Blackjack visibility

[kewlJ]

You are not just disputing KJ. You are disputing the entire brain net of professional blackjack.

It's just like with the 18 yo's in a row. Alan insisting that he saw that, even after the math has been explained to him, is essentially him disputing the math. How does that old saying go....there is no one so blind as he who will not see.

2. You don't want to know the answer.

This really is the problem with so many discussion involving Alan. He has his own answers, despite that the are contrary to reality. Sadly, he lives in his own alternative reality.

[mcap]

Who the hell takes a picture from the angle that proves themselves wrong and then continues with their debate?

[Alan Mendelson]

Previously I took pictures sitting at a table and I was criticized for that. I've invited everyone else to go to a casino themselves and look for themselves. Who has done it? So far in all these months no one has.

At least kewlj says he can't see thru people and can't see all the cards in play, but even so, he defends even a partial count as being good enough.

So again I ask everyone to look for themselves and take your own pictures. I'm waiting.

Actually I'm not waiting. No one will do it.

[mcap]

You are a straight up flat out pathological liar Alan. A pathetic insight into the game integrity of the journalism industry I hope this is not.

[Alan Mendelson]

You are a straight up flat out pathological liar Alan. A pathetic insight into the game integrity of the journalism industry I hope this is not.

What I am is someone asking for proof that you can sit at one table in any particular seat you choose and track the cards at another table while you track your own game.

This claimed skill challenges my imagination knowing that dealers are dealing at separate times, players get in the way, cards are not visible at certain angles, and the counter still has to play his own game.

You expect me to believe all that?

[slingshot]

Two things you will NOT get on this forum- proof and/or demonstration of your strategy. In gambling, MATH or conjecture are not proof. I know, I know- sock puppet!

[redietz]

Once football is done, I'll do better than this. I'll drop a letter off at the LVA with the question. My assumption is that certain people will find that irrelevant because the LVA sells products to people trying to win money from casinos, therefore is considered AP friendly. So no answer from the LVA will carry much weight.

Next, I will sit at the tables in question. Then I will measure the distances with a tape measure. Then I will consult an optometrist to verify if the clarity is sufficient.

Photographs are of minimal value because, since I am not an optometrist, I have no way of comparing human visual acuity to the various camera acuities. If I shot the scenes with the eye of a falcon, it would look as if everyone should be able to count tables 50 feet away. If I shot the scenes with my vision without eyeglasses, it would be tough to identify what game was being played at the next table.

Sling, by the way, it sounds as if you're a candidate for my "package," since you're so keen on proof. Send me along your address, and I'll get one out to you in time for Christmas. Sling is evidently one of those dudes who thinks mathematical simulations to get a man to the moon aren't proof it'll work. So Sling, how exactly did they get a man to the moon? Trial and error?

[mcap]

"I'm just the guy asking the questions." Bad debate technique. You manipulate every answer to fit the answer you had already written to your own question. Your picture clearly demonstrates one table where with no vision problems it is clearly possible to read pips, and another table where there are people blocking. So you take a picture showing situations where it both is and isn't practical, exactly like kewl had described. And focus only on the half that makes it more difficult. Like I said, you write the answer you want to your question before anyone ever answers it.

[kewlJ]

What I am is someone asking for proof that you can sit at one table in any particular seat you choose and track the cards at another table while you track your own game.

But you don't get to demand proof, Alan! You have no right to ask for proof. This isn't a trial, it's a message board. Your options are to believe or not believe and that's it. And frankly, based on your history off dishonestly handling the redietz incident, why would anyone offer you anything?

You expect me to believe all that?

This is entirely up to you. It's kind of funny how you expect everyone to believe you saw something impossible like 18 yo's in a row. You offer no proof. And frankly I haven't asked for any because it is not my right to. My options are I can believe you (I don't) or not. And that decision that I don't believe you is based on two solid principals, 1) What you are claiming is all but mathematically impossible and 2.) you have exhibited a history of dishonesty.

But back to tracking two tables, you want to act like it is something so unusual, when the fact is...it is something numerous BJ players do and have done, including others on this very site. So if you don't want to believe something that is fairly common, don't believe it. You are within your right to continue to believe the earth is flat or anything else you like. You are a foolish person, Alan Mendelson.

[kewlJ]

but even so, he defends even a partial count as being good enough.

STOP WITH THIS! A partial count is good enough! It is a proven fact that limited information (partial count) provides a mathematical advantage. Is it as strong as knowing all the information....no of course not. But in card counting we never know ALL the information. The more you know, the better. But it is a proven fact that limited information provides an advantage. That is the basis behind the technique known as wonging.

Just because you don't understand something, Alan, doesn't mean it isn't true, so just stop with your foolishness. You really are embarrassing yourself.

[Alan Mendelson]

Since this is a message board, and there is no need for proof says kewlj, I personally have rolled MIDNIGHT 36 times in a row at craps. This should be the end of this discussion.

[RS__]

Alan, you should email Richard Munchkin & Bob Dancer at gambling with an edge.

[kewlJ]

You manipulate every answer to fit the answer you had already written to your own question. And focus only on the half that makes it more difficult. Like I said, you write the answer you want to your question before anyone ever answers it.

Exactly! This actually 100% completely flies against what real journalism is about! Having this mindset seriously calls into question Alan's entire journalism "career". Everything he has ever said or reported on is tainted!

Your picture clearly demonstrates one table where with no vision problems it is clearly possible to read pips, and another table where there are people blocking. So you take a picture showing situations where it both is and isn't practical, exactly like kewl had described.

Thank you. I am glad most others are seeing reality. I took the liberty of highlighting "exactly like kewl had described" because that is the part of this that is just too funny. Alan set out to disprove what I had said and instead ended up proving it! Hilarious!

[jbjb]

Come on guys. You're all being to hard on Alan here. Media personnel NEVER LIE!!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...-for-a-decade/

[kewlJ]

Alan, you should email Richard Munchkin & Bob Dancer at gambling with an edge.

You have lost me, RS. He should contact them in regard to what? Tracking multiple tables? 18 yo's in a row?

In regards to 18 yo's in a row, Alan wouldn't want to hear, nor except Munchkin, Dancer or any other math/gambling expert's opinion. We have already established that.

If you are talking about tracking multiple tables, I don't know if Dancer would have an opinion? Does or did he play blackjack (seriously)? I don't even know? And I am certain, Alan wouldn't like or accept Munchkin's opinion. Without having discussed it with him, I would be surprised if Munchkin hasn't tracked multiple tables himself.

[Alan Mendelson]

Hang on there kewlj. I accept the incredible odds of someone, and in this case a random shooter, throwing 18 yos in a row. I don't dispute the math. I just reported seeing it. And I reported the count of the table crew. That's it. I have no other claims. It wasn't me who rolled and I certainly didn't make a dime from it.

The one benefit I got out of it is that when I went to Caesars to get the tapes of the table I discovered Caesars doesn't keep its tapes after more than about 24 hours unless there is an immediate request for the tapes.

[kewlJ]

Hang on there kewlj. I accept the incredible odds of someone, and in this case a random shooter, throwing 18 yos in a row. I don't dispute the math. I just reported seeing it.

Alan, winning the lottery with a $1 ticket is incredible odds. Winning the lottery with a $1 ticket....5 weeks in a row is impossible odds. The later is what mathematical guys, much smarter than myself, compare to what you are claiming to have seen.

You not understanding the difference between incredible and impossible, is a problem for not only you, but those of us, stupid enough to continue to argue with you about what you could NOT have seen. You really need to accept, for your own sanity (and ours) that you did not see 18 yo's in a row. I don't know what you saw or think you saw, but it was not 18 yo's in a row.

[MisterV]

*snip*

"To put this in comparison:

Probability of 18 Yo's in a row 1 in 18^18 = 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000
Probability of a monkey solving a Rubik's cube in a single attempt =FACT(8)*3^7*FACT(12)*0.5*2^11 = 1 in 43,252,003,274,489,900,000.

So it is 910 times more likely that monkey would solve the Rubik's Cube than a shooter throwing 18 yo's in a row."

source: the Wiz; https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...w-split-off/3/

[kewlJ]

And really Alan, I get the feeling that you challenging my tracking two tables is related to your 18 yo's in a row (in your mind). You have been completely discredited, not by me....I don't play, nor even know how to play craps, but by every legitimate math and craps expert that has considered the possibility. So you have for some reason, set out to discredit my claim of tracking two tables in wanting to discredit me in the same manner (for whatever reason).

But the problem is that tracking two (or more) tables is not uncommon. Many, many 'serious' blackjack players, both professional and non professional track multiple tables in some capacity, both currently and for many years. It is NOT a new concept and it is NOT that uncommon. Again, it is just something you are not familiar with or understand or have decided you couldn't do it, so you have decided that no one can.

[kewlJ]

*snip*

"To put this in comparison:

Probability of 18 Yo's in a row 1 in 18^18 = 1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000
Probability of a monkey solving a Rubik's cube in a single attempt =FACT(8)*3^7*FACT(12)*0.5*2^11 = 1 in 43,252,003,274,489,900,000.

So it is 910 times more likely that monkey would solve the Rubik's Cube than a shooter throwing 18 yo's in a row."

source: the Wiz; https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...w-split-off/3/

I am not familiar with this wizardry person? Does he have any credibility? Can anyone vouch for him?

(that's a joke BTW. I have the highest regard for "my friend" Mike's mathematical expertise. If he says something is so....it is so! Alan refusing to accept Mike's conclusion should have been the end of any discussion. Everything after that is fantasy land....someone refusing to accept reality)