Your response, Don S.?

http://apheat.net/2014/02/20/the-not-so-illustrious-18/#more-5435

...But it was a nice gesture by Jacobson to refer folks to PiYee for the purchase of BJA 3rd. On second thought, maybe not so nice.

Cobbson

The last person on the face of the earth to whom I owe an explanation is Eliot Jacobson. You all realize that, I'm sure. But, I suppose I will comment anyway.

Over and over, I point out to people that they love all the charts and tables in BJA3, but that, all too often, they are too lazy to read the accompanying text, which is, nonetheless, important; otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to write it.

So, for starters, consider this text, at the end of the original article:

"And so, there you have it. I would hope that those who are reading these lines look upon the above study not at all as a 'definitive work,' but rather simply as a door-opener � a first attempt at viewing a rather complex problem from a fresh angle. Comments,
both favorable or unfavorable, and suggestions for future articles are enthusiastically solicited.

"As for me, I continue to play the Revere Point Count and, try as I may, I can�t chase those 165 numbers I learned ten years ago from my head. Only now, I know once and for all that I am not very much better off for all this 'knowledge' than if I had learned
the 'Illustrious 18' and left it at that!"

Is it possible for me to have been any clearer than that? Back at that time, I did almost all of the preliminary calculations using a $5 pocket calculator. The generation of each index followed the guidelines as outlined in the chapter. It was painstaking, tedious work -- at least for me!

Much more importantly, the entire premise and the whole reason for undertaking the work in the first place was not at all to rank in order 150 indices (who gives a shit what is number 123 and what is 124, since both are utterly useless anyway?), but to do just the opposite: open people's eyes to the fact that they're kidding themselves by thinking that 90% of these numbers are necessary. The finding was that 10% of the indices contribute close to 90% of the value, especially in the shoe game.

Later, we added the Fab 4 and broadened the I18 to the "Catch 22," so now we were advocating 26 indices, in all. Please be my guest and run a sim with those 26, for, say, a 1-12 spread in a shoe game, and then repeat with 150 indices, and let me know how the 26 fare. I already know the answer! :-)

As for the anti-intellectual bullshit argument, Eliot writes:

"When I was counting cards, it never occurred to me that less knowledge might be a good thing. Although I was not a professional AP, I took card counting seriously. To me, mastering index plays was part of beating the game. As an academic, I cannot see why anyone would want less knowledge when they can have more. Giving up knowledge is giving up opportunity and seems antithetical to what being an AP is all about."

So, I suppose, when Eliot played, like Peter Griffin, he mastered a high-level count and kept at least a half dozen or more side counts, because, after all, who wants to leave any knowledge or edge on the cutting-room floor? Gimme a goddamn break!

I didn't set out to rank the importance of 150 indices; I invited others to do that, at the end of my article. But, do you know what? NO ONE EVER DID! And, do you know why? Because they aren't worth shit; that's why! (In fact, the Postscript, on p. 65, alludes to a subsequent article, written by Bryce Carlson, in which he attempted to rank about 63 indices, as memory serves me. The conclusion was that the additional 45 added very little to the original 18.)

I accomplished, with the I18 precisely and exactly what I set out to accomplish. And, truth be told, I don't give a flying fuck if that doesn't appeal to Eliot's or James's superior intellects. Let THEM complete the research and get back to us with their findings. I'm sure counters around the world will be thrilled to discover what indices #97 and #98 are, and how much the two of them contribute to our overall profitability.

Don

Thought that would wake you up. The lions share of the gain from counting comes from moving your money with the count. Using the I18 means a player will make less errors (minor), expend less energy (major), and be able to play longer hours (major). We all know that.

"We all know that."

All, it would seem, except Eliot and James. :-)

By the way, Eliot quotes James's asinine remarks as coming from Beyond Counting. They don't come from there; rather they come from Exhibit CAA. It's unlikely that I would have provided for James the gracious blurb that I did for the back of his first book had this trivial, unadulterated, gratuitous claptrap appeared in Beyond Counting.

Don

whenever I try to draw you into one of the never-ending 'count debates', as a voice on the side of simplicity, both count and index plays, you always refuse to be drawn in. Now I know the secret to getting you riled up....just mention 'King James' or 'the traitor'. :)

Eliot recommends your book and has it for sale on his web site.

Can you critique his article on the World's Greatest Card Counter ?

I'll give him a medal.

Don

Before yesterday, Robbie, I didn't know Eliot's site existed -- or, at least, I had never gone there or read anything on it.

I have no desire to start now.

Sorry.

Don

He described, statistically , the world'sgreatest card counter. His premise is how difficult it is to win if th hypothetical expert has trouble winning a specific amount !?

His premise is that the "world's greatest card counter", who ironically uses a single level count (hi-lo) will only win $66 per 100 hands at a decent DD game where they bet $0 at counts below +1 and $100 at all other counts.

I think his point is that a card counter with a $100 max bet isn't much of a threat to a casino's bottom line. You could also say that it is difficult for a player at that level to make a decent amount of money (relative statement since a lot of people would consider $66 every hour or so to be a decent amount of $$).

Obviously, he's not starting with a hypothetical expert, and also is not looking at a very good/tolerant game (since the max bet is only $100, pen is good, but no great, and rules are just OK).

Net-net, I'm not sure what point he is trying to prove beyond telling casinos that they should basically ignore red chippers that might be counting (all but the most sweaty casinos already know this).

I think there are some useful articles on his site. This one - not so much.

The kiss could not have been more poisonous.

"Don's work is anti-intellectual and limiting --but buy it anyway"!

:-)

Two people so full of themselves that the only way they can attempt to prove their worth is to demean another reputable colleague.

Kind of sad.

Where have you been, Cyrus? Nice to see you here!

Don

Speaking of failing to read the text, you must have missed this part:

"As a member of the game protection community, I view the Illustrious 18 as an invaluable resource. I teach the Illustrious 18 in my seminars and trainings. Those involved with casino game protection around the world are taught to look for these specific strategy deviations."

If everyone puts their egos aside for a minute, you will recognize that EJ is putting out a notice to the Pro-APs that those of us in "the industry" are very familiar with the I18 and if you regularly use it, you might as well be betting a $5 base with a $1000 at every positive count. You will get caught.

I personally would enjoy a challenge. I'm tired of picking off APs like blind kids in a dodge ball game. Come up with something new. Bring us a real challenge.