J Morgan: MIT Team book review

[Brick]

Sorry Norm,I'm not getting into another match trying to clearly explain what I'm talking about. The simulation saga was enough for me.

Bottom line is 30k bets is a big deal for anybody or any casino. If you dont believe me, try finding out the hardway and risk a few 30k bets and see how you're treated.

You will be loved or hated,pick your poison.

[Norm Wattenberger]

If you are, for example, Larry Flint - you can win $3,000,000 - leave - come back and be treated like a king. For obvious reasons, the books deal with normal stakes and play. Very high stake play - possible with large teams - ain't the same game. I'm not saying that this is useful information for a sole player. But, much of what has been said is not out of line in some circumstances.

[Parker]

> I like your open way of educating the
> casinos. They won`t even need to go to
> school. I would like to remind you that you
> are on an OPEN BOARD, let`s keep them idiot
> please. I am not sure here that the post
> buster is doing a service to the BJ
> community...

Interesting.

I have recently been crucified in absentia on another message board for allegedly busting too many posts.

I suppose that if I am being criticized both for being too lenient and too strict, then I must I must have about the right balance.

Seriously, I have reviewed the entire thread and do not see anything that any pit critter with more than six months experience at a major casino would not already be aware of.

After all, we are discussing events that appeared in a best-selling, supposedly factual book.

If you (or anyone else, for that matter) feel that anything on these boards should be deleted in the best interests of the AP community, please feel free to e-mail me with specifics.

[Norm Wattenberger]

[Sun Runner]

> I have recently been crucified in absentia
> on another message board for allegedly
> busting too many posts.

Yes you have been. I lurk there, but never post. Too much trouble. Frankly, I read some good stuff there.

But don't be confused. Contrary to what may be implied -they bust posts.

Specifically, some one posted a reference to what was called, as best I recall, "the MIT flame war going on at RGE."

I noticed that post was gone the next day -atleast I could not find it.

Keep up the good work Parker.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> But don't be confused. Contrary to what may
> be implied -they bust posts.

> Specifically, some one posted a reference to
> what was called, as best I recall, "the
> MIT flame war going on at RGE."

> I noticed that post was gone the next day
> -atleast I could not find it.

There was also a post yesterday defending Parker's integrity. The post lasted about 20 minutes.

[Sun Runner]

There is a post currently sitting on the BJ Main page dis-paraging Viktor. Although I seldom ever post there, I took offense to it.

I find that site to be very informative and have read many good posts there.

But to use a quote I have used before, regarding their policy of post busting ..

"me thinks they doth protest to much."

[Dreamer]

Hi

We met at a GC party a few years ago, wonder if you could bung me an email to [email protected] I have an unrelated question.

D.

> BDTH is loosely based on facts and presented
> in typical Hollywood fashion that
> exaggerates stories in an attempt to
> entertain the masses who might otherwise
> yawn at a 100% non-fiction account since the
> truth is often quite boring.

> Professional poker players are insulted by
> the movie (and book) Rounders for the same
> reasons mentioned above. I read BDTH and
> found it entertaining and amusing. There is
> no mention of a losing session in the book
> until page 102. Well, isn't that special?
> Maybe the team was 5 or 6 standard
> deviations to the right up until page 102.

> Can someone cut exactly 52 cards most of the
> time? Absolutely. Can someone cut exactly 52
> cards every time? Perhaps, but extremely
> unlikely IMO. In fact, I'm willing to wager
> on this one. Let's identify the best cutter
> in the world, and I'll wager that he cannot
> cut exactly 52 cards 100 times out of 100
> attempts. But really, who cares?

> So, why all the hostility? Why does one
> author insist on insulting other authors?
> Why do some feel an overwhelming urge to
> argue and discredit, regardless of the
> topic? Morgan, all serious professionals
> know that you're the smartest guy out there.
> Let's take a vote - you'll win hands down.
> You have nothing more to prove to those who
> matter. You've got the money, you've got the
> fame, and you've got the respect of your
> peers. So, stop the flame wars - they only
> serve to diminish your own credibility.

> I was writing a book about
> never-before-published advantage play
> techniques. It would be understood only by
> advanced players, the answers hidden in
> charts and text too complicated for casino
> employees to understand. Then I had a
> brainstorm: instead of creating more
> competitors (by educating other players) and
> possibly educating some smart casino
> employees, why not just spank the casinos
> and take pride in that? Maybe I'll finish
> that book, but it's not likely. I'm having
> too much fun getting the money and laughing
> at those who spend ridiculous amounts of
> time on the BJ websites proclaiming their
> expertise.

> It's rather unfortunate that some players
> have tremendous ego needs and crave
> recognition. Often the by-product of those
> needs is educating the casinos about
> weaknesses that are only exploited by
> serious players.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Yes and now there is more slander. There is an accusation that copies of BJF are being sold illegaly. But, I saw that ad before the split. I believe the are authorized copies.

[Viktor Nacht]

> Yes and now there is more slander. There is
> an accusation that copies of BJF are being
> sold illegaly. But, I saw that ad before the
> split. I believe the are authorized copies.

Whenever someone goes to bat for us we make it our first priority to make sure they have all of the facts. We appreciate the support, and don't want you to get bitten in the booty for sticking up for us.

In this case the facts are:

* It was business as usual during the partnership to sell the complete BJF series with missing issues provided in photocopy form (aka "fills"). We made numerous sales in this fashion.

* When needed, Arnold provided us with originals from his private collection to photocopy for fills.

* The official date of divorce was June 20, 2002.

* Bettie posted our "First 21 Years of BJF" special on August 8, 2002, and reposted it on August 19, 2002.

* It was posted twice, and very, very hard to miss.

* At that time, 4 were photocopies.

* A September, 2002 order was the last time we sold a complete BJF series with fills.

* Arnold received and cashed 2 separate royalty checks for all BJF complete collection sales. All royalty checks come with a complete breakdown of item sales. Based on previous knowledge and the breakdown, the source of the sales was obvious.

* We stopped selling them because a friend suggested it was unethical and a bad idea to continue doing so. He was right.

It was naive and wrong on our part to continue providing photocopied "fills," but it was a thoughtless continuation of business-as-usual, and not a conspiracy to illegally distribute Arnold's intellectual property. At the same time, it wasn't a secret, there were no complaints, and we paid royalties as if it were a completely legitimate product.

I don't believe it's my business to post other people's business dealings, and this may cross that line. I welcome thoughts on that matter.

Good Cards,

V

[Viktor Nacht]

> There is a post currently sitting on the BJ
> Main page dis-paraging Viktor. Although I
> seldom ever post there, I took offense to
> it.

Much thanks!

On to my message topic, there can be some misunderstandings, because of the semi-moderated format, when there's a hot thread and everyone wants to get a word in quickly.

If a new person posts (who hasn't created a profile for bypass status), and their post takes several hours (or even a half-day) to make it up because Parker is busy doing things like making a living and playing blackjack, there can be some hard feelings when people jump to conclusions during that intervening time period.

That's not to say Parker doesn't bust posts, but a recent post was delayed simply because of Real Life(tm), and the time it took to authenticate the source of the message, since we also try to avoid forgery.

All-in-all I think the format works great, but it might be less than ideal for flamewars that draw in new blood.

Good Cards,

V

[Brick]

One who has experimented with drugs before is a totally different case than a drug abuser.

John is saying he would not tolerate abusive drug members to be on his team. Sounds like good common sense to me. Why is it so difficult for you to relate to John's very simple point?

[Norm Wattenberger]

> One who has experimented with drugs before
> is a totally different case than a drug
> abuser.

> John is saying he would not tolerate abusive
> drug members to be on his team. Sounds like
> good common sense to me. Why is it so
> difficult for you to relate to John's very
> simple point?

John is the one that turned this person into first a crack-head and then shooting-up. These are gross, disgusting, immoral implications without any basis. On CCCafe he recently posted that no one should post to AP.com and that he can win 1,000 times as much as ANY poster on this site. His habit of extreme exaggeration is well known. And that was my 'simple point.'

And he still hasn't reconciled this with his respect for Ken Uston, a known heavy drug and alcohol abuser. Tell me, would you have thrown Uston off a team?