Speaking of BJTF another one of my posts was deleted this week by the moderator for expressing a short normal opinionated piece that thankfully was quoted first by the new researcher before the deletion. I get the message being sent, someone with almost 15000 posts has priveledges and are off limits.
SplitFaceDisaster question answered
- Thread starter KewlJ
- Start date
Dummy, which of the two preferences do you enjoy writing about the most?
#1 " I hadn't thought through how other people play enough to realize an opportunity that is there for my approach is rarely there for most other approaches"
#2 " I pointed out when I realized that it had little application to most counts and when it applied. I just never played an ace reckoned count so I never realized how many opportunities to improve are not available to simple approaches. Having your bets correlate 100% to your plays doesn't only make you easier to spot, it also closes a lot of opportunities for improving your play. But that should be no surprise to anyone. Simplicity is a trade off with utility and playing strength. That is just the way things are."
Just how many times do you have to repeatedly say the two quotes "in one form or another" to please your ego? Don't you think that it is rather convenient on your part to frequently say things like "I hadn't thought through how other people play" or " when I realized that it had little application to most counts and when it applied" all the things you enjoy talking about? Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
#1 " I hadn't thought through how other people play enough to realize an opportunity that is there for my approach is rarely there for most other approaches"
#2 " I pointed out when I realized that it had little application to most counts and when it applied. I just never played an ace reckoned count so I never realized how many opportunities to improve are not available to simple approaches. Having your bets correlate 100% to your plays doesn't only make you easier to spot, it also closes a lot of opportunities for improving your play. But that should be no surprise to anyone. Simplicity is a trade off with utility and playing strength. That is just the way things are."
Just how many times do you have to repeatedly say the two quotes "in one form or another" to please your ego? Don't you think that it is rather convenient on your part to frequently say things like "I hadn't thought through how other people play" or " when I realized that it had little application to most counts and when it applied" all the things you enjoy talking about? Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
Last edited:
I don't see how stating the facts is to please my ego. Understanding a persons perspective is important to understanding what they are saying and where their view comes from. That is a pretty basic concept when reading different perspectives and understanding the bigger picture from all perspectives. If I watch a news channel that does nothing but bash one side with an occasional break to tell how good the other side is, I know what their perspective is and take their coverage to be very biased and not well balanced, so I know major adjustments are needed to see the whole picture. By stating my history that shaped my perspective and therefore posts, I am showing my bias and you should know to look for a perspective from another side to get a good overall view. Or look for a perspective that fits your plans to follow something that is relevant to you. Or if you are changing gears to play with another perspective seek out the advice of people that post from that perspective. I think saying these things are some of the most important parts of understanding what applies to you and what doesn't.
Like nothing the simple camp says applies to what I do. I learn about their perspective from their posts and I like learning, but the limitations they sacrifice for simplicity usually don't apply to more complicated approaches. Conversely people in the simple camp often don't believe the opportunities they gave up for simplicity even exist because they are not there for their approach. And they base their comments on their research into what they do and their experience. It is obvious we see a lot of that here. Choosing your approach involves a lot of trade offs. The baseline for simplicity for me, based on my experience counting, is an ace neutral main count with ace side count sytem played in shoe games. I started way back when using Hiopt1/ASC. That is the simplest thing I have experienced so to me that is really simple. That is another truth in life. What you view as simple is dependent on your personal experience, just as what you view as hard is based on your personal experience. The truth is anything becomes easy with enough practice and use. That defines my perspective based on my experience counting for 4 decades. It helps people put my comments in perspective and understand that things I talk about may apply to more complicated systems and not to simpler ones. I would feel pretty lame if my skill set didn't grow in that time given the fact that anything will become easy and effortless with enough practice and and use in a casino. Especially given the fact that the best counting opportunities beg for complexity, whether they are pitch games or BJ variants.
Like nothing the simple camp says applies to what I do. I learn about their perspective from their posts and I like learning, but the limitations they sacrifice for simplicity usually don't apply to more complicated approaches. Conversely people in the simple camp often don't believe the opportunities they gave up for simplicity even exist because they are not there for their approach. And they base their comments on their research into what they do and their experience. It is obvious we see a lot of that here. Choosing your approach involves a lot of trade offs. The baseline for simplicity for me, based on my experience counting, is an ace neutral main count with ace side count sytem played in shoe games. I started way back when using Hiopt1/ASC. That is the simplest thing I have experienced so to me that is really simple. That is another truth in life. What you view as simple is dependent on your personal experience, just as what you view as hard is based on your personal experience. The truth is anything becomes easy with enough practice and use. That defines my perspective based on my experience counting for 4 decades. It helps people put my comments in perspective and understand that things I talk about may apply to more complicated systems and not to simpler ones. I would feel pretty lame if my skill set didn't grow in that time given the fact that anything will become easy and effortless with enough practice and and use in a casino. Especially given the fact that the best counting opportunities beg for complexity, whether they are pitch games or BJ variants.
In the sea of your BS posts, you are unable to show a single example to illustrate it. You are the biggest laughingstock on the BJ sites.
21forme summarized you right on: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance , baffle them with bullshit"! His one phrase covers all your 14000+ useless posts and that is brilliance!
Your laughable posts at least helped my long holiday break go fast.
21forme summarized you right on: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance , baffle them with bullshit"! His one phrase covers all your 14000+ useless posts and that is brilliance!
Your laughable posts at least helped my long holiday break go fast.
Your posts that you don't understand what I say illustrate the point that many who use the simple approach don't know what opportunities they have given up by their choice to use a simple approach because they opportunities are not there for their count. That is perfect proof of the point you quote. Those that use more complex counts see the opportunities you don't think exist so they know I am not full of shit. Your very narrow field of BJ knowledge and ignorance when discussions go beyond that narrow field of expertise is to blame for your lack of being able to see the value in my posts. Many of them have absolutely no value to simple approaches because the decision to use a simple approach meant those avenues for improvement are not there or are severely reduced. Thank you for illustrating my point your above quote was about perfectly. I couldn't have done it better myself.
I am going stop answering the trolls, but I respect you KJ. The same could be said about you in your past so you should know the answer to that. Were you playing a lot when you posted more? Now you have your answer. The same way you did it. Casino in close proximity to my abode or other APs that put me up when I am in town. Short sessions most of the time make required breaks necessary and you can post from anywhere at any time.
There was a time when I posted around my playing days and times. Then I read one of your posts that said how easy that made it for the casino to identify an AP and connect him to his handle. So now I make it a point to post when I am on the road. I have even gone so far as having a posts written and had someone post it while I was playing, because I was called by my handle by a suit while playing and wanted her to see that it is impossible that I am Three. I spotted her in the pit and called the person that had my password and was holding some posts I had written and told her to post them at intervals that would be what they would have been if I was writing them at that time. The suit went home and saw that Three was posting a lot while I was playing. Thank you KJ for the caution. I doubt that tactic would by me more time there, but I wasn't backed off so you never know. She was probably just fishing for a reaction when she said it. I was poker faced. But you never know.
There was a time when I posted around my playing days and times. Then I read one of your posts that said how easy that made it for the casino to identify an AP and connect him to his handle. So now I make it a point to post when I am on the road. I have even gone so far as having a posts written and had someone post it while I was playing, because I was called by my handle by a suit while playing and wanted her to see that it is impossible that I am Three. I spotted her in the pit and called the person that had my password and was holding some posts I had written and told her to post them at intervals that would be what they would have been if I was writing them at that time. The suit went home and saw that Three was posting a lot while I was playing. Thank you KJ for the caution. I doubt that tactic would by me more time there, but I wasn't backed off so you never know. She was probably just fishing for a reaction when she said it. I was poker faced. But you never know.
I’m afraid I don’t share that sentiment. I feel like you are attempting to offer an olive branch, but I will be honest, I am not accepting. There will be no kumbaya moment heading into the new year. That may seem small of me, but so be it.
The fact is for 3 and a half years now I have been banned from two sites because of you. While it wasn’t you that banned me obviously, the guy that did, did so on your behalf, protecting you. And then he went to another site that he didn’t even participate on and manipulated the owner of that site to ban me, again on your behalf, protecting you. Shackleford never even understood what it was all about. Norm just played him and then disappeared, once he got what he wanted.
And the fact is that I and others had every right (and still do) to challenge your claims, some of which were mathematically impossible. Remember 500% increase over traditional counting? And it wasn’t about just calling out someone’s false (and mathematically impossible) claims. I believed and still do that you were intentionally misleading players, especially newer players, for what reason, I have no idea, other than to build yourself up.
And a couple years later, when Don S finally started calling out and completely debunking your claims, very much the same as some of us did a couple years before, you had two explanations:
One, that you weren’t even talking about traditional blackjack, but instead a blackjack variant, SP21. I don’t think that is the case, but if it was you had a responsibility to make that clear at the time. You NEVER mentioned SP21 at the time. I don’t play SP21 and would have never gotten involved if you had.
And second, you have since stated that it was your early results that were so far above expectation that you made the 500% increase comments, and that as you went on and accumulated a larger sample size, results came back down to earth. Again, that is not an acceptable explanation. You had a responsibility to not make such statements based on a small, insignificant sample size.
Let’s remember I was banned at 2 sites and remain banned to this day, so a “I made a mistake and didn’t have a big enough sample size” doesn’t cut it for me. I am still banned. Until THAT is resolved, your little olive branch doesn’t do it for me I am afraid….small of me as that may seem.
The fact is for 3 and a half years now I have been banned from two sites because of you. While it wasn’t you that banned me obviously, the guy that did, did so on your behalf, protecting you. And then he went to another site that he didn’t even participate on and manipulated the owner of that site to ban me, again on your behalf, protecting you. Shackleford never even understood what it was all about. Norm just played him and then disappeared, once he got what he wanted.
And the fact is that I and others had every right (and still do) to challenge your claims, some of which were mathematically impossible. Remember 500% increase over traditional counting? And it wasn’t about just calling out someone’s false (and mathematically impossible) claims. I believed and still do that you were intentionally misleading players, especially newer players, for what reason, I have no idea, other than to build yourself up.
And a couple years later, when Don S finally started calling out and completely debunking your claims, very much the same as some of us did a couple years before, you had two explanations:
One, that you weren’t even talking about traditional blackjack, but instead a blackjack variant, SP21. I don’t think that is the case, but if it was you had a responsibility to make that clear at the time. You NEVER mentioned SP21 at the time. I don’t play SP21 and would have never gotten involved if you had.
And second, you have since stated that it was your early results that were so far above expectation that you made the 500% increase comments, and that as you went on and accumulated a larger sample size, results came back down to earth. Again, that is not an acceptable explanation. You had a responsibility to not make such statements based on a small, insignificant sample size.
Let’s remember I was banned at 2 sites and remain banned to this day, so a “I made a mistake and didn’t have a big enough sample size” doesn’t cut it for me. I am still banned. Until THAT is resolved, your little olive branch doesn’t do it for me I am afraid….small of me as that may seem.
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, I am wondering just who you are refering to as trolls in this thread. I count 6 members that have commented, myself, psyduck, BoSox, 21forme, Johndoe and Don S. I don't consider any of them trolls. As a matter of fact, all are rather long-term, legitimate members of the blackjack community. The fact that 6 pretty respected, long-term members of the community question your now, years long agenda, might be something that you should consider.