NEW James Grosjean article

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#1
The current Issue of ultra glossy magazine - "Cigar Afficianado" (April 2009) has a good article on James Grosjean [$5.95] with pictures of him, heavily disguised

The article is well written and entertaining if very short.

The article describes his education, talks about "Beyond Counting", and rants reverentially about how much money he wins.

Needless to say, for anyone who has ever read "B.C." there is a lot of talk about advantage play in non-blackjack "carnival" games,
ALL dependent upon "spooking" and "front-loading" dealers.

That is simply because Grosjean depends on being able to find very sloppy dealers who let you glimpse their cards. His book is focused upon that.
For those who do not want to search the world for sloppy dealer his book has precious little to offer.

Yes, I have read it. I sold my copy at a handsome profit, long ago.


 

Brock Windsor

Well-Known Member
#2
FLASH1296 said:
...
Needless to say, for anyone who has ever read "B.C." there is a lot of talk about advantage play in non-blackjack "carnival" games,
ALL dependent upon "spooking" and "front-loading" dealers....

/COLOR]

There are other legal and illegal ways to get card info. Sequencing, edge sorting, and marked card play come to mind. These require weaker 'sloppy' house procedures, not necessarily 'sloppy' dealers.
BW
 

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#3
Slander

FLASH1296 said:
The current Issue of ultra glossy magazine - "Cigar Afficianado" (April 2009) has a good article on James Grosjean [$5.95] with pictures of him, heavily disguised

The article is well written and entertaining if very short.

The article describes his education, talks about "Beyond Counting", and rants reverentially about how much money he wins.

Needless to say, for anyone who has ever read "B.C." there is a lot of talk about advantage play in non-blackjack "carnival" games,
ALL dependent upon "spooking" and "front-loading" dealers.

That is simply because Grosjean depends on being able to find very sloppy dealers who let you glimpse their cards. His book is focused upon that.
For those who do not want to search the world for sloppy dealer his book has precious little to offer.

Yes, I have read it. I sold my copy at a handsome profit, long ago.


Pure Slander

According to BC - Spook 1.verb To spot cards from a distance (often behind the dealer) and signal a player at the table. Spooking is probably illegal. 2. Noun A person who spots cards in such a manner.

Are you probably calling all holecarders cheats? Please quote where Grosjean says he was spooking or that to see holecards you have to spook.

Maybe you should buy it again and read it again or are you just like Grosjean and like to brag about your profit?

All are not dependent on spooking or front loading. NONE infact are dependent on spooking. Griffin Agency went out of business for libel and here is a card-counter who is calling out another legal AP from depending on cheating. I think Grosjean views these posts and such libel could be dangerous for those stating these things. There are many ways to beat these games from gathering information from many sources. None that I know of have ever been deemed illegal.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#4
This needs to stop.

You said: "There are many ways to beat these games from gathering information from many sources. None that I know of have ever been deemed illegal."

Elsewhere I have pointed out that I am neither slandering nor libeling anyone. Nor have I ever stated or even implied that Grosjean is a cheat.

Now you are wasting time, and embarrassing yourself, by arguing issues of semantics re: spooking.

If you feel that gaining an advantage by any (legal) means is ethical, than that is what you feel. We each make daily decisions as to what is moral, ethical, appropriate, civilized, rational, preferred, advantageous, etc.

You can depend on legal vs. illegal distinctions to be your ethical roadmap, and who am I to comment upon your philosophically shallow approach ?

Would you steal if you knew that you could get away with it? Would you swindle someone out of their money if you found a "loophole" that prevented you from being prosecuted.

You stated: "... and here is a card-counter who is calling out another legal AP from depending on cheating." Apparently it does not embarrass you to repeat your claim that i have said that J.G. is a cheat without your being able to show where I said such. Incidentally, your making clearly false and unsubstantiated claims such as this are committing libel, as your sole purpose is that of "defaming" me. Do you generally go through your days making stuff up as you go along ?

At no time did I EVER claim that James Grosjean is a cheat. As the article points out, J.G. takes extraordinary measures to prevent even giving such an appearance.

You said: "I think Grosjean views these posts and such libel could be dangerous for those stating these things."

I respect and admire J.G. as a talented gaming mathematician and I would, without a moment's hesitation, defend his right to put his money at risk as he deems appropriate. I imagine that i would like him personally as well.

So, book reviewers or educators, (in your world), cannot state their opinions? After all, you wish to suppress my posts. Freedom of Speech, the absolute bedrock of our republic, is apparently not a concept that you embrace.

Blackjack is a game that is offered to the public with stated rules and procedures. There are issues of ethics that can be debated and discussed ad infinitum. I do NOT hold that my views and beliefs are anything more than that. We are all free to do as we will, within the parameters set by law. Personally, I feel that there are finer levels of discrimination when it comes to knowing "right from wrong". MY position is best illustrated by MY belief that sharing information via signals, etc. is unethical. I hold that a "team" playing off of a shared bankroll is absolutely ethical, as well as highly recommended. Blackjack is not a team sport. The greedy bastards who operate casinos do not offer games to "teams" of 2 or more people; the games are designed to be played individually. Imagining that you are an altruistic Robin Hood who justifies doing as he will because his victim is a villain is a childish self-indulgence.

 

Bojack1

Well-Known Member
#5
The greedy bastards who operate casinos do not offer games to "teams" of 2 or more people; the games are designed to be played individually. Imagining that you are an altruistic Robin Hood who justifies doing as he will because his victim is a villain is a childish self-indulgence.


I find it humurous when some think the moral high ground starts with explaining what the casino expects from the players of their games. You know damn well that a casino does not offer games with an advantage either. If you secretly take the advantage away knowing full well the casino frowns upon in it, to the point you will not be allowed to play if caught doing it, you are as guilty as any you accuse of having a moral or ethical shortcoming. If how you play the game cannot be done openly and honestly in front of those offering the game, you have no right to stand in judgement of those who play for legal advantages as well, even if they are different from yours. There is no such thing as being a little immoral or unethical. If you choose to stand on a soapbox and claim your ethical standard to be higher than anothers, first off prepare to be judged, as well as understand, you are either ethical or you're not. Compartmental rationalization of it is irrational thinking.

I personally have no moral or ethical problem with any kind of legal advantage play. So in turn I can say my ethics are intact as I do not judge those as being immoral while I myself commit similar acts of dishonesty to those that offer the game. Me as a team player, and you as a solo player are both flat out lying to the casino in the fact that we secretly choose not to play by their rules, and in turn take the advantage away from them and give it to ourselves. You damn sure know the casino does not offer blackjack to be played that way either. You can rationalize any way you want, but thats the bottomline. Your way of thinking leaves it mighty drafty in your glass house.

As far as the Robin Hood reference, I didn't see anyone referring to such a way of thinking here. Just the same, my take on that is you're right. I'll take it a step further, I don't care what the "evil" casino does to those poor suckers wasting their money. I don't play to avenge, or for revenge. I play for money and couldn't care less about the casino or those who contribute to its riches. I have no personal ties to those involved in the daily activities of the casino. To me its just a job that needs to get done, win or lose. And I will not judge morally or ethically those doing this same job even if its done in a matter different than mine, as long as its legal.
 

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#6
FLASH1296 said:
Needless to say, for anyone who has ever read "B.C." there is a lot of talk about advantage play in non-blackjack "carnival" games,
ALL dependent upon "spooking" and "front-loading" dealers.
You might like Grosjean but I don't think Grosjean will like you. Flash, in this sentence you are calling any advantage Grosjean is gaining is from spooking or front loading which is completly erroneous. Spooking is cheating. The only reason is that it is probably illegal is because some jurisdicitons have no decision on it.

If you can explain how holecarding is spooking please. It may be semantics but you seem to treat them as synonyms. I often play solo while playing holecards. I have also played in teams. If you don't understand holecarding please come out and say so as it will make alot more sense than your post.

A hole card is there for all to see, just like the cards on a table are there for all to count. If a holecard is exposed to you, do you look away? A casino will kick you out for counting before they will kick you out for holecarding as offering visible holecards is the casino's fault. Thinking that card counting is noble and righteous is fine. But don't label holecarders spooks. Spooking is illegal and holecarding is not. Calling all holecarders spooks because some are is the same as saying all card counters are cheats because some use devices to count.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#7
Martin Gayle said:
A hole card is there for all to see, just like the cards on a table are there for all to count.
I don't want to get into a large argument or take either side. But, do you believe this? Do you believe that hole-carders innocently sit there like Poker players and accidentally see the opponents card? How often have you seen this happen and can you translate that into the fact that people make their living in this manner? As for how is hole-carding like spooking, think of the mechanics. The point of spooking is to have eyes where they would not normally be expected to be. Now, if a hole-carder leans back in his chair so far that he is about to tip over, are his eyes where they are expected to be?

I am just saying that the question is not as obvious as it may seem.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#8
QFIT is correct and informative, for those novices who are naive about how these advantages are gained.

It completely escaped me that most of the posters here have never thoroughly thought this through.

"Reflective Devices" worn like pinky rings, are almost as popular "devices" as highly polished flat chrome cigarette lighters, like the old fashioned ZIPPO lighters, used to be.

If caught with a small sliver of a mirror taped into the inner part of your hand or wrist one assumes the risk of being arrested for use of a "cheating device."

Note: I never said or implied that J.G. has ever cheated.

 
#9
QFIT said:
I don't want to get into a large argument or take either side. But, do you believe this? Do you believe that hole-carders innocently sit there like Poker players and accidentally see the opponents card? How often have you seen this happen and can you translate that into the fact that people make their living in this manner? As for how is hole-carding like spooking, think of the mechanics. The point of spooking is to have eyes where they would not normally be expected to be. Now, if a hole-carder leans back in his chair so far that he is about to tip over, are his eyes where they are expected to be?

I am just saying that the question is not as obvious as it may seem.
Blowing on cards, hitting the table or shoe, flicking a lammer back to the dealer to knock his hole card around, digging around in the shoe with the cut card to get looks at cards. I've done all of that. It's borderline legal, and I don't care as long as I don't get caught.

Regarding your question about where a player's eyes are supposed to be, my answer is "yes." The casino's procedures should expect a player's eyes to be any place a player can legally be in the casino. A 8' giant, a midget or a person in a wheelchair all could potentially be playing that game.
 

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
#10
A correctly trained dealer can deal the game without exposing the hole card to anyone at the table, no matter how hard they try. I don't see how choosing to play at tables with poorly trained and supervised dealers is an ethical transgression.
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#12
How it is really gained legally

FLASH1296 said:
QFIT is correct and informative, for those novices who are naive about how these advantages are gained.

It completely escaped me that most of the posters here have never thoroughly thought this through.

"Reflective Devices" worn like pinky rings, are almost as popular "devices" as highly polished flat chrome cigarette lighters, like the old fashioned ZIPPO lighters, used to be.

If caught with a small sliver of a mirror taped into the inner part of your hand or wrist one assumes the risk of being arrested for use of a "cheating device."

Note: I never said or implied that J.G. has ever cheated.


Flash
The mention of reflective devices is bringing the holecarding thing to a different level and though you may your ethics about holecarding as a whole, I feel this comment is completely unfair and wildly biased.
I hole card and would never use a shinner or anything similar.
The dealer who reveals their holdcard more often than not, only does this in certain circumstances and it is no secret, as it has been written about in books before.

Here is an example where I know of a couple of dealers where I can get a view. These dealers never reveal anything if you are playing heads up, but with both of them if you sat at second base and there is a player at third base, you get a view more than 50% of the time. The only ethics question (in my mind here) is am I ethically wrong if I station a partner at third base to get this view? If there is a player there already, there is no ethical question in my mind.

The mention of shinners is again, I think an unfair example taking holecarding into something else, something completely illegal.

ihate17
 

Guynoire

Well-Known Member
#13
I agree with Flash and also have a hard time ethically distinguishing the AP from the cheat. It's kinda like the distinction between a con-man and a thief, one might use legal or semi-legal means but if they both have the same intention and the same outcome it's hard to see a difference. Obviously, there's a legal distinction, one will be convicted while the other released but that's largely irrelevant to the ethical question.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#14
Flash - i don't post here very often these days and you've turned up since i stopped, but i have read a good number of your posts and this one i have to comment on.
Firstly,

Needless to say, for anyone who has ever read "B.C." there is a lot of talk about advantage play in non-blackjack "carnival" games,
ALL dependent upon "spooking" and "front-loading" dealers.
why are you using the word "ALL" in capitals if you don't intend to at least imply that some of the advantages that Grosjean et al gain is through the fairly clear cut illegal method of spooking? Your implication with this post is clear for all to see so at least have the decensey to take ownership of the statements you make.
Posting a review of a book is one thing - and i know that ECAA is being discussed frequently at the moment - but we all get it, you think this book is overpriced and of little use. That's great, but the way you're going on about this is beginning to sound a little fanatical.
I agree that this book is of little use to the vast majority here. Gambling is an activity that has heavy investments of ego. Players - especially males - seem to think that they are proving themselves by winning and that losing is a loss of face. AP's by extension are worse. They already have themselves on a pedestal above the average player, as they've "mastered" a winning technique and this inflated ego in an already ego driven activity means that they have further to fall in admitting any weakness. Many exaggerate there success, skills or simply their experiences in the casino. Many live on the dream of what they could do - rather than the reality of what they will actually manage. For most people buying this book is simply a vicarious look into the life of someone who's actually doing something that they wish they were. And that's no sin. It provides a daydream away from the hum-drum of life. Escapism of you will. For a very small few here it will be more than that.
And the same is true about message boards discussing AP. For most of the people here, AP is a hobby. Something to make them feel a little special and it may even make them a little money, or at least remove the guilt that comes with the essentially enjoyable pass time of gambling. Very few people that are making really money from beating casinos post online regularly, simply due to the fact that those who are making the money are actually out making the money rather than reading and posting online. Certainly that's been my experience and my withdrawal for the online community coincided with starting to make a decent sum from AP.
As to ethics - there's little to discuss. We - none of us - operate in a particularly ethical business. The gambling industry has always been greedy and manipulative and has its roots in organised crime, even before Vegas became an entity.
Gambling is not an ethical or socially responsible practice. It risks money that could be constructively put to use elsewhere, but that's the nature of western society - we have so much that we have excess to sink into frivolous activities.
AP of any kind creates no viable products and provides no viable services so can't be construed in any way as a socially driven practice or morally righteous activity and it exists as a facet or consequence of an industry that is not ethical or socially responsible. That's not to say it is unethical to win at a competitive game - but making money solely by beating a weakness in a game can't be considered ethical either. You are not supporting or advancing the human race with this activity.
Off of ethics and back to the blood and guts of the issue
HC'ing is not done with reflective devices of any kind and the fact that you imply that HC'ers operate that way shows your ignorance of the topic. It involves finding a position whilst playing at a table, wherein a dealer's sloppy practice or a casino's sloppy procedure exposes information. That's there issue, not yours. Anyone who uses any kind of device to get that information has moved from being a HC to being a cheat and your continued implication that spooking and shining have anything to do with HC'ing is simply erroneous.
QFIT - i have to disagree with you regarding the information being available to everyone. To use a crass example, for bird spotters certain species are very rare and unusual and even if you are in the right location if you don't know what you are looking for, you may never see them. That doesn't mean that they are not there. Anyone who knows where to look will see them. The information is available to anyone who is prepared to think and take their time.
You presented an extreme example with someone hanging off their chair to see the card - in any real situation you wouldn't get away with that for long. I'm not going to claim that i'm an expert HC'er but i have played and will offer a counter example of the opposite extreme - last time i had a dealer exposing a hole card so blatantly that the entire table could see it - confirmed by 2 team mates sitting at the same table - but the other players didn't seem to pay any attention, so they were oblivious to their advantage. Just because they didn't know - or think - to look doesn't mean the information wasn't there for them. Even if the advantage is seat specific anyone who sits in that seat - AP or not - has the information available to them. HC'er simply train themselves to look for that advantage in the same way that counters train themselves to keep a ratio of high to low cards to identify their advantage.

RJT
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#15
RJT said:
You presented an extreme example with someone hanging off their chair to see the card - in any real situation you wouldn't get away with that for long.
Ahh, yes they don't get away with it for long. But do you know that this is an "extreme" example for those that make their living HCing?
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#16
QFIT said:
Ahh, yes they don't get away with it for long. But do you know that this is an "extreme" example for those that make their living HCing?
Oh i'm very confident that there have been far more blatent scenarios, but that isn't what would be considered day to day practice - the same can be said about my example. The realities - as i've discussed with a few people who have done a deal of HC'ing - seem to lie in between. You play agressively and burn out dealers quickly, but you still take some care not to burn what doesn't need to burn. Winning any sizable sum and hanging off your seat is a sure way to kill off a nice opportunity.

RJT.
 

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#17
Ok I'm Convinced

FLASH1296 said:


It completely escaped me that most of the posters here have never thoroughly thought this through.

"Reflective Devices" worn like pinky rings, are almost as popular "devices" as highly polished flat chrome cigarette lighters, like the old fashioned ZIPPO lighters, used to be.

If caught with a small sliver of a mirror taped into the inner part of your hand or wrist one assumes the risk of being arrested for use of a "cheating device."

Note: I never said or implied that J.G. has ever cheated.


Flashman,
This is sensible and for once not lousy with errors. Also, with this post you have confirmed my belief that you have no practical sense of what holecarding is or how they are spotted.

I think you are now lumping HCers in with not only quasi-cheating spooks but with cheats using devices.

But thanks for the heads up on the JG article. It actually gives up a little info on how to actually spot a holecard, nothing that isn't already published but a little more direct than BC and BC-CAA.

Edit - I would go as far to say you have labelled not just JG a cheat but you have labelled all who have ever holecarded a cheat.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#18
RJT said:
Oh i'm very confident that there have been far more blatent scenarios, but that isn't what would be considered day to day practice - the same can be said about my example. The realities - as i've discussed with a few people who have done a deal of HC'ing - seem to lie in between. You play agressively and burn out dealers quickly, but you still take some care not to burn what doesn't need to burn. Winning any sizable sum and hanging off your seat is a sure way to kill off a nice opportunity.

RJT.
My point is that those that claim they are the "real pros" and laugh at card counters, indeed do use such techniques. If that is what advantage play is, count me out.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#19
When Dr. Thorp wrote his book on how to use your brain to mathematically beat Blackjack, many of us that loved both cards and math were excited at the concept of advantage play against casinos. The rules of Blackjack state that you cannot see the dealer's hoe card. If you accidentally see it, you should use the information. But, planning your entire strategy around finding ways to gain info that the rules say you should not have is not beating Blackjack.

Personally, I think that articles on hole-carding by a highly intelligent mathematician sullies the entire field and makes us all look bad.
 

Brock Windsor

Well-Known Member
#20
QFIT said:
...
Personally, I think that articles on hole-carding by a highly intelligent mathematician sullies the entire field and makes us all look bad.
I would reason that you would think the same of a highly intelligent mathematician selling hole-carding software. Lest "the club call the spade black". You have clearly taken a side in the debate and I thought your last statement was a bit out of character in its elitism and thus goads me into the debate of anti-intellectuals vs academic elitism, as represented in Exhibit CAA by AP's vs AT's. Clearly JG can operate brilliantly in both realms, few can. His writing style definitely comes off as anti-intellectual, so I understand that you would respond in kind... but I don't think we need to battle amongst ourselves, you get your money and we'll get ours, live and let live.
BW
 
Top