Seeking Update CBJN vs. Trackjack *LINK*
- Thread starter zengrifter
- Start date
Comparison
OK you commie ass...
CBJN- seems to have a much more developed network of reporters. Changes in stores around the US are all listed up front, and apparently promptly.
Trackjack- has a lot more features. There's a place for each store where people can post trip reports. There's more info on sidebets, shuffle method, and variation on penetration. Pen is defined as an average with +/-, whereas CBJN is just the average. I'd rather know what the best dealer in the house is cutting to, not the average. It's also sortable. CBJN is also sortable if you take it in Excel format, but then you have to be an Excel jock.
With all the features of Trackjack, it's still hard to beat CBJN's network of very reliable people supplying the data. If you combined the two, you'd have the best tool. Both services have errors, and the data from the small and out-of-the-way venues can be years old. All the data from Vegas is good, being there are just so many people playing there. For a guy like you who uses all kinds of advanced techniques, the extra information in the Trackjack listings would probably be worth the $10 a month. For a guy like me who grinds and travels to games in odd places, the higher accuracy of CBJN is worthwhile. If I were a pro I wouldn't hesitate to take both.
OK you commie ass...
CBJN- seems to have a much more developed network of reporters. Changes in stores around the US are all listed up front, and apparently promptly.
Trackjack- has a lot more features. There's a place for each store where people can post trip reports. There's more info on sidebets, shuffle method, and variation on penetration. Pen is defined as an average with +/-, whereas CBJN is just the average. I'd rather know what the best dealer in the house is cutting to, not the average. It's also sortable. CBJN is also sortable if you take it in Excel format, but then you have to be an Excel jock.
With all the features of Trackjack, it's still hard to beat CBJN's network of very reliable people supplying the data. If you combined the two, you'd have the best tool. Both services have errors, and the data from the small and out-of-the-way venues can be years old. All the data from Vegas is good, being there are just so many people playing there. For a guy like you who uses all kinds of advanced techniques, the extra information in the Trackjack listings would probably be worth the $10 a month. For a guy like me who grinds and travels to games in odd places, the higher accuracy of CBJN is worthwhile. If I were a pro I wouldn't hesitate to take both.
CBJN
I agree with AM.
There were too many inaccuracies with Trackjack (though I did love their format)when I subscribed. My main complaint was that whenever I asked about these weaknesses I was run over with all of the constant controversy regarding T-Man and them. I just wanted decent customer service and instead I would find myself involved with drama that I am not at all interested in.
HJ
I agree with AM.
There were too many inaccuracies with Trackjack (though I did love their format)when I subscribed. My main complaint was that whenever I asked about these weaknesses I was run over with all of the constant controversy regarding T-Man and them. I just wanted decent customer service and instead I would find myself involved with drama that I am not at all interested in.
HJ
I wish it could be discussed.
There were too many inaccuracies with Trackjack (though I did love their format)when I subscribed. My main complaint was that whenever I asked about these weaknesses I was run over with all of the constant controversy regarding T-Man and them. I just wanted decent customer service and instead I would find myself involved with drama that I am not at all interested in.
The merits and lack thereof of both services should be discussed.
It should be done without the "personal controversy".
I would welcome such a discussion and would only contribute relevant information about the two services without the mudslinging. If other parties would do so as well, we could have a meaningful discussion.
There were too many inaccuracies with Trackjack (though I did love their format)when I subscribed. My main complaint was that whenever I asked about these weaknesses I was run over with all of the constant controversy regarding T-Man and them. I just wanted decent customer service and instead I would find myself involved with drama that I am not at all interested in.
The merits and lack thereof of both services should be discussed.
It should be done without the "personal controversy".
I would welcome such a discussion and would only contribute relevant information about the two services without the mudslinging. If other parties would do so as well, we could have a meaningful discussion.
My thoughts...
Those who would be in the position to objectively comment on CBJN or Trackjack are those who have recently used the services as patrons, have carried the information into the practical world of casinos, and can comment on their comparative results using each service.
If you have used either recently, and can comment directly on your experience with it in a casino environment, or those issues you had with the service as you tried to use it, then I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
My question to you, T-man, is when is the last time you used CBJN? What was your reaction to it? What were its weaknesses? What were its strenghts? What could be improved with CBJN? I would be very interested to have you comment solely on CBJN.
Thanks,
--Mayor
Those who would be in the position to objectively comment on CBJN or Trackjack are those who have recently used the services as patrons, have carried the information into the practical world of casinos, and can comment on their comparative results using each service.
If you have used either recently, and can comment directly on your experience with it in a casino environment, or those issues you had with the service as you tried to use it, then I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
My question to you, T-man, is when is the last time you used CBJN? What was your reaction to it? What were its weaknesses? What were its strenghts? What could be improved with CBJN? I would be very interested to have you comment solely on CBJN.
Thanks,
--Mayor
My opinions...
When Trackjack first started I got one of the free 3 month subscriptions, and even contributed a report. But, that was the last time I used it. I have always thought it has great potential. But, its ultimate value is its practical application for those in the field, and I would definitely appreciate an update from someone who has used it recently.
I have used CBJN a number of times, but find its main value is to keep me from travelling long distances to remote casinos with very poor games. As far as Las Vegas (Strip & Downtown), walking has always worked best for me. I can have a list of the top casinos in my hand, but I still seem to ignore it as I walk. Conditions are always changing, most games have dealer dependent penetration, how crowded the tables are is not listed, and you will never find those *special* opportunities if you look for them in CBJN, Trackjack (or anywhere else).
--Mayor
When Trackjack first started I got one of the free 3 month subscriptions, and even contributed a report. But, that was the last time I used it. I have always thought it has great potential. But, its ultimate value is its practical application for those in the field, and I would definitely appreciate an update from someone who has used it recently.
I have used CBJN a number of times, but find its main value is to keep me from travelling long distances to remote casinos with very poor games. As far as Las Vegas (Strip & Downtown), walking has always worked best for me. I can have a list of the top casinos in my hand, but I still seem to ignore it as I walk. Conditions are always changing, most games have dealer dependent penetration, how crowded the tables are is not listed, and you will never find those *special* opportunities if you look for them in CBJN, Trackjack (or anywhere else).
--Mayor
Nevermind, Eliot. Frankly, you've got some nerve.
In your post entitled "My thoughts...", you state:
If you have used either recently, and can comment directly on your experience with it in a casino environment, or those issues you had with the service as you tried to use it, then I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
and:
My question to you, T-man, is when is the last time you used CBJN? What was your reaction to it? What were its weaknesses? What were its strenghts? What could be improved with CBJN? I would be very interested to have you comment <u>solely</u> on CBJN.
I have had a continually, automatically re-newing subscription to CBJN for several years. I still have it. I have also made contributions to it. I could probably provide the most in depth evaluation of CBJN that anyone could since I carefully compared it to trackjack on almost a daily basis for a year and a half as any newspaper editor would compare his competitors' papers to his own.
I was prepared to grant your request until I read this in your post entitled "My opinions...":
When Trackjack first started I got one of the free 3 month subscriptions, and even contributed a report. But, that was the last time I used it.
Well Eliot, I have had a paid subscription to trackjack more recently than you, but you permit yourself to comment on it but not me.
Do you think you are right to try to say who is allowed to comment on topics and who is not?
In your post entitled "My thoughts...", you state:
If you have used either recently, and can comment directly on your experience with it in a casino environment, or those issues you had with the service as you tried to use it, then I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
and:
My question to you, T-man, is when is the last time you used CBJN? What was your reaction to it? What were its weaknesses? What were its strenghts? What could be improved with CBJN? I would be very interested to have you comment <u>solely</u> on CBJN.
I have had a continually, automatically re-newing subscription to CBJN for several years. I still have it. I have also made contributions to it. I could probably provide the most in depth evaluation of CBJN that anyone could since I carefully compared it to trackjack on almost a daily basis for a year and a half as any newspaper editor would compare his competitors' papers to his own.
I was prepared to grant your request until I read this in your post entitled "My opinions...":
When Trackjack first started I got one of the free 3 month subscriptions, and even contributed a report. But, that was the last time I used it.
Well Eliot, I have had a paid subscription to trackjack more recently than you, but you permit yourself to comment on it but not me.
Do you think you are right to try to say who is allowed to comment on topics and who is not?
an aside...
T-man... we've had our share of exchanges that have always been polite and informative. I read Mayor's request, and interpreted it as:
"T-man, please comment on CBJN. I already know what you think of trackjack, you've been very explicit in the past and there's no need to rehash a subject that is obviously painful for you..."
I didn't take it as him saying to not comment on TJ, I took it to mean "no need to comment as we all know your opinion there already..."
At least in my reading it wasn't meant to be controlling nor insulting. That was merely my take of course... YMMV and all that...
keep up the good work otherwise...
T-man... we've had our share of exchanges that have always been polite and informative. I read Mayor's request, and interpreted it as:
"T-man, please comment on CBJN. I already know what you think of trackjack, you've been very explicit in the past and there's no need to rehash a subject that is obviously painful for you..."
I didn't take it as him saying to not comment on TJ, I took it to mean "no need to comment as we all know your opinion there already..."
At least in my reading it wasn't meant to be controlling nor insulting. That was merely my take of course... YMMV and all that...
keep up the good work otherwise...
Probably for the best
>Do you think you are right to try to say who is allowed to comment on topics and who is not?
It is my honest wish that you (and others) share your opinions about how these services fair for the consumer in the field who is actually using them. That, after all, is the only way of measuring their current worth to the consumer. I hope you will share your recent experiences using either service in a practical casino environment.
I only wish that this discussion will help the consumer make a fair appraisal of what service would be best for him, and that means how they work for people who have used them recently in the field.
With best wishes,
--Mayor
>Do you think you are right to try to say who is allowed to comment on topics and who is not?
It is my honest wish that you (and others) share your opinions about how these services fair for the consumer in the field who is actually using them. That, after all, is the only way of measuring their current worth to the consumer. I hope you will share your recent experiences using either service in a practical casino environment.
I only wish that this discussion will help the consumer make a fair appraisal of what service would be best for him, and that means how they work for people who have used them recently in the field.
With best wishes,
--Mayor
A Report on CBJN
Excuse the munching sound in the background. That's just me eating a little humble pie.
I've had CBJN for a very long time. I have used it countless times, and have found it to be quite accurate. On the first and second day of each month, the Las Vegas reporters each take their section of the city, and personally review all of the casinos' blackjack conditions.
On the third day of the month, the new edition of CBJN is published. It contains a fresh conditions update of all of Vegas. It also contains the conditions of all areas of the North American continent. Some of these areas may not have a fresh report for the month, but the report indicates the last month in which the area was refreshed.
Stanford does publish a list of areas for which he needs a report, and he publishes how much he is willing to pay. He does advise subscribers to write him first to makes sure that nobody else has already taken the assignment.
Of course, the games list min & max bets, how many tables, how many decks are used, all of the rules such as if re-splitting pairs, re-splitting aces, upon what hands doubling down is allowed, etc. How the game is dealt and how it is shuffled is noted.
Penetration is described by how many decks to one decimal place (tenths of a deck) are cut off.
Special options are listed.
Of course, conditions change, and some things change very quickly such as number of tables and minimum bets allowed. Penetration will almost always vary. These are things the player has to verify on his own, along with those special opportunities that Eliot hinted about.
Every game that has changed since the last report has an indicator in the left margin. If the change is good for the player, the indicator is a plus sign. If it's bad for the player, a minus sign is used. A neutral change is designated by an asterisk.
Another nice feature is that there is a summary report each month describing all of the games that have changed, so if you see an indicator sign, you can look up what changed.
Probably the worst feature about CBJN is that there is only one report date for each small area. So, if a group has 15 games, and only 13 were updated, the report date is still the same for the other two games. Stanford is very clear about this policy.
I like the fact that there is a listing of all the reporters, and that if you find an error, you can discuss it with the reporter right there on CBJN.
CBJN is available in download, hardcopy, and right on the site. It is available in Excel so that you can set up your own sorting.
A very reputable Greenchipper rates the SCORE of the best games in Vegas based off of CBJN a couple of days or so after the latest edition comes out on the Greenchip Las Vegas page.
For the year and a half that I was editor of the other service, everytime I made an update, I compared it to CBJN. I never copied CBJN, but anytime I saw a significant difference in the two services, I investigated the difference on my own. I have to admit that the errors I found in CBJN were extremely few, and when I encountered them, I possessed a secret joy that I was right and such a reliable service was wrong.
Last December, I sat in a restaurant in Vegas with Stanford Wong, LVBear, and another advantage player. The un-named player told Stanford about an idea of a different subscriber service about a different game he had in mind. Stanford remarked that he did not think that the service would have a big enough customer base to develop an adequate customer loyalty to make the service profitable no matter how good the service was. The player asked for an elaboration about customer loyalty. I told him how, due to my geographical location, it would probably be a wiser economical decision for me to just buy a month's report whenever I needed CBJN, but that I maintained a constant subscription to help support such a fine service.
Last Spring, I was playing in an area, and found that the report for that area was not completely accurate. I listed the discrepancies and emailed them to Stanford. Stanford has a reporter for that area, and I did not expect to be paid for the report, but Stanford sent me a check for the full amount that he pays for that area anyway.
I hope this report benefits many of the readers, and also makes up for my earlier display of temper.
-T-
Excuse the munching sound in the background. That's just me eating a little humble pie.
I've had CBJN for a very long time. I have used it countless times, and have found it to be quite accurate. On the first and second day of each month, the Las Vegas reporters each take their section of the city, and personally review all of the casinos' blackjack conditions.
On the third day of the month, the new edition of CBJN is published. It contains a fresh conditions update of all of Vegas. It also contains the conditions of all areas of the North American continent. Some of these areas may not have a fresh report for the month, but the report indicates the last month in which the area was refreshed.
Stanford does publish a list of areas for which he needs a report, and he publishes how much he is willing to pay. He does advise subscribers to write him first to makes sure that nobody else has already taken the assignment.
Of course, the games list min & max bets, how many tables, how many decks are used, all of the rules such as if re-splitting pairs, re-splitting aces, upon what hands doubling down is allowed, etc. How the game is dealt and how it is shuffled is noted.
Penetration is described by how many decks to one decimal place (tenths of a deck) are cut off.
Special options are listed.
Of course, conditions change, and some things change very quickly such as number of tables and minimum bets allowed. Penetration will almost always vary. These are things the player has to verify on his own, along with those special opportunities that Eliot hinted about.
Every game that has changed since the last report has an indicator in the left margin. If the change is good for the player, the indicator is a plus sign. If it's bad for the player, a minus sign is used. A neutral change is designated by an asterisk.
Another nice feature is that there is a summary report each month describing all of the games that have changed, so if you see an indicator sign, you can look up what changed.
Probably the worst feature about CBJN is that there is only one report date for each small area. So, if a group has 15 games, and only 13 were updated, the report date is still the same for the other two games. Stanford is very clear about this policy.
I like the fact that there is a listing of all the reporters, and that if you find an error, you can discuss it with the reporter right there on CBJN.
CBJN is available in download, hardcopy, and right on the site. It is available in Excel so that you can set up your own sorting.
A very reputable Greenchipper rates the SCORE of the best games in Vegas based off of CBJN a couple of days or so after the latest edition comes out on the Greenchip Las Vegas page.
For the year and a half that I was editor of the other service, everytime I made an update, I compared it to CBJN. I never copied CBJN, but anytime I saw a significant difference in the two services, I investigated the difference on my own. I have to admit that the errors I found in CBJN were extremely few, and when I encountered them, I possessed a secret joy that I was right and such a reliable service was wrong.
Last December, I sat in a restaurant in Vegas with Stanford Wong, LVBear, and another advantage player. The un-named player told Stanford about an idea of a different subscriber service about a different game he had in mind. Stanford remarked that he did not think that the service would have a big enough customer base to develop an adequate customer loyalty to make the service profitable no matter how good the service was. The player asked for an elaboration about customer loyalty. I told him how, due to my geographical location, it would probably be a wiser economical decision for me to just buy a month's report whenever I needed CBJN, but that I maintained a constant subscription to help support such a fine service.
Last Spring, I was playing in an area, and found that the report for that area was not completely accurate. I listed the discrepancies and emailed them to Stanford. Stanford has a reporter for that area, and I did not expect to be paid for the report, but Stanford sent me a check for the full amount that he pays for that area anyway.
I hope this report benefits many of the readers, and also makes up for my earlier display of temper.
-T-
Early on I thought Trackjack ('TJ') would be a cinch because...
... it could rely on CBJN Excel for the initial 'spade-work' and then a small# of reporters would work WITH the TJ subscribers to maintain the info.
Ultimately the TJ users weren't interested in updating the info, which with TJ would be instantaneous-interactive.
I was hoping to hear that TJ had improved.
Even in the case of CBJN the info is NOT reliable, as often positive changes remain "under-wraps" for some time, especially in the red-chip games.
Slots 'o Fun 2D is but one example. 3mos after that game switched to s17 it was not reported... and the pene from half the swing-shift dealers exceeds 66%, some greatly, and its got LLadies! zg
... it could rely on CBJN Excel for the initial 'spade-work' and then a small# of reporters would work WITH the TJ subscribers to maintain the info.
Ultimately the TJ users weren't interested in updating the info, which with TJ would be instantaneous-interactive.
I was hoping to hear that TJ had improved.
Even in the case of CBJN the info is NOT reliable, as often positive changes remain "under-wraps" for some time, especially in the red-chip games.
Slots 'o Fun 2D is but one example. 3mos after that game switched to s17 it was not reported... and the pene from half the swing-shift dealers exceeds 66%, some greatly, and its got LLadies! zg
good report!
I knew your feelings about the "other service". Having your thoughts about this one is very useful.
Probably the only quibble with any of these is that a one-month interval can sometimes be a lifetime. For example, the plaza DD games going from pitch to shoe overnight (not that a shoe is bad, but if it has a cut card notch, it tends to standardize penetration moreso than a real hand-held game). But a good report at least provides a starting point, although I must confess that friends and I have looked at such reports, found what appeared to be a "no-play" joint but walked in to find a very playable game sitting there waiting. It is hard to figure out if (a) it was bad when reviewed but was changed to a better game; (b) the reviewer just got bad dealers with poor pen, when other dealers were better but not observed; (c) the reviewer just didn't want to list a good game and risk it getting burned out.
I suppose any of the above are possible, depending on the circumstances?
I knew your feelings about the "other service". Having your thoughts about this one is very useful.
Probably the only quibble with any of these is that a one-month interval can sometimes be a lifetime. For example, the plaza DD games going from pitch to shoe overnight (not that a shoe is bad, but if it has a cut card notch, it tends to standardize penetration moreso than a real hand-held game). But a good report at least provides a starting point, although I must confess that friends and I have looked at such reports, found what appeared to be a "no-play" joint but walked in to find a very playable game sitting there waiting. It is hard to figure out if (a) it was bad when reviewed but was changed to a better game; (b) the reviewer just got bad dealers with poor pen, when other dealers were better but not observed; (c) the reviewer just didn't want to list a good game and risk it getting burned out.
I suppose any of the above are possible, depending on the circumstances?
