john williams: COMPUTERS

[George I.]

I`ve seen a player using somehow his cell phone
during the game.Anyway he was doing the correct decisions,even the betting was according to the count and I have doubts that he was sending messages faster than he was playng ...

[Clarke Cant]

I the old Casino and Sports magazine I wrote how if you are Wonging you might as well flat bet if you consider the sum of all your likely errors in calculating your spread. The first time Don ever attacked me was in a Blackjack Forum reply on this.

If you carefuly read the section he has on the catch 22 he states his suprise that falt betting did so well considering how he once...

I was never named but will be as equally ......

[Don Schlesinger]

> I the old Casino and Sports magazine I
> wrote how if you are Wonging you might as
> well flat bet if you consider the sum of all
> your likely errors in calculating your
> spread. The first time Don ever attacked me
> was in a Blackjack Forum reply on this.

Errors have nothing at all to do with the change in bet spreads. The principle in BJA2 is altogether different. As usual, you take credit for something that is light-years away from what your original premise was. People call this "convenient memory." Yours is the most convenient on earth.

> If you carefuly read the section he has on
> the catch 22 he states his suprise [sic] that > falt [sic] betting did so well considering how > he once...

It's not in that section; it's on p. 283 of Chapter 11, the SCORE article.

> I was never named but will be as equally

Named? I'd say you're losing your mind, but you can't lose something that was never there in the first place!

Don

[Clarke Cant]

Your catch 22 reference to the dust settling with Cacarulo is what I had in mind.

[adhoc]

[George I.]

Mr. Mayor,don`t be bad with ETF ,he makes us to
laugh sometimes and everybody can make mistakes.
Is`n`t true ETF?

[Cyrus]

"It does not pay to try to use a computer in a casino; the laws involved might be beaten, but the fact computers are slower [etc]."

You gotta be fucking kidding, Clarence!..

Is this the kind of advice you're supposed to be handing out? What next, a crash course in doing the time after doing the crime? Give me a break.

[ET Fan]

> Mr. Mayor,don`t be bad with ETF ,he makes
> us to
> laugh sometimes and everybody can make
> mistakes.
> Is`n`t true ETF?

Obviously, the Mayor feels my mistakes are so rare a statistical study was necessary! ;-)

ETF

[Clarke Cant]

Cyrus, remember the Kingdom of Mustang, and get out your charge card for a little surfing on Westlaw.com!

A law generally is unconstitutionally vague if its reach, under an exact reading of the statue involved, extends to common objects and uses of common objects that would be considered legal.

That is a fair summary of, Key Words and Phrases, current online edition, on the entries for "vague," and "vague construction."

The Nevada and Mississipi anti-device laws extend to such absurdities.

QED your chances of beating the device laws, if you can swing and appeal the jurisdiction past casinoland(s), is suprisingly good IMHO.

Does it pay?

Hell no. Your toes are slower than your brain, at least most brains (no that is an unfair crack on you, Cyrus, but you may have others thinking along these lines).

I still wonder about DS claiming he gave this advice 25 years ago. I can claim only 18 years ago, to Paul Keen when he was offered a Casey for free and they were still legal! 1977 DS and Jerry Patterson were still setting up the Blackjack Schools together and DS was getting New York state accreditation. I don't know how early Uston was sharing ANY information about the "computer shoes."

[Cyrus]

"Does it pay? Hell no. Your toes are slower than your brain, at least most brains."

Rather than exhorting others to go ahead and use a computer inside a casino, I'd rather see you do it first and then prodding the flock. That would not only demonstrate the courage of your convictions but also the nimbleness of your toes.

Mine are long gone.

[Clarke Cant]

I am not advocating their use either. I DO say the rf detection is a false issue, and that the actual devices might be further disguised!

I DO say that their prohibition is not as cut and dried as many may think. The host had a series of articles on this in past issues of Forum too that come to the same point.

As a practical issue the challenge would be to make the arguments about such vagueness while knowing they would be shot down in Nevada and Mississipi, and New Jersey courts, where they could be re-introduced later at the federal appelate level. That is tricky!

That would not be worth it all even though the law is strongly on the side of the opinion that all the anit-device laws are unconstitutionally vague.

Despite what you might hear otherwise I tend to be practical. And I would not personaly use a device that slowed my speed of play down.