Blackjack
reply by pm.Quote: GWAEwhat's the point of not discussing it for 30 days?
Quote: OnceDearI've exchanged emails and have indeed promised him a fair assessment. I've agreed with him that I won't discuss him or his system here for at least 30 days. Please suspend me if I do.
Time for the big reveal:-
I had a skype chat with the OP, a nice fella of similar vintage to me. I extended to him two offers: I would give a fair but critical analysis of his Blackjack system and if I saw any merit to it, I would assist him to monetize it.
If I could demonstrate to him that his system was not going to work, I would be saving him the grief of applying it in practice.
He gave me one big clue about his system, from which I deduced that it was of no merit (revealed later) From just that one clue, I told him that even without revealing his system to me, that I could already see a flaw in it. I think it's fair to say that that annoyed him! I'd criticised something he valued.
Pretty much straight off the bat, he excitedly showed me spreadsheets that demonstrated his prowess as a football betting tipster (That's soccer to you guys). I admitted that I was not too familiar with soccer betting but had a look through as a courtesy to him. He did seem to have some skill at such tipping, which I acknowledged, without any interest in how he did it. He was keen to monetize that skill by publishing a tipping service as a website. I offered technical assistance with such a venture, but tried to get him back to discussing his Blackjack system.
However he was very hesitant to trust me or anyone with his BlackJack system. He kept saying that he really didn't know what to do, as he really was afraid that someone would steal his ideas. For what it's worth, I think he was genuine and his reluctance was based on that fear.
So, I tried to explain that he could trust me, tried to earnestly reassure him. I again offered technical assistance in monetizing either or both of his BJ system or his football tipping skills.
But then he proposed a way of proving his system to me without revealing it. He would stake £5000 of his money playing BJ against me in the role of the Casino. Taking £5000 from me would be his "proof."
I feel reasonably justified in posting these snippets from a long email exchange between us. I have edited out some of the non-key aspects including a disagreement about the applicable house edge in the UK.
I understand that he may object to being quoted, but I'm not revealing any great confidences and I'm not attempting to show him in a poor light. I've only quoted a tiny part of our dialogue.
Indeed, I believe him to be a genuine fella who just needs assistance in seeing his nemesis.
Quote: Him in email> > ...You are certain my system doesn't work even though
> > you know nothing about it. I believe that it does so I suggest that you
> > be a casino and I come and play directly against you. If my system
> > works I will take your five Gs.
Quote: Me in email
... An interesting prospect.
But at best I'd have a 0.72% edge so ultimately the bet becomes my bankroll versus your bankroll. I'm not getting out of bed and certainly not risking 5 k with so low an edge. It wouldn't cover my expenses.
<snip>
> You'd never find a mutually trusted escrow. Beside you could be card counting, thus legitimately beating the house edge. I sure as hell would be.
<snip>
> It won't happen, though. You don't trust me, and I don't trust you, and we would never agree an escrow, let alone terms of engagement.
Quote: His reply by emailGiven that if I lose then you have my money. If I win then I have proved my point and we can start a serious discussion as to what to do with the method.
Quote: My reply to that"If I win then I have proved my point"
No you haven't. Not within a country mile!!!!
Let's for now assume ZERO house edge and I'm your casino.
Let's further assume no table limits and you place just one £5000 bet.
House edge is moot. you win. What has that proved? A winning system worthy of further analysis and investment of time? I don't think so!
We may as well have tossed a coin.
I would not deem it any proof of anything. I personally wouldn't be amused to make that bet. Not as a one time play. For a start, how could I know that you would have coughed up if you'd lost?
Quote: his reply to thatThe proof of the pudding is always in the eating. I am willing to put up 5k as I am confident with my method. Will you do the same?
There was some disagreement between us about whether the applicable house edge was 0.3%, 0.5% or 0.72%, but I said that was all moot because over any short head to head pitting his £5k against mine, it wasn't even relevant.
In the end, he chose to break off the discussion and to take his system to the casino himself. I wished him luck and withdrew my offers to assist.
Oh hum.
He revealed very little: just two facts that tell us what we need:-
The system relied on what he called 'strings' of results. I believe he meant what we would call runs or sequences'
The system relied on a set of different sized wagers: A range of 7 betting levels labelled A thru G
Quote:. It does not depend on the cards given on the table; I could make one bet in Las Vegas, the next in Melbourne, and the next in London and so on. It can be used on auto-shufflers and manual shoes, for any number of decks.
Quote:The idea is that you bet very low at the beginning and bet heavily at the end of betting.
That tells me that he believed that the universe was keeping track of the debt of fairness that it owed to him. Gambler's fallacy with knobs on! How would it succeed? By placing bigger bets to win back what was lost in earlier sessions: Where have we met that idea?
He had originally hoped to post his analysis workbooks. I've hosted them here for him...
http://www.oncedear.com/Stanford.xlsx
http://www.oncedear.com/Stanford.docx
After all, he did want them visible to us here!
I've read back about what he initially posted, and I note that those disclosures you've made are not only consistent with what he said publicly, but that what you've quoted is not from PM's, and is outside the board's jurisdiction. I do not think you've violated the rules with the posting above. I think what you've said is sufficient, though, and any further questions should be answered either via PM, or by the OP, unless directed at you and can be answered without further disclosure.
Baby halved. :)
BABBs made a funny......Quote: beachbumbabsruling on the info you've shared...
<snip>
Baby halved. :)
Situations like these are frustrating. The OP has an "AP" mentality of trying to find a different way to beat the game, which I applaud. But the biggest time waste and frustration is when someone refuses to believe the consensus that their little system is flawed. People treat their little systems like their babies and refuse to believe they could do anything wrong. That's not math. That's not science. That's not logic. It either works or it doesn't, and in this case it doesn't. If people would then stop wasting their time defending and making absolutely silly claims "If I beat you 1 on 1 playing 50 hands then I must be right!" then they could use that AP mentality to try again.
The VAST majority of all ideas, inventions, etc, did not come about on the first go around. People tried, they failed, they learned, and then they optimized and got better. I wish people would stop wasting time on flawed logic just because it's THEIR flawed logic.
Thanks for the analysis, attempt to discuss, and bringing us the results of your conversation OnceDear!
Quote: beachbumbabsruling on the info you've shared...
...I do not think you've violated the rules with the posting above. I think what you've said is sufficient, though....
Baby halved. :)
Thanks BBB. Whooooo. Did I just walk close to the edge? Sorry. $:o)
I would love to engage the OP in further dialogue about this and I'd like to encourage him back here, if I may.
Quote: OnceDearHe had originally hoped to post his analysis workbooks. I've hosted them here for him...
http://www.oncedear.com/Stanford.xlsx
http://www.oncedear.com/Stanford.docx
After all, he did want them visible to us here!
Documents un-published and links broken at the implied request of the OP.
