For those that might be interested, here are the important points of
that wild GAMBLING IDEAS Post on LTW:
******
MOST MATHEMATICIANS when considered as a group, are without a doubt
usually the worst gamblers to walk through a casino's doors! In spite
of this, their fascination with out-thinking the world's games of
chance has spurred lifelong efforts in mathematics. ( And, I am
talking here about the world class mathematicians whose work has
driven the advances in mathematics through the centuries). WHY do
these brilliant people typically make the worst gamblers?
I have an idea that this is due in part to their failure to "watch
themselves" when they gamble, and fall prey to the numerous traps set
by casino operators. Also involved is their lack of experience in
"getting the feel" of doing things correctly "IN AN ACTUAL CASINO
ENVIRONMENT".
This consideration causes many other gamblers to learn to operate with
a "safety rope" in the form of a per session "STOP LOSS" in place, and
further, and failure to take into account the understanding that,
"even though something works EXTEMEMLY WELL over a million events", it
can and will still endure severe beatings in a single session
environment.
Here is a real life example seen on TV recently:
I saw the "Las Vegas Challenge" on the Travel Channel a few months
ago. Several people including a couple of female dealers, and "The
WIZARD OF ODDS" michael shackleford, took various games to play. Each
was given $10,000 to start with and played approximately one hour.
Needless to say, the lady playing baccarat did the best, and also
needless to say, the WIZARD did the worst (he played roulette), his
strategy was to sit their and play one number over and over again,
hoping that it would get hot. It didn't. (Michael is a mathematician,
not a world class one but one who works as a consultant to a number of
casinos, and teaches at a junior college in the Las Vegas area).
*********
to this Tom J replied:
This is just one portion of your multi-erroeous, misleading post.
First, the baccarat player did not do the best, the craps lady won.
And if you really were paying attention, both were far ahead at
various points because of LUCK. When the baccarat player was trailing
she hit a tie bet or 2. The craps woman was going down and hit 2
separate bets with big bucks on the 12. So the strategy is based on
your position and time remaining in this type play.
Second in a limited tournament type competition the strategy is almost
diamatrically opposed to how someone would play with real money over
time. In such a tournament you'd be better off playing a high
percentage negative game like roulette and try to stay within striking
distance so that near the end a win or 2 on the high payouts will put
you in goodshape. The blackjack player is at a disadvantge because the
1-1 and 3-2 payoffs don't allow for recovering from a bad streak. The
Wizard made a run by hitting a couple of highpayoffs after a long dry
spell. He had to go for it as time was closing in.
Third, the Wizard didn't do the worst since the blackjack guy was out
pretty quick. And besides there is only one position that counts in
this and it's first. Any other finish is meaningless. There is 1 best
and all the other finishers are tied for the worst, as you naively put
it. If the winner has $20,000 and the second player has $10,000 it's
no different from having zero. As a matter of fact it might be stupid
unless the bulk of the $0,000 was won right near the end of the time
limit.
Come on BR you can't be serious with these naive outlooks and expect
to be taken seriously. Let's leave aside some of the other out of
context attempted points you posted in your message for now.
*********
to this Yarbvough responded:
Michael (I mean tom J),
I had hoped that a minor error or two might cause you to expose
yourself.
Keep up the good work (and the mind numbing banter), I'm sure your
efforts will be rewarded by your employers.
*********
in another post Yarbvough added the compilation of Tom J.'s posts to
provide evidence of his claim.
Here are some of those posts:
DEAR LTW READERS,
Following is a compilation of posts by Tom J. that make his true
identity as "michael shackelford THE WIZARD OF ODDS"--consultant to
the casino industry and member of the staff of "Casino Player" seem
pretty obvious to me:
Again, it appears to me that the casino industry's "THUG" hired to
control the direction of internet discussion groups (aided by perhaps,
unsuspecting friends), is now deserving of your cards and letters
telling him how much you appreciate his activities on his behalf.
Perhaps some of the Las Vegas papers would be interested in hearing
about this?
Here is the compilation:
HERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSTS BY TOM J (THE WIZARD):
ALWAYS IN SUPPORT OF PLAYING BLACKJACK OVER BACCARAT:
I also came acroos a post on a board that would support my position
against Mr. Vegas's erroneous information that advantages like card
counting in blackjack are no longer possible. One deck games in many
places are paying only 6-5 on blackjacks is some evidence by itself.
WHY DOES HE SO HATE PROGRESSION PLAYING? (THE WIZARD ALSO HATES
PROGRESSION PLAYING, YET MANY REAL AND PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS USE SOME
SORT OF PROGRESSION IN THEIR GAMBLING):
If you are playing a progression you'll lose at the same rate, but
more actual money than the flat bettor. It's a misconception that it
takes millions of decision for the house edge to kick in. It can
happen right away or take some time, but if you play for a while you
are not going to win unless you are extremely lucky. Take any system
you want and have all the players in all the casinos play it at the
same time. Guess what the result will definately be? Of those the ones
that won had one thing going, luck.
There have been documented winning players over time and not one has
used a system to do so. Ken Uston is a legend and probably the best
blackjack player ever. Others have won by clocking a wheel which is
next to impossible now. There are many video poker players that are
successful, but they go far down often and withstand it because they
play perfectly at 100%+ return machines. But those are some ways that
aren't systems as you guys believe to work. Wheel clocking is outside
the math. It's like comparing regular dice to loaded dice. One is open
to probabilty and the other isn't because it's not a fair test. [YES
ALL HUMAN OPERATED ROULETTE WHEELS AND HAND SHUFFLED CARD GAMES ARE
NOT COMPARABLE TO GAMES SIMULATED IN A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR--YES HE
KNOWS THIS TO BE THE TRUTH BUT WILL NEVER ADMIT ITS OBVIOUS
CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS ON CASINO GAMBLING.]
HOW IS HE ALWAYS KNOWS WHAT THE WIZARD IS WILLING TO DO?
Tom, first of all I like your name! I would be certainly willing to
double the terms of the Wizard of Odds challenge if you were able to
beat it. Remember that proof is not a subjective factor. Card counting
in blackjack and Optimum play at Video Poker 100%+ machines are
examples of proving they yield a player advantage with proper play
with validated proven tests. There are many times where we'll see that
someone says ignore computer generated results or it requires real
world results. This is simply bunk. As I said proof isn't subjective.
It's scientific and applies to all relative subject areas and gambling
is one of those areas. To have it suggested that it isn't in one sense
or another is at best an inaccurate uninformed opinion and at worst,
well you can fill in those blanks I am sure.
AGAIN SELLING THE PLAY OF BLACKJACK [CASINO STATISTICS SAY 6 OUT OF 7
PLAYERS WHO WALK UP TO A BLACKJACK TABLE AND PLAY PERFECT STRATEGY,
WALK AWAY "losers"]:
Difficult for sure, but not over by any means. Just pick up a copy of
Bringing Down the House and that will put the "it's over" idea to
rest. There area few forums like Card Counters Cafe that cabn keep
anyone on top of current information too. Also, I stated before that
some pros still play blackjack for a living, but must be willing to
travel to where the games are best. BTW, there are some places that
will give great playing rules over a certain period of time in order
to draw the wanna be counters. They are aware that there are few that
can actually win over time at counting.
AGAIN TOM J ALWAYS SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE WAZARD IS WILLING TO DO AND
ACCEPT:
BTW, you're also wrong about the Wizard of Odds. He'll let you switch
tables any time you want as long as you keep betting. So if you want
to play 7 decisions here and and go to another table and wait 6 hands
and then play 5 more or any type combinatio you are free to do it.
John Patrick just backed down from his challenge about Patrick's
blackjack belief about not splitting A's in certain situations. Wizard
gave him carte blanche to size the bets and change tables all he wantd
and suggest 1,000 hands. He later went down to 500 and Patrick still
balked. And this was a head to hedchallenge Wizard vs. Patrick.
When you say system play increases the chances of winning it depends
on what you copare it to. Sure it'll give you a better chance then
just flinging chips all over the table, but the key is what you
continue on to say. It's no guarantee at all and that brings it back
to 1 thing only L u c k. Any organized way to play has as good a
chance as any other one. There isn't any system that can outperform
any othr over time as far as rate of return goes.
DON'T YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T WIN!
Unfortunately you can only hope John. The chances of anyone being
substantially ahead in 6 months is about 0. I'm actually very
surprised at how
so many seem to be so naive about sports betting and paying for
handicappers.
SPOKEN LIKE THE WIZARD OF ODDS:
True and that means the person is giving up an additional 1.5% or so
to the negative expectation. That 1.5% is equal to about the overall
negative of the 6 and 8 bets in craps alone. The additional part is
however what I mean by the novice understanding of sports betting.
Handicappers that are anyone but the personn waggering are ultimately
useless and will lead you to the red ink. 50% of the games bet on are
going to be a wash and that's for starters.
***********************************************
Decide for yourselves. However, I personally have heard enough from
THE WIZARD Michael Shackleford whom I firmly believe has been using
the alias of Tom J. on this forum. What aliases are being used on
other forums?
|
|