Systems Archive 4
[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
I'm sorry for your post
Posted by Cyrus on 11 February 2002, at 12:32 a.m., in response to Need more $? No, need a reality check., posted by Leroy Nimka on 9 February 2002, at 8:34 p.m.
Obviously, you are not aware that our "Harry" here, who goes under various other aliases as well, does not believe that you can win at Blackjack under any circumstances! "It's all gambling" to Harry. And winning at Blackjack means getting lucky at Blackjack - whether counting or ogling the waitress. (Harry baby, if I have you wrong, feel free to correct me, with the appropriate dose of your world-famous wit, man.)
And you are wrong to criticize T-Hopper. I don't think that T-Hopper gave out any wrong or incomplete advice at all. If the poster asking the question is truly interested in how to protect his money and minimize his Risk, he should study the papers relevant to the issue, starting with the excellent analysis in Blackjack Mathematics, using the link T-H provided.
If the poster is not inclined to do so, all the prompting in the world isn't gonna help him. I have wasted enough of my time trying to set degenerate gamblers straight to make the extra and useless effort. You simply explain to them why they must choose between Gamblers Anonymous and the Math. It's up to them from that point on.
The Systems Archive 4 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.