Has anyone heard of a blackjack player named Richard Harvey?

I'm reading his book titled "Cutting Edge Blackjack". He claims aces are bad for the players and you should increase your bet when all the aces have been dealt. This makes no sense to me. Can anyone think of why this might make sense? Has anyone tested or used Richard Harvey's strategies? He claims card counting is flawed and apparently can get better results with his system.

Quote: aaronj121

I'm reading his book titled "Cutting Edge Blackjack". He claims aces are bad for the players and you should increase your bet when all the aces have been dealt. This makes no sense to me. Can anyone think of why this might make sense? Has anyone tested or used Richard Harvey's strategies? He claims card counting is flawed and apparently can get better results with his system.

1.) If this is him, he doesn't seem to take criticism very well:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?s=8a4d3592547e8a123b73a5291eb1919e&t=17530

2.) His system relies on (snicker), "Predicting," the dealer's hole card...amongst other things.

3.) You could have a newbie sit down at a Blackjack Table, not knowing that an Ace can be worth 1 or 11 initially, who might accidentally play better than the way Harvey advises.

4.) Dissecting his Ace argument: Okay, Naturals Pay 3:2 if the dealer does not have a natural, if the Delaer has a Natural and you do not, then you lose your bet. If both Player & Dealer have a Natural it is a Push. What else do you need to know? You can't get a Natural without an Ace.

Quote: aaronj121

I'm reading his book titled "Cutting Edge Blackjack". He claims aces are bad for the players and you should increase your bet when all the aces have been dealt. This makes no sense to me. Can anyone think of why this might make sense? Has anyone tested or used Richard Harvey's strategies? He claims card counting is flawed and apparently can get better results with his system.

I bought Harvey's book a couple years back during a moment of utter boredom while at Barnes & Noble with my wife.

The book is indecipherable. Might be the worst literary purchase I ever made.

the best worst book i ever bought was phill hellmuths "play poker like the pros". enjoyed reading his terrible advice many times on the toilet. although his only play his top ten premium hands approach i will admit is a decent place to start for a novice to keep them out of too much trouble however no where near optimal it is.

Return or burn that book.

I didn't realize he had such a bad rep. I feel like some of his findings might have potential though. I've heard mixed reviews. I read good reviews from his seminars that say he actually proves his strategies. Why would he give seminars if it was all a bunch of crap? What would he do in the seminars? In the thread you attached he seems legitimately angry at people that discredit his findings and talk bad about him (as anyone who has worked hard for something would). I'm just saying maybe he actually has done extensive research and maybe his strategies do work. It's possible that he's just not the best at explaining things. Does the wizard still respond to these forums? I would like to get his take on this.

His seminars are by "invitation only". You have to join his "club" and then you have the right to attend one of his expensive seminars. I'm guessing he had public seminars and first and got belittled and embarrassed, so now he has to know you before you can attend. Funny stuff.

ZCore13

Here's an example:

http://www.blackjacktoday.com/BlackjackBasicStrategySucks.htm

Please scroll down to, "Never Say Always."

Okay...

I think my flippin' brain is bleeding just from reading that...

Let's start off by saying that I could be greatly misunderstanding what Harvey seems to be trying to convey in this section, so I'm going to give him that, he may have an out by virtue of how goddamn murky his writing is.

Okay, the first thing is that you are at third base with A-A, and Harvey is stating that Blackjack Basic Strategy says to Always Split Aces, but the player may be better off to hit in this scenario. Harvey's reasoning (in this example) is that we are in the second round of a Seven-Player single-deck game and we know that six 10's, one 9 and two 8's appeared in the first round. The result is a count of +4 using Harvey's, "All-Inclusive," counting method, which I have no desire to know or learn anything about.

Okay, now Harvey points out that there are five tens up on the Table, so boom, we know that there have been a total of eleven tens out between the two hands and it is now our turn to act.

Problem 1

Quote:

Because eleven of fourteen 10s have been dealt, we know there are three left, among the unknown cards. How many unknown cards are there?

Wait, what? Eleven of Fourteen 10's? Where the fuck does he get fourteen tens?

Hold on, I'm not a Blackjack expert. I don't know what a deck of cards is. I'm horrible at Math. Let me catch up.

Okay, I know that Tens, Jacks, Queens and Kings are all Ten-Value cards in the game of Blackjack. So, there are four types of ten-value cards. I also know that there are four suits in the game of Blackjack which are: Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades.

So, if there are four suits and four Ten-Values, then there are a total of 4 * 4 = 14 Total Ten Value Cards in a single-deck.

Wait, what? 4 * 4 = 16, not 14.

Problem 2

Quote:

Because my studies have shown that an average of 22 cards are dealt per round at 7-player tables and the average player hand consists of 3 cards, we estimate there are 10 undealt cards (do the math) and there are eleven facedown cards on the table , for a total of 21.

What?

You do the Math, you want me to buy your stupid book!

A.) How is an average of 22 cards dealt per round with an average player hand of three cards at all relevant to this? How many cards came out last hand that we know about?

-He doesn't include that information. All he is telling us is that there were six Tens, One Nine, and Two Eights; he doesn't mention what, if any, other cards we saw in that first hand.

B.) We estimate that there are ten undealt cards. Why would we estimate that there are ten undealt cards? It's a goddamn single-deck game, exactly how many undealt cards are there? The game started with fifty-two cards, why do I need to estimate anything?

Quote:

So three of 21 are 10s – the cards we'd want the most in splitting. Do these odds warrant splitting? You'd have a 14% likelihood of getting a 10 on your first Ace; half the normal 31% odds (based upon the proportion of 10s in a complete deck).

A.) Three of the 21 Cards are Tens.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! Even if we assume that there are 21 unknown cards, and we should know exactly how many there are, this is still all premised on the assumption that a standard 52-card deck only has fourteen f*%%*%$*&*$%ing ten value cards! It has sixteen! Five of the Twenty-One cards could be Tens. Five! One-Two-Three-Four-Five! FIVE!

He then indicates that the probability of drawing a Ten on the first card is 3/21 = 14% on the split, where the probability of a complete deck is 31%. What he fails to include is that the probability of drawing it on the second card (the first failing) is 3/20 = 15%. The probability of neither card being a Ten is 18/21 * 17/20 = 0.7285714285714285 which makes the probability of AT LEAST one card being a Ten 1 - 0.7285714285714285 = 0.27142857142857146...and if you get a Ten, you will likely at least Push the overall bet because the Dealer has checked and does not have Blackjack.

But, guess what? None of it matters because there are SIXTEEN Ten-Value cards in a deck.

First card Ten = 5/21 = 23.8%

Second Card Ten (if not first card) 5/20 = 25%

Probability of neither card being a Ten: 16/21 * 15/20 = 0.5714285714285714

So, you have a 43% chance of drawing AT LEAST one Ten which will likely win that part of the bet against a dealer showing Queen who you KNOW does not have a Natural.

Furthermore, what there are three left of are Nines, so that gives you a 20 total on either Ace.

What Richard Harvey Did

What Richard Harvey is doing, in order to disprove the tenets of Basic Strategy, is trying to come up with a very specific situation in which one would not employ the tenet, "Always Split Aces," and certainly there may be such a situation, which is why expert card-counters often employ what are called, "Composition dependent strategies."

The problem here is, in Harvey's one example in which he attempts to show that Splitting Aces is the wrong play compositionally, he relies upon an extremely bad count AND he lies about the number of tens that a deck of cards starts out with. If he doesn't lie, and he thinks that there are actually fourteen tens in a deck of fifty-two cards, then he's simply a drivelling idiot.

Honestly, as soon as I came to that part, I couldn't believe how obvious that was. My jaw dropped. I had to read it three times to make sure I was reading that right.

One can tell by his writing and business practices that he is not the brightest bulb. Then look at his 3 posts in that other forum to see how ill informed he is on free speech and the rights of individuals to have opinions. He's a moron and I hope he sees this and calls his attorney on me first thing Monday morning.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

One can tell by his writing and business practices that he is not the brightest bulb. Then look at his 3 posts in that other forum to see how ill informed he is on free speech and the rights of individuals to have opinions. He's a moron and I hope he sees this and calls his attorney on me first thing Monday morning.

ZCore13

Richard Harvey: This is libel! I'll have your ass in Court for the statements you've made against me, Mission146, too!

ZCore13: In case you weren't aware, commentary based on information and statements that YOU have made public would be completely protected by the First Amendment.

Richard Harvey: What the Hell do guns have to do with this?

NOTE: The above post does not contain actual quotes from either Richard Harvey nor Zcore13 and is meant for parody only.

Quote: Mission146

Richard Harvey: This is libel! I'll have your ass in Court for the statements you've made against me, Mission146, too!

ZCore13: In case you weren't aware, commentary based on information and statements that YOU have made public would be completely protected by the First Amendment.

Richard Harvey: What the Hell do guns have to do with this?

NOTE: The above post does not contain actual quotes from either Richard Harvey nor Zcore13 and is meant for parody only.

Nice!

ZCore13