Beat The Dealer

I have a copy of the 1966 book. Has anyone else noticed or commented on the cover photo? The photo is apparently of a live game in progress. It looks like the real deal. But notice that there are glaring irregularities. The dealer is in the process of hitting a player's hand, and before the player has a chance to "wave off" and stand the dealer is drawing another card with her left hand. Also, even more glaring, the dealer has both their hole-card and up-card revealed!?

I just can't understand why a cover photo, on such a phenomenal book, depicting a game in progress, would not depict an ACCURATE game in progress. I'd contact Dr. Thorp and ask him myself, but I seem to have misplaced his number.

Because many times 100% authenticity for the masses isn't needed to display the gist of the image. Countless movies have mild goofs in them to no difference in appeal or box office. It's the contents that count. I wouldn't nit pick on perfection on a book cover. Better quality content than quality packaging.

Quote: Paigowdan

Because many times 100% authenticity for the masses isn't needed to display the gist of the image. Countless movies have mild goofs in them to no difference in appeal or box office. It's the contents that count. I wouldn't nit pick on perfection on a book cover. Better quality content than quality packaging.

I can appreciate what you're saying, but Dr. Thorp is a mathematician. His work is precise, intricate and exacting. I'm just perplexed that the cover photo, which could have been easily made to reflect a true game, does not. I could have been easily done right but wasn't.

More than likely he didn't design it. When the book was published for the masses the publishing company hired someone to come up with an appealing cover and they decided that a dealer showing 11 was better than accuracy.

Quote: geoff

More than likely he didn't design it. When the book was published for the masses the publishing company hired someone to come up with an appealing cover and they decided that a dealer showing 11 was better than accuracy.

That could be. Certainly, there has never been a cover photo of a blackjack book with the dealer having a 20 or a snapper.

Quote: Greasyjohn

I have a copy of the 1966 book. Has anyone else noticed or commented on the cover photo? The photo is apparently of a live game in progress. It looks like the real deal. But notice that there are glaring irregularities. The dealer is in the process of hitting a player's hand, and before the player has a chance to "wave off" and stand the dealer is drawing another card with her left hand. Also, even more glaring, the dealer has both their hole-card and up-card revealed!?

I just can't understand why a cover photo, on such a phenomenal book, depicting a game in progress, would not depict an ACCURATE game in progress. I'd contact Dr. Thorp and ask him myself, but I seem to have misplaced his number.

I believe it has symbolic meaning. All players at that table have knowledge of the hole card. Anyone who knows blackjack understands that this will probably allow them to 'beat the dealer." How else would you illustrate a never before heard of strategy called card-counting? You could go the violent route, and picture a group of people literally beating a dealer, but this may send too mixed a message. You could show a guy counting in his head, but this may be too obscure and not communicate the message. Since the dealer's depicted hand is stronger than everyone's at the table even after their turn is done, I think the cover simultaneously counter-suggests that its strategy does not work miracles.
I don't see this is as knitpicking because that implies you are complaining about trivial defects. When the book is a classic, and you perceive an error, you should just assume you are as yet unable to explain why you are wrong.

Quote: Sonuvabish

When the book is a classic, and you perceive an error, you should just assume you are as yet unable to explain why you are wrong.

Sort of like with the bible?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Sort of like with the bible?

Exactly.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Sort of like with the bible?

Edit: When a non-fiction book is a classic, and you perceive an error...

I'm not precluding the possibility of modernizing outdated information.

Cut Thorpe some slack. Knew his nephew who says he is a standup guy. Think he's 84 or thereabouts. I bought original book in 62 or 63. I think it was $1.99. An hours pay for a honest worker, Don't say it, cesspit ! The fold and tear insert strategy cards were cardboard back then , not laminated plastic LOL

Quote: Buzzard

Cut Thorpe some slack. Knew his nephew who says he is a standup guy. Think he's 84 or thereabouts. I bought original book in 62 or 63. I think it was $1.99. An hours pay for a honest worker, Don't say it, cesspit ! The fold and tear insert strategy cards were cardboard back then , not laminated plastic LOL

Beat The Dealer is one of my favorite books. I bought mine at a library used book sale for 50 cents. Perfect condition. Now, if I came across Beyond Counting at such a sale that would be like finding a 1909 s vdb penny. The Casino gambler's Guide, Cheating At Blackjack, and my favorite TWGBJB are also books I treasure.

My local library has a rack or two of free books that they don't want in their inventory for a variety of reasons. A few years ago I found Super System there. A little glue on the binding is all it needed. Danke!

I'm guessing he had nothing to do with the cover. If that were his first book he might not have even seen the cover before it went to print. Also, the artist is looking to create something that he thinks has some power over an observer.

First time authors usually have no control whatsoever over the title under which their book is published or the cover art. No control. No right of approval. No right to even know what it will be in advance.

A photo from an actual game might involve getting distribution rights from the participants so its easier to simply hire models who have signed contracts or use stock photos from standard industry sources.

Are you two explaining why the picture is inaccurate, or why it is symbolic? This may call for a poll!