Here we go again ... (Blackjack Ace Prediction part 3)

"I can not argue with the math behind your critique but I would bet your analysis won't be the last we hear on this subject. However, I can comment (and argue if you wish) with what I believe were your real motives behind a very vindictive attack on a book and its author."

-M.Dalton

What vindictive attack? Arnold mathematically proved the book was unsound.

Do I even need to start again?

Notice how the fact that ARNOLD IS CORRECT is always brushed over, and then some personal little tirade is launched into for his motivations. Mr. Dalton, you have a responsibility to the community to not knowingly promote fraudulent information.

I'm not going to pass any judgements on you, I'm not going to speculate your motives ... In fact, in earlier posts, I commended you for linking to Arnold's review. Now that Arnold's math has been proven correct (re-confirmed by Zenfighter, incidentally), I think an apology to the community is warranted.

But thats for you to decide. Throughout all of this, there has been Arnold's reviews, the math heads who have proven him to be correct, and those who resort to slander to cover their sorry asses.

I've said this all before.

Mr.Dalton, you have known the book to be deeply flawed for some time now, so please explain this quote:

"McDowell's Blackjack Ace Prediction is a fantastic read and deserving of respect -- and, of course, a civilized critical analysis."

You have received a number of civilized critical reviews (I couldn't figure out he plural form of analysis), and in response there have been numerous attempts to slander Arnold's name in the hopes of burying the truth.

If you wish to go on personal tirades be my guest, send all hate mail to one of my email boxes. Last I checked, I had become a young, dashing anti-Christ posting from some library somewhere.

But this is not about me or Arnold. Or even the "authorities" that rubber stamped it.

It's simply about what is, and what is not, a valid approach to a winning game of blackjack.

We now know the truth:

The book is bad.

Best,
Syph

For those interested in reading Arnold's responses, here are the following links:

To Zenfighter (thanks, guy!)

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1107991178

To Mr.Dalton:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1107998814

Would you like to discus with me Snyder's work on shuffle tracking.
In your posts you mention that you are a pro player.So am I and I can trash Snyder's work on shuffle tracking all day long.
No book is perfect but everybody is trashing McDowell's and you guys are sillent about the idiotic things Snyder wrote about shuffle tracking.

"As soon as my critique appeared, there were accusations that I was not providing an honest analysis, but simply trying to discredit Don Schlesinger (one of the endorsers). That was absurd." -Arnold Snyder

Absurd. If this instance could be taken in and of itself, maybe it would be absurd. Anyone paying even the slightest attention knows that this incident simply became another opportunity on your road to in fact discredit him.

Absurd is you excluding Blackjack Attack 3 from your recomended reading list of BJ literature. I suppose your lack of endorsement now is in keeping with your recent awakening that all those years you were 'endorsing' his work, you were wrong.

All here know I am not qualified personally to determine if McDowell, you and ROR, SYama, ETF, or Zenfighter is accurately calling the ball regarding the math in BJAP. Few are. That is why most of us are compelled to rely on the work you and others like you do. When you make statements like the one above, it becomes harder and harder to do so.

"In the same breath that I was criticizing Don, I was also criticizing Ed Thorp and Steve Forte." -Arnold Snyder

No, you were'nt. Not initially. As the discussion wore on and it became evident you were not holding Thorpe/Forte/Zender to the same standard as Don Schlesinger, after you and your buddies had a week or two to laugh and call out Schlesinger, and Schlesinger alone, for endorsing the book, understandably adjustments did have to be made in the company line. But not initially.

"I have great respect for all of their contributions to this field ... " -Arnold Snyder

'Great respect for Don Schlesinger's contributions to this field.' Is that it? So that's why you wrote (encouraged to be written/participated in the writing of/you make the call) the Blackjack Historian's gross denigration of Schlesinger's quantifying and popularizing the Ill 18 and now allow it to be displayed on your web-site? So that's why you don't recomend his book any longer on your web-site? It's one or the other man -which is it?

BTW, the continuing shroud of who the Blackjack Historian is .. is absurd.

Respectfully Mr. Snyder, the things you are doing or are allowing to be done, in your name, speaks so loud it is hard to hear what you are really saying.

------------

Syph let me save you some time in posting your response:

" .. Yawn .." -Syph

I've never said I was a pro player, I aspire to be one.

(My entire worth is pretty much dependant on whether I am successful this year or not, but thats probably not saying much :)

I am simply a struggling advantage player who was fortunate to meet those who are professionals.

This, and some online play, are my only sources of income.

If you wish to know some of my past experiences, please drop by www.blackjackforumonline.com.

And if you are as you say, I am certain we have some mutual acquaintances who can vouch on our behalf. If so, I would be very interested in meeting/discussing all matters of advantage play with you in whatever environment you feel is appropriate.

But I want to emphasize the the essence of my post:

Protecting players from the faulty math in Blackjack Ace Prediction.

Nothing more.

Best,
Syph

Sun Runner wishes to make this an issue between Don and Arnold. We've been down that road before, and no one really cares.

People come to learn valid approaches to beat the game of blackjack.

Blackjack Ace Prediction does not offer a valid approach to beating the game of blackjack.

The book is bad

Here is why:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/erratasheet.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/falsekey.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/correctionfalsekeys.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/syamarebuttal.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/forteresponse.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/zenderletter.htm

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/etfanletter.htm

You will find everything there.

Best,
Syph

----------------------------

(ps Sunrunner, touche!)

Do you want to discus it here on this forum?
There is nothing wrong with trying to protect other players from the faulty math and info in Blackjack Ace Prediction.But first if you want to make it as a pro you should protect YOURSELF from incorect information and the ST Cookbook is full of it.
It is not fair to trash somebodys book so much when some of your own work sucks big time.
In his original work about tracking Snyder made a big mistake(I personaly am not shure it was a mistake) .He admits that rigth after publishing his Shuffle Traking Series he was contacted by some pros and math guys about this mistake.
It took him 8 F..ING YEARS TO CORECT IT.That shows how much he cares about the players.
On Snyder's web site there is a letter from Steve Forte about "Blackjack Ace Prediction".Do you have any idea how much damage Steve Forte did and is still doing to AP's?

"Sun Runner wishes to make this an issue between Don and Arnold." -Syph

No Syph, I don't. You can keep posting link after link to the book reviews but we all know where to find them. You are also free to ignore the rest, that's your business.

I'm just reviewing the duplicitious statements Snyder made beginning in November and going through yesterday.

Snyder want's to 'protect the players'? Fine. I, like you now, used to think he did. It would be easier for me to rely on his current and continuing BJ analysis if his doublespeak wasn't so obvious.

His latest new bulletin to the players he is protecting -you can't win any real money straight counting. Bull shit. Maybe it is tougher for the Pro's to do it full time but there are darn few of them. Many of us are doing just fine for now. I don't have to take $150K a year out of the system each year just to cover the nut. If I had to, he's right, I would not be relying on straight counting BJ. So if it's the Pro's he is protecting, fine, just say so. If it's the player who is grinding out really decent per hour EV, it's bad advice; it's bull shit.

That's duplicity Syph.

I'm all for book reviews and getting the facts out but Snyder crying around that it is his duty, honor, or obligation to get the facts out because of all the pros and big money players that have contacted him recently who are scared to death they are about to lose their roll's is bull shit. My gawd you'd think it was a call from the CDC.

No self-respecting big money player is going to lay their roll down tonight based on the strentgh of one book from an unknown author anyway. They'll figure it out for themselves, and carefully. Just do the review and leave the histrionics out of it.

That's also duplicity Syph.

It's obvious a business/personal relationship has gone terribly bad between he, Nacht, and Schlesinger. Really, to bad for them; but I nor you can fix it.

The Snyder I thought I knew from his literature seems to me to have gotten in to a bad place in life (yes, the Doctor is IN!)

I'd tell him the same thing I told my son when he had to extract himself from that same bad place -you'll never get it done unless you change your friends first. They are dragging you down. (That may be a charitable statement -but I so hope it's true.)

I fully appreciate your frustration regarding the balance Arnold must maintain between the needs of the working pros and the interests of amateurs.

I've been there.

And you are correct on one point:

"You can keep posting link after link to the book reviews but we all know where to find them"

This is good.

And on this note, I feel it appropriate to sign off.

Best,
Syph

So that's why you wrote (encouraged to be written/participated in the writing of/you make the call) the Blackjack Historian's gross denigration of Schlesinger's quantifying and popularizing the Ill 18 and now allow it to be displayed on your web-site?

Run, Run, Run. From the bjfol web site on EVERY PAGE of the message boards: "DISCLAIMER: This is an open forum where anyone can post his or her views at any time. Neither Arnold Snyder nor the owners/operators of this site can vouch for the accuracy of any information posted here. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackjackForumOnline.com"

What part of that is so hard to understand?

From the first article, upper left hand corner, What You Can Expect From Blackjack Forum Online: "This board is moderated, which means that questions and comments that are clearly outside the realm of interest may be deleted by one of the moderators. The intent here is to be as loose as possible with this policy."

Too tough for you to take? Do you think you're old enough to enter a casino? What in the world are you doing reading the fight club, where there are specific warnings: "Mature Adults Only"?

"His latest new bulletin to the players he is protecting -you can't win any real money straight counting... Bull shit ... bull shit ... duplicity ...."

Uh, huh. Got a link for that one? Or is this more guilt by association, Mr. Mccarthy?

ETF

> What part of that is so hard to understand?

What part of it is so hard for you to understand? It is the owners/operators I'm refering to.

> Or is this more guilt by association, Mr. Mccarthy?

I'm pretty sure it's not.

I would think if not, The Bish might weigh in (as he choses to do otherwise to 'protect the players') to clear up some of that bad information. Straight-counting ain't dead in my neighorhood -is it in your's?

> Too tough for you to take? Do you think you're old enough to enter > a casino? What in the world are you doing reading the fight club,
> where there are specific warnings: "Mature Adults Only"?

No, Yes, I don't really know.

>> What part of that is so hard to understand?

>What part of it is so hard for you to understand? It is the owners/operators I'm refering to.

The disclaimer I posted says owners/operators aren't responsible. You say you are referring to owners/operators. TRY TO MAKE SENSE, will you please?

>> Or is this more guilt by association, Mr. Mccarthy?

>I'm pretty sure it's not.

Pretty sure. In other words, you don't have a quote; you don't have a link. In other words, the answer is yes -- you are practicing guilt by association.

>I would think if not, The Bish might weigh in (as he choses to do otherwise to 'protect the players') to clear up some of that bad information.

If I were him, I wouldn't lower myself. There aren't enough hours in the day to clear up the bad information existing purely in your brain. You want him to make some sort of official pronouncement every time anyone associated with his site says something off the party line. You're too used to another site. Most of the internet doesn't work that way.

>Straight-counting ain't dead in my neighorhood -is it in your's?

Depends on what you mean by "dead" and "real money." It's mostly dead for most APs, didn't you notice? What did you think Hollywood meant below when he wrote "Blackjack is dead"?

>No, Yes, I don't really know.

Yup, thanks. That pretty much summarizes your stand.

ETF

p.s. The reason I take the time to respond to you, and I never bother to respond to Stalker's attacks on Schlesinger is very simple. Stalker doesn't believe his own BS. I'm laboring under the impression you still think the things you write have some actual relevance to the real world.

Sun Runner says: "So that's why you don't recomend his book any longer on your web-site?"

Snyder recommends BJA3 in the new edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack. If memory serves, he lists it as required reading for any serious player.

By the way, I tried to post a similar message on AP.com a while back but apparently saying anything positive about Snyder isn't allowed, as my message never appeared.

My guess is the book went to print before Snyder's last seizure regarding Schlesinger. I would also hazard a guess that it was to late to change anything even by the time the Blackjack Historian posted in November.

I could certainly be wrong. Maybe you can explain in all the volumes of recommended reading on his site, the site that protects (and educates) the players, BJA3 is not recommended.

ETFan / Syph .. another example of duplicity.

BTW -I don't know what your problem with posting positive things about Snyder on AP.com is. Hell, even I do that.

> TRY TO MAKE SENSE, will you please?

I think you understand well enough.

> The reason I take the time to respond to you, and I never bother to respond to Stalker's attacks on Schlesinger is very simple.
> Stalker doesn't believe his own BS.

Uh-oh. Your thought process is starting to breakdown.

So now you speak for Stalker. Bust my balls and give him a pass. They figured out a way (or tried to) to give Snyder a pass for being wrong all those years about Schlesinger; they figured out a way (or tried to) to laugh at Schlesinger for endorsing McDowell while giving the others a pass; and now .. you .. granting Stalker one. Telling me Stalker dosen't really believe what he says.

Sounds duplicitous to me.

Bust my balls and give him a pass.

So now you're like the hall monitor for the internet, handing out passes! Dana Carvey's got nuttin' on you, kid.

ETF