Edwin Silberstang

Is anyone familar with Edwin Silberstang? Is he considered a BJ expert?
Are his books worth reading?

But no really terrible advice. He is poor on fine detail, for that try some of the books here.
Several people got started on blackjack by Silberstang, didn't seem to do them much harm.

His strategy tables are impeccable but the count he advocates is only recommandable for single deck games (Hi-opt1 with side count of aces).
He gives some good practical advice but he is not free of superstition.His advice to avoid hot dealers and stop win/loss is rather ridiculous.
If you have single deck games available, his book might still be worth reading.

Francis Salmon

He started writing bad gambling articles for Playboy many years ago. Everything he wrote was stolen from someone else. Much of it was just plain wrong. Later, he wrote a series of gambling books which I believe were also published by Playboy. He had either a good agent, good contacts, or both. It would be a toss-up between him and Patrick as to whose gambling literature is more of a waste of time.

He started writing bad gambling articles for Playboy many years ago. Everything he wrote was stolen from someone else.

This could well be true, but he has enough personal anecdotes from the tables to suggest he did actually do some gambling. Moreover, the vast majority of blackjack books are just total rehashes. He is a better writer than Patrick, and his flirtation with voodoo concepts is more down to the influence of the early blackjack writers rather than sheer bull-headed ignorance. We tend to forgot "credible" writers like Humble obsessed about cheating dealers (in an admittedly much less regulated enviroment) and used quasi-voodoo techniques to protect themselves.

Silberstang absorbed a minimum of knowledge on a range of gambling and skill games and summarizes each in his writings. For the recreational player looking for a quick primer on a game about which he knows nothing it can't do much harm. You certainly won't get rich on Silberstang's advice alone however.

Anyone remember the International Blackjack Club?

I put "credible" in inverted commas.

Who buys Playboy to read about gambling?

Lance Humble developed the Hi-Opt I and Hi-Opt II systems, along with Julian Braun. They are both good systems, with Hi-Opt II highly rated by Don Schlesinger in Blackjack Attack 3. Humble's book, The World's Greatest Blackjack Book, does, however, have some problems. It overstates the likelihood that a player will be cheated in a major Nevada casino, its chapters on playing w/o a system and dealers are themselves overrated and it recommends betting systems that combine the count and a progression. I still consider it a good blackjack book because it has correct basic strategy, a good counting system and debunks falacies held by many less knowledgeable players. I hope to see a revised version w/o the voodoo stuff.

Why does any one buy Playboy? I've seen more nudity in Upholstery monthly.

According to Revere, in the early sixties a small group of players was using the tag array 01111000-10, without a very rigourous playing strategy, in the Las Vegas casinos. In 1968 Charles Einstein published How to Win at Blackjack which used the tag array 01111000-10, without a rigourous playing strategy, but with very generous practical advice. Einstein's book was reprinted by the GBC (Gamblers' Book Club) and, as far as I know, the GBC still keeps it in inventory. I've always named a tag array for the person first promulgating it, hence 01111000-10 is the Einstein Count.

Here is a reader's review of Humble & Coopers' immodestly titled The World's Greatest Blackjack Book I just read on the Amazon site:

Perfectly horrible and a waste of money., September 20, 2001

Reviewer: Wise to this con artist for years (Dixieland) - See all my reviews

The Canadian psychologist posing as a semi-pro gambler has, again pulled the wool. Stealing Charles Einstein's simple but powerful count system, he renamed it HiOpt, then HiOpt1. Fortunately, he had Julian Braun calculate the change indices so they are reliable. Of course, he only presents indices from -6 to +6, then only for single deck. But, if you send him money, you may get something closer to what you actually need.

In the text of the book you'll find useless platitudes and tired generalizations, some of which may be slightly true. The book is full of absurd accusations of cheating. When Mr. Wonderful wins he is a brilliant strategy player; but when when he loses he's been cheated? One might think that he must have spent more than a hundred hours at the tables lifetime, but the quality of the writing says otherwise. Save your money. Humble is a phoney, but he's made good money in peddling printed tripe.

The observations are historically correct and closely match my own opinion.

Richard Eptein's The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic is the earliest reference to the tag array 11221100-20 I've encountered. Epstein attributed it to Stepine, presumably a mathematician. My extensive internet searches have been fruitless. Who is(was) Stepine? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate some enlightenment.

Having cashed in with peddling Hi-Opt, Humble decided to go to the well again. He renamed Hi-Opt Hi-Opt I and contracted Julian Braun to develop Stepine Count departure indices for the one-deck game. This he peddled, again for $200, using the name Hi-Opt II. There was another small publication sold by GBC for the Stepine account. I have it packed away with most of my other twenty-one literature and I believe the title was Accu-Count or something similar. I do recall that the price was well under ten dollars.

You can pick up the original $200 mimeographed sheets for Hi-Opt II for $40 from several sellers. I did. Humble includes Braun's two-card combination indices for hard doubling and late surrender. He did not include two-card combination indices for hard hit/stand decisions; you are supposed to accept on faith that the composite indices for hard hit/stand are fairly represented. I reran the single deck two-card combination indices, all of them, using SBA. The SBA results were all closer to zero than Braun's. Karel Janecek, the developer of SBA, being inconveniently irrascible, and Julian Braun being inconveniently dead, I was unable to resolve the differences.

However, there is now software I can use to compare the validity of the conflicting sets of indices. Now that my divorce (sigh) is imminent, I shall, again, be free to do as I please, and I have a full-time campaign contemplated. The campaign will begin with careful analysis. I've become old, and so has the game. I want to make the most of what's left.

Should any reader, for any reason, feel the urge to contact me, he can use the imbedded Send E-Mail to this Poster function to this end.

The World's Greatest Blackjack Book has Hi-Opt I indices from -6 through and including +6 for 4 (and 6 or 8) deck games in the main charts and a table of 1 or 2 deck modifications. It is Lawrence Revere's "Playing Blackjack as a Business" that contains 1 deck indices and advertises 4 deck indices. Humble did not originate the Hi-Opt tags, but his book, notwithstanding the fluff that I stated is in it, is still more useful than Charles Einstein's book. Revere's book claims he provided Hi-Opt indices to Braun. It has figures purporting to prove that Hi-Opt is less accurate than his own Plus-Minus (the High-Low). What these figures show is that the Revere Plus-Minus (the High-Low) count has a higher betting correclation than Hi-Opt. What they do not show is that Hi-Opt has a higher insuranc correlation and playing efficiency because it is ace-neutral. Also consider this: The High-Low system was originated by Harvey Dubner and published by Thorp, Braun, Wong, Snyder and Bootlegger. I am also curious as to who Stepine is. The World's Greatest Blackjack Book's title is an overstatement, but the book, despite its shortcomings, is still good.

(1) Stepine is an anagram for Epstein.

(2) "Stepine" is misspelled. It could be pronounced that way but actually spelled "Stepin". There's a mathematics professor named Anatole M. Stepin at Moscow State University. Why don't you drop him a line?

I'm going with (1), but doesn't Epstein show up here once in a while? I may be thinking of someone else.

I didn't discuss any Revere counts in my post.

FWIW, at the time Revere and Humble were making their claims there was no standardized evaluation of Playing Efficiencies. This came later. Until Griffin published, the closest thing to empirical comparison of popular count systems was a paper published by Braun. Braun presented simulation results for one million (!) dealt hands for several count system. The results were displayed for betting ratios of 1:1, 1:4 and 1:8 for both the single deck and the four-deck game. Bets were either one unit or the top number of units if the count indicated the situation were favorable. Results were displayed to one place to the right of a full percentage point of overall expectation. There was no provision for separately counted aces. Clearly, the flat betting result would indicate playing efficiencies. There was no separate analysis of Betting or Insurance Correlation. This was not intended to depict or predict actual results, only as a comparison of the systems. I was somewhat surprised (and skeptical) that Hi-Opt showed the exact same results as the RAPC '73. Humble gloated over this fact shamelessly. When Griffin's analysis was published, this was shown to be untrue. By this time, however, Revere was dead and (perhaps) thousands of copies of Hi-Opt were in circulation, albeit many, if not most, without royalty paid to Humble.

Revere indicated that he had a mathematical background. But he clearly lacked familiarity with least squares calculation methods and his claim of superiority for the Revere +/- over Hi-Opt was without demonstrable merit. Notwithstanding, Revere was an accomplished player and an innovative pioneer. His book was a textbook of count play, responsible for a wave of card counters. Humble is a system-peddling hack.

& I sure don't mean me. I'm a blockhead. [sound of palm slapping forehead]

Stepine is an anagram for Epstein.

I may contact Epstein. First, I'll have to search through my packed stuff to locate the damn book. You are possessed of a strong analytical skill, my friend. You have my thanks.

11111000-1-1 is High-Low.
1111100-1-10 is Revere +/-.

Revere proposed the ace-neutral Plus/Minus Count (which is NOT in the book, it was sold separately, through the mail or from his residence) as an introduction to ace-neutral counting. The idea was that patrons would graduate to the RAPC '73, and pay him another $200.

Be aware that when Revere stated that the RAPC '73 was the most accurate point count available, he was correct. Those (few) counts that rate (slightly) more powerful did not then exist.

Presently, point count variations proliferate. Snyder has published a non-exhaustive list of one hundred tag arrays. Today there is software that will generate departure indices and compile simulation results. Three decades ago, this was not the case. You could play Ten Count, and miss one third of the favorable betting situations. You could play the Dubner Count from Thorp's second edition. But then you had either to maintain a second count of the number of undealt cards. or to cut the published numbers in half and normalize to a full deck True Count. And these indices contained errors related to the density of middle cards (78&9). You could pay for the Reppert count, 1112110-1-2, and play without a True Count. Or you could use a Revere count, normalized to the half-deck, which was better.

And that was it, until Humble's and Wong's stuff became available.