The value of "proof"

Alan your picture of the roulette table (above) is a perfect example of why a photo is not representative of what the eye sees. That photo appears to be taken fairly close to the end of the roulette table (end where wheel is). Maybe a foot or two off the table? Is that correct?

Look at the tower listing the previous numbers. See the small number that says percentage that black and red have come out in the last 20 spins. Looks like it might be 65%? You can't even see the number in the red block. :confused: But I can guarantee anyone, even you, standing a foot from that tower could clearly see those numbers. Furthermore look at the betting numbers on the felt. They are blurry and you can't really make them out. But if you someone (even you) were actually standing 3-5 feet from those 2-3 inch numbers, they certainly would be able to CLEARLY see each number. A photo is just not representative of what the actual human eye can see....at least in these cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is why I asked on this forum for others to go to casinos and tell us what they observed. So far NO ONE has. RS__ has told us he can. But no one else has gone to a casino and reported back. I look forward to the reports.

---

Because few care. This forum has a handful of active members. What 10-12 that post regularly of which 4 are anti AP or AP deniers or haters. And maybe a few more members that occasionally pipe in. BUT near as I can tell, there are two and a half regular blackjack players. RS_ gets the half, not because he isn't a good BJ players or knows BJ, but because I just don't think he plays much blackjack anymore. He has moved on to other AP opportunities. But he certainly KNOWS BJ AP.

So of the 3 BJ knowledgeable AP's on this site, there is NO argument. It's just that none of the 3 of us has bothered running out and taking pictures which may or may not (likely won't) prove anything nor change anyone's predetermined mind. Apparently that is YOUR thing. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This forum has a handful of active members. What 10-12 that post regularly of which 4 are anti AP or AP deniers or haters.

3 BJ knowledgeable AP's

---

I can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Can you post the lineup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Can you post the lineup?

---

Well YOU are an AP denier/hater and apparently have some sort of hard-on or hero worship going on for Singer. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And stop saying I don't believe in APs. I just don't believe in Superman.

---

Doesn't believe in super man but expects anyone to believe 18 yo's in a row, lol. Not sure why you guys are bothering, you don't win an argument against trolly mctrollerson.

Mark Treas from the Holly Rollers church team was known to count two tables at a time, when he couldn't see over other players or chairs he was known to play while standing up regardless of the extra attention it brought (Team co-leader Ben described him as the most aggressive player he had ever seen, on a team known to be unapologetically aggressive.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This forum has a handful of active members. What 10-12 that post regularly of which 4 are anti AP or AP deniers or haters.

3 BJ knowledgeable AP's

---

I can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Can you post the lineup?

---

You mean you can`t tell the players without their uniforms off...ain`t that right "Coach" Betty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Mark Treas from the Holly Rollers church team was known to count two tables at a time, when he couldn't see over other players or chairs he was known to play while standing up regardless of the extra attention it brought (Team co-leader Ben described him as the most aggressive player he had ever seen, on a team known to be unapologetically aggressive.)

---

Thank you for sharing that mcap, as I was not aware of that. But I do suspect there are many professional and even semi-professional type players looking to maximize EV, that employ the technique of tracking multiple tables. If you think about it, it is a no brainer. It will almost double your max bet opportunities within the same time frame and number of rounds played. I say "almost" because there will be times there are strong plus EV counts at both tables and obviously a solo player like myself can't play both.

I really don't think tracking multiple tables is anything new or ground-breaking. I am sure many professional type players have been doing so since probably before I was born. It's just that these guys here, not familiar with real BJ professional play, seem to want to refuse to believe. AP deniers! Earth is flat type guys. :rolleyes: Anyway...welcome mcap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Well YOU are an AP denier/hater and apparently have some sort of hard-on or hero worship going on for Singer. :)

---

I don't recall having denied that AP exists or works.

It's ridiculous, arrogant, and frankly pretty juvenile to accuse me of hating a strategy.

I try to focus on individuals, not groups. I ask questions, and when the replies get snarky the discussion becomes spirited.

As far as Singer goes, I try to be objective and fair when I participate in certain discussions, and his enemies don't like that.

Some of his enemies are A#1 sickos, and obsessed with homosexual acts and illegal sexual conduct.

They cling to that obsession as the basis for their insults.

You must be pretty conflicted if you condone and snicker at some of the stuff these creeps post around here.

You seem to have even stooped to Donkey-level with your hard-on comment, although I've always understood the phrase
"having a hard-on for someone" to be used in a non-sexual context, and means holding a grudge against someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Well YOU are an AP denier/hater and apparently have some sort of hard-on or hero worship going on for Singer. :)

---

I don't recall having denied that AP exists or works.

It's ridiculous, arrogant, and frankly pretty juvenile to accuse me of hating a strategy.

I try to focus on individuals, not groups. I ask questions, and when the replies get snarky the discussion becomes spirited.

As far as Singer goes, I try to be objective and fair when I participate in certain discussions, and his enemies don't like that.

Some of his enemies are A#1 sickos, and obsessed with homosexual acts and illegal sexual conduct.

They cling to that obsession as the basis for their insults.

You must be pretty conflicted if you condone and snicker at some of the stuff these creeps post around here.

You seem to have even stooped to Donkey-level with your hard-on comment, although I've always understood the phrase
"having a hard-on for someone" to be used in a non-sexual context, and means holding a grudge against someone.

---

Like you are with redeitz?...Mickey?....Get off your soap box loser...no one is buying an ounce of the bullshit you`re selling....I`ve got your number son....as far as my insults....sometimes the truth stings like a bitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Alan your picture of the roulette table (above) is a perfect example of why a photo is not representative of what the eye sees. That photo appears to be taken fairly close to the end of the roulette table (end where wheel is). Maybe a foot or two off the table? Is that correct?

Look at the tower listing the previous numbers. See the small number that says percentage that black and red have come out in the last 20 spins. Looks like it might be 65%? You can't even see the number in the red block. :confused: But I can guarantee anyone, even you, standing a foot from that tower could clearly see those numbers. Furthermore look at the betting numbers on the felt. They are blurry and you can't really make them out. But if you someone (even you) were actually standing 3-5 feet from those 2-3 inch numbers, they certainly would be able to CLEARLY see each number. A photo is just not representative of what the actual human eye can see....at least in these cases.

---

I don't understand your point, but when that tote board on the roulette wheel showed all of that, people from all over the Palace Casino at Caesars ran over to the roulette game to watch. In this case, no one had to see the numbers. All they had to see was Red or Black. Counting cards isn't as easy, or is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And stop saying I don't believe in APs. I just don't believe in Superman.

---

Doesn't believe in super man but expects anyone to believe 18 yo's in a row, lol. Not sure why you guys are bothering, you don't win an argument against trolly mctrollerson.

Mark Treas from the Holly Rollers church team was known to count two tables at a time, when he couldn't see over other players or chairs he was known to play while standing up regardless of the extra attention it brought (Team co-leader Ben described him as the most aggressive player he had ever seen, on a team known to be unapologetically aggressive.)

---

mcap thanks for joining.

I didn't believe it either. I also didn't believer the yos would continue. If I had believed it, I would have bet a buck. I didn't even bet a buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

You seem to have even stooped to Donkey-level with your hard-on comment, although I've always understood the phrase
"having a hard-on for someone" to be used in a non-sexual context, and means holding a grudge against someone.

---

Oh come now, let's not get overly sensitive. The phrase saying someone has a hard-on for something or someone is pretty common and generic. If you didn't know my sexuality (because someone...a hem... Axel :rolleyes: ...felt the need to divulge it) you wouldn't think anything of this comment. let's not make things into something they are not. But if you are truly offended by my choice of words, I apologize. Perhaps I need to stay away from phrases, that some may read more into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I don't recall having denied that AP exists or works.
It's ridiculous, arrogant, and frankly pretty juvenile to accuse me of hating a strategy.

---

You are not as bad as some of the others, but I wouldn't exactly say you are very open minded about AP. You seem tocome down on the side of the deniers in almost every discussion. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

As far as Singer goes, I try to be objective and fair when I participate in certain discussions, and his enemies don't like that.
Some of his enemies are A#1 sickos, and obsessed with homosexual acts and illegal sexual conduct.
They cling to that obsession as the basis for their insults.

---

See...now this a straight up defense of Singer as you frequently do. No mention of the fact that Singer is a sicko, obsessed with homosexuals, homosexual acts, and gay marriage. NO ONE, attacks more on sexuality than Singer. For you to even attempt to use this analogy to defend singer, shows complete lack of objectivity and fairness on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Alan your picture of the roulette table (above) is a perfect example of why a photo is not representative of what the eye sees. That photo appears to be taken fairly close to the end of the roulette table (end where wheel is). Maybe a foot or two off the table? Is that correct?

Look at the tower listing the previous numbers. See the small number that says percentage that black and red have come out in the last 20 spins. Looks like it might be 65%? You can't even see the number in the red block. :confused: But I can guarantee anyone, even you, standing a foot from that tower could clearly see those numbers. Furthermore look at the betting numbers on the felt. They are blurry and you can't really make them out. But if you someone (even you) were actually standing 3-5 feet from those 2-3 inch numbers, they certainly would be able to CLEARLY see each number. A photo is just not representative of what the actual human eye can see....at least in these cases.

---

I don't understand your point,

---

This is where you are really frustrating me Alan. I can't tell if you are yanking my chain by playing dumb, or we are really on two completely different wavelengths...basically two people each speaking a language the other doesn't understand.

I think I made my point pretty clearly. Why are you posting these pictures of different tables in different casinos?

You are doing so in an attempt to say "see you can't see the next table clearly enough to see cards or roulette numbers right?

But your pictures are not representative of what the human eye sees. I can guarantee you that standing 3 feet from the roulette felt, I or anyone else, including you, could see those 2-3 inch numbers in the betting square. But in your picture you can't make them out. Because those picture are not representative of what the human eye sees. You are basically trying to introduce tainted evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I wouldn't exactly say you are very open minded about AP. You seem to come down on the side of the deniers in almost every discussion.

---

I'm not sure that's true, objectivity within the context of a discussion may place me on one side or the other, but there's no prejudice or bias.

If your impression is that I am anti-AP, or closed minded, perhaps you should check the record.

In the discussion about table-tracking, you either agreed with the points I made or ignored them.

You made some unnecessary condescending remarks, but I don't recall you disputing my comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

See...now this a straight up defense of Singer as you frequently do. No mention of the fact that Singer is a sicko, obsessed with homosexuals, homosexual acts, and gay marriage. NO ONE, attacks more on sexuality than Singer. For you to even attempt to use this analogy to defend singer, shows complete lack of objectivity and fairness on your part.

---

You're way off the mark, the comment above exposes your bias.

I'm defending myself from your attack, not defending Singer for his attacks, any more than you are defending the Donkey.

Have you no comment on Biloxi Bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I wouldn't exactly say you are very open minded about AP. You seem to come down on the side of the deniers in almost every discussion.

---

I'm not sure that's true, objectivity within the context of a discussion may place me on one side or the other, but there's no prejudice or bias.

If your impression is that I am anti-AP, or closed minded, perhaps you should check the record.

In the discussion about table-tracking, you either agreed with the points I made or ignored them.

You made some unnecessary condescending remarks, but I don't recall you disputing my comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

See...now this a straight up defense of Singer as you frequently do. No mention of the fact that Singer is a sicko, obsessed with homosexuals, homosexual acts, and gay marriage. NO ONE, attacks more on sexuality than Singer. For you to even attempt to use this analogy to defend singer, shows complete lack of objectivity and fairness on your part.

---

You're way off the mark, the comment above exposes your bias.

I'm defending myself from your attack, not defending Singer for his attacks, any more than you are defending the Donkey.

Have you no comment on Biloxi Bill?

---

Stop trying to drum up support for yourself Betty....how many times do we need to hear you repeat (little girl`s voice) "oh my God, how about Biloxi Bill?"...."what do you think of Biloxi Bill?"......you asked for it and I`m giving it to you....I don`t mess with anyone here or disrupt any threads except where you and your man crush are running amok..perhaps in the future you will mind your own business and not interject yourself somehere where you have no fucking clue....now stand on your own 2 feet and quit whining like a little bitch, dummy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Have you no comment on Biloxi Bill?

---

While I don't approve of many of Biloxi Bill's comments, particularly some of the homophobic comments, this isn't my site. So if that kind of thing is allowed here and obviously it is, there is no reason for me to comment until such time as those kind of remarks are directed at me. At that time, if such a time comes, I will make a decision as to whether I want to respond or just block the person I find offensive.

In addition, there is obviously some extended history between the two of you that I surely don't have all the details of, so why would I have a comment about something I don't know about. I'll leave commenting on things that I don't know about to Alan. ;)

But I do have to agree with Biloxi Bill on one thing and that is that you seem to want to drag me into the middle of something that so far doesn't involve me. I don't make the rules here. If you are unhappy with the rules, I guess you should voice that to Dan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

you seem to want to drag me into the middle of something that so far doesn't involve me.

---

You need to reflect on the hypocrisy of your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

I'm still wondering why Rob Stringer is allowed to post here...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You and me both RS. I get that some people want a forum where people are free to post whatever is on there mind, free of censorship. In theory, that is great. But there is a difference in people having differing opinions (good), and someone who's only intention is to be disruptive and as nasty as they can possible be (bad)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

You need to reflect on the hypocrisy of your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You and me both RS. I get that some people want a forum where people are free to post whatever is on there mind, free of censorship. In theory, that is great. But there is a difference in people having differing opinions (good), and someone who's only intention is to be disruptive and as nasty as they can possible be (bad)

---

---

As far as the 2 table counting goes, nothing is ever going to be proven or disproven talking about it on here. It's sounds like a put up or shut up for evryone making claims either way. I think that will leave out if KJ can or cant do it himself, since I highly doubt he would ever meet up with anyone here.

Are there counters that can? I say, yes. It will be far from perfect, and I suspect any any error made will give the doubters a hard on, they will just hang their hats on the errors made.

I doubt anyone who can count two tables will prove it just to prove the doubters wrong. Alan, if you doubt it then put up some money and I think someone will step up and prove it's possable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

I doubt anyone who can count two tables will prove it just to prove the doubters wrong.

---

Of course I agree with this statement, but I would expand it to far more than the counting two tables discussion. Why on earth would any AP do anything to prove the doubters wrong? :confused: I mean what is in it for any AP to prove anything to those doubters? What does any AP have to gain? I can think of some things they have to lose. :rolleyes:

And on top of that, Rob Singer has just recently proved that no matter what an AP does to "prove" whatever claims are made against him by some anonymous doubter, that it will never be enough to suit them. Why...because the whole thing is a "troll" job.

Redietz I guess had enough and decided to go ahead and prove himself and what did he get out of it. Alan played dumb, like he wasn't involved and couldn't be bothered and Singer, like I said, immediately started his trolling tap dance of how it wouldn't be enough to satisfy him. You just can't win against people who's intent it is to troll, so why would any AP bother? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Alan your picture of the roulette table (above) is a perfect example of why a photo is not representative of what the eye sees. That photo appears to be taken fairly close to the end of the roulette table (end where wheel is). Maybe a foot or two off the table? Is that correct?

Look at the tower listing the previous numbers. See the small number that says percentage that black and red have come out in the last 20 spins. Looks like it might be 65%? You can't even see the number in the red block. :confused: But I can guarantee anyone, even you, standing a foot from that tower could clearly see those numbers. Furthermore look at the betting numbers on the felt. They are blurry and you can't really make them out. But if you someone (even you) were actually standing 3-5 feet from those 2-3 inch numbers, they certainly would be able to CLEARLY see each number. A photo is just not representative of what the actual human eye can see....at least in these cases.

---

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. When I posted the photo of the roulette tote board I wrote: "But I've seen some strange things at roulette tables." I showed the photo to show some of the strange things I've seen at a roulette table. I'm sorry but the photo has nothing to do with the visibility of numbers. It was just about what happened at this particular table, at this time.

By the way, there was nothing wrong with the tote board. When I originally posted this photo jbjb suggested there was an error. There was no error.