it appears to me that many of the critical posts are flavored with acrimony beyond simple mathematics. some threads elsewhere seem to quickly spin to personal attacks, unrelated to the essence of the subject.

it's clear that there is *some* value to the technique if only because casino game protection seminars have been addressing the idea of ace location and steering for at least 5 years that i've witnessed. as to the hairsplitting of "ev", i suggest that this is possibly the first published work on the subject. that's no different than the examination of card counting itself since the baldwin (et alii). and, later, "revere".

to be consistent, instead of improving, fine tuning the calculations as has to this day been done on card counting, these same complainers should lambast the early 21 system developers. if this latest "attack" at 21 is flawed, why are not the 1950's and 1960's counts equally flawed ? i therefore expect that those who most loudly criticize the new technique to, with similar zeal, blaspheme/attack the early works of virtually all 21 card counting systems developers.