Aguilar11
- Thread starter shadroch
- Start date
Apologies, I haven't got around to adding it to my Blackjack Scams site yet. Review is at http://www.qfit.com/Aguilar-strategy.htm
The Intermediate system does not count Five's. Even a brief reading of TOB will tell anyone that this can't be
His site indicates that the advanced system is just an Ace side count. No, it is four counts. And these aren't simple one card side counts. Three are balanced and two are multi-level. One requires you to count the 6 of clubs, spades and hearts differently than diamonds. And it is not a normal multi-parameter system. For different indexes you would need to calculate the index using different pairings of balanced counts sometimes taking the sum and sometimes the difference.
After all this effort, he says never split two's or three's, gives zero betting instruction and has no info at all on expected edge. The system is quite funny to read.
On top of this, he libeled the only person that reviewed it - and can't figure out why anyone else won't respond to his review requests
He had the same problem trying to get reviews for his other product. A method of aiding urban snipers that he's trying to sell in South and Central America.
His site indicates that the advanced system is just an Ace side count. No, it is four counts. And these aren't simple one card side counts. Three are balanced and two are multi-level. One requires you to count the 6 of clubs, spades and hearts differently than diamonds. And it is not a normal multi-parameter system. For different indexes you would need to calculate the index using different pairings of balanced counts sometimes taking the sum and sometimes the difference. After all this effort, he says never split two's or three's, gives zero betting instruction and has no info at all on expected edge. The system is quite funny to read.
On top of this, he libeled the only person that reviewed it - and can't figure out why anyone else won't respond to his review requests
He had the same problem trying to get reviews for his other product. A method of aiding urban snipers that he's trying to sell in South and Central America.
Just to be fair, I have to say "scam" is a rather strong word to use for a system that can give you an edge at BJ but is very difficult. Some people find true counted systems too difficult, that doesn't make them scams. Sidecounts are too difficult for most players, yet Hi-Opt II with the ace sidecount is hardly a scam! I'm sure some people would find the Aguilar sidecounts very manageable, even if there are easier systems the give comparable results.
Oh man I hope you are just kidding! A terrorist?
Oh man I hope you are just kidding! A terrorist?
I am careful about the use of the word scam. It requires either knowledge that you are wrong or reckless claims. Aguilar makes claims without any evidence whatever. He makes claims that his strategy is far better than others. He claims that HiLo and Hi-Opt II are not good and that Stanford Wong is irresponsible. He makes these claims without ever having run a sim. He asked me to look at his strategies. I did and gave him my opinion. He declared me a charlatan and claimed I had no knowledge of BJ math and that I rigged the sims to make them look bad against systems that I sell. I have never sold any systems. In fact, it would have been to my benefit if his strategies proved strong.
He also falsely likens his strategy to a simple Ace side count. Four concurrent balanced counts applied in varying manners to different indexes is not an Ace side count.
Realize that he calls for flat betting and play all. He claims that Wong says you can win flat-betting without Wonging. I've never seen any such statement from Stanford. I was kind to him in my simulation. I did not flat-bet. With flat betting, his strategy has no gain despite the complexity. His focus is so heavy on a few plays, he doesn't even Split 2's and 3's.
Fact is he claims that Wong, Schlesinger and I are all wrong based on no evidence at all.
It reminds me of a guy years back that claimed he had sims showing his complex progression system worked. I took a look at his sim. He was simming single deck with Surrender. I told him all progressions work with that game - but it doesn't exist. He pointed me to a page in Thorp that had those rules. I pointed him to the next paragraph in Thorp that said the game no longer exists
He also falsely likens his strategy to a simple Ace side count. Four concurrent balanced counts applied in varying manners to different indexes is not an Ace side count.
Realize that he calls for flat betting and play all. He claims that Wong says you can win flat-betting without Wonging. I've never seen any such statement from Stanford. I was kind to him in my simulation. I did not flat-bet. With flat betting, his strategy has no gain despite the complexity. His focus is so heavy on a few plays, he doesn't even Split 2's and 3's.
Fact is he claims that Wong, Schlesinger and I are all wrong based on no evidence at all.
It reminds me of a guy years back that claimed he had sims showing his complex progression system worked. I took a look at his sim. He was simming single deck with Surrender. I told him all progressions work with that game - but it doesn't exist. He pointed me to a page in Thorp that had those rules. I pointed him to the next paragraph in Thorp that said the game no longer exists
Tell you what. I’ll leave it up to others as to whether or not this should be included with the other BJ scams. My evidence that it should:
His basic strategy has many errors. And yet is more difficult than normal BS since it contains CD plays.
He claims that you have an advantage with a strategy that has a PE of .605 with flat betting. (May as well flat bet since the betting correlation at .84 is worse than every system on my site.)
He suggests his advanced system is simply an Ace side count, when in fact it requires multiple balanced counts. You even have to count six cards in multiple counts. (Just for fun, I once simmed the use of Hi-Opt II with multi-parameter tables for playing and RPC for betting at the same time. His strategy is more complex than this.) Oddly, even with four separate counts, he never counts 2’s.
The system is sold via Google ads claiming that it is superior to HiLo and Hi-Opt II. He claims that HiLo and Hi-Opt II are not very good.
He claims that Stanford Wong is irresponsible for not talking about the HiLo correlation of the three plays Aguilar feels are important. Few BJ books bother with such numbers.
He claims that Don Schlesinger used “intuition” only in developing the Illustrious 18, is wrong and Griffin’s book proves this. He goes on to say that Don was biased against some plays because they didn’t correlate well with HiLo “his favorite system.” In fact, Don came up with the Ill18 from calculations from Griffin’s book, collaborated with Griffin, and has never used HiLo.
After the only person to review his strategy (me), at his request, gave a bad review, he called the sims fraudulent. He claimed this fraud was motivated by a desire to make the strategy look worse than systems sold by the reviewer. There are no such systems.
The simple fact is that when his beliefs contradict those of others, he ascribes false motives to them.
The system is sold in the manner of many scams. Everyone else is wrong, everyone else has dishonest motives, only his validation method is correct, believe only the system seller. Nothing is said of EV or win rate. The EV is negative. The only advice on risk is “Sell your car if you have to, but save enough for the bus fare home.” The last part is the best advice he has.
Now does this make it a scam? A scam requires fraud. He probably actually believes you can flat bet and win with a .605 PE and you shouldn't Split 2's and 3s. So that alone does not a scam make. Suggesting the side counting is simply an Ace side count is getting closer to a scam since you don't find out it's impossibly difficult until you pay the money. But, when he requests an independent review and doesn't like it, he invents a tale of fraud and dishonest motives going so far as to invent details of the 'fraud.' If he thought that Don and I were ignorant and dishonest, why did he ask us to review it in the first place? IMO this makes it a scam.
His basic strategy has many errors. And yet is more difficult than normal BS since it contains CD plays.
He claims that you have an advantage with a strategy that has a PE of .605 with flat betting. (May as well flat bet since the betting correlation at .84 is worse than every system on my site.)
He suggests his advanced system is simply an Ace side count, when in fact it requires multiple balanced counts. You even have to count six cards in multiple counts. (Just for fun, I once simmed the use of Hi-Opt II with multi-parameter tables for playing and RPC for betting at the same time. His strategy is more complex than this.) Oddly, even with four separate counts, he never counts 2’s.
The system is sold via Google ads claiming that it is superior to HiLo and Hi-Opt II. He claims that HiLo and Hi-Opt II are not very good.
He claims that Stanford Wong is irresponsible for not talking about the HiLo correlation of the three plays Aguilar feels are important. Few BJ books bother with such numbers.
He claims that Don Schlesinger used “intuition” only in developing the Illustrious 18, is wrong and Griffin’s book proves this. He goes on to say that Don was biased against some plays because they didn’t correlate well with HiLo “his favorite system.” In fact, Don came up with the Ill18 from calculations from Griffin’s book, collaborated with Griffin, and has never used HiLo.
After the only person to review his strategy (me), at his request, gave a bad review, he called the sims fraudulent. He claimed this fraud was motivated by a desire to make the strategy look worse than systems sold by the reviewer. There are no such systems.
The simple fact is that when his beliefs contradict those of others, he ascribes false motives to them.
The system is sold in the manner of many scams. Everyone else is wrong, everyone else has dishonest motives, only his validation method is correct, believe only the system seller. Nothing is said of EV or win rate. The EV is negative. The only advice on risk is “Sell your car if you have to, but save enough for the bus fare home.” The last part is the best advice he has.
Now does this make it a scam? A scam requires fraud. He probably actually believes you can flat bet and win with a .605 PE and you shouldn't Split 2's and 3s. So that alone does not a scam make. Suggesting the side counting is simply an Ace side count is getting closer to a scam since you don't find out it's impossibly difficult until you pay the money. But, when he requests an independent review and doesn't like it, he invents a tale of fraud and dishonest motives going so far as to invent details of the 'fraud.' If he thought that Don and I were ignorant and dishonest, why did he ask us to review it in the first place?
IMO this makes it a scam.