Is FS actually JP?

or his son, brother, lover? or? I suppose this idea is not novel, but I don't frequent the board much, so I wouldn't know. However, every time I look, there he is and often extolling the virtues of JP!

trying to play a too liberal "BS" with the cards I draw. I consider
that real damn smart. Kinda simple huh ?

"JP got me to stop wasting money trying to play a too liberal 'BS' with the cards I draw. I consider that real damn smart. Kinda simple huh ?"

Do you mean "real damn smart" stuff like his recommendation to hit a pair of Aces against a 10 instead of splitting? ROTFLMAO! How about giving everyone the reference again to the article where he explained his "real damn smart" analysis of that play? It's hilarious!

Yes, it's extremely simple, Frank: Name any departure from BS that John Patrick recommends, and I'll tell you how much it'll cost you. I dare you to come up with a single JP deviant play that improves the player's expectation. Put up something resembling proof of your claims, or shut up, already.

Frank, the extremly annoying thing about this "flaw" bullshit is not so much that your argument is based on pure ignorance -- that ought to be correctable -- it's that you seem to think you can't lose the argument as long as you maintain your ignorance and just blow off every attempt to penetrate your extremely thick skull with a single fact or a tiny bit of simple reasoning. That's not true; you've already lost the argument, many times. But you just keep making an unwelcome jackass out yourself by refusing to admit it. Get a clue; that's highly irritating.

I found a mustard seed that turns into Godzilla. You don't believe
or understand how that is possible. Your single play statement
is why you don't understand JP. Draw 5 &4 or 3 & 6 to your aces
and you might understand. The accepted BS is way too liberal for the
cards that most folks draw. That is why 1/2 of one percent can win
with it. You don't understand eliminating ROR from your vocab. either.

His "BS" is not optimal for EV. It is based on extending session playing time. The guy takes two crumpled 20s to the table and gets 8 red chips. This means he can play 8 hands before he has to go back to the VFW and bore everybody with his war exploits.

Now, if he were to double down, or split, or split AND double down (the horror!), he would use up those 8 red chips that much faster. Yes, he will win more in the long run doing that, but today, right now, this session, might be shorter. Don't want that to happen. So, slowly put a single chip in the circle. Don't hit stiffs because you immediately lose your red chip. If you get lucky and happen to find a dealer that is breaking, you will be able to play for several hours before you lose it all, and have to go back home to your dull life.

By extending his playing time in this manner, he has that much more time to whine to the other player's about his 'bad' luck at drawing cards. He has more time to whine to the dealer about his 'bad' luck at drawing cards. He has more time to whine to the pit about his 'bad' luck at drawing cards. If standard deviation gives him a good winning streak, he might even have time to throw in a few war stories.

...that the one guy who has discovered "the flaw" also happens to be the world's unluckiest blackjack player and is therefore still losing in spite of this incredible knowledge? Could someone please do the math? WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? :)

Hey Frank, to compute density altitude, may I suggest you subtract ~1.5 inches from your height?

it is a total waste of time to respond to Frank Stanton's posts. By doing so you (me included) are feeding what he thrives on...attention.

Frank's position on Basic Strategy is one he actually believes in...however, he refuses to post anything remotely associated with credibility to give credence to his comments.

By now everyone has noticed how Frank just whines and whines and whines about losing. His comments about how a coin toss (that he won) cost the other person his life...the floating piece of wood down a stream that he found the next day...this was Frank's analogy of what it was like to "discover" the flaw. Frank's military ramblings would have you believe he was nothing short of John Glenn in stature with his nutty "alert shack" ramblings and let's not forget "humidity on density altitude", which Frank claims the Air Force refuses to acknowledge, thus they continue to "kill people"...Frank's words. Then the perennial "retired 29 years"...does anyone care? This is about blackjack. His little BJ card that he places on the felt that says "not only no, but hell no"...

Notice how Frank is always quick to insult posters "Roger the dodger" "Don Slushinger"...there are many more. Typical of Frank when cornered, insult the poster not the content of the post.

That he claims the vision of the flaw came to him some months ago in two words, the first with 5 letters and the second with 8...constantly taunts the audience to want to learn more from this self-appointed guru of blackjack. And now he's into mustard seeds that grow into Godzilla...still providing no proof or statistical evidence other than a lonely old man who occasions the Louisiana casinos playing his gambling stipend of low red action.

Frank is nothing more than a delusional, staunch John Patrick advocate/shill, who merely seeks attention from those that will give it to him. Like the ball player who's time has come, Frank just can't seem to walk off the field gracefully, he can't even bunt his way to first base, and needs to be pointed in the right direction to even see the ball.

This is my final post on Frank Stanton...I truely hope that when I am 68 years old I don't make a complete ass out of myself as Frank has done so many, many times, and will continue to do so. Frank, you have made Major Frank Burns of MASH look like a genius!

I can all but guarantee Frank will post with an insult. Any takers?

But again you think what you think and run your mouth.
I continue to draw real lousey cards-and break even or a little better. You can't figure that, because you can't figure anything.
The BS you think is so wonderful is the top liberal end and ONLY
the luckey 1/2 of one percent is going to win with that. If you can't
see that you are a blind fool. My days as "THE Luckey SOB" are long
over, but John showed me how to stick around at Zero cost. If you
get to be 68 you will be quite lucky according to the Ins.COs.

You probably know more about Frank than Frank does. :-)

The best response is indeed to ignore his ravings. Eventually he will get bored with posting and no one responding, and he will go away.

Although I confess that sometimes his posts are so totally idiotic that I cannot stop myself from taking a cheap shot. :-)

I asked you to name one JP play that improves the player's expectation. You can't do it, because there aren't any JP or Frank Stanton plays that improve the player's expectation. So, now you want to assert that the "flaw" is really that BS is too risky?

"Your single play statement is why you don't understand JP. Draw 5 &4 or 3 & 6 to your aces and you might understand. The accepted BS is way too liberal for the cards that most folks draw."

Total bullshit. One last time, BS is determined by properly considering all the possibilities and their relative probabilities. The assertion that that's not "the cards that most folks draw" is too idiotic to deserve discussion.

"That is why 1/2 of one percent can win with it."

What? Actually, in the long run (which you deny means anything), the percentage approaches 0%, but in the short run (which you claim is the only thing that's important), far more than 1/2 of one percent can win with it. In a 6-deck shoe, for example, a proper BS player has about a 47% chance of winning some money in each shoe. But the real issue is, you claim that BS is flawed, which most people take as a claim that you can improve on that percentage. I just gave you an opportunity to prove that claim by offering us any play that would have that effect. You declined, because there aren't any. Instead, you want to change the subject.

"You don't understand eliminating ROR from your vocab. either."

In the first place, if you're playing with a disadvantage, then your risk of ruin approaches certainty, and JP can't save you.

But more to the point for this discussion is that now you are attempting to dodge the issue of proper BS producing maximum expectation and instead you're trying to imply that you and JP are really addressing some other goal -- that BS is too "risky".

The fact is, that is also total bullshit; JP's strategy absolutely will not have the effect of reducing the player's risk! If you don't split Aces against a 10, for example, you will lose a fixed-sized bankroll more often and in fewer rounds than if you make the correct play. JP's Aces v. 10 play is perfectly idiotic, any way you look at it.

Which is to say, Frank, that your understanding of RoR is on a par with your understanding of expectation: virtually nonexistent.

"I found a mustard seed that turns into Godzilla."

You might as well claim that Elvis gave you the mustard seed on a UFO; it wouldn't be much more absurd. There's a reason you can't substantiate your claims with any sort of proof or even a rational hypothesis, Frank: they're total bullshit.

Unfortunately, trying to engage in a rational discussion with Frank is sort of like putting a music CD in your stereo, hitting the "repeat" button, and talking to it.

No matter how much you talk, it just keeps playing the same song, over and over.

Each time I see a well-written, thoughtful reply to a post by Frank Stanton I am seized by pangs of remorse. That anyone would so willingly give up even five minutes of their lifespan to respond to such empty-headed sputum seems to me at once courageous and foolhardy.*

*(flowery language used by personal preference)

understatements.