Robert V. Lux: Question and suggestion

[Robert V. Lux]

Over the last months I have ocassionally heard some talking about the third edition of BJA. When will it be published? What additional information will it contain?

I am, personally, impressed by FA and Illustrious 18. Though, since there are lots of serious card counting systems at various levels, wouldn't it be of interest to make Ill-18-charts for, say, the 10 or 15 most used card counting systems avaliable on today's market? This would probably attract a great interest, no?

Best regards, Robert V. Lux

[Don Schlesinger]

> Over the last months I have ocassionally
> heard some talking about the third edition
> of BJA. When will it be published? What
> additional information will it contain?

I have written this up numerous times; perhaps someone can point you in the right direction for the post. There wouldn't be a new edition before this time next year, and it could be later than that, I'm afraid.

> I am, personally, impressed by FA and
> Illustrious 18. Though, since there are lots
> of serious card counting systems at various
> levels, wouldn't it be of interest to make
> Ill-18-charts for, say, the 10 or 15 most
> used card counting systems avaliable on
> today's market? This would probably attract
> a great interest, no?

It's already done -- at BJRM 2002's "Systems 101." Conceivably, I could incorporate such charts in a new edition, but, out of loyalty to John, I don't think I would.

Don

[Just a counter]

Have you considered upgrading the 18 index # to 28 indexs. Ten more indexes could be very beneficial for card counters who have a significant minimum bet such as myself. A suggestion would be to ad soft doubling indexes as well. Perhaps adding 5 each of negative and positive strategy decisions.

JAC

[Don Schlesinger]

> Have you considered upgrading the 18 index #
> to 28 indexes.

No, not really, since, if more had much value, I would have included them the first time. I've seen 62 indices (Carlson), and they add little to the 18. For shoes, they're hardly worth the effort.

> Ten more indexes could be very
> beneficial for card counters who have a
> significant minimum bet such as myself. A
> suggestion would be to add soft doubling
> indexes as well. Perhaps adding 5 each of
> negative and positive strategy decisions.

Again, we now have the Catch 22, because a few specific extra ones proved to be useful (thanks, Cacarulo!), especially for SD and DD, but beyond that, I'm afraid that the extra value that you seek just really isn't there.

Don

[HOLLYWOOD]

> Have you considered upgrading the 18 index #
> to 28 indexs. Ten more indexes could be very
> beneficial for card counters who have a
> significant minimum bet such as myself. A
> suggestion would be to ad soft doubling
> indexes as well. Perhaps adding 5 each of
> negative and positive strategy decisions.

> JAC

I have added a few to the 18, like doubling on soft 19 and the non spliting of 8's againt certain cards at certain counts etc. I like that one especially because the casino thinks i'm not spliting them because I have a large bet out there and i'm afraid.

Beyond the few that I added, playing only a 6 deck shoe game, I felt the rest were not that advantagous.

Besides, I always feel the 18 are safe (referring to heat). For just that reason I stopped doubling on soft 20 at certain counts.

A couple of months ago at the Hilton in AC, the guy sitting with me split his 10's and a few minutes later when they changed dealers, the new shuffle was done with 55% pen. You think that was a coincidence? Absolutly not.

So the way I figure it, it's like Don says,
"What did I accomplish, if I can't go back.
It's not word for word, but I think it was what Don meant when he wrote it.

I feel some of the plays beyond the 18 are real attention getters.
But, that's just my opinion.

Hollywood