Don Schlesinger: Time to move on: Clearing the air

[MathProf]

I am a little confused on factual point, the issue of contractual constraints. You wrote;


Ah. But what if he has (contractual constraints)?? I know he claims he hasn't but think of the implications. Would that make him then persona non grata in Don's eyes?

Let's say he doesn't have any written constraints and let's also completely ignore the legalistic/moralising stuff about the possible implicit undertakings in a contract. I'd have no problem if Karel Janecek was to come out and claim that he put one over the casinos and here's how to beat that new game. But I hear nothing like that so far.


I had the impression that Karel has some of constraints. He posted this earlier:


Thus, there isnot 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. (emphasis added-MP)

The need for permission seems to suggest constraints?

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry but your concerns are ill-founded. Insisting on presenting your thoughts, which are way out of line in any case (party line that is), only makes you look bad.

In fact, you are in the minority here. One against an overwhelming consensus of six or seven posts in favor of "moving on" without thinking too much about it. (And that consensus includes the posts by RGE shareholders, associates and employees.)

Cease and desist! (And climb down that molehill.)

[MathProf]

Your question may be tongue-in-cheek? But let me say that I think Karel is a bright guy, who has produced a great product SBA. I thin people should continue to buy it.

There are many AP Websites where Karel could be a valuable participant. In my mind, the question is not about Karel, but about the nature of this Website.

Now in his statement above, Don says we have made a "full disclosure" and we aren't going to talk about it anymore. I don not see how a disclosure which does not answer my question above can be called "full".

Don really hasn't explained the policy. He says "each and every one of my colleagues asserts, unequivocally, that he has never served as a consultant for a casino." I find this formulation, "consultant for a casino" to be rather unfortunate. The problem is that in the current case there is a lot of dispute over what constitutes "consulting for a casino". One issue is what is consulting, and another issue is what constitutes a casino. Some here are taking are very narrow. If the contract doesn't actually use the word "consultant", then it is OK. If the contract is not with a corporation which offers gambling to the public, then it isn't a casino. WE were told that "Casino Games Ltd" is not a casino, and so working for them is OK. Mikhon gaming would not be considered a casino under this narrow definition.

It is not clear from Don's post whether or not he considers Arnold's Over/Under to be "consulting for a casino" in the sense described above. More importantly, it really isn't clear whether or not he considers Karel's activities to be such. Your point is very-well taken. Since Don says no one on the panel has ever consulted for a casino, he apparently considers this not to be consulting. But then he says Karel could not do it while being a Master, which indicates that there some policy which prohibits it.

I think it is a mistake to say "We have answered all the questions, and we are not going to discuss it anymore", when you haven't answered the questions. That almost guarantees that the issue won't go away.

[p pause]

MathProf, you are looking for a very legalistic definition of "working for the other side." That way anyone can read a several page long desciption of "anti-player" behavior, while any halfway clever nitwit can lawyer around the language.

These written policies can help but in the end solid friendships and knowledge of your associates will protect you.

Karel's relationship with Blackjack Switch is weak enough for Don Schlesinger and most other players, not good enough for you and Math Boy. Move on.