Actually, the point (of books being neutral, as opposed to 'evil') is rather important. Let me explain. I've read the book, and in my opinion it gives away too much. We've seen that trend in the past in horse racing, and in the long run it hurts players. Why? Because we're not playing against the 'evil books' that Justin sees, but against other players (for the most part, that is). If they become sharper, there will be fewer and fewer betting opportunities. The book points out this obvious fact in a chapter on creating a WNBA model, which works fine for one seaon, and was already dead the very next season. This sounds familiar enough, but why speed up that process? There is one chapter that gives away loopholes. My guess is that the books, even those not too sharp, will have those plugged up in no time. To those hanging around in the think tank for a few years there is no revolutionary information, but I truly wish that pro gamblers would not write any more books like this. The book will help newer players to become sharp, but it will not help sharp players to become sharper. Like you said, communism sounds good in theory...
In short, good book. And therefore, ironically, not recommended.
In short, good book. And therefore, ironically, not recommended.
And instead of a text(word based) password, you just give out the encryption key/hash...{each day would be different because the text contents are different.}
