Poll

3 votes (11.11%)
12 votes (44.44%)
7 votes (25.92%)
3 votes (11.11%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
4 votes (14.81%)
3 votes (11.11%)
No votes (0%)
13 votes (48.14%)

27 members have voted

Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 1959
June 24th, 2017 at 2:28:13 PM permalink
I was a regular on his forum at cardcounter.com over a decade ago. I always felt that Eliot was knowledgable and had integrity.
98Clubs
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 1716
June 24th, 2017 at 2:53:05 PM permalink
Many of the on-line poker scandals, gimmicks, and black-hatting were in part discovered, or proven by teliot (and others such as the Wiz) at the request of the fleeced. That particular industry (OLG) may never fully recover. So yeah, there's bound to be haters, but the the Gen. Public owes him and the others involved a debt of gratitude for the expositions.

"If ya ain't cheatin' ya ain't tryin'."

Regards
98
Recent epitaph: Found dead by a Pokemon Go Player
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 553
June 25th, 2017 at 8:07:20 AM permalink
I have mixed feelings about T. Eliot Richardson. Let me say that I have never met him I know him through his writings and posts.

1. I do use his Advanced Advantage Play book as a reference.

2. I feel he was a good gaming mathematician -but not a creative one. He did a lot of original analysis of games and side-bets and he seems to have been careful and fairly comprehensive - which is a strong praise for a mathematician. Generally, his methods were not original - in particular, he took a couple of mathematical methods and just applied them over and over. He offered some new ideas on "counting systems" but most of his "original counting systems" were impractical.

Example: I have seen him calculate "Effect of Removal" coefficients for card ranks on dozens of games and sidebets. But, I have never seen him wonder (in his writings) about any concerns with the EOR method. Are EOR coefficients still valid when applied to the removal of large multiples of cards? What about games where the importance of one rank is dependent upon another rank? Eliot never seemed to be curious about those kind of issues -at least not in his writings.

3. Whether its physical security, cyber security or game protection security, there is a concept called the "design basis threat" -its a defined threat which security professionals use to assess vulnerability and to design protective systems.

Eliot seemed to fall into a trap that many security professionals fall into - they exaggerate the threat to security, presumably in order to keep themselves employed. In physical security for facilities, I've seen unrealistic design basis threats be defined like something out a James Bond movie - terrorists coming over the ridge with combat helicopters and coordinated SWAT-teams, with help from the "insider threat." Aww, c'mon.

Eliot fell into this 'Aww, c'mon' trap. He exaggerated the capabilities of APs. He quoted unrealistic return rates for computer-perfect counting systems that would be impossible to implement, and the effects of a dealer flashing all three hole cards in Mississippi Stud and silly stuff like that. To his credit, he usually admitted it was "silly stuff" in the fine print- but he tended to enflame fear and hatred of APs in order to enrich himself. But I concede that Eliot is human and that all humans do that to some extent - so, like I said, my feelings about Eliot are 'mixed.'
SM777
SM777
Joined: Apr 8, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 205
June 25th, 2017 at 9:43:11 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

I have mixed feelings about T. Eliot Richardson. Let me say that I have never met him I know him through his writings and posts.

1. I do use his Advanced Advantage Play book as a reference.

2. I feel he was a good gaming mathematician -but not a creative one. He did a lot of original analysis of games and side-bets and he seems to have been careful and fairly comprehensive - which is a strong praise for a mathematician. Generally, his methods were not original - in particular, he took a couple of mathematical methods and just applied them over and over. He offered some new ideas on "counting systems" but most of his "original counting systems" were impractical.

Example: I have seen him calculate "Effect of Removal" coefficients for card ranks on dozens of games and sidebets. But, I have never seen him wonder (in his writings) about any concerns with the EOR method. Are EOR coefficients still valid when applied to the removal of large multiples of cards? What about games where the importance of one rank is dependent upon another rank? Eliot never seemed to be curious about those kind of issues -at least not in his writings.

3. Whether its physical security, cyber security or game protection security, there is a concept called the "design basis threat" -its a defined threat which security professionals use to assess vulnerability and to design protective systems.

Eliot seemed to fall into a trap that many security professionals fall into - they exaggerate the threat to security, presumably in order to keep themselves employed. In physical security for facilities, I've seen unrealistic design basis threats be defined like something out a James Bond movie - terrorists coming over the ridge with combat helicopters and coordinated SWAT-teams, with help from the "insider threat." Aww, c'mon.

Eliot fell into this 'Aww, c'mon' trap. He exaggerated the capabilities of APs. He quoted unrealistic return rates for computer-perfect counting systems that would be impossible to implement, and the effects of a dealer flashing all three hole cards in Mississippi Stud and silly stuff like that. To his credit, he usually admitted it was "silly stuff" in the fine print- but he tended to enflame fear and hatred of APs in order to enrich himself. But I concede that Eliot is human and that all humans do that to some extent - so, like I said, my feelings about Eliot are 'mixed.'



Eliot was crushed for things like this from people inside the industry during a webinar of his recently.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 211
  • Posts: 11017
June 25th, 2017 at 11:12:42 AM permalink
Threats are often overblown. Stealing chips from a blackjack tray is often considered, but how many casinos ever thought in advance about someone waltzing in and telling a dumb dealer to turn the 8s and 9s around in Baccarat? No one ever planned for that threat.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 12641
June 25th, 2017 at 2:56:53 PM permalink
I was very disappointed in the poll options, nowhere did I see: He should be tarred and feathered. (-;
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪

  • Jump to: