Jason has quoted the significant parts of my argument, so there is no longer any need for my full response to be available, as it was immature and mainly a personal rant on Jason, which was unwarranted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gambling: Keeping the full deck order.
- Thread starter Jonathan O
- Start date
Wow, this thread is hilarious.
Jason says two sentences and everyone goes crazy. I'll go ahead and put my two cents (whatever they're worth) in.
First, it seems Jason has been doing this since before you were born Unknown (from you saying you can't even go into casinos).
Secondly, Jason tours around the world showcasing his skills. What have you done? He puts these videos out because people ASK for them. I've seen many threads that say "Oh please Jason, put out a riffle stacking one-on-one".
Lastly, with your bad spelling, grammar, and attitude, I can barely make it through your posts.
Jason says two sentences and everyone goes crazy. I'll go ahead and put my two cents (whatever they're worth) in.
First, it seems Jason has been doing this since before you were born Unknown (from you saying you can't even go into casinos).
Secondly, Jason tours around the world showcasing his skills. What have you done? He puts these videos out because people ASK for them. I've seen many threads that say "Oh please Jason, put out a riffle stacking one-on-one".
Lastly, with your bad spelling, grammar, and attitude, I can barely make it through your posts.
Sorry about that Dan, didn't read the part where Jason said you guys were completely wrong and all that. My mistake, we cool?
If we are, do you know any good resources on mucking? I can't afford George Joseph's "The Art of Handmucking" so I've been looking for good alternatives but I don't know any.
If we are, do you know any good resources on mucking? I can't afford George Joseph's "The Art of Handmucking" so I've been looking for good alternatives but I don't know any.
I have little to add, because I'm not an expert with this work, but I would like to make one comment. Bnin.. uh .. Bninro69's video (I assume this is the one being referenced: http://forums.theory11.com/showthread.php?29187-Riffle-Stacking) is -not- from a spectator's point of view. Unless they are drunk and leaning their head on their hand, with the elbow on the table. Or very short. I mean, under five foot tall. Jason's video is actually at just higher than I'd see if I were seated at a table to his right.
Wow, this is some interesting literature here. Kids yelling at adults (nothing new here) and kids saying they are better than adults (sometimes justified, but this time... not even close).
I am not even going to get into Unknown, I have learned a while back just from reading the forums that reasoning with the arrogant youth possessing that body is pointless and meaningless. And, at the end of the day, I don't really care if is able to turn his attitude around to become a better person... some people just aren't worth the thought.
For B69's video, I will say that he has definitely put in his time to polish up his skills. From the short video performance you can see that his timing is decent, it is smooth, and he has confidence in his stack. HOWEVER... and this is a very big and important HOWEVER... nothing from the video even comes close to showing how it is better than Jason. And, I know B69 himself never said he was, but his "friend" is making that claim.
It comes down to the simple fact that in the video, you only stack 2 aces for a five handed game in 2 shuffles, and a three handed game with 1 shuffle. Honestly... this is quite easy. If I were to attempt this as a blind shuffle, I will succeed 9 times out of 10, I will be just as smooth, and I too will not be doing dead drops... seeing as how in the 1 shuffle demo, you only have 2 cards in your hand to drop.
Stacking only 2 cards is extremely easy after 8 or 9 months of practice, ESPECIALLY when you are only doing a 5 handed or 3 handed game.
Lastly, the reason the timing is different in Jason's video is because it is INSTRUCTIONAL. When I watched it, I was extremely glad that he didn't go into further detail as to get rid of all of the secrets. Some things should be left to learn after putting in years of practice, and not just given away right off the bat.
I do hope that you learn give respect where it is deserved or you are going to have a very difficult time finding a decent life when you grow up. This is not opinion, this is hard honest truth/ fact/ what have you. Ask anyone out there with a masters degree who can't find a decent job. I seriously doubt people with your attitude will even come close to beating them to the punch.
I am not even going to get into Unknown, I have learned a while back just from reading the forums that reasoning with the arrogant youth possessing that body is pointless and meaningless. And, at the end of the day, I don't really care if is able to turn his attitude around to become a better person... some people just aren't worth the thought.
For B69's video, I will say that he has definitely put in his time to polish up his skills. From the short video performance you can see that his timing is decent, it is smooth, and he has confidence in his stack. HOWEVER... and this is a very big and important HOWEVER... nothing from the video even comes close to showing how it is better than Jason. And, I know B69 himself never said he was, but his "friend" is making that claim.
It comes down to the simple fact that in the video, you only stack 2 aces for a five handed game in 2 shuffles, and a three handed game with 1 shuffle. Honestly... this is quite easy. If I were to attempt this as a blind shuffle, I will succeed 9 times out of 10, I will be just as smooth, and I too will not be doing dead drops... seeing as how in the 1 shuffle demo, you only have 2 cards in your hand to drop.
Stacking only 2 cards is extremely easy after 8 or 9 months of practice, ESPECIALLY when you are only doing a 5 handed or 3 handed game.
Lastly, the reason the timing is different in Jason's video is because it is INSTRUCTIONAL. When I watched it, I was extremely glad that he didn't go into further detail as to get rid of all of the secrets. Some things should be left to learn after putting in years of practice, and not just given away right off the bat.
I do hope that you learn give respect where it is deserved or you are going to have a very difficult time finding a decent life when you grow up. This is not opinion, this is hard honest truth/ fact/ what have you. Ask anyone out there with a masters degree who can't find a decent job. I seriously doubt people with your attitude will even come close to beating them to the punch.
Was kinda tired and cranky when I posted this.
No real purpose to leaving it around.
No real purpose to leaving it around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unknown,
Since I seem to have struck a nerve with you and (apparantly to a lessor degree) BninroC69), I should make some clarifying points.
First of all, you were quite simply, wrong.
That is your exact phrasing and that’s uttterly incorrect.
BninroC69 then agrees with you and states,
He’s weakened your claim by including the word “almost,” but is essentially agreeing with you.
Finally, you stated that, “The only "false" shuffles you will need are block controls. The largest slug you would ever have to control is MAYBE 13 cards.”
I’m not sure who the “you” is that is being referenced here, but unless you’ve (secretly) addressed this post to a specific person, then again this sentence is just plain incorrect.
There are any number of times when full deck controls are used in both the casino environment and the private world. In casinos, full-deck controls are used primarily to attack blackjack and baccarat games. In fact, in the past few years the Tran organization was busted for cheating at several properties across the U.S. (primarily in Native American casinos) by using false-shuffling scams at baccarat. These scams, while usually targeting only portions of the shuffled shoes, do utilize “full-deck” controls to make sure that no cards from the target sections are lost.
In blackjack, the same thing is true. When hidden computers are used in conjunction with a crooked dealer, the dealer must often use a full-deck control to make sure that no cards get out of place.
In casino poker, “bin coolers” frequently have to use full-deck controls when the goal is taking off the bad beat jackpots. Even when the bad beat jackpots are not being targeted, certain games utilize more cards than others. In Omaha for instance, it’s often more economical to use a full-deck control instead of trying to control only the large slug of 30 - 40 cards.
Private games frequently use full-deck controls during their own version of the “bin” cooler. A player (or crooked dealer) asks for a deck change. The cooler comes in, is false shuffled and dealt. If the dealer has a large stack that he or she is trying to preserve, then a full-deck false shuffle may be more economical than trying to suddenly deviate from his normal shuffling/dealing procedures.
As long as we’re talking about coolers/cold decks, you mentioned that “that is usually done on the cut after the shuffle so there would be no need to shuffle after that anyway”.
Maybe that’s how it works in your games, or the games you’ve been told about, but it isn’t “usually” true. In serious games where adhereing as closely as possible to proper procedure is paramount, the deck is given a final riffle shuffle, then the hands must come clear of the deck and the deck is cut with a single hand. Not too much room for any switches at that point. The fact is, that in most serious money games (think of them as “casino-style games” even if they’re not being hosted in an actual casino) do adhere to these rules as much as possible. The money players know what proper procedure is supposed to look like thanks to television exposure and actual casino play. In big games, it isn’t uncommon for a player to beef if these procedures aren’t followed.
What does all that mean? It means that if you’re playing poker with a bunch of frat boys, then anything goes, I admit. But if you’re playing with serious players, the coolers simply have to take place at a time other than when the deck is being cut. When that is the case, you need full deck controls.
And that’s really the crucial point here: there are times when full deck controls are useful and utilized in real cheating scenarios.
When you and BninroC69 stated, with virtually no wiggle-room, that full deck controls are “utterly pointless” and “useless,” I stepped in to correct that. It was the absolute nature of the phrasing that made me roll my eyes and shake my head. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, your statement (because of it’s absolute stance) is incorrect.
Now then, could I have worded my reply better? Sure, I could have. In fact, I wish I had done so. I didn’t mean to (nor did I) insinuate that you and BninroC69 are complete idiots that don’t have two neurons to rub together. I was simply stating that with regard to thinking that full-deck controls are pointless/useless, you didn’t know what you were talking about.
It’s apparent now, that you do understand that there are times when full deck controls are used, but at the time, all I had to go on was your (very strongly worded) statement about them being pointless and useless.
Had you said, “Full-deck controls are only used in special circumstances” I would have probably thought to myself, “Huh. Smart kid. He knows what he’s talking about.” Of course, that isn’t what you said and therefore that isn't what I thought.
So, you were wrong and I was too harsh. I apologize for not using more tact and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I tend to actually concentrate on what people write and try not to assume anything or read anything into their statements. From now on, I’ll know that when you write in absolutes, you don’t really mean it. Easy enough.
Continued next post.
Since I seem to have struck a nerve with you and (apparantly to a lessor degree) BninroC69), I should make some clarifying points.
First of all, you were quite simply, wrong.
That is your exact phrasing and that’s uttterly incorrect.
BninroC69 then agrees with you and states,
He’s weakened your claim by including the word “almost,” but is essentially agreeing with you.
Finally, you stated that, “The only "false" shuffles you will need are block controls. The largest slug you would ever have to control is MAYBE 13 cards.”
I’m not sure who the “you” is that is being referenced here, but unless you’ve (secretly) addressed this post to a specific person, then again this sentence is just plain incorrect.
There are any number of times when full deck controls are used in both the casino environment and the private world. In casinos, full-deck controls are used primarily to attack blackjack and baccarat games. In fact, in the past few years the Tran organization was busted for cheating at several properties across the U.S. (primarily in Native American casinos) by using false-shuffling scams at baccarat. These scams, while usually targeting only portions of the shuffled shoes, do utilize “full-deck” controls to make sure that no cards from the target sections are lost.
In blackjack, the same thing is true. When hidden computers are used in conjunction with a crooked dealer, the dealer must often use a full-deck control to make sure that no cards get out of place.
In casino poker, “bin coolers” frequently have to use full-deck controls when the goal is taking off the bad beat jackpots. Even when the bad beat jackpots are not being targeted, certain games utilize more cards than others. In Omaha for instance, it’s often more economical to use a full-deck control instead of trying to control only the large slug of 30 - 40 cards.
Private games frequently use full-deck controls during their own version of the “bin” cooler. A player (or crooked dealer) asks for a deck change. The cooler comes in, is false shuffled and dealt. If the dealer has a large stack that he or she is trying to preserve, then a full-deck false shuffle may be more economical than trying to suddenly deviate from his normal shuffling/dealing procedures.
As long as we’re talking about coolers/cold decks, you mentioned that “that is usually done on the cut after the shuffle so there would be no need to shuffle after that anyway”.
Maybe that’s how it works in your games, or the games you’ve been told about, but it isn’t “usually” true. In serious games where adhereing as closely as possible to proper procedure is paramount, the deck is given a final riffle shuffle, then the hands must come clear of the deck and the deck is cut with a single hand. Not too much room for any switches at that point. The fact is, that in most serious money games (think of them as “casino-style games” even if they’re not being hosted in an actual casino) do adhere to these rules as much as possible. The money players know what proper procedure is supposed to look like thanks to television exposure and actual casino play. In big games, it isn’t uncommon for a player to beef if these procedures aren’t followed.
What does all that mean? It means that if you’re playing poker with a bunch of frat boys, then anything goes, I admit. But if you’re playing with serious players, the coolers simply have to take place at a time other than when the deck is being cut. When that is the case, you need full deck controls.
And that’s really the crucial point here: there are times when full deck controls are useful and utilized in real cheating scenarios.
When you and BninroC69 stated, with virtually no wiggle-room, that full deck controls are “utterly pointless” and “useless,” I stepped in to correct that. It was the absolute nature of the phrasing that made me roll my eyes and shake my head. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, your statement (because of it’s absolute stance) is incorrect.
Now then, could I have worded my reply better? Sure, I could have. In fact, I wish I had done so. I didn’t mean to (nor did I) insinuate that you and BninroC69 are complete idiots that don’t have two neurons to rub together. I was simply stating that with regard to thinking that full-deck controls are pointless/useless, you didn’t know what you were talking about.
It’s apparent now, that you do understand that there are times when full deck controls are used, but at the time, all I had to go on was your (very strongly worded) statement about them being pointless and useless.
Had you said, “Full-deck controls are only used in special circumstances” I would have probably thought to myself, “Huh. Smart kid. He knows what he’s talking about.” Of course, that isn’t what you said and therefore that isn't what I thought.
So, you were wrong and I was too harsh. I apologize for not using more tact and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I tend to actually concentrate on what people write and try not to assume anything or read anything into their statements. From now on, I’ll know that when you write in absolutes, you don’t really mean it. Easy enough.
Continued next post.
Speaking of tact, let’s take some time to address the rest of your responses.
With regard to respect, I neither need it from you nor care about it. But, I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong, as I did above. That shows that I respect you enough to reply on an open forum. Are you man enough to admit when your vitriol has made you look bad?
With regard to Shade: It wasn’t my script, it wasn’t my movie. My friend Damian Nieman wrote and directed it and it was his baby all the way.
You wrote:
First of all, I have no idea what “he believes everything presented in the film to be true” means. Actually, I think everything presented in the film is fiction. It is, afterall, a movie. Maybe what you’re trying to say is that I “defend” all of Damian’s script choices with regard to the inconsistencies. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re still wrong. I don’t defend them (or refute them), I simply understand them and don’t immediately categorize them as mistakes, errors, or lapses in judgement/knowledge.
Before we get into the details, we have to clarify something. I’m guessing that by “inconsistencies,” you actually mean things like the unlimited format, the string bets, the table stakes rules being violated, etc. If you mean something else, please clarify.
The fact of the matter is, I pointed out all of these things to Damian in 1999 when I first read the script. I’ve included a link to a scan of the actual first draft script from 1999 that I read when Damian gave it to me. That copy is still in my possession and you can see my original notes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31768717@N08/5011114454/
On the page I provided, you can actually see four notes. The notes concern a phrasing choice, a comment about coming out of the pockets with more money (this is actually still in the film), which violates the tables stakes format of the modern game, a comment on a character making a “string bet” (the 6 means that it’s the 6th string bet made in the script up until that time – there are several in the final film), and lastly a comment on “buying” the pot (the “unlimited” game). In the modern game, this isn’t allowed.
So, there are four things that Damian did “wrong” if you’re comparing the scripted (and filmed) game to the today’s game.
But let’s pause a minute to make a point about movies in general. I know you might find this hard to believe, but real police officers occasionally find fault with the procedures depicted in Dirty Harry movies. And, although this may boggle your mind, real firemen occasionally find “inconsistencies” with movies like Backdraft or The Towering Inferno. Spoiler Alert! Believe it or not, not everyone in the military walks around in their Class A dress uniforms at work while doing everyday business as commonly shown in the movies.
Here’s the real shocker: script writers and directors care more about how the average audience perceives a movie than they do about how experts in a given field will pick that same movie apart.
I pointed out all the “inconsistencies” listed above and about a dozen more to Damian. His response was that he wasn’t making a film for poker/blackjack experts, he was making a film for regular people. With this intended audience in mind, adhering to all of the proper formatting was not critical. If it helped move the story along, you could leave it in, but if it was easier to tell the story another way, then don’t bother with the change.
At the time, I couldn’t argue with him. First of all because it wasn’t my film or my place to argue with him. But secondly, because he made a great point. He wasn’t shooting a documentary, he was shooting a Hollywood movie. Things don’t have to be completely accurate in that world, nor should they be.
Now that that’s over with, here’s another point: homage. In Shade, there are several things that were done in direct homage to other films that used the exact same techniques. Case in point: The Cincinnati Kid. In this movie, Steve McQueen’s character is given only a small amount of time to raise enough money to call a bet. A violation of the “table stakes” format? Of course it was. And yet Kid is still considered a classic noir gambling film, in spite of this “flaw.”
When I asked Damian about the poker issues, he discussed Kid, Big Hand For The Little Lady, Cool Hand Luke, The Sting, and several other gambling movies. He had some purposeful homage scenes and situations in Shade and others are just coincidental. But it clarifies the point: it isn’t a mistake if you’re doing it on purpose! It’s simply a theatrical and artistic choice. Whether it gels with current card room procedure isn’t really an issue.
In your rant, you also said, “he refuted them by saying that the supposedly inconsistent rule was infact correct as stated by a book written in the late 1800s about gambling.”
Actually, I said no such thing. You’re referring to this:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=297997&forum=188&start=120
What I said can be boiled down to three statements:
The unlimited (as opposed to table stakes) game actually existed at one time – fact.
Other famous poker movies have utilized this plot device – fact.
Damian was paying homage to those movies by incorporating this same plot device into Shade – fact.
After I clarified this, someone (Dowser) came on and said that he didn’t believe that the unlimited game had ever existed. I cited the proper source materials to show him that unless we’re willing to dismiss a half-dozen poker authors from the early days of the game, it most certainly did exist.
At no point did I say that the unlimited format was “correct” because it had been in an old book. I just said that it existed and it found it’s way into Shade and other films as a plot device.
Incidentally, homage moments can be found all over Shade. Anyone recognize the line: “If I want your opinion, I dial your….” It wasn’t original to Shade. What about: “As long as I’m around, you’ll always be second best”? Although it’s not a perfect quote, it’s also not original to Shade.
Enough of that. Continued next post.
With regard to respect, I neither need it from you nor care about it. But, I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong, as I did above. That shows that I respect you enough to reply on an open forum. Are you man enough to admit when your vitriol has made you look bad?
With regard to Shade: It wasn’t my script, it wasn’t my movie. My friend Damian Nieman wrote and directed it and it was his baby all the way.
You wrote:
First of all, I have no idea what “he believes everything presented in the film to be true” means. Actually, I think everything presented in the film is fiction. It is, afterall, a movie. Maybe what you’re trying to say is that I “defend” all of Damian’s script choices with regard to the inconsistencies. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re still wrong. I don’t defend them (or refute them), I simply understand them and don’t immediately categorize them as mistakes, errors, or lapses in judgement/knowledge.
Before we get into the details, we have to clarify something. I’m guessing that by “inconsistencies,” you actually mean things like the unlimited format, the string bets, the table stakes rules being violated, etc. If you mean something else, please clarify.
The fact of the matter is, I pointed out all of these things to Damian in 1999 when I first read the script. I’ve included a link to a scan of the actual first draft script from 1999 that I read when Damian gave it to me. That copy is still in my possession and you can see my original notes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31768717@N08/5011114454/
On the page I provided, you can actually see four notes. The notes concern a phrasing choice, a comment about coming out of the pockets with more money (this is actually still in the film), which violates the tables stakes format of the modern game, a comment on a character making a “string bet” (the 6 means that it’s the 6th string bet made in the script up until that time – there are several in the final film), and lastly a comment on “buying” the pot (the “unlimited” game). In the modern game, this isn’t allowed.
So, there are four things that Damian did “wrong” if you’re comparing the scripted (and filmed) game to the today’s game.
But let’s pause a minute to make a point about movies in general. I know you might find this hard to believe, but real police officers occasionally find fault with the procedures depicted in Dirty Harry movies. And, although this may boggle your mind, real firemen occasionally find “inconsistencies” with movies like Backdraft or The Towering Inferno. Spoiler Alert! Believe it or not, not everyone in the military walks around in their Class A dress uniforms at work while doing everyday business as commonly shown in the movies.
Here’s the real shocker: script writers and directors care more about how the average audience perceives a movie than they do about how experts in a given field will pick that same movie apart.
I pointed out all the “inconsistencies” listed above and about a dozen more to Damian. His response was that he wasn’t making a film for poker/blackjack experts, he was making a film for regular people. With this intended audience in mind, adhering to all of the proper formatting was not critical. If it helped move the story along, you could leave it in, but if it was easier to tell the story another way, then don’t bother with the change.
At the time, I couldn’t argue with him. First of all because it wasn’t my film or my place to argue with him. But secondly, because he made a great point. He wasn’t shooting a documentary, he was shooting a Hollywood movie. Things don’t have to be completely accurate in that world, nor should they be.
Now that that’s over with, here’s another point: homage. In Shade, there are several things that were done in direct homage to other films that used the exact same techniques. Case in point: The Cincinnati Kid. In this movie, Steve McQueen’s character is given only a small amount of time to raise enough money to call a bet. A violation of the “table stakes” format? Of course it was. And yet Kid is still considered a classic noir gambling film, in spite of this “flaw.”
When I asked Damian about the poker issues, he discussed Kid, Big Hand For The Little Lady, Cool Hand Luke, The Sting, and several other gambling movies. He had some purposeful homage scenes and situations in Shade and others are just coincidental. But it clarifies the point: it isn’t a mistake if you’re doing it on purpose! It’s simply a theatrical and artistic choice. Whether it gels with current card room procedure isn’t really an issue.
In your rant, you also said, “he refuted them by saying that the supposedly inconsistent rule was infact correct as stated by a book written in the late 1800s about gambling.”
Actually, I said no such thing. You’re referring to this:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=297997&forum=188&start=120
What I said can be boiled down to three statements:
The unlimited (as opposed to table stakes) game actually existed at one time – fact.
Other famous poker movies have utilized this plot device – fact.
Damian was paying homage to those movies by incorporating this same plot device into Shade – fact.
After I clarified this, someone (Dowser) came on and said that he didn’t believe that the unlimited game had ever existed. I cited the proper source materials to show him that unless we’re willing to dismiss a half-dozen poker authors from the early days of the game, it most certainly did exist.
At no point did I say that the unlimited format was “correct” because it had been in an old book. I just said that it existed and it found it’s way into Shade and other films as a plot device.
Incidentally, homage moments can be found all over Shade. Anyone recognize the line: “If I want your opinion, I dial your….” It wasn’t original to Shade. What about: “As long as I’m around, you’ll always be second best”? Although it’s not a perfect quote, it’s also not original to Shade.
Enough of that. Continued next post.
Last edited by a moderator:
You mentioned that I “attacked you and your friends when you gave your opinions” – referring to my original comment that kicked this whole argument off.
Again, I admit I should have used softer language. I was in a hurry and just wanted to quickly clarify the point that full-deck controls still have their place in modern cheating scenarios.
But I’m glad you used the word “opinions” in your response. You didn’t state an opinion, you stated a fact (incorrectly, as it were). You said that full-deck controls were pointless and useless. That’s just wrong and you got called on it. Like I mentioned earlier, had you used language that wasn’t so absolute in tone, I wouldn’t have found anything to argue with in the first place.
“I don’t like full-deck controls” can’t be argued with. Neither can, “Full-deck controls are only used in specific circumstances that don’t come up too often.”
You want to know what can be disputed? “(A)nyone that understands anything about gambling work knows that full deck controls are utterly pointless.”
Again, that’s not as much an opinion as a statement of fact. If you want to tell me that you like strawberry ice cream better than vanilla, I don’t have much to say about it. But if you try and tell me that strawberry outsells vanilla five to one, I’ll tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Next issue: backing up what you say.
Unknown, it isn’t because of my connections that I “automatically know what I’m talking about.” I actually talk to and learn from these guys. You may find this hard to believe, but it’s because of my reliance on others that I know what I know. Your statement above makes it sound like listening to people that have been there and done it is a bad thing. And I know you don't think that.
However, unlike you, at the time I replied, I provided some evidence for my statements. Since I also don’t travel the U.S. cheating at cards, I have to rely on the accounts of people that are actually there or that have been there. I didn’t mention that I have lunch with a traveling mechanic in an attempt to show off, I mentioned it to provide evidence that full-deck controls are being used in today’s cheating environments. He does it every day and tells me about it. These are facts, not opinions.
You had a statement that wasn’t backed up by anything. I at least made an effort at supporting my statement of fact by referencing an actual, in-the-trenches mechanic. I didn’t give his name to protect him, but many of the people that read this will be able to guess who I have to be talking about.
Next topic: bninroC69’s stacking vs mine.
I thought he did a great job! I’m not sure how this became a “me vs him” issue (other than you making it one), but my hat’s off to him. He’s accomplished a lot in the few months that he’s been practicing.
However, his video and my 1-on-1 have different goals. His was to show what he can do and it did that very well. Mine was to teach a concept that many people seem to have trouble with (for some reason). If my goals were the same as his I might’ve made different choices.
As for things like camera angle, I think you’re fooling yourself if you believe that everyone at the card table gets the same “straight on” angle (your words, not mine). The fact is (there I go again, dealing in facts…), poker tables, whether round, square or oblong don’t give everyone at the table the same straight-on angle. The guy in the 1 seat and the guy in the 3 seat get completely different angles, to say nothing of the guys in the 5 seat or the 8 seat. I’m not sure what your “straight-on” angle comment was supposed to mean, but if I had to take it at face value I’d say you have “no idea what you’re talking about.” Whoops. I meant to say, “My experience differs from yours, sir.”
Rhythm (or, if you prefer, rythm): Again, bninroC69’s was excellent! Mine was artificial because I was trying to concentrate on teaching as opposed to nailing a good take. Also, I frequently was going for much larger numbers than bninroC69’s example. That isn’t said in an effort to belittle him or his terrific accomplishments. I mention it only because rhythm takes a back seat to accuracy when you’re trying to push the envelope in an instructional video. I can assure you that I prize rhythm as much as anyone when it comes to really making these things look great in the real world.
Message to bninroC69:
Your stacking video looked great considering the limited time you’ve had to work on the move. If you haven’t already gotten the 1-on-1 download on riffle stacking, it’s yours. My gift to you. J.Bayme will set it up. If you've already got it, I'll get you something else down the road.
It’s my way of saying that I apologize for not taking the time to be more tactful when I critiqued your (and Unknown’s) choice of words. I understand now that you knew more than your phrasing indicated.
Back to Unknown:
With regard to “free drops” vs riffling off. I’m well aware of the concept. I’m also aware of who first made you aware of it. Clock and Mr. Z are friends with me too you know.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=374308&forum=188&post=6684936
Anyway…
I simply chose not to explore an advanced concept on a video designed for beginners that are still struggling with the very idea of holding back a set number of cards. The 1-on-1 was already at 40 minutes and adding refining minutia seemed like more trouble than it was worth at the time. This is especially true when you consider that a discussion of free drops vs riffling off can easily be done in a thread amongst people that are really intersted in taking their stacking to the next level.
With regard to my finances:
“The only reason he made this download is to make a quick buck”
You got me. Like Erdnase, I “needed the money” and making 1-on-1 downloads is the quick and easy path to riches. What can I say? J.B. can tell you about the hundreds of phone calls and emails I sent him begging him to let me make 1-on-1s for Theory 11 in the early days.
Actually, he can’t, because I didn’t. He’ll be the first to tell you that I was very reluctant to make a 1-on-1 because I didn’t think I had any effects worth teaching. It was only after we discussed it several times that we agreed that I could just concentrate on techniques rather than teaching effects.
I can assure you that I don’t do this for the “quick bucks.” Here’s some advice: Don’t talk about things you don’t know about. You have enough trouble discussing things you do know about.
Finally, let’s discuss words like “poser” and phrases like “false aura of expertise.”
I’m not sure what these things are supposed to mean. Are you implying that I’m posing as a real gambler or a cheater? I’m not, nor was I ever doing so as far as I know. I have been hired as a consultant on film and television where gambling is concerned, I have proofread and given advice (admittedly in a limited capacity) on the two best books on cheating published in the last 100 years, I have consulted (again, in minor ways) on other books on card cheating, and I have actually been a private consultant to a real casino on real (suspected) cheating cases. In addition, I attended dealer’s school in an effort to further my knowledge of the industry and how it works, I attend the G2E (the largest gambling trade show in America) every year to discuss and learn, I attended the World Gaming Protection conference last year as a guest of the host and I’m tentatively scheduled to give a talk at the upcoming WGC in February. I ask questions of industry (and non-industry) sources and I listen carefully to the answers.
In short, I’m doing my best to further my own knowledge and skill set, all the while taking time to try and help people (as I’ve been helped by others) with the raw techniques that we all love so much.
What have you done this year? Where does your expertise and knowledge come from? I mean, apart from the 150+ nights per year you’ve been slaving away at the tables of course….
Ok, so now that all the sniping and name calling is out of the way, I’d like to end on a positive note since I don’t dislike you nor am I mad that you lost it a little bit over my initial reply. It’s good to see fire and passion once in a while, even if some of it was misplaced and poorly executed.
Here goes:
My apology for not being more tactful with my original reply was, and is, sincere. I made a mistake. I hope though, that by taking the time to address many, if not all of your “points” that I’ve shown I do care enough about the things you’ve said to respond. It would have been very easy to just dismiss you as a know-nothing kid. That isn’t how I feel though, and my little barbs at you along the way in this post shouldn't be taken seriously.
From the “I give credit where credit is due” department: I watched (and have watched in the past) some of your videos. I like them even if I would have made different theatrical choices (any real firearms expert can tell that’s not an actual gun in that scene….).
It’s clear to me you know how to handle a deck of cards, and your Erdnase longitudinal shift is one of the best I’ve seen. Keep that up. At least we share an obvious love of that book.
Consider it done.
Jason
PS: Unknown: As an olive branch of a sort, send me your address and I'll make sure a couple of decks of old-school Aristocrats find their way to your door.
Again, I admit I should have used softer language. I was in a hurry and just wanted to quickly clarify the point that full-deck controls still have their place in modern cheating scenarios.
But I’m glad you used the word “opinions” in your response. You didn’t state an opinion, you stated a fact (incorrectly, as it were). You said that full-deck controls were pointless and useless. That’s just wrong and you got called on it. Like I mentioned earlier, had you used language that wasn’t so absolute in tone, I wouldn’t have found anything to argue with in the first place.
“I don’t like full-deck controls” can’t be argued with. Neither can, “Full-deck controls are only used in specific circumstances that don’t come up too often.”
You want to know what can be disputed? “(A)nyone that understands anything about gambling work knows that full deck controls are utterly pointless.”
Again, that’s not as much an opinion as a statement of fact. If you want to tell me that you like strawberry ice cream better than vanilla, I don’t have much to say about it. But if you try and tell me that strawberry outsells vanilla five to one, I’ll tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Next issue: backing up what you say.
Unknown, it isn’t because of my connections that I “automatically know what I’m talking about.” I actually talk to and learn from these guys. You may find this hard to believe, but it’s because of my reliance on others that I know what I know. Your statement above makes it sound like listening to people that have been there and done it is a bad thing. And I know you don't think that.
However, unlike you, at the time I replied, I provided some evidence for my statements. Since I also don’t travel the U.S. cheating at cards, I have to rely on the accounts of people that are actually there or that have been there. I didn’t mention that I have lunch with a traveling mechanic in an attempt to show off, I mentioned it to provide evidence that full-deck controls are being used in today’s cheating environments. He does it every day and tells me about it. These are facts, not opinions.
You had a statement that wasn’t backed up by anything. I at least made an effort at supporting my statement of fact by referencing an actual, in-the-trenches mechanic. I didn’t give his name to protect him, but many of the people that read this will be able to guess who I have to be talking about.
Next topic: bninroC69’s stacking vs mine.
I thought he did a great job! I’m not sure how this became a “me vs him” issue (other than you making it one), but my hat’s off to him. He’s accomplished a lot in the few months that he’s been practicing.
However, his video and my 1-on-1 have different goals. His was to show what he can do and it did that very well. Mine was to teach a concept that many people seem to have trouble with (for some reason). If my goals were the same as his I might’ve made different choices.
As for things like camera angle, I think you’re fooling yourself if you believe that everyone at the card table gets the same “straight on” angle (your words, not mine). The fact is (there I go again, dealing in facts…), poker tables, whether round, square or oblong don’t give everyone at the table the same straight-on angle. The guy in the 1 seat and the guy in the 3 seat get completely different angles, to say nothing of the guys in the 5 seat or the 8 seat. I’m not sure what your “straight-on” angle comment was supposed to mean, but if I had to take it at face value I’d say you have “no idea what you’re talking about.” Whoops. I meant to say, “My experience differs from yours, sir.”
Rhythm (or, if you prefer, rythm): Again, bninroC69’s was excellent! Mine was artificial because I was trying to concentrate on teaching as opposed to nailing a good take. Also, I frequently was going for much larger numbers than bninroC69’s example. That isn’t said in an effort to belittle him or his terrific accomplishments. I mention it only because rhythm takes a back seat to accuracy when you’re trying to push the envelope in an instructional video. I can assure you that I prize rhythm as much as anyone when it comes to really making these things look great in the real world.
Message to bninroC69:
Your stacking video looked great considering the limited time you’ve had to work on the move. If you haven’t already gotten the 1-on-1 download on riffle stacking, it’s yours. My gift to you. J.Bayme will set it up. If you've already got it, I'll get you something else down the road.
It’s my way of saying that I apologize for not taking the time to be more tactful when I critiqued your (and Unknown’s) choice of words. I understand now that you knew more than your phrasing indicated.
Back to Unknown:
With regard to “free drops” vs riffling off. I’m well aware of the concept. I’m also aware of who first made you aware of it. Clock and Mr. Z are friends with me too you know.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=374308&forum=188&post=6684936
Anyway…
I simply chose not to explore an advanced concept on a video designed for beginners that are still struggling with the very idea of holding back a set number of cards. The 1-on-1 was already at 40 minutes and adding refining minutia seemed like more trouble than it was worth at the time. This is especially true when you consider that a discussion of free drops vs riffling off can easily be done in a thread amongst people that are really intersted in taking their stacking to the next level.
With regard to my finances:
“The only reason he made this download is to make a quick buck”
You got me. Like Erdnase, I “needed the money” and making 1-on-1 downloads is the quick and easy path to riches. What can I say? J.B. can tell you about the hundreds of phone calls and emails I sent him begging him to let me make 1-on-1s for Theory 11 in the early days.
Actually, he can’t, because I didn’t. He’ll be the first to tell you that I was very reluctant to make a 1-on-1 because I didn’t think I had any effects worth teaching. It was only after we discussed it several times that we agreed that I could just concentrate on techniques rather than teaching effects.
I can assure you that I don’t do this for the “quick bucks.” Here’s some advice: Don’t talk about things you don’t know about. You have enough trouble discussing things you do know about.
Finally, let’s discuss words like “poser” and phrases like “false aura of expertise.”
I’m not sure what these things are supposed to mean. Are you implying that I’m posing as a real gambler or a cheater? I’m not, nor was I ever doing so as far as I know. I have been hired as a consultant on film and television where gambling is concerned, I have proofread and given advice (admittedly in a limited capacity) on the two best books on cheating published in the last 100 years, I have consulted (again, in minor ways) on other books on card cheating, and I have actually been a private consultant to a real casino on real (suspected) cheating cases. In addition, I attended dealer’s school in an effort to further my knowledge of the industry and how it works, I attend the G2E (the largest gambling trade show in America) every year to discuss and learn, I attended the World Gaming Protection conference last year as a guest of the host and I’m tentatively scheduled to give a talk at the upcoming WGC in February. I ask questions of industry (and non-industry) sources and I listen carefully to the answers.
In short, I’m doing my best to further my own knowledge and skill set, all the while taking time to try and help people (as I’ve been helped by others) with the raw techniques that we all love so much.
What have you done this year? Where does your expertise and knowledge come from? I mean, apart from the 150+ nights per year you’ve been slaving away at the tables of course….
Ok, so now that all the sniping and name calling is out of the way, I’d like to end on a positive note since I don’t dislike you nor am I mad that you lost it a little bit over my initial reply. It’s good to see fire and passion once in a while, even if some of it was misplaced and poorly executed.
Here goes:
My apology for not being more tactful with my original reply was, and is, sincere. I made a mistake. I hope though, that by taking the time to address many, if not all of your “points” that I’ve shown I do care enough about the things you’ve said to respond. It would have been very easy to just dismiss you as a know-nothing kid. That isn’t how I feel though, and my little barbs at you along the way in this post shouldn't be taken seriously.
From the “I give credit where credit is due” department: I watched (and have watched in the past) some of your videos. I like them even if I would have made different theatrical choices (any real firearms expert can tell that’s not an actual gun in that scene….).
It’s clear to me you know how to handle a deck of cards, and your Erdnase longitudinal shift is one of the best I’ve seen. Keep that up. At least we share an obvious love of that book.
Consider it done.
Jason
PS: Unknown: As an olive branch of a sort, send me your address and I'll make sure a couple of decks of old-school Aristocrats find their way to your door.
Last edited by a moderator:
And that's why Jason is a class act. Even after those replies to him, he still is perfectly professional, and he drops some knowledge to boot, too. And after all that, gifts for those who derided him, because he feels he was a bit harsh. Not a lot of people would do that.
I have learned a lot from this thread. I have learned history, specifics on casino and home games, and I have learned about humility and how it takes shape and form. May we all strive to be better people reaching for the same goal: progress in the use of pasteboards.
I think we can go ahead and close this thread here. What needs to be said has been said it seems. Anything else should be done in PMs between the concerned parties.
I think we can go ahead and close this thread here. What needs to be said has been said it seems. Anything else should be done in PMs between the concerned parties.
I will post an in-depth response to the recent posts in a couple of hours, as I'm in school right now and don't have the time to write a proper response.
Jason- Thank you for your response, and I thank you also for the conduct with in your response. The way I reacted was in fact immature because of past events I felt for some reason that your posts were always negative and below the "professional" level that you carry yourself at as being a member of this company. Ive gone back and edited my posts some, because I understand that insulting you personally isn't going to get myself or anyone else anywhere in this argument. I don't expect to be totally forgiven, or even forgiven at all for what I've said to you, but either way, whether it is accepted or not, I apologize for any derogatory comments I've made against you in this thread.
Again, full post to come later.
-Dan
Jason- Thank you for your response, and I thank you also for the conduct with in your response. The way I reacted was in fact immature because of past events I felt for some reason that your posts were always negative and below the "professional" level that you carry yourself at as being a member of this company. Ive gone back and edited my posts some, because I understand that insulting you personally isn't going to get myself or anyone else anywhere in this argument. I don't expect to be totally forgiven, or even forgiven at all for what I've said to you, but either way, whether it is accepted or not, I apologize for any derogatory comments I've made against you in this thread.
Again, full post to come later.
-Dan
mother of all things moo-cow that was the single longest post i've ever seen that wasn't an actual like essay written up and posted as an OP. nuts
EDIT: and now that i've read it all the way through. HOLY MOTHER OF ALL THINGS HOLY MOO-COW!!! i'm always impressed by the sheer proffesional-attitude, approach, and style. while at the same time generous and sincere heart Jason displays on a regular basis. (NOT TO MENTION HIS GRAMMAR WAS FLAWLESS, unlike mine, i'm too focused on content and too lazy to check mine.. sorry)
Freaking amazing.
EDIT: and now that i've read it all the way through. HOLY MOTHER OF ALL THINGS HOLY MOO-COW!!! i'm always impressed by the sheer proffesional-attitude, approach, and style. while at the same time generous and sincere heart Jason displays on a regular basis. (NOT TO MENTION HIS GRAMMAR WAS FLAWLESS, unlike mine, i'm too focused on content and too lazy to check mine.. sorry)
Freaking amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason,
I appreciate how respectfully you have responded to all of this. Thank you for the gift, and kind words.
I think everything was just a big misunderstanding.... It was well handled on your part.
I appreciate how respectfully you have responded to all of this. Thank you for the gift, and kind words.
I think everything was just a big misunderstanding.... It was well handled on your part.
On the subject of blind versus false shuffles, and by no means it is intended to be ironic/sarcastic, I wonder why we should only work with a small slug when you can do a full deck retention ? I believe a well executed full deck retention (with Push-throughs) avoid the blocking of a large slug, thus making the shuffle looking more legit than a partial deck retention.
But please correct me if I'm wrong, as I have no experience in casino/high stake private games.
But please correct me if I'm wrong, as I have no experience in casino/high stake private games.
In most cases cheats are controlling small groups of cards. For example, a second dealer would only need to control a single card. Bottom dealers only usually need about 1-5 at most. So they wouldn't need a full deck retention.
If you are controlling a huge stack (maybe a flush or full house) after a pick up stack or cooler then yeah, you would probably use a full deck retention.
I also have no problem being corrected if I'm wrong.
Thank you again Jason for your response, now here is mine. I will attempt to address each point you made individually, the same as you did in your response.
First off, let me say that I would like to apologize about any misunderstandings. I think what has transpired here is the same thing that happened with the "SuhaasG" personal messages a few months ago. Some things are hard to comprehend/interpret, and it has lead to over reactions on my part, that were unwarranted.
Now to the points you made:
Although I agree that this could've been worded better, I'm not accusing you because I took it too literally and blew up over it when asking for clarification, or atleast controlling myself would've been the better response.
In regards to "Shade", I am again at fault here because I took what was presented in the movie too literally. The movie will obviously be more entertaining to the general public if it includes some degree of cinematic lisence, like what you said about string bets, buying pots, etc. (just as a note, in my original post the inconsistency I was referring to was string betting). My assumption was from a strictly "educated" standpoint (By educated I mean that I understand a thing or two about gambling and cheating with cards, so my perception will be more critical then that of a regular observer), my thought process being something like "That's not allowed in casinos! This movie sucks!"
Again, presumptive on my part, could've been avoided by "thinking outside my magic box" if you will.
My entire argument against full deck controls has stemmed pretty much from my belief that Erdnase is THE BOOK and what Erdnase says goes. On page 39 (end of bottom stock retention, blind riffles) Erdnase says:
"But there is seldom a desire and never a necessity of preserving the complete order at a card table."
The reason this whole argument started was my misinterpretation of what Erdnase is saying here. He is saying there isnt a need to retain ALL the cards, but I didnt think in terms of large blocks, coolers, etc. Just because a full deck false shuffle isnt needed to retain ALL 52 cards doesnt mean that a full deck control isnt the best and most economical/natural way to preserve the order of large stacks and coolers. I understand the difference now and would like again to apologize for my ignorance on the subject.
(sorry for large quotes, im just trying to remove as much confusion and misunderstanding as possible)
Once more this is a case of my misinterpretation of your point. When you said that
it came across to me that you were attempting to boast like: "Oh look at me I know a cheater so I know what I'm talking about!". I guess the fact that you didnt give his name kinda contributed to me feeling as if you were just saying this to "Show off". Thank you for clarifying what you meant in your original post.
As for the whole thing with B69's riffle stacking, I was comparing the two from a standpoint of having some prior experience with stacking. I again limited my scope because I didnt think that you might in fact be making a video to show the absolute beginners what they will be getting when they purchase this 1-on-1. My apologies once more.
This is the one thing I can correct you on. I did not in fact learn about dead drops from this post on TheCafe, or even from Mike or Grant at all, but instead from another acquaintance who riffle stacks (He will remain nameless at his own discretion).
These comments where made "in the heat of the moment", and weren't warranted or backed up at all. I was just mad and overreacting at the time, so I'm going to just let this one go. Utmost apologies on this one because you did nothing to deserve the comments.
Agreed. It is always good to stand up for your opinions, but my response was severely out of line and I understand that now thanks to your well-collected and professional response. Thank you.
Thank you once more.
Lastly, for about the 10th time, I would like to sincerely apologize for anything that I've said that was offensive to you. It all stemmed from my over-inflated ego, coupled with a few misunderstandings.
With respect,
Dan
First off, let me say that I would like to apologize about any misunderstandings. I think what has transpired here is the same thing that happened with the "SuhaasG" personal messages a few months ago. Some things are hard to comprehend/interpret, and it has lead to over reactions on my part, that were unwarranted.
Now to the points you made:
Although I agree that this could've been worded better, I'm not accusing you because I took it too literally and blew up over it when asking for clarification, or atleast controlling myself would've been the better response.
In regards to "Shade", I am again at fault here because I took what was presented in the movie too literally. The movie will obviously be more entertaining to the general public if it includes some degree of cinematic lisence, like what you said about string bets, buying pots, etc. (just as a note, in my original post the inconsistency I was referring to was string betting). My assumption was from a strictly "educated" standpoint (By educated I mean that I understand a thing or two about gambling and cheating with cards, so my perception will be more critical then that of a regular observer), my thought process being something like "That's not allowed in casinos! This movie sucks!"
Again, presumptive on my part, could've been avoided by "thinking outside my magic box" if you will.
My entire argument against full deck controls has stemmed pretty much from my belief that Erdnase is THE BOOK and what Erdnase says goes. On page 39 (end of bottom stock retention, blind riffles) Erdnase says:
"But there is seldom a desire and never a necessity of preserving the complete order at a card table."
The reason this whole argument started was my misinterpretation of what Erdnase is saying here. He is saying there isnt a need to retain ALL the cards, but I didnt think in terms of large blocks, coolers, etc. Just because a full deck false shuffle isnt needed to retain ALL 52 cards doesnt mean that a full deck control isnt the best and most economical/natural way to preserve the order of large stacks and coolers. I understand the difference now and would like again to apologize for my ignorance on the subject.
(sorry for large quotes, im just trying to remove as much confusion and misunderstanding as possible)
Once more this is a case of my misinterpretation of your point. When you said that
it came across to me that you were attempting to boast like: "Oh look at me I know a cheater so I know what I'm talking about!". I guess the fact that you didnt give his name kinda contributed to me feeling as if you were just saying this to "Show off". Thank you for clarifying what you meant in your original post.
As for the whole thing with B69's riffle stacking, I was comparing the two from a standpoint of having some prior experience with stacking. I again limited my scope because I didnt think that you might in fact be making a video to show the absolute beginners what they will be getting when they purchase this 1-on-1. My apologies once more.
This is the one thing I can correct you on. I did not in fact learn about dead drops from this post on TheCafe, or even from Mike or Grant at all, but instead from another acquaintance who riffle stacks (He will remain nameless at his own discretion).
These comments where made "in the heat of the moment", and weren't warranted or backed up at all. I was just mad and overreacting at the time, so I'm going to just let this one go. Utmost apologies on this one because you did nothing to deserve the comments.
Agreed. It is always good to stand up for your opinions, but my response was severely out of line and I understand that now thanks to your well-collected and professional response. Thank you.
Thank you once more.
Lastly, for about the 10th time, I would like to sincerely apologize for anything that I've said that was offensive to you. It all stemmed from my over-inflated ego, coupled with a few misunderstandings.
With respect,
Dan
Last edited by a moderator:
I apologize for my poor wording. I do understand the mechanics behind stacking 2 cards in one shuffle. Currently, as a practice routine, I am up to stacking 4 cards in a 6 handed game in 2 shuffles (hold back 10, drop 5 under 3, drop remaining 5 under 2. repeat hold back 10, drop 5 under 1, drop 5). Now I do realize that 6 handed draw games are a bit obsolote, like I said, this is just my practice routine. As for stacking 4 cards in 4 shuffles, I am up to doing a 9 handed game proficiently, just wouldn't attempt it in a live game just yet. I would say If I have to go into a live game, I would be comfortable doing 4 cards in 4 shuffles for a 7 handed game under pressure, or 4 cards in a 2 shuffles in a 5 handed game (this would be my limit for performance in a live game under pressure).
For hold'em, in a game in which the procedures are not set (RRSRC or RRRSRC), I would be comfortable dealing a set or quads pretty much to any player for any sized game. In a game that enforces the RRSRC procedure, I am currently only comfortable dealing sets/ quads on the flop, to the dealer button. My stripping action, riffle, and last cut are a bit shaky at the moment.
I will post a video in the near future. I just moved house, barely anything is set up. I think my digital camera is in the box under the box with the all of the books =).
Anyway, don't get me wrong. As Jason said, and as I mentioned, you have demonstrated great progress for 8-9 months of practice. I mentioned that your rhythm / timing/ confidence with the shuffle were all apparent in your video. I too was caught up in the moment and distraught reading the war of posts and sided with Jason, as I saw holes in the arguments being made about skill level and the videos in question.
I apologize for my lack of restraint and in no way think that your confidence in your riffle stacking is misplaced.
One thing that I will suggest (if you are not already doing so) is that while you are working on these shuffles, start working on adding the strip, final riffle, and cut to your stacking sequence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, I guess I just misunderstood you. Thanks. I look forward to the video (no sarcasm intended).