Trackjack and CBJNGood or bad?

I would like to know what pro counters think of these,obviously there are handy for a small time counter who happens to be in such and such a city or going to vegas for a bit.
But what if you happen onto a game with great pen and good rules wouldnt you get a bit angry if it came up CBJN or TJ,the place would soon be swarming with counters and eventually die.
Also cant casino bosses get these and straight away see if their game is going to attract counters and then make it worse?
Are CBJN and TJ counter productive to pro counters?

"Also cant casino bosses get these and straight away see if their game is going to attract counters and then make it worse?"

If a PC somewhere doesn't even know what game is dealt right under his nose, then he won't be smart enough to turn on his computer to access CBJN or TJ, let alone have any idea about what makes a game "counter-friendly".

Casino executives are business people who carefully analyze their competitors' games and what conditions the players will accept.

You can be sure that the information we report is already known by corporate casino strategists through their own sources. We are just allowing you to have similar tools that the other side has.

A nice feature of Trackjack is that subscribers can usually see who is reporting particular conditions in specific casinos. Many subscribers develop private email discussions with other players who frequent the same haunts. The really special information (like a weak dealer allowing hole card play or a trackable shuffle) is disseminated that way.

Aside from giving away information to casinos, here's another issue.

I have subscribed to both and both are far less accurate than I would like them to be. Sometimes the lack of accuracy is, I suspect, due to insufficient sampling (eg. for many months, CBJN has been listing Trop.'s DD at a pen of 1.0 (I assume this is true for Feb. also, but I let my subscription lapse this month). However, this game is extremely dealer sensitive - I've seen everything from .5 to 1.1. Likewise the DD at Fitz' in Tunica is listed with a pen of 1.0. Off again! But in this case, pen is almost always .5-.7 - dealer after dealer, shift after shift. Has anyone out there (except for the CBJN reporter) seen it even close to 1.0?

At times Trackjack does better, in part because of their method of recording pen (eg. 65+/-5), but for some reason (sheer laziness?) they usually indicate a range for games with pen fixed by a slit in the discard tray or shoe. The angle in which the cut card goes through the slit will influence the pen to some degree, but I think that the 10% range for the DD games with the slit in the discard tray is likewise much too high -- never seen more than 5% variation.

Compare also the following:
Where CBJN lists many vegas shoe games at 1.5, Trackjack has them at 70+/-5. CBJN is at the outside limit of the range for Trackjack, but CBJN and the median for Trackjack differ by a very important 5%.

All these differences may be due to sampling problems or, to be more suspicious, consider the conflict of interest of the reporters. Do they want to publicize good games?

CBJN and Trackjack are helpful, but far less accurate than they could be. How many games are we ignoring because the pen is actually much better than what is reported? How much time are we wasting going into casinos whose pen is worse than reported? Unfortunately, a lot of time still has to be spent scouting.