Midwest Player
Well-Known Member
Looks like Norm is on a ban rampage. I know there was a lot of name calling lately, but what was the thing that did everyone in.
The Straw That Broke the Camels Back
- Thread starter Midwest Player
- Start date
I didn't think I crossed the line but maybe Norm felt he needed to include me to be thorough. I don't mind taking the hit if that is the case. I won't be pleading my case to Norm. I am sure he had his reasons and it is his site. Too many babies out there wining about how they got banned when everyone could see it coming. I know I toed the line a few times and Norm was patient with me. Getting a suspension that I didn't deserve sort of evens things out. I just don't know why Zee wasn't included. He was constantly attacking people as well. Maybe Zee is the snitch and nobody snitched on Zee. Everyone sees the world as a reflection of themselves. Right before this happened, Zee started throwing the word snitch at everyone. That just can't be a coincidence.
Last edited:
Midwest Player
Well-Known Member
Does Don make decisions on who is banned or is this a typo? And Zee was included.Dummy said:
wn
You do not realize the power you possess in provoking people, and to what degree. No one is even concerned about a barring when dealing with you. To prove my point there is an entire site where most of the members were barred on Norm's site where you should put extra notches on your belt for bringing many of them down yourself without realizing it.Dummy said:
Are you serious? You have a better success rate of lifetime convictions than a New York city prosecutor.Dummy said:
Last edited:
No, it's Norm. Don has nothing to do with it. If he did, I suspect there would be 100x more 1 page closed threads, rather than 5-10 page threads 
Re Zee and the car forum, he keeps perseverating that it was me, but it wasn't. There's a BJ21 member (not a member here or BJTF) who has been a member of that Nissan forum for many years. He's the one that sent a copy of Zee's gun threat post to the mod there. The other issue is Zee was much more ridiculed on that car forum than he is on the BJ forums for his trolling and repetitive questions, so the mod was more than happy to toss him.
Re Zee and the car forum, he keeps perseverating that it was me, but it wasn't. There's a BJ21 member (not a member here or BJTF) who has been a member of that Nissan forum for many years. He's the one that sent a copy of Zee's gun threat post to the mod there. The other issue is Zee was much more ridiculed on that car forum than he is on the BJ forums for his trolling and repetitive questions, so the mod was more than happy to toss him.
JohnCrover
Banned
It's time to take the high rode and make hundreds of fake accounts with a VPN and troll the forum endlessly.
I am just trying to get people to see things they overlook. Even when they say prove it with stats. The stats are based on variance. Variance is blind to the signs of the differences between the average and the actual data point. You can tame variance without changing variance by shaping the distribution between downswing variance and upswing variance. You can make being ahead of the average more likely and being below the average less likely and affect the magnitudes you tend to stray on both the high side of EV and the low side. Anyway none of that shows up in the stats. Variance is blind to it and so are the stats that are based on variance. I don't care about getting extra EV from an improvement.I have a high enough EV. I don't care about reducing variance. I try to shape variance in a way that tames it without the need to reduce it. In games other than BJ I can reduce variance a lot while reshaping variance without losing any EV. But BJ isn't like that. The best I can hope to do is reshape variance in a way that tames it. I don't need to reduce variance to do that, but that is often a by-product. There are lots of ways to increase the accuracy of decisions that generates extra EV. I spend some of the gain in EV to tame variance rather than take it as extra EV or a targeted reduction in variance. Thus EV and variance don't change much but the swing profile that produces variance is changed in favor of what I would prefer to experience.BoSox said:
I think other pros think halfway down this ally. They feel they generate enough EV that a small gain isn't worth it. I think they are right. But spending the EV gain to make variance be composed of more favorable swings that tend to keep you more often above EV only to be corrected back to EV rather than having a variance profile that tends to have you below EV waiting for a big swing to get you up to EV. Nobody seems to see that variance is blind to what you don't have to be blind to. You can see how to shape variance favorably without changing it much. I see this as very valuable. My detractors either don't understand or don't agree. It is a matter of opinion just like so many things that people disagree about on these forums. Who is right or wrong depends on your perspective. But not all EV is created equal. And not all variance is created equal. We all should be able to agree on that.
Norm reaches out to everyone to correct their behavior before they get banned. Well, except spammers. I always try to do what my host requests of me, if at all possible. Others bascally told him to F-off by not changing their ways and got banned. The same as being a guest anywhere. Getting invited back isn't likely if you disrespect the host's house, wants and/or needs. It is just being polite. Some were raised that way and some weren't.BoSox said:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Dummy (and thanks for choosing that name...most appropriate in this context), YOU crossed the line 4 years ago, when you attempted and to some degree succeeded in taking control of a promising forum (BJTF) and assuming the role of forum expert, trying to make everyone believe you were doing extraordinary things with extraordinary results. That is when the site stopped becoming a promising site with players sharing their experiences to benefit one another.Dummy said:
Problem was what you were claiming was mathematically impossible. You have since used the defense that your early results were extraordinarily above expectation. I have a hard time even believing that, but giving the benefit of doubt, at the very least you proclaimed your extraordinary results on the basis of an insignificant sample size and inconclusive evidence. You also KNEW (we didn't, but you did) that many of your claims were not in regards to blackjack but instead a blackjack variant. You NEVER identified this and made this clear and as a result have for many years, what I consider INTENTIONALLY mislead players and members as to your methodology and results.
So yeah, YOU crossed the line long ago. As for the owner of that site and his recent behavior, I was asked not to comment on, and so I won't. Just pass the popcorn.
I, I, I, sorry to be so blunt but Three you are self-centered. Regardless of who you are responding to, the answer will always be from your own perspective and not the person you responded to. A few days ago on the other site, you said you would try but as you said old habits get in the way. Many of the problems go unsolved because people cannot relate to you and your own self-uniqueness. No one in the world uses your card counting system so what good is it talking about what you can do? That, in a nutshell, is what gets people irritated with you.Dummy said:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Plus, it is just NOT true. The way he speaks of practically eliminating variance is just a pipe dream. Playing with a computer right there on the felt wouldn't reduce variance to the degree he claims. Variance is a part of card counting. If a player can't deal with the variance, move on to more advanced techniques with much bigger edges. But reducing variance with so called "advanced counts" is complete nonsense.BoSox said:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I really don't even understand why some players are so obsessed with variance and reducing variance. Variance is our friend. Without variance, everyone and their brother would just roll along accumulating EV on a regular basis with no swings and the result would be the casino industry simply would no longer be able to offer such games. Variance and what it does to most players makes the game as we know it....possible.
Learn to handle and deal with variance and you have learned the discipline necessary to win playing blackjack. It is that simple, just ask Zee or ZK or I guess anyone with a "z" handle.
would just roll along accumulating EV on a regular basis with no swings and the result would be the casino industry simply would no longer be able to offer such games. Variance and what it does to most players makes the game as we know it....possible. Learn to handle and deal with variance and you have learned the discipline necessary to win playing blackjack. It is that simple, just ask Zee or ZK or I guess anyone with a "z" handle.
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
And THAT is ok. But you don't need any kind of specialized count to conclude that certain (very small) +EV plays just don't add much and may not be worth the variance. Don basically taught us that. Any player playing any count can decide that for him/her self.BoSox said: