BJ AUTHORS ADMIT SECRET CASINO CONNECTION
doug...@interserv.com
BJ AUTHORS ADMIT SECRET CASINO
CONNECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Doug Grant:
When I first started to post on this newsgroup -
I was called everything but alive. The whining
and wailing about me daring to even suggest
that Snyder, Griffin, Wong (and now Imming)
were secretly taking money
from the casinos was almost deafening.
I knew I had entered the Lion's den when I made
those statements. I also knew that many that sell
tout books and tout newsletters would try their best
to howl me down. I have been up against at least
eight different stupid book and stupid newsletter
sellers and their lackeys and gofers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This self-interest group has posted incredible
nonsense with the obvious purpose to divert
you and I from the main issue,
Which is:
"Are the BJ authors secretly working for
the casinos?"
The opposition to this question have used just
about every tactic in the book. Their normal
and most frequent tactic is to attempt by sheer
volume and zero substance to howl me down.
Their second tactic is to attempt to make light
of my accusations. Their third tactic was to
insinuate that I am a terrible person to make such
outrageous accusations.
I was hit with so many different
"squirming and desperate" tactics from
the Authors' gofers and lackeys I knew they were
about to run for the exits.
And the running has started:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last two days - both Wong and Imming
have admitted to
secretly working for the casinos!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also should point out that when I say "secretly"
I mean that they somehow failed to mention that
fact to their subscribers and clients.
Now I know that soon, both Snyder and Griffin
will eventually admit that they are also secretly
working for the casinos. How do I know this?
Well, because in the past few days I have been
contacted by one of their "friends" and offered
a "deal" to keep my mouth shut. I obviously
declined the deal.
What Snyder, Wong and Griffin intend to do is
attempt to CON you into believing that the
money they were paid by the casinos was not
for anything to do with card counting.
Yeah - sure - right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider that Wong said that 5 different casinos
had paid him money.
He did not reveal how much, or how many times
he was paid.
Wong also did not reveal how many times he was
paid by the parent or affiliated company of any casino.
Wong also would have us believe that he was
paid to figure out some slot machine probability.
Yep, that's right 5 different casinos want to hire
a known BJ expert and card counter advocate
(their supposed arch enemy) to figure out a simple
slot machine problem?
Sure - right. I wonder if ol Wong has some desert
land he wants to unload - he must think that there
are a bunch of buyers on this
newsgroup!
Consider that if a casino wanted to give Wong, Snyder,
Griffin and Imming a kick-back for sending in suckers -
it would be in the form of some obscure payment for
"inspecting the men's room" or "figuring
out a slot probability" or something like that.
The boys running the bunko game don't ask for a
receipt when they pay off their shills and steerers.
They don't want a paper trail - and they try their
best to avoid it.
The key issue here is that Wong, Snyder, Griffin and
now Imming have been secretly taking money from the
casinos. They withheld that information from their
subscribers and their clients. That my
friends is fraud and misrepresentation, pure and simple.
(I also should mention that Wong stated on this Newsgroup
that he had won $300,000 in the past 16 years playing
Blackjack. I said that he had only won $1900 per year for
the last 16 years. He claimed I could not divide. Mike
Solinas and Bryce Carlson (Wong's lackeys)
jumped on this and howled that I could not divide
16 into $300,000. But once I checked a copy of Wong's
sworn testimony in the Campione case - I found out that
Wong lied. That is not what he said during his sworn
testimony. Wong stated that he had won $300,000 during
his lifetime of play - and specifically stated that
he had not played much in the past 16 years. Moreover,
take note that most of Wong's winnings were before the
introduction of the Preferential Shuffle! After the
Preferential Shuffle was introduced - ol Wong didn't
do so good. I wonder why he failed to mention that
fact to his clients and subscribers?
My calculations that stated he had only averaged
$1900 per year stand.And in fact, after reading the
rest of Wong's testimony, those figures seem
to be a bit high. It would also seem that it's Mike
Solinas and Bryce Carlson are the ones that can't
state the truth - not to mention not divide
simple figures.
Now what should we to do about all this fraud,
misrepresentation and conflict of interest these
authors have perpetrated on us:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I receive a direct mail letter from these individuals
stating the following:
1. They agree to support card counters anytime they
sue the casinos for their right to use their brain in
any manner they wish.
2. They reveal the names of all casinos and all casino
affiliated companies they have received any type of
payment from. Including the full amounts and the
dates they received such payment.
3. That they offer disclaimers in their tout sheets that
tell the truth about the games.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. That they offer to refund any subscribers or clients
money that asks - and further offer to refund any
losses that any client or subscriber has suffered in
any casino that has paid them funds for any reason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think those demands are fair and reasonable.
If I receive such a letter I will post it on this Newsgroup.
But - I am not holding my breath.
What have the lawyers said?
Thus far, I have received four responses on the
Newsgroup from lawyers. I did not pay them a fee,
nor did they ask for one. Nor were they interested
in creating a case for themselves. They contributed
their time and expertise without solicitation or
expectation of reward.
You should be happy they offered their expert
opinion, and you should
believe it!
All four lawyers agreed with me in writing! Some
of their posts are still on and some sent me E-mail
direct. (Contact me if you want to see their opinions.)
All four lawyers stated that IF Snyder, Griffin, Wong
and the rest have taken money from the casinos
(and we know they have) without revealing such to
their clients - then that action is fraud, misrepresentation
and conflict of interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Nevada Bunko Game:
Here is what these stupid book sellers, stupid
program sellers,and general casino touts and
steerers are not telling you:
1. When you first start to play you will most likely
eventually win. That's how suckers are sucked
into bunko games.
2. Once you are identified as a card counter -
your photographwill be taken and eventually it will
be distributed to every casino in Nevada.
3. After your photograph has been taken a couple
of times, every casino that you walk into will immediately
identify you as a card counter. You will begin to wonder
why all those bosses are talking on the phones all the
time when you are playing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. You will be cheated in every casino you play.
There are many, many ways to cheat you in hand
dealt games. The preferential shuffle is one,
changing decks is another, dealing seconds is
another, cold decking is another, moving clumps
around is another, and so on. Once you have
been identified as a card counter (which usually
only takes a few days of play) you are considered
"fair game" to be cheated in every Nevada
casino you play in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will not consistently win money counting cards
in the State of Nevada. You will not become rich,
you will not be able to make a living regardless of
how good your "act" might be. Don't believe
the bunko game touts that want to sell you their
wares and steer you towards this known bunko
game. Don't be a sucker.
You also should be prepared to fight for your rights.
When you walk into a casino you are not walking
into a third-world country. You might think that the
State of Nevada is corrupt and the casinos always
get their way. That is not true. Many lawsuits
have been successful against casinos in Nevada - (
Tailhook - Binionsetc....). But also remember there
is a Federal Court system.
If you are afraid of Nevada in many cases your suit
could qualify for Federal Court. Don't duck and run,
like Snyder, Wong and the boys tell you. Stand and
fight for your rights. If you believe you have been
cheated - file a complaint with the Nevada
Gaming Commission, the Attorney General of your
home state, and call your lawyer. One of my students
took my advice on this issue - his name was Tony
Campione, and he is 1.5 million dollars richer today
because he did.
There are several pending lawsuits against
casinos- and more forming each day. If you
would like some free information as to the
requirements and conditions of joining one of
these lawsuits - call 702-263-0844 and I will
send you free information.
(You also should contact your lawyer
before you make any final legal decisions).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I have better things to do with my life -
I will not be posting as much as I have. I have
accomplished my mission as far as
this newsgroup goes. I have flushed out the
con-men - now it's time for me to do something
about it. That will take most of my time. I will
however, be available at my E-mail address for
any that wishes to write. And if you would like to
call me personally at 702-263-0844 I will be
glad to answer your questions (no legal questions please - I am not a
lawyer).
I also should thank the hundreds of participants of this
newsgroup that have contacted me and that have
urged me to continue posting. I thank you all.
Good Hunting - Semper Fi.
Doug Grant.
Michael A. Solinas
>BJ AUTHORS ADMIT SECRET CASINO
> CONNECTION
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By Doug Grant:
>When I first started to post on this newsgroup -
> I was called everything but alive. The whining
>and wailing about me daring to even suggest
>that Snyder, Griffin, Wong (and now Imming)
> were secretly taking money
>from the casinos was almost deafening.
No, you claimed they were paid by the casinos to steer
poeple into losing games. Your present position is a fall-
back position you took when you were asked for evidence of
your claims.
You can't re-write history here - there are too many people watching.
>I knew I had entered the Lion's den when I made
>those statements. I also knew that many that sell
> tout books and tout newsletters would try their best
> to howl me down. I have been up against at least
> eight different stupid book and stupid newsletter
>sellers and their lackeys and gofers.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This self-interest group has posted incredible
> nonsense with the obvious purpose to divert
> you and I from the main issue,
Bullshit.
>Which is:
>"Are the BJ authors secretly working for
>the casinos?"
They are not. As you have been repeatedly told - they
consult both for and against casinos. You repeatedly
ignore this fact. Either you are stupid, or you are trying
to deliberatly ignore the truth.
>The opposition to this question have used just
> about every tactic in the book. Their normal
> and most frequent tactic is to attempt by sheer
>volume and zero substance to howl me down.
You should talk about volume and zero substance. You
have YET to actually address issues we bring up. All you
do is rant.
> Their second tactic is to attempt to make light
> of my accusations. Their third tactic was to
> insinuate that I am a terrible person to make such
> outrageous accusations.
Feeling a bit paranoid?
DINSDALE!!!!!
> I was hit with so many different
> "squirming and desperate" tactics from
> the Authors' gofers and lackeys I knew they were
> about to run for the exits.
Bullshit.
> And the running has started:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In the last two days - both Wong and Imming
>have admitted to
>secretly working for the casinos!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I also should point out that when I say "secretly"
> I mean that they somehow failed to mention that
>fact to their subscribers and clients.
"Secretly" hardly applies here. You claimed that they
were paid by casinos to steer suckers to losing games.
You, to date, have failed to provide proof of your claim.
You can't back-peddle now.
>Now I know that soon, both Snyder and Griffin
>will eventually admit that they are also secretly
> working for the casinos. How do I know this?
There is nothing secret about Snyder's consulting work.
You are the only one here with enough of a paranoid streak to
see some sort of "gand conspiracy" behind small events.
>Well, because in the past few days I have been
> contacted by one of their "friends" and offered
>a "deal" to keep my mouth shut. I obviously
>declined the deal.
I want to go on record - I am a friend of Snyder, but have never
offered a deal to Doug Grant.
>What Snyder, Wong and Griffin intend to do is
> attempt to CON you into believing that the
> money they were paid by the casinos was not
>for anything to do with card counting.
>Yeah - sure - right.
Dinsdale!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Consider that Wong said that 5 different casinos
> had paid him money.
>He did not reveal how much, or how many times
> he was paid.
Nor does he have to.
>Wong also did not reveal how many times he was
> paid by the parent or affiliated company of any casino.
> Wong also would have us believe that he was
> paid to figure out some slot machine probability.
> Yep, that's right 5 different casinos want to hire
> a known BJ expert and card counter advocate
> (their supposed arch enemy) to figure out a simple
> slot machine problem?
>Sure - right. I wonder if ol Wong has some desert
> land he wants to unload - he must think that there
> are a bunch of buyers on this
>newsgroup!
Can Wong use your mailing list? Must be a TON of live ones there!
>Consider that if a casino wanted to give Wong, Snyder,
> Griffin and Imming a kick-back for sending in suckers -
> it would be in the form of some obscure payment for
> "inspecting the men's room" or "figuring
> out a slot probability" or something like that.
Prove it. You've asserted this on several occasions, but have offered
no proof. Hell, you've carried this with you for 10 years!! No proof
yet????
> The boys running the bunko game don't ask for a
> receipt when they pay off their shills and steerers.
> They don't want a paper trail - and they try their
> best to avoid it.
Ah, An excuse for a nutcase to avoid any proof.
>The key issue here is that Wong, Snyder, Griffin and
> now Imming have been secretly taking money from the
> casinos. They withheld that information from their
> subscribers and their clients. That my
>friends is fraud and misrepresentation, pure and simple.
Again - nothing secret about it.
> (I also should mention that Wong stated on this Newsgroup
>that he had won $300,000 in the past 16 years playing
> Blackjack. I said that he had only won $1900 per year for
> the last 16 years. He claimed I could not divide. Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson (Wong's lackeys)
>jumped on this and howled that I could not divide
>16 into $300,000.
Liar. I said nothing of the sort. Get your people straight.
> My calculations that stated he had only averaged
> $1900 per year stand.And in fact, after reading the
> rest of Wong's testimony, those figures seem
> to be a bit high. It would also seem that it's Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson are the ones that can't
> state the truth - not to mention not divide
> simple figures.
Stop misquoting me. I haven't made any issue of you and your
math abilities. You are confusing me with someone else.
That attention to detail thing is getting you again.
>Now what should we to do about all this fraud,
>misrepresentation and conflict of interest these
>authors have perpetrated on us:
>If I receive a direct mail letter from these individuals
> stating the following:
>1. They agree to support card counters anytime they
>sue the casinos for their right to use their brain in
> any manner they wish.
>2. They reveal the names of all casinos and all casino
>affiliated companies they have received any type of
> payment from. Including the full amounts and the
>dates they received such payment.
>3. That they offer disclaimers in their tout sheets that
>tell the truth about the games.
>4. That they offer to refund any subscribers or clients
>money that asks - and further offer to refund any
> losses that any client or subscriber has suffered in
> any casino that has paid them funds for any reason.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They should simply tell you to go fuck yourself.
>I think those demands are fair and reasonable.
No, they are the rantings of a madman.
>If I receive such a letter I will post it on this Newsgroup.
> But - I am not holding my breath.
Please do. Please hold your breath.
>All four lawyers agreed with me in writing! Some
> of their posts are still on and some sent me E-mail
> direct. (Contact me if you want to see their opinions.)
>All four lawyers stated that IF Snyder, Griffin, Wong
>and the rest have taken money from the casinos
> (and we know they have) without revealing such to
>their clients - then that action is fraud, misrepresentation
> and conflict of interest.
The one I saw supported you if your big *IF* - your qualifier were
true. You've offered no proof.
>Since I have better things to do with my life -
>I will not be posting as much as I have. I have
I don't believe this for a second.
>I also should thank the hundreds of participants of this
>newsgroup that have contacted me and that have
>urged me to continue posting. I thank you all.
In your own mind, there are hundreds.
--
Michael A. Solinas (mi...@solinas.com)
WWW: http://www.solinas.com/
ftp: ftp.solinas.com
Eric J. Holtman
>
>
[munch]
We are Doogie of BJ. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
------
Eric J. Holtman \ Trying to manage programmers is like
#include <stdtitle.h> \ trying to herd cats.
http://www.jaeger.com/~erich/ \__________________________
Interested in Poker in Maryland? Check out my home page! \___________________
Michael T. Yatcilla
rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc and rec.gambling.blackjack. The latter group
will be quite confused by the format, and the former will be quite
confused by the content, but what the hell...
r.g.bjers: The following will be a gentle and good-natured ribbing
of the content of the previous treatise by Mr. Grant. It is in the
form of a screenplay, and takes place on a satellite in earth orbit.
Crow, Tom and Mike are three characters on a TV show (Mystery Science
Theater 3000) who routinely poke fun at bad movies while watching them
on a movie screen. Nothing but good humor is intended with this post
(I direct this to Mr. Grant who has used the word "libel" and "lawsuit"
frequently enough to warrant such a disclaimer). If you find this
vaguely amusing, go check out rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc for more such
things by authors far funnier than me.
MSTies: There is a lively debate going on in the blackjack world
between Doug Grant (Dr. F. will tell us more about him), who authored
this post, and the traditional card counting community. Doug has
claimed that most of the authors of respected blackjack card counting
books and/or software have secretly consulted with the casinos in an
effort to conspire against skilled players.
[THEME MUSIC]
[@...2...3...4...5...6...{}...]
[SOL. CROW and TOM are reading books. CROW has "Professional
Blackjack" by Stanford Wong, and TOM has "Blackbelt in Blackjack" by
Arnold Snyder. MIKE enters].
MIKE: Hey guys, what are you reading?
CROW: [not looking up] They're books on how to win at blackjack by
counting cards.
MIKE: Counting cards? Does that work?
TOM: Sure, anybody "with average mathematical ability" (quoting his
book) can learn how to do it.
MIKE: Well, I don't believe it. Sounds like a scam to me.
CROW: [Looks up] Scam, huh? Well, I think we'll just have to show
Mr. Nelson what a couple of true card counting experts can do,
won't we Tom?
TOM: Right you are, Crow.
[CROW nuzzles a deck of cards towards MIKE who picks them up and starts
to shuffle. GYPSY enters.]
GYPSY: Oooh, cards! I love to play cards! What are we going to play?
CROW: Gypsy, we aren't going to _play_ anything. What we are about to
do is demonstrate to Mike that blackjack is an exact science,
with all actions dictated by a computer-generated set of tables
that account for every possible deck permutation.
GYPSY: Oh blackjack! Great! I never hit my 12s!
[CROW rolls his eyes. MIKE gives all 3 'bots a stack of chips and deals
the first hand. TOM and CROW furiously count all the cards. They both
have 13. GYPSY has 20. MIKE has a 6 showing.]
GYPSY: Hit me! Hit me!
[CROW and TOM snicker. MIKE deals GYPSY an ace. She has 21. TOM and
CROW stand. MIKE turns over a 6 then a five. He has 17. GYPSY wins
and TOM and CROW lose. MIKE takes their chips and doubles GYPSY's]
GYPSY: Oh boy oh boy oh boy.
TOM: [consulting book] well, anything can happen in the short term.
[MIKE deals next hand, but DR.FORRESTER interrupts]
MIKE: Oh, no. The Black Jack is calling...
DR.F: Hello there Nelson, I see you're playing blackjack. That's good,
since today's experiment is a long posting from Mr. Doug Grant.
MIKE: Doug Grant? Who's he?
DR.F: He is CEO of Doug Grant, Inc. and the namesake of the Doug Grant
College of Winning Blackjack. He has also financed and managed
extremely high-stakes professional blackjack teams. He is also
a frequent poster on rec.gambling.blackjack and has ruffled more
than a few feathers there with direct attacks on authors of the
most popular and well-regarded blackjack books. But enough of
that Nelson, it's time for some pain.
ALL: WE'VE GOT POSTING SIGN!!!
[{}...6...5...4...3...2...@...]
doug...@interserv.com wrote:
>
>BJ AUTHORS ADMIT SECRET CASINO
> CONNECTION
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>By Doug Grant:
>
>When I first started to post on this newsgroup -
TOM: It first started to become a miserable place.
> I was called everything but alive.
CROW: Doug, you're alive. Nyaah. There, now you've been called
everything.
> The whining
>and wailing
TOM: Hmm. Maybe you shouldn't have posted to rec.nursery.babies.
> about me daring to even suggest
>that Snyder, Griffin, Wong (and now Imming)
CROW: Hey, Mike, are you an "imming" or an "outing"?
> were secretly taking money
>from the casinos was almost deafening.
>
>I knew I had entered the Lion's den when I
TOM: Saw that big sign saying "You are now entering the Lion's den".
> made
>those statements. I also knew that many that sell
> tout books and tout newsletters
CROW: Like the word "tout".
So do I: [singing] Tout, tout, tout.
> would try their best
> to howl me down.
ALL: HOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
> I have been up against at least
> eight different stupid book and stupid newsletter
>sellers
MIKE: Eight? Looks like the stupid newsletter market is pretty
saturated.
TOM: Oh, darn. And I had a great new idea: "Fun with Lint Quarterly".
> and their lackeys and gofers.
CROW: Lackeys?
TOM: Gofers?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This self-interest group has posted incredible
> nonsense with the obvious purpose to divert
> you and I from the main issue,
>
>Which is:
CROW: WHAT THE HELL WAS FRANK THINKING????
>
>"Are the BJ authors secretly working for
>the casinos?"
>
>The opposition to this question
TOM: Can you oppose a _question_?
> have used just
> about every tactic in the book.
MIKE: But since that book's author was secretly working for the
casinos, those tactics are worthless!
> Their normal
> and most frequent tactic is to attempt by sheer
>volume and zero substance to howl me down.
ALL: HOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
> Their second tactic is to attempt to make light
> of my accusations.
MIKE: Hmmph. Pretty trivial accusation there, Doug.
> Their third tactic was to
> insinuate that I am a terrible person to make such
> outrageous accusations.
TOM: You know, most people who make conspiracy accusations about
respected bj book authors also steal babies' toys and do "fake
throws" to eager puppies.
>
> I was hit with so many different
> "squirming and desperate" tactics from
> the Authors' gofers and lackeys
TOM: Gofers?
CROW: Lackeys?
> I knew they were
> about to run for the exits.
[BOTS and MIKE start to get up and leave]
>
> And the running has started:
ALL: groan. [sit back down]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In the last two days - both Wong and Imming
>have admitted to
>secretly working for the casinos!
TOM: [Wong] I've worked for the casinos in secret.
CROW: [Imming] Me too.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I also should point out that when I say "secretly"
MIKE: I mean something totally different.
> I mean that they somehow failed to mention that
>fact to their subscribers and clients.
TOM: [Wong] Geez. I failed to mention that, along with my high
school supermarket job.
CROW: [Imming] Yeah. I was going to put a little picture of me with
my arm around a pitboss in the background of UBE, but there
wasn't enough memory.
>
>Now I know that soon, both Snyder and Griffin
>will eventually admit that they are also secretly
> working for the casinos. How do I know this?
TOM: [Marvin] Because I have a brain the size of a planet.
>Well, because in the past few days I have been
> contacted by one of their "friends" and offered
>a "deal"
CROW: To "stop" quoting "every" "word".
> to keep my mouth shut. I obviously
>declined the deal.
ALL: [dejected] Awwwww.
>
>What Snyder, Wong and Griffin intend to do is
> attempt to CON you
TOM: Hey wait, I thought they were "PRO"s. heh heh.
MIKE: Don't ever say that again.
> into believing that the
> money they were paid by the casinos was not
>for anything to do with card counting.
>
>Yeah - sure - right.
CROW: I - like - small - words.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROW: [whispering] psst, Mike, what are these lines for?
MIKE: I have no idea.
>Consider that Wong said that 5 different casinos
> had paid him money.
>He did not reveal how much, or how many times
> he was paid.
TOM: Let's just say Wong's quite comfortable.
>Wong also did not reveal how many times he was
> paid by the parent or affiliated company of any casino.
CROW: Oooh that Wong should be _ashamed_ of taking that money from
the casinos.
MIKE: Yeah. After all, the casinos would never take money from us...
> Wong also would have us believe that he was
> paid to figure out some slot machine probability.
TOM: I could have figured that out: You'll probably lose.
> Yep, that's right
CROW: "Yep"? "That's right"? Why do I keep thinking "Ross Perot" when
I listen to this guy?
> 5 different casinos want to hire
> a known BJ expert and card counter advocate
> (their supposed arch enemy) to figure out a simple
> slot machine problem?
TOM: [casino exec] Wong, this slot machine has a problem. It pays
money to the player. Fix it.
>Sure - right. I wonder if ol Wong has some desert
> land he wants to unload -
CROW: [excited] Desert Land! How much!
he must think that there
> are a bunch of buyers on this
>newsgroup!
>
>Consider that if a casino wanted to give Wong, Snyder,
> Griffin and Imming a kick-back for sending in suckers -
> it would be in the form of some obscure payment for
> "inspecting the men's room"
TOM: If you know what I mean...
> or "figuring
> out a slot probability" or something like that.
> The boys running the bunko game don't ask for a
> receipt when they pay off their shills and steerers.
ALL: Huh?
> They don't want a paper trail - and they try their
> best to avoid it.
CROW: [whispering] The elusive and beautiful paper bird
can be tracked by its unmistakable trail of newsprint.
>
>The key issue here is that Wong, Snyder, Griffin and
> now Imming have been secretly taking money from the
> casinos. They withheld that information from their
> subscribers and their clients. That my
>friends is fraud and misrepresentation, pure and simple.
MIKE: That, my friends, is generalization and paranoia,
pure and simple.
>
> (I also should mention that Wong stated on this Newsgroup
>that he had won $300,000 in the past 16 years playing
> Blackjack. I said that he had only won $1900 per year for
> the last 16 years. He claimed I could not divide.
TOM: [calculating] I'd claim that, too.
> Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson (Wong's lackeys)
>jumped on this and howled
ALL: HOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
that I could not divide
>16 into $300,000. But once I checked a copy of Wong's
> sworn testimony in the Campione case - I found out that
> Wong lied. That is not what he said during his sworn
>testimony. Wong stated that he had won $300,000 during
>his lifetime of play - and specifically stated that
>he had not played much in the past 16 years. Moreover,
>take note that most of Wong's winnings were before the
> introduction of the Preferential Shuffle!
CROW: Introducing the Preferential Shuffle(TM). Now in easy-to-swallow
caplets!
> After the
>Preferential Shuffle was introduced - ol Wong didn't
>do so good.
MIKE: [little boy] Pa, ol Wong don't look so good.
TOM: [Pa] We'll have to put 'im to sleep then, son.
> I wonder why he failed to mention that
>fact to his clients and subscribers?
>
>
> My calculations that stated he had only averaged
> $1900 per year stand.
MIKE: Like a house of cards in a windstorm.
> And in fact, after reading the
> rest of Wong's testimony, those figures seem
> to be a bit high.
CROW: Doug, you know, you can get new batteries for that
calculator of yours.
> It would also seem that it's Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson are the ones that can't
> state the truth -
CROW: [Mike Solinas] th' trt. No, th't truck, No...
MIKE: [Bryce Carlson] those tracks, no, th trap, no...
> not to mention not
TOM: use double negatives.
> divide
> simple figures.
>
>Now what should we to do about all this fraud,
>misrepresentation and conflict of interest these
>authors have perpetrated on us:
CROW: We should just give them a big wet kiss!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>If I receive a direct mail letter from these individuals
> stating the following:
TOM: Then what?
>
>1. They agree to support card counters anytime they
>sue the casinos for their right to use their brain in
> any manner they wish.
MIKE: Unless it's to send a list of demands like this one.
>
>2. They reveal the names of all casinos and all casino
>affiliated companies they have received any type of
> payment from. Including the full amounts and the
>dates they received such payment.
CROW: And if they could just go ahead and mail me that money,
that'd be great too.
>
>3. That they offer disclaimers in their tout sheets that
>tell the truth about the games.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. That they offer to refund any subscribers or clients
>money that asks - and further offer to refund any
> losses that any client or subscriber has suffered in
> any casino that has paid them funds for any reason.
CROW: [whispering] Is this guy serious?
MIKE: I think so. Shhh.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I think those demands are fair and reasonable.
TOM: [laughing] Yeah, right!
>
>If I receive such a letter I will post it on this Newsgroup.
> But - I am not holding my breath.
>
>What have the lawyers said?
CROW: [Lawyer] Hey, let's go get in our BMWs and chase
some ambulances!
MIKE: Crow, that's uncalled for.
>
>Thus far, I have received four responses on the
> Newsgroup from lawyers.
CROW: Two of them asked me if I've suffered wrongful eyestrain
from excessive posting.
> I did not pay them a fee,
TOM: [lawyer] Hey!
>nor did they ask for one. Nor were they interested
> in creating a case for themselves.
MIKE: No, those boxes work just fine.
> They contributed
>their time and expertise without solicitation or
>expectation of reward.
CROW: You sure you're talking about _lawyers_ here?
MIKE: That's enough, Crow.
>
>You should be happy they offered their expert
> opinion, and you should
>believe it!
>
>All four lawyers agreed with me in writing! Some
> of their posts are still on
TOM: And they won't come off. I've scrubbed and scrubbed...
> and some sent me E-mail
> direct. (Contact me if you want to see their opinions.)
>All four lawyers stated that IF Snyder, Griffin, Wong
>and the rest have taken money from the casinos
CROW: Then the lawyers should get half of it.
MIKE: Crow, I'm not warning you again...
> (and we know they have) without revealing such to
>their clients - then that action is fraud, misrepresentation
> and conflict of interest.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Great Nevada Bunko Game:
TOM: Bunko?
CROW: Is this still the same post?
>
>Here is what these stupid book sellers, stupid
>program sellers,and general casino touts and
>steerers are not telling you:
MIKE: Your aftershave is making my spleen itch.
BOTS: Huh?
MIKE: Well, they're definitely not telling them that...
>
>1. When you first start to play you will most likely
> eventually win. That's how suckers are sucked
>into bunko
CROW: Everybody loves Bunko, the dandruffy clown!
> games.
>
>2. Once you are identified as a card counter -
>your photographwill be taken and eventually it will
>be distributed to every casino in Nevada.
>
>3. After your photograph has been taken a couple
> of times,
TOM: You'll be asked to pose in flattering eveningwear.
> every casino that you walk into will immediately
> identify you as a card counter.
CROW: From all that flashpowder on your face.
> You will begin to wonder
> why all those bosses are talking on the phones all the
>time when you are playing.
MIKE: Oh you know pit bosses - they just love to gab!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. You will be cheated in every casino you play.
> There are many, many ways to cheat you in hand
>dealt games. The preferential shuffle is one
CROW: catch-phrase I use a lot,
>changing decks is another, dealing seconds is
>another,
TOM: thing that never happens in real life.
> cold decking is
MIKE: a good thing to do to your porch when the cold weather sets in.
> another, moving clumps
> around
ALL: Ewwwww.
> is another, and so on. Once you have
>been identified as a card counter (which usually
> only takes a few days of play) you are considered
>"fair game" to be cheated in every Nevada
>casino you play in.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You will not consistently win money counting cards
>in the State of Nevada. You will not become rich,
TOM: and therefore your life will be miserable and sad.
> you will not be able to make a living regardless of
>how good your "act" might be. Don't believe
>the bunko
CROW: I'm being "bunko"ed to death.
> game touts that want to sell you their
> wares and steer you towards this known bunko
> game. Don't be a sucker.
MIKE: But if you are, send me $20 and I'll teach you how to
overcome it.
>
>You also should be prepared to fight for your rights.
TOM: To party.
> When you walk into a casino you are not walking
>into a third-world country.
CROW: Unless it's one of those Trump dives.
> You might think that the
> State of Nevada is corrupt and the casinos always
> get their way. That is not true. Many lawsuits
>have been successful against casinos in Nevada - (
>Tailhook - Binions
MIKE: I had some Binions on my foot last week. They really hurt.
> etc....). But also remember there
>is a Federal Court system.
TOM: Where you can sue, sue, sue!
>If you are afraid of Nevada in many cases your suit
CROW: Will get you laughed out of nice restaraunts.
> could qualify for Federal Court. Don't duck and run,
>like Snyder, Wong and the boys tell you.
TOM: [Wong] Where are the boys?
MIKE: [Snyder] They're ducking and running.
> Stand and
> fight for your rights. If you believe you have been
>cheated - file a complaint with the Nevada
>Gaming Commission, the Attorney General of your
> home state, and call your lawyer.
TOM: He's lonely.
> One of my students
>took my advice on this issue - his name was Tony
>Campione, and he is 1.5 million dollars richer today
>because he did.
CROW: Of course his lawyers are 4 million dollars richer today...
MIKE: I warned you. [muzzles CROW for rest of post]
>
>There are several pending lawsuits against
> casinos- and more forming each day. If you
>would like some free information as to the
> requirements and conditions of joining one of
> these lawsuits - call 702-263-0844 and I will
> send you free information.
> (You also should contact your lawyer
>before you make any final legal decisions).
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Since I have better things to do with my life -
>I will not be posting as much as I have.
ALL: [clapping] Yay!!
> I have
> accomplished my mission as far as
>this newsgroup goes. I have flushed
TOM: Thank goodness.
> out the
> con-men - now it's time for me to do something
>about it. That will take most of my time. I will
>however, be available at my E-mail address for
> any that wishes to write. And if you would like to
> call me personally at 702-263-0844 I will be
>glad to answer your questions (no legal questions please - I am not a
>lawyer).
MIKE: But I play one on TV.
>
>I also should thank the hundreds of participants of this
>newsgroup that have contacted me and that have
>urged me to continue posting.
TOM: Personally, I think they should be slapped.
> I thank you all.
>
>Good Hunting - Semper Fi.
>
>Doug Grant.
>
[@...2...3...4...5...6...{}...]
[GYPSY is sitting at the table with an enormous stack
of chips in front of her. CROW and TOM are broke.]
CROW: [glaring at MIKE] Lousy preferential shuffle.
TOM: Yeah, and you were dealing seconds, too!
CROW: And she [gestures at GYPSY] was cheating!
[GYPSY cowers. MIKE protects her from the angry BOTS]
MIKE: No, everything was fair and square. Gypsy
just had a run of good luck, that's all.
Doesn't your book talk about the occasional
run of luck? You're playing for the long-term,
don't forget that.
TOM: Stupid Book! [glares at Snyder's book] I
can't believe I bought into this. You know,
Doug Grant is right. It is like a Bonko Game.
MIKE: I believe that's "Bunko", Tom.
CROW: Well, whatever it is, I'm writing to Mr. Wong
and demanding my money back, _and_ all the
money I lost to Gypsy. [glares at her]
MIKE: I don't think you guys have much of a case
- these books didn't come with any sort of
guarantee. Maybe you should just admit that
Gypsy is a better player than you are.
TOM: Well, at least better than Crow.
CROW: What? You're as broke as I am!!
TOM: That's because you kept taking the dealer's bust card!
CROW: Why you! [CROW attacks TOM. Scuffle ensues]
MIKE: Settle down, you two, the mad is calling.
DR.F: Well, I hope you learned something from this, Nelson.
By the way, I didn't appreciate all the lawyer
references. I'll have you know that I was a lawyer
prior to my mad scientist days.
CROW: We're not surprised. Hey guys, come here, I heard
this great lawyer joke. [MIKE, GYPSY and TOM crowd
in][whispering] So two lawyers walk into a bar...
[voice trails off]
[DR. F. peers anxiously trying to hear what CROW is saying]
CROW: [whispering] ...so then he says " 'Tort'?, I thought you
said 'torque'!"
[riotous laughter from BOTS and MIKE]
MIKE: Don't you get it, Dr. F?
DR.F: Get this, Nelson... [pushes the button]
[end credits]
Mystery Science Theater 3000 and related characters and
situations are trademarks of and (c) 1995 by Best Brains Inc. All Rights
Reserved. Use of copyrighted or trademarked material is for entertainment
purposes only. No infringement on original copyrights or trademarks held
by Best Brains, Inc. is intended or should be inferred.
Ken Fuchs
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Great Nevada Bunko Game:
>
> Here is what these stupid book sellers, stupid
> program sellers,and general casino touts and
> steerers are not telling you:
>
> 1. When you first start to play you will most likely
> eventually win. That's how suckers are sucked
> into bunko games.
Do mean that they will cheat in our favor at first, or that
we will win because the game is beatable?
>
> 2. Once you are identified as a card counter -
> your photograph will be taken and eventually it will
> be distributed to every casino in Nevada.
>
> 3. After your photograph has been taken a couple
> of times, every casino that you walk into will immediately
> identify you as a card counter. You will begin to wonder
> why all those bosses are talking on the phones all the
> time when you are playing.
First they will cheat to give us money, and then they will
bar us? Well, it least it beats losing. :)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. You will be cheated in every casino you play.
> There are many, many ways to cheat you in hand
> dealt games. The preferential shuffle is one,
> changing decks is another, dealing seconds is
> another, cold decking is another, moving clumps
> around is another, and so on. Once you have
> been identified as a card counter (which usually
> only takes a few days of play) you are considered
> "fair game" to be cheated in every Nevada
> casino you play in.
OK Mr Grant, will they bar us because the game is beatable
or will they let us play and just cheat us out of our money?
Can you see the conflict in your own words here?
If every hand held game in Nevada is tainted with preferential
shuffling, why would they ever want to bar a card counter?
If they are barring card counters, then the card counters must
be a real threat in counting and using "The Systems" and making
money in beatable games.
Regards,
-Ken Fuchs
doug...@interserv.com
> Okay. This is my first ever MSTing. I'm crossposting this to
> rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc and rec.gambling.blackjack. The latter group
> will be quite confused by the format, and the former will be quite
> >
Doug Grant says:
You Sir - have talent!
Shall I said I HOWELLLLLLLLLLED with
laughter?
My only question is why are you wasting
your time defending bunko steerers and con
men? You should be selling your wares
somewhere off 42nd ST?
DG.
Pat Firestone
This was the funniest thing I've read in a real, real long time. I
think that Doug will miss the humor, sadly, but I'm still ROTFL.
Thank you, thank you. It's the only thing even remotely related to
this Doug guy that I've enjoyed reading in 2 weeks. Isn't there
anything we can do to lose this joker?
Pat F.
I'm not speaking for my employer in ANY way, shape or form. Believe me.
doug...@interserv.com
sucker ears about your favoriate con-man. But I am a
man with a mission:
Have you heard the latest? My casino spies
tell me that Stanford Wong
actually sold card counter detection software to
the casinos? Now for those of you that don't
understand:
Card counter detection software
means that not only is he helping the casinos
identify card counters - he is directly helping
the casinos to cheat them.
Moreover, 7 lawyers heard from so far, all of them
agree that you are experiencing a con-game.
Hard to admit you have been suckered - isn't
it? Like to deny - deny -deny - don't you?
Pathetic.
Doug Grant.
P.S. Sin loi m'no
doug...@interserv.com
sucker ears about your favoriate con-man. But I am a
man with a mission:
Have you heard the latest? My casino spies
tell me that Stanford Wong
actually sold card counter detection software to
the casinos? Now for those of you that don't
understand:
Card counter detection software
means that not only is he helping the casinos
identify card counters - he is directly helping
the casinos to cheat them.
Moreover, 7 lawyers heard from so far, all of them
agree that you are experiencing a con-game.
Hard to admit you have been suckered - isn't
it? Like to deny - deny -deny - don't you?
Pathetic.
Doug Grant.
P.S. Sein loi m'noi.
doug...@interserv.com
sucker ears about your favoriate con-man. But I am a
man with a mission:
Have you heard the latest? My casino spies
tell me that Stanford Wong
actually sold card counter detection software to
the casinos? Now for those of you that don't
understand:
Card counter detection software
means that not only is he helping the casinos
identify card counters - he is directly helping
the casinos to cheat them.
Moreover, 7 lawyers heard from so far, all of them
agree that you are experiencing a con-game.
Hard to admit you have been suckered - isn't
it? Like to deny - deny -deny - don't you?
Pathetic.
Doug Grant.
P.S. Sin loi m'no
Eric J. Holtman
>
>Gosh - I hate to bring more bad tidings. Hurt your innocent
>sucker ears about your favoriate con-man. But I am a
>man with a mission:
>
[YAPR elided]
We are Doogie of BJ. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Did you know Wong works for the Borg? Did you know Snyder works for the IRS?
It's true. Why? Because it is.
Eric J. Holtman
doug...@interserv.com
Toward the end of this post you will find a final challenge that will decide, once and for all, who is lying and who is telling the truth
about these issues. But first, please read the entire post - it's worth your time and effort - and will probably save you a lot of money.
For all those that have replied to my posts with
responsible questions - I thank you.
But a warning should also be expressed: Apparently, there are many, Snyder, Wong and Griffin gofers and lackeys located on
this newsgroup. Moreover, my spies tell me that
Snyder and the boys use many aliases on this newsgroup. You can always tell when a lackey or gofer or aliases are being used -
they will always attempt to skirt the real issue with cheap sarcasm, nonsensical poems or detrimental personal statements intended to
divert your attention away from the real issue:
Which is:
Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, Peter Griffin are secretly taking money from the casinos.
Question: So, what is wrong with taking money from the casinos?
Answer: The above mentioned individuals claim to be card counter advocates - but in truth they are attempting to steer you toward
games that they know will cheat you. Such as the Nevada single and double deck game that universally use the preferential shuffle
and barring tactics (and many other tactics) to cheat their patrons. They provide tedious and repetitive mathematical details in their
books and newsletters designed to entice you to play the Nevada single and double deck games. However, in all their details and
recommendations they somehow fail to include the effect of the casino's main cheating tactics. They know that if they did tell you
the truth about those cheating tactics, they would be required to simply tell you that their systems do not work, and cannot work, and
that you will lose your money. But they avoid mentioning those facts and consequently:
1. They sell lots of books and newsletters because they convince you that you can become "Bart Maverick" and beat the
casinos at their own game.
2. As a result of their outright lies in respect to a game that does not exist - you work hard to master card counting.
Something that you would not have normally done had you not read their book and/or newsletters. (What person would not want to
win money from the casinos if it was indeed possible to do so?)
3. Once you master your card counting abilities - you try your hand in the Nevada one and two deck games. At first,
because the casinos have not yet identified you as a card counter, you win a few dollars.
4. But once you are identified as a card counter, your photograph is taken. Your photograph is then reproduced and sent
to every casino in Nevada via the casino's various contracted detective agencies.
5. Once you are identified as a card counter - you are then considered fair game to be cheated. The preferential shuffle
will be used against you, and if they can't beat you that way, they will use the new deck routine, the clump shuffle or eventually cold-
deck you. If none of those cheating tactics work, then they will simply bar you from playing Blackjack.
6. Once the cheating starts many of you will either:
a. Quit playing Blackjack.
b. Reduce your wagers to such a paltry amount to avoid casino heat that you will end up losing or breaking
even.
c. Fight back, call your lawyer and sue individually, or participate in one of the many class action lawsuits
against the casinos.
(If you would like to know how you can join one of these lawsuits call me at 702-263-0844 and I will provide you with what I know
free. Also, please no legal questions - I am not a lawyer.)
But what is sad, many of you will just keep playing, and eventually lose a lot of money to the casinos.
Does this sound like a bunko game to you? If it doesn't - it should, because that is exactly what it is.
Consider that if you were approached by a shill (Snyder Wong or Griffin) on a city street and you were told that a three-card Monte
game could be beaten up the street - would you listen? Most of you would not.
You know that these games are not dealt for the players to win. (The same as the games dealt in the casino.) You know that the
dealers of these games will not let you win - so it's hard to believe the shill. But the shill is persistent. He says, "Look Bud, I will prove
you can beat this game. Let me show you how - it won't cost you a cent." So your greed takes over your brain and you follow the
shill thinking that " What could it hurt if I just watched?"
The shill steers you to the game and you stand back and watch the three-card Monte game for a while. The shill whispers in your
ear to pay attention to the card with the "bent corner." Sure enough, each time the dealer deals the key card, which is usually the
Black Queen, it does indeed have a bent corner! The shill then takes you aside and says: "Look Bud, I have found a way to beat
this game. The dealer doesn't know it but he is accidentally bending up the corner of the card you are supposed to pick each time
he deals. So if you pay careful attention - you can beat this game." (Sound familiar yet?)
So being the smart and careful person you are, you watch for a few more rounds and sure enough that corner is bent on the black
queen each time the dealer deals. So now you bet a few dollars, and the bent corner is easy to detect - and you win a few dollars.
Then you become very excited and bring out the big money. You bet everything in your pocket - and guess what - yep you guessed
it - NOW THE CORNER OF EACH CARD DEALT IS BENT! Now the odds are stacked against you two to one. (What that means
is two players will lose and one will win.)
In most cases the losing players will simply take their loss and storm away - ashamed, knowing their greed and stupidity has caused
them to lose their money.
But what about the one out of three that actually win?
Well, they now are automatically shills for the game! They tell their friends and their neighbors about the great easy money game they
have found. They buy the original shill a drink and tell the entire bar what a great money making opportunity there is just down the
street. And of course they return to the game - and what eventually must happen to them? Well of course, they will lose and walk
away ashamed of their stupidity in believing a game such as this could really be beaten.
Then how does the three-card Monte dealer pay off his shills? In a straight three-card Monte game the shills are paid per sucker they
bring to the game.
Question: So how does all this apply to Blackjack?
Answer: Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, Peter Griffin and others are the shills. The three-card Monte game is the Nevada game of
Blackjack, and guess who is the sucker?
As a case in point, also consider the following:
1. Do you really believe that the casinos will allow you to win money playing their games? Have you checked out their profit levels
lately? They are making more money now on the game of Blackjack than ever before. The more card counting books published -
the more money they make. Now if the game really could be beaten that correlation would be impossible.
Answer: The casinos are not in the business to lose money. They know what card counting is - their dealers and floor
personnel are trained to identify card counters and promptly cheat them. In many cases over 60 per cent of their business comes
directly from those that are counting cards! Card counters are meat on their table - their games could not exist without card counters
losing money at their tables. They want card counters to play their games because they know that a card counting system cannot
possibly overcome their cheating tactics!
2. If the game can be beaten - then why is not Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong or Peter Griffin playing it? Why have all three of them
admitted that they have not made any real money since the preferential shuffle and other cheating tactics have started? And if they
say they will be recognized, then why are they not simply financing teams or even endorsing team play?
Answer: I happen to know that Team Play is the best way to play Blackjack. The advantages are numerous and important:
a. Money. If you have a $1000 total bank, and you merged it with 20 other card counters, ALL of you, I repeat ALL of you
could wager a top bet of $200 with only a total $1000 risk each. (There is no difference in 20 players wagering a $200 top bet each
than a single player wagering $200 20 times faster than normal. Consequently, your bankroll would be wagered well within your
normal (or better) desired probability of ruin. ) What fool with a $1000 would wager only a $10 top bet, when he could merge that
money with 19 other card counters and all wager a $200 top bet with the same probability of ruin and twenty times the expectation of
profit?
b. Discipline. Many card counters lack discipline. A team usually provides the necessary discipline to play correctly. The
casinos know that most card counters eventually transform into losing gamblers, or at least deviate from their system on a regular
basis. (Many card counters won't admit this - but I have watched card counters play for 25 years and I agree with the casino's
conclusion.)
There are many other advantages to Team Play - but what is my point?
If the game can be beaten like Snyder, Wong and Griffin tout, then why don't they finance or even endorse teams?
The reason should be obvious. If teams formed then all of the suckers could compare notes. They would realize that only a few are
winning - and the majority are in fact LOSING MONEY. That interrupts the effect of the "shill" that wins one out of two times and
consequently talks up the game for the rest of the suckers. Team play would also expose the fact that Snyder, Wong and Griffin are
really secretly selling their stupid books and tout sheets for the direct benefit of the casinos.
Also, how does the casino compensate their shills for sending them all those suckers?
In this case, Wong, Griffin and Snyder, (and others) are indirectly compensated by being hired as "casino consultants on slot
machines" or, "inspectors of casino men's rooms." Or some other nonsensical consulting job that is esoterically designed to funnel
money to Snyder's, Wong's and Griffin's bank accounts.
Could this be really true? That Wong, Snyder and Griffin take secret money from the casinos?
Or, are you just making this up for some self-serving reason? It's most definitely true that they are taking secret money from the
casinos! Wong has admitted openly in this newsgroup that he has secretly accepted money from the casinos - and Snyder and
Griffin are afraid to comment. They know they have been caught. And they are desperate to keep me quiet.
I have been approached by some of their friends asking me to be quiet about this, and in one case I was offered a "deal" if I would
meet with one of their casino confederates. Wong, Snyder and Griffin are also using aliases and gofers and lackeys on this
newsgroup in an attempt to howl me down with irresponsible statements, and stupid sarcasm. You can identify the gofers and
lackeys immediately by the mere fact they always attempt to duck the real issue in their replies.
"What honest and rational person would not want to know whether they are being deceived, cheated and conned?"
Answer: Only those that are actually doing the conning - or, are indirectly or directly deriving a benefit from the big con game. So if
you see stupid sarcasm in some of their postings or replies, or childish poems or statements, you should know that Wong, Snyder and
Griffin again have one of their operatives attempting to discredit the real truth about their bosses.
Question: Obviously, I believe I am right. But could I be wrong? Is there a small chance that the casinos want me to win their
money? Is there just a small possibility that the casinos want me to play a card counting system in their casino and make a good
living off their charitable nature? No - you say? No way the casinos are going to allow anyone to win any substantial amounts - or
even small amounts for that matter for any length of time.
You might be right - but again what if I am wrong?
Well, lets test this issue once and for all:
Some of my associates will finance a team to play Nevada's one and two deck games. We will ask Wong, Snyder and Griffin to
recommended those casinos that deal honest games, and we will exclusively play the one and two deck games located in those
casinos. We will spread our wagers from one unit to four units (as Snyder, Wong and Griffin recommends) and we will count cards
using the card counting system contained in my Team Level Blackjack Course. We will keep a careful accounting of the profit and
loss, and the tactics of each casino - and we will report our findings to this newsgroup and to the Attorney General of the United
States.
We also will invite all interested parties to witness our play. Fair enough?
If we experience a preponderance of preferential shuffling and barring - then of course everything I have said is true. If not, then I
will admit I was wrong. In either case, the Attorney General of the United States will be informed of what is going on and our final
results.
How about it - is that fair? Please indicate your answer. (Note that all stupid sarcastic remarks and non-issue dork statements will be
accepted as a "Yes" answer.)
I have been asked a couple personal of questions that should be answered:
Question: Have I ever taken money from any casino, or casino parent, directly or indirectly for any reason?
Answer: No.
Question: Have I ever been offered substantial money from any casino, casino parent indirectly or directly?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Do I have courses, books or newsletters to sell?
Answer: No. I discontinued my involvement with my franchises years ago after the casinos started their campaign to cheat at
Blackjack, and attack my schools and students.
Question: Am I recruiting for my team, or another team?
Answer: No.
Question: Do I have a "vendetta" going against Arnold Snyder?
Answer: No. I do believe that Snyder is a shill for the casinos, a con man and a "bunko steerer" but I have not had a vendetta
against him since 1985 like some of his gofers are suggesting. I wrote what I thought of Snyder in 1985 - and he had sense enough
to print my letter to avoid a lawsuit. After that, I virtually had no correspondence with him for 10 years until he surfaced on the side of
the casinos in the Campione case. Ten years of silence is hardly a vendetta. I admit I don't like the way he is ripping off casino
players - but a vendetta? Not yet.
Question: Do I intend to "disrupt" Snyder's and Wong's casino sponsored seminar at the Trump Taj- Mahal in Atlantic City?
Answer: No, of course not. Why should I? Obviously, Snyder and Wong are simply getting another kickback from a friendly
casino. That is just another piece of evidence against them. However, I do suggest that they would be remiss in not telling the
Trump Taj Mahal what has been stated in this newsgroup. The issue would be whether the Taj Mahal is incurring any type of liability
by paying Snyder and Wong to entice people to count cards and consequently experience the joys of preferential shuffling in their
casino. Considering that the Trump Taj Mahal most definitely uses the preferential shuffle even in their six and eight deck games,
Snyder and Wong's appearance there to drum up business for Trump seems most appropriate.
Please E-mail me your response to my Team challenge.
Doug Grant.
doug...@interserv.com
fi...@datasync.com
>
> BJ AUTHORS ADMIT SECRET CASINO
> CONNECTION
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By Doug Grant:
>
> When I first started to post on this newsgroup -
> I was called everything but alive. The whining
> and wailing about me daring to even suggest
> that Snyder, Griffin, Wong (and now Imming)
> were secretly taking money
> from the casinos was almost deafening.
You come in making all sorts of accusations without
evidence about well respected people and in some
cases personal friends and business associates and
expect no opposition? Foolishness. Most of the whining
and wailing (your words) was from people demanding
that you either stop making baseless accusations or
back them up with proof, neither of which you have done.
May this post is your proof. Let's see.
> I knew I had entered the Lion's den when I made
> those statements. I also knew that many that sell
> tout books and tout newsletters would try their best
> to howl me down. I have been up against at least
> eight different stupid book and stupid newsletter
> sellers and their lackeys and gofers.
Um, couldn't you be included in that last group? And
wouldn't that make you a competitor of those you seem
to hate so? Not exactly objective of you.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This self-interest group has posted incredible
> nonsense with the obvious purpose to divert
> you and I from the main issue,
As far as I know it, the interest of THIS group is the
truth about blackjack. That's part of the reason you
have met with such a high level of opposition.
> Which is:
>
> "Are the BJ authors secretly working for
> the casinos?"
>
> The opposition to this question have used just
> about every tactic in the book. Their normal
> and most frequent tactic is to attempt by sheer
> volume and zero substance to howl me down.
> Their second tactic is to attempt to make light
> of my accusations. Their third tactic was to
> insinuate that I am a terrible person to make such
> outrageous accusations.
>
> I was hit with so many different
> "squirming and desperate" tactics from
> the Authors' gofers and lackeys I knew they were
> about to run for the exits.
>
> And the running has started:
OK, this is not evidence. This is whining about your
treatment.
As for your original question, is it valid? If BJ authors
secretly work for casinos, does that imply some sort
of malfeasance on their part? I would think that you
would have to show that what they publish is not only
untrue, but in such a way to enrich the casinos at the
expense of their readers.
Nowhere have you shown this. Your score is still 0.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the last two days - both Wong and Imming
> have admitted to
> secretly working for the casinos!
To whom, you? Excuse us if we don't take your
word for it. Have them post it next time. Or hold
a press conference. CNN would cover it. Or at
least the local Las Vegas stations.
Your score is still 0.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I also should point out that when I say "secretly"
> I mean that they somehow failed to mention that
> fact to their subscribers and clients.
But you they tell. Come on.
> Now I know that soon, both Snyder and Griffin
> will eventually admit that they are also secretly
> working for the casinos. How do I know this?
> Well, because in the past few days I have been
> contacted by one of their "friends" and offered
> a "deal" to keep my mouth shut. I obviously
> declined the deal.
You're getting e-mail from their freinds now too?
Are they willing to post? I doubt it.
By the way, I wouldn't mind if you took the deal.
Your score is still 0.
> What Snyder, Wong and Griffin intend to do is
> attempt to CON you into believing that the
> money they were paid by the casinos was not
> for anything to do with card counting.
What they intend to do? Are you psychic now?
Why did you bother with counting anyways?
Excuse us if we put no stock in your predictive
ability.
Your score is still 0.
> Yeah - sure - right.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Consider that Wong said that 5 different casinos
> had paid him money.
> He did not reveal how much, or how many times
> he was paid.
> Wong also did not reveal how many times he was
> paid by the parent or affiliated company of any casino.
> Wong also would have us believe that he was
> paid to figure out some slot machine probability.
> Yep, that's right 5 different casinos want to hire
> a known BJ expert and card counter advocate
> (their supposed arch enemy) to figure out a simple
> slot machine problem?
I definitely think "arch enemy" may be too strong a
word here. The casinos know that the game of BJ,
which once had the floorspace of the big 6 wheel,
is only as popular as it is today because of the work
done by those you hate.
Plus, did it ever occur to you that Wong may have
knowledge in areas other than BJ? Not everyone
is so single minded as you seem to be.
Anyways, no evidence. Your score is still 0.
> Sure - right. I wonder if ol Wong has some desert
> land he wants to unload - he must think that there
> are a bunch of buyers on this
> newsgroup!
Innuendo! I wonder if ol Doug Grant has some desert
land he wants to unload - he must think there are a bunch
of buyers on this newsgroup!
Works both ways.
Your score is still 0.
> Consider that if a casino wanted to give Wong, Snyder,
> Griffin and Imming a kick-back for sending in suckers -
> it would be in the form of some obscure payment for
> "inspecting the men's room" or "figuring
> out a slot probability" or something like that.
> The boys running the bunko game don't ask for a
> receipt when they pay off their shills and steerers.
> They don't want a paper trail - and they try their
> best to avoid it.
This is utter speculation with no basis in evidence. Ask
your lawyer friends how long that would stand up. Again,
if your going to make accusations, back them up with proof
or shut up.
Your score is still 0.
> The key issue here is that Wong, Snyder, Griffin and
> now Imming have been secretly taking money from the
> casinos. They withheld that information from their
> subscribers and their clients. That my
> friends is fraud and misrepresentation, pure and simple.
Prove this. Show some evidence. Give some numbers.
Not that they testified, not that they did the math for payouts
for a new game, prove that thay are being paid by casinos
to mislead their readers.
Your score is still 0.
> (I also should mention that Wong stated on this Newsgroup
> that he had won $300,000 in the past 16 years playing
> Blackjack. I said that he had only won $1900 per year for
> the last 16 years. He claimed I could not divide. Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson (Wong's lackeys)
> jumped on this and howled that I could not divide
> 16 into $300,000. But once I checked a copy of Wong's
> sworn testimony in the Campione case - I found out that
> Wong lied. That is not what he said during his sworn
> testimony. Wong stated that he had won $300,000 during
> his lifetime of play - and specifically stated that
> he had not played much in the past 16 years. Moreover,
> take note that most of Wong's winnings were before the
> introduction of the Preferential Shuffle! After the
> Preferential Shuffle was introduced - ol Wong didn't
> do so good. I wonder why he failed to mention that
> fact to his clients and subscribers?
OK, to check the math, I popped up my handy dandy
windows calculator (it came free with the package! Can
you believe it? Free stuff from Microsoft!) and performed
the semingly simple but subtly complex operation of
dividing $300,000 by 16. I got the answer $18750. I'm not
running a pentium here, so I assume it's right. (I know, I
checked and I do have the latest version of calculator -
At Microsoft Quality is Job 1.1!) So for sticking to your
incorrect answer in the face of the pleas for you to go
back and check your work,
Your score is now -10.
And if Wong didn't play because of preferential shuffling,
so what? Are you saying he should have bucked the odds
to satisfy your version of what is right and proper?
Or are you suggesting that Wong never told anyone about
the existence of preferential shuffling? I hope that's not the
case, that would be trivially easy to contradict.
> My calculations that stated he had only averaged
> $1900 per year stand.And in fact, after reading the
> rest of Wong's testimony, those figures seem
> to be a bit high. It would also seem that it's Mike
> Solinas and Bryce Carlson are the ones that can't
> state the truth - not to mention not divide
> simple figures.
Don't make me take away more points.
> Now what should we to do about all this fraud,
> misrepresentation and conflict of interest these
> authors have perpetrated on us:
You still have shown nothing. (Remember your score?)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If I receive a direct mail letter from these individuals
> stating the following:
Yes, that's right, they should bend over backwards and
kiss your ass. Who the hell are you to dictate terms?
> 1. They agree to support card counters anytime they
> sue the casinos for their right to use their brain in
> any manner they wish.
Who are you to tell them what they should and should
not support?
And does this mean testifying for them in court? Didn't
you dispute the fact that they are 'experts'? Didn't you
suggest that their testimony was pure shilling for the
casinos? Aren't you contradicting yourself just the
slightest bit here, Doug?
> 2. They reveal the names of all casinos and all casino
> affiliated companies they have received any type of
> payment from. Including the full amounts and the
> dates they received such payment.
How is this your business?
> 3. That they offer disclaimers in their tout sheets that
> tell the truth about the games.
Are you suggesting they have not told the truth in their
'sheets'? OK, that should be easy to prove. Provide
examples of their lies along with evidence proving them
false. Make sure that it's verifyable, since, as I said, we're
reluctant to go by your word.
Heck, that's right, it does no good to ask you for evidence.
Need I remind you that your score is still -10?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. That they offer to refund any subscribers or clients
> money that asks - and further offer to refund any
> losses that any client or subscriber has suffered in
> any casino that has paid them funds for any reason.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Right. Grab hold of the reins, Doug. Come back
to reality.
> I think those demands are fair and reasonable.
Evidence would be fair and reasonable. Stopping the
baseless accusations would be fair and reasonable.
I don't get the impression you're interested in being
fair and reasonable. Your score is still -10.
> If I receive such a letter I will post it on this Newsgroup.
> But - I am not holding my breath.
Please hold your breath. Use duct tape if necessary.
I'm willing to bet you have a roll of duct tape around
there somewhere. Check by the hamster cage.
> What have the lawyers said?
Do they have any proof? I'm willing to start their
score at 0.
> Thus far, I have received four responses on the
> Newsgroup from lawyers. I did not pay them a fee,
> nor did they ask for one. Nor were they interested
> in creating a case for themselves. They contributed
> their time and expertise without solicitation or
> expectation of reward.
Did they send you a GIF of their license? Can you get
them to post their opinions on your claims as well as
their qualifications to proffer such opinions?
How many kindly offers of assistance have you had
from other professionals, say, in the mental health
field?
> You should be happy they offered their expert
> opinion, and you should
> believe it!
I may be happy if I see it instead of just hearing
about it from you.
> All four lawyers agreed with me in writing! Some
> of their posts are still on and some sent me E-mail
> direct. (Contact me if you want to see their opinions.)
> All four lawyers stated that IF Snyder, Griffin, Wong
> and the rest have taken money from the casinos
> (and we know they have) without revealing such to
> their clients - then that action is fraud, misrepresentation
> and conflict of interest.
So the lawyers gave you a big if, that you would need
evidence. Big surprise.
I do think I see your problem here. It's that word clients.
If I were a subscriber to Wong's newsletter or BJF, I
would expect accurate and timely information. You
seem to think it means that they are joining you in a
crusade against the evil casinos and that they should
be on your side no matter what. That's simply not the
case. They're publishing magazines. You're not a
client, you're a subscriber. If you have any examples
where they intenionally misled you, I'd like to see them.
By the way, your score is still -10.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Great Nevada Bunko Game:
>
> Here is what these stupid book sellers, stupid
> program sellers,and general casino touts and
> steerers are not telling you:
Name calling does not count as evidence.
> 1. When you first start to play you will most likely
> eventually win. That's how suckers are sucked
> into bunko games.
So?
> 2. Once you are identified as a card counter -
> your photographwill be taken and eventually it will
> be distributed to every casino in Nevada.
So? Even if this is true, it's not evidence of the
accusations you've made.
> 3. After your photograph has been taken a couple
> of times, every casino that you walk into will immediately
> identify you as a card counter. You will begin to wonder
> why all those bosses are talking on the phones all the
> time when you are playing.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. You will be cheated in every casino you play.
> There are many, many ways to cheat you in hand
> dealt games. The preferential shuffle is one,
> changing decks is another, dealing seconds is
> another, cold decking is another, moving clumps
> around is another, and so on. Once you have
> been identified as a card counter (which usually
> only takes a few days of play) you are considered
> "fair game" to be cheated in every Nevada
> casino you play in.
Interesting claim, but I'd still need to see proof before
I believe you. And please don't refer me to Humble
and Cooper's book. Or are they in on it too?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You will not consistently win money counting cards
> in the State of Nevada. You will not become rich,
> you will not be able to make a living regardless of
> how good your "act" might be. Don't believe
> the bunko game touts that want to sell you their
> wares and steer you towards this known bunko
> game. Don't be a sucker.
Are you trying to hypnotize me?
> You also should be prepared to fight for your rights.
> When you walk into a casino you are not walking
> into a third-world country. You might think that the
> State of Nevada is corrupt and the casinos always
> get their way. That is not true. Many lawsuits
> have been successful against casinos in Nevada - (
> Tailhook - Binionsetc....). But also remember there
> is a Federal Court system.
> If you are afraid of Nevada in many cases your suit
> could qualify for Federal Court. Don't duck and run,
> like Snyder, Wong and the boys tell you. Stand and
> fight for your rights. If you believe you have been
> cheated - file a complaint with the Nevada
> Gaming Commission, the Attorney General of your
> home state, and call your lawyer. One of my students
> took my advice on this issue - his name was Tony
> Campione, and he is 1.5 million dollars richer today
> because he did.
Now you're starting to sound like one of those commercials.
"Have you been injured in an accident? Unable to work?
You may be eligible for compensation. Call....."
> There are several pending lawsuits against
> casinos- and more forming each day. If you
> would like some free information as to the
> requirements and conditions of joining one of
> these lawsuits - call 702-263-0844 and I will
> send you free information.
Yep. Commercial. What's the name of your firm?
> (You also should contact your lawyer
> before you make any final legal decisions).
Won't you be my lawyer?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Since I have better things to do with my life -
> I will not be posting as much as I have. I have
> accomplished my mission as far as
> this newsgroup goes. I have flushed out the
> con-men - now it's time for me to do something
> about it. That will take most of my time. I will
> however, be available at my E-mail address for
> any that wishes to write. And if you would like to
> call me personally at 702-263-0844 I will be
> glad to answer your questions (no legal questions please - I am not a
> lawyer).
Oh, you must just be their PR guy.
> I also should thank the hundreds of participants of this
> newsgroup that have contacted me and that have
> urged me to continue posting. I thank you all.
I would think that the only ones that want you to keep
posting are hoping that you'll continue to drown out
Boris. Personally, I don't think it's worth it.
> Good Hunting - Semper Fi.
Were you a marine? Did you server with Robert
Shapiro? (I know. Gratuitous OJ refernce. Sue me.)
> Doug Grant.
If, despite what you said, you continue posting, I urge
you to provide hard evidence to back up your claims.
Remember, your score is still -10 and it will take a lot
to get it into the positive numbers.
Keith Fichtemaier | For an alarmingly large segment of our society,
| the internet provides that quality of existence
fi...@datasync.com | that used to be referred to as having a life...
Beavis & Butthead on interserv.com: "Huh-huh . Newsgroups. Cool!"
doug...@interserv.com
> doug...@interserv.com wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The Great Nevada Bunko Game:
> >
>
> OK Mr Grant, will they bar us because the game is beatable
> or will they let us play and just cheat us out of our money?
>
> Can you see the conflict in your own words here?
>
> If every hand held game in Nevada is tainted with preferential
> shuffling, why would they ever want to bar a card counter?
> If they are barring card counters, then the card counters must
> be a real threat in counting and using "The Systems" and making
> money in beatable games.
>
> Regards,
> -Ken Fuchs
>
Absolutely no conflict. If you are stupid enough to
continue playing against a preferential shuffle - they will deal to
you and you will lose.
If you are smart enough to avoid the preferential shuffle
they will bar you from the game of Blackjack.
Either way - you lose. If you sincerely believe that the
casinos are in the business to allow you to win their money - then
you are not as bright as you sound.
Don't get me wrong. IF, I repeat, IF, the casinos did
not use preferential shuffling, deck changing, cold decking, clump
location and barring - then card counting would work and about
25 per cent of the people that walk into a casino would win big money.
Then of course, the game of Blackjack would last for about one hour.
If what you think is true - that card counters all win - then frankly sir -
the game of Blackjack would no longer exist. Why would a casino
deal a game in which at least 25 per cent of its customers won 5 times more
than the remaining 75 per cent lost? Remember, as a rule, card counters
always bet more than an average gambler. If 25 per cent of the people
that play one and two deck games attempt to count cards - and they all
won - the casinos would throw the BJ tables into the concrete creek.
Even if 10 per cent won on a regular basis - the game would
be history. Why? Because those 10 per cent would keep increasing their
wagers until the casino would go broke. How about 5 per cent? One per
cent? All the same story. Consider that out of 50,000 players 500 are allowed
to beat the casino. So how much would the 500 winners bet? They would be crazy to
bet less than the table maximum of $5000 per bet - now would they eventually
win more than the remaining 49,500 losers - of course, as they would probably be
betting 1000 times more than the average player.
There is no way the casinos is going to allow you to win - and your heros, Snyder
Wong and Griffin know that. But the casinos keep paying them not to tell you
the truth.
Doug Grant.
P.S.
A responsible questions deserves a responsible answer.
B J Robinson
>>
>> OK Mr Grant, will they bar us because the game is beatable
>> or will they let us play and just cheat us out of our money?
>> Regards,
>> -Ken Fuchs
>>
> Absolutely no conflict. If you are stupid enough to
>continue playing against a preferential shuffle - they will deal to
>you and you will lose.
>
> If you are smart enough to avoid the preferential shuffle
>they will bar you from the game of Blackjack.
>
> Either way - you lose.
> Don't get me wrong. IF, I repeat, IF, the casinos did
>not use preferential shuffling, deck changing, cold decking, clump
>location and barring - then card counting would work and about
>25 per cent of the people that walk into a casino would win big money.
>Then of course, the game of Blackjack would last for about one hour.
>If what you think is true - that card counters all win - then frankly sir -
>the game of Blackjack would no longer exist. Why would a casino
>deal a game in which at least 25 per cent of its customers won 5 times more
>than the remaining 75 per cent lost?
(snip some inconsistent percentages)
>There is no way the casinos is going to allow you to win - and your heros, Snyder
>Wong and Griffin know that.
>Doug Grant.
>P.S.
> A responsible questions deserves a responsible answer.
>
Let me summarize. If card counters are allowed to play without "counter-measures"
(kind of punny, huh?), then the casinos would lose money, and the game of
blackjack as we know it (however that is) would be over. They would throw
the tables in the river.
But your suits are designed to require that the casinos NOT take any measures
against card counters.
I also remember your claiming that it would NOT be necessary for
the game to degenerate into the Atlantic City syndrome of unplayable games
(if you are not part of a team). The reasoning that you gave on why this
would NOT happen was that Mississippi and Illinois cannot bar counters
and they still have great games.
If this were so, then I would agree with you. I want great games where
they cannot bar me for counting and I don't have to be part of a team to
make money.
Unfortunately, the agrument doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. You
provide proof that you and your players have been barred in Mississippi. Does
everybody truly believe that the casinos would just throw away the tables if
they cannot bar counters? But A.C. makes bookoos of money off of captive
players who now no longer have a choice of what rules to play under.
What evidence do we have that the games would not end up looking just like
Atlantic City? Big shoes, bad penetration, no mid-shoe entry, etc. We really
are caught in a quandry. Of course, I would love the best of both worlds, but
it doesn't look like we can have that. Mississippi and Illinois do not prove
it to me that AC won't happen.
This may be a little slanted, since I am aware that others have been barred,
no question. And, I do not approve of strong arm tactics or physical abuse
under any circumstances. But, the question becomes:
Do we want to sue the casinos so that they cannot bar counters and take a chance
on ruining the game as we know it (however that is), or do we compromise and
let them bar Doug and the gang and not tell him that it is possible to beat it as
it is?
Something else has been bothering me along the same lines:
Atlantic City is a team's playground. The shoes can still be beaten by team play.
Single and double deck are not very appropriate for team play (except solo
play by team members pooling bankroll).
Doug Grant has quit all schools, and teaching how to play single and double
deck games; he has no financial interest in those games any more.
Doug Grant plays with, bankrolls and encourages teams.
Teams thrive in Atlantic City type environments.
Taking casinos to court may turn the country into one big Atlantic City.
Doug Grant is in heaven.
The little guy doesn't have a chance (especially those with no training. which
is 95% of the suckers playing).
Doug Grant is suckering you into helping with his cause. This is a cause that will
probably ultimately hurt everybody who does not play on a big team (a team
like the ones that Doug Grant advocates). Can we sue Doug Grant for our
loss of income when he eliminates those games where we play and win
(as paultry as he thinks that amount is)? Is that what you want the game of
Blackjack to become -- one big law suit in an eight deck shoe? Think about
what we have to win and what we have to lose and then decide who is
leading us down a dangerous path.
Have you guys ever heard of a Bunko game?
Maybe somebody can explain it to us.
Just food for thought,
BJ
Bob R
> Don't get me wrong. IF, I repeat, IF, the casinos did
>not use preferential shuffling, deck changing, cold decking, clump
>location and barring - then card counting would work and about
>25 per cent of the people that walk into a casino would win big money.
>Then of course, the game of Blackjack would last for about one hour.
>If what you think is true - that card counters all win - then frankly sir -
>the game of Blackjack would no longer exist. Why would a casino
>deal a game in which at least 25 per cent of its customers won 5 times more
>than the remaining 75 per cent lost? Remember, as a rule, card counters
>always bet more than an average gambler. If 25 per cent of the people
>that play one and two deck games attempt to count cards - and they all
>won - the casinos would throw the BJ tables into the concrete creek.
The time I have spent in casinos tells me that much less than 25% of
the players at the table know basic strategy, let alone how to count.
For whatever reason, very few people put any effort at all into
learning about the game and applying it to their real life playing.
If I'm winning 2% of some $50 bets, it's going to be a LONG time
before my bankroll grows enough to bet $5,000, and that would be if my
wife didn't skim half my winnings! ;-)
Bob R { this space for rent }
jimb...@interserv.com
I agree with Grant. You still do not understand
the effect of team play. Even if you only had a $5000 total
bank you still could wager $5000 per bet if you merged
your bankroll with 1000 other players. If casinos were
allowed by their shareholders to lose to card counters
then such teams would form immediately. Why not?
Where else can you get a return on your investment
equal to what a card counter would make if the casino
dealt an honest game?
Robert Wiebener
: Bob:
Yeah but if the casinos are cheating players, then why would
a team of multiple players be any better off than a team with
just one person in it?
-- robert
Robert H. Wiebener, Jr. | Internet: r...@evolving.com
Evolving Systems, Inc. | Phone-Net: (303) 689-1221
8000 E. Maplewood Ave. | Please Make The Voices Stop!!
Englewood, CO 80111 | My opinions.