Blackjack Ace Prediction (part 2)

Well, this McDowell book seems to be causing a bit of a stir in the community. While wandering around the web, I find yet another hack against Arnold's review. This time, by Victor at ap.com.

It's important to note, not once have I seen a rebuttal to Arnold's critique. What I generally find is this, or some variation, instead. So rather than an enlightened discussion taking place where everyone benefits, we are left with nothing to respond to but a bit of a smokescreen.

> To some people this is a personally
> motivated disagreement, an opportunity to
> attack former friends and colleagues, with
> no tangible gains other than sadistic
> self-satisfaction.

And, yet, others see it as an opportunity to attempt to cover their sorry asses. Tell me, when your customers lose their bankroll attempting to sequence aces as set forth by Mr. Mcdowell ... do they still get the money back guarantee?

This is what Arnold wrote in his review:

"Anyway, I�m sitting here looking at the endorsements on the book, and I�m thinking, "Steve! Ed! Don! I know you guys have never tracked aces, but couldn�t you at least have taken out a calculator and spent ten minutes going over some of the math before jumping on this bandwagon? Does Snyder always have to be the bad guy delivering the bad news?"

Ohhhh ... the sadistic self-satisfaction.

Considering the book has about as much merit as TARGET, I think that was a pretty restrained critique.

> For us this is about the
> truth, regardless of who it compliments or
> even what mistakes it may reveal.

Well, I guess we can all thank Arnold for your sudden interest in the truth. And if a genuine response is forthcoming, I (and the community) look forward to reading it.

In the meantime, I hope your team of infinitely skilled mathematicians are also examining that roulette system you sell.

'Cuz just between you and me ... I got my doubts.

Best,
Syph

(ps Incidentally, Dalton has recently posted links to Arnold's review. Nice to see a little integrity is still left in the community.)

Why do you attack Viktor for selling the book and not Stanford?

Why do you attack Viktor for selling the book and not Stanford?

1) I have yet to hear Stanford attack Arnold.

2) I met Stanford, he's a cool guy.

You'll note that the friction I'm responding to is really the attempt by a certain segment of the community to brush off Arnold's critique on account of some personal vendetta.

Kill the messenger and hide the truth.

The math will speak for itself, and I expect that once the book is officially discredited ... Stanford will no longer sell it.

Best,
Syph

Viktor didn't give a review but sells the book.
Stanford gave a positive review and sells the book.
The book is bad based on a post by a competitor.
You know the future.
Therefore Viktor is bad and Stanford is good.
Because you've met Stanford.

You answered my question.

In the small chance that you are not deliberately being obtuse, I'll try again.

Please read very slowly so there is no confusion.

Arnold is a recognized authority in tracking and sequencing. He has long established ties with the professional community, which paid him the highest recognition by voting him into the Hall of Fame. Included in this company are the legendary Tommy Hyland and Al Fransesco. Two gentlemen who mastermind teams that sequenced at a professional level. Before Arnold released his review, he talked with Al about the dilemna he was facing. Release the critique, and possibily ruin the game for people using the REAL techniques ... fail to do so and have real, struggling players lose their money.

I am one of those real, struggling players that derives my income from this game.

It is one thing to give a well-intentioned review to a book that has serious errors. We are all human, we make mistakes. It's an entirely different thing to attack someone personally because you would rather protect your reputation than concede incompetence on the subject matter.

What part of this don't you understand?

As for the future, I'll put my money on the wisdom of professionals who live and breath this game every time.

Not the screechings of pretenders.

Best,
Syph

www.blackjackforumonline.com

(ps And, yah, Stanford is a cool guy. Sorry if you take offence to this.)

None of what you just posted responds in any way to my question. To wit:

Why do you attack Viktor for selling the book and not Stanford?

Viktor did not review it. Stanford did.

"Why do you attack Viktor for selling the book...?"

I'm sure you've heard the one: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Lefty

PS (If not, google it. For those that are too lazy to do even that: the original post does not criticize the retailing of a book.)

"do they still get the money back guarantee?" mean after criticizing Viktor?

The BJ21 catalog says "Here it is folks -- the complete scoop on this mathematically valid and proven blackjack winning technique." Which still begs the question, why criticize Viktor and not Stanford?

I think it's a great book. I just want to know why the double standard.

What is remarkable about this discussion is how one book has been used in an attempt to discredit reviewers, retailers, endorsers, the author, and the publisher. This is one stinkin' book, for chrissakes! The political agenda of the posters is transparent to even the casual observer. Or, as we say in math lingo, IOTTCO.

As for the endorsers and reviewers, I have endorsed / reviewed maybe 20-25 books now in Mathematics and CS, about 5 in BJ, and maybe 20-25 journal papers. It may be worthwhile to understand what these processes really are.

For books, the publisher usually gives me a specific set of questions to answer about the book, and I read in a way designed to answer those questions. If they don't provide questions and let me go at it, then I read those portions that I enjoy carefully, skip or skim those parts that aren't interesting. There is simply not enough time in a human life to carefully scrutinize each sentence in each book -- at some point the author is on his own. In the span of 2-4 weeks (the usual review time), you can only do so much given you also have a life to attend to with all of its complexity. I posted my full review of BJAP on my site -- you can see the part that got picked up as an endorsement. Here is my full review: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=11954

For research papers, the editor of the journal doesn't care if you take a year, he want's you to check every word of every sentence twice. And I do. This is going into a journal and it had better be right because future scientists are going to rely on it. If I don't understand an argument, I write to the editor for clarification. It doesn't leave my desk until I am convinced it is original, current, and non-trivial. That takes a while. No book author can expect this type of treatment for a recreational text on blackjack. No publisher has time for this type of review in his tight publication schedule.

Now an endorsement is an entirely different animal. Hell, you aren't even required to look at a book to give an endorsement. Many of them are written for you in advance and you are asked to sign your name to them. It's part of being a good citizen to endorse a variety of products and services if your name is worth something. That doesn't mean that each endorsement is going to ultimately be a good thing. There are so many examples of endorsements gone bad, think of your own. For the last book I endorsed, the author provided me with three endorsements and wrote in his cover letter that it was ok with him and the publisher if I didn't read the book, they had a very tight deadline. But, I trusted the name and the publisher, so there you go.

Whether the book BJAP is right / wrong / or somewhere in between, the vitriol that has followed Snyder's post is simply absurd. To use such a trivial matter to engage in political infighting seems to reduce this community to its lowest common denominator. We can do better.

Norm is right on in his comments, but I think his point is more subtle than it may appear. It is not "why Nacht, why not Wong?" The question he asks between the lines is "Why anyone at all?" Read Norm's "Call for a Truce" and you may begin to understand; it certainly opened my eyes.

Best regards,

--Eliot

One thing good coming out of Snyder's new business plan to completely dis-credit Don Schlesinger .. we now know endorsements of books are meaningless.

Now we don't even have to assume why Snyder would chose to call Schlesinger out for endorsing Mcdowell's book. All the while Snyder knew how the endorsement game is played and has now by his own admission endorsed books and articles that were'nt all that great either.

Seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black to me. But hey, all's fair in re-writing history, if you can get away with it.

Again, thanks guys, for all those ringing endorsements.

I'm sure many other people are also confused about this: why does Snyder hate Schlesinger?

One thing I picked up is that when Snyder sold ap.com to Viktor Nacht, Schlesinger decided to stay at ap.com instead of going with Snyder. Is this why Snyder hates Schlesinger?

Answering this question would clear up a lot of confusion about this, and help many people understand better the politics on bjf.com.

"I'm sure many other people are also confused about this: why does Snyder hate Schlesinger?"

The answer is simple, although the reason is patently absurd.

"One thing I picked up is that when Snyder sold ap.com to Viktor Nacht, Schlesinger decided to stay at ap.com instead of going with Snyder. Is this why Snyder hates Schlesinger?"

Partly. Snyder sold RGE Publishing to Viktor Nacht. But, their dissolution of the firm and subsequent breakup was very messy, with finger-pointing all around -- like a bitter divorce. Ironically, as Viktor has alluded, in the Publisher's Introduction to BJA3, I actually tried to play the role of intermediary, attempting, through dozens of e-mails and hours upon hours on the phone, to help smooth things over. Well, as the old saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Arnold left and went to Huntington Press. I needed to choose a publisher for the third edition of BJA. Stay with RGE and the new proprietor, Viktor Nacht, or go to HP and Anthony Curtis? Truth be told, this decision wasn't going to mean much to HP's bottom line, but it was a potentially business-saving event for RGE. After talking at length to both Anthony and Viktor, and agonizing for a long time, I made the decision to go with RGE.

Just before making this decision, Arnold called me and we actually spoke on the phone for THREE hours! Passionately, he tried every conceivable way to convince me not to publish with RGE. I remember his words, like it was yesterday: "Don, don't let Viktor publish the book. He can't do it. He has no idea how to publish a book." The hardcover edition of BJA3 has been called by some the most physically beautiful blackjack book ever published! And, at our May party in Las Vegas, to celebrate the release, Anthony Curtis -- as classy a guy as you'll ever want to meet -- came over to me and said, "You made the right choice, Don. We could have never done this kind of job for you. We couldn't have committed the time or the money to such a project."

By the way, although I own the copyright to all editions of BJA, I was never given the disk of my own manuscript by Arnold! So, when the time came for BJA3 -- and BEFORE I had made up my mind as to who would publish the book, I asked Arnold for the disk. Not only did he refuse to give it to me, but he went one step further: "I'll furnish Anthony with the disk, if you decide to publish with HP. If not, I'll sell it to you for $1,000"!!! I politely told Arnold (actually Arnold's wife, via e-mail) where he could insert the disk, and, of course, we re-keyed the entire text, making it bigger and better than ever before.

And, I haven't spoken a word to Arnold since then.

So, those are my "crimes." That is why Arnold and his wife now hate me. I "dared" to remain with RGE, to keep my Web site there, and to publish my book there. I NEVER did a single thing to harm Arnold in any way whatsoever, except to not help him in trying to make sure that the fledgling RGE went bankrupt.

"Answering this question would clear up a lot of confusion about this, and help many people understand better the politics on bjf.com."

Well, there you have it. The funniest part of this absurd episode is that, in my view, Arnold and his wife have lost all credibility with the rationally-thinking blackjack community, with their revisionist history about me and my writings. Arnold published the first two editions of my book, had written reverently about me for 20 years, and all of his writings are public record. You all have the quotes in my book from the likes of Thorp, Wong, Griffin, and dozens of other blackjack authorities as to the quality of my work and my reputation. Nothing Snyder writes can possibly alter than one iota. But, it does alter HIS reputation in a sadly negative way, don't you think?

I hope this answers your question.

Don

... it is quite atypical for me to post here. If there are any responses to this, please do not expect me to participate any further. I can be found at ap.com and will be delighted to speak to you on Don's Domain or on the Parker pages.

Don

Victor made himself a target when he tried to discredit Arnold's review by attacking him personally, rather than addressing his review.

That is the primary point, if you read the post again ... I think I make that pretty clear. And in my previous response, and now this response.

Simple enough?

You say its a great book. Wonderful. now could you please address the criticisms raised by Arnold, Radar, Kim, Mathboy, and ET Fan. These are gentlemen who do not feel its a great book.

Or would you rather stick your head down, run off to ap.com, and say Syph has some personal issues with you.

(None to my knowledge, but you do need a better haircut :)

You write:

"Which still begs the question, why criticize Viktor and not Stanford?"

Answer (in big, bold letters)

Because Victor has resorted to personal attacks in an attempt to worm his way around Arnold's critique.

Case closed.

There is no double standard here. If Stanford lost all dignity, and resorted to slandering Arnold in an attempt to hide the truth, then there would be a double standard.

Best,
Syph

What is remarkable about this discussion is how one book has been used in an attempt to discredit reviewers, retailers, endorsers, the author, and the publisher. This is one stinkin' book, for chrissakes! The political agenda of the posters is transparent to even the casual observer. Or, as we say in math lingo, IOTTCO.

Actually, it's been used to discredit the one man who spoke the truth on the subject.

The political agenda of the posters is transparent to even the casual observer.

Agreed.

To use such a trivial matter to engage in political infighting seems to reduce this community to its lowest common denominator. We can do better.

Agreed.

Whether the book BJAP is right / wrong / or somewhere in between, the vitriol that has followed Snyder's post is simply absurd.

A bad book, with faulty math, endorsed by noted authorities, is an embarrassment to the community. Regardless of where you stand, you can thank Arnold for bringing this to your attention.

Norm is right on in his comments, but I think his point is more subtle than it may appear. It is not "why Nacht, why not Wong?" The question he asks between the lines is "Why anyone at all?"

When you slander someone in the hopes of hiding the truth, a response is appropriate.

Perhaps you feel differently.

Best,
Syph

(Sorry for the quick treatment of your post, Eliot. I think we will all be questioning endorsments in the near future. And the people who make them.)

I usually stay out of these forums and lurk, but a friend asked me to comment on this thread because of my experience with ace location.

I don't know why you think Snyder has such a strong reputation in the pro community. He is, to the say the least, viewed with at best, ambivalence. He is friendly with some professionals, like the dinosaurs you mention who like the occassional shot of self-publicity, but mostly he has been cut out of the loop.

The reason is that he does casino consulting work. That is a big deal for a professional. You just can't trust him not to either publish anything valuable or sell the information on. He burned out an excellent opportunity with the super 7's sidebet for a lousy buck. You get a lot of awestruck red chippers who look past that, but the bottom line is it costs serious pros big money when a players starts doing work for the industry.

He is not, and has never claimed to be, a professional player. I just find it surreal he is trying to come over as an authority on sequencing. Most of the good location players quit the country years ago. You just can't in enough hours. Apart from California and a few other sawdust joints scattered about the place the opportunity just isn't there. He was claiming that professionals were coming to him to complain about the McDowell book. That just didn't happen. Firstly, location pros wouldn't bother to read the book in the first place. Second, they wouldn't read it in detail and then offer a blow-by-blow criticism to Snyder. They are mostly busy working. Most of the old pros figured out ace location from Thorp and Epstein and they don't use no frills.
Snyder doesn't provide a single quote from any working pro, so it just looks like he made that up.

I have about five hundred hours under my belt using ace location in Asia in Eastern Europe. I can tell you this, I don't have much interest in the McDowell book or in Snyder's comments about it. What ace locators do is mostly spend every waking moment trying to find a really easy shuffle, I mean a game where you can predict the next card to be dealt almost 100%, tear it apart, and move on. I don't give a damn about the third percentage point. I know I have an edge because the aces come out when my key cards come out.

I gotta say, these forums seem to be full of hero-worship and petty feuds. I guess I'm not missing much. For any one who wants to listen, my advice would be to spend more time practicing your system, and get to the tables more often. And make up your own mind about stuff. Worshippers don't take much money out of casinos.

This is the fourth time in two weeks that one of your crowd has outed part of my physical description. You will do anything to harm anyone connected to ap.com.

You say its a great book. Wonderful. now could you please address the criticisms raised by Arnold, Radar, Kim, Mathboy, and ET Fan. These are gentlemen who do not feel its a great book.

My guess is that these people either are not professional players or have not attempted ace location seriously in a casino, though they seem sincere. I don't know them and will be happy to correct myself if those people want to chime in. In particular, they don't seem to know much about the practical aspects of card recognition.

The approach is all wrong. Ace location isn't a precisely mathematically quantifiable art like card counting. Most of the successfuly location players I've known couldn't tell one formula from another. But they do know single-riffle=heaps of cash. I couldn't address the points they make, because they are just talking about stuff no one who actually does this cares about.

I'm reading the McDowell book now. It looks okay, but nothing special. From what I've read, it'll get you started. You won't get the fine detail you need to win, but you won't get that anyway except experience.