In the Ruchman Situation Have You Noticed

that other than Schlesinger's defense of Ruchman, no "known" author who regularly publishes on these pages, or even irregularly publishes on these pages, has weighed in with opinions? GBC is a powerful property and I think most authors would not want to offend the powers that be who sell their books. But consider this: If Henry Tamburin or John May got a job as a gaming anaylst at a single property, I think there would be much more fire from established authors, including Don. I called a friend at PPE and asked him what the role of an in-house gaming anaylst was and could he be used as a "counter catcher." The answer was "of course, that's probably his main job along with catching cheats."

Ruchman does have the right, and the talent, to be a good gaming analyst for Caesars or anywhere else. In fact, if his job is merely to analyze games and not look for counters, which is possible, then no harm done and godspeed. But usually an in-house gaming analyst, according to my source, is not hired to analyze the few and far between new games that come to a given property. Freelancers are used for this, generally mathematicians or computer experts. These freelancers have nothing to do with catching counters when they analyze games like Casino War. So I have to be highly suspicious of this move.

I will say this in conclusion. Until I know without a doubt that Ruchman is not catching counters, I will not buy from GBC again. I'll shop on Amazon or go to Gambler's General Store when I'm in town.

There is a good reason why none of the resident "experts" have weighed in on this situation. Most of us who enjoy a reputation for being an expert have gotten that by observing one simple discipline: we don't shoot our mouths off about things of which we have no knowledge.

In the last day or so, I have seen a torrid of charges, gossip, and innuendo. I have seen very little facts, and no documentation! There is really nothing to reply to.

I have no intention of getting into a lengthy brawl here on the mud-wrestling page, and will probably not respond to many replies.

Essentially, there is no blackjack discussion on this board, only inane personal attacks.

It seems as if Clarke enjoys being disliked.

Maybe, I'll check back in, in a few weeks or months.

Robbie

It is none of the above to point out these facts:

There have been no postings EXCEPT from Don, until you and Cyrus posted over the last 24 hours, that in ANY way spoke of Peter Ruchman being very competant at all about blackjack, and very many posts comparing him to Scobete at best, in his expertise.

Wong depends on good relations with Ruchman at GBC to sell his books there as much as any other author and has taken a notably principaled stand to allow adverse comments about Ruchman to be posted here.

Ruchman's duties will almost certainly include backing off past customers known to him from shopping at GBC.

DS had a long friendship with the late Arthur Goldberg past chief of Park Place Entertainment which owns Ceasars Palace. And his recomendation would carry much weight if given.

Peter Ruchman has much less expertise in ALL areas of blackjack and "game protection," than the late Paul Keen had, and many of the more expert posters here can tell you many tales of Ruchman, unlike Paul Keen, who would often tell customers a given book was crap and not to buy it if you are serious about winning, recomending books that are about on a par with Patterson's worst! Ruchman has even in the past given good reviews to the much wrong Walter Tompson's books and given promos to Howard Grossman's exagerations about his basic strategy cards etc.

Ruchman was at first defended for his emotional outbursts at that contest, by posters here speculating it was all cover, but later posted on GBC's website and others saying that his comments reflected his true feelings about blackjack playing.

Such emotional responses would have precluded his hiring for a similar position at MGM/Mirage. The testimony given by Max Rubin, about his past work as a counter-catcher at the Mirage properties, and some comments that such policies are about the same today, went into some detail about the ways they try to verify that a player has an actual and not just suspected edge and how they try to keep emotions out of such game observations, and hire stable people for such jobs.

So I do have to conclude that Ruchman's hire at Caesars is not waranted and not in the interests of past customers of GBC and not in the interest of PPE stockholder and is fraught with risks for BOTH parties, and to the profits of BOTH, and that his resume would not justify his hiring without some STRONG "juice" being used on his behalf.

"It seems as if Clarke enjoys being disliked."

He utterly thrives on it!

"Maybe, I'll check back in, in a few weeks or months."

Why on earth would anyone want to?

Don

just because it is a friend of Don's that initiates the tap on the shoulder?

I don't know about you but avoiding backoffs is needed to win money.

It is not personal attack or inuendo to object to this latest.

Is this suposed PC, help if you agree with_______, and one way respect worth your getting backed off?

Do you want to win or do you just enjoy such?

What happens now if one disagrees with Don and shopped often at GBC? According to the standards that are publicly available about MGM/Mirage Peter Ruchman is not qualified to be hired in such a position and does not have the stable temperment to be hired in such a position. Outbursts such as he made would nullify his being hired at Mirage, according to public disclosures made during Max Rubin's Atlantic City testimony (link through Green Baize Vampire's web homepage, to the Rubin testimony, and use that information to link to other evidence used in the Campione case, that includes hiring requirements for MGM/Mirage). It is strange that he would then be hired for a higher position at PPE's Caesars Palace. Could a favor owed, for "juice" used to get him this job, be abused later?

That last part is the ONLY posting I have made on this entire subject that involves ANY speculation whatsoever. If a Post Buster decided that this was bustable, that would be the ONLY portion objectionable under posting guidelines.
These are very legitimate questions to ask?

Green Baize Vampire has recently edited his posting of the Max Rubin testimony. You will have to check the rge21.com version of this (MANY changes there too) or search through google.com or altavista.com to get to postings of the other evidence in the Campione case, to get to the disclosures of the hiring requirements for survielence personel at MGM/Mirage.

But consider this: If Henry Tamburin or John May got a job as a gaming anaylst at a single property, I think there would be much more fire from established authors, including Don.

I don't think so, because that would leave him painfully open to charges given his association with Goldberg and the fact that his publisher has also done consulting work which directly affected advantage players.
Most "established" gambling authors have done some kind of consulting work, unfortunately. It is more the rule than not. I get less fired up about this issue than I used to owing to the cynicism of age, but I can still do without the feeble bullshit rationalization justifying it. If you are going to sell-out, at least do it with style and whole-hearted brazen panache.

I choose to post anonymously to avoid depreciation of my normal handle. While you have a great understanding of the theory and math behind blackjack we should also have an understanding of all other aspects involved and why several Vegas counters might feel betrayed.

I understand Ruchman has to do what is in his best interest for his future and income. By joining the other side he has essentially proved that blackjack is a very difficult game to make good money at, otherwise he would have never joined our enemy.

I hope Ruchman wont suggest tightning the turn at C. P., if so, oh well there's always other casinos that will accept competitive action and offer good games.

Lighten' up,

AAA

it would take a whole lot of other experts added together to equal the weight of one don schlesinger. his word is good enough for me, and should be for you too. it is a shame that all the bullshit around here is causing him to leave. without the few people like him on this board, you guys really have the blind leading the blind. too, too bad.

as far as my credentials go, i have never had a net losing year in my life, and i have been playing this game for pretty high stakes since 1980 ! :-)

Once all the past regular customers of GBC are barred from Caesars there will be many readers of Dustin D. Mark's books having a field day at Caesars as there will be a decided lack of expertise and emotional stability in the suveilence department, that will only hurt the profits of both.

There will be no further license for "Blackjack Attacks" either (though the book BJA will hopefuly have many more editions)!

Once this guy gets his counter catcher job, won't he be able to not only have people barred from Caesars, but send their information to Griffins and other casinos? What I'm saying is that if you assume that "it's OK as long as I don't play at Caesars" then you are probably assuming wrong.

Me and Grifter worked out a definitely effective way to avoid facial recognition software. The present situation might even make you wonder about the Grosjean barring at bit too, as it cemented Don and he so much afterwards, which is puzzling also for the way Don was so close to the past PPE head, Arthur Goldberg??? Perhaps Don was mediating a fat settlement for Grosjean???

I have to relay to SW a comment about where some of the flack I get is really caused by too (the settlement that never could be).

My posts on how, wearing objects that have optical grade defraction film attached, can defeat FR software, was mentioned recently on Whitley Strieber's Dreamland, in a program segment done by Linda Molton Howe on the lack of post 9-11 security at the nation's nuclear plants. All it was was a mention by Streiber, "someone named Cant mentioned other problems" that was just before a commercial break and may not be in the archives, but confimrs attention being paid to my suggested methods.

Even with a college degree, it is difficult to understand what you are saying.

I'll have some of my friends, who are expert players who bet fairly big, take a look at your Blackjack Therapy, if they will look at it and we'll see if thay have a response for you.

1986 Arnold Snyder called in to check on tape at Caesars Tahoe, reported in 1987-88 issues of Blackjack Forum. Tape was of tell player result: peak readers developed.

Howard Grossman and Thomas Hover, Shufflemaster gaming 1999, review of actual continuous shuffles, (alleged also to include a profesor MacGrath, on a Columbia Univeristy sabatical and a M C Ling of U of Penn. different contract) and final machine using random inserts but not further shuffling. Report lead to CSM go ahead; report missed possibilities of distributive latency in actual continuous shuffles (I didn't miss them but it is a very low player edge. The test sims done kindly for me --to avoid claims of cooking the sims ---by Roger Harris confirmed my postulated anti-cut-card-effect but missed posible positive progression edge with the squared skew distribution machines--only randomize inserts and don't riffle through the cards otherwise in the pack ready to be dealt--that are used. Suggest investigators pre-compose decks to show how player edge compositions stay in play longer). Got myself admitted under a pseudo-nym for one game trial by accident after dumpster diving at their satelite south Industrial offices they had then (luckily I had changed clothes back to put bike on Cat Trans to look neat and was asked if I was there for a trial). Documents I got were only proofs for a later tradeshow display, nothing critcal

Later had discussions with a family member of one of the major stockholders. They revealed some licensing and cross licensing risks within the CSM makers if challenged in court.

So there is a definite downside to these suposedly inocent consulting jobs, but luckily most of them appear to take a highly conventional view of gaming and game theory and leave openings for hacker types like myself to find exploitable vulnerabilities.

For readers there are banger play strategies.

For CSMs there are exposures to player edges that are more universal than counting is.

In neither case is finding the loopholes ever to be discovered by precise investigation and Master's Thesis style reports. Hence I continue to use my irritating Clarke Cant style and personal that some think is just designed to cause trouble, but is designed to break-down the mindsets that delay what it really takes, to challenge the ...casinos .....er consultants!

You only miss full algebraic approximation tables for most systems and 2 appendices (a simpler version of the DS trip ruin that shows an interesting point about statistics and how to use algebraic approximation for side counts normal risk adverse indexes and delta force tables), but the information is there to do all of that yourself.

If you were intending to be a pain in the backside or were intending another clone like Hazing test, be assured also that the text includes details on how to build a pain blocking device that helps in such situations, that is also a chapter designed to bring forward into your conciousness your attitudes on risk and personal responsibility. If you flunk well....

If you are, I have no idea what you are saying or what you are trying to get at.

that I might want to join green chip to get away from this garbage.
It was good advice generally IMO.
jack

Your post seemed perjorative. The chapter on amazing devices is there to dredge up attitudes on personal risk and responsibility, which is an overlooked consideration for serious advantage players. I don't need backing,.........unless the deal was right of course!