|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| New! FREE CARD COUNTING PRACTICE SOFTWARE
Free Card Counting Practice Software (By JP): Download FREE BLACKJACK SIMULATION SOFTWARE Release of Version 6, January 11, 2007 Upgrade of Blackjack PowerSim Programmable Simulation Software Download Version 6, January 11, 2007 Upgrade of Blackjack PowerSim & Instructions Free |
Download Free Blackjack Strategy Index Generator: Sam Case's Strategy Index Generator Software |
| forums | Blackjack Main |
| You are not logged in Login Register | |
messages
post
search
read all messages in forum
|
|
|
Subject : Help needed in St. Maartin Court case posted by slick on Oct-03-2008 03:15am |
| To make a long story short: In 2006 my son and I won $18,000 playing blackjack at the Hollywood Casino in St. Maartin. We were backed off and when we attempted to cash our chips they were confiscated "while our style of play was being reviewed". When we protested we were body slammed to the floor and carried out of the casino. In our recent court case Hollywood claimed there were signs posted saying “Card counting is not allowed in Hollywood Casino and voids all plays”. Instead of the court addressing the obvious question (how can they deny you to use your brain) they said if the Hollywood can prove the signs were posted, they win. We will each be given opportunity to present evidence that such signs existed. My attorney has requested that I try to get written statements from anyone who visited the Hollywood in the 2005...2008 time frame who may be able to state that no such signs were present. If anyone can help in this matter it would be much appreciated. Please email proudpawpaw@me.com. Thank you. Slick |
|
Subject : Re: Help needed in St. Maartin Court case posted by D25 on Oct-03-2008 05:58pm |
Slick, after reading your post and the news below, I've felt really angry toward that casino. I hopy you will get even against that casino in the court of law. Good Luck. From the Herald: "A father and son team suspected of counting cards in a blackjack game at Hollywood Casino wants the casino to hand over the US $18,000 they said they won on Thursday, January 11. The casino is refusing to pay out the sum as it sticks to its claim that they were card-counting. "Admitting that they have been accused of cheating before in Las Vegas casinos, the father and son said this had never occurred in St. Maartin and they maintained that they were not cheats. "The men also claimed that they had been assaulted by casino security personnel and thrown off the premises after they were told to quit their game. They were asked by casino management to leave without their money until the surveillance tapes of the game were reviewed. "...Casino Manager Linda Racz refuted this claim of abuse and told The Herald the two men had become enraged when asked to leave. "...The evidence in this case will be passed on to the casino control department for further investigation..." " |
|
Subject : Re: Help needed in St. Maartin Court case posted by Baddog on Oct-06-2008 05:44am |
Do not admit anything. This is why a good local lawyer is really needed and at the $18,000 win rate in 1 day or so is a necessity like toothpaste. I would hire a local atty to help - ask what the sign means. Record the answer. See what the results of recent cases have been. |
|
Subject : Post deleted by card counting con artists posted by Parpaluck on Oct-06-2008 08:10pm |
Post deleted by card counting con artists That was expected, wasn’t it? My post was deleted the same day. You selling blackjack card counting systems for sure! Like Jackal, huh? John Patrick…huge TV productions inside a casino and advocating card counting?! Well, nothing is lost! Actually, it’s better now. I put together all materials on this page: [Link to ripoff system deleted by Administrator] If you still pay for card counting training materials — you are paying to the casinos. You give them even more fuel to rob you point blank under the legal pretext that “card counting is illegal”! The UFO’s come from the outer space, right? Best of luck from Parpaluck! |
|
Subject : Favor returned (but with better spelling!) posted by Parpaluck on Oct-07-2008 12:05pm |
Quote: “[Link to ripoff system deleted by Administrator]” Favor returned (but with better spelling!) What rip-off? It’s all about mathematics! Mathematics is not a rip-off — but is a scare for the scammers. I’m referring here particularly to all those who sell all kinds of materials to apply to blackjack card counting. At “best” — A scammer works on his own, not for the casinos. Just take advantage of those who walk on mathematical crutches. At worst: A scammer represents casinos in disguise. Give the gamblers the illusion of a 100% winning system (card counting). Get also their names and addresses. Offer them player’s cards as well. Then, once the gambler is inside, rob him of all his money, be it big wins or big losses. Throw them out in the street…or in jail. ‘Cuz you already have the “legal instrument” signed by the casino cronies in the legislative of judicial branches. “Card counting is ILLEGAL!” You can produce evidence of card counters. After all, they are your (unassuming) customers! Read it again, crocodilule: [Link deleted -- BJF administrator] Parpaluck, Truthfully At-Large PS I only ask for a nominal membership fee for visitors to download over 100 software titles; such as Blackjack.exe or Streaks.exe. Probability theory is the science of streaks. Is US $14.95 a rip-off? Compare that to your card counting materials reaching in upwards of five figures! IS |
|
Subject : "Probability theory is the science of streaks"--that says it all--selling systems to beat lotteries! (NMI) posted by WRX on Oct-07-2008 03:35pm |
| |
|
Subject : I dabbled with strange attractors posted by Baddog on Oct-08-2008 05:20am |
| about 15 years ago. Read a Chaos book. Then the Texas lottery came out. A friend and I invested $20 or so in a lottery number selector program. I was able to trick it so it would generate hundreds of thousands of number sets and then used the most selected portion to examine for what I hoped would be strange attractors. And we hit several 4 number sets in the first month of use. But that turned out to be our old friend variance wearing a SA mask. 2 Years later we went back into the red. And the "mob" disbanded. It was a fun experience. A side note - the Mob buddy was a gov lady in charge of criminal persecution of bad bankers in the last FDIC debacle. I worked with her on a "small" case involving $600,000 of scammed money from a small bank. The FBI had really good stuff on the bad dudes but my buddette told me we could not use it as she was saving it for the multi million dollar case the big boys were working on. Ok - so I busted the chops of the bad boys with 1 leg in a bucket of cement. And called her - She asked what the hell my Nyah Nyah meant. I told her we won anyway and what an idiot she would look like if they lost their big case. Her comments were not ladylike, And guess what - the gov bigshots blew it. They angered the Hon. Judge Hoyt by failing to make a standard disclosure timely and the Judge dismissed their case. Her comments after that to my Nyah Nyah were really impressive. I guess years of education can sometimes make a difference. And the FBI guys card was fun for many years till I lost it. Once in Chicago at a poker table I left it on the table to mark my seat while I bought chips. The half hour of silence when I came back was hysterical. Where was I - oh yeah - lotteries and streaks are for suckers. |
|
Subject : gambling based on a streak system posted by D25 on Oct-08-2008 01:10pm |
It's like playing a system of progression... Lots of peanuts are made, but at the end, a farm is lost in the long run. It's also like playing a game of Russian Roulette. The deadly bullet will catch up to the player ultimately. |
|
Subject : Further links to roulette systems will result in your IP address being blocked (nt) posted by admin on Oct-08-2008 02:15am |
| nt |
|
Subject : In response to Baddogs, Mad-dogs, Dabblers, Dilettantes, CC Scammers & Addicts posted by Parpaluck on Oct-08-2008 09:37am |
WRX: You affirm in your profile that you are a dabbler and dilettante. QED: You are incapable of assembling two or more sentences in a coherent argument. How could you possibly comprehend that "Probability theory is the science of streaks"? Need say more? Such as N = log(1 – DC) / log(1 –p)? Your “post” is a striking example of delirious speech. You have a better chance to make money by selling your delirious writing to psychoanalysts — than as a card counter. Or a poker player (sic!)
A word to the unassuming. The casinos run this “forum”. They sponsor anything that can influence people to move in droves to the casinos — including this ‘card counting frenzy’. None of those “authors” of card counting systems is, actually, a blackjack player. If they are not casino moles (most are, like John “Jackal” Patrick), then they only make money by selling those systems. I have challenged gambling authors, including card counters, since the year of grace 2000. No response! Them “authors” know that card counting doesn’t work! Multi-deck, multi-player, penetration games? No way! In a humiliating admission to John Scarne, Ed Thorp revealed that he, the father of card counting, never really gambled (page 348 of ‘Scarne’s New Complete Guide to Gambling’). It was still the era of one-deck, one-player, no-penetration blackjack!
Parpaluck, No link required
|
|
Subject : Re: In response to Baddogs, Mad-dogs, Dabblers, Dilettantes, CC Scammers & Addicts posted by JohnWright on Oct-08-2008 03:29pm |
| I don't think math is even required to show you have no idea what you're talking about. First off the definition of probability theory is NOT the science of streaks. It's analysis of random events, and likelihood of their occurrence. Streaks may be analyzed in this field, but it doesn't define it. My second point is the law of independent trials. This puts to rest the whole idea of predicting streaks does it not? NO matter how many times you flip heads in a row, you still only have a 50% chance of flipping it next time(unless of course it's a biased coin). In blackjack looking for streaks is even less relevant, because if you get blackjack 3 times in a row, and the fourth ace was already played in an earlier hand, I don't care what kind of streak you think you're having, you WILL NOT GET BLACKJACK THE NEXT HAND. And that's the foundation of card counting. It's about understanding which cards are left in the deck. There's plenty of math behind it, but there's no single formula to prove its validity. But if you're interested, I'm sure a genius mind like yours could calculate the increase in the odds of you being dealt a +EV hand for each low card that is taken out of the deck. |
|
Subject : Re: In response to Baddogs, Mad-dogs, Dabblers, Dilettantes, CC Scammers & Addicts posted by Parpaluck on Oct-08-2008 05:49pm |
JohnWright:
Quote: “I don't think math is even required to show you have no idea what you're talking about.”
Finally, someone in this community who can assemble two or more coherent sentences...without mouth foaming or screaming. Or, is it? NOT! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA....
You might want to update your knowledge. The Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG) represents the foundation. FFG is no longer the subject of debate. It is now widely pirated and plagiarized. Even average school kids can prove the validity of FFG by performing the simplest and easiest of random events: Coin tossing.
FFG introduces a new fundamental concept: Degree of Certainty (DC). The concept is now more and more adopted. Even years after I published the Formula, all Internet searches on ‘degree of certainty’ listed only my page. Now, you can find thousands of references to ‘degree of certainty’.
Still, many people haven’t heard of FFG. They still confuse two of the fundamental probability parameters: Probability (p) and Degree of Certainty (DC).
Probability (p) in itself is an abstract, lifeless concept. Probability comes to life as soon as we conduct at least one trial. The probability and degree of certainty are equal for one and only one trial. After that, the degree of certainty rises with the increase in number of trials (N), while the probability is always constant. No one can add sides to the coin or subtract faces from the die! Yet, you won’t be able to toss 10 heads in a row in, say, 20 trials with the same DC as tossing just five heads. Or, can you? I promise, p will always be ½ or 0.5. Nobody will take it from you…
Every random event consists of trials. The successes or losses come in streaks. The length of a streak or the skip between like-hits is most precisely calculated by the Fundamental Formula of Gambling.
Apparently, you already visited my website. No need for me to delve any further into modern aspects of probability theory. Besides, I am prohibited from offering links to my website.
Ion Saliu, Fundamentally At-Large
|
|
Subject : What is.. posted by JohnWright on Oct-08-2008 09:58pm |
Degree of certainty? I tried looking it up online and found only two results, your web page, and a wikipedia article about some guy named Rudolf Carnap(oh and also one on gamblers fallacy). And the page never said he was able to come up with a formula. How do I know this isn't just pseudo-math? Can you cite anything published that explains what DC is? Because even your own website doesn't do a great job. I'm not above going to a library and checking out a book on stats(I did it to understand Standard Deviation and Variance. Even if it was only to realize that it was beyond my means to calculate it for blackjack, and sims would be a better option). Just recommend the book. I'm not going to pretend I know mathematics better than you(although it seems like you just made up DC and FFG). But I am going to say that applying your idea to gambling is completely flawed. The idea that when a coin is flipped 4 times it will hit heads at least once most of the time is true. But to then take this idea and say that since after 3 flips it's been tails each time, so it will almost definitely be heads next time is fallacious. If your bet was that in the next four flips one would be heads(and you got a 1:1 payoff) then of course it would be a good bet. Either way, even though I don't know what DC really is, it doesn't apply in this situation. In the former case probability is 50% making the bet no better or worse. In the latter case I believe the probability of not hitting is 1 in 16? Even if I'm off it's obvious that there's a much greater than 50% chance of a heads popping up, making it a good bet. It's probability that rules here, not DC, whatever that may be. You even admit on your website that card counting works. You clearly state that you can gain up to a 2% advantage in a single deck fully played out, and your rationale behind "card counting having virtually no mathematical basis" is that multi-deck games and cut cards diminish the advantage to a fraction of what it used to be. There's still an advantage though. By the way I think that the moderators should allow you to post your website. I'm sure the math-savvy people on this board could discredit your gambling ideas much more handily than I. For those interested, just do a search for Degree of certainty, or fundamental formula of gambling, or the guys name even. |
|
Subject : Exponents, probability, degree of certainty posted by Parpaluck on Oct-09-2008 04:28pm |
JohnWright:
Global warming might be fact or myth — this is not the place to discuss it. The fact is you came down to cool earth! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA....
I take your words at face value — except for the understanding of DC. I just googled degree of certainty. Result: “about 7,270,000 [pages]”. It was only my page in 2001, I guess 2002 also…
The start of FFG can be traced all the way back to Abraham de Moivre (17th century). My belief is that de Moivre stopped the development of his formula out of fear. Ultimately, the formula proves that the concept of god represents absolute absurdity. Aby de Moivre could have lost his life. How lucky me, huh? BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!! Again, this ain’t the place for such discussions.
The sitemap (content) of my website has a probability section. There are many pages there. I refer you to one of the important ones, dealing with ‘Probability Caveats’. It begins with the beginning: de Méré case studied by Pascal. It signed the birth certificate of probability theory.
Pascal had a case of three trials, where p = 1/2 (two backgammon players of even strength). You took as an example a case of four trials, where p = 1/2. How many possible elements can be in this Saliusian set? Sixteen, of course: 2 ^ 4. Let’s say 1= heads and 2= tails. PermuteCombine.exe easily generates this kind of sets (option: Exponents).
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
There is only one case of ‘3 heads followed by one tail”: 1,1,1,2. Also, only one case of ‘3 tail followed by one heads”. You can expand the number of trials. Overall, you will have the same percentage. Yes, if we bet on tails after 3 consecutive heads, we lose some 1/16 of the time. We could lose two, or three consecutive occasions like that. But for long? Couldn't we increase the bet after a few consecutive losses like that? Well, one reason they don't let me play roulette... It is even more obvious when you consider that 4 heads in a row is (1/2) ^ 4 = 1/16. Don’t we have 16 elements in the Saliusian set?
Again, the space is limited and linking is prohibited. But my website is wide open to every possible visitor (except for hackers!)
Baseball’s league series is just around the corner…
Best of luck, Kokodrilo (big-time gambler)!
Ion Saliu, Exponentially At-Large
|
|
Subject : left right posted by Baddog on Oct-11-2008 07:01am |
| you is confused I believe. step - lrlrlrlr. that does indicate a likelihood of a sequence. flips however have no legs. that means the sequence has no hips no knees and no connectivity. plugging in the radio then brings no music. |
|
Subject : Wrong. posted by JohnWright on Oct-11-2008 05:36pm |
| "Yes, if we bet on tails after 3 consecutive heads, we lose some 1/16 of the time." You will lose 1/2 of the time. There were only two trials with 3 consecutive heads. One of them was followed by another heads, one was followed by tails. The idea of progression has been proven invalid. You might be able(I did say MIGHT) to win some small amount of money in the short run. But eventually you will hit a losing streak that will A. Break your bankroll, or B. hit table max, therefore destroying your chance to recoup. Anyway, degree of certainty may have many hits on google, but only your website presents it as a mathematical idea that can be computed. So I ask again, what is it? Is your global warming statement saying that DC is an unprovable idea? Or that you won't discuss DC here? I think if it's relevant to anything gambling/probability related we should discuss it. |
|
Subject : The hot A.I.R. formula posted by ETFan on Oct-08-2008 05:08pm |
| A.I.R. = Arrogant, Ignorant and Rude. Lovely combination. First of all, it's considered rude to post a commercial link on your first post to a message board. It's doubly rude when it's a link to your own web site, and it's triply rude if you cast aspersions on the owners and/or moderators of said message board. (Arnold Snyder has written several books on the subject of card counting, in case you weren't aware.) Second, card counting is obviously not illegal in the U.S. It's legality has been upheld in countless court decisions -- even in Nevada -- and IF it WERE ever held illegal in ANY court decision, I personally am moving to Canada. If freedom of speech means anything at all, clearly freedom to THINK as you see fit is a minimum prerequisite. Third, card counting was invented by a math Ph.D. from MIT, and has been the subject of thousands of scholarly papers by well over a hundred math professors over its 46 year history. A quick count finds over two dozen articles just in the Library here, written by Ph.D.s in either Mathematics, or the math intensive field of Economics. It's quite apparent you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and anybody who thinks "probability is the science of streaks" should probably be kicked off the board just for that ignorant statement. You aren't even qualified to POST here, let alone pass yourself off as expert on anything -- least of all mathematics. Have a nice day, ETF |
|
Subject : Re: The hot A.I.R. formula posted by Parpaluck on Oct-08-2008 05:54pm |
ETF: Quote: “It's quite apparant you don't have the slightest idea …” After all the lessons I taught you on BJ21…you still misspell?! Granted, you burnt your brains out to put together more than two sentences. See? You can learn something. But — mathematics? I doubt it’s gonna be nearly as easy! Does it really matter: “…scholarly papers by well over a hundred math professors…”? That sin in logic is called “truth by authority”. The only thing that matters is that the Truth is above anybody and anything. Trust but always verify. And always let the computers help; the computers are unbiased testers. As of streaks and skips: See my previous post to JohnWright. You might also want to run that piece of software named Streaks.exe. Ion Saliu, Scholarly At-Large (but not scholastically…BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!) |
|
Subject : Re: The hot A.I.R. formula posted by stalker on Oct-08-2008 09:06pm |
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?bn=bjf_forum&key=1212735730&pattern= |
|
Subject : Roulette posted by ETFan on Oct-09-2008 05:34pm |
stalker, are you trying to say Parpaluck is attracted to blackjack?? He sells a roulette system. What he's doing on a blackjack board is anyone's guess. He specifically advises AGAINST card counting, since he believes it's mathematically invalid. ETF stalker wrote: > > http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?bn=bjf_forum&key=1212735730&pattern= |
|
Subject : Re: Parpaluck's fantasies posted by WRX on Oct-09-2008 02:18am |
| For the benefit of any newcomers who might see Parpaluck's diatribes--this Web site, most other reputable sites with information on advantage play, and mathematical texts on probability are already chock-full of sound information demonstrating that pursuing streaks is useless and will cause you to lose your money. Read it and learn. There's no hope for someone who persists in such fantasies in the face of logic. So I don't intend to engage in argument. In my opinion, some of the other regular contributors to this forum, highly intelligent and dependable individuals, have already put far too much energy into responding. . Umm, Parpaluck, you wouldn't by any chance be acquainted with Doug Grant? |
|
Subject : Re: Parpaluck's fantasies posted by OPPC on Oct-09-2008 11:14am |
I am not an expert in math but I can tell that on the computer side, Mr Parpaluck is absolutely wrong. I have simulated blackjack games with real shuffles, all type of players, counters, idiots, progressionist and streak catchers. I have tables of all kind of possible streaks, average bust rate, streak frequency, streak lengths, repetition rates, and all what you can imagine. I have algorithm to detect patterns and possible interpolations and the only thing I have found is the card counting and other AP methods are the only winners. And Mr. Parpalucks reminds me an engineering student that once told me that mathematics and computers are not an exact science and now he is in jail, because a building he designed was destroyed and several people was killed after an earthquake were all other buildings did not suffer a scratch! |
|
Subject : Computer algorithm for blackjack? posted by Parpaluck on Oct-09-2008 03:03pm |
You are a pathetic liar, Hugo OPEC! But much more negligible than the real Hugo! Algorithmically At-Large
|
|
Subject : Math and copunters or politics and religion? posted by OPPC on Oct-09-2008 08:19pm |
Parpaluck wrote: >> If you have a computer algorithm for blackjack, then Baddog is the Attorney General, Katweezel is the Pope, and I am the Ayatollah! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA.... > First, you can start downloading PoweSim. so not only I have it but is free and open, and you can modify it as you want. And also there are hundreds of programs there and algorithms that can simulate real life blackjack including cheating. By definition a computer program is an algorithm. Second: personal attack is the tool of those that don´t have real arguments. Please show me a full development using the correct scientific procedure and with non rebatable examples of your theory and don't tell me I have to pay for it. Or are you going to tell me that this is like Murphy's laws that happen and cannot be explained? something like each time I wash my car it rains, but if I want rain washing my care will not produce it? This is a blackjack forum and has nothing to do with politics and religion. Up to now I have not say a word about you only about you theory, I have not insulted or made any comment on your person. So please keep personal attack out of here and limit yourself to the facts and theory. I work with probabilities, math and computers to predict machine failures in production lines and to increase productivity of mass production lines all over the world as well as the quality of the final product. Real things that happens all the days explained with old and classic probabilities and sampling theories, and were human behavior has a real influence. So don´t tell me that computers are not capable to perform blackjack simulations, I personally think that the one that is not capable to write or understand a program is you and instead of learning and apply you simply insult. |
|
Subject : Re: Parpaluck's fantasies posted by Parpaluck on Oct-09-2008 03:28pm |
Dabbler & Dilettante:
No, this is not meant as a reference to a law firm, such as Baddawg & Dabbler & Dilettante! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!
I gave you a good start point — the essential formula of probability; that is, gambling as well; that is, The Universe itself, as The Everything Is Random. Only Randomness is Almighty. Randomness is great! Here is the fundamental formula again:
N = log(1 – DC) / log(1 –p)
It ain’t what others say, regardless who they are. Your lowly paid math teacher says something1. The Card Counter Guru says something2 . . The Pope says somethingN. The Ayatollah says somethingN+1…ad infinitum. That’s the sin of “truth by authority”. Only Pure Truth matters. Truth is always above anybody and anything. Truth is always founded on the latest discoveries: Facts, logic, ideas.
The main goal of my experiment in this community was the exposé of the fantasy named ‘card counting in blackjack’ and the relation to the law. I have always known CC is a cult. By far, the afflicted addicts are the long-term members of any cults. The few “priests” who are not casino moles try to make a buck paid by the cult addicts.
I have known also that card counting is a ploy not only encouraged but also sponsored by the casinos. The casinos encourage a frenzy of card counting. As a result, they hope, droves of gamblers would flood the casino floors! Then, card-counting offers the only legal pretext to blank-point rob the big-time players of their monies.
Finally, I know those who most violently react to the Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG) and derived probability concepts such as streaks and skips. That’s how I expose a casino mole immediately! It started with the likes of n. Wattenberger, j. Schroder, j. Jackal Patrick, Wizzard of Shackle Odds, d. Grant…plus other more lowly lowlifes.
Quod erat demonstandum.
Ion Saliu, Logarithmically At-Large
|
|
Subject : incoherent jibberish is redundant you cute thing posted by Baddog on Oct-09-2008 03:25pm |
| nt |
|
Subject : Gibberish can be (somehow, sometimes) coherent posted by Parpaluck on Oct-09-2008 03:48pm |
Quote: [empty string…the incapable author claims to be a…lawyer…the same kind of obsessive thinking as his illusion of being a card counter and poker player]
You judge the idiot by the laziness of his mind. A message has a title alright. But sanity requires it has a body consisting of at least one sentence. The sentence must be coherent. The title must be explained by developing the theme. Two or more sentences should always form the body of the message.
For title without a body is like a lawyer without a single client. How about them cowboys?
At worst, a title can be incoherent:
“incoherent jibberish is redundant you cute thing”
“incoherent” can be slightly improved by making it “Incoherent” as it begins a sentence.
Now, my best guess is that “jibberish” must be derived from something like the expression “jib the bush”(?)
As of gibberish — yes, gibberish can have some coherence. Think of them sermons. They might have some coherence — like the sermons of card counting gurus, right in this “church”. Still, in ultimate analysis, all sermons are gibberish. Hence the saying: “Card-counting is coherent gibberish”.
But your post, Maddawg, represents the lowest form of incoherent and cowardice gibberish! You thought you’d intimidate me? Huh, little puppy?
Ion Saliu, Coherently At-Large |
|
Subject : Card counting is/is not legal/illegal posted by Katweezel on Oct-09-2008 06:40pm |
I agree with John Wright. Moderator, let Parpaluck stay and be free, with no chains. He has this joint jumpin - just what was needed. He certainly provides food for thought, however unpalatable that may be at first sip. Parpa, let's hear more of precisely why you think counting is basically futile for 6 or 8-deck players. While you are at it, how about giving us the lowdown on how we can apply this magic formula of yours so as to make our personal games of Blackjack FAR more lucrative; or will we have to wait and pay $39.95 for your new book? ETFan suggests some US courts have ruled card counting as legal. Parpa says it is illegal. People still get 86'd, banned, backed-off, restricted, etc in Vegas. How can this happen if CC is a legal activity? Does it mean one of you guys is wrong, heaven forbid? Or perhaps you are both somehow, right... Cheers K |
|
Subject : If there are people like you ... posted by ETFan on Oct-09-2008 07:20pm |
| ... so ill advised as to take this troll seriously, that's an excellent reason to block him right there. Of course it's legal to think. Even the lowliest small claims judge in Peoria knows it. Of course they can kick you out. What, now you're going to take away their right to serve whomever they wish under their own roof, fergawdsakes?? They can kick you out if they don't like the color of your tie, under innkeeper common law. If it were illegal to count in a casino, WHY in gawdsname would they KICK YOU OUT?! Obviously, they'd just call the police and have them cart you off to jail. "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought--not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in U.S. v. Schwimmer "But we also know that the safety of our civilization lies in making freedom of thought and freedom of speech vital, vivid features of our life." "It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies. We need all the ingenuity we possess to avert the holocaust." "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, "The One Un-American Act." "The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone, the most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men." -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis US Supreme Court Justice, Olmstead v. United States, 1928 "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." -- Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall "Liberty of thought is the life of the soul." -- Voltaire. http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/is_card_counting_legal.htm ETF |
|
Subject : Re: If there are people like you ... posted by Katweezel on Oct-09-2008 09:14pm |
Hey ETF, You presented a good lawyer's piece, almost, championing free speech and freedom of expression. But you appear to go against your own thrust by advocating for Parpaluck being blocked from here. You want his "troll" blocked, right? I say almost any view, however controversial, however 'different' - so long as it concerns gambling and casino matters - should be allowed on this open board. Provided it is presented in an acceptable fashion of course, and is not tooooo weird. At the moment, Stalker seems to be almost agreeing with that. I think such views could crack rigid thinking and maybe even reveal, or enhance other previously-obscured possibilities. The 0.5% profit-on-turnover that my card counting school instructor told me is the figure I would be shooting at is god-awful so smelly-small that I am prepared to consider almost any ratbag idea with a view to expanding that miserably small figure. Even "troll" from Parpaluck, or any other Luck that pops up. K PS You would have made a good lawyer. |
|
Subject : Free Speech means ... posted by ETFan on Oct-09-2008 10:45pm |
.. the right to use your voice on your own land, or public property, to express your point of view. The troll is not using his own voice. This message board is owned by Arnold Snyder, and he is exercising his free speech by deleting/editing/blocking whatever he or his functionaries see fit. It has to be that way. For example, if he allowed libelous statements to stay up on the board, he could be held legally responsible. It doesn't happen often, but this has happened to message board owners. In short, this board is not a street corner. There's no democracy at work here. Katweezel wrote: > > Hey ETF, You presented a good lawyer's piece, almost, championing free speech and freedom of expression. But you appear to go against your own thrust by advocating for Parpaluck being blocked from here. You want his "troll" blocked, right? > I think such views could crack rigid thinking and maybe even reveal, or enhance other previously-obscured possibilities. The 0.5% profit-on-turnover that my card counting school instructor told me is the figure I would be shooting at is god-awful so smelly-small that I am prepared to consider almost any ratbag idea with a view to > expanding that miserably small figure. Even "troll" from Parpaluck, or any other Luck that pops up. It's perfectly clear Parpaluck advises you not to play blackjack. He advises you to buy his roulette system and play roulette. If that's what you want to do, you are free to go to his web site and pay the pony. You will NOT do it with the approval of BJFO or its owners/moderators. Engaging charlatans in any communications is not an AP move. It may not be obvious to you that he's a charlatan, but it's obvious to me, and sorry -- my opinion counts a little more than yours around here. ETF |
|
Subject : Re: Free Speech means house rules, ok? posted by Katweezel on Oct-10-2008 02:36am |
ETF, you've pulled rank and put me in my upstart newcomer place. I did note that so far, neither Stalker nor anyone else has seen fit to ban the charlatan interloper. (By the way, I downloaded his FREE roulette system and it looks interesting to me, but I would appreciate someone else's AP advice about it. Someone a lot higher up the totem pole than me, which could be you, one day perhaps?) I also noted this site-owner is conspiculously silent on this P-issue. I guess he could be otherwise engaged or disinterested, so I can't presume anything more than those generalisations. Parpaluck seems to have pushed some sensitive buttons here. Does this mean those who voted 'stay' such as John Wright and me, also run the risk of being 86'd from here, under association/contamination rules? Yours: "They can kick you out if they don't like the color of your tie under the Innkeepers Law." I read Arnold's link story. Excuse me, but I admit to being a bit thick sometimes and I still did not 100% get it. I may need legal advice. Here goes. In Nevada, card counting (or anything else where the brain is used) is legal. So then, in that State, if I get tapped and booted from my BJ table, I am NOT being shown the door because of my (obvious) card counting skills, right? I am officially getting the boot because in The Game that they play, their rules - as an Innkeeper, apply. And today, my red tie is not on the list, so my welome is withdrawn as of NOW! Does that come close? PS I continue to count in my usual haunts. K |
|
Subject : Re: Free Speech means house rules, ok? posted by ETFan on Oct-10-2008 07:27pm |
| Katweezel wrote: > > ETF, you've pulled rank and put me in my upstart newcomer place. I did note that so far, neither Stalker nor anyone else has seen fit to ban the charlatan interloper. What makes you think so? WRX and OPPC are nobody? Arnold wants him gone. It's easier said than done, but it WILL be done. > (By the way, I downloaded his FREE roulette system and it looks interesting to me, but I would appreciate someone else's AP advice about it. Someone a lot higher up the totem pole than me, which could be you, one day perhaps?) I will look into it when I get time, but I can tell you, based on the 5+% house edge, and based on the nonsensical statements throughout his web site, I would put my "degree of certainty" for any Parpaluck system very close to zero. > I also noted this site-owner is conspiculously silent on this P-issue. Some people believe that responding to trolls only encourages them. I think they should get a negative response, to protect newbies -- but only to a point. > I guess he could be otherwise engaged or disinterested, so I can't presume anything more than those generalisations. Arnold gets here once a week at most. Didn't you read his message? http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Message%20from%20Arnold%20Snyder.htm He hates the internet. Also from: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/FAQs.htm "Why the Discussion Boards are `Moderated' The primary reason we moderate our discussion boards is to protect the users from those who would abuse the forum. If someone is spamming the board with advertisements for a gambling system they are selling, we can delete these irritating posts and disable the spammer’s password if the abuse continues. All public message boards have these types of problems occasionally." > Parpaluck seems to have pushed some sensitive buttons here. Does this mean those who voted 'stay' such as John Wright and me, also run the risk of being 86'd from here, under association/contamination rules? Sincere musings and questions are always welcome, but naturally, everyone runs the risk of being 86'd, just as anyone can be 86'd at any time from a casino -- including me. > Yours: "They can kick you out if they don't like the color of your tie under the Innkeepers Law." > > I read Arnold's link story. Excuse me, but I admit to being a bit thick sometimes and I still did not 100% get it. There is some sarcasm in his writing, as is often the case. A healthy dose of sarcasm, yea even cynicism, is necessary in advantage play. > I may need legal advice. Here goes. In Nevada, card counting (or anything else where the brain is used) is legal. So then, in that State, if I get tapped and booted from my BJ table, I am NOT being shown the door because of my (obvious) card counting skills, right? Wrong. I am not a lawyer, and I can not give legal advice. However, I believe the ramblings below are basically true, and I'm sure the fine lawyers who frequent this site are waiting with red hot coals in the backs of their minds, ready to pounce on any inaccuracy. They can kick you out for card counting. Very simply, you don't have to be doing anything illegal -- or even immoral -- or even boorish -- to get kicked out. They have the absolute right to refuse service to whomever they choose, as long as it's not for reasons of "race, creed, religion, sexual preference..." yadayadayada -- one of the reasons specifically excluded by law It varies somewhat by state. New Jersey is one of the few states where it's illegal to bar card counters. Naturally they can just invent some other reason not on the list, which makes the state of the law ridiculous IMHO, but nothing new there. They usually do not tell you they're kicking you out for card counting, but sometimes they do. Often they give no reason at all. It's a PR decision. > I am officially getting the boot because in The Game that they play, their rules - as an Innkeeper, apply. And today, my red tie is not on the list, so my welome is withdrawn as of NOW! Does that come close? They can withdraw their welcome for almost any arbitrary reason. It's not good business obviously, which is the only reason it doesn't happen more often. But you have no "right" to be in an inn, if the keeper doesn't want you there. There may be some exceptions in some states (e.g. the "fair notice" law in New Jersey) but I think that's the general state of things in the U.S. -- which I actually support. There are some advantage players who are outraged when casinos throw them out, but I look at it as a private property issue. So if getting 86'd seems like the end of the world to you, well then learn to lose fast with a smile on your face like a good little lemming. ETF |
|
Subject : on being barred posted by Baddog on Oct-11-2008 07:18am |
mah buddy has been barred at all MGM Mirage places. When Mirage busted him he engaged the pb and she explained his skill level was just too high. She gave him a name he could appeal to if he liked. She was very pleasant. He decided against appealing. He finally uses some cover. And interestingly most of his losses were at Mirage related properties. I guess that is why they recently made it harder to order a barring. The only place I know where they cannot bar is Atlantic City which has the worst games generally. Much has been written on why there are good games where barring is allowed. I believe the best barring defense is the non victim personna. Many years ago i counselled a gorgeous chick who was the subject of much sexual harassment on the job. My advice boiled down to a few things. One was - she carried a set of cards she would hand to a first offender - the cards said "My lawyer says I can slap the shit out of you if you bother me again - and I will" - it had my name and number on the bottom. Interestingly she had no more problems. At a Inns of Court meet I asked a fed judge her opinion. She had to sit down she was laffing so hard. She finally said that if it came up in her court she would have marshalls drag me in chains to explain but my client would get a pass. I always wondered if she was serious. Since it never came up I guess we will never know. Her husband was a bj player if that means anything. |
|
Subject : Clarification posted by ETFan on Oct-11-2008 08:53am |
| Baddog wrote: > > mah buddy has been barred at all MGM Mirage places. When Mirage busted him he engaged the pb and she explained his skill level was just too high. She gave him a name he could appeal to if he liked. She was very pleasant. He decided against appealing. He finally uses some cover. And interestingly most of his losses were at Mirage related properties. I guess that is why they recently made it harder to order a barring. > The only place I know where they cannot bar is Atlantic City which has the worst games generally. Much has been written on why there are good games where barring is allowed. I believe the best barring defense is the non victim personna. Many years ago i counselled a gorgeous chick who was the subject of much sexual harassment on the job. My advice boiled down to a few things. One was - she carried a set of cards she would hand to a first offender - the cards said "My lawyer says I can slap the shit out of you if you bother me again - and I will" - it had my name and number on the bottom. I don't think you are saying (or are you?) that this would be a smart strategy for a card counter. Katweezel so wants to believe he has legal protection from discrimination that he will take it that way if you don't clarify. ;) ;) BTW, I don't think I have a victim persona in a casino. I just don't walk around telling everyone what I really THINK all the time. Peeps has to PAY me to find out what I think. (A few times I broke down under pressure, and you know the funny thing? You tell the truth an everyone in the joint starts laughin der ass off. They NEVER believe word one.) ETF |
|
Subject : Re: Clarification posted by Katweezel on Oct-11-2008 08:18pm |
I haven't been in Nevada since 1980, and I must be due. From that year, I can only recall a light-plane trip over the Hoover Dam and Grand Canyon, a Tom Jones show at Caesars and putting $1 in a horse-race slot and betting on the rank 50:1 outsider of the field because my wife liked its name, Aunt Mary. It won in a photo-finish and it coughed up 50 coins. (How's that for an AP system!) Nowadays, after readings here and elsewhere, I wouldn't be bothered about getting kicked out. I am interested in trying to understand the local application of local customs and laws. Baddog could help me here maybe, on how I can get illegally 'grabbed' by security and therefore qualify for a large out-of-court settlement like the guy I read about here. Is 50/50 ok BD? As for Pluck, I saw on his site, when he was Doug Grant he claims to have run successful BJ teams in the 90's I think it was. Plus a card-counting franchise that educated more than 60,000 buyers. Somebody here surely remembers something? Baddog has ferreted out stuff that agrees with other stuff he said there. Seems to be true he was banned from roulette here and there for being too 'skilful.' His free roulette system I downloaded I find extraordinary, and even better for single-zero roulette over here. (only 2.7% house edge) Could emotions and over-sensitivities have ruled, and led to the expulsion of a possibly genuine, real-life Advantage Player who may possess a substantial long-term-edge in one or more casino games. We may never know for sure, which could be a pity. K |
|
Subject : Re: Clarification posted by Baddog on Oct-12-2008 06:49am |
| I suppose a card that says I will whack you if you bar me is not a great idea. The personna was the point. Look the pit in the eye and engage him on useless conversation and claim to be way ahead while an obvious loser is a simple example. Telling the ripper he should not slice you for any reason is probably contra indicated. |
|
Subject : Re: on being barred posted by Katweezel on Oct-12-2008 02:05am |
Bd: 'The only place I know where they cannot bar is AC which has the worst games generally.' Those two characteristics are obviously co-dependents then. My understanding (never having been in AC) is that with no barring allowed, there are a number of grubby team-tricks casinos there can employ - and do - to make it virtually impossible for a successful card counter to win much, when they get you in their cross-hairs. So it would seem it's a much better deal all round to play in Nevada and get the boot occasionally, these things considered. Agreed? K |
|
Subject : rite on nt posted by Baddog on Oct-12-2008 06:51am |
| nt |
|
Subject : Nevada posted by ETFan on Oct-12-2008 11:32am |
My understanding is that Las Vegas is almost as bad as A.C. nowadays, but there's always Reno. ETF Katweezel wrote: > > Bd: 'The only place I know where they cannot bar is AC which has the worst games generally.' > Those two characteristics are obviously co-dependents then. My understanding (never having been in AC) is that with no barring allowed, there are a number of grubby team-tricks casinos there can employ - and do - to make it virtually impossible for a successful card counter to win much, when they get you in their cross-hairs. So it would seem it's a much better deal all round to play in Nevada and get the boot occasionally, these things considered. Agreed? K |
|
Subject : yoah explanation is the pudding posted by Baddog on Oct-11-2008 07:04am |
| nt |
|
Subject : Coffee & cake equilibrium posted by Katweezel on Oct-11-2008 08:39am |
Another hurricane Ike passed and relative equilibrium returns. The St Maartin guy with a problem who did not know where to turn received free, generous professional help/advice from Baddog and WRX and I'm sure he appreciated it. The same vein of kindness pumps strongly through others here, the likes of ETF etc. That attitude - all you guys here - makes this place worthwhile and more meaningful. Here is your (Irish) coffee and cake. Enjoy. K |
|
Subject : Re: Help needed in St. Maartin Court case posted by WRX on Oct-07-2008 03:42pm |
| I'm very sorry to hear about how you were ripped off and assaulted. But I've got to say that the literature is full of such incidents in that part of the world. Any resemblance that these Caribbean islands bear to democracies may be no more than skin deep. You might want to be cautious about spending more money trying to get justice, or risking your personal safety by returning to the scene. I'm no expert on conditions there, just cynical based on what has happened to others. |
|
Subject : Assuming your atty is USA based posted by Baddog on Oct-09-2008 03:34pm |
these guys might help: Gruman Worldwide Limited 3400 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609-2906 (813)870-2400 http://www.grumanww.com EMAIL:info@grumanww.com Web Site: http://www.grumanww.com"> __________________________________________________________ ALQ ACCOUNT NUMBER: 004301 Sydbri Legal Services Naomi House 19 Ninth Terr & West Ct Centreville, Nassau,, Bahamas (242) 323-4824 EMAIL:cdelancy@sydbri-legal.org |
|
Subject : "Italian police have arrested St. Maarten's most prominent hotel owner, Rosario Spadaro, accusing him of laundering money for the Sicilian Mafia, Italian police said Thursday," read the AP report in the May 20, 2005 Orlando Sentinel. posted by Baddog on Oct-09-2008 03:48pm |
| nt |