I see that the whitebelt area at rge21.com has been converted to a Masters of Blackjack section, where many of the great thinkers in blackjack today have gathered to discuss a wide variety of blackjack related ideas, with Don Schlesinger as their leader. Naturally this raises the question: Who is the real overall master of blackjack, Don Schlesinger or Stanford Wong?
dear Puiu,
If I ever buy a fishing ship I'd like you to come out and work on it with me, i could drive and you could help the clients put the small fishes on their hooks. You could be the master baiter,
What are your criteria? Neither Wong nor Schlesinger is a serious player to my knowledge. In addition, their knowledge of blackjack and other games is probably quite narrow.
$$
The master who is no longer a student is no longer a master.
Great proverb. Could someone cite the source?
I would think that rather than citing Great Blackjack Masters, it would be more appropriate to have a Blackjack Hall of Fame. That is great contributors to the game of Blackjack could be recognised. Under a 'Great Blackjack Masters' format Baldwin et al. who devised and published the first accurate basic strategy would not even be considered. Thus one should really be recognising those who have made a positive lasting impact on the game.
Such criteria would have to include development of new thought, advancement of such thought to higher levels, contributions to the game through teaching, and computer analysis, published authors who have reached their audience, time spent in the field, etc.
Ken Uston poses the question in Million Dollar Blackjack as to who the greatest BJ player is, though no prizes for guessing his answer.
Possessing most of 'The Greats' books I have noticed a tendency for
ego-centricity which I have established as a result of the clandestine nature of the game, and the sense of power one feels at being the unassuming David, quietly grinding away at Goliath.
Possessing the ability to count down two tables simultaneously,and put on the act whilst organising a large team, and considering the vast sums of money they made, over $4,000,000 (70's money) Uston would have to be regarded as the greatest team mastermind. He also possessed a vivid writing style which enchanted many.
In terms of authors, I would have to suggest Thorpe who wrote the first publicly received BJ book, Griffin who wrote the authoritive industry 'maths of the game text', and who Uston refers to as 'the best counter of all'. Wong who reached the masses with his enormously successful and easy to follow "Professional BJ" as early as 1975, and continues to produce outstanding works, "Blackjack Secrets", "Casino Tournament Strategy" whilst supporting aspiring BJ pro's through his newsletters and this site. Anderson who recognised that the maths of the game was the simple part and instead chose to educate us as to our people skills and 'the act'.
Also a 'Blackjack Master' criteria would automatically disqualify those who are gifted in one area, but lack insight in another.
For example Braun, Revere and Humble have contributed much to the game but possess gamblers mentality. Revere advises never playing BJ at a table with bad players, and Braun and Humble despite their tertiary education still persist with 'streak theory', Braun suggests you should develop a sixth sense and use progressive betting during winning streaks. Humble suggests you should play against cheating dealers when they are busting a lot, and continue to play even if the dealer is hiding cards and you lose the count, provided you are winning.
Rather than recognising others limitations, which is of little use other than disregarding their opinion on certain issues, perhaps it would be more rewarding and educational to embrace those qualities that make them shine.
As a final note I should mention that I do not consider myself qualified to select the candidates, but I am entitled to my opinion. As I have not read some of 'The Greats' books like Snyder, I am sure there must be many more candidates. I am also ignorant as to more modern authors, ie anyone published since 1981. (yes this is a fairly large gap of history I know)
"What are your criteria? Neither Wong nor Schlesinger is a serious player to my knowledge. In addition, their knowledge of blackjack and other games is probably quite narrow."
Whilst I accept your basic premise of criteria of player to be established, your statement is needlessly unfair. Whilst my knowledge of Schlesinger is nil, both are published and thus contributing their knowledge to others. I do not feel they have to continue to man the trenches to earn the respect of the boys, many of whom have come after. Wong states he supported himself through college playing blackjack, before I, and probably you even had a rudimentary knowledge of the game. To suggest Wong's knowledge of blackjack and other games is quite narrow, is a bold and I believe untrue statement. His writings, bibliography, and 27 years consistently in the field since publishing ProBJ would suggest otherwise.
I have gained enormously from reading Wong's books. If your knowledge is that much wider, perhaps you could publish to our benefit. Personally if I enjoyed the success of Wong, I would be playing as little BJ as possible, only enough to see and thus write about any changes to the game.
"THE Authors" did NOT formulate basic strategy the card counting
game or side count of aces. These were laid out in a pulp magazine
in august of 1961. The article was written about April of 61.
This alone predates the "BIG" names; but the article says the author
learned this stuff from his "mentor" ten years before. So where did
his mentor get it ? The mentor is said to have run a NY under cover
joint. You have a gap ?? There is a bigger gap on the front end.
It is likely that the source does pre-date the military bunch with
the calculators. The formulation time was in the period that nearly
all gambling was under cover. Las Vegas was relatively new. card
counting was not unknown in other games. Who,exactly when, and where
these ideas emerged, are probably lost forever. Burried in the BS is
a flaw that went unnoticed by all. Two decks made the game tougher;
but counting seemed to still work. Four, 6 & 8 decks and the added
extra four cards from each deck- the effect of the flaw was amplified
by the lottery effect.
I recall reading an interview with Braun on Snyder's former RGE now non-existant library in which Braun acknowledged that his publisher had actually written the money management chapter in his book "How To Play Winning Blackjack". Braun in no way actually believed in any of that crap. The only good material in that particular chapter were the notes to the chapter that he did indeed write. Based on this revelation, Braun would most certainly be included in anyone's Blackjack Hall of Fame.
Telescopic
Only wall of fame I ever heard for Blackjack is at the Las Vegas Hilton.
He should strangle the bastard. Whilst such behaviour might be tolerable to churn authors ie "Knowalls Guide to ....." series books, whose authors do a bare amount of topic research, to put this heresy in the first (& only?) book of Braun is unforgivable. I have reread this chapter(15)& skimmed the book, and the chapter does appear to to be incongruous with his other advice, also the english used appears much plainer in this chapter.
The only other lines I notice of concern were:
"I do believe in cycles. That is, a Dealer can go along sort of up and down, with no particular pattern of good or bad cards. Then again, he can have a cycle of excessively good or bad luck. If a Dealer appears to be hitting everything in sight like pulling seven cards to a 21, or always turning up 10's as his face card, why not change tables? He obviously has got something going, why fight it. Remember this could quickly change an hour from now." Chapter 12 p102
Again the languauge seems to be of a lower level than used by Braun throughout the rest of the book. (ie more common and monosylabic words.)
and:
"I DO bet more when I'm winning. I DO bet less when I'm losing."
Chapter 14 p112. The context does not appear to be parlay betting cover strategy for high counts, or Kelly criterion betting in relation to bankroll for bet reduction. Interestingly though these two statements do appear at the bottom of the list, after such rules as " I DO exercise each day." It does seem strange that such important advice as bet size would be relegated to the bottom of the list, br Braun."
Did I say strangle, surely there must be something more painful, perhaps forced shifts at the casino following his advice, with the bankroll he obtained from publishing.
I just feel such statements have tarnished an otherwise excellent book, and now unfairly taint a man otherwise considered a blackjack legend.
Regardless, I support your assertion, that he would qualify for anyone's Hall of Fame. The main thrust of my argument was that blackjack identities should not be easily dismissed on the basis they spend most of their lives grinding away at the casino.
As you state Braun refutes his authorship of chapter 15, I will place his book on my upper BJ bookshelf, (No doubt to his great concern & relief.)
"THE Authors" did NOT formulate basic strategy the card counting
game or side count of aces. These were laid out in a pulp magazine
in august of 1961."
You obviously know a lot more of the early history of the game than I, and you are correct in your assertion of my being a young pup (I assume that was your meaning) both in age and in my BJ experience.
It is however widely accepted that as I stated Baldwin et al were the first to publish a correct basic strategy, and Thorpe to bring it to the masses, through his best seller, "Beat the Dealer."
"The article was written about April of 61.
This alone predates the "BIG" names; but the article says the author
learned this stuff from his "mentor" ten years before. So where did
his mentor get it ? The mentor is said to have run a NY under cover
joint."
This is great stuff, it would be greater if someone could locate it to preserve the history of card counting.
"You have a gap ?? There is a bigger gap on the front end.
It is likely that the source does pre-date the military bunch with
the calculators. The formulation time was in the period that nearly
all gambling was under cover. Las Vegas was relatively new. card
counting was not unknown in other games. Who,exactly when, and where
these ideas emerged, are probably lost forever."
This is disappointing, but only shows the need for publishing to an audience, and that their actual contribution was nil. (Assuming Baldwin, Thorpe and others arrived at their calculations independently, but I infer you are alluding otherwise?)
"Burried in the BS is a flaw that went unnoticed by all. Two decks made the game tougher; but counting seemed to still work. Four, 6 & 8 decks and the added extra four cards from each deck
Are you stating the decks used to contain 48 cards?
"- the effect of the flaw was amplified by the lottery effect."
I assume you are referring to greater possible numbers of subsets, which would somehow increase the volatility of the game?
Is yes with the addition of one word Undesireable sub sets.
Ref 48 cards no that is a pinochle deck
Under the Archer, Hecher, Goldberg, and Roberts counting systems
the ratio of 2:1 is considered the rich point. the single deck has
36 non tens and 16 ten count, 4 cards over the rich point.
Nearly every one has concidered the shoe as say 6 decks Period.
About two years ago the TX lottery went from 50 numbers to 54, the
result was a severe drop in hit ratio. Yes very similliar number.
I now consider the 6 deck shoe as being 24 cards on the poor side;
worse, I seem to attract them. In another of your posts you mention
variation plays DDs & SPs. These plays started giving trouble as soon
as I learned them, but I did not catch it, because of my extreme good
fortune at gaming. When my outstanding luck went to Horrible I quit
for some time. Drawn back by a mensa friend who was using Bobby Singer's "Method". I percived that the count used could be groosly
in error. Years later this machine verifyed that.
There is much bickering going on-the same was true with the early gurus if what I read is correct.
Trying to figure this game using the theory of probability is the same
as chasing smoke with a butter-fly net. Mass publication of counting
has only achieved one thing- License to throw out all consistant winners. For this, the gaming public has suffered.
Hyland is doing what Uston wishes he'd done, and under much more difficult circumstances.
Al Francesco should get a nomination.
Being a Uston devotee, (I am priveleged to have first editions of his 4 books) I would concur. Uston did in fact learn more than just the game from Francesco. It was Uston's employment of Francesco's 'modus operandi' that made all that money.
