J Morgan: MIT Team book review

[Sun Runner]

.. it would be me jealous of both your skill level and oppportunity to play BJ at that level.

However jealousy may be to strong a word. The skill level is certainly something I can control. The opportunity is another thing.

Sunday morning my wife and I were driving around and I let out a bit of a sigh. She asked "what did that mean?" I said, "just thinking about the responsibilites" (translate: mortgage payments, car payments, kids, college expenses, oldish sickish parents, busy season at work, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)

She said "which responsibilities would you give up?"

I said .. "none."

And it's true. I am the luckiest guy in the world.

( I just wish I lived closer to a decent BJ game! )

Thanks for the posts .. I learn from them all.

SR

[Norm Wattenberger]

Wonderfully put and a great twist on Dylan. Sometimes some BJ forums remind me of the following lesser known Dylan piece:

I saw it advertised one day,
Bear Mountain picnic was comin' my way.
"Come along 'n' take a trip,
We'll bring you up there on a ship.
Bring the wife and kids
Bring the whole family."
Yippee!

Well, I run right down 'n' bought a ticket
To this Bear Mountain Picnic.
But little did I realize
I was in for a picnic surprise.
Had nothin' to do with mountains.
I didn't even come close to a bear.

Took the wife 'n' kids down to the pier,
Six thousand people there,
Everybody had ticket for the trip.
"Oh well." I said, "it's a pretty big ship.
Besides, anyway, the more the merrier."

Well, we all got on 'n' what d'ya think,
That big old boat started t' sink
More people kept a-pilin' on,
That old ship was a-slowly goin' down.
Funny way t' start a picnic.

Well, I soon lost track of m' kids 'n' wife,
So many people there I never saw in m' life
That old ship sinkin' down in the water,
Six thousand people tryin' t' kill each other,
Dogs a-barkin', cats a-meowin',
Women screamin', fists a-flyin', babies cryin',
Cops a-comin', me a-runnin'.
Maybe we just better call off the picnic.

I got shoved down 'n' pushed around,
All I could hear there was a screamin' sound,
Don't remember one thing more,
Just remember walkin' up on a little shore,
Head busted, stomach cracked,
Feet splintered, I was bald, naked. . .
Quite lucky to be alive though.

Feelin' like I climbed outa m' casket,
I grabbed back hold of m' picnic basket.
Took the wife 'n' kids 'n' started home,
Wishin' I'd never got up that morn.

Now, I don't care just what you do,
If you wanta have a picnic, that's up t' you.
But don't tell me about it, I don't wanta hear it,
Cause, see, I just lost all m picnic spirit.
Stay in m' kitchen, have m' own picnic. . .
In the bathroom.

Now, it don't seem to me quite so funny
What some people are gonna do f'r money.
There's a bran' new gimmick every day
Just t' take somebody's money away.
I think we oughta take some o' these people
And put 'em on a boat, send 'em up to Bear Mountain . . .
For a picnic.

- Bob Dylan, 1962

[Brick]

> 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.

Aint no big deal,huh? It sure aint if your use to a top bet of only $75,but going to 30K at the drop of a hat is a big deal with a huge difference in meaning. Even a blind moron betting that kind of money will draw attention. Besides you are confused. These bets are going from "top bets" of 2K to 'top bets' of 30K.

[Norm Wattenberger]

A few points that you may see elsewhere in this thread:

1. These are teams. Large teams working with a large bankroll. With a very large bankroll, the variables become more complex and the immediate circumstances become a larger part of the 'formula.' For example you might think the 3x10K is a response to an unusual situation. But in fact, the 2K may be an artifice peculiar to a situation.

2. These players are expendable. They may not know it, but the team leaders may decide that an opportunity is well worth the immolation of a team member.

3. This may seem like 'a drop of the hat' to the critic. But the people holding that hat may also own some rabbits.

Serious Blackjack Software

[DD']

I'd delete my reply if I remembered my password. I thought you were implying that I was jealous of Blackwood. I'd actually never seen his name before a few days ago. I don't get as upset as others about authors giving their opinions regarding pro play. I only entered the discussion because I thought Morgan's comments were accurate. The only writer that really bothers me is Ian Anderson, but I won't go into it as I know he is somewhat of a legend.

[Working Pro]

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.

This directly contradicts earlier posts you have made championing the exploits of Ken Uston, a notorious drug user.

[Alexander Mundy]

what bothers you about Andersen (Ian that is - not Andy).

[DD']

> what bothers you about Andersen (Ian that is
> - not Andy).

Absolute fairy tales. I would be less bothered if so many did not take him so seriously.

[Working Pro]

> Absolute fairy tales. I would be less
> bothered if so many did not take him so
> seriously.

Absolutely agree.

[Jimmy]

what use is the skill?

This is one I have a lot of trouble with - but perhaps I'm missing something.

Let's say that we know an ace is exactly 28 cards into 2 decks. I can't accept that someone can cut to exactly the 28th card. J Morgan states or implies that this can be done exactly. Perhaps he's correct.

But of what use is your teammate's skill of being able to almost "cut to almost the exact card"?

[bildi66]

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

Thought the sarge on HSB always said, "hey, let's be careful out there." ......bill

[John May]

> 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.

Grosjean instigated this by calling Blackwood a "moron", and for some weird reason, insulting Wong and every green chipper in the process.

Now, I was putting down black chips when Grosjean was living in college dorm, so I felt obligated to respond.

Now, I have specifically refrained from insulting Grosjean directly or his expertise, and we had a mostly productive discussion on the matter.

> 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!

[John May]

> Who cares if it's stupid or not? Blackwood's
> saying he doesn't believe it. I do.

> You're absolutely wrong on this one. Why not
> give my partner that money to carry? As far
> as trust goes, I'd trust my partners with my
> entire bankroll. As far as risk of robbery,
> oh well, there are times when we walk into a
> game and we need the cash on hand. Partners
> have handed me $50K in cash to carry. Why
> shouldn't this happen? Besides, this isn't a
> question of "should." Blackwood
> suggests that this is unbelievable. It's
> not.

> Agreed that it's not a great situation, but
> for a given play, the best guy for the job
> might happen to have a substance problem.
> For our type of team/play, I would have
> taken El Burro for a night over almost every
> Green Chipper. Again, what's Blackwood's
> point--that this is stupid, or that it's
> unbelievable?

> Are you trying to lecture me on the math of
> tipping? Some players tip too much.
> Sometimes this is a problem, sometimes it's
> not. I had a partner who tipped $5000 over
> 7.5 hours of play. That was a lot, but it
> was not more than our expectation, and I
> didn't "kick him off my team" for
> it.

> I agree the book didn't go into much detail,
> but the point is that it can be done, and
> some MIT guys do have skill in this area, so
> again, that part of the story is not
> unbelievable.

Most of these questions can be reduced to the fact that at least one "working pro" doesn't agree with these procedures. While acknowledging they can and do happen, Blackwood is far from "moronic" for beleieving otherwise. That is my real beef here, you insist on insulting Wong, Blackwood and the Green Chippers just because their viewpoint differs from you. People are entitled to an opinion.

> Where do you get your information? From the
> Internet? You can speculate all you want
> about my life, but trust me on this one: You
> are making yourself look like an idiot by
> making claims that you have no first-hand
> knowledge of. You're better off sticking to
> your strong suit--math. (Ditto for
> MathProf.)

James, do we have to go through this again. Its true some of my info comes from the web, but since it was information you posted I think its credible.
I even told you how to take it down. Do you ever wonder why you got busted?

> As a matter of fact, the large teams are NOT
> as active as they once were, but the MIT
> book is about past events. Again, none of
> the issues that Blackwood mentioned are
> unbelievable. Now, there may be other areas
> that are unbelievable, but he hasn't
> mentioned them yet.

> Gosh, I hate it when milk comes pouring out
> of my nose, don't you?

Jackass patois aside...
This is what gets me, they build you up as the new messiah of advantage play but you aren't even close to the money. Let me state this emphatically: no clued-up "working pro" should be within five hundred miles of Nevada.