Blackjack Current feud with Qfit (Norman Wattenberger)

Watch Out, “Norman Bates Fighters”!

The man charged with shooting dead five people at the Capital Gazette in Maryland on June 28, 2018 mailed three threatening letters before carrying out the attack. Da man had an unsuccessful history suing the Gazette. In a 2012 lawsuit, he claimed the newspaper defamed him after a columnist wrote about his 2011 guilty plea to criminal harassment. The suit was dismissed, and an appeals court upheld the decision.

The two-page letter is dated June 28 — the day of the shooting — and is written in the style of a court document.

Titled "Motion of reconsideration," the letter says that one of the "primary reasons for developing the tort law of defamation was to induce the defamed person to resort to the courts for relief instead of wreaking his own vengeance."

How about our Norman Bates psychoanalyzed here? He threatened more lawsuits than any other human, including New Yorkers (notorious for their litigation appetite… see Donald Caligula Trump!)

I can only sez “Watch out, N0rman Fighters! He might come after you!” You see a Rambo-looking stranger in your neighborhood? You better shelter in place…

 

Seems right up!

 

The people here who post the most in this particular forum are acting bizarrely.

I know Norm Wattenberger personally. He is a bright perfectly normal person and
I have never found him smelling as if he has neglected his personal hygiene. He is
not, (in any way that I have ever perceived), an unusual person guilty of having
serious character flaws, that justify obscene attempts at "character assassination."

I am a physician, though not a psychiatrist. I did complete my psychiatric rounds
as an intern and have always had a strong interest in mental illness. I believe that
I am a good judge of character, and, after 40+ years have never had an experience
that caused me to reconsider my sense of knowing and understanding people at their
best and their worst. I would say that one should not "attack" a person unmet/unknown.

 

Let interested gamblers know who the real scammers and crooks are. Those who never gambled seriously, but have always encouraged gamblers via books, software, systems to spend their money. Norman Wattenberger and Don Schlesinger are two of the most notorious. Keep reading a thread that puts together the most relevant threads:

Paranoia Runs Deep in ‘The Asylum’ (BJTF).

 

Morgenstern is a known felon Con Artist.
KewlJ is a character who relishes
"character assassination."

 

Funny Marc. Not claims he has never heard of you.

 

...And you didn't bring just a little bit of this on to yourself?

 

re: KewlJ: It is just a heads-up to the firm consensus of on-line posts.
re: Morgenstern: I have first-hand experience.

 

No argument here. But you're not exactly a choir boy.

 

Meant to say Norm.

 

And Marc is definitely the most crooked of all hypocrites: Norman “Bates” Wattenberger. He called me, Ion Saliu (royalty-name Parpaluck) a “con artist”. The reason: I publicized the Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG).

For Idiot Norman Wattenberger there are no formulas in gambling. In his “words”: “… random events cannot, by definition, be captured in formulae.” How stupidiotic is that?!

 

Interesting. According to Norm, he has never met nor heard of Marc. According to Marc, and in post 163 they've been buddies for years. Maybe someone should start a poll?

If this were true? Why bother counting in the first place? Even heads up, I get two cards, dealer gets two. What is to say my two cards will be better? Yes, I have more options. But the casino has deeper pockets. So again, what is played dictates what still remains. Even that offers no iron clad guarantee. I remember going to a two hand max bet. Got 20 on both hands vs 6. There was only one card left in the deck that could beat me. Dealer flips an Ace and I'll be damned if she didn't hit the only card - a 4. Now, had I not known this? The propensity to chase would be at the forefront of the average players mind. However, "knowing" even in loss, meant taking a short break, sliding the cheese back on my cracker, and going back to the biz at hand.

It's not always about how hard you can swat. Especially, when we lose if our opponent forfeits. Sometimes it matters how well you can duck. Knowledge reduces risk.

 

Blackjack is basically becoming a "footnote in history."

 

By going anti-Norm-DonS, Marc wanna prove loudly he is not Norman Wattenberger! But he still is.

As for blackjack: The game can still be won. If you ask players and even dealers in Pennsylvania who witnessed my playing, they’d tell you that my way is the only way to play blackjack.

But, honestly, I can tell you it is a dogfight. I think I know better how the automatic shufflers spread the cards in order to fight strict basic strategy. I still count, but only the Tens in the last two rounds of play. It works great in taking or not taking insurance. It works also well when doubling down. The house edge is wiped out and turns into player’s advantage. It is undeniable mathematics, mystic Norm!

• 
  
  
  • Mathematics of Blackjack Insurance: The Bet with a Player’s Advantage.

This Ten-only count applies to one and only one card. It is about dealer’s hole card when her face card is Ace. Or, it is about a player’s card when doubling down.

Yes, the player’s advantage in the situations I describe on my site is undeniable mathematically. The peril is in the size of player’s bet. If the bet is that high that could endanger the remaining bankroll, I do not take insurance; or I do not double down that big bet of mine.

And I can see now Norm that you and Don and other old pharts who do not gamble — talkin about investing! Huh? But you banished those members who “dared” to “suspect” that you, N0rm and Don, own casino stocks. No wonder you encourage people to card counting, although you’ve never played blackjack professionally! You want people drive in droves to the casinos (especially in AC) and lose their money. It is mighty good for your investment portfolios! You ain’t got nothing to lose… you might just as well sell a few more software, or book, or BS-card copies…

 

So Marc is Norm? How many puppets vs actual people actually exist over there? Who is who?

 

z
z

I do not fathom how it can be concluded that Marc is Norm W.

 

Speaking of bizarre. I do not fathom how you can say this and Norm says he has never met you. To quote Norm "flexibility should be a way of life as long as you don't bend your ethics." Either you or Norm are shattering your ethics. Which one is it?

 

z
z
z
See post #176.

 

I can see we are playing dodge ball. Marc, are you Norm W? Have you ever met Norm W? If so, why would Norm W claim he has never met you, heard of you, or know you?

 

Marc & Tater:

You've never heard of a guy named Moliêre. He put it so eloquently: “The style is da Man”.

These are typical Norman Wattenberger signatures:

• Morgenstern is a known felon Con Artist.
• KewlJ is a character who relishes "character assassination."

Those phrases go beyond reasonable doubt.

And, no doubt at all, jbs in a similar thread here is Don Schlesinger. The venomous tone is also beyond reasonable doubt.