Printable View
Redietz don't forget to look at the dealers at two adjoining tables. Are they dealing at the same time? And check the view with players at the tables. We want to know how your visibility changes with the number of players. It's more than just distance.
MisterV any more questions about my career?
You bet I have questions.
Did you get to meet eighteen presidents in a row?
Of all the C-cups you've had, which one fit you the best?
But seriously, it sounds like you've lived a flashy life filled with change, which is OK, but not something I'd relish.
Me, I dwell in obscurity, which is how I like it.
To each his own.
First is to establish that one doesn't have to be Hawkman to do it. Since I haven't played (or thought about) blackjack in roughly 30 years, let me ask a question or two. Isn't the core logic of this that, no matter the obstruction, all counts are partial counts. So any count based on seeing just, say, half the cards any given hand at another table, is still a count? Albeit less reliable than a full count, it still retains an element of reliability so that a tremendous advantage at that table versus a negative situation at the current table still yields an opportunity to switch tables, correct? You just have to balance the cost/benefit of switching tables as a tip-off against how "partial" your count on the table happens to be.
Redietz also ask if entering mid shoe are you limited to betting at the table minimum which is something that was mentioned. If so, what's the point of moving tables in the first place?
No kidding. :confused: I think I said that about 5 months ago. Alan's whole exercise was "massaged" as you call it. But "manipulated" is really more accurate. Manipulated, deceitful and dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Hold on a second. Redietz hasn't told us if he can see the cards yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJNo kidding. :confused: I think I said that about 5 months ago. Alan's whole exercise was "massaged" as you call it. But "manipulated" is really more accurate. Manipulated, deceitful and dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Measure all you want. But what happens when there's actual play.
The distance from one table to another is only one factor.
At the tables I examined, I can see cards. There's no question about that. The question is just about how much obstruction occurs. The distance on the Palace Station tables, measured from the middle seat of one table to the middle of the table off to the left or right, is about 120 inches. The distance on Boyd tables varies a little, but is somewhat less, roughly 100-110 inches. At these distances, you can read more than just "pips and paint" with less than perfect vision. Set it up at home at those distances and try it yourself. One thing that struck me is how the lighting on the casino floor is so much better than in a casino room or other locations. My living room and bedroom at home are dark compared to the casino floor. Now I presume the strip tables will have significantly further distances, but I'll measure them. I'm talking about tables not on aisles, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonHold on a second. Redietz hasn't told us if he can see the cards yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJNo kidding. :confused: I think I said that about 5 months ago. Alan's whole exercise was "massaged" as you call it. But "manipulated" is really more accurate. Manipulated, deceitful and dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Measure all you want. But what happens when there's actual play.
The distance from one table to another is only one factor.
How wide are the tables themselves...measured across the dealer's side from 1st to 3rd base?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Tell us about obstructions too. When you are viewing the cards at a second table are you sitting at the firat table or standing? How many players at your table and the second. How about a photo?
I'm not standing. I'm seated at eye level. I actually scrunch down to make it harder so there's no question. Thus far, acuity is not a problem. It's just a question of choosing opportunities when there are no obstructions. But I assume strip tables will have longer distances, so I'll wait to comment on that. The height of the empty chairs at the other table comes into play, but only if you're a little person seated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What I suggest everyone do is simply lay out cards at the distances mentioned and establish that acuity is not an issue. Then post and let everybody know.
Putting cards on your wall at thirty feet is not an issue.
The issue is obstructions and timing of the hands being played on two tables.
Ok, against my better judgment, I am going to go over this one more time (with some quotes to refresh some memories).
On 8/07 , at 11:11pm, in response to Dan Druff's comment about sitting out negative counts (wonging style of play), I first mentioned that I try to track a second table when I can. PLEASE, PLEASE, note where I said "I try to track a second table".
So over the next 18 hours as questions were raised, I attempted to explain the best I could. PLEASE note "You just track the cards as best you can" and from the second quote below, "But if not...so be it. There are times during crowded conditions that I can't track multiple tables". This is extremely important, because almost immediately, I said you can't always do it. I do it when I can!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So Alan's first challenge was the following morning after I initially mentioned tracking a second table.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Alan followed that with this weird post about turning around in your seat. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As you can see, Alan's play here was to say that a player couldn't see the next table. And of course he followed that up with blurry pictures taken from the wrong seat, manipulated to support his claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So now we fast forward to today. Redietz accepted Alan's challenge (because he is a glutton for punishment :rolleyes:) and went to several casinos to measure the tables. Redietz conclusion: Just as I have been saying for months, that yes you can see the cards at a second table.
So now Alan's argument has changed from "not possible to see the cards at the second table" to "the view being obstructed". Guess what?? I said that immediately after I made the first statement......5 months ago! YES sometimes you are obstructed and can't see the cards at the second table!!!! (READ ABOVE). I said "I can't always do it, but I do it when I can!"
I mean seriously, WTF, Alan. I have asked this before and I am asking again...Are you retarded? :confused: I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as....is there something mentally wrong with you? :confused:
Having been proven wrong about a person not being able to see the cards 10 feet away, you are now switching your argument to 'possible obstruction'. Something I said immediately after I first stated that "I TRY to do this when I can".
If it seems like I am frustrated here....yes I am. I am frustrated with Alan's manipulation and dishonesty in continuing to try to discredit me, when he has been thoroughly proven wrong. It is not only quite possible to do this, but there are many, professional and experienced players doing so! This is 18 y.o.'s all over again! Alan, you just can't accept when you are wrong and everyone in the entire world knows you are wrong. Just stop Alan!
You are a revisionist. There are many problems associated with trying to track two tables and distance is one of them. Obstacles is another. And the third category which others have raised is the value of the limited information that is obtained when possible.
Adding it all up, it just doesn't matter. Thanks for saying you try to count two tables, thanks for acknowledging the problems with other players.
I thought this was over a long time ago but you kewlj brought up Munchkin and the claim that someone can track three tables.
What's next? Four tables?
I'll call it quits if you will. But if you persist I'll come back at you over and over again.
The third category (listed above) is nonsense, as has been explained by every blackjack expert and math guy. You just don't want to hear it...very similar to the 18 y.o.'s in a row. You refuse to accept the math. Nothing I can do about that....sail off the edge of the earth. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As for starting this Munchkin thread, I was asked by someone (axelwolf) to contact Richard Munchkin and ask for his expert opinion. I was reluctant to do so, because even without discussing it with him, I already knew what Munchkin (as well as most other experienced professional player would say). I didn't think it would be fair to Munchkin to post what his expert opinion, based not only on his own experiences, but on interviews with numerous other professional blackjack players, was. I knew that would result in you anti-AP deniers, then attacking Munchkin, which is exactly what happened. :( I just didn't think that would be fair to him, being he doesn't participate here.
But again, against my better judgment, I contacted Richard Munchkin and posted his response and he is going to bring up the question on his show in coming weeks. And just like I predicted, Alan and the anti-AP guys attacked Munchkins credibility. Alan, there is just nothing you will accept. I hate to keep bringing it up, but this is exactly like the 18 y.o.'s in a row. You refuse to accept reality, instead opting for your own alternative world and reality.
Who attacked Munchkin?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
OneHitWonder and JSTAT. Also a former a-hole member attacked Richard in an email to me and I hope not, but quite possibly, sent the same attack on directly to Munchkin.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWho attacked Munchkin?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
To your credit, coach belly, I don't recall YOU attacking or challenging Munchkin's credibility. So, can I ask you: Do you accept Munchkin as an expert opinion?
Redietz, have 30 people stand between the two tables then take a picture. That will satisfy Alan's fantasy that counting two tables can't be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You caught me off-guard with this response, I assumed you had me blocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOneHitWonder and JSTAT. Also a former a-hole member attacked Richard in an email to me and I hope not, but quite possibly, sent the same attack on directly to Munchkin.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWho attacked Munchkin?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
To your credit, coach belly, I don't recall YOU attacking or challenging Munchkin's credibility. So, can I ask you: Do you accept Munchkin as an expert opinion?
But OK...before I answer your question, you wrote above that Alan attacked Munchkin's credibility.
I realize that this is one of my "gotcha" moments, but isn't that a dishonest and deceitful attack on Alan?
Alan, you are really getting deranged over this. Do you really think a professional blackjack player would waste his time counting down a table knowing he won't be able to take advantage of it? You really are clutching at straws here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson