As long as we're on the subject... I don't suppose anyone happens to know where I could obtain a copy of Beyond Counting?
As long as we're on the subject... I don't suppose anyone happens to know where I could obtain a copy of Beyond Counting?
>If you don?t want comments
> on the actions of your club, don?t advertise
> the event or post a fake poll as if it
> matters.
I'm not saying that I don't want comments. But if comments are uninformed or illogical, I'm going to call them on it.
> I support all levels of BJ play:
> If someone's goals are
> different, they might look down on players
> with different motivation. I don?t see it
> that way.
I agree. I have no problem with people gambling without an edge! Where I get annoyed, though, is when the "weekend warriors" spout off on Web sites as if they are pros. The tail doesn't wag the dog.
> Just making some
> comments on our concepts of value in this
> field. I think we have that right without
> someone calling us 'ignorant.'
Most of the posts ARE ignorant. It's one thing to say, "I don't understand this choice," or "I would have voted differently." It's quite a different thing to say, "The people who voted are wrong," or "Their choice is stupid," or "Their choice must be political," or "This is just a clique vote," or "Their criteria are wrong," or "Max and Keith are undeserving." I didn't even vote for Max, but I find all such statements or implications offensive and ignorant.
> Most of the posts ARE ignorant. It's one
> thing to say, "I don't understand this
> choice," or "I would have voted
> differently." It's quite a different
> thing to say, "The people who voted are
> wrong," or "Their choice is
> stupid," or "Their choice must be
> political," or "This is just a
> clique vote," or "Their criteria
> are wrong," or "Max and Keith are
> undeserving." I didn't even vote for
> Max, but I find all such statements or
> implications offensive and ignorant.
You're really saying that all of the above isn't possible? Why in the world wouldn't it be possible? What people (including me) are saying is: There is nothing public, or openly known, about Max Rubin, that would warrant his inclusion in a BJ Hall of Fame, which currently boasts the presence of the likes of Thorp, Griffin, et al. Absolutely nothing.
So, either the "clique" knows something secret about Max that the world minus 60 people doesn't know, or the clique voted from the heart, for its popular host. Either way, it makes little sense. If the former is the case, then it's ridiculous to have a Hall whose members' qualifications can't even be enunciated in public; if the latter, well, what's the point?
Don
but I do. J Morgan, why can't you ever admit that anyone else ever has a valid point when posters get involved in these infrequent online discussions with you. I think this is your weak point. Also, can you PLEASE just tell everyone either where they can get a copy of your book or that they can not so that people will stop asking! It's not like you don't see these posts asking where to find it all the time. Also, what's up with Syph? It's like he's president of the J Morgan fan club or something, get off his jock man!
I would say that the people on this forum are ignorant of the nomination process, criteria and background in the election of Grand Poobah of the local Elk?s lodge also. But then, the local Elk?s lodge wouldn?t widely disseminate a public 'vote.' People were directed to the poll by LVA. I think it has something like 17,000 members.
So why does Max make public his private party? Presumably a need for approbation. But, you cannot direct people to respect someone based on a secret ballot and unknown criteria. And, terming remarks to a public vote with secret criteria ?ignorant? is churlish behavior.
Regards,
norm
> But you should already know this, you do have his book...don`t you?
Actually I don't. If you had read my post (the one posted 25 minutes before you logged on) you could have known that.
Is yours for sale? I'm in the market.
> So, either the "clique" knows
> something secret about Max that the world
> minus 60 people doesn't know, or the clique
> voted from the heart, for its popular host.
> Either way, it makes little sense. If the
> former is the case, then it's ridiculous to
> have a Hall whose members' qualifications
> can't even be enunciated in public.
Don, this is exactly why the "popular vote" count only as one vote. It`s a vote made without all the information available to the voters of the group. This is why so many votes are counting like one simple vote in the balance.
> You're really saying that all of the above
> isn't possible? Why in the world wouldn't
> it be possible?
It's possible, but that doesn't mean that people should assume it's true, especially if those people have few facts.
> What people (including me)
> are saying is: There is nothing public, or
> openly known, about Max Rubin, that would
> warrant his inclusion in a BJ Hall of Fame,
> which currently boasts the presence of the
> likes of Thorp, Griffin, et al. Absolutely
> nothing.
No, if this is how it had been stated from the beginning, perhaps we'd have no disagreement. Allow me to recall just one of the statements that was made by you:
"the two picks (Keith Taft and Max Rubin) would have finished far, far down on my personal ballot. Speaking of them in the same breath as the likes of Julian Braun, Lance Humble, etc., is just plain silly in my mind."
Personally, I think Taft can absolutely be spoken of in the same breath as anyone in the history of the game. Perhaps the next issue of BJF will start enlightening people about Taft, but even in that interview, much is left out.
As for Max, I would have three points:
1. You're right. He's not as big a figure as Thorp and Griffin. That's why he didn't get in last year.
2. The impact of Max's public work is debatable. Even if we concede that Comp City has had little impact, we're left with:
3. In your original statement, there is no qualifier, nothing along the lines of your recent statement, "There is nothing public, or openly known ..." The point in my original post is simple--maybe the voters at the Ball have information that is not public. And if so, why doesn't it make sense for them to vote with that information?
> but I do. J Morgan, why can't you ever admit
> that anyone else ever has a valid point when
> posters get involved in these infrequent
> online discussions with you.
And what, exactly, is the valid point? That Taft and Max don't deserve to be in? Taft I'm not even willing to debate. Re: Max, I'll just say that posters who don't personally know Max are not in a good position to evaluate this issue. Now maybe even if people had the same information that Ball attendees have, they would still feel Max should not have made it, but we'll never know, so there's not much point arguing it.
How about other "valid points" made in this thread:
1. No mention of Uston. Duh, Uston was voted in last year.
2. "What has [Max] done for the science of card counting?" Since when is blackjack synonymous with card counting?
3. Wong is a card counter, not an advantage player. So tell me about Wong's tournament teams with Anthony Curtis. Were they counting cards there?
I will agree that the BHoF criteria have not been made explicit. Nevertheless, I didn't see anyone voting on the Internet begging for direction prior to voting. Likewise at the Ball. Now maybe voters are applying different criteria. So be it. Now some voters may end up disagreeing with the overall selection. Is this such a big deal? It's impossible to satisfy everyone. That's why we vote in the first place.
As for Beyond Counting, I thought it was well known that the book is out of print. I have a few personal copies, but other than that, I don't have any better information on availability than anyone else.
> the local Elk?s lodge wouldn?t
> widely disseminate a public 'vote.' People
> were directed to the poll by LVA. I think it
> has something like 17,000 members.
There may be 17000 "members," but maybe only a few hundred vote. This aggregated vote then counted as a single vote at the Ball. Perhaps you are arguing that the Internet vote should be given more weight, but NO ONE has explicitly made that argument in this thread. You make it sound like the Internet poll was some kind of trick or fraud. It's the same as it was last year--the Internet aggregate counted as a single ballot at the Ball, but last year I didn't hear any whining about the outcome. (I'd agree that maybe the weight of the Internet poll should be increased to two or three ballots, but no more.)
> So why does Max make public his private
> party? Presumably a need for approbation.
Who cares? Before I ever attended the party, I read about it (Cigar Aficionado, I think), and found it very interesting.
> But, you cannot direct people to respect
> someone based on a secret ballot and unknown
> criteria.
What do you mean "secret ballot"? People's votes are secret, yes, but so was the Internet vote. So is Presidential voting in the U.S. Most votes are done with anonymous ballots.
Unknown criteria? I don't think there's much mystery here on criteria. Do you think that voters at the Ball were applying criteria like, "Being drinking buddies with the nominee," "owing money to the nominee," "receiving bribes from the nominee," "attending a swell party at the nominee's house," "thinking the nominee's daughter is cute"? Go ahead and specify some criteria, and I think that there would be general, though not perfect, agreement among voters that these criteria are fine. I think the key difference is not the criteria, but the voters' private information about how nominees satisfy those criteria.
In that regard, why is so much of the discussion focusing on Max, when Taft, too, got virtually no votes on the Internet? Again, there is apparently a lot of private information, because Taft destroyed the competition in voting at the Ball, and Taft was certainly not the party host, nor does Taft have any affiliation with the BHoF.
> And, terming remarks ... ?ignorant?
I'm not saying that any and all remarks on this topic are automatically ignorant. I repeat, for people who do not personally know Taft and Max, to say they are undeserving IS ignorant and rude. It would be more than acceptable to say, "I would not have voted for them," or "I don't understand why they were voted in ahead of Julian Braun," or "Don has helped me with my game much more than Max has." But I haven't read any post stating it this way.
Now maybe
> even if people had the same information that
> Ball attendees have, they would still feel
> Max should not have made it, but we'll never
> know, so there's not much point arguing it.
You continue to allude to this information that none of us have... this entire debate could be put to rest with just the slightest elaboration. We don't need his life story, but relating him to blackjack in any way other than just comps and hosting the ball would help to dispel doubt.
> As for Beyond Counting, I thought it was
> well known that the book is out of print. I
> have a few personal copies, but other than
> that, I don't have any better information on
> availability than anyone else.
I don't suppose there's a second edition or anything in the works?
J Morgan's off-handish off-putting demeanor has often ..put me off (viz. bjfonline boards, RIP) but I beg to differ with the opinions directed against his remarks. Most of them anyway. Here's my two cents and they're not directed personally to anyone in particular (least of all to Don or Norm, both of whom I hold in the highest esteem) :
- A private party is a private party and it can make its own private rules. Those that complain about 'em are usually those that are not invited! (Note that those rules may include the no-rules rule.)
- A private affair, such as the BJBall, can take public dimensions, which doesn't give it any new obligations at all. When that guy from Hollywood announces his 10 Worst Dressed Women list, no one complains about his "rules" (his taste, actually) although a lot of people disagree. Most of the people reading that List, though, will have a good time, which is the point of the whole exercise -- and that goes for the BJHoF too. 'Tain't no Pantheon of Gods, folks.
- Without any prior explicit rules set out in that private affair (with what criteria does one get nom'd, beauty, math, what?) it is to be expected that the process will be denounced by many for its seeming arbitrariness. Which is fine, again, because it is somewhat arbitrary! Such a process depends entirely on the credibility of the judges. Yes, not too unlike a beauty pageant.
- Inside information : J Morgan was dismissive and rude to the posters & players who flock these forums and who complained about the selections, as is his wont. But his point is valid, in the end. The people who attend BJBs are more knowledgeable about BJ than the average player, alright. So, calling the attendees' choice names is akin to dismissing out of hand inside information or insiders' opinion. J Morgan's Microsoft example was perfect. (The SEC would understand and so should Don and Norm!)
- Finally, the weighing of votes. I would speculate that bringing in the internet vote did more harm to the public image of the BJHoF than good. One vote! The millions of internet users count as just one vote! What a disgraceful insult! :-) Hey, even if someone proves it's math'matically sound, the notion of 1000 men=one vote is insulting even to my ears! So perhaps IMHO it'd be better to altogether drop the internet vote, or, at least, give it much more weight, sumthin' like "equal" (net votes = attendees' votes). Not proper weighing maybe but better PR, if Max or Curtis cares enough abt such thing
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks