Thanks to Don S.

[KewlJ]

A couple recent quotes from Don:

You're right; Meistro is wrong -- and vastly wrong, since he said #1 was VASTLY superior, which it isn't!

Of course it is. It's silly to talk about the AP having the edge sometimes and not other times; globally, he has the edge. Period. Globally, the ploppy never has the edge. Period.Don

I just want to say how fortunate we all are to have Don around. He is sort of the commissioner of both the site and community. When he says it is like this....IT IS LIKE THIS.

Of course my favorite example: A guy talking nonsense….over and over and over. Several members attempted to challenge him but weren't "permitted to". Finally Don came along and debunked the great "goobly gob" nonsense. END of DISCUSSION! (well ended it for everyone except 1)

Just a great big 'Thanks' for all you do and all you have taught us all, Mr. Schlesinger.

 

[DSchles]

A couple recent quotes from Don:

I just want to say how fortunate we all are to have Don around. He is sort of the commissioner of both the site and community. When he says it is like this....IT IS LIKE THIS.

Of course my favorite example: A guy talking nonsense….over and over and over. Several members attempted to challenge him but weren't "permitted to". Finally Don came along and debunked the great "goobly gob" nonsense. END of DISCUSSION! (well ended it for everyone except 1)

Just a great big 'Thanks' for all you do and all you have taught us all, Mr. Schlesinger.

Thank you for taking the time to write. Always nice to be appreciated.

Don

 

[21forme]

END of DISCUSSION!

Unfortunately, it's been debunked, but never ended. It just keeps going like the energizer bunny. Why Don's "chief of computations" still let's it go unabated is beyond me.

 

[xengrifter]

Of course my favorite example: A guy talking nonsense….over and over and over. Several members attempted to challenge him but weren't "permitted to". Finally Don came along and debunked the great "goobly gob" nonsense. END of DISCUSSION!

Unfortunately, it's been debunked, but never ended. It just keeps going like the energizer bunny. Why Don's "chief of computations" still let's it go unabated is beyond me.

Maybe he has more empathy and open mindedness than you two hooligans?

 

[BoSox]

Unfortunately, it's been debunked, but never ended. It just keeps going like the energizer bunny. Why Don's "chief of computations" still let's it go unabated is beyond me.

I think Don realizes there are some people that will never accept that they could possibly be wrong on something.

 

[xengrifter]

I think Don realizes there are some people that will never accept that they could possibly be wrong on something.

Yes, Don likely realizes that Norm will never do that.

 

[Dummy]

Maybe he has more empathy and open mindedness than you two hooligans?

Maybe Don had some inside info that others don't or understood things that others didn't. Different approaches open up different opportunities. It seems XG gets it. It is a mistake to apply the limits of your approach to counting as the limits of an entirely different approach to counting. I am pretty sure Don gets that even if others don't. Like I have said so many times the real value of complexity is in longevity and swing control. Maximizing any one stat is a mistake. That can be used to quantify gain but is not necessarily the best way to use that gain. But then we are getting into personal preferences.

 

[KewlJ]

It seems XG gets it.

Before you go forming an alliance with XG (xengrifter), you might want to consider that his comments directed at 21forme and myself were just typical XG/ZG stirring of the pot. I highly doubt he is in your camp on this one, he is just trying to assert some bit of rebel-ness.

Like I have said so many times the real value of complexity is in longevity and swing control.

Really, you have said that "so many times"? This is your latest reasoning, but your reasons for promoting your complex approach have flipped more times than a gymnast. Have you ever noticed that politicians and criminals both constantly change there stories. They are looking for an element of believability to give them credibility and at this point.....so are you.

 

[Dummy]

Really, you have said that "so many times"? This is your latest reasoning, but your reasons for promoting your complex approach have flipped more times than a gymnast. Have you ever noticed that politicians and criminals both constantly change there stories. They are looking for an element of believability to give them credibility and at this point.....so are you.

I have done years more research since the posts you are talking about. Of course ny views changed to fit the research results. They will continue to evolve as I continue my research. But I learned my lesson about sharing what I learned.

 

[psyduck]

Really, you have said that "so many times"? This is your latest reasoning, but your reasons for promoting your complex approach have flipped more times than a gymnast. Have you ever noticed that politicians and criminals both constantly change there stories. They are looking for an element of believability to give them credibility and at this point.....so are you.

OMG, that is both so funny and true!

 

[psyduck]

But I learned my lesson about sharing what I learned.

Please stop sharing entirely!

 

[KewlJ]

I have done years more research since the posts you are talking about. Of course ny views changed to fit the research results. They will continue to evolve as I continue my research. But I learned my lesson about sharing what I learned.

So let me get this straight. You made claims that were false. Several of us knew they were false because they were mathematically impossible, so we challenged those claims. That let to among other things, me being banned from not 1 but 2 different AP forums, because Norm for some odd reason decided he had to protect you.

You now acknowledge those claims were false and misleading....just as I said 4 years ago, but you use the excuse, that is what you "research" was showing at the time....based on a small and insignificant sample size. And now your new research or more significant sample size of research confirms what I said 4 years ago. And this is somehow supposed to make me feel better?

I have been dragged through the mud and my reputation destroyed. Norm's reputation also suffered to some extent. He and I both share some blame, as neither of us handled things very well, but it all stemmed from you making false, misleading claims. So, you will forgive me if your statement "that you and your views have evolved" doesn't give me much comfort.

 

[Dummy]

Come on KJ you know what happened. It wasn't anything like you described. I was talking about SP21 and called it card counting. Nothing confirmed what you say. My further research has just made things in BJ and SP21 stronger. They didn't show anything was wrong. I just learned a lot of new stuff and came up with some more effective techniques. I know why things worked the way they do now. But I am not sharing it with anyone on the forums. I shouldn't have shared then for a lot of reasons. The main one was I was risking the golden goose by trying to share.

 

[BoSox]

I was talking about SP21 and called it card counting.

Of course, most everyone "especially the newbies" thought you were talking about regular blackjack and you were fine going along with that scenario. Considering that golden goose you talk about. Let's call it what it was DECEPTION!

 

[KewlJ]

I was talking about SP21 and called it card counting.

Spare me. You NEVER said or even hinted that you were talking about SP21. ALL of your comments were made in "the general section" of a blackjack forum. I know that you NEVER said a word about SP21 because I don't play SP21. I have never played a single hand in my life, nor know anything about the game. Had you disclosed that your comments were about SP21, there wouldn't have been a word from me. Others that are knowledgeable concerning SP21 have said your claims don't hold up for that either, so maybe there would have still been challenges, but not from me. So spare me that bullshit!

And like BoSox if most of us experienced blackjack players had no idea you were not referring to regular blackjack, how in the hell would any of the newbies had known that? Deception is not too strong of a word.

 

[KewlJ]

And I will tell you something else. After I was banned, I reached out to one of your close "buddies" when this was occurring. I am not going to say his name (handle) because it was said privately, but because I knew him a number of years dating back to BJinfo and always found him to be a reasonable guy, I asked him what the hell you were talking about? His response was that he didn't know. He said he thought you had been working on a count for SP21, but that you must have switched over using it for regular blackjack. So he, one of your close buddies that you confided in, didn't even recognize that you were talking about SP21....because you NEVER clarified that. And THAT is on you!

That is also the first I heard anything about SP21 and that was well after everything blew up and I was banned. And still that didn't come from you. That is how deceptive you were.

 

[Dummy]

Yes, that is on me. My research was top secret. It was in its early stages at the time and I didn't understand what was going on yet. I just get excited about exploring uncharted ground counting and said things prematurely. I have been guilty of that on more than one occasion.

 

[21forme]

My research was top secret. I

Then stop talking about it, even as you continue doing so today.

 

[johndoe]

Dummy, just give it up already, we all know you will never provide any objective analysis, nor evidence, of any of your super-duper count methods, because you can't. You'll happily continue cultivating this fantasy in order to feed your own ego indefinitely.

At least most of the folks around here know how to spot bullshit, and aren't afraid to call it out.

 

[xengrifter]

Maybe he has more empathy and open mindedness than you two hooligans?

It seems XG gets it. It is a mistake to apply the limits of your approach to counting as the limits of an entirely different approach to counting. I am pretty sure Don gets that even if others don't.

Before you go forming an alliance with XG (xengrifter), you might want to consider that his comments directed at 21forme and myself were just typical XG/ZG stirring of the pot.

Some pots clearly need stirring...