License to play

[JoeV]

I was wondering if the AP world would buy into a system where you could be tested and earn a license to be called an AP. It could be broken up into categories of counting and different advanced techniques. It seems to me that just about anybody can call themselves an AP and can give out advice and info whether its bogus or not. But if one was to be certified in the area of playing of which they speak, you could be assured it wasn't bullsh*t. And if someone wanted to start a team all they would have to do is check the certification of the players applying for the job to know if they were qualified. I know this sounds silly and I'm not totally serious about it but it seems it would weed out the posers and validate the true players. I don't know how something like this would really work but I think maybe Sonny could figure it out.

[RJT]

The idea does ammuse me somewhat and yes it could have benifits, but the reality is that it wouldn't be feesable.
Think about it, just in team play there are so many variations, what would qualify you to be an expert at team play? Or would you get different certification for different types of team play? What about the types of team play out there that haven't yet been made public knowledge?
And who would decide the standards of play required to gain certification? Do we judge by the MIT standard, or by Don Schlesinger's standards or any of the hundreds of other teams? Who's to say which is better? Very subjective really and so very difficult to standardise.
The other side to it is very few players who could actually gain any certification would be comfortable coming forward and putting themselves in front of any judge to do so. Firstly most of us like our privacy and secondly, what benifit would someone gain from this other that being able to shut up other posters? I can't see how it could possibly financially benifit any player other than to charge for advice and there'd be plenty of scope for corruption in that area.
Still in interesting idea.

RJT.

[eps6724]

I think there is already something similar out there-it's called 'Griffins', but noone really seems to wants to be in it!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by JoeV

It seems to me that just about anybody can call themselves an AP and can give out advice and info whether its bogus or not. But if one was to be certified in the area of playing of which they speak, you could be assured it wasn't bullsh*t.

Then what would we do with our Voodoo forum?

I love the idea, but I have a feeling such a license would not change the amount of garbage on the internet. It would just give the bogus APs something else to brag about. It would just change this:

"STFU! I’ve been using my system for years and I’m still winning 80% of my sessions!!!”

to this:

"STFU! I'm a level 5 AP with a third degree tracking classification and 1200 experience credits!!!”

We’re not improving the art of AP, we’re just turning it into a D&D club. And besides, no self respecting AP would want to be caught with a valid AP license!

-Sonny-

[Bojack1]

Due to the nature of the business Joe this might not be a good idea. First off I don't think any would agree as to who is going to be the final word on certification guidelines. Next, I don't know of many that want to be put on any record as being an AP, regardless if its among members of their own. There should not be a need for validation as an AP. If you are honest with yourself you will know if you are one or not. And more importantly you will be able to recognize those that perpetrate the fraud as you gain experience. There can be something gained from even those that are not quite as skilled as they say. Remember learning what not to do can be as valuable as learning what to do. With time and your own experiences you'll find its not too hard to separate the two.

[RG1]

Originally Posted by JoeV

...It seems to me that just about anybody can call themselves an AP and can give out advice and info whether its bogus or not. ... And if someone wanted to start a team all they would have to do is check the certification of the players applying for the job to know if they were qualified. ... it seems it would weed out the posers and validate the true players. ...

That is why we have moderators to weed out the voodoo. And if you aren't sure if someone has bogus advise you can buy a book.

It is easier to test somebody yourself then to make them get a certification. Futhermore, if I am going to give somebody my bankroll to use I'm going to test them anyway, license or not.

[Automatic Monkey]

One thing that would be feasible is a written test for AP's. Maybe a hundred or so multiple-choice questions of the nature:"Which is the better game?" Which is the correct play?" "What is the best thing to do if...?" This would be a uniform and less subjective way to figure out who knows what they're doing.

Sort of like the MMPI, but for Advantage Play instead of Abnormal Psychology.

[RJT]

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

One thing that would be feasible is a written test for AP's. Maybe a hundred or so multiple-choice questions of the nature:"Which is the better game?" Which is the correct play?" "What is the best thing to do if...?" This would be a uniform and less subjective way to figure out who knows what they're doing.

Sort of like the MMPI, but for Advantage Play instead of Abnormal Psychology.

I'm not so sure about the lack of subjectivity. I think what you would see is people like Don Schlesinger and Stanford Wong doing well in this very theoretical test (depending on the questions selected of course) even though it's well known throughout the community that neither of these gentlemen was ever that greatly proficient at the game, having far greater success writing books and players like Ian Anderson who has been a hugely successful practical player having their scores undermine their actual knowledge. I'd certainly wouldn't turn down advice from any of those mentioned above, but truth told, when choosing between practical results and theortical understanding - i know which i'd rather have.
Then of course you have people like James Grosjean who has both.....

RJT.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by RJT

I'm not so sure about the lack of subjectivity. I think what you would see is people like Don Schlesinger and Stanford Wong doing well in this very theoretical test (depending on the questions selected of course) even though it's well known throughout the community that neither of these gentlemen was ever that greatly proficient at the game, having far greater success writing books and players like Ian Anderson who has been a hugely successful practical player having their scores undermine their actual knowledge. I'd certainly wouldn't turn down advice from any of those mentioned above, but truth told, when choosing between practical results and theortical understanding - i know which i'd rather have.
Then of course you have people like James Grosjean who has both.....

RJT.

It is impossible for a player who does not know playing strategy and strategy variations, bet sizing theory and game selection criteria to be a successful AP. Especially these last two are the major reasons for failure as a card counter.

How is it well-known that Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger were never greatly proficient? I have never watched either one of them play. Are they in the habit of announcing when they're going to be in the casino so others can come and judge their proficiency?

[Bojack1]

How is it well-known that Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger were never greatly proficient? I have never watched either one of them play. Are they in the habit of announcing when they're going to be in the casino so others can come and judge their proficiency?[/QUOTE]

Because you've never seen them play is that to mean its not true? I don't think they need to announce their presence among those that live in their community, and Monkey you don't live there. They're both great theorists with tons of knowledge, but Wong never was a money player, and Schlesinger made more money managing better players on his teams then he did actually playing. Its just my take on it so of course you will question it, but those in the know will agree.