Evidently my book review created some early Fourth of July fireworks. I apologize to those who already read my responses at RGE, as some of the following is redundant. However, my credibility has been questioned and I'd like to try to answer my critics.
CHIP HOARDING: The main controversy stemmed from my comments about converting 30K into chips. The problem in my original review is I wasn't clear enough on what I meant. First of all, the example was taken from Poker Nation (as Kim Lee correctly pointed out in a previous post), not BDTH. And I didn't spell it out well enough for everyone to get my point. There are a lot of good reasons to buy or hoard chips. But in that example, the players took their entire bankroll and converted it all into chips before playing a single hand. Why would you carry 100% of your BR first of all? And there is no need to buy chips and the ensuing paperwork before even knowing how much you will end up playing in that particular casino. The hassles of buying in and cashing out at each casino alone would be a nightmare. Plus putting all your BR into chips invites trouble for everyone except the most disciplines when the sessions start going South. Additionally the BP was to wait at the bar with his rack of chips until one of the three spotters found a RC of plus 60. I think that might be a rather long wait.
BET SPREAD: Some suggested I wasn't experienced in CC because I questioned going from a max bet of 2K to a max bet of 3 times 10K. I am quite familiar with the spreads necessary to beat BJ and have many times surmised most players don't win because they aren't aggressive enough in this area. However, the example above was to me an inconsistency in BDTH. To have a top bet of 2K for a lot of the book, then suddenly spreading to three hands of 10K seemed very odd. There are a lot of psychological and emotional reasons to stay with roughly the same top bet, regardless of casino limits. For instance, it you have a great weekend and win 30 top bets at 2K, then you might wipe it out in two rounds the next weekend by changing to 3 times 10K. Those swings are devastating. To me, it seemed like some elements of BDTH contained at least a semblance of a first hand story, but other times the author fabricated parts to fill out the puzzle and make it a little more sensational. When the only time in the entire book where they seem to lose is also the only time bets of 10K are mentioned, I questioned whether this was made up or the result of an out of control lush steaming and overbetting.
CARD CUTTING: I don't pretend to have the expertise in ST that others have. However, I asked my friends on the infamous Czech BJ team (who were very successful at ST) about cutting exactly 52 cards. They said it couldn't be done. Others have posted here claiming it can. I don't have the first hand knowledge to answer that one, but Kevin Lewis did say he could cut exactly 52 cards every time. The key word there is exactly. I find that claim very difficult to believe. Earlier in his essay, he stated they played HI-Lo because they "did not feel that the added value of more advanced systems outweighed the potential risk of casino error." Yet they gave up probably $1000 an hour by not switching to at least a two level count. If they didn't take the time or have the discipline to do a more advanced system, it is hard to imagine they put in the hours necessary to become that proficient in card cutting.
ESSAY: The real eye-opener for me was Kevin Lewis's essay at the end of BDTH. He suggests wanna-be card counters bet 4X kelly. He also says they "could have used the system employed by Dustin Hoffman's character in RainMain--One for bad, two for good." Any knowledgable BJ player who reads this essay (pages 252-257)will recognize how ludicrous this is. So my conclusion on the book was it far outstretched the limits of non-fiction. I hope this clears up some of the questions, but if not, let me know and I would be happy to try and clarify my views.
