-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Blackjack Hall of Fame(Max !?)
> Your post is typical of the ignorance that
> exists on these boards. You obviously don't
> understand the selection process for the
> HOF, the accomplishments of the nominees, or
> advanced advantage play.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder a mile long. Spare us the soap box.
Don
-
ET Fan: Actually ...
Counting is a subset of tracking!
ETF
Tracking is a subset of counting.
-
J Morgan: Re: Blackjack Hall of Fame
Let me explain a bit about the BHoF (note: not CCHoF) selection process via the Blackjack Ball. First of all, the Ball is attended by players and players' friends, such as Bob Nersesian and Thea Sankiewicz. Voting for BHoF is done by professional players in attendance. These are people WHO MAKE A LIVING playing casino games, mainly blackjack. Most of the players have made a living FOR YEARS doing this. The simple argument for why the selections don't "make sense" to the average readers of these boards is this: asymmetric information.
Trust me on this one: the gap between some of the pros at the Ball and the average counter is about as great as the gap between the average counter and the ploppy.
Since the voting on Max was close, I won't say much, other than to recommend that those who don't know him personally are foolish to comment on it.
As for Taft, I thought he should have been admitted on the inaugural ballot in 2003. He had nearly twice the votes of the other contenders, despite the fact that he's an independent without any partisan support from any big team.
I can't even convey to people how hardcore this guy is. I'll pluck one example (from an upcoming interview with him in BJF). People talk about counting down a deck in 15 seconds ... Taft could input a deck, 52 cards, rank and suit, in 32 seconds ... with his teeth!
Tafts crews were monster innovators, took down some big scores, had understanding of the game in all aspects, and had heavy influence on the current gambling statutes throughout the U.S.
On top of that, he's a class act in every way.
You'll never see all the details about him or the other nominees on the Internet, so there's not much point debating it. All I can ask is that you take my word for it--Taft is a giant by any measure, and ran away with it.
One last analogy: If you thought Microsoft looked like a great stock buy, and then Bill Gates, 20 other Microsoft executives, and a court stenographer all suddenly sold lots of their stock, would you say, "What idiots! Microsoft is a great stock!" Or would you say, "Hmmmm ..."
(P.S. Don, I didn't make that earlier post, but it's taken care of.)
-
Don Schlesinger: Thanks, but ...
.. I'm still confused about the intent of the HofF.
What did Thorp or Griffin know of earning a living playing the games, or of tracking, sequencing, hole-carding, etc.? Until someone actually writes down what the criteria for admission are, I'd like to assume that they are for a lifetime of contributions to the game of blackjack.
In that regard, passing over the likes of Braun, Revere, and Humble (to not get personal about it!), is just plain foolish.
If, on the other hand, this is about a "club" of world-class players wanting to honor "their own," then the choices are entirely understandable.
Let's get on to more important matters: now that you're home, are you available for proofreading the manuscript of BJA3, which ought to be ready in about 2-3 weeks?? :-)
Happy New Year!
Don
-
Sun Runner: Re: Blackjack Hall of Fame
> The simple argument for why the selections
> don't "make sense" to the average readers of
> these boards is this: asymmetric information.
(I'm sure you are not, but it is difficult to not feel I am being talked down to here.)
I have "asymmetric information" on about everyone that ever picked up a hand of cards. Willingly I admit I am not part of the illuminata. However my ignorant, un-educated, and un-initiated point of view still remains that there are at least now two indivduals who should willingly step aside until, at a minimum, Julian Braun is on the list.
> Since the voting on Max was close, I won't
> say much, other than to recommend that those
> who don't know him personally are foolish to
> comment on it.
(Yes, I'm sure of it, I am being talked down to.)
Foolish or not, I do have a comment. Let's see .. Max Rubin .. Julian Braun .. hmmm .. seems like a no-brainer to me.
I suppose the "foolish" part was inviting the public to comment or vote in the first place, as 90% of us don't know ANY of these guys personally.
As stated earlier, I know neither Braun or Rubin personally, but you are telling me that Rubin's body of work, as it pertains to BJ, exceeds Braun's? Is that what you are saying?
> As for Taft, I thought he should have been
> admitted on the inaugural ballot in 2003. He
> had nearly twice the votes of the other
> contenders, despite the fact that he's an
> independent without any partisan support
> from any big team.
Well, there you go; thanks for the brief moment of clarity. I have no truck with you all choosing Taft. But maybe if Braun had been on a "big team" he could have picked up some "partisan support."
Partisanship; it's a beautiful thing to behold if your a partisan. The un-washed just look on and shake their heads.
Next year, remind me not to waste my time.
SR
-
Sun Runner: Rubin was a "world-class" BJ player?
> If, on the other hand, this is about a
> "club" of world-class players
> wanting to honor "their own," then
> the choices are entirely understandable.
Really?
-
Ouchez: ETF and Don for BJ Hall Of Fame!! *NM*
-
Vinny D: Re: Thanks, but ...
Don,
> In that regard, passing over the likes of
> Braun, Revere, and Humble (to not get
> personal about it!), is just plain foolish.
One of Morgan's votes went to Braun. I would have voted for him also if his numbers were right.
> Let's get on to more important matters: now
> that you're home, are you available for
> proofreading the manuscript of BJA3, which
> ought to be ready in about 2-3 weeks?? :-)
He's out of the country.
> Happy New Year!
> Don
Vinny D
P.S. I don't understand why my earlier replies were not posted. Is this one innocuous enough?
-
Syph: Hmmm ....
All things being unequal...
I`ll side with the guy who was asked to proofread the manuscript of BJA3.
Cheers!
Syph
-
Count of Montecristo
Guest
Count of Montecristo: Re: Blackjack Hall of Fame
If I'm reading this correctly, then Max Rubin would be Kevin Spacey's "Keiser Sozei"(sp?). If that's the case then this truly would be the ultimate deception act but maybe I'm reading too far into the analogy's. I still say Don and Braun were the choices here but I take anything you write very seriously.
> Let me explain a bit about the BHoF (note:
> not CCHoF) selection process via the
> Blackjack Ball. First of all, the Ball is
> attended by players and players' friends,
> such as Bob Nersesian and Thea Sankiewicz.
> Voting for BHoF is done by professional
> players in attendance. These are people WHO
> MAKE A LIVING playing casino games, mainly
> blackjack. Most of the players have made a
> living FOR YEARS doing this. The simple
> argument for why the selections don't
> "make sense" to the average
> readers of these boards is this: asymmetric
> information.
> Trust me on this one: the gap between some
> of the pros at the Ball and the average
> counter is about as great as the gap between
> the average counter and the ploppy.
> Since the voting on Max was close, I won't
> say much, other than to recommend that those
> who don't know him personally are foolish to
> comment on it.
> As for Taft, I thought he should have been
> admitted on the inaugural ballot in 2003. He
> had nearly twice the votes of the other
> contenders, despite the fact that he's an
> independent without any partisan support
> from any big team.
> I can't even convey to people how hardcore
> this guy is. I'll pluck one example (from an
> upcoming interview with him in BJF). People
> talk about counting down a deck in 15
> seconds ... Taft could input a deck, 52
> cards, rank and suit, in 32 seconds ... with
> his teeth!
> Tafts crews were monster innovators, took
> down some big scores, had understanding of
> the game in all aspects, and had heavy
> influence on the current gambling statutes
> throughout the U.S.
> On top of that, he's a class act in every
> way.
> You'll never see all the details about him
> or the other nominees on the Internet, so
> there's not much point debating it. All I
> can ask is that you take my word for
> it--Taft is a giant by any measure, and ran
> away with it.
> One last analogy: If you thought Microsoft
> looked like a great stock buy, and then Bill
> Gates, 20 other Microsoft executives, and a
> court stenographer all suddenly sold lots of
> their stock, would you say, "What
> idiots! Microsoft is a great stock!" Or
> would you say, "Hmmmm ..."
> (P.S. Don, I didn't make that earlier post,
> but it's taken care of.)
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Rubin was a "world-class" BJ player?
> Really?
You misunderstand. Max hosts the party. That's why he's "one of them."
Don
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Thanks, but ...
> P.S. I don't understand why my earlier
> replies were not posted. Is this one
> innocuous enough?
Apparently.
Don
-
Sun Runner: Re: Hmmm ....
> All things being unequal...
> I`ll side with the guy who was asked to
> proofread the manuscript of BJA3.
If you don't mind, I'll side with the guy that wrote BJA3.
Cheers,
SR
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks