Illustrious 18 and Fab 4

[CoopOwnz]

Are these tables copyrighted in anyway? Would I be allowed to publish these tables on a website for instance? After all, anyone could come up with these index numbers by running their own simulations right?

 

[Meistro]

IAMNAL but you should be fine. I believe the numbers in question were first published by Stanford Wong so you may wish to have some sort of attribution to him. Incidentally if you are interested I do some content creation work for 2 cents usd a word and can write at length on blackjack.

 

[DSchles]

IAMNAL but you should be fine. I believe the numbers in question were first published by Stanford Wong so you may wish to have some sort of attribution to him. Incidentally if you are interested I do some content creation work for 2 cents usd a word and can write at length on blackjack.

What tables are you talking about?? Surely you know that the I18 and Fab4 were done by me and not Wong.

Don

 

[Meistro]

Correct me if I am wrong here but I believe it was Wong who first published the index numbers for the Hi Lo system.

 

[DSchles]

Correct me if I am wrong here but I believe it was Wong who first published the index numbers for the Hi Lo system.

The title of the thread is Illustrious 18 and Fab 4, no? "Are these tables copyrighted in any way?" has to refer to the title of the thread, no? Otherwise, how do you know what tables he's talking about?

And no, Wong was not the first to publish Hi-Lo tables; Julian Braun was.

Don

 

[Spyros Acebos]

Don,

Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and healthy 2017. I give you tremendous credit for having to deal with all of the inane and non-researched comments and questions being posted online over the past few years, and still doing your best to help new players learn (and when appropriate, referring them to your classic work, BJA, and even the relevant chapters and page numbers).

Once again, best regards, and a happy and healthy new year.

 

[sagefr0g]

credit given where credit due. far as I18 & fab 4, in my mind it goes to Don. having read many of Meistro's posts, i have no doubt he agrees.
the OP put forth a question regarding copyright. i always wonder about that, because the law is beyond my comprehension. i just try and stay on my own footing far as ethics goes.
that said, i too wonder about the legal ramifications of even simply quoting another s incantations. Don, as an author, what is your position regarding such matters? another question is, does the publisher of an author's work have a say in the matter?
the only schooling i've had regarding the matter is a recollection of some elementary school teacher who told us, "if you quote another person's work give them credit".

 

[DSchles]

Don,

Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and healthy 2017. I give you tremendous credit for having to deal with all of the inane and non-researched comments and questions being posted online over the past few years, and still doing your best to help new players learn (and when appropriate, referring them to your classic work, BJA, and even the relevant chapters and page numbers).

Once again, best regards, and a happy and healthy new year.

Thank you very much for the kind words. Happy New Year to you too.

Don

 

[DSchles]

credit given where credit due. far as I18 & fab 4, in my mind it goes to Don. having read many of Meistro's posts, i have no doubt he agrees.
the OP put forth a question regarding copyright. i always wonder about that, because the law is beyond my comprehension. i just try and stay on my own footing far as ethics goes.
that said, i too wonder about the legal ramifications of even simply quoting another s incantations. Don, as an author, what is your position regarding such matters? another question is, does the publisher of an author's work have a say in the matter?
the only schooling i've had regarding the matter is a recollection of some elementary school teacher who told us, "if you quote another person's work give them credit".

The list of hands with their indices is pretty much in the public domain. You can't copyright a bunch of numbers. But, when people do list them, they usually quote the source, which is simply common courtesy. It would violate copyright law if someone were to lift large portions of the text, explaining, say, the methodology, but the list of indices themselves is widely found these days on the Internet.

Don

 

[xengrifter]

The list of hands with their indices is pretty much in the public domain.

Don, prior to your I18+4, as memory serves - Revere published the RPC in '68 (the original '68 spiral-bind published RPC was level-1) with a limited index of about 25 or so indices, subsequently republished as level-2 in '73 ...
... I don't have Revere's book handy to make comparison, but you would know - how many of Revere's top25 indices squared with I18+4?

 

[DSchles]

Don, prior to your I18+4, as memory serves - Revere published the RPC in '68 (the original '68 spiral-bind published RPC was level-1) with a limited index of about 25 or so indices, subsequently republished as level-2 in '70 ...
... I don't have Revere's book handy to make comparison, but you would know - how many of Revere's top25 indices squared with I18+4?

I'm sorry, but I never saw the '68 version nor even knew that RPC came in a level-1 variety. What would that be? He published a "Plus-Minus" system in his book, but that was, basically, Hi-Lo. My first edition of his books dates back only to 1977.

Don

 

[xengrifter]

I'm sorry, but I never saw the '68 version nor even knew that RPC came in a level-1 variety. What would that be? He published a "Plus-Minus" system in his book, but that was, basically, Hi-Lo. My first edition of his books dates back only to 1977.

The 'original RPC' was an indexed HiLo, circa 1968 (or '69) ...
... but we digress - please overlay your 18+4 onto the RPC matrix in the '77 publication and tell us how close Revere got.