A gentlemen going by the name of Richard Harvey is coming to a book store near me pushing two different books he has written.
Unfortuantely my history of blackjack and knowledge of those authors good and bad still has some holes left to fill.
Any opinions, advice, etc about this guy and his books would be appreciated.
Thanks.
SR
> Any opinions, advice, etc about this guy and
> his books would be appreciated.
Bad. Forget about him.
Don
Here is the link to his website:
http://www.blackjacktoday.com
Go see him at the bookstore and ask him how he can sleep at night after pushing misinformation to problem gamblers.
There are 25 reader's reviews at amazon.com. most of them are good, but if you also read the several bad ones, you'll be able to tell that this guy is bad news.
I thumbed through one of his books at a book store recently. I had to keep checking the cover to make sure that I hadn't picked up one of John Patrick's books.
Not only is his system totally bogus, much of it appears to have been plagiarized from Patrick.
He's worse than a fraud and a charlatan - he's a plagiarizing fraud and charlatan wannabe.
Avoid at any cost.
I just visited the website mentioned , reached point no.3 on the advice chart and am now considering offering 1st class travel and hotels to any disciples(not really , but COME ON)
I sometimes read newspaper horoscopes for a laugh.Same song,different words.
Sakpi
> There are 25 reader's reviews at amazon.com.
> most of them are good, but if you also read
> the several bad ones, you'll be able to tell
> that this guy is bad news.
NEVER go by the amazon reviews. Putzes like Patrick can ask 100 friends to write glowing reviews. Conversely, those bent on being assholes can write bogus, bad reviews for wonderful books.
Amazon has no control over the garbage that is put up on their site in the guise of honest reviews. Their process, or lack of one, is a farce.
Don
> NEVER go by the amazon reviews.
Don,
I respect you highly, but never say never, especially in caps.I consider myself wise enough to be able to sort out the useful Amazon reviews from the bad. I think Amazon is providing a wonderful public service by allowing users to post their responses. While it's true that it can't all be trusted, I'd rather decide that for myself than not have the information at all.
It seems to me that you may have personal issues with idiots that gave your book poor reviews, and Richard Harvey good reviews. I think that mmany people with half a brain can sort through those "bad" reviews with ease and still gain value from reading them.
Several times in the past, I have read bad reviews from there and decided to buy the book anyway. If it's all idiots writing bad reviews, I can guess that it is probably a good book.
Don, I assume that you are an American citizen. The first amendment protects free speech. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you why this is important. I personally would much rather have lots of potentially incorrect info from potentially bad free press sources, than anything that some publisher or reputable reviewer or governing body gives me.
I still respect you highly Don, but I do sense that sometimes you have a superiority complex and consider the views of the masses as worthless. They may not be worth as much as your opinions, but they do have some value.
Also, it may help if you personalized your views. Saying something like ?I personally NEVER go by the Amazon reviews? would not be nearly as offensive. I feel that I understand why an Amazon review of a blackjack book would be completely useless to you. I hope you now understand why I find value in them. Also, there are many more guys out there like me than like you. So while you may not find the Amazon reviews personally useful, I?m sure you can now understand their usefulness to many others.
Ray
> Also, there are many more
> guys out there like me than like you. So
> while you may not find the Amazon reviews
> personally useful, I?m sure you can now
> understand their usefulness to many others.
Actually, just the opposite. The more the review is for the "average guy," the more he/she needs a competent, honest reviewer, who knows what he or she is talking about.
Selling books is a livelihood for some, but, thank goodness, not for me. So, those who need, and who count on, good reviews to earn a living, will, apparently a) stop at nothing to post dozens of phony, glowing reviews about their own books to the site, and b) go even further to post trash about competitors' books.
If you believe that you, personally, are able to separate the real reviews from the false, that's wonderful, but I don't believe most people can, and so, when trying to decide which books are worthwhile, it would be a lot more helpful if they knew the reviews they were reading were actually the honest opinions of rational individuals. In fact, far too often, they aren't anything of the sort.
Don
> The more the
> review is for the "average guy,"
> the more he/she needs a competent , honest
> reviewer, who knows what he or she is
> talking about.
Your opinion is that the "average guy" needs a competent reviewer. My opinion is that the "average guy" wants and deserves the freedom to choose who he wishes to believe.
> those who
> need, and who count on, good reviews to earn
> a living, will, apparently a) stop at
> nothing to post dozens of phony, glowing
> reviews about their own books to the site,
> and b) go even further to post trash about
> competitors' books.
Unfortunate, but often true. I agree with you here.
> If you believe that you, personally, are
> able to separate the real reviews from the
> false, that's wonderful, but I don't believe
> most people can
My opinion is that since you consider yourself superior to most people, and I would have to agree for the subject of Blackjack, you are reluctant to trust the average person to take care of themselves. Maybe a more accurate response would be something like "I personally don't feel that un-moderated public book reviews are useful to most people, because I don't think the average person is able to decipher the honest reviews from the dishonest reviews, and furthermore even the average honest reviewer is likely to be incompetent and have nothing helpful to say."
Ray
> Maybe a more accurate response would be
> something like "I personally don't feel
> that un-moderated public book reviews are
> useful to most people, because I don't think
> the average person is able to decipher the
> honest reviews from the dishonest reviews,
> and furthermore even the average honest
> reviewer is likely to be incompetent and
> have nothing helpful to say."
That about says it all. It fairly represents my point of view. Now, do you disagree with that?
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks