Sun Runner: Blackjack Hall of Fame

[Norm Wattenberger]

Max has a private party to raise his exposure. He publishes a phony vote to further increase his exposure. Fine - that's his right. And, we have a right to weigh in with our opinions with any criteria we wish since no criteria have been published. But for people that never help anyone to come on this forum and label any comment as 'ignorant' is, well, ignorant.

[paranoid android]

> Most of the posts ARE ignorant.

If the masses are ignorant as to someone's accomplishments, then, by definition, he has not achieved fame. So either he doesn't belong in a hall of fame, or the name of the group is not appropriate.

[Don Schlesinger]

> If the masses are ignorant as to someone's
> accomplishments, then, by definition, he has
> not achieved fame. So either he doesn't
> belong in a hall of fame, or the name of the
> group is not appropriate.

Simply stated, this may be the best summation of all.

Like the Nokia Sugar Bowl, I think this needs to be renamed the "Blackjack Ball Hall of Fame," and that would put everything to rest. Then, the Immortal 60 can vote for whomever they damn please, and we won't have to chide them on their seemingly illogical selections.

For the record, I think Braun is to the history of blackjack research as his namesake, Werner von Braun, was to the space program. Mentioning Max in the same breath is, well, sacrilegious.

But, we're beating a dead horse. James isn't going to tell us why Max is such a stellar choice, and none of us can figure it out for ourselves, so we'll just let it go. I think a person's body of work and his contributions to the game and our knowledge of it ought to be legitimate criteria for anyone's Hall of Fame, and, under those guidelines, Braun is a shoo-in. (And, humbly, a few people on the Internet thought that I was, too. But, no matter.)

I have a funny visual in mind: We go to Cooperstown to read the plaques of those enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Suddenly, we come to a blank plaque. Below, we read: "Trust us, he belongs, but we can't tell you why. It's a secret."

Don

[J Morgan]

"Re: Do you have any concept how silly this is?"

Yes, but I'm not the one complaining about the outcome.

> Max has a private party to raise his
> exposure.

Oh, really? I didn't know that was the "reason" for the party. Do you have any idea how much WORK Max and his family have put in to host this annual party? To say that he hosts this party to "raise his exposure" is rude and unfounded. It sounds to me like you don't even know the guy. Personally, I have learned a lot by attending the party a few times, so I don't really care what the "reason" for the party is; I hope he continues to host it.

> He publishes a phony vote to
> further increase his exposure.

In what sense is it "phony"? The Internet vote counted as one ballot--the same procedure as last year. Why did no one complain last year, or even argue that the Internet vote should be given more weight?

> his right. And, we have a right to weigh in
> with our opinions with any criteria we wish
> since no criteria have been published.

Sure thing. Obviously, your information and/or criteria would lead you to have different choices, but so what? It doesn't mean that the Ball voters were stupid or selfishly motivated.

> for people that never help anyone to come on
> this forum and label any comment as
> 'ignorant' is, well, ignorant.

To whom are you referring when you say "for people that never help anyone"? Even so, whether people participate here on a regular basis under regular handles has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.

[J Morgan]

> seemingly illogical selections.

My simple point is that if a choice seems illogical, but you think that the people involved are not idiots, then a clear possibility is that they have additional information.

> But, we're beating a dead horse. James isn't
> going to tell us why Max is such a stellar
> choice,

First of all, I think I said earlier that I personally did not vote for Max, so I was never arguing that he's a "stellar choice." After Taft, the voting was close, so there was clearly some different of opinion. I think I understand why Max did better among the Ball voters than the Internet, but you're right, I'm not about to talk about it. Nor am I going to add anything about Taft that isn't in the upcoming BJF interview. Nor am I going to comment on Maria the Greek, or any of the others.

>I think
> a person's body of work and his
> contributions to the game and our knowledge
> of it ought to be legitimate criteria for
> anyone's Hall of Fame, and, under those
> guidelines, Braun is a shoo-in.

Agreed. I would add that these are not the only criteria.

> I have a funny visual in mind: We go to
> Cooperstown to read the plaques of those
> enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
> Suddenly, we come to a blank plaque. Below,
> we read: "Trust us, he belongs, but we
> can't tell you why. It's a secret."

That is funny, but there is one difference. Any hobbyist player could decide to "turn pro" and become a professional gambler. If that course of action is taken, I guarantee that a person's perspective about the game, the business, and the people in the business, will change RADICALLY. Information isn't put on a platter, but it is available to those willing to climb over the wall.

[Vinny D]

Just a little clarification for those of you who think this is about whether the selections were justified.

"Leaving myself aside, the two picks (Keith Taft and Max Rubin) would have finished far, far down on my personal ballot."

"In that regard, passing over the likes of Braun, Revere, and Humble (to not get personal about it!), is just plain foolish"

"The public vote, which was conducted on Anthony Curtis's site, was won convincingly by Curtis (I finished second)."

"In any event, say what you will -- Max over the likes of Braun, Revere, and Humble (leaving me out of it) is just plain stupid"

"Braun is a shoo-in. (And, humbly, a few people on the Internet thought that I was, too. But, no matter.)"

Now on to the other topics.

>> If the masses are ignorant as to someone's
>> accomplishments, then, by definition, he has
>> not achieved fame. So either he doesn't
>> belong in a hall of fame, or the name of the
>> group is not appropriate.

> Simply stated, this may be the best
> summation of all.

Great literal interpretation. I wonder if you would be happier with the selections of the masses. I hope you like sharing HOF space with John Partick.

> Like the Nokia Sugar Bowl, I think this
> needs to be renamed the "Blackjack Ball
> Hall of Fame," and that would put
> everything to rest. Then, the Immortal 60
> can vote for whomever they damn please, and
> we won't have to chide them on their
> seemingly illogical selections.

Aside from Max (sidenote: Max has put hundreds of players in contact and I have learned more from attending the ball than any book, except BJA of course. His book has put a tremendous amount of money in ploppies and pros pockets) who else would you replace? Thorp, Griffin, Uston, Wong, Francesco, Snyder, Taft?

> For the record, I think Braun is to the
> history of blackjack research as his
> namesake, Werner von Braun, was to the space
> program. Mentioning Max in the same breath
> is, well, sacrilegious.

Well Werner von Braun would have finished far, far down on my personal ballot for the space program HOF, but I probably wouldn?t call his selection silly.

> But, we're beating a dead horse.
Yes "we" are. We know (you have made it very clear) you deserve to be in the blackjack HOF. As Morgan stated, there are a lot of people who deserve admission.

> James isn't
> going to tell us why Max is such a stellar
> choice, and none of us can figure it out for
> ourselves, so we'll just let it go. I think
> a person's body of work and his
> contributions to the game and our knowledge
> of it ought to be legitimate criteria for
> anyone's Hall of Fame, and, under those
> guidelines, Braun is a shoo-in. (And,
> humbly, a few people on the Internet thought
> that I was, too. But, no matter.)

> I have a funny visual in mind: We go to
> Cooperstown to read the plaques of those
> enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
> Suddenly, we come to a blank plaque. Below,
> we read: "Trust us, he belongs, but we
> can't tell you why. It's a secret."

This is a fundamentally different business.

Vinny D

[Don Schlesinger]

> That is funny, but there is one difference.
> Any hobbyist player could decide to
> "turn pro" and become a
> professional gambler. If that course of
> action is taken, I guarantee that a person's
> perspective about the game, the business,
> and the people in the business, will change
> RADICALLY. Information isn't put on a
> platter, but it is available to those
> willing to climb over the wall.

And my simple point is that neither the candidates, nor those who select the inductees, need be players at all, for a true Hall of Fame, as witness not only Thorp, but, Griffin as well.

Don

[Count of Montecristo]

[Jake {|:>)]

I was at the Ball. I expect that Don, J Morgan ,the people Don has mentioned as worthy candidates will all be in the first 21 inductees. I guess the order is not really that important.

[Zenfighter]

When you go to dance, take heed with whom you share your hand.

A logical inference seems to be here, that if the Ball looks like a chauvinistic one, your cautions should be redoubled.

Hope this helps

Sincerely

Z

[Sun Runner]

Thanks for the continuing put-downs Vinny ...

> Just a little clarification for those of you who think
> this is about whether the selections were justified.

I don't need clarification. That's all it was ever about for me -justified selections. I don't have a personal stake in the matter.

If you want to dog out DS, then do it. Just don't do it under the veil of clarifying anything for the rest of us. We don't need it.

> I wonder if you would be happier with the selections of the masses.
> I hope you like sharing HOF space with John Partick.

The masses were not electing John Patick. Shame on you for implying they were. I can't see the entire list anymore but Patrick, if he was on the masses list at all, is somewhere less than 6%.

Since you and Morgan are seemingly having a hard time finding worthwhile things to say about Mr Rubin (apparently being all bound up in some cloak of secrecy) here is what I know about Mr Rubin just from the internet ...

-from '66 to about '96 he ran casinos. Oklahoma to Nevada. Owner/operator, casino manager, pit boss, dealer, surveillance. He's done it all.

-he testified in a Tropicana Casino hearing that in roughly '93 to '94 he worked as a "card counter catcher."

-since 1996 he has written several books, "Comp City" being the more famous, I guess.

-the LV Advisor says he is a "high stakes blackjack player."

-basically all that you, Morgan, and Pro21 are willing to say about Rubin is is that he has put "a lotta money in my pocket." (Maybe it should be the Max Rubin Hall of Fame For The 60 People In Who's Pocket He Has Put a Lotta Money.)

As hard as this concept may be for you, the universe of Blackjack extends far past the 60 of you. Rubin's work, while colorful, hasn't put a nickle in my pocket -Braun's has.

Seems like Mr Rubin's "body-of-work", except for the last several years, is working the casion side of the table; running casinos and busting counters. That's really no problem for me except to say, if that is some of the criteria, then I think Benny Binion might oughta' get in first.

For me it's about order. Julian Braun should all ready be in, and the rest (including Rubin I suppose), in due course. But that's just my opinion. Admittedly one steeped in ignorance, silliness, and mis-understanding.

[Real Man]

Either you did not understand my post or purposely snipped fragments of it to suit your taste.

As I said "In general" Max's name is very popular to the "public" in respect to blackjack. Would you agree?

Agreeing this is grounds for Hall of Fame of Blackjack is another story. Personally, I believe the minimal qualifications for a "True" Hall of Famer is at least 10 years of action at successfull card counting,advantage tactics,contributions of math,theory,etc.

In other words there's a lot more to it than simply being a popular name,host, or author.

Real Man

[Syph]

>Admittedly one steeped in ignorance, silliness, and mis-understanding.

Well...you are a cardcounter.

Ha!

Just kidding,

Best,
Syph

(President of the J Morgan Fan Club)