A feel for the environment

[daddybo]

Well said.... As was said too me once..."open your eyes.."

 

[sagefr0g]

.... 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.

....

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.

another humble one here, but i would like to comment.

perhaps as you state that may not be what James had in mind as the purpose of his book. then again maybe it was.
even if it wasn't the point of the book, the idea you state with regard to it comes through loud and clear from a perusal of the book.

whatever, it's a (imho) great point!

 

[MAZ]

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.

Here we go again. Well as a real player I would just like to say.................just kidding.

Very nice post.

 

[Katweezel]

Here we go again. Well as a real player I would just like to say.................just kidding.

Very nice post.

I'd just like to say the tit-for-tat between MAZ and QFIT really should have been in capital letters (like their names) because it really was capital. That is, in the sense that it could well have degenerated into a bunfight - or worse - but it actually turned into one of the best posts V posts I ever had the privilege or reading.

IMO this was because each poster dared venture further than most; with frank, open and honest expression of the type not often seen here... (or anywhere else for that matter.) The whole thing wound up as a great example of classy communication pretty much free of over-inflated ego, fear or favor. You guys just raised the bar here. Nice work.

 

[ExhibitCAA]

QFIT: "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."

I just noticed your post, and would like to say that the person you were dealing with, regardless of your sources, was most certainly not "trained by [me] in hole-card play." Played with me?--maybe (many people have). Learned some things from me?--undoubtedly. Thinks I taught them most of what I know about HCing?--perhaps. But believe me, I have trained only one or two people in HC play, and they would not criticize your roulette material, or likely ever even have communication with you publicly or privately. In fact, they wouldn't even be aware of your various products. And, there is NO ONE on the planet with whom I've shared everything I know about HCing.

Basically, I'm saying that the operative word in your post is "some," with an emphasis on how different it is to be a casual acquaintance or one-time partner who had "some training" from me, vs. being a member of my inner-circle crew (vs. being me).

This is basically another variation of the myth that the LVHCM is "my crowd," and we've been over that ground before.

 

[QFIT]

Certainly no surprise that he exaggerated to try to bolster his argument. That's why I toned down his claim with the word "some."