I purchased a copy of Casino Verite from you, it seems like the program has lots of bugs. Like it tells me the correct play is to stayed on 11 at times, and the screen often goes blank, the indices is off from the book. Any idea why? Thanks.
I purchased a copy of Casino Verite from you, it seems like the program has lots of bugs. Like it tells me the correct play is to stayed on 11 at times, and the screen often goes blank, the indices is off from the book. Any idea why? Thanks.
> I purchased a copy of Casino Verite from
> you, it seems like the program has lots of
> bugs. Like it tells me the correct play is
> to stayed on 11 at times, and the screen
> often goes blank, the indices is off from
> the book. Any idea why? Thanks.
Before you start making accusations on a public forum regarding an excellent product, I strongly recommend that you contact Norm directly and attempt to resolve your problems.
I have been using Casino Verite since version 1.0, on computers running Windows 95, 98, and 2000, and I have never experienced any of the problems you describe. I can state with 100% certainty that Casino Verite is not "buggy," nor is any other Qfit product.
Perhaps your computer is infected with a virus. There are a lot of them going around these days.
Odd that the other 4,000 users haven't told me this. If you did in fact buy it, e-mail me with the details.
I don't believe the original poster is the "true" anon. This post does not resemble the skillful tongue typically associated with anon. I believe this post to be fake to stir up controversy. Needless to say, I plan to buy Casino Verite in the next few weeks... It definently seems to be the best product.
> I don't believe the original poster is the
> "true" anon ... I believe this post to
> be fake to stir up controversy.
Who said Anon needed defending in the first place? I read the previous two posts and don't find any accusations leveled by or toward anyone.
Apparently what Anon needs is a little education. We can only hope Anon's advantage play is better than Anon's knowledge of BJ software and Microsoft operating systems.
While it didn't stir any controversy, it did make Anon kinda look like a goof though. And it is always sad to see anyone show their ignorance in public -as I have done from time to time.
But I do find it interesting to see that a post containing virtually the same message Anon was trying to make here was made there by Radar O'Reilly on the same day.
Coincidence? Probably not.
I guess it also makes Radar look like a goof. Well, maybe not a goof, but Radar was the first I've heard to .. what? .. trivialize the CV stuff.
(Wait a minute .. this isn't the first goofy thing Radar has said lately .. Radar was the first one to state he had evidence, no he said "we" have evidence, that I was Viktor Nacht, and then talked Arnold into saying the same thing. Huh. Maybe Radar is goofy.)
Anyway, I suppose the "true" A-non (as you say) could clear it all up and defend herself if she felt the need.
> I don't believe the original poster is the
> "true" anon.
The true anon signs with a small "a." The above was NOT written by the original "anon."
Don
> The true anon signs with a small
> "a." The above was NOT written by
> the original "anon."
> Don
Is there anything that can be done to maybe monitor more closely the use of names that are almost the same.
I sense a certain 'restlessness' between a few posters on similar sites to this (although I do not know the events leading to it) and I would not like to see a poster trying to discredit another poster by using a similar name and posting nonsense (which may, or may not, be the case with Anon).
I presume that posts from 'Victor Nacht' or 'Ron Schlesinger' would immediately be refused moderator approval but can a method be used so that other similar names are also rejected ?
Furthermore, someone with a grievance ,say, against Norm, could make derogatory remarks about his software and it could hold more weight if it came from a poster called 'Carol Janecek' than if it came from, say 'GrumblingGraham'.
Best regards
Jeff Hall
whoops, I mean Geoff Hall :-)
> Is there anything that can be done to maybe
> monitor more closely the use of names that
> are almost the same.
> I sense a certain 'restlessness' between a
> few posters on similar sites to this
> (although I do not know the events leading
> to it) and I would not like to see a poster
> trying to discredit another poster by using
> a similar name and posting nonsense (which
> may, or may not, be the case with Anon).
> I presume that posts from 'Victor Nacht' or
> 'Ron Schlesinger' would immediately be
> refused moderator approval but can a method
> be used so that other similar names are also
> rejected ?
> Furthermore, someone with a grievance ,say,
> against Norm, could make derogatory remarks
> about his software and it could hold more
> weight if it came from a poster called
> 'Carol Janecek' than if it came from, say
> 'GrumblingGraham'.
Actually, it is monitored quite closely. Anyone who posts using a name similar to a registered poster will be deleted (if I feel that the post was a deliberate attempt to mislead) or I will make a follow-up post suggesting that the poster choose another "handle" (if I feel that the choice was inadvertent).
The problem is that the poster who has been using the handle "anon" on this and other websites for several years has not registered that handle on this website.
Of course, "Anon." is, after all, an abbreviation for "anonymous," and could be used by anyone.
If someone were to attempt to post as "Ron Schlesinger," "Victor Nacht," or even "Jeff Hall," it would never see daylight.
When I am unsure of the motivation behind a post, I tend to give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
This may eventually lead to my undoing. :-)
> Actually, it is monitored quite closely.
> Anyone who posts using a name similar to a
> registered poster will be deleted (if I feel
> that the post was a deliberate attempt to
> mislead) or I will make a follow-up post
> suggesting that the poster choose another
> "handle" (if I feel that the
> choice was inadvertent).
> The problem is that the poster who has been
> using the handle "anon" on this
> and other websites for several years has not
> registered that handle on this website.
> Of course, "Anon." is, after all,
> an abbreviation for "anonymous,"
> and could be used by anyone.
> If someone were to attempt to post as
> "Ron Schlesinger," "Victor
> Nacht," or even "Jeff Hall,"
> it would never see daylight.
> When I am unsure of the motivation behind a
> post, I tend to give the poster the benefit
> of the doubt.
> This may eventually lead to my undoing. :-)
Clear explanation - thanks Parker.
I didn't realise that 'anon' hadn't registered his/her handle and I think that this may underline the importance of registering.
Best regards
Geoff
She dosen't seem to concerned about this imposter poster so why should you guys be?
No doubt "a-non" can take care of herself .. although hanging with Radar does make you wonder.
> She dosen't seem to concerned about this
> imposter poster so why should you guys be?
> No doubt "a-non" can take care of
> herself .. although hanging with Radar does
> make you wonder.
No, that's not the one I'm thinking about. The "original 'anon'" has no hyphen in the name and is a man. I've known him for some 20 years.
Don
My apologies to all. The anon I was referring to is a-non. Sorry for any confusion, but good discussion.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks