The value of "proof"

[Alan Mendelson]

It's okay with me if someone has the ability to count two tables. I pointed out the basics of the problem and it was easy for me to see.

The report that there was a counting team where the player had to STAND in order to count another table makes it obvious that this is not an easy to do thing.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will ever pay for a lesson on how to count two tables.

[jbjb]

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. 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.

You guys are still going on about this? If you can't see cards on the table next to you when nobody is blocking them, then you're blind.

And Alan, if I remember correctly, I said there COULD BE an error. Not on your part, but the "eye" that records those results. One of my favorite UTH hole card games is right next to a roulette table, and it consistently misses or doubles numbers depending on how fast the game is running. I never believe those boards unless I witness them in person.

[Alan Mendelson]

There was no error. When I went over to the table they were all talking about it.

The trouble, jbjb, the tables aren't right next to you... at least they weren't at Mirage and at Bellagio.

Now, if there is some hole in the wall casino where the tables are on top of each other you could have a good view. That's what my photos at Mirage showed. Those tables were in a line, and they weren't on top of each other. Same thing at Bellagio.

[kewlJ]

The report that there was a counting team where the player had to STAND in order to count another table makes it obvious that this is not an easy to do thing.

I swear you see what you want to see Alan. And what is worse you alter what is said to suit your needs or predetermined narrative. In this case, Mcap posted "when he couldn't see over another player, he was known to stand". You will notice that all important 'when' that began the statement. That indicated that often he would sit but on such occasion that he was blocked he would stand if need be. You immediately changed it to "the player had to stand". This was no mistake on your part. The player standing better fits your narrative or pre-conceived notion, so you manipulated what was said. That is just flat out dishonest, Alan.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will ever pay for a lesson on how to count two tables.

Where did anyone ever say anything about charging for lessons on counting two tables? This goes to you trying to plant some motive that isn't there. Everything and I mean everything that you post, is manipulated to support your predetermined conclusion on the subject. Again, that is known as 'confirmation bias'. Alan you have not an ounce of objectivity in you. So never again, feed us that crap about how you are just an investigative reporter searching for the truth. That is a lie.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj if you want to call me a liar I'm going to call you a bullshit artist. You can't see the cards at the other tables at Bellagio and Mirage. Fucking period.

Now go bullshit someone else. I'm done with you.

[kewlJ]

The trouble, jbjb, the tables aren't right next to you... at least they weren't at Mirage and at Bellagio.

Now, if there is some hole in the wall casino where the tables are on top of each other you could have a good view. That's what my photos at Mirage showed. Those tables were in a line, and they weren't on top of each other. Same thing at Bellagio.

I played at both Bellagio and Mirage 10 days ago, the night of the Mayweather fight. Fight nights and big event weekends result in crowded condition, which allows me to bet bigger than I normally would, which is called "playing in the shadows of the whales and bigger bettors". Unfortunately this also mean that I likely will be unable to track multiple tables. And this was the case that night. The only opportunity I had to track multiple tables was early the next morning about 6am, when it finally started to die down.

So while I was unable to track a second table at either of my stops at Bellagio or Mirage, I did notice the table arrangement, and I most certainly would have been able to track a second table under less crowded conditions. The tables are aligned perfectly for that. The fact that you have determined....pre-determind actually, that the layout impedes tracking a second table, when it is actually ideal for tracking a second table, confirms what I have thought all along, that you just don't understand and can't comprehend this technique. Actually, what I really believe is that you are purposely trying not to understand, because you made up your mind long ago.

I really should not be going on and on about this. It is counter productive (or in my case card counter, counter productive ) to be explaining it as I have been doing. I have only done so out of a courtesy for you Alan. And you have returned that gesture by being dishonest and manipulative at every chance you have gotten.

[coach belly]

The following are equivalent statements...

when he couldn't see over other players or chairs he was known to play while standing up

The report that there was a counting team where the player had to STAND in order to count another table

Maybe he didn't have to stand all the time, but the player had to stand to track a second table...that's a fact not in dispute, and is not dishonest to point that out.

Where did anyone ever say anything about charging for lessons on counting two tables?

Alan, if you doubt it then put up some money and I think someone will step up and prove it's possable.

Axel's scenario where Alan puts up money to be shown that it's possible to count 2 tables is equivalent to being charged for a lesson on counting 2 tables.

It's not manipulative or biased to point that out.

If the scenario plays out, Alan will have been taught a lesson and would have paid for it.

[jbjb]

We already know Alan is blind. He "thinks" he saw a 1 in 18 shot happen 18 times in a row. LOL!!

[Biloxi Bill]

Well, well, here is Coach Betty complete with his typical quote box and play on words...complete with finger snap, and wrist cock too ....what a fuckin idiot

[Biloxi Bill]

There`s alot of VP players here...Alan plays craps...Dan, poker...Kewl plays blackjack....I myself favor NL Hold-em and horse racing....does anyone know what Betty`s game of choice is besides butt darts and being an idiot?

[AxelWolf]

The report that there was a counting team where the player had to STAND in order to count another table makes it obvious that this is not an easy to do thing.

I swear you see what you want to see Alan. And what is worse you alter what is said to suit your needs or predetermined narrative. In this case, Mcap posted "when he couldn't see over another player, he was known to stand". You will notice that all important 'when' that began the statement. That indicated that often he would sit but on such occasion that he was blocked he would stand if need be. You immediately changed it to "the player had to stand". This was no mistake on your part. The player standing better fits your narrative or pre-conceived notion, so you manipulated what was said. That is just flat out dishonest, Alan.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will ever pay for a lesson on how to count two tables.

Where did anyone ever say anything about charging for lessons on counting two tables? This goes to you trying to plant some motive that isn't there. Everything and I mean everything that you post, is manipulated to support your predetermined conclusion on the subject. Again, that is known as 'confirmation bias'. Alan you have not an ounce of objectivity in you. So never again, feed us that crap about how you are just an investigative reporter searching for the truth. That is a lie.

We need a Like feature on the site, Dan.

[AxelWolf]

The following are equivalent statements...





Maybe he didn't have to stand all the time, but the player had to stand to track a second table...that's a fact not in dispute, and is not dishonest to point that out.

Where did anyone ever say anything about charging for lessons on counting two tables?

Alan, if you doubt it then put up some money and I think someone will step up and prove it's possable.

Axel's scenario where Alan puts up money to be shown that it's possible to count 2 tables is equivalent to being charged for a lesson on counting 2 tables.

It's not manipulative or biased to point that out.

If the scenario plays out, Alan will have been taught a lesson and would have paid for it.

You guys can call it what you want... a bet, a challange, a lesson.
I call it, put your money where your mouth is.
The fact is, Alan would never partake since he knows damn well he would lose. It's obvious Alan just wants free information and free gambling education for whatever reason.

I also think the fact that AP's and math guys have made him a laughingstock of the gambling forums he's out to call BS on them anytime he thinks there's an opening( as if that will somehow make him and his claims sound more crediable). He will stoop so low as to play tricky word games and look for technicalities. He's not really interested in the truth unless it fits his agenda.

[RS__]

Kewlj if you want to call me a liar I'm going to call you a bullshit artist. You can't see the cards at the other tables at Bellagio and Mirage. Fucking period.

Now go bullshit someone else. I'm done with you.

Are you mad? You seem mad.

[quahaug]

Alan never did believe it.... so there!

[coach belly]

Alan would never partake since he knows damn well he would lose.

Here we go again.

I'd be willing to participate in a challenge like this.

How would the logistics work?

Is playing at one table and counting a second table, while being monitored by interested parties,
something that a professional would risk, or that a casino would permit?

[Biloxi Bill]

Alan would never partake since he knows damn well he would lose.

Here we go again.

I'd be willing to participate in a challenge like this.

How would the logistics work?

Is playing at one table and counting a second table, while being monitored by interested parties,
something that a professional would risk, or that a casino would permit?

Like I said, this clown has no game he plays...he`d rather do shit like this...

[AxelWolf]

Alan would never partake since he knows damn well he would lose.

Here we go again.

I'd be willing to participate in a challenge like this.

How would the logistics work?

Is playing at one table and counting a second table, while being monitored by interested parties,
something that a professional would risk, or that a casino would permit?

I have never tried it myself so I don't know how easy or hard it would be. However, I know people who used this method when possible. I don't know how much value it added to their game and I don't know how accurate they were when doing it. I just know they were very intelligent, disciplined and successful APing table games. They wouldn't have been doing it had it not added some value to their game.

Right now it seems the only dispute is.... if it's possible. The problem is that 95% of the time whenever there's a potential bet/challenge, one that seems simple, one of the parties ends up adding all kinds of stipulations and extra shit to the bet. The bet no longer has anything to do with the original claim/dispute(You can usually tell who's trying to be a weasel.)

Let me ask you this....What exactly are you disputing?

I fairly confident someone can keep track of 2 tables(while sitting at one) enough so that they gain extra value and have a mathematical advantage doing so.

It seems to me you would need 2 extra card counters to verify.

[RS__]

The only thing that seems to be disputed is if you can see the cards on the other table. Alan & co seem to think there are always people blocking your view or that you'd sit at the worst possible seat for this.


If there is going to be a challenge (but let's be honest, there almost certainly won't be one), I don't want to participate, as I have no interest in meeting Alan, coach belly, etc. At least for some other "challenges", Alan has said stuff like he'll get a camera crew and this and that and make it a big production. I also don't have much of an interest in proving AP works or giving out information unnecessarily. If Alan or someone wants to put up a lot of money, then sure maybe. Otherwise, not a chance.


Plus, a challenge won't "prove" anything. If the counter succeeds, then Alan will fall back on his stupid BS and say "but if there was a person blocking your view...blah blah blah". There are too many ways for the counter to not 100% succeed, such as being off on the count. Hell, the counter could even miss a few rounds of play and it would not hurt the counter (all it does is make the game have less penetration), but even something like that, which Alan & co likely don't understand, would be used by them to show they're right....when they are demonstrably wrong in just about all things gambling, AP, math, or logic.

[mickeycrimm]

Meanwhile, some rail tramp who liked to drink, or some young punk smart ass kid, or some guy who was broke when he started, even guys who are highly educated with other successful careers found a way to be successful at gambling/AP.

Axel, whose this rail tramp you are talking about? Do we know anyone like that?

I don't know if that's the correct term. I was obviously refering to you. It was not meant to be offensive or derogatory (I appoligize if it was). It's to my understanding that you proudly road the rails prior to finding casino AP.

I was just joking. Those were the good old days, NOT!

[coach belly]

Let me ask you this....What exactly are you disputing?

I'm following up on your challenge here

put up some money and I think someone will step up and prove it's possable.

If I put some money up, you think someone will step up and prove it's possible...OK I understand so far.

As long as the fee is reasonable I'll consider it a paid lesson in tracking 2 tables, with a double-my-money back guarantee.

You haven't tried it, so I understand that you wont be counting 2 tables simultaneously.

Your pal RS is like a groundhog afraid of his own shadow, so he's not emotionally capable of participating.

Maybe you have someone else in mind?

But in consideration for coming up with the challenge, it wouldn't be fair to leave you out.

Call this one a wager of opinion...I'll bet you that if I do put some money up, then nobody will prove it's possible.