is the amount of money there is to be made by selling a new count system.
is the amount of money there is to be made by selling a new count system.
Tim asked:
> And what are the percentages if Hi-Lo used at least the I18? 30%?
Here is one line of data comparison for the above question you ask Ti"
- game: D8, DAS, S17, 75% pen., one player. $5 min bet.
- HL: bet spread at TC: [1, 3], [2, 5], [3, 10]
- insurance at +3.
- Index plays: Fab18, indices as Wong's book has for this game.
- SC:
- no index plays.
- 1-10 spread.
- usng OBS.
data:
(win rate avg. bet SD exp.)
SC: 0.011111 $15.1980 4.73839 0.3655%
HL, I18: 0.0111854 $11.272 3.39004 0.4962%
I'd have to run sims to 'balance' the bet spreads to get comparable SDs/avg. bet above... we have done that in our reviewer's kit to HL without indices, but not with them.
This is 75% of the performance of HL (not 30%, as you guess) with Fab18, by expectation. Virtually identical win rates, but I won't advocate that since the SDs aren't comparable above (not a fair comparison).
Since the Fab18 are used, this should settle the issue of not using OBS for HL.
Tim asks:
>What if we used the same OBS with Hi-Lo or KO? Then there won't be >any indices as well. A FAIR comparison would be SC+OBS against >KO+OBS (or Hi-Lo+OBS). But your claims are comparing SC+OBS+Wonging >against Hi-Lo with no indices and no OBS (just BS) and no Wonging. >See why I think the ad is misleading?
By comparing to HL with Fab18, I hope that provides a fairer comparison in your mind (since these edge plays are the same basic for OBS in general, versus using reduced index sets).
Will I build and publish OBS for HighLow? No... that's part of what we did for SC, and part of the value in the course. If you want to do it, go ahead.
We don't advocate memorizing play indices... we find a well tuned OBS replaces this just fine. In years of teaching, we know players make many mistakes with play indices, and it's just another hurdle to preventing average players from becoming +ve edge counters.
Tim asks:
>Don't say I wasn't professional in my responses ;)
Nothing of the sort intended... jsut wanted to stem the flamewar sure to ensue, and keep it professional. I appreciate your questions.
Dan
Now your answers make more sense than the ads and the comparisons are more fair.
- HL: bet spread at TC: [1, 3], [2, 5], [3, 10]
Don't have BJRM here but I think the betting scheme should be like this:
TC: [1, 3], [2, 5], [3, 8], [4, 10]
Of course, I could be wrong. In fact, moving the max bet up decreases variance. You could try that with SC.
- insurance at +3.
Does SC have some sort of insurance (included in the OBS maybe)?
This is 75% of the performance of HL (not 30%, as you guess) with Fab18, by expectation. Virtually identical win rates, but I won't advocate that since the SDs aren't comparable above (not a fair comparison).
Pretty fair although I agree that the SDs should be comparable. A SCORE would be better since many people are now used to it.
Do you have any ROR for this data?
We don't advocate memorizing play indices... we find a well tuned OBS replaces this just fine. In years of teaching, we know players make many mistakes with play indices, and it's just another hurdle to preventing average players from becoming +ve edge counters.
I agree. An OBS is just fine.
Nothing of the sort intended... jsut wanted to stem the flamewar sure to ensue, and keep it professional. I appreciate your questions.
And I appreciate your answers.
Regards,
Tim
of the marketing. Some people can sell sand in
the Kalahari.
You should be running for President! You parse your words better than their speech writers.
.. you say we have extended an offer; that we have nothing to hide, we've been doing this, and we've been doing that, but when it becomes difficult to respond you say you are at the mercy of the licensee -Golden Touch. What is it?
.. you thought a newbie poster wondering what the term B.S. meant, and then Schlessinger following up with that old worn out joke referring to "BS", was directed to you? Come on. All that lacked was a rim-shot. Even you saw that one coming.
.. Wattenbergers comment that used the word "bull" was never about your system, as you imply above. It was about how the system is being marketed.
.. Above, you use the word "teach" the system in two days. Your licenesees use the word "master" the system in two days. That is what Wattenberger was referring to as "bull", that a BJ system could be mastered in two days. But I'm guessing you knew that also.
.. Scoblette says it can be "mastered" in two days. Agree? Disagree?
.. Either you (OK, or your licensees .. geeez) have offered to let Wattenberger sim the system or not. It's not that hard a question. Didn't sound like compensation was an issue for him. Hs' pretty good at that kinda' stuff .. and probably reliable to.
.. DND documents and compensation are all really just self-imposed roadblocks. If you truly wanted the thing analyzed indpendently, it could already be done. If you don't want it analyzed, then just say so and be done with it.
.. After listening to you converse about this today, I went back and read the endorsement again. Reading it carefully, it dosen't say much more than I looked at his stuff and it's probably OK.
The thing is, you probably do have a decent system; less powerful than HiLo but easier to run with. Congratulations. Nice job. But nobody here is most likely going to buy in so playing to this audience becomes impossible. Those that will buy in don't need or want it analyzed in the first place; play to them. (Which, in retropsect, seems to be what you are doing anyway.)
I personally could care less. I just hate to read duplicitous crap that goes around and around and never ends.
:)
Sun Runner asks:
>.. Scoblette says it can be "mastered" in two days. Agree? Disagree?
Yes, agree, without hesitation, and I've said that before. No problem with the word 'master', 'teach', 'learn', whatever... I've taught students SC in a few hours, and they do it just fine within hours. Hand then an OBS (optimal basic strategy) card if they don't know BS already, or spend another 4 hours with them on that with good software, and they are all set.
If you think that's bull or BS, then fine. Don't take the course. I've justified the position endlessly in other posts.
Sun Runner asks:
>The thing is, you probably do have a decent system; less powerful >than HiLo but easier to run with. Congratulations. Nice job. But >nobody here is most likely going to buy in so playing to this >audience becomes impossible. Those that will buy in don't need or >want it analyzed in the first place; play to them. (Which, in >retropsect, seems to be what you are doing anyway.)
Correct: a professional card counter, already successfully practicing a good system like HiLo, probably wouldn't benefit from the course.
This course is for the masses... for the millions of BJ players you see every day at the tables, not card counting or doing it badly. Who need a course with hands-on teacher training at tables. And a new card couting system that delivers 70% and more of the performance of other systems, while taking just a few hours to learn. We'll teach OBS too, but anyone can play with a strategy card at a casino, or reference it, if they are struggling.
I'm not trying to pitch it to this forum's members at all. Just answers the questions asked in it.
Sun Runner asks:
>You should be running for President! You parse your words better >than their speech writers.
I can't run for President.... I'm a Canadian citizen. Maybe governor of California though.
Dan
Tim asks:
>Does SC have some sort of insurance (included in the OBS maybe)?
Yes, it does, although we discuss this more in the course. In the data provided so far, I don't think I actually included the insurance option, so SC would perform better (but insurance was included in the HL-I18 data, as it turns out... was the data I had on hand for I18).
I think I can say this without getting slapped:
- We have different 'levels' of SC, depending on the skill of the person learning it. Very much, we try and advocate not 'over learning' a card counting system. Better to master a simple system, then play a harder system with errors (Uston said that first, I think). I'm a big believer in this, when it comes to teaching card counting.
- Insurance is one of the 'optional' elements. There are others.
Tim asks:
>Do you have any ROR for this data?
The data provided to date can be entered into any ROR calculator. The exp., avg. bet, win rate, SD are all that's required. I'll leave it as an excerise' for for readers!
We provide this data in the course, of course (said the horse). Bankroll Management/ROR, while not a new topic , is still critically important.
Thank you again for your questions.
Dan
I would think you have a vested interest in giving a glowing account, but, has Don Schlesinger or other notable professionals done the numbers, agrees with your assessment and gives your claims credibility?
Don Schlesinger is not capable of giving a fair assessment of a system which is being promoted by Frank Scoblete. I have had very painful experience of trying to prove something to Don, and I do not believe he is entirely intellectually honest in his evaluation of new gambling methods.
I would have thought Michael Shackleford would qualify as a "notable professional". I remain, however, a little nervous about the price tag considering the limited claims of the system, despiter Shackleford's apparent endorsement.
This is not meant to be an obnoxious post, just a skeptical one. The following quotes are directly from the speed count page posted above.
"...I have not personally verified the claims of Speed Count..."
"...the Speed Count may be just what you're looking for..."
I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I take these quotes to mean that Mike at most thinks the system may work but didn't really look at it closely and didn't even really confirm any aspect of it, except for maybe the concept.
So does this mean that it's just too much work to verify it? Does it mean that he would like to support the product but is afraid he looks at it closely he won't be able to? Were the GTB people not willing to pay for a full evaluation, and just wanted to pay for positive comments just like any other actor/actress endorsement of a product?
It's just curious that the above comments were the strongest that Mike could give, I'm just wondering why...
Sincerely,
MGP
.. you've answered your own question.
Pronovost, Scoblette, Tamburin, Golden Touch, etals collectively -if not individually -have enough jack to pay to get the deal properly and independently analyzed if they wanted to.
This thing has been in production for awhile -they have also had the time.
"Do Not Disclose" docs are used everyday in the US and Canada. If they wanted it analyzed this would not be a problem either.
The fact is, the people they are selling it to don't want or need it analyzed. So why should they? Maybe it works as stated, only they know for sure.
Pronovost stepped off in the deep water when he started trying to explain -to this crowd -that a no kidding analysis was, maybe, kinda, probably, almost, sorta in the works and then refers us to Schakleford's ringing endorsement -which as you have pointed out rings about as good as the Liberty Bell.
Those guys don't owe you or me any explanation at all. If they can sell it and sleep at night -who am I to call them out?
Just betting the hi-lo count in the 6-deck game, without ANY play variation from BS, gives about a 0.15% edge.
Just a few play variations on the really close calls should easily get you another 0.15% or so.
Thanks for all the responses to my post guys. It is my impression that basic strategy and the high low system can be "powertaught" just as easily as any new GTB system can without the price tag, and with better results than the watered down GTB. I think we have all done that at one time or another for free, the Power Teach BJ 101. What really disturbs me is that these fine gents have just taken a Jerry Patterson John Patrick nose dive, totally destroying their credibility right in front of our eyes. The price tag smells like a scam, the system is easy to learn because all the corners have been cut off of it, and the floundering answers to someone who has been contacted to be taken down with the sinking ship are well meant, but that only cuts it at a church bazaar. Why is Dan answering these questions?? DeepNet Dan's PDA programs are amazing, and he should not be the errand boy that Henry and Frank hide behind. I've seen techies like Dan get the big finger pointed at them when the shit hits the fan: "He ran the program" type of thing. Right now the GTB business looks like a monster with three left arms and no one knows what those left hands are doing. Dan, I suggest you distance yourself from the GTB, and keep working with your winning PDA products. Why does BJI look like your site now Dan? It looks like you are the webmaster for BJI. BJI has always been a decent publication. Actually I suggest to Henry and to Frank to scrap the entire GTB thing. You can't wrap a 79 Lada up and sell it for the price of a 2004 1/2 Mustang. Everybody wants to make some money, but it is how you do it that tells the world what you are made of. Why aren't you guys playing BJ instead of friging around like this??
...don't know much about him. I do have some knowledge of Mr. Schlesinger and I wasn't just trying to single him out from among other capable people, he just came to mind.
As for Don, you're probably right. I hear he wasn't all that excited about the KO count at first, but has since come around.
I was just interested as to how thoroughly tested the system was because of the claims...since I doubt I could learn a new system and master it in a couple of days. But who knows? Maybe he's got a winner...I wish him well.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info