? for the Postbusters

In a thread below some asks if there are special rules for Mr. Schlesinger. I think this is a valid question. In a post directed at Mr. Stanton, Mr. Schlesinger writes:

Do me a favor, don't bother any more. We don't think alike . . .

thank God!

In another post he calls Mr. Stanton "sick". These seem to be direct attacks and not criticisms of Mr. Stanton's thought process. On many occasions Mr. Schlesiner slams authors who he doesn't agree with, not there writings, but the authors themselves. Why is Mr. Schlesinger allowed to get away with this?

I'm sure Don can attest to the fact that he's had several of his posts busted, that information aside Don will always get more leeway from the postbusters because of the fact that is a know member of the community...

Check out the postbusting guidelines in the FAQ for more info...
9. Give more leeway to posts from known members of the BJ21 community.

I wrote:

"Do me a favor, don't bother any more. We don't think alike . . .
thank God!"

You wrote: "These seem to be direct attacks and not criticisms of Mr. Stanton's thought process."

You find that my comment above ("We don't think alike") was not a "criticism of Mr.Stanton's thought process"? How positively weird of you to say that.

Don

Of course "we don't think alike" is a comment on his thought process.
"Thank God" is not a comment on his thought process. It's a snide comment. But to head of the inevitable, you win, it's not a direct attack.

And what about calling him sick?

Red doesn't think you should have thanked YOURSELF.

Do not assign motives to me. I don't like that Mr. Schlesinger called you sick. This seems to violate guidelines, leeway to known members of the community notwithstanding. I don't think he is God. I don't think he thinks he is God. However, since I returned from a hiatus to this board, he seems to have gone from occasionally cranky to downright hostile to more than a few individuals. This seems to be tolerated by BJ21.com. I am trying to understand this. I don't understand why it is tolerated and I don't understand why Mr. Schlesinger is behaving this way. Clearly almost everyone here respects the work he has done regarding the game of 21. I don't get why he frequently acts in a manner that could only cause many to lose respect for him as a person, even if he really doesn't care what others think.

Dear Red Aces:
On the chance that you are sincere in your queries, it might make sense to give you some perspective from someone that has been reading this board from day one. In any situation there generally seems to be a level of tolerance for someone who has "paid their dues" as opposed to someone unknown that comes across as a know-it-all. Don S. has more than paid his dues, helping all the members of this community to assess playing situations and understand the math behind the game. Every few years (nay every few months) somebody new comes along with the take that Blackjack is mainly luck (e.g. Frank Stanton), that the math doesn't matter and that guys like Don are merely cranky purists that get in the way of the fun. This is to be distinguished from the true nutball crowd whose sole purpose is disruption. Frankly, if that black jack is mostly luck is someone's view, my experience is that they won't be happy here. Why's that? Well, for those of us who have put in the hours, it begins to become clear that outside the short run ups and downs, only certain forms of advantage play like counting or shuffle tracking are worth any serious attention. Sure, Patrick may give better advice than playing a no bust strategy and for that matter I once won $40,000 in one night playing basic strategy against a CSM, but I don't go around recommending that as a way of life. So Don gets a little leeway. I'm happy to live with that. He has earned it.

"I don't get why he frequently acts in a manner that could only cause many to lose respect for him as a person, even if he really doesn't care what others think."

You're entitled to an explanation. I "frequently act that way" when the noise to signal ratio on this and other pages becomes so large as to be downright offensive -- at least to me. Before I even began to comment on Frank's nonsense, others had already engaged in the same kind of commentary. And, it isn't the first time. So, when the threads turn to garbage, and people are writing all sorts of unadultered drivel, with a liberal sprinkling of fantasy and unsubstantiated mathematical absurdities, I react.

You can't imagine how many other times I reach for the keyboard and stop myself. I wait for others to intervene. But, there is an erroneous notion on this and other boards that, no matter how much of an ass someone makes of himself, we have an obligation to suffer in silence and put up with the bullshit. I simply don't agree with that.

Don

... for EXACTLY the same kind of reaction to perpetrators of
blackjack nonsense! Their "crap" remains, while my reaction
gets trashed... kind of a double standard, so Aces may have a
point about celebrity... but I for one agree they must not go
unchallanged!

... he's doing these bozos a favor. Crap is crap. The people SW has chosen as postbusters know the difference. The leeway is being given not so much in favor of celebrity, but AGAINST crap. Get used to it.

People who are sick need to know they're sick -- so they can get to a doctor. Maybe you'd prefer a board that encourages sick people to go to a casino. They'll get some great help there, boy.

ETF

First let me say that I don't feel "entitled" to an explanation. I do appreciate your explanation very much. You and ET Fan make valid points about not letting these posters go unchallenged. I don't object to that. It's the name-calling I object too. I realize many of these posters post equally objectionable pots. However, I don't expect much from them. As you are celebrity in this field, I expect a higher level of discourse from you. I probably don't have a right to expect this. Heck, sometimes I'm guilty of this myself. It's not like I've never looked back and thought maybe I should have taken a deep breath and counted to ten before I posted.

OK, back to blackjack...

"It's the name-calling I object to. I realize many of these posters post equally objectionable posts. However, I don't expect much from them. As you are celebrity in this field, I expect a higher level of
discourse from you. I probably don't have a right to expect this."

Yes, I think you do, but I'm only human. And, in my teaching (which, in one capacity or another, is now going on 33 years and counting) I exhibit a HUGE amount of patience. But, things here can be different.

Not only do some posters spout utter, abject nonsense, they do it with an enormous air of arrogance and authority. We correct them, and they come back for more and more and more and more. After a while, there are only two choices: give up and don't reply (I do that VERY often), or lose patience and respond with the less than "high level of discourse" that you expect from me -- to which I plead, therefore, "guilty with an explanation"!

Don

BJA2 has little value for the realworld player. The author goes into minute detail of cardcounting intricacies as if we're dealing with rocket science. No mention of the fact that casinos are adding to their cardcounter catching techniques almost daily. Any true advantage player knows cardcounting is the easiest of all edges for the house to recognize.

Where is the mention of other, more profitable techniques? Sadly, nowhere in these pages. "Playing The Pros Way"? I don't think so.

"No mention of the fact that casinos are adding to their cardcounter catching techniques almost daily."

Guess you didn't get to the Epilogue,on p. 338. Maybe the reading was too difficult for you to go all the way to the end.

Your handle of "Old School" is a strange one for somebody who is now criticizing traditional card-counting techniques. Once again, I'll have to be careful to advise the myriad teams that are making millions today with nothing but straight card-counting techniques that you don't approve!

Don

"Pun intended, I am sure. :-)."

Actually, not, but thanks for pointing it out! I started teaching before playing blackjack, however. So, for the latter, it's 26 years and counting! :-)

Don

Once again, I'll have to be careful to advise the myriad teams that are making millions today with nothing but straight card-counting techniques that you don't approve!

Giggle

BJA2 has helped me greatly with understanding risk, evaluating games, and defining a playing style. I personally think it has a lot of value for the realworld player.

Maybe you think "Beyond Counting" is a great book, and I would definitely agree. But you must have read more than one book to learn the other profitable, difficult to detect advantage play techniques.

Which ones do you recommend?

Thanks,

motheye

Leave an e-mail and I will give you some suggestions.

I don't have a public e-mail (address is incriminating). If you know of books or articles, could you just post them here?

Thanks,

motheye

Sorry, but you don't learn this stuff in books. The one you mention is good but not really a how-to. Marks' books approach some of these also.

p.s. It may well behoove you to open an anonymus e-mail account.