Don Schlesinger: Time to move on: Clearing the air

[Don Schlesinger]

I have just posted the following to both Don's Domain and ProNet. I thought those of you who have discussed the matter here, and who aren't subscribers, would nonetheless like to have the information.

Don

A guy tries to take a short break to go to Las Vegas for five days and, in the interim, World War III breaks out on the site! Sheesh! I deeply regret what has transpired here and am writing as soon as possible to clear the air and to report back to you, after discussing the matter with all parties concerned.

First, some generalities. I founded Don's Domain, almost three and a half years ago, on a simple premise -- to provide the best blackjack information available, on a site that would be 100% free of any controversy, kooks, trolls, malcontents, or, let's face it, just plain troublemakers. You come to DD, you get civility and BJ information. You're looking for something different, you go elsewhere. Simple. And, that formula has worked wonderfully all this time.
Recently, the best got better, and I conceived the idea for the Masters. I'm not going to rehash their credentials or background for you here. I assume you've already read "Meet the Masters" and that you know all of the parties concerned, as well as their impeccable credentials -- each and every one.

More than two years ago, Karel Janecek customized his SBA simulator, much in the way that he did for John Auston and me, when we were preparing Chapter 10 of BJA, to study a specific question. Now, that analysis happened to be of a newly proposed game, Blackjack Switch, which, at the time, was no more than someone's idea for a potentially new casino game. It wasn't clear that it would ever even reach the public. The developer of that concept has already made a full disclosure of the circumstances surrounding Karel's participation in the venture (see the Free pages), and I won't rehash those at this time, either.

While I was not aware of Karel's participation in BJ Switch, when I eagerly solicited his collaboration in the Masters effort, I can assure you that, had he explained his prior role to me, it would not have made one iota of difference in my welcoming him with open arms onto the site. Not one iota!

Perhaps many of you are not aware that Arnold Snyder, who not only founded this site, but who conceived the notion of Don's Domain, as well as the private, Green pages, did all of the consulting for the Over/Under game that became very popular for several years, as a blackjack side bet. He worked out all of the math and collaborated with the game's inventor to provide essential analysis for the final version, right down to establishing exactly what the house edge would be. Yet, not only did no one ever dream of questioning the Bishop's loyalty to players or his fitness for running an ultra-private, secure site for advantage players, they embraced his efforts with open arms -- as well they should have!

Interestingly enough, suggestions that Karel could not serve two masters by furnishing such mathematical analyses and then by also, later on, possibly helping players beat the game, are, clearly, unfounded as well. For, this is precisely what Snyder did when he penned the "Over/Under Report," the definitive work on how to beat the very game he helped to create! After speaking with Karel, I have no doubt whatsoever that, should BJ Switch become "mainstream," he will be more than delighted to furnish to players and, especially, to members of Don's Domain, his methodologies for attacking the game. (To this extent, and by way of further clearing the air, Karel, himself, will be posting a personal statement to these pages shortly.)

Now, let me address some tangential issues. There have been a couple of remarks to the effect that this may be just the tip of the iceberg, and that other potential improprieties may already exist or may follow. Your concerns are ill-founded. There are no "skeletons in our closets," and each and every one of my colleagues asserts, unequivocally, that he has never served as a consultant for a casino. Period. This, of course, is a statement that the likes of Snyder, Stanford Wong, and the late Peter Griffin, all beloved icons of the game, could not make. As for the future, I speak for no one. My crystal ball isn't shiny enough to predict the future actions of eight or nine individuals, with varied backgrounds and interests. All I can guarantee you is that should any of them decide that casino consulting is a path they'd like to pursue, they may do so, and perhaps even with our blessing, but it will be as former members of the Masters panel!

For now, after a thorough investigation of the matter, I conclude that Karel did nothing to warrant either his exclusion from the Masters or your lack of trust in his loyalty to the blackjack-playing community, of which I consider him to be an incredibly gifted and valued member. We are all fortunate to have him with us on this site.

I will be delighted to read your comments on this matter, which, to me, is a not the serious affair that it has been purported to be, and whose importance, in my view, has been blown out of proportion. But, we are going to return to discussing blackjack and other advantage games on this site, in our customary civil manner, and this issue needs to be put to rest.

I am sorry I couldn't have made this statement sooner. Perhaps it would have allayed some fears and avoided some unpleasantness. Better late than never.

Best regards,

Don

[Cyrus]

"We are going to return to discussing blackjack and other advantage games on this site, in our customary civil manner, and this issue needs to be put to rest."

You will agree though, that this is an important issue, even if the cause turns out to be, as you stated, no biggie. As MathProf correctly noted, this is a defining point in the life of the Master's of Blackjack page.

"Arnold Snyder ... did all of the consulting for the Over/Under ... side bet. He worked out all of the math and collaborated with the game's inventor to provide essential analysis for the final version. ... Snyder [then] penned the "Over/Under Report," the definitive work on how to beat the very game he helped to create."

Personally, I did not know that Snyder had a hand in creating O/U. I would have a problem had I known that. But I don't think that it is a legitimate defense to claim that "others do it as well"! Because, in this vein, I would also question the altogether different view you expressed in the case of Stanley Ko.

But we digress : We should be examining whether Karel Janecek's part in creating BJS allows him to claim he's still fully and undividedly on the players' side.

I have a simple rule, which I already stated ("Only one side of your toast gets buttered"). It seems that you, Don Schlesinger, conduct yourself by that strict rule, since you have always refused to provide any work for casinos or related enterprises. Isn't this correct? And, if it is, I wonder why didn't you assist them like Karel did? You rated his contribution to a casino-related enetrprise to be completely legitimate.

..There's more to all this but let's deal with the above for now.

--Cyrus

[Don Schlesinger]

> You will agree though, that this is an
> important issue, even if the cause turns out
> to be, as you stated, no biggie.

No, I don't agree at all.

> As MathProf
> correctly noted, this is a defining point in
> the life of the Master's of Blackjack page.

I find that statement to be melodramatic, at best, and simply untrue, at worst. I can't control what others think; I can only provide facts. The facts of this case are crystal clear to me, and the "incident," in my mind, is a non-event. Make of it what you will.

> Personally, I
> did not know that Snyder had a hand in
> creating O/U. I would have a problem had I
> known that. But I don't think that it is a
> legitimate defense to claim that
> "others do it as well"!

It's no defense at all; it's an explanation that this is somewhat common practice and that people have accepted it cheerfully in the past.

> Because,
> in this vein, I would also question the
> altogether different view you expressed in
> the case of Stanley Ko.

That's because the situations were vastly different. Ko WORKED for the casinos. He was on their payroll, and HE admitted that this conflict of interest was improper and that he should withdraw from the site.

Karel created a one-time alteration to SBA for a unique project two YEARS before the Masters concept was ever enunciated. There is NO comparison whatsoever. None.

> But we digress : We should be examining
> whether Karel Janecek's part in creating
> BJS allows him to claim he's still fully and
> undividedly on the players' side.

He is fully and undividedly on the players' side. Would you like to make it into a jury trial?

> I have a simple rule, which I already stated
> ("Only one side of your toast gets
> buttered"). It seems that you, Don
> Schlesinger , conduct yourself by that
> strict rule, since you have always refused
> to provide any work for casinos or related
> enterprises. Isn't this correct? And, if it
> is, I wonder why didn't you assist them like
> Karel did?

I wasn't asked. For the record, I would have refused. For the record, Karel will refuse the next time, if asked, or, alternatively, we will ask him to withdraw from the Masters -- something that isn't going to happen, in my opinion.. If you can tell me how we can turn back the clock two years so that he can refuse the first time, I'm all ears.

> You rated his contribution to a
> casino-related enetrprise to be completely
> legitimate.

Correct.

> ..There's more to all this but let's deal
> with the above for now.

It's dealt with.

Don

[SOTSOG]

Hey, Don. I heard that after observing your play, a casino employee offered you a free meal in the casino deli. How can you maintain your objectivity while accepting bribes from casinos in the form of free meals and drinks? ;>}

Let's see, Karl is a computer programmer and mathematician with a interest in gambling.

Someone developing a game asked for some consulting work to be done involving mathematical analysis aided with some custom programming.

Later the game developer sold the game to some casinos. The Horror! The Horror!

See you guys later, I'm off to go wong some 6 deck shoes.

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry but I just cannot reconcile these two statements of yours :

#1
"For the record, Karel will refuse the next time, if asked, or, alternatively, we will ask him to withdraw from the Masters."

#2
"Karel created a one-time alteration to SBA for a unique project two YEARS before the Masters concept was ever enunciated. There is NO comparison whatsoever [with Stanley Ko's case]. None. [Janecek] is fully and undividedly on the players' side."

Either what Karel Janecek did for BJ Switch was fine by you, in which case you should have no problem with it indeed, now or in the future ("if he's asked again"), or what he did was wrong, in which case you should come right out and say so!

Your decision to send him off if "he does it again", clearly shows you do not approve of what he did.

--Cyrus

[Cardkountr]

After reviewing all of the pertinent posts, trying to sort out the facts from the suppositions, I think there is a vast difference between providing a mathematical analysis of a proposed game verses consorting with the "evil empire" (the casinos).

Casinos are always looking for new games which may generate new interest with the public. If Karel didn't provide the analysis then someone else surely would have. At least with Karel being a member of our community, he may be able to provide us with the best playing strategy (provided he has no contractual constraints) in order to play this new game with an advantage.

As I understand it, blackjack switch has a house advantage slightly less than the traditional blackjack game. During its infancy, most pit critters will probably know less about the game than we will thus making the game exploitable, and possibly without much heat if they mistakenly believe it to be unbeatable.

As far as reinstating Karel, I see no reason not to. From what little I know of him, he is a man of integrity who has done much to further the game and help players. I don't believe there has been any wrong doing, After all, it's not like he developed software to identify or foil counters or harm us in any way. He merely helped with the development of a new game which in fact could be an additional opportunity for us in this ever changing world.

just my 02 cents for what it's worth

May all the dealers blackjacks occur while you're in the bathroom!!

Card.

[Cyrus]

"If Karel didn't provide the analysis then someone else surely would have."

I never cared for that kind of excuse.

"[Karel] may be able to provide us with the best playing strategy (provided he has no contractual constraints) in order to play this new game with an advantage."

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.

(Don says that this might happen if BJ Switch goes "mainstream".)

"As far as reinstating Karel, I see no reason not to."

I don't think Karel was kicked out of any RGE page to begin with.

[Bettie]

> But we digress : We should be examining
> whether Karel Janecek 's part in creating
> BJS allows him to claim he's still fully and
> undividedly on the players' side.

> I have a simple rule, which I already stated
> ("Only one side of your toast gets
> buttered"). It seems that you, Don
> Schlesinger , conduct yourself by that
> strict rule, since you have always refused
> to provide any work for casinos or related
> enterprises. Isn't this correct? And, if it
> is, I wonder why didn't you assist them like
> Karel did? You rated his contribution to a
> casino-related enetrprise to be completely
> legitimate.

Karel's part in the development of BJ Switch was so absolutely miniscule, it is comparable to a person being a bartender or a waitress in a casino restaurant before becoming a professional player. It means nothing - no ties, no loyalty, nada. If you fault Karel for helping with the statistical analysis of a game that was just a pipedream in the creator's eyes, why do you not fault Stanford Wong and David Matthews for having been actual casino employees - dealers, even - in the past? It's ridiculous, and your insistence on making a mountain out of what is not even an molehill just makes you look bad. Why the insistence on attacking Karel?

Respectfully,
Bettie

[John Auston]

You have been provided an adequate explanation . . .

. . . it is impossible for any of us to furnish an understanding.

Regards,
John Auston

BJRM Web Site

[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?

[Don Schlesinger]

Thanks for the comments, above, everyone. As usual, you cannot please all of the people all of the time; I stopped trying long ago.

Posts to both our ProNet page and to Don's Domain have been in agreement with what I have written, and I consider the matter closed. Parker is free to run this page as he sees fit, but I will no longer continue to comment in this particular thread.

Beating a dead horse serves no purpose, and I have no intention of so doing.

Don

[Cyrus]

"Karel's part in the development of BJ Switch was so absolutely miniscule, it is comparable to a person being a bartender or a waitress in a casino restaurant before becoming a professional player. It means nothing - no ties, no loyalty, nada. If you fault Karel for helping with the statistical analysis of a game that was just a pipedream in the creator's eyes, why do you not fault Stanford Wong and David Matthews for having been actual casino employees - dealers, even - in the past?"

I have zero problem coversing or hanging out with the other side; I have done it in various capacities and occasions. Zero problem. In fact, I encourage this interaction, for the obvious benefits it brings to the advantage players' community. And of course, I assume that ap's are mature persons and don't need to be caveat emptor'ed.

And while I have zero problem exchanging post after post with a guy from surveillance, I most cettainly do have a problem exchanging ideas about beating a game with someone that may work thatb idea into the casinos' game protection guidelines. (Of course, I never discuss anything sensitive, in any case, out in the open. But I might do so privately or others might do openly.)

As to the excuse that it's good to have Karel Janecek analyze a game instead of an idiot, this is too just too much. I mean come on! I want idiots analyzing casino games! In fact, some of the biggest opportunities in game rules came about as a result of sloppy (read idiotic) mathematical analysis -- or no analysis at all! Do you, folks, even begin to get it?

"Your insistence on making a mountain out of what is not even an molehill just makes you look bad. Why the insistence on attacking Karel?"

I never cared how "I look" on the web, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I am simply trying to present my case here, with logical arguments, calmly and politely. The sight of RGE closing ranks behind their guy without addressing the legitimate concerns that always arise whenever someone from the advantage players' side is found to work for casinos too, doesn't bode well for this website's buddign reputation. Once more, I'm sorry to say.

As to "attacking Karel", I happen to have the utmost respect for him as a mathematician and a computer programer, neither of which I am. But I have used SBA myriads of times and benefited from it quite a lot. So I have zero reasons personally to "attack Karel". In fact quite the opposite. That should give you pause -- but it won't.

--Cyrus

[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.)