Talk:Card counting

Hello! I'd be happy to help with any copyright concerns you might have. Could you please be more specific about where the problem is? Auggie (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2013 (CST)

Proper attribution for the systems table

I looked at the table, and I think I am beginning to understand what is going on. Am I correct in saying that it is an aggregation of many systems developed by many distinct individuals? If so, wouldn't the best way to credit these individuals be by including individual attributions? This enables the reader to go and check each one and read about it directly, reducing the chance for mistakes or confusion, and helping the original authors by maybe selling some books or directing traffic to their websites.

I looked at the link to http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm and it is a nice review but I don't see the original work that needs to be credited. If I am wrong or just not seeing something, please enlighten me.

As for the parts of article taken from Wikipedia, I disagree with these being blanked because this is not at all what the contributors to Wikipedia would want. They work hard to create quality content and most of them want it to get to the widest audience possible. That is why Wikipedia has the CC-by-SA license. Auggie (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (CST)

Look again at http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm. It does exactly what you suggest. Click on any strategy name and it provides additional info with credits and location for yet more information. I also personally contacted each of the authors to gain permission to use their systems in my software. (I know or knew all the authors but one, and I have known his publisher for 19 years.) This took rather a long time. Golden DID NOT work hard to gain this info. He just took the information on my 22 pages, removed refs to me out of retribution, changed a few words, and has been trying to place it in Wikipedia ever since in order to remove a link to the original.Monitor (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2014 (CST)

What do we have to do to get this article back on Encyc? Blanking it is clearly not in anyone's best interest. Auggie (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2014 (CST)

1962 or 1966?

Thorp's Beat the Dealer. The text doesn't agree with the ref. Auggie (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2014 (CST)

The book was written in 1962. The Vintage Books edition came out in 1966. And Golden's comments about Dubner and Braun are also wrong. He really knows nothing about the game or its history.Public2 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2014 (CST)

I find that hard to believe. Auggie (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2014 (CST)

Copyright violation

For the second time, an editor has violated my copyright by again taking the card counting strategies summary mentioned in the above copyright complaint and adding it to this article. Copyright violation is serious. It is a right expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This disgusting behavior must stop.

Oddly, he attributed it to another self-published site. Monitor (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (EDT)

To whom do I file a DMCA complaint? I would prefer contacting the site directly to see if you'll do the right thing before going directly to your registrar, GoDaddy or A2 hosting.

Hi Monitor! Good to see you. We replied to your email. For future reference, up-to-date Encyc contact information is available here: https://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:About#Contact_us

I'm also pleased to let you know your account has been upgraded to the automoderated group, so that you will not need moderator approval to post in the future. Welcome back to Encyc, and rest assured, your human rights will be respected! Tom (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2021 (EDT)

• I'm one of only a couple people who know who Zadehkoochak was. All these cites were coped directly from my site. They do not exist at the site he claims. This is pure fraud. Monitor (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

I never heard of Zadehkoochak, but it looks like he published a book in 1992, available to the general public. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Book_of_British_Blackjack.html?id=OYLtAAAACAAJ

Do you think it's plausible that other blackjack experts might have read the book? Tom (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Zadehkoochak only sold a few copies and the book went out of print. I contacted the owner of High Stakes Gambling Bookshop in London, I believe the largest shop of its kind, and the owner said he was unable to find a copy in any used book shop. Monitor (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

That's too bad. Hopefully one will turn up someday and the author will give permission for it to be scanned. Tom (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

That a copyright violation is based on utilizing a reference provided by another would mean that every single paper ever published would constitute a copyright violation. Drlesmgolden (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Indeed. Many researchers consider it a point of pride that their work is cited again and again by various others in the field. It's considered a sign of quality. Tom (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Let the supplicant provide his filing with the U.S. Copyright Office and the copyright number so assigned after copyright office examination of the merits of the application. Drlesmgolden (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Drlesmgolden (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Let's just have a friendly discussion. We all love blackjack, right?

So at issue here is a table that lists some card counting systems and the point values they assign to the cards in the deck.

I checked the first reference, which leads to a page based on an article Arnold Snyder wrote in Blackjack Forum in 1981. http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm. On first glance, it appears both the QFIT and the Les Golden versions were inspired by it, but maybe it is a case of convergent evolution? It seems to me like keeping a list of the published card counting systems would be something every blackjack expert might be doing independent of each other, and not something one would normally be able to copyright. But maybe I am missing something. It would be great to have more community members weigh in. Tom (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

No, Arnold's article is just a large number of possible tag values. These are in no way fleshed out strategies with indices, etc. My version, which totals 22 pages, required research as there is some complex history behind some of these strategies, like Zadehkoochak. Basically, everyone that knows his part in KO heard it from me. I have personally contacted everyone in this list except Zadehkoochak and Uston, who was dead at the time. I contacted his publisher. As for Golden's version, it has the exact strategies as mine with the exact refs linked to in mine, with my strategies removed as part of his ten year weird war against me. Golden added it to Wikipedia in 2011 and it was removed for copyright violation. After his 2014 ban from Wikipedia where he was again trying to remove all cites to anything involving me, he posted this table and it was removed after discussion for copyright violation. Now, days after he was again banned from Wikipedia after trying again to remove all refs to anything related to me, he copies my work for the third time violating copyright and has the gall to cite someone else who has no such table of actual strategies. Golden is again acting on his ten year hatred of me for refusing to help him get a publishing deal and being part of an AfD removing a hagiography about himself.

As for his odd comments about the copyright office, that office never is involved with adjudicating copyright violations. Copyright automatically attaches as soon as something is made available to anyone since 1978. Indeed, the copyright office uses as an example, something written on a cocktail napkin at a bar is copyrighted as soon as it is handed to another person. And, DMCA states that removal is mandatory after a DMCA filing. A DMCA filing takes about five minutes to create and does not involve the courts.

Why does he feel the need to steal the work of others? Monitor (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Realize that his first attempt to add this table to Wikipedia was in 2011. In the same edit, he removed a cite at the same spot to the table on my site. That is, he specifically added it to remove the cite to my work making it clear that he was indeed using my work. Monitor (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Please provide the number assigned to your table by the U.S. Copyright Office. Drlesmgolden (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

That's just silly. Did you read what I wrote at all? Everything I write is copyrighted under USC Title 17 and internationally under the Berne Convention and the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. Also, see the 1998 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This has been settled law for nearly a half century in the US and the Berne Convention goes back to 1886. It is also called a basic human right under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Monitor (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

From the US Copyright Office: "Copyright protection in the United States exists automatically from the moment the original work of authorship is fixed." Monitor (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

That's correct. Copyright does not need to be registered like patents.

This is good. Good conversation. We're making progress. So Monitor, if I understand correctly, you're not really objecting to the creation of a list of card counting strategies like Snyder's, but to the inclusion of many of the same strategies from your list as well as the same references you cited? Which parts of the list do you believe are your work? Tom (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

What I demand under the law is that all the material in that table be removed as 100% of it came from my site, even the author's real names were copied from my work. It is clearly from my site as it is the exact list (with my strategies removed because he hates me), it is the only list anywhere that includes the origin of the KO tags, and it was added to Wikipedia by him at the same time he deleted the cite to it. Further, if he didn't copy it, why is he demanding proof that I copyrighted it? Indeed, the article on blackjack in this encyc was copied from Wikipedia (which is OK), and then he removed all references to me and then added his name all over the article. His name is nowhere in the Wikipedia article because no one in the BJ field has ever heard of him. He has a ten year history of trying to remove cites to my works from Wikipedia under multiple socks resulting in multiple blocks. Adding this again is simple retribution for the fact he was again blocked from Wikipedia a couple days ago for the same attacks against me. Ten years I've had to live with his threats, harassment, and illegal actions. Monitor (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Grudges are bad. Let's all turn a new leaf. And why not have links to your site? Everyone wins! so I've been Googling around and it seems pretty common knowledge that, for example, Canfield Expert was developed by Richard Canfield. You really can't copyright this kind of information. I looked at the charts and yours has Aces on the left where Les' version has them on the right. He also has the original developer listed right on the chart, which I think is a nice touch. Your QFIT site requires a clickthrough but then it pays off with more detailed biographical info.

To be honest, I think the Card Counting article needs some sort of summary of the common systems to be a complete encyclopedia article, and that contributors are allowed to write such a summary list under United States and International copyright law. Practically, if you were allowed to prevent all other sites that came after yours from doing something so basic and fundamental to study of the field, that wouldn't be fair or competitive. We can probably give on some of the finer points but the existence of a list of card counting systems shouldn't be one of them. Tom (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

No, no, no. I have known Arnold for decades and am listed several times in the new book he just released. BUT, he most certainly did not originate this chart. He only includes one number, now obsolete. Of course someone can create a list. BUT, Golden didn’t. He copied mine and made superficial changes and claimed it came from someone else. That’s called a lie. And he will never allow links to my sites. He has deleted them over and over from Wikipedia (resulting in blocks), and removed them from the BJ article here, after it was copied from Wikipedia.

Not that I need links. Google and Bing are biased to your previous searches. Duckduckgo gives the same results to everyone. If you enter card counting strategies into Duckduckgo, the page on my site Golden used is number one. In fact, the three top results in the search are all my pages. Actually, if you enter card counting strategies into Bing, it not only points to my site at #1 position, but displays a small bit of my table, the table Golden stole. The point is that he is not copying from some unknown casino portal, of which there are thousands. He is copying from the site considered to be the correct site for this info. (Funny thing is that I forgot I owned one of these sites and will probably delete it.)

Of course you can create your own table. But, you must do your own research. NOT steal someone else’s work and lie about the source. Monitor (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Funny you bring up SEO because I have never been wild about the idea of large tables in the first place. They look terrible on mobile devices. More than half of searches are from cell phones these days. Tom (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

I never trade links and have better things to do than worry about SEO. But, tables are a problem, even on Kindle. I have scores of tables like this in my book: [1]. The tables I created in Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack are much larger and required an unusually large book. One person did steal over 100 pages from my book and claimed he wrote them. Copyright violation by dishonest people who don't care about rights are an ongoing problem. Monitor (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

Those don't even render well on my laptop. But I'm with you on the copyright violation. There has been a definite slowdown of good content creation because so much theft has reduced the incentive to publish.

I think you'd do better to pay more attention to current trends in SEO. Those tables have text elements too small to read on cell phones. Google will demote you. It's a shame because if you really do have original content that people want to read, no one will see it. Tom (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

BTW, the site lolblackjack, an online casino portal you are using, also copied my material. Also, blackjackapprentice, that you are now using, copied part of my table. That's OK with me since I have a long relationship with the owner. So, you are still using my material, but safely evading Golden's ten year effort to erase me from the world. Monitor (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

I'm just grabbing info from the first few google hits that come up. This is standard practice, the way the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are written. The end result will hopefully be very comprehensive, maybe even include some things you didn't know about! Tom (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

Well, Wikipedia articles are not written in this manner. It's a violation of RS. Monitor (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

If you have copyright claims against lolblackjack or the myriad of sites that give info about various blackjack systems, I would encourage you to pursue them directly. No one is more respectful of copyright holders than Encyc. However even we have our limits. We're not going to withhold basic information that hundreds of other sites freely provide, just because of some ancient grudge and hurt feelings. You'd be better off directing all this energy into updating your site to be more mobile-friendly. Get more visitors. Sell more software. Beat your competitors on the field of battle, not with unfounded legal threats. Tom (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

Wow. I was not making any claim whatsoever against anyone in that post. I was in no way telling you to delete anything in that post. Merely an interesting BTW. And Google says my sites are mobile friendly, rating a 99 or 100 depending on the day. And all my competitors are long gone. And I have never made an unfounded legal threat in my life. In fact, I have never made any kind of legal threat in my life. DMCA was specifically designed to not be a legal threat. Monitor (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

Very good. Tom (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2021 (EDT)

Systems table construction

We're building a systems table from scratch, using free sources from the internet. I've chosen to put the references in the hyperlinked area so they don't clutter up the table and it will be easier to edit. But maybe they can be copied in when it's finished. Still fairly easy to find the refs either way. Feel free to help. Tom (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2021 (EDT)