|
On Dice On Wong On Ourselves I
know some of you will find this hard to believe, but there are actually some positive
aspects to the recent entry of Stanford Wong into the advantage-play craps world. Now
before you start coopering up a rough-hewn cross on which to hang me, let me explain this
seeming impious rail. The
Season of My Discontent First
of all, Im none to happy that a respected gaming-author like Wong has published a
tome like On Dice. Ive
voiced my discontent in no uncertain terms and I still maintain that when a highly
credible authority lends ANY integrity and substance to the whole dice-influencing debate,
it does not auger well for undiminished and unaltered longevity to this game. Its
not that I mind him being in our Precision-Shooting community. Rather, I mind that his book is out there in the general
community. The slippery slope on which
casino-corp managers base much of their specious and often gratuitous game-altering
decisions got precipitously steeper with the release of his book. Having
said all of that though, there is actually a positive (but much more muted) upside to his
presence on our stage. Another
Dawn of Opportunity Wongs
various non-promotional postings on the Message Boards have raised a number of critically
important issues that might not otherwise get the degree of attention or response were it
posted by someone of a lesser public profile. I
think that greatly contributes to the overall learning process and knowledge-matrix of the
game.
Ø
The
traditional gambling-world of craps is rife with superstition, outmoded playing methods
and general gambling fallacies. However, in
the dice-influencing context, some of them actually prove themselves out as valid and
sustainable methods
but please dont try to convince Stanford of that. There are far better ways to gain and benefit from
his company.
Ø
The
traditional advantage-play BJ world is rife with overly bookish views that work quite well
in purely mathematically-driven games like 21, but falls seriously short when
applied unchanged to a game like positively-influenced craps where you insert the physical
act of actually having to throw the dice to gain that edge.
When you counterpose that against various throwing conditions like
table-length, felt-condition and shooting-position; you have a situation that is far
removed from the simple act of stoically counting cards
but again it is not our job
to convince recent BJ-to-craps converts that what we do is far more sophisticated and
advanced than their former pursuits. A
Little Perspective Its
so difficult for most advantage-players who come over from the BJ side of the casino to
understand that there is a huge difference between placidly sitting on your ass WAITING
for the remaining undealt deck to become rich in count, versus having to actually create
your own advantage by derandomizing the dice yourself.
They
reason that if a deck of cards easily offers up an exploitable edge for a player who is
savvy enough to proficiently keep track of a mathematical count; then surely those same
skillful card-counting attributes just as easily qualify them to know virtually everything
there is to know about exploiting derandomized dice as well. Sadly
that type of painless, seamless and facile transition from one game to the other is hardly
ever the case, but dont expect any of them to admit something so unseemly and
indecorous. As
hard as it may be for you to show compassionate understanding and patient sympathy towards
them; you have to remember that many of these BJ refugees, displaced players and
foundlings are coming from a battle-scarred landscape where most of their time has
recently been spent endlessly discussing quantum hypotheticals instead of actually playing
their chosen game
simply because there are so few substantively exploitable blackjack
games left. In
their own missives from the 6:5 CSM battlefront, it appears that the ranks of adequately
skilled blackjack players who are still able to eke out a middle-class living off of their
chosen game is shrinking faster than Micheal Jacksons room-mate list. So
please be as polite to them as your conscience will allow, and try to understand that
their air of transcendence and superiority comes from decades of having mastered the
ability to count
one
plus one
plus one
minus one
add one
minus
one
subtract another one; while us mouth-breathing dice-hurling barbarians were
figuring out how to beat an unbeatable game
the very same game where those very same
players assertively declared for those very same decades
that it couldnt be
done. Welcome
them, but please try to understand that they carry substantial baggage that may not serve
them as well as they might expect it will on this side of the casino. On the other hand, a few of them have brought some
suitable and adaptable wares that certainly merit a closer inspection. So
how does all of this relate to Stanford Wongs presence in our community, and why do
I consider it mildly contributory to our progress out of the stone-age caves that we are
apparently living in? He
simply asks the right questions. Introspection
Often Leads to Self-Improvement The
substance and value of experience that Wong has gained from decades of advantage-play
cannot be understated. Equally
though, we have to recognize that the sheer size and weight of his BJ-dominated experience
does not hold all of the answers; and in some cases, those experiences may act to weigh
down and retard his dice-influencing progress. To
his credit (or perhaps for his amusement), he has asked for us to justify or at least
better explain some of the commonly used gaming-approaches that are diametrically opposed to his current way of thinking. Even
through the slight air of superiority that most of his current Message Board musing have,
there is a mild undercurrent of someone who is coming to understand, on an almost daily
basis, that dice-influencing may hold even more potential for successful
exploitation than blackjack ever did. Additionally,
it would appear (either by intent or by oversight), that there are some facets of the game
that he hasnt yet come to fully appreciate, understand and profitably capitalize
upon. To
me, that indicates a smart and savvy player
one that we may be able to learn
something from. Disregard
Motivation and Consider Enrichment Now
some people may rightfully contend that Wong simply poses those questions and puts forth
those statements in order to reap fodder for his next book and they point to recent
history as an excellent exemplar of their contention.
Regardless of the motivation on his part, I contend that we can STILL learn
something from what he says or what he asks
or at least in the way we answer
those inquisitions and assertions. By
responding to his well-asked questions, we put ourselves in a position where we have to at
least rudimentarily examine just why it is we do certain things that we do when we play,
when we bet, and when we shoot. Thats
not a bad thing. By
thinking about each of the elements that make up our current advantage-play strategy and
tactics on a much higher-abstract level; we get the benefit of carefully examining some of
our deepest held beliefs about the game we cherish and especially about the various ways
we try to exploit it. In
probing for weaknesses and justifying their place in our current game-plan, we get to
examine our existing methods with a view of either justifying their continued use, or
immediately excluding them on the grounds of now-proven obsolescence or superceded
replacement by a more cogent formula and legitimate process. In
either case, thats a serious benefit whose value to each of our
advantage-play efforts should not be overlooked or underestimated. To
me, our posted responses to Stanford Wongs queries are not so much for his
edification and education, but instead offers an excellent way (and a good excuse) to
examine, confirm and validate some of our current betting-methods and gaming-approaches;
or in the alternative, to finally see some of them for the outmoded old-wives tales and
gambling fallacies that a few of them really are. By
simply taking a more profit-focused and less gambling-oriented approach to our own game
and by thinking about WHY, WHAT and HOW it is we do each of the things that we do as
dice-influencing advantage-players; the more we can be the chief beneficiaries of that
whole question-and-answer process. The
Best MAY Be Yet To Come If
we can derive that much benefit from Wongs mere presence; imagine what we might gain
once he has had more of a chance to become an integral part of the Precision-Shooting
matrix. Though I wont cite the law of
unintended consequences, I will say that the closer we examine, explore and scrutinize
each one of our actions at the table; the better prepared and equipped we are to actually
harness and utilize the advantage that our dice-influencing offers. So
Stanford, welcome to the wonderful world of dice-influencing, and thanks for asking those
sharply pointed questions. I for one have
benefited. Good
Luck and Good Skill at the tables
and in Life. The
Mad Professor
|
|