QFIT said:As has been known for centuries, progression systems and quit points do not work. See Modern Blackjack pages 207-211: www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage207.htm
Walter Thomason said:Sooo.... You've read my book? I assume so since you responded to my request. What parts of the book did you find to be critical of card counting?
QFIT said:Sooo.... You've read my post? I assume so since you responded. What parts of the post said that your book is critical of card counting?
QFIT said:Eric, if you want to make money at BJ, it is a big mistake to buy Walter's book. It advises progressions and quit points which are mathematically proved to fail. It is a shame that he has advised you that his strategy can work for you when numerous people have shown him that it is a losing system.
Walter Thomason said:Eric, Seems like Qfit's primary goal in life is to attack me anytime I make a post on any website... Check out the book reviews on Amazon -- most of which are positive, and you'll see his negative review. Check any other online site where I've ever posted and you'll find similar posts from him. It's just the way things are...
Walt
PS: Odds are he'll post a response to this post with something else negative to say about me...
QFIT said:Well, you got that right. I have NO review of you on Amazon. You are, simply put, a liar. Not that there is anything wrong with giving your book a bad review -- but why do you lie? Seriously, you have been telling lies like this for ten years. Your own publisher has told you your system doesn't work. And, if you look at Mein Kampf's reviews on Amazon, it has positive reivews too. Does that mean Hitler was right? Walter, expert after expert has told you that your system does not work. Not one expert in ten years has said anything else. You are harming people with your lies. Why do you continue this? At long last, do you have any sense of responsibility whatever?
Walter Thomason said:OK, Don. Don't answer my questions regarding your conversation with my publisher. I understand.
Walter Thomason said:Norm, I'm through with this thread, at least as far as responding to your comments. I pointed out a typo, and you call it a "false accusation". Sorry to hear about your arthritis... I'm told it can be quite painful.
Animus said:I've been playing the hit or stand as practice and was browsing through these forums. I decided to register an account just to post this.
@Walter
Amazon reviews are useful in seeing a general satisfaction of users with their purchase. They mean absolutely jack shit concerning whether the contents of a book are scientifically accurate. I'm sure there are plenty of books with good reviews about ghosts and bigfoot but that doesn't make it true.
If you have scientific evidence in the form of mathematical studies or computer simulations that show your method gives an advantage, then show it. Otherwise stop peddling your BS.
Walter Thomason said:My book contains both mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations, but you wouldn't know that because you obviously haven't read it. Keep practicing on the hit or stand game... I'm sure you need it.
QFIT said:What you call "mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations" is laughable. Simulations by three people in the field with three different simulators ALL come to the same results. Your system fails, exactly as the math says it should. OTOH, no one has ever heard of the simulator you used in the book, you yourself state that it no longer works and you can’t get in touch with the guy you paid to write it. It is a shame that you continue to push a failing strategy with such claims and throw churlish insults at critics.
BruceinGa said:I bought Twenty-First Century Blackjace about 7 years ago. To my surprise I haven't posted here since then.
I just now got around to reading it and am half way through, trying to keep an open mind.
Name calling and accusations doesn't help either of your positions.
BruceinGa said:I bought Twenty-First Century Blackjace about 7 years ago. To my surprise I haven't posted here since then.
I just now got around to reading it and am half way through, trying to keep an open mind.
Name calling and accusations doesn't help either of your positions.
Walter Thomason said:Bruce, I totally agree. I'll make a serious effort to refrain from responding to his personal and professional attacks. Thanks for your advice.
Also, your opinion of the book would be most appreciated.
QFIT said:You do realize don't you, that that was a personal attack?
Walter Thomason said:No, it was a personal defence.
QFIT said:No, it was one of the numerous personal attacks you have made over the last ten years against anyone that dares review your book. You do not seem to comprehend that reviewers reviewing your work are not making personal attacks when they give a bad review. They are providing honest reviews. And, I see that you have yet again been banned from the "other site" you just mentioned for repeatedly making false statements. For ten years, dozens of people in our business have told you that your book pushes a system that does not work. When they patiently explain why, you bombard them with false statements about what they have said.
Walter Thomason said:In keeping with my new philosophy, no comment. Have a nice day.
QFIT said:Funny. How many times have you claimed no comment? And then you make a comment?
I don't like the word liar. But, I have a problem resisting it in your case. Nine times in the last two months you have claimed that I made statements I never made. Hundreds of times in the last ten years you have posted false statements about your "system." I am certain that you will continue posting bad advice and harming people here. But fortunately, you have again been banned from a site that will not allow constant scam postings - www.blackjackinfo.com. And, no, it isn’t my site.
Mike Rosoft said:You don't really need to be a math prodigy to count cards. (The mathematics of counting are in fact quite simple - e.g. in the most well known hi-lo system, cards 2-6 are worth +1 and 10-A -1 point - that's it. [Well, that and being able to estimate how many decks are left to deal.])
If you don't want to bother with card counting, at least learn the basic strategy (at least its simplified version). This will help you to minimize the house edge. (If you want to play the exact basic strategy, make sure that you know the rules of the game - it matters if the dealer hits or stands on soft 17, and whether or not you are allowed to double after split.)
And don't bother with any progression systems. They won't help you to gain an edge over the house; they can just decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more (or, in the case of such strategies as Martingale, MUCH more) if/when you are unlucky.
Mike Rosoft
BruceinGa said:My wife and I just returned from Harrah's Cherokee. I played their Pot O' Gold machine with very good results.
The rules were single deck, shuffled after each hand, doubling on 9-11, dealer stands on all 17's, no surrender, insurance pays 2 to 1, multiple hits on aces when split, no re splitting, no doubling on splits, bj pays 3/2, and 7 card auto win.
The minimum was $2 and max was $50. I started with $2 and increased to $4 after a win. Next win I increased to $6 but capped it at $8. After a loss I return to the $2 bet. After 4 straight losses I move to another machine or just take a breather. They only have 20 of these machines and it wasn't hard finding an idle one.
I probably played only 2 or 3 hours at a time, maybe 3 times a day, logging all my results.
During one session I believe I had 14-16 winning hands without a loss. As I mentioned before most of these were at the $8 level and 3 or 4 were hands that I either split or doubled. Yesterday I had one session with 10 winning hands that included only one push.
Some may not agree with progressive betting but I find it works for me.
I can't wait for our next visit.
Walter Thomason said:Mike,
I'd like to respectfully question the content of your last paragraph. You state that progressions, "...can decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more if/when you are unlucky." Question: If you decrease your chance of losing in the short term, don't you increase your chance of winning in the short term? After all, there's only three options -- win, lose, or break even. Also, since the long term is nothing more than lots of short-term sessions, losing less (or winning more) might also apply to the long term. In terms of "luck", almost anything is possible, especially in the short term.
BTW, I agree with you regarding Martingale. Table limits make this strategy almost impossible.
Here's a question for you... How many hands must you play to reach long-term expectation?
Cheers!
Walter
Walter Thomason said:As previously stated, I don't respond to posts submitted by Qfit, even if he responded to a post I directed to Mike. But a clarification of my remark about the Martingale progression might be helpful. Martingale is a negative progression betting system that requires that you double your previous bet after each consecutive loss with the goal of eventually winning the original bet in the series. Table limits -- the maximum bet allowed -- would make this system impossible to continue after losing a certain number of hands, because the next bet required would exceed the maximum table limit allowed. For instance, a $5 initial bet would require that the player bet $640 after losing 7 consecutive hands, but this amount exceeds the normal $500 table limit on a $5 minimum bet table, and makes it impossible to maintain the progression. Obviously, table limits DO affect the use of a Martingale system.
Also, not all progression systems have negative EV. Card counting is a progression system. Counters raise (positive progression) or lower (negative progression) their bets based on the count, rather than basing their bet variations on the results of the previous hand played. Consequently, not all progression systems have negative EV. Period.
BruceinGa said:
Some may not agree with progressive betting but I find it works for me.
I can't wait for our next visit.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!