Getting tired of the trolling here -- please read this thread -- NEW RULES

[Alan Mendelson]

And kewlj I am not going to let up on you. You can change the subject all you want to but the FACT remains you don't have super vision, you don't have Xray vision. You are NOT Clark Kent or Superman.

And after all these weeks NO ONE ON THIS FORUM has said they went to Mirage or Bellagio and was able to sit at one table and see the cards at an adjoining table.

Oh... excuse me... we do have RS__ who claims he has done it, but he's really not that good at it.

[mickeycrimm]

Rob Singer = wingnut

[kewlJ]

What if the deck was -15 before that deal?

What if the count was +15 before you walked by?

Exactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.

[kewlJ]

I like this. I can bait kew with a few simple words that dance around "penis"!

You continue to demonstrate what a really sick individual you are.

However, they clearly understand no bj count is worth beans unless they have seen 100% of the cards.

Still wrong! You can make the same point over and over a hundred times and it will sill be wrong! That is the definition of insanity BTW,....I am not surprised you have latched on to it.

[Alan Mendelson]

What if the deck was -15 before that deal?

What if the count was +15 before you walked by?

Exactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.

I don't count cards, and I don't even play blackjack. So, do you extrapolate the rest of the shoe based on a small sample of cards you have seen? Isn't that a leap of faith?

[Biloxi Bill]

And while you are at it show some proof that you hardly go to the office.

818-264-1555 Call and ask for Tony. If he's there, ask him about the package.

Called and got the recording...it said no one is ever there, you guys just pay rent on it

[kewlJ]

And after all these weeks NO ONE ON THIS FORUM has said they went to Mirage or Bellagio and was able to sit at one table and see the cards at an adjoining table.

Oh... excuse me... we do have RS__ who claims he has done it, but he's really not that good at it.

Alan's world of alternative reality: Yeah, this is a forum of a hundred participating members, all whom live in Vegas, so the fact that no one went to Bellagio or Mirage and issued an opinion is proof of Alan's claims.

Actual reality: There are about 10 members that participate regularly and I think 4 live in Vegas. Two of the four (RS and myself) did visit one or both of the Casinos and concluded the layout was fine for this technique, if other conditions were present, like fairly uncrowded conditions, which was not the case on Fight night when I visited.

I clearly indicated from day one that this was a technique that I employed when I could. It isn't always available for a variety of reasons. I employ this technique when I can and it is significantly profitable when I can and that is fairly regularly. You have always chose to ignore that.

But regardless, I am tired of going over and over the same thing with you. There is no benefit to that for me.

And kewlj I am not going to let up on you.

This seems like an admission of your intent to keep trolling me, simply because YOU can't or don't want to understand (I am not sure which) the concept.

You are NOT going to bully me like you did redietz and others before my time here. I have tried hard to be respectful of you, and have attempted to have a respectful dialogue even after you have been dishonest with me at every turn. But I am done. I will not engage with a person who announces his intent to troll and bully me. I am again blocking you and will not respond even if I see something you post in a quote. You have lost the privilege to have me respond to anything you utter.

[kewlJ]

I don't count cards, and I don't even play blackjack.

Then just stop talking about something you know nothing about!

Under these circumstances, a normal person would have stated "While I don't count cards, or even play blackjack, tracking two tables seems difficult".

And here was your response. You jumped up at 3am and ran out to a casino, sat in a chair with your back to the table next to you (not where I said I sit), took blurry pictures of the table next to you and declared that your 67 years old eyes would not be able to make out the cards at the next table. Everything you did was designed to prove your pre-determined opinion. Again that is known as 'bias confirmation'.

What you have proved is that 67 year old Alan Mendelson can not count cards at two tables....or maybe more precisely....that he don't want to.

This is like if I say I can run a mile in...I don't know 5 minutes. I actually have no idea how fast I can run a mile these days, but lets assume I could do so in 5 minutes and said so. Then you, Alan Mendelson, jump up, head down to the track and run a mile in 18 minutes and exclaim "see it can't be done". That's all you have done is prove that YOU can not track multiple tables. Well I can and I do it nearly every day. And many experienced players also can and do.

So just bug off with your threats of continued trolling. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself.

[kewlJ]

Rob Singer = wingnut

Boy he is! I have seen some trolling, bitter old dudes on a few site. Seems every site has one or two these days. But this dude is severely ill.

[RS__]

My condolences, Dan. I imagine it's going to feel like herding cats around here soon. 🙀

[Alan Mendelson]

kewlj I'm not trolling you. I do not question card counting or advantage play. In fact, I know one GOOD card counter. In fact I've known him for years because he was one of my co-workers at KCAL-TV and I was with him years ago and saw his ability and then saw him get backed off because he made the mistake of going from $10 bets to $100 bets. (Silly him.)

What I am questioning is your claim that you can see the cards at other tables. I am not questioning your skill as a card counter. It is this one, and only one claim of ability that I am questioning.

Now, I am sure there are some casinos where the tables are scrunched together that it might be possible. But you mentioned casinos on the west side of the Vegas Strip. I've seen the tables at Caesars and I know the layout. So I went to Mirage and you can't see the cards at the next table unless you have some super ability. Then I went to Bellagio and again, you can't see the cards without some super ability.

There are other factors too: other players, drinks, dealing time and sequence, cocktail waitresses, onlookers, people walking by, the time you are watching your own hand and keeping count at your own table.

Look, I'm sure you are a nice guy and I am sure you are a good counter, and I am sure you are a good advantage player, but this claim about counting at another table is a stretch.

And now, as regnis has also pointed out, and Rob, and I am sure others question, you claim to have an accurate count while missing cards?

Huh? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Alan Mendelson]

I clearly indicated from day one that this was a technique that I employed when I could. It isn't always available for a variety of reasons. I employ this technique when I can and it is significantly profitable when I can and that is fairly regularly. You have always chose to ignore that.

Yes, I seem to have missed that. So, what percentage of the time are you able to count a second table? 90% of the time? 70% of the time? 40% of the time? 5% of the time?

By the way, I figure I have a good, controlled shot at craps about 5% of the time.

[Alan Mendelson]

kewlj you don't have to be a blackjack player or a card counter to be able to sit at a blackjack table and ascertain if you have a view of the cards at the next table. Nor do you have to be a card counter or a blackjack player to know what happens when two games at two tables are running simultaneously creating the difficulties of seeing cards dealt at both tables. Age is not a factor and I am sure the managers who run and set up the casinos you play at are much older than you are.

Also, I don't bully redietz. I told him from the beginning and I posted it here that I believe who he is and what he says. I also told him there was no need to send me anything, but I also said to him if he really wanted to make his point that he should POST THE DAMN PHOTOS HERE. Instead, he came up with some excuse that the copyright laws would be violated and I informed him that under "fair use" he would not be violating any law.

And regarding my 3am visit to the Mirage. That happened when I was staying at my girlfriend's who lives about five minutes from the Mirage. And I also stopped to get a milkshake at Jack In The Box (open 24 hours) on Flamingo and to get my gas tank filled at the Chevron on Flamingo. I also walked her dog just before I jumped in the car.

[regnis]

What if the deck was -15 before that deal?

What if the count was +15 before you walked by?

Exactly right Axel. (no surprise there). Regnis, it seems like you want to make assumptions on unseen cards. They could be this, they could be that? We don't make assumptions of what we don't see. As card counters in the year 2017, we NEVER see all the cards. It isn't 40 years ago when games were dealt down to the last card. On the six deck games that I commonly play, you are lucky to get penetration down to 1.5 decks. So there are always cards you don't see....lots of them. We track the cards we can see.

Kewl--I am not making any assumptions and I am not saying this as a means of attacking you. I am questioning whether it is prudent for you, or anyone, to make an assumption when you really don't know the full count of the shoe. I am not saying this as a means of attacking you or any other AP. I am asking a legitimate question for which I would like to see a reasonable explanation. Again, whether I agree with the explanation or not is a moot point. I would like to know your reasoning and thoughts on this, without all the residual garbage that goes on here.

You may recall that I was the first to question the 2 table ability. I haven't in any way attacked you on this. While I may not believe that you can do it, you feel that you can so that ended it for me. In the same way, it seems risky to me to see 7 cards in the middle of a shoe and deem the shoe to be positive. If you can explain it to me I appreciate it.

[jbjb]

Missing some cards is like having worse penetration into the shoe. It's like going from 1 deck cut off to 1.5-1.75 cut off.

[regnis]

I understand JB, but what if those missed cards were a -15? Those 7 cards gave a false sense to the player that could be detrimental. Are you saying that is ok? Am I looking for a more perfect count than you feel is needed?

[jbjb]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

[Alan Mendelson]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

To put this into easy to understand terms: you wake up one morning and after five minutes of trading you decide to invest $1,000 in the stock market without knowing what happened the day before?

[regnis]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

JB--I agree. You can't (or shouldn't) assume what might have been. But isn't Kewl assuming that the burn cards were not negative if he is jumping in based upon the 7 he saw. That is exactly my point and I would like someone to explain it to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

You cannot assume what they might've been. Just as you cannot assume that the burn cards or all of the cards behind the cut card are negative.

Actually, this works well in craps: the next roll of the dice is not affected by the previous roll(s).

But that's not how I thought you play blackjack???