I salute the achievements of the Blackjack giants of history, right back to Thorpe, and more recently, in particular, Wong, Snyder and Schlesinger. Well done, all you legends. Without your accomplishments, most us us would still be thinking we could win with Basic Strategy, just like most of the idiots do who like to play this game in today's casinos.
On the flipside, because you (and others) took us for a ride on the leading edge of BJ evolution, we now have increasing heat like never in your day, combined with increasing technological security measures, all designed to take the 'A' out of the AP.
The best any of you experts could promise us was a measly +0.5%, and maybe if we got real good, as much as +2%.
Now we live 2008, still with BJ books written long ago, when BJ times were not so 'hard.'
A natural reaction for some is to abandon the sinking BJ ship and catch the SP21 ship while the going is still good with that game. But that looks likely to ultimately attract the same heat that BJ now does.
Has Blackjack really been computered and science/math analysed to its full measure, as many say? Blackjack Switch is an interesting alternative, particularly at online casinos. (Thanks Arnold Snyder for your website strategy for that game.)
Have we all been blindsided by the counting idea? Was that always the ONLY way to win consistently at BJ? Is it humanly possible to win long-term without counting cards; without ace-tracking or shuffle-tracking? To have my long-term edge, just like the casino... I'd like to think it is possible, even though I must 'go first.' NB
