I have concluded that many members of this group read rather selectively, or
not very carefully...or perhaps they ignore what they read in the interests
of provoking a conflict over a non-issue so as to avoid the topic at hand.
Another possibility is that they enjoy constructing strawmen so they can
knock them down.
A few days ago I posted a thought on BJ etiquette and the disruptive effect
of mid-shoe entry on the feel and flow of a game. The first 40 or so words
of that post follow:
"Mr. Zender may be a fine fellow ... but as a player I seek out "no mid-shoe
entry" tables. I see it as a player protection .. period. I have no problem
accepting Zender's belief that the rule has no impact (on outcomes)" (If
you don't believe that is what I said, go to post #116064)
In conclusion, I noted that, in my experience, people jumping into a game
in progress without the consent of those already playing was an affront to
common courtesy. And that my approach was: "If I see a seat at table that I
want to join, I wait until the next shoe to start playing....unless invited
to join by those already in the game."
Since then, I have been accused of a number of things including offering up
"BS", a "joke" as an observation, "audacity", invoking "superstition" and"
voodoo", ignoring mathematical science, being a "ploppie" and, most
frustratingly, of saying things that I did not say.
A reaffirmation of my initial statement of belief that the long run impact
of what other players do is insignificant also prefaced my subsequent post:
"For what it is worth, I agree that the play of other individuals at the
table, in the long run, has no impact on my success. As long as they don't
jump into the game mid-shoe (thus disrupting it's flow)."
In that follow up note, I asked those who disagree with my observations on
BJ etiquette to not "put words in my virtual mouth" as
"I('d) made no statement about math ... in any of the posts in this thread."
But, 007, apparently arguing with him(?)self, replied:
*Yes, you did, (although) you didn't explicitly used the words "math,"*
*
"mathematics," or "numbers," etc..... (emphasis added)*
**
Say what? You have decided that although I did not use the word math or any
synonym for, or iteration of "math" , that is what I was saying? Lest you
be confused going forward, there are a lot of words I did not use. I did
not mean any of them either* --- please do not infer or assume otherwise.
Refusing to accept "yes" for an answer, and pushing absurdity a bit
further, 007 goes on to ask that I explain my "theory about how players
jumping into a shoe in the middle affects the long run value of the other
players?" Of course I had no more offered a theory about table-hopping
players than I had mentioned math. I found this sarcastic
request particularly silly, since I had started the note to which he was
responding with this statement;
"For what it is worth, I agree that the play of other individuals at the
table, in the long run, has no impact on my success."
What I do object to, and did comment on, was mid-shoe entry:
"...it is the intrusion into the shoe that bothers me ... not the "good" or
"bad" play that the intruder exhibits. It is a matter of BJ etiquette."
(see post #116113)
In the immediate short run, of course, there is an unavoidable impact as the
player who has just inserted himself into the game receives a card that
would have gone to another. That impact is not predictably positive or
negative with regard to the wins/losses of the players. (In my original post
I described the bets of the "drop-ins" as outlandish... I meant, and
should have said, behavior rather than bets.)
poordueto401k noted that:
"The changing of the order of the deal cards by mid shoe entry has no affect
on the house vs. player outcome *except ... the minimal change due to an
additional player." (emphasis added)*
*** *
In what I take as a backhanded compliment, poordueto401k also notes that
"The amazing part of the OP's (I think (s)he means me, but Bob was the
actual OP) comments is that (s)he knows enough about BJ to know about
wonging, yet seems to believe mid shoe entry effects "their game". If poor
had said "enjoyment of their game" (s)he would have nailed it. Let me say
it again: It is the anti-social nature of mid-shoe entry, not the economic
consequences thereof that bother me. Aesthetics...not economics.
I enjoy time in the casino -- as recreation. I also enjoy recreational
fishing. If, while I am fishing, I see a boat or grouping of boats where
the anglers are having some success, I do not willy-nilly charge into their
midst. That would be a major breach of etiquette.
I laud Frank for trying to build bridges between the pros and the non-pros
that read/contribute on/to this board. Civility and respect might be useful
paving stones on those bridges.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
