1:6 is a more realistic spread here, so that's quite impressive! Thanks for the info.Originally Posted by Cacarulo
I want to know if authors of these BJ counting systems have utility patent or design patent, like the popular ones such as Hi Opt II, Zen, Advanced Omega II. Also more question, when someone creates REKO based on KO, does the formal violates the patent of the latter?
More specific question for Cacarulo:
Do you apply for a utility patent for your CAC2 beforehand? What did you to to protect your CAC2 so your buyer won't publish a book in detailing your system?
I think Norm has already answered you. The document itself is protected by copyright. But your question could also apply to buying a book in a bookstore.
What if someone buys a book and then publishes it as their own, only changing the name?
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
You did not really answer my question. In your case, you did not publish a book to explain how your CAC2 system works like Zen, HiOpt, AO2 etc. Assuming one of your buyers bought your system, then write a book about CAC2. What can you do? I asked this question because a similar scenario exists. There is a Nasdaq listed company called RMBS. They are not selling any product in the past few decades since their original products (a proprietary RAM used with Pentium 4 processor that never took off because P4 used the expensive proprietary RAM) became obsolete. But they found a way to survive by becoming a patent company. Their employees' job is to search small companies selling popular products but do not apply patents. Then RMBS apply patents first. Once RMBS got the patents, then they sued the original manufactures making such products. You see, some people are born evil. Since I don't see any CAC2 book in the market, are your protected if similar scenario occurs?
Last edited by BJGenius007; 06-19-2024 at 03:28 PM.
When you buy the system here on Norm's site, it comes with the usual language protecting the copyright owner. If you want to know what happens if someone wantonly ignores that warning and starts publishing the system, well, it wouldn't be the first time. The internet is rife with scumbags.
That said, as Norm has already mentioned, and as is widely agreed, one cannot copyright the tags of a system any more so than one can copyright a mathematical formula. Einstein didn't "own" e = mc^2. No one does. It is in the public domain. You can't "protect" a^2 + b^2 = c^2. But you can protect your intellectual work of deriving indices for a point count system
Please don't ask further questions re all of this because I think Norm, Cac, and I have told you all we know about the subject, and there really isn't anymore to be said.
Don
Sounds like you are talking about patent trolls. Companies that never produce anything, but buy bankrupt companies and then sue major corps for patent infringement. Nothing to do with this forum.
If you are in a bar, write something on a napkin, and then hand it to another person; that is publishing under the law. Further, it is copyrighted as per the Copyright law of 1978.
Now, can we end this?
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Just made the switch from Hi Lo a couple days ago and I'm enjoying it. I've already made back the cost of the program and then some (I am aware that short term results are meaningless).
One thing I wonder about: is a level 2 count by its nature more efficient for back counting and wonging than a level 1 count? Maybe I've just been getting lucky, but it seems like I'm getting a lot more good counts to play in and I don't have to stand around and watch for as long. It seems like getting a lucky run of +2 cards will rapidly accelerate the count to a good number, allowing me to sit down and play sooner than I was able to back when I was using Hi Lo. Conversely, if I get an unlucky run of -2 cards, the count will more rapidly accelerate to a bad number, allowing me to quickly abandon the table and go watch a new one.
I'm very glad to hear that you're on the good side of variance. Hopefully, it continues that way.
Regarding efficiency for back counting, if we specifically compare CAC2 against Hi-Lo, not only will you play more hands in positive counts, but your profit will also be greater.
I can't speak for other level 2 systems, but I imagine something similar must happen.
For example, in a 6D, S17, DAS game with a 1-4 spread:
1) Using Hi-Lo
Wong-In at +1, you'll play 27.3% of the hands and achieve a SCORE of 39.44
Wong-In at +2, you'll play 16.1% of the hands and achieve a SCORE of 40.60
2) Using CAC2
Wong-In at +1, you'll play 34.8% of the hands and achieve a SCORE of 41.11
Wong-In at +2, you'll play 25.8% of the hands and achieve a SCORE of 44.52
Wong-In at +3, you'll play 18.2% of the hands and achieve a SCORE of 45.44
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Thanks. Glad to see my hunch is backed up by the math.
This is a really underrated advantage of level 2 counts that I never see talked about. The casino closest to me is a really poor quality 8 deck game; the only positive is that you can blatantly wong in and out of games and spread huge with zero heat. When I was using Hi-Lo, it was torture sometimes watching tables for 30 - 60 minutes and not getting a single true +2 to bet on. Hope I can see a lot more action from now on!
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks