Not quite. I've bought books on many subjects that I haven't mastered, or even become modestly proficient. A skilled counter needs only to not be unlucky. He doesn't need much luck. If his luck is anywhere in the top half he is a winner after an hour. If he plays any considerble number of hours then his luck will have to be in about the bottom 25% or worse to be a loser after a year. After several years of play his luck would have to put him among the bottom 1%, the most unlucky, for him to be a loser. If you were a loser after many years it is probably because you let your various superstitions affect your play style.
or not good comprehension of what you do study. If you don't believe what you've studied then you don't really understand it. I don't see a way that such a lack of understanding could not creep into your actual play and affect your results.
can write a book on this gambler's system, and there is not much
he can do about it. If I can't make it work myself, I will get
a Job as a broker, live off commisions, and sell my books to people
that believe in math., One of these guys has written the same damn
book three times. You math folks should buy more BJA books so the
dumper can get the publisher to run the third book. I know one
store that still has the same 5 copies they had a year ago. Too
chincy to give them away.
How ya been Clarke? I see you and ML are still at it! Both of you should give it a rest. No onw is EVER gonna convince the other, right? And *I* (and probably others) am not smart enough to follow your points. Save it for another day. :)
You STRONLY believe your side, HE strongly believes HIS side. Both of you make points. Let's DISCUSS blackjack, not argue incessantly.
btw, I've read where ML has accused you of "flaming" in other posts, but have not ever witnessed it myself... until now, maybe...
I can, and do, quote ML when I say he said. ML fails to do this, such that when he claims I said, he should at least be able to back it up. As I put in my response to Cyclops, That is Exactly What I Said, I doubt ML does not know how to drag sections of one post to another window.
Until he either learns that basic of posting, or drops the pretense of not knowing this--it is a pretense in that he has posted quotes of others before--he should be totally ignored, when he claims to represent the opinions of others.
on bjmath.com there is an example answer of his that is a riot, where he claims that only a single mean for a given count and penetration, can exist, that is for all such possible compostions, for all possible packs totally refusing to admit how prior pack compostions can limit this, even after I have proven otherwise in my latest FA post above. I even did that using two very simple theorems, so as to not engage in any misrepresentation of distributions and the like.
he seems fairly intelligent. I also do not know what has gone on at other sites. I read here nearly daily and at RGE. That's it!
My only disagreement with him is "likening" your posts to that of Puiu (BMW... whatever). A troll, you're NOT! I have gleaned a lot from your posts, (at least the ones I understand). You have always been cordial that I have seen even when in disagreement with someone.
I say, "Throw in the towel". What if ML came on and said, "Gee, Clarke... you ARE right! I don't know WHAT I was thinking. I apologize.". Would that make any difference? I don't think so.
I just don't see the point. Don't let THAT discourage you from other postings, though.
What if ML came on and said, "Gee, Clarke... you ARE right! I don't know WHAT I was thinking. I apologize.". Would that make any difference?
It would to me, but it won't happen. In none of his claims about what I supposedly said has he ever quoted me. He knows how to drag quotes on the net. By definition his posts about me are thus unsuported allegations. Yet because he associates himself with DS his opinions are given weight, but that is rapidly becoming less and less so, when ML keeps to this failure.