stuff is over 5 years in the past. Why try to stir the pot when everyone else is being constructive, unless your goal when you came back as a sock was to cause a great deal of disruption to this site? With half of your posts indicating a vendetta on several members showing knowledge of their posts that were posted a long time ago and the other half being more constructive to the thread's topic it would seem your goal in choosing when and what to post is clearly made to send this site back into turmoil rather than continue to move in a more productive direction.

[spiderman]

Does this imply you are now, or have been, a casino employee in or around surveillance?

It does not. I though I made that clear that my knowledge comes from close friends employed in that field.

No offense to you sir, but this is not a conversation I wish to continue in public, other than to re-state that 2 or 3 players playing together at the same tables isn't going to last long at the top casinos in U.S. Maybe once per casino, but even that, as I originally stated, data travels faster than players do to the next casino, or location.

Personally, I assumed ZMF was referring to locations outside the United States. I just wanted to weigh in and say that from what I know, that approach would be pretty easily detected and wouldn't last long at most places I know and play.

[Three]

There are ways to make it work, at least for longer. But I agree that a team playing at the same table is a ticking time bomb. The casinos take team play very seriously. You can bet their reaction will be more severe when the time comes.

[spiderman]

You are twisting my words. I never lied. I made comments about experimental new techniques before the simulation had caught up enough to back up what I was saying. Obviously the comments weren't based on sim data but were based on actual playing experience. When the software caught up I posted based on that instead of personal experience. Obviously basing comments on actual play will always be flawed. So what I just said is I posted too soon due to my exuberance. That was my mistake. I believed what I said, so it wasn't a lie, but it was flawed due to being based on an insignificant sampling from using actual results. When the software caught up I use simulated results and what I posted was based on the sims results.

Now if the member, who everyone knows is a sock from the anti-semite site, will stop attempting to derail another thread can we move forward. After all this stuff is over 5 years in the past. Why try to stir the pot when everyone else is being constructive, unless your goal when you came back as a sock was to cause a great deal of disruption to this site? With half of your posts indicating a vendetta on several members showing knowledge of their posts that were posted a long time ago and the other half being more constructive to the thread's topic it would seem your goal in choosing when and what to post is clearly made to send this site back into turmoil rather than continue to move in a more productive direction.

First, let me correct your latest "mistake" the time period was 3 years ago, almost to the day, not 5. We will just chalk that up to exaggeration, which you are prone to.


"I never lied." I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt, that your intent was not to lie or be misleading, but you were. You stated things unequivocally, as fact, that were not fact, but rather theory. You did not say my research indicated such and such may be beneficial. You said this IS this or this method DOES this. And it turns out that most of your claims were either wrong or pretty severely exaggerated.

The perfect example is the 500% increase. Outrageous. Not mathematically possible. If you were to sit down at a table plunk your computer on the felt and consult your computer on every decision and every card played (perfect play) you cannot gain 500% in results.

So now you come to say that you were running severely above expectation based on a very small sample size and you stated that as fact, backed up by insignificant data. That is no small mistake. And with the blow up that occurred, and consequences for MANY involved, including Mr. Wattenberger, dismissing it as some small insignificant "mistakes happen, move on" is just not sufficient. I am not looking for your head on a platter and I do want to move on. I have HAD to move on, my name dragged through the mud, but I expect a little more sincerity, a little more responsibility, than "that was 5 years ago, mistakes happen, get over it".

Let me ask you this: If a man sat in prison for 20 years for a crime he didn't commit, and new evidence emerges showing his innocence, would you say "mistakes happen", get over it".

Edit: And let me just add that I do believe you have tremendous blackjack knowledge and mathematical ability. Far superior to my own. And players can benefit from your knowledge and experiences. But you got way out over your ski's on this one.

[Three]

I have HAD to move on, my name dragged through the mud

So you admit you are a sock of a banned member.

Let me ask you this: If a man sat in prison for 20 years for a crime he didn't commit, and new evidence emerges showing his innocence, would you say "mistakes happen", get over it".

I am not sure what you are using it as an analogy of but what else can be said other than I am sorry. That has been said many, many times by all those that are capable of putting things behind them. Did you apologize for what you did that got you banned? You don't get banned for disagreeing with someone. You get banned for personal attacks on them rather than attacking their ideas. If you got banned for personal attacks on me then don't you think you owe me an apology? If it was for personal attacks on other people don't you think you owe them an apology?

[spiderman]

So you admit you are a sock of a banned member.

Your words, not mine. I know you are hoping Norm will come to your defense once again.

...other than I am sorry. That has been said many, many times by all those that are capable of putting things behind them.

Actually, this is the first time I have heard you utter those words. I accept your apology.

Did you apologize for what you did that got you banned? You don't get banned for disagreeing with someone. You get banned for personal attacks on them rather than attacking their ideas. If you got banned for personal attacks on me then don't you think you owe me an apology? If it was for personal attacks on other people don't you think you owe them an apology?

I have great regret of how I behaved, things I have said, attacks that got very personal here and elsewhere. While it is no excuse, that was born out of frustration of the situation. I have expressed my regret on other forums, which is all I have really had the ability to do (until now for however long this lasts lol). But being that I still have this opportunity, I do apologize to you and others that my attacks became personal. And I apologize to Norm for 'my part' in all that occurred here and elsewhere.

And now, as I expect my time here is short, I will exit on my own free will. Spidy….out.

[21forme]

FWIW, I think everyone should kiss and make up (ok, kiss not necessary). Spidey has a lot to offer, being one of the few "real deals" and not one of these guys who spends all day posting (or posting, then deleting) on BJ forums, leaving little time for play.

[spiderman]

FWIW, I think everyone should kiss and make up (ok, kiss not necessary). Spidey has a lot to offer, being one of the few "real deals" and not one of these guys who spends all day posting (or posting, then deleting) on BJ forums, leaving little time for play.

I don't kiss and I don't wear make-up. (I think that is Tarzan's thing. )

But I thank you for the kind words that followed.

[Three]

I have great regret of how I behaved, things I have said, attacks that got very personal here and elsewhere. While it is no excuse, that was born out of frustration of the situation. I have expressed my regret on other forums, which is all I have really had the ability to do (until now for however long this lasts lol). But being that I still have this opportunity, I do apologize to you and others that my attacks became personal. And I apologize to Norm for 'my part' in all that occurred here and elsewhere.

Thank you very much for your regrets and apology. Unlike others I don't know what your former handle was. I wouldn't be holding onto anything said in such turmoil anyway. But I do appreciate your sentiments. I have apologized every time I toed the line or crossed it. If you missed it, I apologize to you for the turmoil my exuberance caused. I certainly wasn't trying to do that and didn't realize how premature I was posting. I now understand a lot of things that took years of research to figure out. I will not go into them on this forum. There is a great deal of potential for using my ideas but I doubt anyone else would figure it out without my help. An AP experiences a bunch of things heading for their EV. You can improve your results without improving any of your long term stats including EV. The potential is there. Think utility and certainty of BR growth. The effects that allow for this vary by game and counts used but it is there and can be anything from an insignificant difference to the difference between night and day. The effect is on the weaker side of the spectrum for BJ. But I have made other improvements that have strong applications in BJ. We will avoid anything being said prematurely as there is ongoing research with both concepts. I probably won't share anything when the research is done either.

[BoSox]

You don't get banned for disagreeing with someone. You get banned for personal attacks on them rather than attacking their ideas.

Apparently, that is currently no longer considered a violation of the rules, or are there two different standards? I do not see how anyone could possibly ever be suspended or barred again "not if the moderators want to be considered consistent" for personal attacks, and insults considering what has taken place against the poster Dbs6582 since he has joined the board. I should not have called him a moron and I am sorry for that. Although the moderators also owe him a huge apology for neglecting to do their job. Another member who I strongly feel owe's him a big apology, to say the least. I realize his real value to the board but regardless of our personal feelings for someone's else's ideas, we need to respect the person giving an opposing point of view.

I have great regret of how I behaved, things I have said, attacks that got very personal here and elsewhere. While it is no excuse, that was born out of frustration of the situation. I have expressed my regret on other forums, which is all I have really had the ability to do (until now for however long this lasts lol). But being that I still have this opportunity, I do apologize to you and others that my attacks became personal. And I apologize to Norm for 'my part' in all that occurred here and elsewhere.

Very classy post spiderman, considering you received more than enough of your own share of personal attacks.

[Three]

Very classy post spiderman,

I agree. I was not expecting that. I may have misjudged him. If he leaves before he gets banned I hope he comes back as another sock with the intent of leaving the past behind that made his first posts more pointed then they should be. Spidey please get over the past and come back with a clean handle. Then don't be a pot stirrer. That is how the socks all get nailed so quickly. Hopefully you got out of his system what you needed to say so you can move on. If others say you were a valuable contributor I am more than happy to take their word for it. Perhaps Norm is fine with giving you a second chance under this handle.