i, like many, love your sharp sense of humour and advanced intelligence

i'm glad, nay delighted, you took the time to write in the first instance *AND* had the tenacity to respond in the second / third!

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FELLA :-)))

Undereducated people who have nothing to contribute tend to see people with knowledge as arrogant.

And you're right. I'd never hire you or otherwise fire you on the spot. Like many, you have nothing to contribute and only complain about your coworkers which corresponds nicely with aforementioned genetic junk.

There's always a position available as a black jack dealer. Thorp named his book "Beat the Dealer", which would seem appropriate for you as you seem to prefer being on the receiving end.

So what were you saying about Black Jack? Right, nothing.

Well, I've never met Vijay, but what an arrogant person he seems to be. Someone should watch over your shoulder and tune down your writing ecstasy. I bet you make a great manager somewhere, because you know you're always right.

"Wrong facts": what are they?

@Mark

Boo, hoo, hoo.

If a vendor is lying to the public, then it's the Inquirer's job to give them a spanking. If the Inquirer is lying to the public, then it's the public's job to give the Inquirer a spanking (and a good opportunity for the vendors to retaliate).

Do you actually having anything factual to contribute, or did you just want to call people names because you don't really have anything else to say?

"Genetic junk is normally a part of a genome. With Mark, we're witnessing an entire entity made out of genetic junk."

At least I didn't call you a pompous buffon.

aNYBODY WHO CAN AFFORD AN iPHONE dESRVES TO BE fLEECED AT gREYjACK. i knOW i KNOW.

@Vijay

He may have made a mistake in the reporting however, why do you have to act like a pompous buffoon and deliver your closing tactless remarks?

If you had read anything on the subject, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself by reporting wrong facts.

Adding more decks to the game was thought to combat card counting, but it just changes the standard deviation somewhat, while the overall outcome remains the same. That fact was established somewhere in the early 60's.

Then came playing with multiple decks while only playing half the available cards. That was though to eradicate the accuracy of predictions, because if you really counted all the cards, you'd know with 100% certainty what the last card is, 50% what the last 2 cards are, etc.. Didn't help either.

Nowadays, (house winning) blackjack tables play with multiple decks and immediately shuffle the cards (using a shuffling machine) back into the game after every play. It's virtually impossible to win against the casino without really cheating.

I've never read that Ed. Thorpe, the MIT professor your writing coerces to, taught his students how to win at the game and made them a fortune or whatever. The dude just wrote a book on the subject and made his fortune that way.

You seem to have mixed up his life in the 50's and 60's with the events involving card counting taking place in the 90's at MIT, or at least involving mostly MIT students.

Maybe you're like rain man and have other talents than factual reporting?

Try you luck at the tables!