SUBJECT>Re: Goren’s Response to Snyder’s Comments POSTER>Arnold Snyder EMAIL>email@example.com DATE>23 January 1998, at 4:43 p.m. IP_ADDRESS> REMOTE_HOST: 184.108.40.206; REMOTE_ADDR: 220.127.116.11 PREVIOUS>31 NEXT> IMAGE> LINKNAME> LINKURL>
If I may first clarify a few points;
Regarding concealed computers: In the early 1980s, I wrote the operating manual for Keith Taft’s “David” computer. This is the same computer that Uston referred to as “George,” and which was bootlegged as “Casey.” At that time I also acted as a sales agent in referring potential buyers to Taft. This was not a shuffle tracking computer, just a “perfect strategy” computer. Taft also had a shuffle tracking computer, named “Thor,” but this device was not on the open market. When devices were outlawed in Nevada in July 1985, I stopped acting as an agent for them. Since then, I have had no connection with the sale, development, or use of any device. I do not agree with the laws on this, and I also believe that if many of these laws are ever challenged in the courts, they will be overturned as unconstitutionally vague. As a public figure, however, I do not believe it to be in my best interest to violate these laws. I have also always urged players to comply by these laws, unless they are prepared to take up this issue in the courts. This would likely be very expensive, costing perhaps $100,000 or more if it went into the federal courts. And there would be no payback, other than a finding of “not guilty,” and a change in the laws. We are still waiting for the player who has the money to take a case like this into the courts in order to change the laws. The players I know who do have the money to go to court over this issue don’t do it because they expect that although they may win their case, a new law which is not so vague will quickly replace the old law, again making computers illegal. So, I advise players to forget about devices unless and until the current laws are changed. I do not know who passed along a rumor to you that I have some current involvement with tracking computers or computer teams, but this is not true. All of my involvement with computers was prior to July 1985. I would also caution you to be careful how you might involve yourself with such endeavors. Legal hassles can be incredibly expensive.
Re: my challenge for you to demonstrate your tracking method: I certainly did not intend for you to demonstrate that your bets would win money, or that you would be playing your hands “correctly.” Obviously, the standard deviation on any short-term results would far exceed the expectation. I simply want you to play through a shoe, watch the shuffle, then identify the value of the segments in the post-shuffle stack. I realize that no one can do this perfectly, but you should at least be able to identify the strong positive and negative segments most of the time. In fact, this is how some tracking teams test their players. Where are the good slugs, and where are the bad ones. This is similar to testing card counting abilities by requiring players to count down decks. For a segment tracker, knowing where the slugs are is similar to getting the count right. (This is how I test myself and other trackers I’ve worked with. It works.) Technically, you might win or lose in those segments, but that doesn’t concern me. I just want to see if you can point to where the strong slugs are.
Re: your suggested computer test: I really have no desire to see if a computer using your method can win. As I am not a programmer, I could not even verify whether or not the computer program was doing what you claim it to be doing. Also, I know for a fact that computer programs can track shuffles, and very well. As computers are illegal almost everywhere, however, this holds only academic interest for me. I want you to demonstrate that you can use your method at the tables, not that your computer program can use your methods on your computer.
As for what it would gain you to demonstrate this talent, it would gain you my respect for one thing, and I would certainly tell others that your method was valid, and possible for a human being to do at the tables. Currently, I would not advise anyone to attempt your methods. I just don’t think they have value in the real world. If you could show me that you can do what you say you can do, I’ll spread the word. I might even want to publish your book when you write it!