Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 73

Thread: J Morgan: MIT Team book review

  1. #14
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Quickly

    > Stanford is one of the major contributors to
    > the literature and the business ... he is the first to admit that he is not a
    > professional player, and I don't think he claims that he ever was.

    He apparenly feels qualified to voice an opinion on this issue. And as such, I still feel compelled to at least consider his opinion; one I still respect.

    > But Wong's got nothing to do with this.

    Well, he does. He apparently is vouching for Mr. Blackwood's opinion.

    > The point is that Blackwood's review of the MIT
    > book is way off the mark. Furthermore, I
    > don't hear many pros disagreeing with me on
    > this one, so what does that tell you?

    It tells me Wong and Blackwood may be wrong; or that the working pros may be to busy knocking off the El Cortez to care about this post.

    Are you telling me that the book is not that far off the mark; maybe even on the mark?

    SR

  2. #15
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: MIT Team book review

    Plastic bags full of cash?
    Crack-cocaine?
    Window Washer?

    I re-read all the posts and can see no mention of any of the above. If you could reduce your penchant for exaggeration, perhaps you would be taken more seriously. As for using the term crack-cocaine in reference to a recently departed member of our community ? this is as crude as the gross suggestion you made about another member of our community to which you are inextricably linked in my mind.


  3. #16
    Shadow witness
    Guest

    Shadow witness: YOU ARE LOOSING YOUR TIME

    Once again, you are loosing your time because some people won`t never believe anything they haven`t seen, period. You would have to take them by the hand and introduce them to some players...Then they will believe but it will be too late for you, they will spread the word like someone who sees a UFO in his backyard.They are just not ready for anything else than spreading $25-$200 in a DD game and calling "heat" the fact that a host is coming to meet them. Some will stick to the learning process and learn but most will quit looking for more knowledge once they get to some level of play. These are the ones you are talking to.

  4. #17
    John May
    Guest

    John May: Re: MIT Team book review

    > Plastic bags full of cash?
    > Crack-cocaine?
    > Window Washer?

    > I re-read all the posts and can see no
    > mention of any of the above. If you could
    > reduce your penchant for exaggeration,
    > perhaps you would be taken more seriously.

    I thought it was obvious I was exaggerating for effect.

    > As for using the term crack-cocaine in
    > reference to a recently departed member of
    > our community ? this is as crude as the
    > gross suggestion you made about another
    > member of our community to which you are
    > inextricably linked in my mind.

    I didn't know El burro or what exactly addictions he may or may not have. He did seem to be a knowledgeable advantage player based on what I read of his posts, whose death is a tragedy. I was not implying he had a crack cocaine addiction. But I think you understand that, at least when you've cooled down a bit.

    In more general terms, it seems obvious to me that serious drug use is pretty much incompatable with being alive, let alone anything as intellectually demanding as advantage play. The key phrase I used is that it is not in the interests of the addict for his addiction to be tolerated.

  5. #18
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: Top bet to a crazy bet.

    "Simple: Blackwood says the story is unbelievable, and cites several examples, but virtually all of his examples are in fact totally reasonable."

    > "They go from top bets of 2K to three
    > hands of 10K seemingly on a whim."

    "Blackwood is the one saying "seemingly on a whim." He seems to find this bet jump unbelievable. It's not. Could they be overbetting Kelly? Maybe. Who cares? The point is that the bet levels and jumps are completely reasonable."

    Believable perhaps...but "completely reasonable?"..no way. Going from a "top bet" of 2k, to a bet of 30k(3 hands)would be nothing but a hail mary. A more reasonable word for these kind of bets would be aggressive stupidity.


  6. #19
    DD'
    Guest

    DD': bet jumping


    I'm almost certain the universal opinion here is that bet jumping is unwise. Aggression is not the issue-its just stupid. You don't want to trigger a shuffle-up. If you want to be aggressive parlay up from min to max. In BJA Schlesinger identifies bet jumping as a primary sin, something I actually agree with him on


    There are different styles and the opinion is far from universal. BJ is a very low ev way to make money. Teams such as MIT do not wish to water down their advantage with cover. Players on these teams are not professional gambler types. Teams recruit clean faces who are not listed in Griffin & Biometrica, who have not been all over the SIN, who can come in and start firing... dropping bombs. As soon as a guy gets too hot, he's pulled and they get another bp.

    But about the entire 2@2k to 2@10K thing, I believe this is being misread. He says "max" going from 2K to 10K. This is not a bet jump. This is a change in betting strategy. It may seem strange to Blackwood how the max could change rapidly 5 fold as it implies an increase in bankroll of 5X if they are playing to the same fractions, and no explanation given. The likely explanation is that one story, the one with 2@2K max was about a play at a smaller store where this is what they thought would fly. At another opportunity, a different play entirely, the max may have been 2@$10K. The partners in such operations look at the opportunity that presents itself, decide how much they want to bet, and then raise sufficient funds on their own or through other investors to accomodate that strategy. This is not a small time gambling pro figuring the Kelly bets to his bankroll.

  7. #20
    DD'
    Guest

    DD': Re: bet jumping

    One other thing; I have a guy on my team currently who has played for both MIT and the Greeks. He can cut to almost the exact card.

  8. #21
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Top bet to a crazy bet.

    > Believable perhaps...but "completely
    > reasonable?"..no way. Going from a
    > "top bet" of 2k, to a bet of 30k(3
    > hands)would be nothing but a hail mary. A
    > more reasonable word for these kind of bets
    > would be aggressive stupidity.

    Well, here I am defending Morgan, which he don't need; this is getting ridculous.

    2K to 3X10K ain't no big deal. Never jump 1 to 15 before? I have. Felt like the whole world was watching, but I have.

    Of course that was $5 to $75 but, hey, that's all I got.

  9. #22
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: bet jumping

    > One other thing; I have a guy on my team
    > currently who has played for both MIT and
    > the Greeks. He can cut to almost the exact
    > card.

    I truly enjoy reading your posts, both here and abroad.

    But jealousy is such an ugly thing and it rears it's head everytime I read your posts.

  10. #23
    DD'
    Guest

    DD': sorry if I gave that impression

    But jealousy is such an ugly thing and it rears it's head everytime I read your posts.


    I'm not sure who you believe I'm jealous of. I'd be glad to tell you. I envy those with abilities that I don't have. I wish that I had the abilities of those who use more sophisticated forms of advantage play, like Morgan. I envy the math abilities that he has, as well as those of guys like MathProf and Kim Lee as they would enhance my ability to make money as a professional gambler. But, believe it or not, I am not jealous of anyone with writing or publishing success as I have never had such aspirations.

    Your particular observation might make me proof read my posts to see that I'm not giving the wrong impression. What ever you are reading in them, I can assure you that jealousy is not it. Someone else accused me recently of sounding like I had some kind of attitude in my posts. I'll watch for it. Good day.

  11. #24
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: sorry if I gave that impression

    He was speaking of his own jealousy of your skills

  12. #25
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Of course

    > THE TEAM IS REAL/STILL ALIVE

    There exists plenty of new blood for the large/renewable team concept. The casinos, unable to find the silver bullet, will concentrate on bothering more obvious targets.

  13. #26
    Rhetorich
    Guest

    Rhetorich: Re: MIT Team book review (long)

    I don't want to sound like an EST graduate, but you always have a choice in life to be *right* or be *happy*. There are waaaay too many ad hominum (personal attack) remarks here. It reads very much like a kind of contest... how shall I say? ... like the old Bob Dylan song, "The answer, my friend, is pissing in the wind." Er, ultimately unsatisfying.

    If, however, your cutting attacks actually induce a lethal coronary in another party, well, I guess that *would* be satisfying. You are unlikely to convince your opponents in these debates to change their minds. To the extent you believe you are serving the community of readers by sharing your expertise, pretend we were in a bar and ordered "information, with a smile back" instead of "invective, with a piss back."

    You might consider that Mezrich wrote his book for a big target audience of the *general public*, not a small audience of APs. Unless he was recruited by the casinos (A) to lure in hoards of the uninitiated or (B) to demonstate to us that we might as well quit playing because we inevitably will become dinosaurs, he was probably just writing what he thought the public would buy.

    BTW, if anybody's in touch with Mezrich, you might point out to him the following 3 errors:

    First, p.108 "... still getting over his disinterest in medicine and graduate school." Should be "uninterest", i.e. a broken give-a-shitter; not being interested in a subject. "Disinterest" means not having a vested interest in the outcome, as in "a disinterested third party to decide the dispute."

    Second, near the bottom of p.111, "If Mickey was forced into retirement, ..." The conditional should read "were forced".

    Third, p.123 end of 1st paragraph, "...the entire Pequot Indian tribe which had built the casino numbered a mere 300 members." He should have said "that had built". You have 2 choices -- consider: "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" -- a *specific* hand; usage that limits the reference of the noun: "that" + no comma. Or, "The hand, which is an located at the end of the arm, contains 'carpals' (as in 'carpal tunnel syndrome'), while the foot, which is at the end of the leg, has 'tarsals'" -- a non-restrictive or purely descriptive phrase or clause. It could be dropped without changing the reference of the noun: "which" + commas.

    Gosh, it feels good to protect and serve as an officer of the Anal-Retentive Grammar Police

    Now (as they used to say on "Hill Street Blues") you be careful out there!

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.