I look forward to a little demonstration and brief generalization of how my count works with a notable gaming expert. You see, I put out a few (recent) feelers to a few places that I was willing to do a demonstration of how this works. I got only one even halfway interested and he is thinking along the lines of "Those are some tall claims you are making." He said this in reference to the count itself and not any sort of theoretical result of increased player advantage. He implied that he is perhaps skeptical of someone being able to perform the count itself, much less anything else.
You see, there is no simulation for my count. I am the only one that has ever used the method. When I initially created it, computers were all DOS anyway and there was no intent of any commercialization of any kind, only seeking to improve my blackjack play. All these years later upon mentioning about what I do, people squawk, demand details, simulations and basically say things implying that I am either flat out lying or that my methods have no significant improvement over standard textbook counting methods.
I saw this immediately upon taking part in online blackjack community forums a few years back and for the most part, I try to avoid talking about my counting methods too much. Those players that I've gotten to know and have actually seen what I can do are relatively astounded but the blackjack community at large seem to not be able to grasp the concepts of it all, much less understand some of the mechanics of it all. My refusal to post too many pertinent details due to not wanting to be the unaccredited coauthor on one of their next books doesn't help either. The notion of abandoning the single number line for virtually all counting methods and using 4 or 5 simultaneous counts on card groupings that come together to form a much more definitive means of assessing deck composition does not appeal to them... They think I am either full of sh*t or regard my methods as having very little gain to the point of being inconsequential over simpler methods, one or the other!
This all plays out true to form. You see, years back before I actively participated in any online blackjack community stuff, I tried to email a few of my blackjack heroes such as Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, etc. (This might have been not long after "email" was invented! hahahaha) to tell them about my counting method. After all, these guys were my heroes, I'd read their books and they were the ones I was in awe of because they were the ones who got me started on this path that my life has taken for all these years. Well... Those emails must have been deleted or ignored. No response. Nothing. Life goes on, I forgot about it and moved on and the years have passed. I've always wondered what their thoughts might have been if they actually read my email but it's likely they had higher priorities than reading an email that drones on from a stranger they don't know from anywhere.
Way back when... I set out to become the best blackjack player imaginable, not come up with some shoddy "Yeah, it sort of works" something that I could commercially exploit because it was something the public at large could grasp and perhaps learn. I did it, improved it with time and added more to it to tweak it up over the years. The biggest issue has been "How much gain over more conventional methods?" and in all honesty, I just don't know. I know there is a significant gain but I have no idea exactly how much of a gain it is, so I've said little about it.
I was just talking with Flash, who has more intimate knowledge of the parameters of my count more so than anyone else and telling him about this "personal pride" issue. He has seen me demonstrate the count itself, seen some of my charts, graphs and has seen me in action at the tables. I recall a few years back when I first described what I do to him and I think he was in total disbelief until I showed him in person. Why is that? I don't know, maybe he has seen every garbage system or idea coming down the pike and was extremely skeptical of any "tall claims". In any case, of the "feelers" I put out to a few specific prominent gaming experts, only one is actually interested and the rest couldn't care less. At least Flash has a vast gaming knowledge, owns a vast library with practically every gambling book known to mankind and can be referred to as a gaming expert but he is still less known than many.
What's the point of bothering with this? Substantiation of my "tall claims" by a bona fide gaming expert without giving away the keys to the kingdom on a public forum... a matter of personal pride that has arisen over some recent ridicule over my life's work, I guess. I'm looking forward to this.

