> To be honest, I didn't suspect you of
> anything, and I apologize for coming out of
> nowhere and blasting you randomly. You were
> saying that a lot of people in the blackjack
> community suspect others of duplicity; I
> don't know anything about that. It's really
> just a personal problem I have: I love
> dismantling non sequiturs and arguments
> based on specious reasoning.

> I understand now that what you were saying
> made perfect sense to you, but the
> progression of your responses wasn't making
> sense to me, and I'm sure it wasn't making
> sense to most anyone else either. Which is
> probably why you got blasted by Don. Let me
> show you how it looked from the perspective
> of someone who is not inside your head:

> 1) gazman: "Question: is an L2 much
> better than an L1?"
> 2) SSR: "No; you only get 3 extra
> correct plays per 100"
> 3) Myooligan: "Don't compare that;
> compare SCOREs to get the real answer."
> 4) SSR: "OK, I compared winrates in
> CVCX, and Hi-Lo eeked out a better one than
> Zen."

> Now, for anybody reading your responses,
> this is where things went awry. You posted
> stats that demonstrated that the L2 Zen
> performed poorer than the L1 Hi-Lo, so at
> this point, it seems like you're response to
> the question "is an L2 better than an
> L1" is that for some DD games, an L2
> will underperform an L1. NOWHERE in that
> post did you mention that that was true only
> if you did the comparison with a fixed,
> non-optimal bet spread, and nobody even
> ASKED if an L1 outperforms an L2 when you do
> such an improper comparison.

> So it is assinine to think that anyone could
> magically figure out the comparison you were
> actually trying to make. If your response to
> Myooligan had been "OK, Zen SCOREs are
> clearly better than Hi-Lo SCOREs; BUT,
> SCOREs assume you are playing with an
> optimal bet spread, and since you generally
> can't do that, situations can arise in which
> Hi-Lo will outperform Zen," then what
> you were saying would have been totally
> clear. But instead, you cited situations in
> which Hi-Lo outperforms Zen with no preface
> at all, and you were making absolutely no
> sense to anyone.

> Now:

> 5) Don: "No, that's incorrect; SCOREs
> show that Zen is superior."
> 6) SSR: "When I post numbers I _always_
> post numbers that reflect what I am
> playing."

> So now do you understand why everyone, Don
> included, was scratchin their head about
> your post? Previous to post 6), you never
> mentioned that you were doing an improper
> comparison.

Note that I didn't consider this an "improper comparison" myself. In other contexts I would not begin to argue the point however. I probably go too far to the empirical side of things, that is to say, if for a circumstance I am interested in, something works, then I will say that it works, and do my best to describe the circumstances. whether it works in all other circumstances I rarely bother about. There are so many variations to this silly BJ game, that I won't try to learn the best betting ramp and spread and min bet size for every possible game, because there are a huge number of variables that can change, penetration being a good example.

I've been playing BJ a long time. I've been a computing professional for about 7 times longer. And I certainly realize that there is a lot that I have yet to learn about communication with other BJ players. Probably my biggest shortcoming here is that I have now been playing pretty successfully for a little over five years now, starting the clock at my first casino visit after several months of preparation and practice with hi-lo. Until maybe 3-4 months ago I had no idea there were actually forums where card counters / APs met to discuss things, as it all seemed like something that would be pretty ridiculous to discuss where it can be seen by all, and traced to your desktop very easily. But here we are, and while I certainly understand the game, and my counting system, about as well as anyone understands their system, it is pretty apparent that I have a ways to go in picking up on the various technical terms that are used by many, but probably not understood very well by most. I sort of "joined the party pretty late" and as a result, words and terms usually end up meaning something different than they did to my circle of friends that learned to count among other things...

All I can say is that I'll do my best to get up to speed on the terminology, and on "current practice and meaning" of various topics, so that my word XXX means the same as what it means to you and others...

Remember that this is a "beginner's" page. I certainly consider myself a "beginner". Probably not in actual card counting skill, but certainly in talking to other BJ players that do not know me personally. Hence a wide "communication gap" at times.

> And see, man, that's how a lot of your posts
> tend to be. They probably make a lot of
> sense to you, but to most others, it's just
> a lot of circumlocution and subject
> switching. And the way that you went awry in
> this thread is the way that you've gone awry
> in many other threads as well. If you didn't
> continuously come so STRONG in your posts,
> it probably wouldn't be such an issue, but
> you do, so.

I certainly didn't realize that I "came on strong". It was never an intention. I really came here to learn whatever might be exposed (if anything) and at the same time, offer advice to those that appeared to be able to use the advice I have to give...

> Hey, maybe you don't realize that you're
> doing it, but that's where feedback comes
> in, right?

yep... don't mind feedback. Anyone in academia that publishes papers, comes up for promotion and tenure decisions, and applies for federal grand funds has to be used to feedback, positive and negative. Probably the important point is what one _does_ with that feedback.

My goal is to become as good at counting as I am at computing. However, there are some things I don't believe I have to master in order to be successful at counting, based on past experience. CVCX has given me a tool to use to figure out how to beat a particular game, without having to resort to books, to SCORE, or anything else, which fits me just fine here. I use "books" every day. My office is full of them (probably about 1500 books on shelves here). BJ is a recreational thing I do to get away with my wife, but it is also something profitable at the same time. I hope to keep it in that limited perspective. And to get along with folks here if at all possible, or if not, to continue playing as I have for the past five years anyway, since it has been working.