A long time ago, I attended a promotional seminar for the Target Method offered by Jerry Patterson. Since quite a bit of time has passed, someone should have an idea through actual trials if his system had any merits or was it just a lot of hype. Perhaps, people are actively using his system with good results. Just curious.
from the "TARGET" silliness.
"Perhaps, people are actively using his system with good results."
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. It can't be said too many times.
Worthless crap. A total ripoff.
And we are not talking Basic Strategy here. :-)
Patterson used to be a respected figure in the blackjack community. Because of this, many of the authorities in the field tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he first started pitching this system. TARGET has been subjected to more intense study than any other system of this nature.
It has been totally debunked - a complete waste of time and money.
Ask Don because Jerry is his friend. Don and Jerry developed the mathematical analysis for TARGET.
Well, I have been told that Jerry filed for patent and left Don out of the deal. That�s why Don is pissed and hates Jerry by he can�t do nothing at this point because the patent was issued on Jerry�s name. Actually Don used TARGET before he learn card counting from Jerry. But now they don�t talk anymore.
You're lucky Don S doesn't some here anymore. He'd set you straight and give you an earful while he was at it!
Puiutu proved me correct in that he could not stay serious for more than a week. Thanks, man. Posting under a new crappy one-off handle he wrote the following:
"Ask Don because Jerry is his friend. Don and Jerry developed the mathematical analysis for TARGET. I have been told that Jerry filed for patent and left Don out of the deal. That�s why Don is pissed and hates Jerry by he can�t do nothing at this point because the patent was issued on Jerry�s name. Actually Don used TARGET before he learn card counting from Jerry. But now they don�t talk anymore."
Jerry is no longer 'Don's friend', if he ever was for that matter. (Puiu confuses business associates with friends.) They did not develop anything together. There was no deal for patenting snake oil. Don may be disgusted by Jerry's actions but hasn't posted anything ever that shows he 'hates' him or is 'pissed at' him! Don never used Target. And I wouldn't imagine Don being so rude as not to talk to Jerry socially if they meet by chance. He would probably also talk to you, Puiutu.
Practically every other word you posted is a lie.
--Cyrus
Gambling systems don't as a rule get patented, because it wouldn't be an effective form of legal protection. I checked with the US patent office to see if a TARGET patent had been filed but it had not. I'd be very interested in proof to the contrary but I don't think any will be produced.
John,
I have filed patents. I have consulted and assisted in the developement of patents. The patent office may have told you that they generally do not issue patents on gambling systems, if you talked to someone that really was having a good day.
The Patent Office did not tell you that there was no patent ever filed for that system. All patent searches are the responsibility of the patent filer. A patent search is a vast and complicated thing, its not like looking a desk and saying NOPE no patent here. You can file a patent and spend incredible amounts of time and money and have the thing come back that the patent is already owned for "said" device or system.
In the future please be more careful when you fabricate evidence at counter websites becaseu like YOGI, we are smarter than the average bear.
The patent office may have told you that they generally do not issue patents on gambling systems, if you talked to someone that really was having a good day.
What the patent office does is of no concern to me. I said that gambling systems don't get patented. That is simply a fact. No count system has been patented despite the considerable commercial value of some of the popular systems.
The Patent Office did not tell you that there was no patent ever filed for that system. All patent searches are the responsibility of the patent filer. A patent search is a vast and complicated thing, its not like looking a desk and saying NOPE no patent here. You can file a patent and spend incredible amounts of time and money and have the thing come back that the patent is already owned for "said" device or system.
They did not tell me anything because I didn't speak to them. I ran a search on the full-text databases on the website (url below). I have had no great difficulty locating patents on, for example, the various continuous shuffler devices, auto-peek readers, digital 21 and SafeJack, so I assume the database is fairly comprehensive.
In the future please be more careful when you fabricate evidence at counter websites becaseu like YOGI, we are smarter than the average bear.
I said I checked with the patent office. Why you assumed I meant I had contacted them via telephone I don't know. Perhaps you don't know but I'm not an American and transatlantic phone calls are neither practical nor inexpensive. Please be more careful when making inaccurate assumptions.
Now, back to the point, has TARGET been patented or not? I could find no record of it exists at the address below. If I am using the search facility incorrectly, then please enlighten me. If the database is not completely comprehensive, again, some kind of explanation would be productive. Otherwise stop wasting my time.
I am not so sure you have to patent anything. Patent brings to mind a thing or product, like say a dinky toy or hot wheels. Intellectual property is usually protected by copyright law, which is different from one place to the next. Most new systems are combination of old ideas, and more often than not, when someone uses your material it will actually help you out, so long as they give credit where it is due to you.
First off, the system would have to work to want to protect by copyright, although this is often the best way to pretend that it is worth it's weight in gold, to copywrite a dead horse.
you stated that you checked with them. Whether you talked to them on the phone e-mailed them or took the secretary to lunch, I do not know.
If you had indeed contacted them as you said you had..What they would have told you Is that there are certified patent libraries that have every patent ever filed on Microfiche. These libraries are where you research to determine if any patent is filed or is pending.
My theory is that you went onto the internet and read somewhere that you can't patent a gambling system. This looked like good vindication to circumvent the negative posts concerning you and to give it additional weight you concocted the thing about having checked with the patent service. How close am I ?
Thanks for the replys. Looks like I made the right decision and let that "opportunity" pass and continue to play a more traditional stratagy.
you stated that you checked with them. Whether you talked to them on the phone e-mailed them or took the secretary to lunch, I do not know.If you had indeed contacted them as you said you had..What they would have told you Is that there are certified patent libraries that have every patent ever filed on Microfiche. These libraries are where you research to determine if any patent is filed or is pending.
I checked with the official website on their fulltext database. Which part of that sentence do you not understand? They have a search box. It doesn't talk to you.
It seems you just want to waffle on about the inquiry procedure at the physical location of these places. Did you not know they have a website? Aren't you capable of following the link I put in my post above?
My theory is that you went onto the internet and read somewhere that you can't patent a gambling system. This looked like good vindication to circumvent the negative posts concerning you and to give it additional weight you concocted the thing about having checked with the patent service.
Right, lets see, is the KO system, the blackjack bestseller at the moment, patented? No. How about Uston's MDBJ, with its UAPC? No. Hi-Lo? No. The ten-count perhaps? No. Any commercial count system? Have you provided any proof TARGET has patented? Lets try outside blackjack. The Sklansky bluffing system for poker perhaps? No. What about betting systems? The martingale? No. The D'alembert? No.
I did not say you can not patent a gambling system. I said they don't generally get patented. I did not speculate as to why this may be the case. It is certainly possible to patent a gambling system and I suspect some lunatic/s or other may have done it, but is the exception and not the rule.
And, since you have not provided a reference for the phantom TARGET patent or any other gambling system I am not about to revise that opinion.
How close am I ?
About forty thousand light years away.
We had a lengthy interchange on the 2+2 site under my actual name a couple of years ago. Don't let these envious non-achievers get to you.
Dear john, yes I can follow a URL. Lets review what was said ..You said that you checked with the patent office. I called you on it and you inferrred that you meant to say that you checked the website. But the heading of the post stated that no patent for Target had ever been filed, when the website doesn't have anything about filings or pendings. It just has granted patents. Did you really mean to say that you doubt any patents had been filed becaseu you don't think that its patentable. You see when you make stuff up and then try to pass it off as a fact it confuses people, If you want people to just believe you and take everything you say on faith you need to start a church.
You are lucky he wasn't doing any mathematical calculations.
