You call Frank Stanton a "better" of Mr. Lux??? You either smoke crack or they have internet access at the funny farm. Frank Stanton is a bitter senile old coot... the casino is full of them, always pulling their "age rank" on someone younger, while bitter at the fact that life has passed them by and that within a few short years they'll be dead and irrelevant.
Robert-you were on the right track, but you jumped ship. Lured by
math degrees and a bucket of quicksand, you swallowed hook line and
the Queen Mary. For years I have felt that these math guys took some
one elses BS and pushed it through a computer and sold the LIE.
Early this year I got a copy that contained Braun's early work(1975)
It contained the admission of such AND I MISSED IT ! Now comes a book
dated 1884 which has been listed as missing and presummed LOST since
I invaded all the Austin Libraries. Chapter 3 is written by Thorpe,
and he freely admits the basis of his work was that done by the Aberdeen Four. With 12 years hind sight he admitsthat Braun further
refined his work with another computer. This is in print from the
mouths of both horses. Dead right again. (this can be a nasty habit)
Last football season, through a brain fart, I discovered a flaw. I was certian that the casinos had known about it all along. Not so.
What they did understand was the IDEA behind Alticle 21 by JP.
Let's look at past history. BJ was a one deck game and they delt through the deck. GONE. You can find a one deck game, but they won't
deal it out. Thorpe & Braun KILLED the end game. Then more math guys
jump in and convince the casinos their game can be BEAT. TWO decks,
FOUR decks, SIX decks-a dollar if you think that is good-stand up and
DROP DEAD. Did that help us ? Not only NO but HELL NO.
This is why I have no desire to spread knowledge beyond its present
limits. The casinos could make better use of it than we can, as they
did with Thorpe's little appearence.
I tossed the fact that there is a flaw on the boards. The reaction
is that I am a dumb ass like John Patrick, who found a better way to play by experience. NO one bothered to look
The flaw affected one deck play-but went un-noticed. Two decks still
was a reasonable game-without cheating. With 6 & 8 decks the lottery
effect comes on strong. A large part of your Standard Deviation is
BAD PLAY. I'll catch hell from the math guys(and others)because they
could not possibly be wrong.
Yung Robert V. Lux.
I admits, Ain't no use in you fillin your yung head full of numbers and readin and writin and cipherin. You just be a good boy and help your pappy get the hayin done. You keep the cow milked and the chickens fed. Its a biblically proven fact that folks that trys to be smart jus ends up causing themselves more problems than you can have then when yore thresher picks up a piece of baleing wire. Like my wife/sister Betty Louanne says He seems like a fine yung un. he aught ta find him a nice little girl and settle down an raise some young uns. My uncle Frank sends his regard and warns the young man bout thinkin to hard "Its a Flaw".
"Many things are said in cyberspace that are only meant as cruel and hurtful. Keep in mind it is easy to post under many pseudonyms."
I took the time to search for "Tsir" on all the red forums. The result? There's no such guy names Tsir, who has contributed with any posts at all, during the last six months. Neither are there any persons called Sligo Prince, nor Bardot at bell-hop. You're absolutely correct, Wildcard. Once again, thanks a lot, to all of you guys, for the support! I means a lot to me.
BTW, regarding the interviews, I have been offered a collumn at rge21.com, where they all will be published. Maybe I'll keep posting them on this board as well... who knows? :-)
Best regards, Robert V. Lux
Robert,
Very rarely do I get involved in flame wars such as these but as I've lurked over yours posts on this and other blackjack sites I've concluded that your are a serious student of the game. Your progress from the time of your initial posts has been, in my opinion, profound. When Don can say "congratulations" to you regarding your finding of some discrepencies in BJA, that is rather impressive.
I once experienced a similar barage of alliases in response to my clarification of a certain posters manipulation of the truth. Don't resort to the same in kind, even if "they" imply that you are doing the same. I take great pride in knowing that I've never resorted to those bush league tactics and I'm sure that you are proud to stand by everything you post as well.
Consider me one of the eighty percent who appreciates your thoughts and efforts without giving you the positive feedback that you'd like to here.
Sincerely,
Telescopic
Do not get " lost " in theory son--how flimsy with talk it tends to be spun.
The weak do not survive this game--lost as they are in colorful imaginings without number...or name.
Nuts'n bolts--Not baubles'n beads--the game is so simple, that its task approximates its creed:
TO BELIEVE in what you know as BJ fact--and to reject all else out of hand, and without tact.
This is THE NAME OF THE GAME son: Nuts'n bolts, Not baubles'n beads--
For the one humbly, and politely, serves the game,
The other, with all its gaudy sparkle, serves the lame...TO BE...lame.
