Vegas shutting down again rumor
Imagine sitting in the center of each table.
Mission, kewlj specifically told me he sits in the center seat.
https://images.app.goo.gl/M84s5vgmkerSE6w86
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis appears to be a stock photo of the blackjack tables under the big dome at Caesars Palace.
Imagine sitting in the center of each table.
Mission, kewlj specifically told me he sits in the center seat.
https://images.app.goo.gl/M84s5vgmkerSE6w86
So leave it to Alan to go search for (cherry pick) a scenario that isn't ideal. I mean first, that was covered in "when conditions permit".
But lets examine a couple of these cherry picked situations from Alan.
First (top) picture: The table on the right is NOT next to the middle table, as I said was necessary. It is at a 90% angle. So happens it wouldn't make it untrackable. It just would be a different angle and the key seat would be different than a table directly next to it.
But let's look at the middle table in the picture and the table to the left, which are directly next to each other, which is what I was talking about. Ideal situation for tracking a second table. If you were sitting in the middle seat, looking at the table to your left there is one key blocking seat, the second seat. If that seat isn't occupied you have a clear view of the felt. Now because Caesars is spread out just slightly as compared to some other places that the tables are tighter, the playing area on the felt might not be within the peripheral vision, as it often is. I might just have to turn my head 2 inches in this scenario. Big deal.
Now let's examine the photo directly below the main photo (2nd in). That is more a photo of tables directly lined up next to each other, which would be ideal. So if I am sitting in the third seat at that first table (table to the right), you can clearly see there is one key seat blocking the view of the playing surface on the felt....the next to last seat (next to 3rd base). If that seat is unoccupied, you have a clear view. This is the meaning of "when conditions permit"
Do me a favor. Keep doing what you are doing. Never consider playing with an advantage. Just hand over your money to the casinos. Better yet, save yourself some time and switch your social security direct deposit so that it goes directly to the casino. Lol.
Quote: kewljDon't even bother responding. I am done with you Alan. You are trolling.
Do me a favor. Keep doing what you are doing. Never consider playing with an advantage. Just hand over your money to the casinos. Better yet, save yourself some time and switch your social security direct deposit so that it goes directly to the casino. Lol.
Are these insults necessary?
I'm asking everyone to go to the casino of their choice. Sit in the middle seat and see for themselves.
By the way, my post responded to Mission who asked about which seat.
Quote: AlanMendelson
I'm asking everyone to go to the casino of their choice. Sit in the middle seat and see for themselves.
Yes, you KEEP asking that. Obviously there aren't enough people interested to do that. So far one person has taken you up and done just that and reported back what he found. You didn't like his findings which contradict what you are seeking, so you started attacking him.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAre these insults necessary?
I don't see an insult. You have made it clear you like recreational gambling, playing -EV (and seem to resent those that play with an advantage), so I am just saying....save time and effort, send your funds directly. :/
But if you want to know the truth, I resent your now 3 year effort to discredit me. And I resent that your trolling / game playing has now driven a 20 year professional AP away saying he wants no more to do with this and just can't deal with you.
Quote: kewljI don't see an insult. You have made it clear you like recreational gambling, playing -EV (and seem to resent those that play with an advantage), so I am just saying....save time and effort, send your funds directly. :/
But if you want to know the truth, I resent your now 3 year effort to discredit me. And I resent that your trolling / game playing has now driven a 20 year professional AP away saying he wants no more to do with this and just can't deal with you.
I'm really sorry you feel this way towards me. I'm actually trying to understand your system, or practice or strategy.
So let's consider a different craps pit. This photo, and I dont know what casino it's from.
Take a look and how many seats need to be empty to give you a clear view of a neighboring table. Notice all of the tables are in a straight line.
https://images.app.goo.gl/6Yd4NkCR78a8P9tn6
Quote: kewljBy the way, the middle seat isn't necessary for tracking a second table. It just so happens that if it is a true middle seat (5 seat table), you have the possibility of tracking tables on either side equally. More options. :) There are also other reasons that I prefer the middle seat that have nothing to do with tracking a second table, so it is just my preference.
Man KJ you just blew Alan's mind.
Suggesting you can keep count at THREE TABLES simultaneously by watching from the middle seat tables on both sides
Quote: darkozMan KJ you just blew Alan's mind.
Suggesting you can keep count at THREE TABLES simultaneously by watching from the middle seat tables on both sides
I missed that.
I thought the middle seat allowed him to choose between the two tables on either side... but not count all three.
1. The report is not reliable, due to either confusion, flawed memory or due to insincerity.
2. The system was not truly random. Ex:
- the player was cheating
- the casino was cheating
- there was an undetected defect in gaming equipment
- something else, i.e., something that you don't know you don't know.
3. It really happened.
The above explanations are listed in order of frequency, according to my experience.
Regarding the second item: When you observe human behavior that makes no sense to you or you become aware of a statistically improbable event/coincidence, then you should study the situation more closely. You often will learn something that falls into the category of "things you don't know you don't know."
Again, I think KJ has made it clear he's not all that interested in meeting up with people on The Forums. If he were to decide to meet up with someone from the Community I really don't think I would be at the top of his list considering the fact we have had some heated issues on another forum.Quote: WizardI'm willing to serve as a witness to verify kj's ability to track two tables, should a challenge come of it. However, I can track only one. Perhaps Axel the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just love how when someone makes a statement, challenge or whatever it turns into something completely different from the original intent/ statemen.
Pick somebody claims they can jump 3 feet off the ground and somehow the guy that can jump 3 feet off the ground must now be able to jump over the fountains at Caesar's Palace.
I think we have to look at KJ's original post that led two this to table counting argument. I'm just kind of making this up of how this all started but it was something loosely along these lines.
KJ claims he makes x amount per year on average putting x amount of hours in with an x amount that spread. Someone else claims that's not possible, KJ claims it is because he counts two tables and that adds x amount to his EV. Alan jumps in claiming it's not possible to count two tables accurately especially without looking very suspicious. Alan doesn't seem to understand it doesn't need to be a hundred percent perfect it's just a tool you can use to help increase your hourly rate.
If whatever KJ originally said is possible and doable at multiple locations in Las Vegas then Alan should shut up about it and if what KJ originally said is only possible in rare situations then KJ should shut up about it.
Quote: darkoz
Suggesting you can keep count at THREE TABLES simultaneously by watching from the middle seat tables on both sides
I have done it darkoz, probably not in a couple years. You REALLY need conditions to be just right to attempt this and are only going to be able to do so for a round or two at the most and then you will have to drop one (the worser count of the two).
When I say the middle seat will allow you the possibility to track either table, I mean first one and if that count isn't heading better (more positive) than the table you are playing and the other side game was starting and conditions were right, you would switch to tracking the other side.
I think what some people are missing, is that you aren't tracking any second table for all that long. Just long enough to know if it is a better opportunity than the one you currently are playing. Basically if I am tracking a second table and the count goes negative at any point, I cease tracking it. I am only looking for a count at that second table to go positive early and be a better opportunity than the table I am currently playing.
But this discussion is way past anything beneficial to me. I only mentioned it in the context that there are stronger things a player can do, to improve his game and results than higher counts which only improve results minimally. Other than that, I should have never gone any further with this discussion. And that is precisely why probably even more players haven't confirmed that they have at times done this. No benefit.
To Wizard: I am a little surprised that the thought of tracking a second table never occurred to you. I don't know your blackjack playing history, just how much card counting you have done, but for a player that wongs out (exits) negative counts and finds a new game, scouting that next game before you wong out is a natural progression.
And don't tell me you can't track two tables. Maybe you haven't done it, or even thought of doing it, but YOU most certainly could. It doesn't take as much effort as Alan is trying to make it sound. You simply need to track a second game for a short time to see if it becomes a better opportunity than the game you are playing.
We know some people have the skill to technically count two tables under the right conditions, I don't even think Alan is disputing that.Quote: rxwineI would be surprised if no one had that skill, more than hearing that some people do.
I think the real question is... Are there enough locations in Las Vegas where counting two tables can be accomplished in a manner that can be reliable enough to add a worthwhile amount of extra value to the card counter with relative ease.
Quote: gordonm888There are three possible explanations for a report of a statistically improbable event.
1. The report is not reliable, due to either confusion, flawed memory or due to insincerity.
2. The system was not truly random. Ex:
- the player was cheating
- the casino was cheating
- there was an undetected defect in gaming equipment
- something else, i.e., something that you don't know you don't know.
3. It really happened.
The above explanations are listed in order of frequency, according to my experience.
Regarding the second item: When you observe human behavior that makes no sense to you or you become aware of a statistically improbable event/coincidence, then you should study the situation more closely. You often will learn something that falls into the category of "things you don't know you don't know."
Top notch post. Deserves an award.
Quote: AxelWolfWe know some people have the skill to technically count two tables under the right conditions, I don't even think Alan is disputing that.
I think the real question is... Are there enough locations in Las Vegas where counting two tables can be accomplished in a manner that can be reliable enough to add a worthwhile amount of extra value to the card counter with relative ease.
Axelwolf summed it up nicely. Thank you.
By the way... when Kewlj first made his claim about being able to count two tables simultaneously while playing at one, another member of that forum joked he could count three tables. And now Kewlj says he can count three?
Do I hear four?
Quote: AlanMendelsonAxelwolf summed it up nicely.
Do I hear four?
Do I hear 18?
Quote: DeMangoDo I hear 18?
I counted 37 once, but it was a sizable pit.
Quote: redietzTop notch post. Deserves an award.
Quote: AlanMendelsonBy the way... when Kewlj first made his claim about being able to count two tables simultaneously while playing at one, another member of that forum joked he could count three tables. And now Kewlj says he can count three?
Do I hear four?
Alan, I am not going to call you a liar because that would be an insult, but you are lying. Quite frankly, my experience with you over 3 years on several forums has been that of a man incapable of telling the truth, right from the intentional blurry pictures you took. That was fundamentally dishonest and you have only gotten worse from there.
I assume I am not allowed to link to another forum, so I will just post word for word 2 quotes of Alan's that are most revealing.
1). "Let me tell you something: it's me, people who are honest, and then the rest of you casino "APs" and in the real world you casino APs lose."
2). "So, if the AP community will finally accept that I saw a random shooter throw 18 Yos in a row (I didn't do it -- a random shooter did) and that I hit my first $100K royal within the first 300 hands I ever played of $25 Bonus Poker, then I WILL ACCEPT YOU CAN COUNT TWO BLACKJACK TABLES."
#1 Clearly demonstrates Alan's anti-AP bias. He claims he is telling the truth and all AP's are lying. I am not a psychiatrist, nor would want to see inside his head, but it would seem he is a little bitter about his own gambling results as compared to players that actually try to play with an advantage.
#2 While Alan seeing (or not seeing) 18 y.o.'s in a row and his claim of $100,000 royal flushes have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, it clearly shows Alan's motivation, for now 3 years of trying to discredit me. Alan is flat out saying because people find Alan not credible, he is going to refuse to accept my claim, which he has now done for 3 years. He is entitled to not believe my claim, but as always Alan is being dishonest and this statement clearly shows that.
Quote: Mission146Why would anyone dispute that he hit his first 100K royal within his first 300 hands of playing that particular denomination? That doesn’t strike me as a particularly fanciful claim.
I don't know. I wasn't part of that discussion. But the quote clearly shows Alan saying well if they aren't going to believe me, then I am not going to believe you and he has carried that on for 3 years now. It is just dishonest.
Quote: kewljAlan, I am not going to call you a liar because that would be an insult, but you are lying. Quite frankly, my experience with you over 3 years on several forums has been that of a man incapable of telling the truth, right from the intentional blurry pictures you took. That was fundamentally dishonest and you have only gotten worse from there.
I assume I am not allowed to link to another forum, so I will just post word for word 2 quotes of Alan's that are most revealing.
1). "Let me tell you something: it's me, people who are honest, and then the rest of you casino "APs" and in the real world you casino APs lose."
2). "So, if the AP community will finally accept that I saw a random shooter throw 18 Yos in a row (I didn't do it -- a random shooter did) and that I hit my first $100K royal within the first 300 hands I ever played of $25 Bonus Poker, then I WILL ACCEPT YOU CAN COUNT TWO BLACKJACK TABLES."
#1 Clearly demonstrates Alan's anti-AP bias. He claims he is telling the truth and all AP's are lying. I am not a psychiatrist, nor would want to see inside his head, but it would seem he is a little bitter about his own gambling results as compared to players that actually try to play with an advantage.
#2 While Alan seeing (or not seeing) 18 y.o.'s in a row and his claim of $100,000 royal flushes have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, it clearly shows Alan's motivation, for now 3 years of trying to discredit me. Alan is flat out saying because people find Alan not credible, he is going to refuse to accept my claim, which he has now done for 3 years. He is entitled to not believe my claim, but as always Alan is being dishonest and this statement clearly shows that.
Enough is enough with these attacks.
Quote: AlanMendelsonEnough is enough with these attacks.
What attacks? I posted your own words, which clearly shows what this is all about.
Quote: Mission146Why would anyone dispute that he hit his first 100K royal within his first 300 hands of playing that particular denomination? That doesn’t strike me as a particularly fanciful claim.
It's not. But he literally thinks that 18 yos and hitting a royal in 300 hands are the same probability, while counting a 2nd table for a few rounds by turning your head 60 degrees is impossible.
Quote: sabreIt's not. But he literally thinks that 18 yos and hitting a royal in 300 hands are the same probability, while counting a 2nd table for a few rounds by turning your head 60 degrees is impossible.
Where does this come from?
Quote: kewljWhat attacks? I posted your own words, which clearly shows what this is all about.
I dont know what you're quoting and what the context of those quotes are.
It amazes me that you can so easily put your finger on these quotes when you say they go back three years.
The sheer number of posts is surprising.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI dont know what you're quoting and what the context of those quotes are.
It amazes me that you can so easily put your finger on these quotes when you say they go back three years.
The sheer number of posts is surprising.
Well, if I am allowed I will be happy to post a link.
In the meantime, or even if I am allowed, YOU should let this go. YOU brought this fight here on page 48 of this thread. No one was discussing tracking multiple tables, so you obviously just wanted to start this up again.
The facts are, I play blackjack for a living and tracking a second table is a technique I use, WHEN CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT AND I AM ABLE TO. A dozen other players have gone on record as saying they have done so, when condition permit.
And then there is you, who by your own admission doesn't play much blackjack, who keeps going on, about how it doesn't seem possible to you. I mean seriously, why would you argue something for 3 years that by your own admission, you know little about?
If that's the case then I can control two dice when conditions are right, too.
That should end the discussion.
Quote: AlanMendelsonOkay. You count two tables when conditions are right.
If that's the case then I can control two dice when conditions are right, too.
That should end the discussion.
That is your problem Alan. In your mind you have linked these two topics, when they have nothing to do with each other. The fact that people don't believe you, has nothing to do with tracking a second table in blackjack.
And I will tell you another blackjack technique that you have been fighting me on and that is that you don't have to see every card to know you are playing the next round at an advantage. You can walk by a table see many small cards on the table and have an advantage on the next round despite that there may have been 2 decks played already that you did not see. Stanford Wong proved this.
YOU don't get to argue these things just because they don't seem logical to you. That would be like me going down to Nasa and saying I don't believe it is possible to launch a rocket into space. And I am in no way comparing card counting to rocket science. I am just saying you are arguing things you obviously have little or no knowledge about. And then you get mad and hurt when I get frustrated with you.
The second occurs in zero casinos in the US.
I submit the following as evidence.
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj
Quote: kewlj
And I will tell you another blackjack technique that you have been fighting me on and that is that you don't have to see every card to know you are playing the next round at an advantage.
Stop ... everyone knows this. Any unseen card is paper. Missing the first deck dealt in a 5/6 deck pen game is equivalent to playing a 4/6 deck game. You just adjust for the cards seen in your deck estimation. You can't blindly use the discard tray. Arguing otherwise is inane.
I quit.
Wizard... once again I'm asking you to disable my account.
I'm outta here.
Kewlj has the last word.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm going to make this easy for you Kewlj.
I quit.
Wizard... once again I'm asking you to disable my account.
I'm outta here.
Kewlj has the last word.
Alan you brought this fight here. I don't know what you want from me. You can leave if you want. Doesn't change the fact that what you are arguing with me has nothing to do with people believing you and your claims.
Shank of the Evening « The Word Detective
http://www.word-detective.com/2011/05/shank-of-the-evening/
"I do public speaking professionally and every time I’m MC for an event I use that phrase all the time meaning the program is almost over. Because if you look at a butchers chart of a cow or pig the shank is the back leg near the end. So the shank of an evening or program means you’re near the end. Hope this helps." - Tim
Quote: kewljAlan, I am not going to call you a liar because that would be an insult, but you are lying. Quite frankly, my experience with you over 3 years on several forums has been that of a man incapable of telling the truth, right from the intentional blurry pictures you took. That was fundamentally dishonest and you have only gotten worse from there.
I assume I am not allowed to link to another forum, so I will just post word for word 2 quotes of Alan's that are most revealing.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm going to make this easy for you Kewlj.
I quit.
Wizard... once again I'm asking you to disable my account.
I'm outta here.
Kewlj has the last word.
This bickering should have been nipped in the bud, several pages ago, IMHO.
But we are where we are. The thread has been hijacked with a disagreement imported from VCT.
And now it's time for a time out, so here's what I'll do.
Alan, I'm going to suspend your account for 3 days. Not as a penalty for anything, but because you asked Wizard to suspend you. After those 3 days, I'm going to unsuspend and then you can choose to stay or go. If you choose to stay, you might want to Block KewlJ.
KewlJ, I see that you are trying to stay within the rules here, but I sense that your frustration is getting the better of you. Some folks just don't debate in the same way as we might like or expect.
In considering whether you overstepped the mark and insulted Alan: my logic is this....
"Alan is a liar" : Would be a clear Personal Insult
"Alan is lying" : Would still be a personal insult, as it implies the same and is not given as an opinion.
"[Alan is] a man incapable of telling the truth," : Another personal insult.
"I don't believe Alan for one second" : Not a personal insult as it is an opinion.
KewlJ, I'm going to suspend you for 3 days, for your general attack on his personal integrity in red above. I'm sorry this wasn't nipped in the bud sooner.
Keeping posts on-topic related to the title would be an extremely positive improvement on this forum, although my experience elsewhere is that going off on a very severe tangent that has nothing to do with anything is a common occurrence. So there is no hope in that regard. But if the admins ever decided to add an off-topic deletion policy, or splitting off a divergence, I would be in favor of it. But from what I've seen, implementing it would, in and of itself, generate even more forks in the road.
Returning to the off-topic topic, it's no longer about how many tables can be counted. It's like that movie where the main character is being beaten to a pulp by the bad guy (Cool Hand Luke?) and everyone in the crowd wants the guy to just stay down, but he keeps getting up to get pummeled, again, and again, and again. The thread is now two or three more levels removed from it's origin, and, in fact, from any reality. It's like two punch-drunk, senseless fighters going at it with no real recollection of what it is they're fighting about. They should both stop getting up after every knockdown. Maybe three days will do it, but I'm betting the over on how many more days it will take.
I'm going to start a new thread with an appropriate title. I'd appreciate, for my own benefit if for no one else, replies that stay on point.
You go girl! *Z-snapQuote: OnceDearQuote: kewljAlan, I am not going to call you a liar because that would be an insult, but you are lying. Quite frankly, my experience with you over 3 years on several forums has been that of a man incapable of telling the truth, right from the intentional blurry pictures you took. That was fundamentally dishonest and you have only gotten worse from there.
I assume I am not allowed to link to another forum, so I will just post word for word 2 quotes of Alan's that are most revealing.
This bickering should have been nipped in the bud, several pages ago, IMHO.
But we are where we are. The thread has been hijacked with a disagreement imported from VCT.
And now it's time for a time out, so here's what I'll do.
Alan, I'm going to suspend your account for 3 days. Not as a penalty for anything, but because you asked Wizard to suspend you. After those 3 days, I'm going to unsuspend and then you can choose to stay or go. If you choose to stay, you might want to Block KewlJ.
KewlJ, I see that you are trying to stay within the rules here, but I sense that your frustration is getting the better of you. Some folks just don't debate in the same way as we might like or expect.
In considering whether you overstepped the mark and insulted Alan: my logic is this....
"Alan is a liar" : Would be a clear Personal Insult
"Alan is lying" : Would still be a personal insult, as it implies the same and is not given as an opinion.
"[Alan is] a man incapable of telling the truth," : Another personal insult.
"I don't believe Alan for one second" : Not a personal insult as it is an opinion.
KewlJ, I'm going to suspend you for 3 days, for your general attack on his personal integrity in red above. I'm sorry this wasn't nipped in the bud sooner.
What's the status on mask usage in Las Vegas right now? I know at McCarran recently people were pretty good about it.
Quote: MintyI guess I just don't see the point of arguing 30+ pages. Seems like a waste of time and effort at that point.
What's the status on mask usage in Las Vegas right now? I know at McCarran recently people were pretty good about it.
I would say over 95% of places are enforcing the mask rule. I saw a fight break out in a bar over the weekend because a patron didn't want to wear the mask and another patron had a problem with him not wearing it.
Quote: MintyIt's a shame that it would happen that way. People shouldn't go to these places that are enforcing it if they won't follow the rules.
You are absolutely correct. In this case it was at a bar so I assume alcohol may have been involved.
Quote: DRichYou are absolutely correct. In this case it was at a bar so I assume alcohol may have been involved.
With different states there are different levels of enforcement and that could play into it in a place that draws people nationwide. In IL, where I live, you need a mask to enter a bar or restaurant and can take it off when seated at your table. If you have to, for whatever reason get up, you have to put it back on. The level of enforcement I am hearing from people who have recently visited Vegas is they make you keep the mask on unless you are actively eating or drinking. That is a level of enforcement that is more strict than many places nationwide
What the Wizard suggested to actually verify it with witness is about as close as you will get. Granted, that witness must equal the Wizards own credibility....which is probably #1 on this forum.
Lotta wasted bandwidth of whose internet claim is strongest....or even strong.
