someone plz bump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355489)

it's staggeringly stupid LOL

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4782366&mc=269&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355503)

I was and am right by any measure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355519)

If you are counting cards or tracking cards and playing for hours at a time you have a certain understanding as to probability of certain cards surfacing. If someone pops in and makes a dumb or irrational move, that throws off your approximate calibrations with respect to subsequent hands. It’s not that complicated unless you are a moron or are just trolling me.

Gunner do I have to do a call out of you too now?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355534)

i cannot believe that it's "legal" for you to represent other citizens in a court of law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355546)

after that it would no longer be "legal" for him to represent other citizens in a court of law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355555)

the biggest difference is that spaceporn is diligent, aggressive, and tries to be responsive. candy ride is just blithely dismissive. look at this blackjack shit: spaceporn, years later, is arguing about it and explaining why. candy ride just said “i know more about gambling than you” and walked away.

you see the same thing in their lawyering. candy ride loses and just says “the judge is mad im smarter than him and went to a better school.” spaceporn, at least, files things that are procedurally correct and gets to the merits.

if this blackjack shit was litigation you'd be way better off with spaceporn. they're both wrong and stupid, but if you were on the losing side, at least spaceporn would make the argument and maybe even pester the opposing side enough to eek out a decent settlement. but if you're on the winning side candy ride would fumble the case by mixing up bates stamps and treating the bench with disdain, and then just scoff that judge is jealous he went to chicago.

spaceporns stupidity and intransigence is actually a huge boon shitlawyering. if you don't understand why you're wrong and are certain you're right you can pursue an argument with the vigor of a zealot.

this is why, despite both being dumb, and spaceporn being dumber, spaceporn is now a PARTNER and making real money while candy ride is litigating four figure cases and still getting bench slapped every time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355779)

candy ride obviously isn't the smartest guy in the world but it's not fair to compare him to spaceporn

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355786)

a quick review of the car horn case thread should clarify that you would not hire spaceporn to get your groceries let alone litigate a case for you lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355791)

if the car honk shit was the best argument for spaceporns client, he at least gave him a shot, even if it was destined to lose. candy ride is actively toxic to his clients interests, never getting to the merits and the judges disliking him personally.

ive known many successful shitlawyers like spaceporn. you dont need to be a genius to do slip and trips, but you do need to be diligent and aggressive. spaceporn will never be "sanctioned", he will never have to “amend” his pleadings 10x because of a lack of diligence.

the career and life outcomes speak for themselves. candy ride is broke and treading water. spaceporn, through sheer retard determination, has made it to shitlaw prince.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355828)

i realize this is universally understood to be true at the montana indian reservations but it is not accurate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355560)

Oh I get it now. You can’t envision a “master card counter” not flying into a rage because a minor inconvenience happened and losing his count. Because that’s normal for smart people like yourself.

Although again as explained a million times it’s not actually an inconvenience (and depending on the card you get might even be good for him!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355573)

you will never "call" my father, you will never get me "grounded".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355627)

*provides the card-counter with MORE information*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355666)

come to think of it, there are a lot of similarities between spaceporn and nyuug, including that they are both aging failures in the fight of their lives to "prove" to xo that they are not aging failures

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355677)

he's not properly weighting all the times the poor player improves the deck from the counter's perspective or for that matter "takes" the card before the card the counter wanted

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355884)

"the way card counting works is the card counter knows when a deck is more or less favorable by percentage of higher value cards in the deck"

"right."

"a single card doesn't impact this significantly, a deck gets better or worse gradually as cards are played."

"yup."

"that's why card counters rarely play heads up: they want to get to the bottom of the shoe as cheaply as possible, so it's helpful for other players to exhaust the cards without them betting."

"sounds right."

"so if player makes a bad move and hits when he shouldn't, it doesn't impact the card counters probability over time, and if anything is beneficial to the card counter because it gives him more information."

"not if the bad player takes the 10 that would have busted the dealer. the card counter loses the hand in that case so it's obviously bad."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355905)

it's not "modeling a table of perfect blackjack players"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355878)

There is some element of card counting in his work that I cant rationalize so glossed over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787194&forum_id=2Firm#49355788)