A feel for the environment
- Thread starter QFIT
- Start date
A Simple ?
Has the US been on the right side of history or the wrong side?
If you answer wrong side then that means:
The German Empire of the early 20th century
Nazis
Imperial Japan
Communism under Mao and Stalin
The whole Communist Empire
were on the right side of history.
There is no subtly involved those mentioned above were trying to dominate the world with brutality and we stopped them.:joker::whip:
Also, once the US entered the world stage post WW2 there have been no major world wars due to our "meddling" in world affairs. Before this time world wars were about generational or at least wars on the European continent were generational.
ww2 1940s
ww1 1910s
franco prussia war 1870
napoleinic wars early 1800s
7 years war 1756 1763
and others during these time periods which often spread world wide.
The US brought peace and stability to Europe/world with our blood and treasure in the form of US troops in Western Europe and elsewhere.
Of course the US is not perfect in all things.
Are these facts ugly?
Has the US been on the right side of history or the wrong side?
If you answer wrong side then that means:
The German Empire of the early 20th century
Nazis
Imperial Japan
Communism under Mao and Stalin
The whole Communist Empire
were on the right side of history.
There is no subtly involved those mentioned above were trying to dominate the world with brutality and we stopped them.:joker::whip:
Also, once the US entered the world stage post WW2 there have been no major world wars due to our "meddling" in world affairs. Before this time world wars were about generational or at least wars on the European continent were generational.
ww2 1940s
ww1 1910s
franco prussia war 1870
napoleinic wars early 1800s
7 years war 1756 1763
and others during these time periods which often spread world wide.
The US brought peace and stability to Europe/world with our blood and treasure in the form of US troops in Western Europe and elsewhere.
Of course the US is not perfect in all things.
Are these facts ugly?
My point is that we need to meld with the environment. When I am in a casino, I am chatting with the staff. I really don’t care about the gamblers in the casino. I rarely talk to them and don’t give a crap about their views. I want the staff to feel comfortable with my presence. As an American in a foreign casino, I sometimes have to overcome the concept in the minds of locals that Americans think they all owe us something and that we are somehow at the heart of all that is good with the world. (Wonder where that concept originated.) Their view of history may not agree.
I visit the non-tourist sites and talk about the great parts of their culture. Not how MY culture is so GD wonderful.
I visit the non-tourist sites and talk about the great parts of their culture. Not how MY culture is so GD wonderful.
This is a common misconception with many inexperienced players. Although I agree it matters not at all what other gamblers think, it is just the same with casino staff. That is reality, but in what needs to be perceived, all involved in the play need to at least feel you are not a threat and fit in, even if its not pleasant to be around. Being buddy buddy with the pit is not always the best move if you are going to play the venue on your regular circuit. But leaving the pit wanting to be your friend while you seemingly are non caring over the whole deal is actually the best scenario. When you get your persona to the point where people are attracted to your charisma, other gamblers and pit alike, you hold quite a powerful card. Its not about chatting with casino personnel, its about them wishing they could. There's alot to be learned in how to excude the charisma that allows you to basically control people, but being chatty really is the opposite of it. Funny, sounds like the pompous american attitude, but I'm actually dually citizened, maybe its just a trait of success.
I stopped reading after this sentence since this is what nearly every post of yours for YEARS and multiple aliases has stated and I am certain that the rest of the post, as always, will put words in my mouth that I have never stated nor believed. YES, we all know that you are the only real player and the rest of us are all nothing. You don't have to keep repeating this. We understand. We are not worthy.
You are wrong about the alias' QFIT. That line is getting old. You are way too sensitive. I am not anybody that you THINK I am. But I am somebody that has had direct dealings with your work, and with those you have done work for. You actually did work for me in an indirect way. Now you need to get out of your habit of being so defensive, thats no way to allow someones word to get through. Just because we may disagree on tactics doesn't mean you need to meltdown on me. Like I said before, I respect you, you are a top notch software designer. You add much to the community of bj. But we both know your actual playing is not what gets you the kudos from your peers, but thats exactly what gets it for me. I'm no better than you, just different
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to learn how to make a post without denigrating other people. Post after post of yours starts with a put-down. There is an old saying that "it is not enough that you succeed, your friends must fail." I hope this is not part of your personality. Your last four posts about me included name-calling. Two weeks ago, you started a post by denigrating 95% of the people here. Some people might have found that humorous. They probably didn't realize you were talking about them too.
Your posts would have more value if you just skipped the lead-in insult, and just provided your opinion. Then we could discuss your opinion without the distraction of gratuitous put downs. This is not conducive to discussion. Pretend you are in someone's living room having a conversation. Other people in the living room will have different opinions. If you have a better idea, it will prevail of its own value. Declaring that your opinion is correct because of who you are would be pointless even if you weren't anonymous. Think about it -- It's rather odd to claim that your opinion must be correct because of who you are when you are anonymous. There is no need to put down the other persons' backgrounds, looks or anything else. Just make your point.
As for "working for you," I have worked with many, many teams and individuals over the years. I have no doubt that you have benefited from that work. But, I have NEVER asked for payment for simulations, strategies, article reviews or advice. And, unlike some of your acquaintances, I have NEVER worked for a casino. I have turned down offers of payment scores of times. I work for the players.
BTW, not that it is relevant, but your understanding of my experience is way off base. I have played more high-stakes games with my own funds than the hero of the "we're the only pros" set.
Your posts would have more value if you just skipped the lead-in insult, and just provided your opinion. Then we could discuss your opinion without the distraction of gratuitous put downs. This is not conducive to discussion. Pretend you are in someone's living room having a conversation. Other people in the living room will have different opinions. If you have a better idea, it will prevail of its own value. Declaring that your opinion is correct because of who you are would be pointless even if you weren't anonymous. Think about it -- It's rather odd to claim that your opinion must be correct because of who you are when you are anonymous. There is no need to put down the other persons' backgrounds, looks or anything else. Just make your point.
As for "working for you," I have worked with many, many teams and individuals over the years. I have no doubt that you have benefited from that work. But, I have NEVER asked for payment for simulations, strategies, article reviews or advice. And, unlike some of your acquaintances, I have NEVER worked for a casino. I have turned down offers of payment scores of times. I work for the players.
BTW, not that it is relevant, but your understanding of my experience is way off base. I have played more high-stakes games with my own funds than the hero of the "we're the only pros" set.
Last edited by a moderator:
If You Mention it I Will Comment
If you write a statement such as
"many hate the US government"
and borrish American businessmen
on this site
I will comment:joker::whip:
Nothing personal I just feel that a country where women can vote, where there is religious freedom and who's military defends nations around the world is a force for good.
Nope the evil regimes and people in the world won't ever like us, that is a good thing.
Though again the US is not perfect:joker::whip:
If you write a statement such as
"many hate the US government"
and borrish American businessmen
on this site
I will comment:joker::whip:
Nothing personal I just feel that a country where women can vote, where there is religious freedom and who's military defends nations around the world is a force for good.
Nope the evil regimes and people in the world won't ever like us, that is a good thing.
Though again the US is not perfect:joker::whip:
Camoflauge vs Sleight of Hand
Do you know why zebras have those stripes? It's because when they move in a herd they cause an optical illusion and lion's cannot pick out one to attack.
If you are in a casino and not dressed and acting like the other players you will stick out! They will notice you before you even sit down.
The small/medium bettor should perhaps think of blending so they never see you.
Now of course the opposite can be effective, one can be so brazen in getting attention that they are watching the show and would never think you are skilled. The big player should perhaps think of misdirection because they already see you!:joker::whip:
Do you know why zebras have those stripes? It's because when they move in a herd they cause an optical illusion and lion's cannot pick out one to attack.
If you are in a casino and not dressed and acting like the other players you will stick out! They will notice you before you even sit down.
The small/medium bettor should perhaps think of blending so they never see you.
Now of course the opposite can be effective, one can be so brazen in getting attention that they are watching the show and would never think you are skilled. The big player should perhaps think of misdirection because they already see you!:joker::whip:
I respectfully disagree Q. I make posts in a certain style that speaks truth as well as injecting a tongue in cheek sarcasm that can only be taken personal by those it personally affects.. In this thread I started a post by stating it was a "common misconception of many inexperienced players", is that phrase so wildly offensive...........really? No it is not, and it needs no apology as it is my opinion and is no insult just my observation with not a nasty comment in sight. And 2 weeks ago I made a post that was again a sarcastic remark aimed at no one specifically(although I could have) just to raise awareness to all those who are guilty of such behavior. You can bet that any that were described in that post knew who they were, and any who it didn't describe should surely not be so insecure that it need to insult them.
My posts have value to those who's ego is not so great that they can be offended by sarcasm. There are many on this board who have chatted with me in great length and have not come away with the feeling of insult. There are many ways to teach and learn. I am pretty hard lined, I like blunt truth, and also have no problem blatantly calling out bad advice, or bullsh*t that really is no help to anyone. It has nothing to do with who I am, I actually never state "who" I am. I just like to see who's reaction is most severe to my tongue in cheek "real player" comments. Those that get worked up about that just scream insecurity about their own status as a player, thats just my opinion, but as someone who actually hangs out with "real players" I don't know a single one that gets offended so easily by that term if the advice is sound. Which by the way I have never given out any that could ever be construed as anything less than sound.
I have benefited from your good work, and yes it has never cost a dime. As I do know some who have worked both sides, for and against the casino, I, like you, have never worked for a casino. Nor have I ever accused you of such, so I don't know why the need to state this. I may not have been such a help to various amounts of players such as yourself, but I have never betrayed one in my life either.
You learn something everyday. As far as I was aware you were not ever a high stakes player. I stand corrected against all here say of others. But I had no problem with that because that was never what made you so important to the bj community anyway. I will have to agree to disagree however with the last part of your last sentence, as that is mere speculation, and sounds a little off to me.
My posts have value to those who's ego is not so great that they can be offended by sarcasm. There are many on this board who have chatted with me in great length and have not come away with the feeling of insult. There are many ways to teach and learn. I am pretty hard lined, I like blunt truth, and also have no problem blatantly calling out bad advice, or bullsh*t that really is no help to anyone. It has nothing to do with who I am, I actually never state "who" I am. I just like to see who's reaction is most severe to my tongue in cheek "real player" comments. Those that get worked up about that just scream insecurity about their own status as a player, thats just my opinion, but as someone who actually hangs out with "real players" I don't know a single one that gets offended so easily by that term if the advice is sound. Which by the way I have never given out any that could ever be construed as anything less than sound.
I have benefited from your good work, and yes it has never cost a dime. As I do know some who have worked both sides, for and against the casino, I, like you, have never worked for a casino. Nor have I ever accused you of such, so I don't know why the need to state this. I may not have been such a help to various amounts of players such as yourself, but I have never betrayed one in my life either.
You learn something everyday. As far as I was aware you were not ever a high stakes player. I stand corrected against all here say of others. But I had no problem with that because that was never what made you so important to the bj community anyway. I will have to agree to disagree however with the last part of your last sentence, as that is mere speculation, and sounds a little off to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Problem is, you have NOT been calling out bad advice. You put ridiculous words in the mouths of others and then laugh at how ridiculous they are. For example, you recently criticized my posts for saying:
"Being buddy buddy with the pit is not always the best move"
and
"Many players wander around the pits with chips in their hands. It is not something to worry about."
Only, I never suggested anything like being buddy, buddy with the pit or that there was anything slightly wrong with wandering around with chips. What you call "tongue in cheek sarcasm" is harmful to communication. As is starting posts with "I'm a real player." Obviously suggesting that others are not and that their input is not welcome.
When I get phone calls or e-mails, many, many times I have suggested that people post on the sites. A response I have often received is that they will browse, but don't like the food fights. And many people, including valuable posters, have stopped posting because it just isn't fun. Now, you may feel that there is some badge of honor in putting up with a barrage of insults, and that this shows strength of character, but not everyone was brought up in this manner. Many of us feel that civility aides communication.
"Being buddy buddy with the pit is not always the best move"
and
"Many players wander around the pits with chips in their hands. It is not something to worry about."
Only, I never suggested anything like being buddy, buddy with the pit or that there was anything slightly wrong with wandering around with chips. What you call "tongue in cheek sarcasm" is harmful to communication. As is starting posts with "I'm a real player." Obviously suggesting that others are not and that their input is not welcome.
When I get phone calls or e-mails, many, many times I have suggested that people post on the sites. A response I have often received is that they will browse, but don't like the food fights. And many people, including valuable posters, have stopped posting because it just isn't fun. Now, you may feel that there is some badge of honor in putting up with a barrage of insults, and that this shows strength of character, but not everyone was brought up in this manner. Many of us feel that civility aides communication.
As well as many people, including seasoned pros and authors that don't post anymore because of the good ol boys club mentality of the forum that cannot stand to be told whats right and wrong. Its nice to have a civil group that can get along hold hands and sing cum bay ya together. It makes for a lot of back patting and atta boys, sometimes possibly warranted. But it does not allow for the revelation of truth at times brought in by even those most of these posters idolize as a player. I mean the majority of those who post here are in awe or at least have great admiration of a player like James Grosjean. Yet his posting here was met many times with hostility and head butting because he was not one to gloss over the glaring weakness and disillusionment of so many that are posting here very impractical advice. So even though they all want to buy his books(most of which it will serve no purpose to anyway) they cannot handle the obvious truths that were put forth to their faces. That is laughable. And as such a valuable poster with a mountainous wealth of knowledge is lost. Its also what I find even more offensive then a sarcastic remark. Ignorance, is inexcusable, if one refuses to learn based on the excuse of rudeness when in most realities its just bruised ego, I could not care less about what is a proper way to coddle their insecurities. And just to be noted here, this is in general, not directed at you or any particular party.
I'll drop the subject now as it really is just a difference of opinion that I'm sure we will not agree on.
I'll drop the subject now as it really is just a difference of opinion that I'm sure we will not agree on.
And here you continue with your wild exaggerations. No one has suggested anything like holding hands and singing Kumbaya. There is plenty of give and take here. But, it is with logic, not belittling names.
And again you claim people here "cannot handle the obvious truths that were put forth to their faces." Maybe they just don't like the in-the-face, uncivil style. But you accuse people of having a character flaw instead of just wanting to be treated as human.
As for James, he obviously has an enormous amount to contribute. But, has the same rough method of communication that rubs many people the wrong way. Card-counters are not "salamanders" and people have different goals. You can point out your version of "truth" without put downs -- like "coddle their insecurities." How valuable is your input if your style puts people off?
When Kevin Blackwood last visited BJ21 to ask a simple question for an article, he was met with immediate hostility. He left. When Katarina Walker entered BJ21 GC, she was also met with hostility. As if it was absurd that anyone could bring information to GC. One of the most prolific posters, without looking at her book, declared that there was nothing that could be said about SP21 that wasn't in the GC archives. Boy was he wrong. She left. Many valuable posters have been chased away by incivility.
I would hate to see this site go the way of BJF. BJF could have been a great site. But, it was heavily populated by the "I'm a REAL pro and everyone else is a fake" crowd. Posters left in droves. Now, the site is pretty much JStat talking to himself.
In all my years in industry, I can count the number of personal put downs I witnessed on one hand. That doesn't mean there weren't knock-down, drag-out battles. I worked with a large number of high-powered, highly opinionated people unafraid to press their views, no matter how unpopular. But, personal attacks were absolutely inappropriate and those using them would quickly find themselves on the street. Such language simply doesn't help, what the Wiki-folk call, consensus. They just result in never-ending feuds and harm the community.
We need to remember that the enemy is the casino.
And again you claim people here "cannot handle the obvious truths that were put forth to their faces." Maybe they just don't like the in-the-face, uncivil style. But you accuse people of having a character flaw instead of just wanting to be treated as human.
As for James, he obviously has an enormous amount to contribute. But, has the same rough method of communication that rubs many people the wrong way. Card-counters are not "salamanders" and people have different goals. You can point out your version of "truth" without put downs -- like "coddle their insecurities." How valuable is your input if your style puts people off?
When Kevin Blackwood last visited BJ21 to ask a simple question for an article, he was met with immediate hostility. He left. When Katarina Walker entered BJ21 GC, she was also met with hostility. As if it was absurd that anyone could bring information to GC. One of the most prolific posters, without looking at her book, declared that there was nothing that could be said about SP21 that wasn't in the GC archives. Boy was he wrong. She left. Many valuable posters have been chased away by incivility.
I would hate to see this site go the way of BJF. BJF could have been a great site. But, it was heavily populated by the "I'm a REAL pro and everyone else is a fake" crowd. Posters left in droves. Now, the site is pretty much JStat talking to himself.
In all my years in industry, I can count the number of personal put downs I witnessed on one hand. That doesn't mean there weren't knock-down, drag-out battles. I worked with a large number of high-powered, highly opinionated people unafraid to press their views, no matter how unpopular. But, personal attacks were absolutely inappropriate and those using them would quickly find themselves on the street. Such language simply doesn't help, what the Wiki-folk call, consensus. They just result in never-ending feuds and harm the community.
We need to remember that the enemy is the casino.
for what its worth
Im trembling as I write this, knowing I simply do not belong in such company, but having been around bjinfo for five odd years, I have to say QFITs comments have merit. I have taken part in chats with people he has mentioned, and you are either too scared to ask a question, or when you finally have the guts to do so, it is met with distain and mockery.
I am always sincerley grateful for those that take the time to respond to 'salamanders' like myself-I understand that they are probably overwhelmed
with redundant inquires from so many of us-but there is consistency with those that respond, and that tells me something. the QFIT's, Sonnys, Bojacks, Flashes etc(forgive me for not mentioning so many more) amaze me with their genuine, thought out responses that are immediately accepted as coming from someone who wants to help and ultimately give something back.
As a former coach, Ive always believed in 'cutting the coat to fit the kid, not cutting the kid to fit the coat'...
best of luck to all
Im trembling as I write this, knowing I simply do not belong in such company, but having been around bjinfo for five odd years, I have to say QFITs comments have merit. I have taken part in chats with people he has mentioned, and you are either too scared to ask a question, or when you finally have the guts to do so, it is met with distain and mockery.
I am always sincerley grateful for those that take the time to respond to 'salamanders' like myself-I understand that they are probably overwhelmed
with redundant inquires from so many of us-but there is consistency with those that respond, and that tells me something. the QFIT's, Sonnys, Bojacks, Flashes etc(forgive me for not mentioning so many more) amaze me with their genuine, thought out responses that are immediately accepted as coming from someone who wants to help and ultimately give something back.
As a former coach, Ive always believed in 'cutting the coat to fit the kid, not cutting the kid to fit the coat'...
best of luck to all
Beyond Counting
Thanks for the comments and I like the quote, but we’re just card players.
I should probably let the thread die here, but I want to correct a possible misconception, or two.
James Grosjean’s book is a great book. Even greater, in my mind, than his sycophants realize. Many years back, I was heavily criticized for creating Roulette software, by two recently, new posters here from the BJF crowd. Now, I do not push Roulette. I don’t even mention it on any of my sites. But, I became interested in the concept of Lawrence Scott’s ideas when I realized he was a serious engineer, and that Roulette had some very unusual, possibly exploitable weaknesses. And, I knew that some well-known APs, that might surprise people, were secretly using these techniques. (One famous name had a Roulette table in his back room covered up so that even his BJ team members didn’t know about it.) The techniques are mostly based on the fact that you get to bet after the ball and wheel are already in motion. (Think about that.) There have been some incredible opportunities with machine-thrown balls in one foreign country. (Think Rollerball.) So, I created Roulette software for Larry.
Now, one of these posters loudly proclaimed I was a fraud for creating Roulette software and sarcastically demanded that I tell him what the SCORE of Roulette was. A question that makes no more sense than asking what the SCORE of BJ is. Depends on a huge number of variables. I suggested that he read Beyond Counting. He railed against my suggestion claiming that I was making some sort of false misrepresentations about him because he had been trained, personally, by James, and how dare I suggest that he read the book. I didn’t bother responding.
You see, I knew he had some training by James, but wouldn’t give my source. And, it was completely irrelevant to my point. My advice would have stood. Yes, he was trained by James in hole-card play. But, he did not understand the genius of James’ book. He thought the book was about hole-carding. And indeed, HC was used as examples of techniques and became the pragmatic purpose of the book. But, I never thought that was what the book was about. To me, it was about the AP concept of always looking for a weakness. About not giving up on a game just because the probabilities, if played according to Hoyle, are negative. It doesn’t take a PHD to realize that Roulette has a negative EV. And there are an unlimited number of fake systems. That does NOT mean it cannot be beaten. It does not mean that the practical implementation of a theoretic game is without weakness. For a reader of that book to reject, out of hand, the possibility of beating such a game means, to me, that he missed the entire point of the book.
James, forgive me if I misunderstood the book. But that is why I have advised people to read it. Not for tables that many people can generate.
Thanks for the comments and I like the quote, but we’re just card players.
I should probably let the thread die here, but I want to correct a possible misconception, or two.
James Grosjean’s book is a great book. Even greater, in my mind, than his sycophants realize. Many years back, I was heavily criticized for creating Roulette software, by two recently, new posters here from the BJF crowd. Now, I do not push Roulette. I don’t even mention it on any of my sites. But, I became interested in the concept of Lawrence Scott’s ideas when I realized he was a serious engineer, and that Roulette had some very unusual, possibly exploitable weaknesses. And, I knew that some well-known APs, that might surprise people, were secretly using these techniques. (One famous name had a Roulette table in his back room covered up so that even his BJ team members didn’t know about it.) The techniques are mostly based on the fact that you get to bet after the ball and wheel are already in motion. (Think about that.) There have been some incredible opportunities with machine-thrown balls in one foreign country. (Think Rollerball.) So, I created Roulette software for Larry.
Now, one of these posters loudly proclaimed I was a fraud for creating Roulette software and sarcastically demanded that I tell him what the SCORE of Roulette was. A question that makes no more sense than asking what the SCORE of BJ is. Depends on a huge number of variables. I suggested that he read Beyond Counting. He railed against my suggestion claiming that I was making some sort of false misrepresentations about him because he had been trained, personally, by James, and how dare I suggest that he read the book. I didn’t bother responding.
You see, I knew he had some training by James, but wouldn’t give my source. And, it was completely irrelevant to my point. My advice would have stood. Yes, he was trained by James in hole-card play. But, he did not understand the genius of James’ book. He thought the book was about hole-carding. And indeed, HC was used as examples of techniques and became the pragmatic purpose of the book. But, I never thought that was what the book was about. To me, it was about the AP concept of always looking for a weakness. About not giving up on a game just because the probabilities, if played according to Hoyle, are negative. It doesn’t take a PHD to realize that Roulette has a negative EV. And there are an unlimited number of fake systems. That does NOT mean it cannot be beaten. It does not mean that the practical implementation of a theoretic game is without weakness. For a reader of that book to reject, out of hand, the possibility of beating such a game means, to me, that he missed the entire point of the book.
James, forgive me if I misunderstood the book. But that is why I have advised people to read it. Not for tables that many people can generate.