Rob Singer's claims revisited

[Moses]

KJ: Wouldn't sportsbetting make more sense than managing 312 cards? Two tables is 624. In sports, it's A or B. But you could take on more if you wanted with parlays, over/unders, and halftime bets etc etc.

A couple of funny stories. Most bettors don't want to be bothered giving picks. But this guy comes up and asks 3 of us to give him our best pick for a parlay. We did, and we notice he was going to win the parlay. So we ask him how he did. He added a 4th team (his pick) and lost.

Another guy is always chasing bets. I dunno, he must have done something horrible in another life. He can't win a bet to save his ass. But his routine is to go around asking certain people for their outlook. He still doesn't know what he is going to bet while standing in line. Inevitably, he makes his pick and his team is down early and never really in the game. He gets drunk and starts stating the casino is screwing him. So, he bets $100, five minutes before game time, and the casino calls the teams and says Sparky bet on you, so take a dive?

I think if you did nothing more than follow the guys around and went the other way, you'd make a fortune. lol

[Alan Mendelson]

Dear kewlj chicken: the reason I need your demonstration is that I am yet to find a casino where the tables are close enough or angled properly so you can get any kind of view of cards on the neighboring table unless you're about eight feet tall or have xray vision. I asked other forum members to go to a casino and sit in the MIDDLE seat as you told me to do and try this for themselves. No one has reported that they did it. Redietz said he stood behind two tables to see the cards but standing between and behind tables doesn't let you play.

I tried to illustrate the problem by taking photos at one of the casinos you told me to check out but all you could say was that my photos were blurry. So I invite anyone else to show their photos.

I do not know of a casino where I could sit in a middle seat and would give me the proper angle to look to my right or to my left to see other cards in play.

Not only that there are other problems including the timing of when cards are dealt, when it's your turn to act, whether there are other players blocking your view.

What Redietz did, standing, is not what a player could do.

So I'm still open to the idea. Meet me at the blackjack pit of your choice kewlj and when in the middle seat OF AN EMPTY TABLE tell me the cards in play at the next table. There will be no casino personnel to question what you're doing. It would be just two guys sitting at a table.

Now for those who haven't followed this discussion, after your initial claim you backed off a bit to say you might miss some cards. Then you said you didn't have to see the missing cards to have a workable count.

I'd like to see just how many cards you do see or miss.

[redietz]

Dear kewlj chicken: the reason I need your demonstration is that I am yet to find a casino where the tables are close enough or angled properly so you can get any kind of view of cards on the neighboring table unless you're about eight feet tall or have xray vision. I asked other forum members to go to a casino and sit in the MIDDLE seat as you told me to do and try this for themselves. No one has reported that they did it. Redietz said he stood behind two tables to see the cards but standing between and behind tables doesn't let you play.

I tried to illustrate the problem by taking photos at one of the casinos you told me to check out but all you could say was that my photos were blurry. So I invite anyone else to show their photos.

I do not know of a casino where I could sit in a middle seat and would give me the proper angle to look to my right or to my left to see other cards in play.

Not only that there are other problems including the timing of when cards are dealt, when it's your turn to act, whether there are other players blocking your view.

What Redietz did, standing, is not what a player could do.

So I'm still open to the idea. Meet me at the blackjack pit of your choice kewlj and when in the middle seat OF AN EMPTY TABLE tell me the cards in play at the next table. There will be no casino personnel to question what you're doing. It would be just two guys sitting at a table.

Now for those who haven't followed this discussion, after your initial claim you backed off a bit to say you might miss some cards. Then you said you didn't have to see the missing cards to have a workable count.

I'd like to see just how many cards you do see or miss.

I wish people would get things right so I would not have to post here, but here we go.

I did not stand upright at the tables. I bent my knees so as to be at sitting level in the middle seats of the tables, presumably where I would be attempting to get a view. I was exactly at the level and position a player would be. I did not get in the various seats because I thought the casinos might get perturbed, since I wasn't playing. Nobody was playing at the tables. I tried to do it quickly so nobody would throw me out.

In addition, which you fail to mention (big surprise), I took out my tape measure and measured the distances from center table to center table. I then understood at which distances I had visual acuity enough to actually identify cards. For some tables, I could not identify specific cards at the furthest seat distance, but I could still tell "pips from paint," not that I ever used that phrase prior to this. For most tables, I could identify the specific cards.

Now actual counting would have been dependent on angles and views with people in the seats, and I fully acknowledged that, but I was testing the visual acuity portion of this, all of which you got wrong. Angles and sight blockages aside, it is visually possible at the majority of tables. That's what I established.

My eyes are bad, and if I could do it, presumably most people can do it.

There's no trick to this. I suggest anyone doubting kewlJ simply go to a casino with a deck of cards and a tape measure. Go to empty blackjack tables, put a card down on one table, and walk over to the other one at the middle range of seats. Bend your knees, glance over and try to identify the card. Then whip out the tape measure and get an approximate distance. If you do it quickly and in the dead of night, nobody should bother you.

No need for kewlJ to risk outing who he is. Just anybody who doubts it go test it themselves. It's not exactly a complicated endeavor.

Don't take my word for it. Go do it. I did learn one thing from this topic that should have been obvious to me, but I don't play blackjack (or at least haven't in 25 years), so forgive me. All counts are partial counts. That is so obvious, and goes without saying really, but it's an important thing to "get."

[Alan Mendelson]

Counts are not partial counts when you are counting the cards at the table you're actually sitting at.

Thank you redietz for clearly explaining your method and confirming you were not seated at the table. Whatever angle you had would not be the same as if you were actually seated.

I appreciate your effort. At least you tried to replicate kewlj's methodology.

[redietz]

Counts are not partial counts when you are counting the cards at the table you're actually sitting at.

Thank you redietz for clearly explaining your method and confirming you were not seated at the table. Whatever angle you had would not be the same as if you were actually seated.

I appreciate your effort. At least you tried to replicate kewlj's methodology.

Anyone reading this silly debate, just go and put a card at a second table, then place yourself at the other table where you would be if sitting there. Look over at the card, then measure the distances.

I do not think half a degree or an inch will make a difference. Unless you're Ant-Man.

Mr. Mendelson must be Ant-Man.

[Alan Mendelson]

Don't forget to put a dealer at both tables, a few players, and perfectly time when the card at the next table is visible and you're not holding up your own game to take a look. You have to be very lucky or Superman with xray vision to get that sequence down pat.

Mr Redietz must be Superman.

[kewlJ]

Dear kewlj chicken: the reason I need your demonstration is that...

So I'm still open to the idea. Meet me at the blackjack pit of your choice kewlj and....

Dear Lying, scheming, manipulative, dishonest Alan Mendelson:

I don't even know how to respond to your post without coming off as mean. Nor do I know if I should bother. Alan, I know you think of yourself as somebody of great importance....some sort of celebrity that has some sort of credibility. Not to me, Mr 18 y.o. in a row. I never heard of you before I came to this site. AND every interaction I have had with you on this site has been with a bitter, old (sorry Mr.V) degenerate gambler, who has gambled away most of whatever wealth he had accumulated.

For 1 solid year, you have done nothing but be dishonest, lie, manipulate at every interaction I have had with you. You repeatedly demonstrate bitterness and anger towards me specifically, and in general, any AP that actually makes money. Your hatred and anti-AP agenda is clearly evident at every turn, to the point that you filed or claimed to have filed police reports.

So, tell me, MR 18 y.o.'s in a row, why would I possibly want to meet you and/or demonstrate anything to you. What benefit is there for me? There is about as much chance of me meeting with you as me meeting with the heads of surveillance at various LV casinos.

I am a professional blackjack player. You are a degenerate gambler who has gambled away most, if not all of his wealth, including screwed your own children to the point where they come to this site to complain about your gambling addiction.

I don't know what else to say, other than if you seriously think I would meet with you, you have completely lost your mind. But I don't think that is news to anybody (including your own children).

Now for those who haven't followed this discussion, after your initial claim you backed off a bit to say you might miss some cards. Then you said you didn't have to see the missing cards to have a workable count.

Continuing to repeat this, just continues to show that you have zero understanding of how card counting works. EVERY single count is a partial count, made up of partial information. Stanford Wong mathematically proved the seeing just a small number of cards, can present the player with an advantage and he developed an approach,"wonging" based on that. Thousands, maybe 10's of thousands of players have successfully implemented this approach over the years, and continue to today. Tracking and jumping to a second table is just a variation of that approach.

I understand that you are not familiar with this approach and probably don't know who Stanford Wong is, or the mathematicians that confirmed these findings, but that just means that maybe you should keep your BIG mouth shut about things you don't know about.

[Alan Mendelson]

We're even. I have no idea who you are either or even if you are a successful blackjack player.

Good luck.

[kewlJ]

Good luck.

Don't need it. I play with an advantage.

[slingshot]

I just gotta ask this because it's been MANY years since I played blackjack. Don't they now use 2-3 decks and shuffle at unknown intervals? Thanks.

[Alan Mendelson]

Good luck.

Don't need it. I play with an advantage.

As an anonymous forum poster you have the ultimate advantage: you can lie without getting caught. LOL

[kewlJ]

I just gotta ask this because it's been MANY years since I played blackjack. Don't they now use 2-3 decks and shuffle at unknown intervals? Thanks.

I play mostly 6 decks, sometimes 8, very occasionally 2.

The shuffle point with 6 & 8 deck games is predetermined by placement of a cut card. Where that cut card is placed, which everyone sees, determined the penetration of the game.

Handheld games, that would be single deck and most double deck, are where the shuffle point is less known and casinos sometimes employ preferential shuffling, which should be illegal, but has never been ruled to be.

[kewlJ]

As an anonymous forum poster you have the ultimate advantage: you can lie without getting caught. LOL

That is true. But without that anonymity, there would be no AP's participating on any forums. It would be all members like Alan Mendelson.

And while I could be making everything I say up. There are two tests that anyone could/should apply.

1.) Is what I claim mathematically possible? (This is the first hurdle that your buddy Singer has yet to clear)

2). Does the person have knowledge to back up the claims. As I always say, "It isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". I am confident most members of whatever forum I am on, have figured out I know what I am talking about. They may not like me that much, might think I am obnoxious or a dick, but they recognize that I know what I am talking about.

I guess like gambling, identifying who knows what they are talking about is something you are bad at. (as evident by your support of Singer's claims)

[Alan Mendelson]

It's absolutely meaningless that what you say is mathematically possible or that you have knowledge of the game. For all I know you never set foot in a casino or even made a bet.

[mcap]

Yep it’s meaningless. And you’ve still spent a year or so being intellectually dishonest and manipulating statements about the damn subject.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yep it’s meaningless. And you’ve still spent a year or so being intellectually dishonest and manipulating statements about the damn subject.

And you've been trolling since day one.

[MisterV]

As an anonymous forum poster you have the ultimate advantage: you can lie without getting caught. LOL

Poor alan is jealous.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

Dear kewlj chicken: the reason I need your demonstration is that I am yet to find a casino where the tables are close enough or angled properly so you can get any kind of view of cards on the neighboring table unless you're about eight feet tall or have xray vision. I asked other forum members to go to a casino and sit in the MIDDLE seat as you told me to do and try this for themselves. No one has reported that they did it. Redietz said he stood behind two tables to see the cards but standing between and behind tables doesn't let you play.

I tried to illustrate the problem by taking photos at one of the casinos you told me to check out but all you could say was that my photos were blurry. So I invite anyone else to show their photos.

I do not know of a casino where I could sit in a middle seat and would give me the proper angle to look to my right or to my left to see other cards in play.

Not only that there are other problems including the timing of when cards are dealt, when it's your turn to act, whether there are other players blocking your view.

What Redietz did, standing, is not what a player could do.

So I'm still open to the idea. Meet me at the blackjack pit of your choice kewlj and when in the middle seat OF AN EMPTY TABLE tell me the cards in play at the next table. There will be no casino personnel to question what you're doing. It would be just two guys sitting at a table.

Now for those who haven't followed this discussion, after your initial claim you backed off a bit to say you might miss some cards. Then you said you didn't have to see the missing cards to have a workable count.

I'd like to see just how many cards you do see or miss.

I don't know the background to this... But yes... You can do this...

You do not need to see the entire card. You only need to see if it is a face card, ace, or more than a few pips (the number of clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades). You can definitely see the cards at the table next to you. You only need to be able to make out a tiny portion of a card to tell what it is. This is why I do not understand why if you do play poker (which you don't know how to do) you must sit next to or directly infront of the dealer to see the cards. You can not take photos like this from a cell phone, (especially your antiquated one)((and I gave you a brand new Galaxy S8 which you neglected to use)). The lens perspective is very different from the human eye so a photo is not going to be what you see.

[kewlJ]

I don't know the background to this... But yes... You can do this...

You do not need to see the entire card. You only need to see if it is a face card, ace, or more than a few pips (the number of clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades). You can definitely see the cards at the table next to you. You only need to be able to make out a tiny portion of a card to tell what it is. This is why I do not understand why if you do play poker (which you don't know how to do) you must sit next to or directly infront of the dealer to see the cards. You can not take photos like this from a cell phone, (especially your antiquated one)((and I gave you a brand new Galaxy S8 which you neglected to use)). The lens perspective is very different from the human eye so a photo is not going to be what you see.

OK, so I quoted your post SLaPiNFuNK, just to be sure it didn't disappear from the discussion.

Finally, a Mendelson, that makes some sense. You must have gotten most of your genes from your mother.

So, allow me to fill you in on some of the history to this discussion that you might be missing: When I made the comment that I try to track a second table when the opportunity presents itself and your father immediately began challenging the concept, I specifically attempted to explain it to him, explaining you only need look at "pips" and "paint". He flew off the handle, escalating his attempt to discredit me, insisting that I must have x-ray vision because no one can see the cards at the next table. And he has been on that crusade ever since, for a solid year now, despite that I have named quite a number of professional players, past and present, including some pretty known names like Don Schlesinger and Richard Munchkin that have stated they have tracked a second table for decades.

Had no effect on Alan. His mind was made up. But I'll bet you have experienced that quite a bit in your life.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

I don't know the background to this... But yes... You can do this...

You do not need to see the entire card. You only need to see if it is a face card, ace, or more than a few pips (the number of clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades). You can definitely see the cards at the table next to you. You only need to be able to make out a tiny portion of a card to tell what it is. This is why I do not understand why if you do play poker (which you don't know how to do) you must sit next to or directly infront of the dealer to see the cards. You can not take photos like this from a cell phone, (especially your antiquated one)((and I gave you a brand new Galaxy S8 which you neglected to use)). The lens perspective is very different from the human eye so a photo is not going to be what you see.

OK, so I quoted your post SLaPiNFuNK, just to be sure it didn't disappear from the discussion.

Finally, a Mendelson, that makes some sense. You must have gotten most of your genes from your mother.

So, allow me to fill you in on some of the history to this discussion that you might be missing: When I made the comment that I try to track a second table when the opportunity presents itself and your father immediately began challenging the concept, I specifically attempted to explain it to him, explaining you only need look at "pips" and "paint". He flew off the handle, escalating his attempt to discredit me, insisting that I must have x-ray vision because no one can see the cards at the next table. And he has been on that crusade ever since, for a solid year now.

I believe it.