Can you plz recommend a training software?

Hi,

I am a new player and need training.

Could you please advise me on a nice software (that works with the Zen count)?

I would like to be able to play shoes, and peek at the count from time to time to see if I have it right. Also it would be great if I could customize the error tables because the software I am using now does not have this feature and it is very annoying to be told you play wrongly when you play correctly and vice-versa.

Thank you for your assistance,

Royam

Royam, it looks like you and creatureman had a discussion about cvbj about three weeks ago: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=8591

Why are you now acting like you don't know about it?

Sounds kind of shilly to me.

Been There Done That

:-)

***Royam, it looks like you and creatureman had a discussion about cvbj about three weeks ago: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=8591

As you say, I already asked about softwares some time ago (at that time I did not know this site, thus asked only on cardcounter).

The first advice was by Zengrifter however, and he recommended Ne Plus Ultra or SmartCards. Others (Jonhn and Creatureman), then mentioned that CVBJ was nice. Finally, Boston_Jaxel recommended sage.

I chose Ne Plus Ultra because:
1. Most poster on cardcounter know what they're talking about, so I value their advices equally,
2. This page (http://www.bjrnet.com/shop/cat_sw.htm#CVBJ-Lite) lists most of the mentioned software and described CVBJ as the best overall BUT Ne Plus Ultra as the best drilling software (remember I had asked about drills),
3. And because Ne Plus Ultra was half the price of CVBJ.

I was however very disappointed by the software for reasons that are not relevant to this discussion and decided to buy another one. Before doing so, I wanted other advice, as my first survey had not proved very useful. It was logical to ask on another board, no?

***Why are you now acting like you don't know about it?

In what do you see I would be acting like I don't know about it? I just did not mention any name, which is logical as I wanted to keep all options open.

***Sounds kind of shilly to me.

In consideration of the above, it does not sound "shilly" to me.

Royam

First realize that I am the author of CVBJ and therefore biased.

As you say, I already asked about softwares some time ago (at that time I did not know this site, thus asked only on cardcounter).

The first advice was by Zengrifter however, and he recommended Ne Plus Ultra or SmartCards. Others (Jonhn and Creatureman), then mentioned that CVBJ was nice. Finally, Boston_Jaxel recommended sage.

This is a much better site than cardcounter. ZG does not suggest CV because it allows you to practice play. He believes that drilling software should not allow you to play because it is too much fun and distracts from drills. He has told me that I should separate the drill and play modules into separate products. I strongly disagree. I believe that play is the ultimate drill. CV has 35 drills. But, they only teach one skill at a time. You must pratice play before risking your money in a casino. That is why I consider play to be the culmination of drills. It is the combination of all drills. I believe you are a fool if you do not simulate actual play before putting real money on the felt.

I chose Ne Plus Ultra because:

NPU was a great piece of software when it was introduced, eleven years ago.

1. Most poster on cardcounter know what they're talking about, so I value their advices equally,

No comment. I am not allowed to post there because I criticized the webmaster.

2. This page (http://www.bjrnet.com/shop/cat_sw.htm#CVBJ-Lite) lists most of the mentioned software and described CVBJ as the best overall BUT Ne Plus Ultra as the best drilling software (remember I had asked about drills),

Michael wants to sell you everything. His advice is dated.

3. And because Ne Plus Ultra was half the price of CVBJ.

For good reason:) It has one-twentieth the features. It hasn't been updated in 11 (eleven) years. (CV is updated continually) It has poor graphics. It cannot play BJ at all. It doesn't support new methods. It is ancient.

I was however very disappointed by the software for reasons that are not relevant to this discussion and decided to buy another one. Before doing so, I wanted other advice, as my first survey had not proved very useful. It was logical to ask on another board, no?

Clearly.

We agree on everything then.

I paid and tried one product, did not like it. It tried CVBJ, like it, but before buying it I wanted advice from the community. It was just a precaution, as I am new to BJ, therefore igorant.

I do not understand why some people reacted agressively. I know we are on a counter's website, but should not be overly suspicious. Not everybody is trying to screw everybody by asking tricky questions.

Royam

The guy behind you leans on his horn blaring at you 90 decibels of impatience. Now picture a movie line. Would a person standing behind you yell in your ear at 90 decibels? The Internet is like a car. In a car you are surrounded by two tons of steel isolated from actual human contact. On the Internet you are alone in your building similarly isolated. The Internet can become a social environment. It can also become a very unsocial environment.

Some sites use the antisocial aspects to keep interest alive. (How many times can you answer the same questions and keep interest?) There is an excellent example not too far down this page. That is why I very rarely post here.

norm

"Sounds kind of shilly to me." -TMan

A shill is somebody who pretends to be an interested customer in order to lure others into buying from the agent that has enlisted his service.

Your statement above refers not to Royam, but to the agent you assume might be employing him.

Norm was nice enough to let it go, but I'll ask: Are you wondering outloud for all to hear if Norm Wattenberger employs shills to sell CVBJ?

If not, why ask?

I thank those who advised CVBJ.

In about 30 min, I could set up my counting system, the indices and betting scale I want to use.

Now I can just play, train everything at a time and the dealer corrects me each time I make a playing or betting mistake. Just perfect.

Royam

Thanks for the explanation, I had just assumed he meant "silly" and the "h" was a typing error. I am not native speaker and did not know the meaning of "shill", thanks for the free English lesson ;)

BTW, no, I am not an agent of Norm, lol. But now that you mention it, it's true I DID make him some free advertising... maybe I should ask for retribution... ;)

Royam

In my last post, had I been speaking to you, it would have appeared under one of your posts. In this case I was speaking directly to TMan. No, he didn't make a typing error and he does know the definition of a shill.

Why he would want to imply Norm Wattenberger uses shills is an answer only he can give. TMan's post about BJ are usually quite good; his pot-shots at individuals are becoming quite goofy.

Another English lesson .. 'retribution' is a bad thing. That is what Japan got from the U.S. soon after Pearl Harbor.

What you were thinking about getting from Norm was 'restitution'. Restitution is what someone gives you when they owe you .. to make things right .. and where that generally involves money .. I guess that is also what the U.S. got from Japan soon after Pearl Harbor.

:)

Good luck.

I know you were not speaking to me, but I just wanted to also comment on this after learning the meaning of "shill".

As for retribution, you're right, thx ;) I meant "remuneration" actually. Hope your "remuneration" as English teacher is not too high or I'll owe you a pile of gold very soon ;)

Royam

After you and the rest of the RGE group have been shown how foul-mouthed you have been against T-man, Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, and Al Rogers, you've got some nerve. All T-man said was "Sounds kind of shilly to me."

Now you have posted twice demanding he explain himself to you. Besides, T-man is probably laughing at you for exaggerating the discreet point he was making.

Crime Dawg, now there is an interesting handle. Seems like I would remember that one. Nope, I don't. Seems you haven't posted in forever (atleast the last ten years -I checked.)

Crime Dawg, such a sinister and vicious sounding handle too. Interesting choice for someone to afraid to stand up and be counted.

Why is it that lately 'crime dawg' and 'incognito' can't stand the scrutiny of the light of day? If you are going to post, come out of the dark, be a man, and say what you have to say.

> After you and the rest of the RGE group have been shown how foul
> mouthed you have been against T-man, Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, and Al Rogers, you've got some nerve.

Hold on sport -you can post what you want but Al Rodgers will tell you I can be trusted with his information and I can tell you that in the RGE posts you are referring to I postulated that Al Rodgers may in fact have good reason to do what he does.

Find one thing I have said negative regarding Stanford Wong? It will be easy to search; what I have to say, I'll say to your face and with the same handle.

As for T-Man and AS; I have never been foul mouthed.

> All T-man said was "Sounds kind of shilly to me."

And what do you suppose he meant by that?

> Now you have posted twice demanding he explain himself to you.

I haven't demaned a thing. I simply asked him if what he was saying implied Norm used shills. Personally, I think he owes Norm an apology. I went on to say that the posts wherein he bags on individuals have 'become goofy.' I should have said embarrassing.

> Besides, T-man is probably laughing at you for exaggerating the
> discreet point he was making.

No I'm guessing since he didn't want to respond himself, he is wishing you would let this just all go away.

I'm laughing at you.

Like I said .. embarrassing.

--------

So why don't you clear it all up for the faithful. You know the ones to afraid to use their real 'name' while standing up for that last goofy post wherein you accused Norm of using shills?

He either does or he dosen't; and I guess you must know.

If he dosen't; shame on you for implying he does.
If he does; then I guess I'll stand corrected, but I bet I won't have to.

Still laughing?