This IDIOT banned my father for LIFE off one post
- Thread starter Mark_Ripple
- Start date
- Status
Actually I had nothing to do with the decision to ban E Clifton Davis, but it's a reasonable choice by the mods here given his long history of misinformation about blackjack and baccarat.
I will post the link that he left for those who are interested in his site:
http://www.BeatTheCasino.com
Just take anything you read there with a serious dose of skepticism.
I will post the link that he left for those who are interested in his site:
http://www.BeatTheCasino.com
Just take anything you read there with a serious dose of skepticism.
IMHO, if you are going to mention this site, it should be moved to the Voodoo section and should be provided as a non-link. The site is filled with misinformation, anti-science, bad gambling systems, and simply awful advice. The site contains truly shocking guidance to gamblers. I saw the post that was removed and the advice included has been rejected by virtually every respected Blackjack researcher. I will be happy to discuss this on the Voodoo forum with Mark as long as he refrains from name-calling.
Thanks, Ken
Look...I apologize, but geez, Im down here, supposed to be celebrating Dad's B-day, and I just found it STARTLING that anybody could get banned over one, pretty decent post.
I own sites too as probably 60-70% of you know, but lets have some ethics, rules, and yeah, I'm sorry I called you the "I" word.
and thank you VERY much for the link, but ya made a typo
http://www.BeatTheCasino.com
We are all grown men who can decide for themselves. Slam away at his site...that's not the point.
He has NEVER been accused as being a "spammer" and that's the only link you will probably ever see.
Mark
Look...I apologize, but geez, Im down here, supposed to be celebrating Dad's B-day, and I just found it STARTLING that anybody could get banned over one, pretty decent post.
I own sites too as probably 60-70% of you know, but lets have some ethics, rules, and yeah, I'm sorry I called you the "I" word.
and thank you VERY much for the link, but ya made a typo
http://www.BeatTheCasino.com
We are all grown men who can decide for themselves. Slam away at his site...that's not the point.
He has NEVER been accused as being a "spammer" and that's the only link you will probably ever see.
Mark
First, the post that Ellis and you are referring to (the insurance bet) the criteria offered has been successfully played by hundreds of players in thousands of live casino shoes. It is not an opinion but pure BJ fact that in games where tens are following tens 50% this criteria wins 50% and pays 2 to 1. This favorable condition is particularly common in A.C. 8 deck BJ.
Second, NBJ functions under the exact same criteria Card Counting functions under - a plurality of tens situations. To discredit one is to discredit the other. Davis has proven his methods in hundreds of live casino exhibitions in front of large audiences. Who else can say the same?
Second, NBJ functions under the exact same criteria Card Counting functions under - a plurality of tens situations. To discredit one is to discredit the other. Davis has proven his methods in hundreds of live casino exhibitions in front of large audiences. Who else can say the same?
You are speaking of empirical evidence. Sorry, but such "evidence" is famously misleading. See www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html
Well, of course if you know in advance what is going to happen, you can gain an advantage. But, looking at such stats in an early part of a shoe has nothing to do with later events. This has been shown countless times.
No, in no way is it the same as CC. CC is a scientifically proved, and rather obvious, method of taking into account ALL of the cards that have been seen, giving a clear view of a change in probability. "Card-clumping" methodologies assume that shuffles introduce biases and that past results in a shoe or prior shoes affect future results without any attempt at scientific measurement.
No reasonable mathematician cares about live exhibitions. They simply have no place in mathematic studies.
Well, of course if you know in advance what is going to happen, you can gain an advantage. But, looking at such stats in an early part of a shoe has nothing to do with later events. This has been shown countless times.
No, in no way is it the same as CC. CC is a scientifically proved, and rather obvious, method of taking into account ALL of the cards that have been seen, giving a clear view of a change in probability. "Card-clumping" methodologies assume that shuffles introduce biases and that past results in a shoe or prior shoes affect future results without any attempt at scientific measurement.
No reasonable mathematician cares about live exhibitions. They simply have no place in mathematic studies.
I run a discussion forum myself and have to say that doing so gives a person a lot more respect for how others run forums.
If you don't like the way a forum is run - go start your own.
ETA: Well I guess I should've checked the link first! OK, so if you have your own forum, run it any way you like but don't go to another forum and tell them how to run it. IMO, it's just rude to slam someone who is providing a service you don't pay for.
If you don't like the way a forum is run - go start your own.
ETA: Well I guess I should've checked the link first! OK, so if you have your own forum, run it any way you like but don't go to another forum and tell them how to run it. IMO, it's just rude to slam someone who is providing a service you don't pay for.
Excellent points. I moderated a forum in the old ARPAnet days, back when it was still CIA, before the DoD took it over. (God I'm old.) It got tense now and again. Difference was, everyone used their real names. Difficult to get as nasty when everyone knows each other.
The moderators here do a good job for no income, and get a lot of flak.
The moderators here do a good job for no income, and get a lot of flak.
Are you saying that players should not first see the approach they are contemplating actually played in a casino? That would seem very convenient for a scammer. "You don't need to see this played - just take my word for it." Is that what you're saying?
I also know who Carly Simon wrote about in "Your'e So Vain"---that is true.
I also know who Carly Simon wrote about in "Your'e So Vain"---that is true.
Well, yes to the first sentence. I have seen completely insane moves, like an obvious gambler doubling a hard-18 and drawing a three. Should I follow in this guy's footsteps? But, I said I would communicate with you until the name-calling started. I'll give you this one shot. Please try to debate logically instead of putting words in quotation marks not said or suggested by anyone.
BTW, Carly Simon has denied the song was about David Geffen or Mick Jagger. "Knowing" something and "The Truth" are not the same.
Edit: And no, I never slept with Carly.
BTW, Carly Simon has denied the song was about David Geffen or Mick Jagger. "Knowing" something and "The Truth" are not the same.
Edit: And no, I never slept with Carly.
I suppose that in all honesty you can say that since you didn't see qfit's source code, you don't know that his sims are valid for real live casino play.
But his simulation software has been validated by many many others, and I don't know of anyone who has doubted it. The sims are important for predicting how real live casino play will result, and simple empirical evidence without (mathematical proofs) / (simulations to a degree of accuracy) doesn't seem very scientific. If you claim that you have had many people attest to results, how many people, how many hands total, and what's your standard error?
But his simulation software has been validated by many many others, and I don't know of anyone who has doubted it. The sims are important for predicting how real live casino play will result, and simple empirical evidence without (mathematical proofs) / (simulations to a degree of accuracy) doesn't seem very scientific. If you claim that you have had many people attest to results, how many people, how many hands total, and what's your standard error?
- Status