flip: GTB Speed Count

[Parker]

> BTW, the class I took Al Rogers was there
> and he thought it was great and simple. His
> post is on their site as well.

He said nothing of the sort. Here is the entire "review" verbatum from the GTB website:

"I took the Golden Touch Blackjack course in Las Vegas last weekend, and was pleasantly surprised. It was held at a non-casino location, but with regulation tables, chips, and cards for the students to practice with. The instructors did a thorough job with their presentation, and there was plenty of time for practice. The instructors were patient and informative, and I believe that all the students felt they got more than their money's worth."

Now, let's parse this a bit. He was "pleasantly surprised." He does not say what caused him to be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps he thought the instructors would not show up.

Or, perhaps he found it surprising that they had "regulation tables, chips, and cards for the students to practice with." I don't find this surprising at all. After collecting nearly a grand apiece from the students, the least that they could do is rent some equipment.

"The instructors did a thorough job with their presentation, and there was plenty of time for practice." In other words, they didn't have enough material to fill up a two day seminar.

"The instructors were patient and informative". Note that his comments pertain strictly to the instructors themselves, not the subject matter presented. A few years ago I attended a seminar on making money in the stock market. The instructors there were also "patient and informative." However, the system they were pitching was worthless.

"I believe that all the students felt they got more than their money's worth." I'm sure that they did. This merely indicates that the scamme-, I mean, instructors, did a good job of selling them the system. Note there is not even a hint here, or anywhere in the "review" of what Al's own opinion of the system might be.

I must admit that I am impressed. Al is truly a master of tact and diplomacy. This "review" manages to leave the reader with a warm fuzzy feeling while saying absolutely nothing. Al's talents are being wasted at BJ21 -- he should be in politics.

He's got my vote.

[Sun Runner]

> "I believe that all the students felt
> they got more than their money's
> worth." I'm sure that they did. This
> merely indicates that the scamme-, I mean,
> instructors, did a good job of selling them
> the system.

Actually Dogger was the scamme, the instructors were the scammer -as you say.

But very well written and insiteful. I started to pen several efforts to Dogger along these lines and gave up -frustrated I was not getting the point across.

Excellent job Parker.

On a related matter .. Dogger .. give it up dude. To even think about questioning the background, skill sets, and reputation of Don and Norm, as it relates to BJ, tells me you simply don't have a clue about BJ. These guys have paid the dues, burned the midnight oil, and paved the way for years and years. Their work and results have been tested, analyzed, and refined by every math guy that ever thought he knew something about BJ. Dr Catlin on the other hand, while he may be a fine mathmatician is a virtual unknown in the BJ universe.

My wifes OBGYN wants to do your next heart surgery; you OK with that? No, I wouldn't be either.

Plus, he is -no doubt -on the payroll bud!

Which gets me to Shakleford. Why does a guy with his credibility make a lame endorsement like that?

Nobody likes to say it, but, money? Maybe.

I'm hoping he just owed a friend a favor and stayed up all weekend typing out an empty endorsement that was meaningless and he hoped people could see through.

Who knows.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I don't believe Mike Shackleford was paid. I think he was given the package and said that it would work. And I'm sure SC does "work." I just don't think it works nearly as well as claimed and the ads are highly misleading since they compare it with HiLo with no indexes and a non-optimal betting ramp.

[Dogger]

No sweeping under the rug. Please Don, I don't know you and you don't know me, please don't make assumptions that I have no idea what it takes to create a sim like you are describing. I don't need to proclaim what I know or what degrees I have or my status. These types of slanderous remarks just set me straight. As I said I came to this site and gained some knowledge and thought that the posters were all people that wanted to learn more. I now have come to the conclusion that it is a bunch of "masters" that will make assumptions not based on fact or knowledge of who they are speaking to.

In the words of my daughter's favorite TV show..."Dogger Out"... of here

> Minor point you seem willing to sweep under
> the rug.

> You'd have to ask him. He is accessible
> through his Web site. Why don't you write to
> him? "Endorsing" can mean that he
> said the SC can create an edge for the BJ
> player. I'm sure it does. We're not arguing
> that. Rather, we're arguing its power,
> relative to, say, Hi-Lo, and the accuracy of
> the claims made in the promotional
> literature.

> Not likely.

> You're entitled to your opinion. What you
> really need to ask yourself is why we would
> bother with SC at all? We have no axe to
> grind; we AREN'T system sellers! But, we
> disseminate information, and we protect the
> blackjack consumer whenever we can. That you
> don't wish to be protected is your business,
> but surely you aren't going to tell us not
> to warn potential customers that the power
> of the SC probably isn't what the claims say
> it is.

> I don't know of any blackjack
> "authority" who verified their
> work. Dr. Caitlin is completely unknown to
> me. He has no reputation whatsoever in the
> field of blackjack. And, you can't even
> begin to imagine how tricky it is to
> simulate properly. Norm already gave you
> Caitlin's background. He's a pal of Frank
> Scoblete, one of the principles in GT. Is
> that what you call seeking out
> "independent verification" for a
> system???

> You really don't understand. I wish you
> well. I wish Henry well. He's a decent man.
> I already said once: I hope you enjoy your
> newfound knowledge. However, when it comes
> to assessing the value and relative power of
> a blackjack system, you're in WAY, WAY over
> your head when you tell us here what we do
> or do not know.

> Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

You said the Wizard ran sims. If you post something incorrect, don't be surprised when you are corrected. It would make no sense for us to stand mute when someone posts inaccurate statements. As for your statement "a bunch of "masters" make assumptions not based on fact or knowledge of who they are speaking to;" We are not "assuming" anything about your BJ knowledge. You stated in your first post that you are new to all this. Our only assumption was that you were being truthful.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I don't need to proclaim what I
> know or what degrees I have or my status.

You don't need to, but you did just that when you wrote:

"I was never a counter and started to search the web to find sites where I could learn easily. I came across this site and have been reading it kind of regularly."

Pardon me for inferring from your own words that you were a beginner, and not a seasoned pro with vast simulation understanding and capabilities.

Why do I get the feeling that someone is being terribly disingenuous in this discussion, and it isn't me!

Don

[Wizard of Odds]

Let me clear up a few things here. First, I was not paid for my review of GTB. Second, my remarks are better described as a review than an endorsement. Third, I indeed did NOT do any independent testing. I stand by what I said that GTB is a simplified counting strategy that bridges that gap between the basic strategy and a rigorous strategy like the hi/low. I can?t state what is unique about GTB but I suspect that all off the shelf simulators would not support it. It should not be overlooked that the cost of GTB of course includes a 2-day seminar. I know that actuary exam preparation seminars tend to run about $150-$200 per day, to make a point of comparison.

When I started counting in the late eighties I went entirely off of Playing Blackjack as a Business by Lawrence Revere and his point-count system. I had no one to ask questions to and was out there completely on my own. I also later regressed to the easier hi/low, with no side count of aces. Although I did fine with Revere there are some aspects to counting that are hard to put in writing that are better suited to classroom discussion. Had GTB been available in 1986 I probably would have gained a lot from it, although the cost of the course would have been prohibitive.

Based on my own experience and watching friends take the leap to card counting I think most people would be best served by a simple counting system, at least at first. Whether or not the course is worth the money is a matter of the bankroll of the student in question. For a red chip player the cost would take a long time to recoup at the tables. However for a green chip player it may be worth it. I never said GTB is right for everybody. My review intended to better explain what GTB is and whom it would benefit the most from it. I hope that clears things up a bit.

GTB review

[paranoid android]

> My
> result was that the players edge per game
> was 1.014% and was 0.33% per unit wagered;
> this was based on 1 billion hands."

What does this mean? 1.014% per game but .33% per unit wagered? What does "per game" mean?

[Norm Wattenberger]

Second, my remarks are better described as a review than an endorsement.

That's how I took them. The problem is your comments are being taken as an endorsement. Very strongly in one post on this page. And they are put together with claims that make no sense. Some of the claims are almost funny. For example a user saying it is "easier to learn and master than basic strategy."

best regards,
norm

[Don Schlesinger]

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in, Mike. The original posters will, of course, see that your remarks are completely consistent with what Norm and I have been saying.

I'd like to make a final statement, and then maybe we can put this whole thing to rest. From the moment Henry and I spoke for the first of several conversations on the nature of the SC, Viktor, Norm, Cacarulo, and I speculated as to how it might work, and we have several theories, all of which run along the same lines. There really isn't any great mystery here. And, the point is this: It's absolutely clear that a player can obtain some edge over the house using this approach.

The debate -- at least from our point of view -- has always been with respect to just how much of an edge is attainable, and how that advantage stacks up against the eternal benchmark counting system, which is Hi-Lo. We contended, from the start, and continue to contend, that the claims in the GT literature were simply not accurate and that the sims were not carried out in the rigorous manner that we are accustomed to. Doing optimal-bet ramps and deriving SCOREs is a fairly new process, and not every Tom, Dick, and Harry, whether a Ph.D. in math or otherwise, is familiar with the methodology. So, we offered to carry out the work for Henry et al., but were turned down.

We were left with no choice -- and only when we were specifically asked about SC -- but to voice our genuine concerns.

Finally, and this is something that only each individual can determine for himself or herself, one must decide if spending $895 to learn a system that is, in our opinion, vastly inferior to Hi-Lo or K-O, is worth the money. The GT instructors' contention is that the seminar can turn losers into winners and will allow people for whom traditional counting is too much of a chore to at least play with some edge. If they had stuck to that approach, instead of making the ill-advised (and surely erroneous) comparisons to Hi-Lo, they would be on much firmer ground, in my opinion.

I think I've pretty much exhausted what there is to say on the topic and hope that we can move on.

Don

[Sun Runner]

> You can go to their website
> www.goldentouchblackjack.com

Sorry, my bad. I took from your intial posts that MS had run simulations; you referred to them several time.

I had already read the 'evaluation' you refer to above, months ago. You were so insistent that he had run simulations I thought that new information might have been available.

Apparently not.