Walter Thomason

After reading a number of other interesting and amusing posts I need to clarify that by no means have I stated that BS is superior to counting. BS with betting progression happened to come out with a slightly higher win ratio in 20,000 hands using six decks. The effectiveness of card counting is certainly not a belief but a fact. otherwise multi-billion dollar industries would not care if anyone did it. To think otherwise is like believing the earth is flat, or that wednesday does'nt exist. I am always in search of a method that is the most effective and user friendly which is why I am conducting these tests and as I stated in my most recent post there are some new techniques that I am looking forward to learning and putting to the test as well.

I simply pointed out to Sotsog that your sample slightly favored the straight BS player.

"I simply pointed out to Sotsog that your sample slightly favored the straight BS player."

You pointed out the wrong thing. No sample size favors the BS player more than the card counter unless you get the counter to play only negative hands.

I'm surprise that you can spell Walter.

Someone said a 7 is the most likely number to be rolled in craps. I want to test this by rolling two dice. I choose a sample size of 1. I roll the dice, and it comes up boxcars - 12. Now is this any violation of mathematical laws? 7 is supposedly the most likely number, but for my sample, 12 was the most frequent number. Can I know conclude that on the next 10 rolls, 12 will continue to appear more often than any other number? Walter, maybe you should write another book. You could call it Rolling Dice for the Clueless.

Note to Bordeaux: Walter plays blackjack on cruise ships. You know the boats that cruise out from land to the international waters and then turn around and come back? He doesn't want to take a boat trip for any longer length because the boat might fall off the edge of the earth. Also, he never sails on Wednesday.

His 20,000 hand sample favored the flat bettor, and the card counter wasn't required to only play negative count hands.
Do you have anything interesting to contribute, or do you just enjoy making stupid statements?

6. Posts attacking a person or multiple people should be deleted. Criticisms of products and ideas should not be deleted. Example: It is okay to say that a book stinks, but not okay to say that the author stinks. It's okay to think that another poster is an idiot, but not okay to say so.

8. Inflammatory posts should be deleted.

...or does that only apply to some people and not others?

...than concern themselves with the moronic contributions you're referring to.

Or Walter's posts would be busted on sight.

Or do we need to see more, "I played ten hands of blackjack using a progression and won more than a flat bettor, why isn't that a significent sample." posts. This was only his 5000th attempt to lead posters around and around the "what is significent statistically" pole.

Then when everyone tires of that, he will start pulling fragments of facts and form bad conclusions, which when pointed out to him for the 2000th time, he will start the smoke blowing - "Were the cards shuffled by hand?", etc. nonsense.

Finally, he will give the "Well, it works for me!" and then refuse to answer any posts, until next month when it will start all over again at square one.

Don S., Bootlegger, MathProf, DD', and hundreds of others have spent countless hours posting detailed posts of "what is significent mathematically" and years later we are still getting the "Why isn't 1000 hand shuffled results enough?" from Walter.

He does surprise me sometimes though. I remember a few months ago I used a phrase "zero-sum game" in a post, and Walter, the gambling expert, had never heard of it before. Pretty amazing. Of course, in his typical fashion, he just made up his own definition for the phrase and continued down his blind path.

He claims at least three years' success, which, speaking as one who cannot reconcile himself to the idea that a positive progression can work in any way, is remarkable.

Walter: "I never have nor ever will post on this board without using my real name."
pb16: "I'm sorry but that just is not true. You did not put up the post signed A Real Player but you have posted in the past as
Anon007
Ruth Bader Ginsburg "

So you can believe that Walter is telling the truth about a system that violates mathematical reality.

And maybe all the ex-employees of Enron who got swindled out of all their retirement funds from the company 401k plan company stock should believe the ex-CEO when he told Congress Friday he was very concerned for the shareholders.

Walter's claims and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

"Walter's claims and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. "

should read "Walter's claims five bucks will get you a cup of coffee."
folks at Starbucks might think his claims are worth a few bucks.

In thread above, he claims he tipped 7 black chips after seven straight winning hands. Damn! just imagine what his ev must be as an "advantage player" tipping 700 even in a single session.

"So you can believe that Walter is telling the truth about a system that violates mathematical reality?"

Yes. If he says that he's had three consecutive winning years with his maths-defying system, I don't disbelieve him - I can see no reason for him to lie about it. Royalties? I doubt it. BJA must be the biggest-selling BJ book out there, and Don S says that he's made only a few thousand since the original publication. Walter is not creaming it in for writing about it.

"You are lying" / "You are a con man" are simply not credible arguments; if that is the ONLY argument, I say, well hey, maybe he HAS hit on something. I also fing the idea a bit alarming, but accept that his results, mathematically extraordinary as they are, MAY be indicative of something, precisely because of their "extraordinariness".

"BJA must be the biggest-selling BJ book out there,"

You'd figure, huh? Naw, not even close. The book doesn't cater to the masses and so will never sell with the volume of the Patrick and Scoblete books.

"and Don S says that he's made only a few thousand since the original publication."

Yup. Such is life. I certainly didn't write BJA to make money, . . . and I wasn't disappointed! :-)

Don

(NT)