Status
Not open for further replies.
#41
DSchles said:
Norm and I discussed this via email. His reply to me follows.

Don

Actually kind of funny as he pulled indices from different sources. They aren’t accurate if you do that.:) But, silly to call me selfish. Anyone can download the CVData or CVBJ demo and get the published indices for free. Just not as accurate as creating new RA indices or customizing them for your own play. Basically, I’ve already created the free library that this poster says he wants to create turning BJInfo into a piracy site. Only I did it legally by getting authorization from every author, which wasn’t easy in some cases. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes intellectual property rights. Anyone that doesn’t respect IP rights doesn’t respect human rights.

You’re welcome to post my response above.
It's not piracy because facts are not copyrighted. The only thing about non-fiction books that is copyrighted is the way the author expresses facts.
https://www.artslaw.com.au/article/a-matter-of-fact-non-fiction-and-copyright/

All you have to do to avoid copyright infringement when it comes to facts is to state them in your own words. When it comes to indices, all you have to do is make your own table. All indices are facts. They show the count where one playing decision's EV intersects with another playing decision's EV for a given counting system.

Rewording facts avoids copyright infringement because the only thing that is copyrighted is the way the fact was expressed. Making a playing deviations chart with the design I used on Google Sheets is expressing the indices in a different way.

Unless if somehow, playing deviations are fiction and classified as creative work, there is no way Norm can call BJInfo a piracy site when facts are expressed differently. Please explain how playing deviations are fiction. That is the only way it would be illegal to post indices online. If indices are fiction, then they wouldn't work to begin with. That would defeat the purpose of using them as an advantage player. Playing deviations increase EV and risk-averse indices decrease risk of ruin, making all of them facts. They have been expressed differently in my post, so it's not copyright infringement.

Clearly Norm doesn't respect intellectual property rights because he doesn't even know what intellectual property is. Facts are not intellectual property, only the way an author expresses facts is intellectual property. Like Norm said, anyone that doesn't respect IP rights doesn't respect human rights. Norm doesn't respect human rights.
 
Last edited:
#42
DSchles said:
Norm says: I did it legally by getting authorization from every author, which wasn’t easy in some cases. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes intellectual property rights. Anyone that doesn’t respect IP rights doesn’t respect human rights.
Oy vey mishugana!
Here we go again with the UN Human Rights babbling-claptrap!

The author of that misleading missive should best be reminded that the 8th commandment of Mosaic law forbids bearing false witness against they neighbor. Anyone who does so does not respect fundamental human dignity.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#43
DoubleOnHard20 said:
Clearly Norm doesn't respect intellectual property rights because he doesn't even know what intellectual property is. Facts are not intellectual property, only the way an author expresses facts is intellectual property. Like Norm said, anyone that doesn't respect IP rights doesn't respect human rights. Norm doesn't respect human rights.
Please stop this nonsense at once. Norm, is a generous person who has openly shared plenty of his own research with the blackjack community. First, you start on Don S who has been answering questions on forums for decades for FREE, now you attack Norm. You must be a troll to come along and expect to be spoon-fed with a real attitude to boot.
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#44
I have been trying to repost a post that Norm put up at his site. Unfortunately, for some technical reason that neither Norm nor Al can fathom, it will not go through. Instead, I get this error message: "Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later. More error details may be in the browser console.:

I've tried Firefox and Chrome, to no avail. Really weird. Anyway, I'll keep trying.

Don
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#45
DSchles said:
I have been trying to repost a post that Norm put up at his site. Unfortunately, for some technical reason that neither Norm nor Al can fathom, it will not go through. Instead, I get this error message: "Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later. More error details may be in the browser console.:

I've tried Firefox and Chrome, to no avail. Really weird. Anyway, I'll keep trying.

Don
Open a command prompt screen with administrator rights. Type "ipconfig /flushDNS".

This is probably something related to Trump's cyber attack on Iran. Internet acts weird today.
 
#46
BoSox said:
Please stop this nonsense at once. Norm, is a generous person who has openly shared plenty of his own research with the blackjack community. First, you start on Don S who has been answering questions on forums for decades for FREE, now you attack Norm.
Generous people share indices and advice for free. Don puts indices and advice in books. If Don is generous person, he would have posted full indices onto this forum instead of putting it in his book. Don replied to a post about card counter etiquette by telling the OP to read his book. He didn't answer his question for free or at all.

I never attacked Norm. Norm is the one who said that anyone who doesn't respect IP rights doesn't respect human rights. I just used his own words against him.
BoSox said:
You must be a troll to come along and expect to be spoon-fed with a real attitude to boot.
Would a troll post more than 90 playing deviations?
 
Last edited:

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#47
BoSox said:
Please stop this nonsense at once. Norm, is a generous person who has openly shared plenty of his own research with the blackjack community. First, you start on Don S who has been answering questions on forums for decades for FREE, now you attack Norm. You must be a troll to come along and expect to be spoon-fed with a real attitude to boot.
Whether Norm has generously shared useful information doesn't make him right about copyright law. His statements indicate that, on the contrary, he's way off his rocker.
 
#48
johndoe said:
Whether Norm has generously shared useful information doesn't make him right about copyright law. His statements indicate that, on the contrary, he's way off his rocker.
DoubleOnHard20 said:
Generous people share indices and advice for free. Don puts indices and advice in books. If Don is generous person, he would have posted full indices onto this forum instead of putting it in his book. Don replied to a post about card counter etiquette by telling the OP to read his book. He didn't answer his question for free or at all.

I never attacked Norm. Norm is the one who said that anyone who doesn't respect IP rights doesn't respect human rights. I just used his own words against him.

Would a troll post more than 90 playing deviations?
Don't mind the 3 headed dragons on these sites, they maybe 3 heads but they all think the same
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#49
jupitor88 said:
Don't mind the 3 headed dragons on these sites, they maybe 3 heads but they all think the same
Apparently, the two know-it-alls never learned the lesson of, not biting the hands that feed you!
 
#50
BoSox said:
Apparently, the two know-it-alls never learned the lesson of, not biting the hands that feed you!
What has Don or Norm ever fed to me or jupitor88 on this forum?

Norm is the one that doesn't understand what copyright infringement is. I never started this.
 
Last edited:

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#51
DoubleOnHard20 said:
What has Don or Norm ever fed to me or jupitor88 on this forum?
Norm and Don don't "feed" anyone. They lead us to water and players decide for themselves whether to drink or not. Oddly you decided to fight about who owns the water.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#52
One can have a deep respect and appreciation for someone's work without agreeing with everything they say, especially about semi-important legal matters. If they're mistaken, doing good work doesn't make them not mistaken, especially with their errors could lead to having other peoples' work unjustly removed from public forums.

However, it does make it polite to buy their damn books already. (Which I do own, for the record.) The books are far more valuable than a few index charts anyway.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#53
KewlJ said:
Norm and Don don't "feed" anyone. They lead us to water and players decide for themselves whether to drink or not. Oddly you decided to fight about who owns the water.
And the worse part is this isn't even about the water (indices). You aren't trying to better your game or anyone elses. You are just trying to fight with Norm/Don. Probably continuing this or another fight just to fight.

I know a little something about long-term feud and holding a grudge. Whatever it is...let it go. Not worth it. Nobody wins these things. Focus on blackjack play and enjoying life in whatever order you put them in. :)
 
#54
KewlJ said:
Norm and Don don't "feed" anyone. They lead us to water and players decide for themselves whether to drink or not. Oddly you decided to fight about who owns the water.
Norm and Don decided to fight about who owns the water when I said that no one does.
KewlJ said:
And the worse part is this isn't even about the water (indices). You aren't trying to better your game or anyone elses. You are just trying to fight with Norm/Don. Probably continuing this or another fight just to fight.
I am trying to better my game. That's why I asked for indices. I'm also trying to make it easier for others to find indices and better their own game. If Don and BJgenius007 would stop replying to this thread, then this can stop and I'll update the original post with new indices if I get them.

KewlJ said:
I know a little something about long-term feud and holding a grudge. Whatever it is...let it go. Not worth it. Nobody wins these things. Focus on blackjack play and enjoying life in whatever order you put them in. :)
I don't like holding grudges. The reason why I called you guys selfish is because people on this forum don't help each other out as much as before. If someone requested indices, someone would generate them and answer their questions. I've already linked to some of these posts. There are a lot of them from before 2011.

The first reply to my post was by BJgenius007 saying that it would be removed because all indices are copyrighted. I explained why it wasn't. If Norm and Don still think indices are copyrighted, I don't know what else to say. I would just keep repeating what I've already said.

I would like this to stop and for Norm and Don to not care if people share indices on this forum. Nobody owns indices.
 
#55
johndoe said:
One can have a deep respect and appreciation for someone's work without agreeing with everything they say, especially about semi-important legal matters. If they're mistaken, doing good work doesn't make them not mistaken, especially with their errors could lead to having other peoples' work unjustly removed from public forums.

However, it does make it polite to buy their damn books already. (Which I do own, for the record.) The books are far more valuable than a few index charts anyway.
I'm pretty sure I will buy them for both the indices and the rest of the information in the books.

I'm not sure if CVData and CVCX are worth purchasing. Getting custom indices for specific rules would hardly increase EV at all. All I want are full indices that can be used for most shoe games, including risk-averse ones.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#56
It is likely you are putting far to much weight or importance on indices and index plays. Unless you are playing single deck or deeply dealt double deck games, index plays are pretty far down on what is important to playing a winning game.

Also if you think Norm's products are only about generating index numbers you are greatly missing out on the value of these products.

In my mind the things you will learn about variance and in particular risk and how different variables effect risk and variance is probably the most important and least discussed aspect of the game.
 
#57
KewlJ said:
It is likely you are putting far to much weight or importance on indices and index plays. Unless you are playing single deck or deeply dealt double deck games, index plays are pretty far down on what is important to playing a winning game.
They don't add that much to EV or decrease risk that much, but in the long-run, the amount that using indices has increased your bankroll compared to not using them from the start will increase exponentially as your bankroll and betting units do the same.
KewlJ said:
Also if you think Norm's products are only about generating index numbers you are greatly missing out on the value of these products.
I'm pretty sure that indices, especially risk-averse ones, are more valuable than anything else that Norm's products can generate.
KewlJ said:
In my mind the things you will learn about variance and in particular risk and how different variables effect risk and variance is probably the most important and least discussed aspect of the game.
Where can I find more information about this? Any book recommendations?
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#58
I said that I would no longer respond to our original poster, as he has no desire to learn, but I am reposting here a message that Norm recently furnished for his forum readers, as a service and a courtesy for some of our more open-minded and rational members, whose brains still function properly.

Don

On another site, there have been a large number of statements made which come from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of card counting indices. I thought I’d try to add a bit of clarity to the issue.

First, indices are not created by a mathematic process. That is, there is no formula, there is no way to calculate them exactly, and different generators use different methodologies and arrive at different results. Further, they vary by circumstances. Now, there are some people that have created indices by what appears to be a mathematical process using spreadsheets. However, these algorithms begin with effects of removal (EORs). The problem is that EORs are also not created by a mathematic process, are not exact, depend on circumstances, and don’t take into account index interaction. They are estimates based upon assumptions: number of decks, penetration, rules, and which other indices are to be used. Indices interact, and RA indices interact more than EV-maximizing indices. That is, if you drop an index, other indices might change a tad. So, even the selection of the indices used is not an algorithmic process, and can affect the values. Additionally, the choice of which indices to use can vary by the counting tags as some tags work better with some decisions. On top of that, the creation of indices using EORs invalidates the original EORs upon which they are based. On top of this, EOR-based indices are less accurate.

You might notice that even different printings of the same books have differences in the tables as authors have made tweeks to improve performance. Wong changed all negative indices and then changed a few individual indices in later printings. Carlson also tweeked individual indices. Synder produced multiple versions of Red7 and Zen; some dramatically different. KO has multiple versions. Beyond Counting has tables for common strategies that are not the same as the originals.

Basically, we have non-algorithmic upon non-algorithmic processes begun with a large number of human decisions to try to provide the best results for what the author thinks are the most useful present conditions given the limitations of the current technology.

Now the question arose as to why there isn’t a free library of indices. Well, there has been since before the web existed. The CV products have free demo downloads and those downloads contain hundreds of index tables by counting system, rules, and decks as published in various books. The reason that I have not published them online is that my agreements and contracts with the various authors to use their intellectual property only go so far as to include them in software. Since they were created by processes that are not purely mathematic, and in nearly all cases not reproducible by other people, they are protected by copyright. Now, the published indices were generally created when compute power was less available, before newer techniques were established, without risk-aversion, usually with the assumption that large numbers of indices were needed, with a limited number of rule sets, with higher penetrations than are now available, and mostly without flooring. So, better indices can be created. That doesn’t mean the older indices are no good. In some cases, for example AOII, they’re excellent. They are certainly usable with today’s rules, and the gains in using better indices aren’t generally huge. Which is to say that there is nothing wrong with using them with standard blackjack games.


[Don again]: I would add that it is painfully obvious, for all those who have some history and perspective of researching index numbers, that they are definitely NOT a clearcut, indisputable, mathematical "fact." They are subject to myriad methodologies for generation and, therefore, differ among authors and researchers. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact. The area of a circle equals pi r squared is a fact. The Hi-Lo index for surrendering 8,8 vs. T, with DAS = +2 is NOT such a "fact." Wong gives zero, which is wrong. Others give +1, which is correct for NDAS but is probably too low for DAS.

In any event, the point is a simple one: indices are not facts; rather, they are subject to interpretation, as Norm has outlined above. And, when a researcher goes to great lengths to provide a complete set of such indices, after expending a great deal of time, effort, and intellectual expertise, the result of such published work is undeniably copyrightable.

Again, this is for the edification of our more enlightened readers; it is not intended as a response to the OP, who is not interested in learning.

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top