The danger of not being prepared

You never know when opportunity is going to come your way.

I was on a vacation recently in Canada, and I walked into a casino. Their only game was a 4 deck CSM, with decent rules (S17, RSA, DOA, DAS, and surrender). I complained to the boss about the CSM's, then casually mentioned something about surrender. "Oh, you can surrender any time" he said. What? "Before the dealer checks for blackjack, you can surrender."

OK, now I have a 4 deck CSM game, good rules, plus Early Surrender. Wishing I had learned those ES basic strategy rules, I kicked myself, and left the casino without playing a hand.

--Mayor

Chapter 2 Blackjack Therapy links are searchable.

an incredible confession. Chuck the drgrees.

You are demanding the creation of flaws !

but I do know what it is and how it affects the game. Since I have
little faith in computers or sims, I can only estimate that it is about one third of your "standard deviation."

(1)Somehow it has been discovered by Frank Stanton and John Patrick, and a total of 12 others.

(2)Somehow it is related to why you supposedly should not split aces and eights, which you should split with legitimate basic strategy.

(3)Somehow it is related to the supposed differences between the 1962 and 1968 editions, of Beat The Dealer, by E. O. Thorp.

(4)Somehow a difference in printing history for the 1962 edition of Beat the Dealer is involved. There was a series of copies in the 2nd printing run that had red, rather than blue covers, but that is the only difference in the 1962 edition copies--and I have found both and found no changes!

(5)Somehow the only legitimate changes in basic strategy since 1962 are referenced in the implication that no current basic strategy applies since DOA games are not DA$ games, where DA$ used to be the standard game.

(6)Somehow mention of valid basic strategies going back to early mentions in True Magazine is taken as a reason to reject basic strategies that are recently published. If you got it early and right so what?

(7)Somehow work on developing basic strategy done by Cantley, McDermot, et al, and etc., has the same flaw as the True Magazine mentioned basic strategy.

(8)Somehow no one has redone the work needed to develope a basic strategy and thereby inheirited the flaws alleged in Frank's claims (6) and (7). That ignores the totally seperate work done on basic strategy by Alan Wilon, The Casino Gambling Guide, and Richard Epstein, The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic where both give by hand examples of the derivation of basic strategy, that by combining examples would cover 80% of all the likely hands you would recieve as a player.(estimate based on hand totals tables given by both where the hand totals percentage return is given)

(9) Somehow this is tied to easily debunked claims about the validity of statistics and calculus. Ho-hum!

(10)Somehow this is tied to chain results of splitting pairs.

That is a fairly complete list of all of the claims from Frank, about the flaw that I am aware of. I would frankly --pun intended-- wish he would instead spend his time in his well respected (yes Frank is competant in some areas) efforts linked to Alex Jones (infowars.com) and maybe help in the return of a child taken unfairly by Austin Texas Child Welfare Protective Services (where a child was recently taken at Brakenridge Hospital, despite the action beign secretly filmed by an Alex Jones assistant named Rick that appears to be the same person Frank has talked about working with on some investigative film projects, and despite the admission that the child was taken only because the older sibling was also taken previously despite that older sibling having been returned --it gets ugly and you should perhaps go to infowars.com for the whole messy story).

Now if Frank would rather post about his document investigations or his past experiences spotting casino cheating or early jet engine research, or being involved with another documentary film maker, Gabe Cortez, I would be interested. But this flaw stuff goes nowhere pretty fast!

In the 62 version of beat the dealer is reference to the "ultimate BS"
Some poster was asking about it remember ? (not hardley)It vaporized
and was not mentioned in the 66 version. In the 62 book you could only guess, but in the 66 book, he admitted that the famous attack
on the strip 5 was his first time ever in a casino. In Roberts 1984
book he give a thumb nail schetch of what he used and what he did,
confirming my suspicions. Suddenly they all have nearly the same BS
as the one in my 1961 magazine. (the author's knowledge was 10 years old, and he got it from his mentor) The FLAW is there because it was
"accepted" by those who use it,just as the PROB theory wqas accepted
as math because it came from two French math wizzers.(pranksters)
It was really logic, but accepted to be the "tar Baby" of math. The
flaw is the same kind of tar baby. I am not sure that it is the ONLY
flaw.

As long as you are so damn sure that the flaw is not there, I guarantee that YOU will not find it. And there may be more than one !

As long as you are so damn sure that the flaw is not there, I guarantee that YOU will not find it.

Now I get it. The Flaw only reveals itself to True Believers. It is not a matter of science or mathmatics - it is a matter of faith.

Believe in The Flaw and you, too, can have a 35 year losing streak just like Frank.

I think I'll pass.

When I made a post that said that you and ML were making the same flaw when you were trying to ignore distribution effects.

beyond the viel caused by gambling being illeagle for decades.
It is also why the math PHDs could steal a gamblers system and claim it as their own-then run for the hills.

by thinking much like ML, where both of you ignore distribution effects--see my previous post on this--and latch on to past variations of mathmatical analysis by those that have made similar mistakes and imagine some vast conspiracy is involved.

Conspiracies do exist, but jumping into false solutions for false problems only aids them. ML and DS actually do the same as you all the time, when DS imagines that everyone posting who disagees with him is some casino spy on a disinformation mission--some PBed responses of his on rge21.com and bjmath.com are pretty paranoid (where spotting such a critter does not mean you are not paranoid seeing how fast the response is triggered, accurately or not), or when ML screams that anyone not accepting his inaccurate ways of stating postulates is not speaking of math.

You do exactly the same when you post about results from repeted splitting of 8s, and thus refuse to split them at all against some up cards, when the goal of maximizing expected value is sometimes accheieved by doing that which cuts your losses in losing situations. They happen, and you can no more trim them away then ML can trim away extreme true counts where the bow-effect is negative! You can no more use the average total the dealer comes to in all situations, than ML can use most probable pack for all hands and all hands at a true count of zero to say that the behavior of packs that have a true count of zero, extends to the overall basic strategy edge

You might take a look at my post on the FA, Blame Rob McCarvey and note that it actually does not use any theorem from what you call flawed statistics, but is simply based on the average path of a random walk, where a random walk's average is a straight line. That theorem was first postulated by Euclid it turns out, in a recent recovery of his geometry practicea, where all except the classic 4 basic postulates had been lost. The other theorem is a simple statement in math terms of how you can cut any shuffled pack to get a round of cards from any penetration point. They are accurate but have nothing to do with the central limit theorem which you despise so much.

That should turn you to not only noting your strange bedfellows but to some basic questioning of your attempts to trim away unwanted elements of random distribution--it catches up with all progressions and all progressionist ideas (yours and ML's too!). From them you can indeed get the math you despise proven unfortunately for your position.

Get back to thinking how you have been able to reason through other traps. Here you are exhibiting the same mindset that the common US citizen is in letting the US, in response to terrorism, destroy everything that made the USA the USA (and not worse than the old Soviet Union in terms of the tactics used on citizens).

On most issues you stand with those willing to stick their necks out (Alex Jones, Chuck Harder, Jeff Rense etc.) but in the area of blackjack you stand with the same old false solutions for false problems, or what Alex Jones calls Problem, Reaction, "Solution," as any of the BS that spews from a Donald Rumsfeld Briefing!

The fact that you and a billion other players have "accepted" what
you have been sold-not withstanding. Therefore "long term loss" is
all but guaranteed.