Investor Consortium

Hello:

I have created a variation of the game of Blackjack that I have called, "Buy Back Black Jack." I have an application for a Provisional US Patent in the mail at this time. I have also invented a second game that I will bring to market after I learn the ropes from marketing the first game. I intend to put together an investment consortium to cover the expenses involved in marketing this game. Anyone who would like further details of this venture can contact me at s.adams1710@yahoo.ca

Hello:

Even though no one has responded to my request for Investors for a new game proposal, I did get a couple of email letters that proved to be very helpful. Partly because of the close proximity of my original message in this thread to another message about Eliot Jacobson, I have had the distinct pleasure of communicating with Professor Jacobson directly, which has proven to be of immense value to me.

I want to thank Stanford Wong or the person responsible for not deleting my original message in this thread. Another gaming site wasn�t quite so kind. Good skill and good luck to all of the advantage players on this excellent gaming website.

Hello Innocent Bystander:

I understand your comments in the title of your post. To be sure the game that I will be putting forth will not be conducive to advantage play. However this thought should also be kept in mind. If everyone listened to writers such as Stanford Wong and Eliot Jacobson, the profit margin for the Casinos at Blackjack would be too small to allow them to continue to offer the game to the public at large.

So in reality, a large part of your ability to turn the tables on the Casino is the abundance of money that ploppies throw at the Casinos incessantly. Look at that renowned Blackjack expert John Patrick. He puts forward some of the most ridiculous ideas that one could imagine about how to play Blackjack. The sad,(or maybe good) thing about it is, that many more people play the way Patrick advocates then one might otherwise believe.

What I am trying to do, in reality, is Advantage Play also. Trying to make some money from ploppies who think that maybe gambling is partly controlled by math but 80% of it is blind luck. In any event good skill to all of you.

Mr Adams did you ever get in touch with Mr O from Mississippi .I sent you an email in regards to that he might be able to help you get you games up and running in casinos.

Hello BJKID:

Thanks for reminding me. I visited the website that you suggested and seemed to get lost in a maze, probably of my own making. I will either find an email address for Mr. O or phone him. I originally got in touch with Invent Tech only to learn from the www.uspto.gov site (Investor Resources/Complaints) that they don't have a very good reputation.

They are not really interested in sharing any profit that you might earn from marketing your game. YOU are their market and they expect to make their money from YOU. I'll have to determine whether the suggestion you made is a much better one than Invent Tech was.

Steve

Hello:

I was lucky enough to have Eliot Jacobson review my new game proposal and although he found it interesting, he decided that it didn�t have much chance to ever make it onto an Internet Casino setting. The game requires computer technology to calculate what I call the Buy Back offer and so it cannot be played at a table setting in a live Casino.

Mr. Jacobson�s main concern with the game seemed to be the fact that the Buy Back option (somewhat similar to the surrender option in Blackjack), always has a Casino advantage and so it would be written off by knowledgeable gamblers as a sucker bet.

While this type of thinking seems to have value, reality dictates that it is flawed. Roulette has a prohibitive 5.26% Casino advantage and yet it is a very popular Casino game. Using Mr. Jacobson�s logic concerning sucker bets, the Roulette tables should be totally empty.

The reality of gambling sees a majority of people willing to admit that math has some value in determining how one should wager and yet most people decide that gambling is 75% blind luck. It is this attitude that puts millions of dollars in Casino coffers day in and day out. Advantage players survive partially because ploppies lose a bundle to the house and help to hide the losses that the Casino experiences to advantage players.

So my quest to market the game continues with due caution as Eliot Jacobson and to a lesser extent,(he hasn�t evaluated the game) Mike Shackleford advise. Either the game is good enough to command a signing bonus and a share of the profits over the 20 year lifespan of a patent or it is not. The future will help to determine which of those two scenarios is correct.

Not so Innocent Bystander:

If every player counted cards, the Casinos would either change the rules or quit offering the game to the gaming public at large. With these thoughts in mind, and assuming you are an advantage card counter, you owe most of your success to the losses that the Ploppies are experiencing. Your concern for such players does not ring as true as you might think it does.

Casinos are experiencing record profits from the ignorant, gullible masses. Carnival games are replacing playable blackjack everywhere. Though some carnival games are able to be exploited by skilled players, most are not.

Increasing the number of carnival games is generally not helpful to skilled players. Further increasing the profits of the greedy casinos is generally not helpful to skilled players. It will not decrease the casinos' paranoia and greed; this has been proven over and over.

If post your new game idea on a casino employee website, you may get a friendlier reception that you have received here. Below is a link to one such website:

To those who may be following this thread, I did not review Stephen's game. He sent me the rules and I shared my thoughts in what I thought were private emails.

I have reviewed new games, but only after there is at least one production model (for me to try) and the game is licensed in at least one state. Neither of these criteria is true about the present game idea, as far as I know.

My main concern about the game idea is misstated by the poster. I also am concerned that my private and professional emails are re-posted in part without my consent.

--Eliot

I've seen too many 21 tables displaced by crap games (not craps). 3 card poker. Carib Stud. Pai Gow. Even Casino War for Christ's sake... New games erode something. If that something is 21, then I would agree with your comment, let's not give the casinos a game with a higher house edge, which is attractive/glitzy enough to attract enough "gamblers" to make it successful, and see the 21 tables further reduced.

Hello Innocent Bystander:

Your comments are valid. I have looked at the gamingfloor.biz site but I will look again. I am glad that I was allowed to post my original message in this thread on this site. As as indirect result, I was able to communicate with Professor Eliot Jacobson about my game. Although his comments about the game were of a negative nature, it was part of a learning process for me in this mine field of Inventors trying to market their games to the Casino industry.

I do not try to make money as a card counter anymore. Up here in Canada, they use 8 decks of cards and cut 2 or more out of play. A series of such defensive manouvers have made the game almost impossible to exploit. Back counting against 8 decks isn't exactly much fun and I have been barred for doing that also. Then of course CSM's will make card counting obsolete if they are ever universally accepted.

For all these reasons and some others, I have concluded that advantage play for me, means trying the other side of the coin. If the ploppies are going to dismiss math and decide that gambling is all blind luck anyway, the only question becomes simply this: Will I make any money from their misguided beliefs or not? In any event, thanks for your input on this subject and the best of skill and luck to you in that order.

It was not my intention to upset Professor Jacobson in this way. However, commenting or reproducing some ideas from an email message is not exactly a unique activity. One hears about such activity repeatedly on almost any newscast that one listens to. In fact from what I understand about computer technology, some people are capable of intercepting or capturing any email that is sent. It doesn't seem to me to be a method of communication that one could expect a perfect level of privacy. In any event, this appears to be another in a long series of learning experiences for me.

This is a forum for gamblers. We are not interested in some guy hawking a game to casinos with a lousy house edge, it works against our financial edge and we are certainly not going to help you. More stupid carnival games replacing decent blackjack games costs us money directly. You should not be surprised we don't want to know.

What you are doing is like turning up to a synagogue in Nazi regalia, then expressing surprise and playing the victim, when people tell you to f*ck off.

Hello Green Baize Vampire:

Weren't you the guy who was trying to hawk the idea that you could beat a Continuous Shuffling Machine with a mysterious and convoluted method?

Hello Green Baize Vampire:

There was nothing else that I wanted to post on this thread but since you have chosen to use vulgarity in your last post, I decided not to leave you with the impression that it made me run away and hide.

Your distain for this thread on this site is something that I thought was quite possible when I originated it. However, you could have entered a message sooner than this if you so desired. I think the timing of your entrance into this thread indicates other motives on your part.

You entered your vitriolic message immediately after I detailed certain constructive criticisms about card counting in general. If I am mistaken in my critique of card counting, why not point those mistakes out to me and the people visiting this site?

Of course you might be one of those people who think that the Casino's are so stupid that they don't know the value of CSM's. By talking about the negative aspects for card counters of these machines, I might make them realize how valuable they are.

They didn't spend millions of dollars developing these machines without knowing exactly what they were trying to accomplish. They aren't quite as dumb as some people like to pretend they are.