Faked posts

There is a thread below concerning the identity of the posters producing multiple glowing reviews of the new Cellini book. You may have missed it since its a long way down the page.
I am very disappointed to learn that Snyder himself is apparently involved in the systematic undermining of other blackjack sites by the RGE/Bjforum axis. I have a high opinion of him and really expected him to be above this stuff.

Note: some of the aliases involved have also been very critical of bj21 policy and my own writings, which would be fair comment, but not when an intent to deceive people as to the origin, number and self-interest of complainants is involved.

The Cellini book is published by Huntington Press, not RGE Publishing.

Arnold Snyder is no longer affiliated in any way with RGE Publishing, or Advantageplayer.com. However, his Blackjack Forum magazine is now published by Huntington Press.

Other than the fact that we have added it to our online catalog, RGE Publishing has no financial interest in the Cellini book.

I will be posting a review of the book, under my own name, on our website as soon as I have finished reading it.

To suggest that there is some sort of of conspiracy among Advantageplayer.com personnel to discredit other websites is ludicrous. But then, wild accusations unsupported by any sort of facts is what we have come to expect from John May.

Arnold Snyder is no longer affiliated in any way with RGE Publishing, or Advantageplayer.com.

So you are saying Snyder is not associated in any way with any current RGE "expert"? As the founder of the company?, and its owner for several decades?, being the original publisher and longtime friend of many of the current RGE luminaries? Are you seriously saying the aliases in question were not being used to promote RGE products prior and subsequent to his severing ties with RGE? Your credibility is stretched here. Any one look at the archives and determine the truth of the matter.

To suggest that there is some sort of of conspiracy among Advantageplayer.com personnel to discredit other websites is ludicrous. But then, wild accusations unsupported by any sort of facts is what we have come to expect from John May.

A little more humility would be appropriate.

There was a direct and obvious link between James Grosjean, an "expert" at RGE and the individual who trashed this site, ie they were on the same team. RGE gained directly as a result. That is a fact, its not an accusation. Now we have more hard evidence of a direct link between RGE and dishonest and unethical behaviour.

Nothing wild about this. I'm not even accusing any one of anything, this was as much a surprise to me as any one.

I thought Stanford supplied some facts? Why the heat?

Interesting - what "facts" are these and why to you classify them as "fact?" I have seen no such "facts." I have seen wild, false accusations. Some from bj21 management.

I don't know about conspiracy but there is a perception that there is competition amongst the sites and some feel that your key players are often critical of this site.

You really have two separate points here. To say that some key players of advantageplayer.com are critical of bj21 is an understatement. Most, if not all, of us left bj21 because of its policy of allowing constant abuse of authors in violation of its own rules. And many other authors also left. These are people that gave freely of their time. I'm not talking about rational discussion. I'm talking about weird accusations that would make Joe McCarthy blush. Of course we are critical. That is why we long ago left. Isn't this our right? As for a 'competition;' I would hope there would always exist some healthy competition between sites of the same subject. We accept that. Some people on bj21 don't and seem to consider a visit to ap.com a traitorous act. But the wild accusations have come from bj21. The wild posts are on bj21. Even bj21 management has made accusations against ap.com and its members. During the long period that bj21 free disappeared and free page devotees without GC access had no idea what was going on; of course numerous posts complaining and asking for info appeared on ap.com. BJ21 supplied zero info to these people. Once BJ21 free came back on-line; all negative posts about bj21 were mass deleted by ap.com management as they interfered with bj discussion.

As to John personally, AP certainly didn't give him very good treatment. The same Don/John fued that I have seen forever perpetuated itself.

Mav, this comment I simply don't understand. John is an author. It is the duty of ap.com as a distributor to review books. It is the duty of the members to post their honest impressions. Not wild, false accusations; but honest evaluation. Should they lie about the book? Should Arnold not say bad things about books he doesn't like in BJ Forum? I have not read John's book since I've not seen a good review from anyone and I have seen reckless research in his wild accusations. People that have read it said bad things about it. Personally, I think he has some good things to say but they get mixed in with other statements that haven't been well researched. He considers this 'bad treatment.' But isn't it Stanford himself that said all authors that talk about their products risk critical comment?

There was some talk earlier about BJ21 actually favoring your site with a prominent link at the top of their list. I never understood why they would do such a thing, but I do remember a promise to return the favor. Did that ever happen?

A. Come on Mav, the bj21 list is in alphabetic order. Take a look. You could call it clever of Viktor to start the site name with an A, but it certainly wasn't 'favored' by bj21.

B. Your impression that bj21 freely links to competitors doesn't ring true. There was originally a link to my site. When I told Stanford that I would no longer allow bj21 to sell my products; my link was deleted. Were my calculators any less valuable? It was only re-instated after complaints from bj21 users that could not understand why there wasn't a link to qfit.com. I think they learned a lesson.

C. I never saw such a promise and know Viktor never made one.

D. I am not an employee of RGE and certainly not a spokesman; but I can say that AP.com is very busy improving its site and a links list is hardly top priority at any site. I expect AP.com will eventually add one after it adds a planned long list of truly valuable additions for advantage players. But why would it include bj21? Keep in mind that most of the members of Don's Domain left bj21 because of the bj21 policy of allowing constant abuse of authors. Why would we advise people to visit a site that we all left? In edition 2 of the CVBJ manual many years ago I advised people to check-out bj21. In edition 3 three years ago, I mentioned it but warned that it had degraded due to constant flames. In the last edition I dropped it and all other sites as I can no longer state that the overall value is positive. That is my personal opinion and no one can tell me that I am a bad person if I do not recommend this site.

Look Mav, there is a lot of talk about 'free speech' on these pages. But bj21 has a long list of what is not allowed and busts far more posts than ap.com. If those rules were evenly enforced that would be fine and I'd bet that most of the authors would return. But they have not been evenly enforced for years. Serious BJ authors are under constant attack on this page when they appear. ALL of the serious software authors have left and the only BJ book author left is John May.

Mav, believe me when I say that many of us begged Stanford to fix the problems with his site before leaving. It didn't work and many of us left. You were not here when bj21 was formed. It was formed because RGB failed for the same reason. We came to BJ21 because RGB became a food-fight. Imagine our disappointment when BJ21 fell victim to the same. When the free pages finally self-destroyed - bj21 management actually had the gall to accuse us of its failure. After all of our warnings and pleadings. Look, all I want to do is talk about BJ. At AP.com I can do that. Unlike the propaganda spread on bj21, disagreement is allowed and encouraged. What is not allowed are baseless accusations like that made by an author having received a bad review suggesting that RGE is run by a Griffin agent. That is akin to calling your local cub-scout leader a child-abuser because of a personal disagreement. There are actions disgusting to the point that no one will stoop.

Personally I would have liked to see bj21 wake up and realize that profit is less important than good bj discussion. It didn't happen. That is why I was so thankful that a new site came along where one could talk shop without a constant barrage of false accusations based on oddball conspiracy theories. That is why authors that had stopped posting anywhere have reappeared.

Now back to the post that started this thread. John May has previously claimed that Karel Janecek, John Auston, Don Schlesinger, George C, Cacarulo, James Grosjean and myself are not experienced BJ players and basically don't know what we are talking about. He also posted that he heard the owner of RGE and former partner of Arnold Snyder is a Griffin agent. He has now posted that Arnold Snyder makes phony posts to bj21. Who and what is next? No evidence of any of this has been forthcoming. But week after week, any competitor to Stanford Wong is subject to these gross, baseless attacks in clear violation of BJ21 posting guidelines. There are something like 20 postbusters on BJ21. Tell me, are they all on vacation - or is this policy? What exactly is their purpose?

I will confirm that Russo and a member of the group that shut down bj21.com free pages were on the same team. Russo and Grosjean are partners. Grosjean is an expert at rge.

'Nuff said.

I understand where you're coming from Norm, but BJ21 has been showing signs of a peaceful recovery since the crashing of the free pages. As you can see, many of the troublemakers have been weeded out. This is why I began visiting once again. Some of my card counting friends are still around.

I think you're getting a little off track with John May's concern.

You ask,

"Interesting - what "facts" are these and why to you classify them as "fact?" I have seen no such "facts."

The fact about the same password with different handles being used.
I wasted my time replying to K-cult's post. If you read some of the previous handles you can see why John thought this was a possiblity. Actually, I thought so too.

Thanks for being honest Stan.

TG

I think everybody discussing these matters are being paranoid, finding patterns where none exist. What has happened IMHO is just normal internet day-to-day screwups which fit no pattern except screwups.

The anonymity and speed of response provided by the internet lead to many unheathy types of discussion. One can be a complete fake and no one will catch on very quickly and one can get riled or just in a hurry and respond or post very stupid things. I have had to apologise for things like fundamental mathematical errors, mean spirited digs, misunderstanding of what was originally being said and other errors of haste many times. I think these would not have occurred if this were *real* publication where time is given to contemplation and double checking before the final draft is published.

Posting under multiple names is going to happen because it can happen. Posting hastily and sloppily is going to happen because it can happen. Real certifiable nuts like Grant,Cant, Puiu, and the person who trashed this site are going to post because there is no filter for mental health available.

And site owners and managers are going to make mistakes too. From its earliest days, Wong had the model of a rather free wheeling site which also succeeded in excluding Grant but did not exclude other excesses. That the site had to be reconfigured and that important posters have left showed his model was falawed in some particulars but does it not seem more reasonable to conclude a person of Wong's demonstrated integrity simply made some mistakes than to conclude something nefarious is going on? And the same could be said advantage.com.

For various reasons having to do with some changed interests, I am no longer a member of Green Chip and will not be a member of Don's Domain and am just a bystander. I don't have a dog in any fights.

All this is preparatory to saying we could simply expect an author selling a book for $100 and sharing in the profits which are bound to be high percentage to multiple post in the hope of selling a few more books because the net allows that to happen. Further I think Wong had an obligation to point out multiple postings under different names because he had that information and it was relevant.

Since I have had some runins with Grosjean and his related LV Mafia, I will have to admit my first thoughts were similar to May's when the Mafia closed this site but such thoughts were precipitous. The more reasonable conclusion was a person who had shown himself immature and irresponsible in the past just acted the way he is made up because the net allows irresponsibility.

We run sims and don't trust them until they become massive because we do not trust anecdotal evidence and then we conclude Karel is a casino agent because he sold some programming to a commercial developer who is attempting to market a casino game. That is, to me, anecdotal and not conclusive and none of these other conspiracy theories are conclusive to my mind.

Should they lie about the book? Should Arnold not say bad things about books he doesn't like in BJ Forum?

Arnold is entitled to his viewpoint and wrote a substantive review. We'll ignore the fact that he was publishing a book that was considered a direct competitor to Get The Edge at the time and had a vested interest in seeing it fail.

You aren't entitled to any viewpoint because you haven't read it. Neither is Nacht because he hasn't read it either.

Incidentally, its books not book. Arnold gave a rave review to the first one on baccarat and RGE sold it for a while.
I actually enjoy constructive criticism. But spiteful petty comments from non-professional players who couldn't so much as muster a quote is quite another matter.

John is an author.

No, I'm a gambler. And that really gets to the heart of the matter.

Not wild, false accusations; but honest evaluation.

You just said you hadn't read it. With the exception of Snyder and Parker (who actually gave it five stars at amazon, my how times change..) that goes for the rest of the RGE crowd. How is this evaluation honest? Are you psychic?

I am not an employee of RGE and certainly not a spokesman; but I can say that AP.com is very busy improving its site and a links list is hardly top priority at any site

You are listed as an "expert" at RGE. You have a vested financial interest in RGE-it helps you sell software.

John May has previously claimed that Karel Janecek, John Auston, Don Schlesinger, George C, Cacarulo, James Grosjean and myself are not experienced BJ players and basically don't know what we are talking about

No, I said RGE was not run by professional players. A place exists for theorists and even computer analysts in the blackjack world, but the advice of amateurs, in life in general, has limited commercial value. You may find that insulting but that is certainly how the impartial observer sees things. You must do a thing to be considered expert at it.

He has now posted that Arnold Snyder makes phony posts to bj21.

That is because Stanford Wong posted that Arnold Snyder makes phony posts to bj21. As the owner of the site I assume he knows.
I understand reading anything I write fills you with horror but you might try following the link I posted.
Btw I'm too tired to cover all of Norm's other erroneous points but given the basic glaring factual inaccuracy in the sentence above, you get the idea...

In addition to replies to some of the posts in this thread, I am reposting my answer to Stanford Wong's post, which states:

>Arnold Snyder's password also is associated with multiple handles in the discussion of the Cellini book.

My reply:
I put up a few posts about the Cellini book under my own name. I have NEVER posted on this message board under any other name. The only other person who has used my password is Radar O'Reilly. I am not Radar. Radar is paranoid about revealing personal information in order to obtain web access to blackjack sites, so Radar has used my password with my permission.

Radar posted comments on the book prior to its publication, chiefly about its contents, in response to other posts about the book, and has not posted any comments or reviews of the book since. David Matthews, the webmaster on this board, knew that Radar was using my password, and that I am not Radar, but apparently this information never got to Stanford. That is completely understandable, as there has probably never been any reason for them to discuss it before.

Stanford Wong has posted below, and contacted me privately, asking me not to share my password, and of course in the future I will honor his request.

Radar has occasionally used another handle on this message board, for privacy reasons, but has not posted commentary on the Cellini book under other handles. (Many pros do not like to post certain kinds of information under a name known to other pros.) Radar did once post a question for Cellini on bj21 under a third handle, but this was cleared with David in advance. The question had been asked by another player and answered privately by Cellini, and Radar felt the question and answer would be of interest to other players who visit bj21.

Regarding other posts in this thread, I am no longer in any way connected with RGE publishing and have had no communication with its current owner since I dissolved my partnership with him in June of 2002. Huntington Press is now my publisher, and I had rather felt that bj21 had become my preferred public blackjack internet "home."

Regarding John May's books, I have indeed favorably reviewed one of his books. I had reservations about another of his books, which I discussed with him privately, and I tried to write an honest review of it. I also carried his books in my catalog when I owned RGE.

Radar posted comments on the book prior to its publication, chiefly about its contents, in response to other posts about the book, and has not posted any comments or reviews of the book since

Radar has made unfavourable comments about bj21 policy and made unfavourable remarks about me. People are entitled to their opinion, but not using an alias to disguise a vested interest, which I initially believed was what was happening here. Now, I am going to have to calm down and accept what you are saying is the truth, even though you, or David won't actually be able to prove that it was Radar, assuming he exists, and not you.

Might I suggest you resolve this matter by asking Radar to acquire a hotmail address. There is no conceivable way he could possibly be tracked setting up his own identity. I pay people to find these things out for me.

I had reservations about another of his books, which I discussed with him privately

We never discussed this privately, or at least I never received any communication from you.
I do not dispute you are entitled to express negative opinions about my or any one else's writings.

Norm wrote: "It is the duty of the members to post their honest impressions. Not wild, false accusations; but honest evaluation. Should they lie about the book?"

Maverick wrote:
No they should not. I have not seen any fair evaluation other than Parkers when he was here. Mostly I see snide comments that really don't address anything.

That is a good point. I don't believe any other review has been posted by RGE except Parker's.

I collected some of the reviews of my baccarat book some time ago (posted below). I don't recall a single negative review amongst many positive ones. Baccarat for the clueless is universally referred to in gambling literature as the only credible source for information on the game (if you've ever read another baccarat book you'll know why).

I didn't save the Get The Edge critiques but it got rave reviews from a number of places-Michael Dalton, GBC, Henry Tamburin, John Brokopp, RGTonline, SSB's Fezzik and bizarrely, New York lawyer magazine and Doug Grant, as well as a fascinating in-depth Russian review by Glavred at his website.
Also, the last time I looked it had the highest approval rating of any blackjack book at amazon.
Even Ed Thorp chipped in with a few pleasant words. I'm not mentioning all the personal commendations I get via e-mail because we'd be here all day.

In summary, Norm is just badly misinformed if he thinks my work is held in low esteem. Rightly or wrongly, and I acknowledge I'm no genius, it just isn't. Either way, he has no business commenting on a book he hasn't read, that is just sloppy and unprofessional, and there is no excuse for it regardless of the merits of the book.

(BFC comments)

"The books are well-written and entertaining"-Ed Thorp

"This is the most up-to-date book on baccarat on the market...
A "must buy" for the novice and experienced baccarat player" - Henry
Tamburin (author of numerous bestselling gambling books)

"Don't be mislead by the title. This is one of, if not, the "best"
book on baccarat available anywhere and discusses advantage
techniques and strategy. Highly recommended."-Michael Dalton, author
of "Blackjack:A Professional Reference" and webmaster of
www.bjrnet.com

"This is by far the most advanced text on baccarat thatt has ever
been published... I think this book is a steal for any serious
players"-Arnold Snyder, Author of "Blackjack in Blackjack"
and "Blackjack Wisdom", editor of "Blackjack Forum"

"The most thorough discussion of baccarat available"-Chuck Weinstock
of Conjelco publishing

"Baccarat for the Clueless, far from its name, is certainly the most
thorough investigation of the game ever undertaken"-Nick
Christenson ,Gambling reviewer

"I would like to compliment you on a well written book. I was
surprised to see how far you had gone in the research for this book.
My guess is that you have a lot more good books in you for us to look
forward too"- -Jake Smallwood, inventor of the "Crush count" and
blackjack expert

"A masterpiece of gambling literature! A must read for anyone
interested in baccarat" - Frank Scoblete
___________________

The reason I was so pissed off about this because I still have a great deal of respect for your writings. With a lesser hack I wouldn't have given a shit. Please try and live up to people's unreasonable expectations in future.

has the book GTE any good reviews from active professional table games players.
As a pro myself the book comes across as if written by a gambling historian who happens to be a slightly better than average recreational player with delusions of grandeur. Intesting read though, with ideas which remind me of an advantage play brainstorm on the jon. Just my opinion/review or whatever so please do not take offense as I have noticed you have a bit of temper at times.

Just my opinion/review or whatever so please do not take offense as I have noticed you have a bit of temper at times.

Forgive me, but your only other post to this forum was a response to a post that was going on about how wonderful Stalker was. Stalker isn't a popular guy so its very likely you are Stalker and manufactured both the thread and all the responses to it. This is more trolling which I doubt even the most feeble-minded here would fall for.

to what post do you refer to?

Maybe it's just me but is seems any post criticizing you is a troll, correct? Further, who do you insist on dodging the question?

"I'm not completely stupid y'know" True, you are not COMPLETELY stupid but niether are all folks on this site.

He is an engineer and a practicing attorney. Perusal of his complex (complex to me, anyway) mathmatical proofs rendered in that extended pissing contest debate with Clarke Cant over the existence/nonexistense of the Floating Advantage are testimony to the clarity of his thought.

Overall he seems (to me, again) free of malice, certainly more free than the critic who hounded him off the NG pages, then hounded him across every forum to which he posted, and who perhaps was the cause of his exit.

I hope he is satified with his new pursuits.

However, in fairness, if I was hounded by someone I was at least partially responsible because I often calculated and provoked responses from the individual simply for the enjoyment of needling. There is no ill will on my part and any fusses I had on NG had nothing to do with my decision to not get as involved as I had been before although keeping an interest in the math.

Regards

Let me start by saying i'm a rank amatur who loves math and is barely old enough to gamble. I found this site some time ago, but had to stay away from the blackjack 'game' due to time and money constraints. But enough about me. I came back here and noticed that the free board had a password, but I didn't think much of it. This seems like a 'big boys' link, so I dont expect a response, but it sounds like there have been alot of events on this site and others in the last 3 months. If anyone has a 'timeline' of events available for someone who isn't in the know, but would like to be, I would greatly appreciate it.