Dear Dr. Kevin Whitburn:
Last week I, like many blackjack writers, expressed skepticism about your new MOST Strategy and its claims to lead to a player edge of 1-6% without the involvement of card counting. In response, you replied with a condescending message that basically states that just because I don’t understand the strategy doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
You, of course, are right. Many things work that I don’t understand, which is why I am offering you the chance to prove to me that it does work. I am sure you are aware that there are a lot of scam artists out there and betting systems are a big gambling scam on the internet. While I’m not saying that you fall into that category, I am cautious about anyone who charges $150 to share their “secret.” I’m sure you understand.
If the MOST Strategy truly works as well as advertised, then it is a groundbreaking achievement in the world of blackjack and of course I would be happy to tell everyone to use it. Of course, I don’t want to spend $150 of my money to find out.
I guess what gives me the most pause concerning your system is that, by your own admission, you cannot prove that it works in a casino setting. You admit that “to demonstrate a clear winner in the untidy realm of games-of-chance is tougher than you might think” and you admit that you can’t “reliably separate out the underlying win-signal from the random luck it’s buried in.” And that seems to be the problem with your mathematical system that has not been tested in a casino: It doesn’t take into account the luck of the draw.
You also claim that the MOST Strategy “produces accelerated returns far exceeding those of aggressive growth investments in financial markets, but without the market uncertainties.” Oh, so your strategy is a better investment than the stock market? That’s a pretty bold statement considering the high element of chance in the game of blackjack, especially considering that MOST, at its core, is just a complex table-exiting strategy.
Your strategy is a math-based strategy that doesn’t require the player to be good at math, yet is better than basic strategy with card counting and even the stock market. You claim all of this despite not testing it in a casino by stating that “the math can actually cross-check itself.” Dr. Whitburn, since you are a scientist, I am sure you are aware that, generally speaking, scientists don’t go around professing that something is fact because of mathematical equations. The math is important, of course, but the theory also has to be tested. I remember learning about the Scientific Method in school. Of course, I also remember that it is necessary to eliminate variables (such as luck) in the experiment. Good luck with that.
Dr. Whitburn, I hope you do not see this letter as a personal attack. On the contrary, I hope you will see this as an opportunity to prove to me and to the world that the MOST Strategy does deliver on its promises. If you are willing to provide me with a complete free copy of your e-book, I would be happy to test your strategy in a casino environment and then let everybody know the results. As I said, if your strategy works then this is a monumental achievement in blackjack and I would be happy to admit that I was wrong to be skeptical. I look forward to hearing from you.