There is an odd thing that has occurred several times now in this discussion. Fairly new member, Andrew has staked out a position, arguing the "impossibility" of several claims, Rob's and the "super duper count blackjack guy". So as I, and other try to explain just how unlikely these claims are, as Axel did a couple posts back with the 5% blackjack claim, Andrew will then respond with something to the effect that he is not really familiar with either Rob's claim or the blackjack 5% claim.
So the question begs, why is he staking a position and arguing then.