JSTAT: Why blackjack card counters lose

[JSTAT]

> Are you suggesting that, simply because Braun made a
> mistake 30 years ago (and subsequently acknowledged
> and corrected it), all of the thousands of
> mathematicians, computer programmers, ad infinitum
> have continued to make the same mistake, and nobody
> has ever noticed?

Julian Braun did not disclose the High-Low error in "Beat The Dealer" until 1980 in his book. Stanford Wong's book "Professional Blackjack" in 1975 should have disclosed Braun's error with his analysis of the High-Low Count through his independent calculations. The overlay error of 7,8,9's was unknown to the detriment of counters. What was the leakage of the counters advantage in the interim?

[WRX]

Better yet, have some well-known authorities, including some who have posted in this thread, sign off on it.

That way, any time JSTAT posts material that he's put up so many times in the past, anyone could respond by simply pointing to the FAQ. I don't wish to insult anyone, but when it comes to these debates with JSTAT, there's nothing new under the sun. Contributors to BJ Web sites have been through this over and over again. Many have spent untold amounts of time responding patiently to repetitive postings, out of concern that they could be misleading to newcomers. Fine, JSTAT is entitled to his opinions, but some of his opinions are contrary to generally-accepted mathematical truth. Why take the time to keep drafting new messages responding to his posts?

[Norm Wattenberger]

WHY? These were completely different studies. They have NOTHING to do with each other. And who cares what the "leakage" was back then. We used Revere's counts in the 70s. Why do you continue to focus on an error corrected three decades ago that has NOTHING to do with ANY of the books that people read? You continue to make false claims about HiLo based on numbers that NOBODY uses.

> Julian Braun did not disclose the High-Low error in
> "Beat The Dealer" until 1980 in his book.
> Stanford Wong's book "Professional
> Blackjack" in 1975 should have disclosed Braun's
> error with his analysis of the High-Low Count through
> his independent calculations. The overlay error of
> 7,8,9's was unknown to the detriment of counters. What
> was the leakage of the counters advantage in the
> interim?

[Parker]

> Julian Braun did not disclose the High-Low error in
> "Beat The Dealer" until 1980 in his book.
> Stanford Wong's book "Professional
> Blackjack" in 1975 should have disclosed Braun's
> error with his analysis of the High-Low Count through
> his independent calculations. The overlay error of
> 7,8,9's was unknown to the detriment of counters. What
> was the leakage of the counters advantage in the
> interim?

WHO CARES?

[Parker]

Anyone computer-literate enough to use a search engine will quickly discover two things:

1. There is a HUGE amount of information regarding blackjack on the Internet.

2. A large portion of it is garbage.

This is not confined to cyberspace, as a visit to any large bookstore will confirm.

Anyone who ventures into a casino, cash in hand, without doing the research deserves whatever happens to them.

While the purpose of The Parker Pages is to inform (and maybe even entertain) regarding mathematically sound principles of advantage play, we cannot protect newbies from every screwball with a computer and an Internet connection.

[WRX]

...this is one site, among a handful, with good information and regular denizens who work to filter out the garbage.

[Parker]

> ...this is one site, among a handful, with good
> information and regular denizens who work to filter
> out the garbage.

Thank you. We do try.

[OldCootFromVA]

You message reminds me of an old saying:

"He who says, 'It can't be done,' is REALLY saying, 'I don't know how to do it.'"

IOW, just because YOU failed at it doesn't mean the rest of us are losers. Just you!

[PunkEye]

Trolls like to get in your face, that's all. Especially the abusive kind.

[mikmuk]

> One person, 30 years ago, made an error, once (stop
> the presses). Why on Earth would you accuse every
> person after that of making the same mistake?
> Seriously, your assumptions and your conclusions are
> incorrect and have been shown to be incorrect
> innumerable times by numerous people. Yet, you
> continue to post the exact same words over and over
> and over with NEVER an answer to the responses other
> than the exact same words. It's boring.

I use hi low, but always give 7s 1/2 point and 9s -1/2 point, assuming it increases my advantage. Am I right in my intuition? I believe it also helps to confuse tracking of my play by the casino.

[drumz1]

Just curious, Don -

Is there the slightest chance that JSTAT just might be Clark Cante?

Nah, it couldn't be.....could it?

:-)

Regards,
drumz1

P.S. Whenever I see a post that has the handle "JSTAT" under the subject line, I always avoid opening it. If you don't stir it, it won't stink.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Then you aren't using HiLo. Yes, that's a better count. But, it's a level II count.

> I use hi low, but always give 7s 1/2 point and 9s -1/2
> point, assuming it increases my advantage. Am I right
> in my intuition? I believe it also helps to confuse
> tracking of my play by the casino.