Archives of CardCounter.com message forums

These archives of the CardCounter.com message boards are provided as-is for reference. If you want to discuss anything about the posts, please post a message to the BlackjackInfo.com message forums.

Threads 1531 to 1560

card counting/shuffle tracking
Posted by mark on 06-Jan-2005 15:21:29 (#11613)

what counting system would you recommend using with shuffle tracking?
would halves be too difficult to use?
is there another system out there that isn't too difficult
that ranks up there with halves .99% BE
what is the best book out there for shuffle tracking?
How much impact does high PE systems like APC, Hi-opt II,and AOII
have on multiple deck games. I hear that only BE is important for
multiple deck games, but what kind of edge do you get from these
powerful systems?
Do these systems get such high PE because of all the indices?
If you take all the systems and use only the Illustrious 18 and
Fab 4 will they all have close to thhe same PE?
Sorry for all the question.
I have all these question pop in my head at once and I don't want
to forget to ask them.
I do want to say that this is an awesome site.
there are a lot of talented blackjack players, but yet don't act
arrogant towards beginners.
I appreciate it!
Thanks

some (but not all) answers...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 07-Jan-2005 00:09:08 (#11618)

what counting system would you recommend using with shuffle tracking?
>would halves be too difficult to use?
>is there another system out there that isn't too difficult
>that ranks up there with halves .99% BE

Hi-Lo is .98 BC, which is not much worse than .99

>what is the best book out there for shuffle tracking?
>How much impact does high PE systems like APC, Hi-opt II,and AOII
>have on multiple deck games. I hear that only BE is important for
>multiple deck games, but what kind of edge do you get from these
>powerful systems?

The PE issue is less important. In a 6d game, with a TC of +2, where are the extra 10's or Aces? Coming soon or dozens of hands later? Best way to answer this and all other such questions is to visit www.qfit.com, and buy CVCX or CVdata and run the sims for a particular 6d game using different counting strategies, and see how it modifies the EV or units won per hour... That way you can twiddle with all sorts of options and get an _accurate_ answer you can trust.

I've learned more using CVCX for 6 months than I learned in my first 3.5 years of counting. I can now discover the _exact_ betting ramp I should use, the exact true count to increase my bets on (not always +2) etc...

>Do these systems get such high PE because of all the indices?

That is what PE is. It is a measure of how well the system produces BS departures to improve results. No departures at all would be a PE of .0,
getting every possible departure imaginable would be a PE of 1.0. But doing that is impossible since counting tells us the make-up of the remaining cards, but not the order they will come out... After a lenghthy discussion with Don S. on rge21, here's a brief analysis...

approximately 80% of your hands will be played according to pure BS anyway. For the remaining 20%, the PE of your counting system will come into play. So even with no PE at all, you will get 80% of your plays correct. Hi-Lo has a PE of about .5, which means that using Hi-Lo with indices, you will play correctly in about 90% of all hands (80% BS + another 10% due to Hi-Lo getting 50% of that last 20% correct). The best PE systems will raise that 50% to 67% roughly. IE rather than 80% for BS, or 90% for Hi-Lo + indices, a really strong count will get 93% correct (80% BS + 67% of that last 20%). 3% for a lot of extra work needs a lot of thought, compared to Hi-Lo which is quite easy to use (IMHO anyway).

Hope that helps. Took Don a while to clear up the terminology for me, relaying it is the least I can do...

>If you take all the systems and use only the Illustrious 18 and
>Fab 4 will they all have close to thhe same PE?

Not necessarily. Hi-Lo for example is "ace-reckoned" which means aces are counted with big cards. Good for betting correlation. Bad for playing efficiency as that TC of +4 that says double a 11 vs an Ace up for the dealer could give you a 10, or an A, since they are counted the same. You get better PE with systems that count aces as a small card. But you get better betting correlation with systems that count aces big. Or you can do both with an ace-neutral count and an ace side-count to improve betting correlation. But with the side count, you get more mental sweat...

You have to decide whether the gain in PE is worth the mental effort. I can personally play BJ for 8 hours straight without even a hint of a headache or getting too tired to keep the count correct. I have no idea whether I could do that with something like Hi-OptII. For the small gain it provides, I don't intend to find out. Note that to get the big PE, you are going to have to use more than just I18 indices. Even full hi-lo has a sack full of them, more than I have tried to learn. I use the I18, plus a few more that make some sense. IE if you do 16 vs 10 (I18) I would learn 16 vs 9 which also happens enough (at least to me).

>Sorry for all the question.
>I have all these question pop in my head at once and I don't want
>to forget to ask them.
>I do want to say that this is an awesome site.
>there are a lot of talented blackjack players, but yet don't act
>arrogant towards beginners.
>I appreciate it!
>Thanks

thanks for your time
Posted by mark on 07-Jan-2005 15:25:12 (#11626)

Thank you for your time and for the good explanation.

a couple more answers
Posted by Cyrano on 07-Jan-2005 21:47:29 (#11646)

Use Hi-Lo Lite with rounded indices. Using anything more, including level 2+ counts is just not worth the effort.. an analogy would be like going from driving a low-performance Geo Metro to driving a Ferrari. Do you REALLY care to risk self-tuning the engine for a couple more MPHs? The few tenths of a percent you can gain in performance from using a higher count is overshadowed by the 2-3 percent advantage you already gained from shuffle-tracking. On the other hand, if you try to "upgrade" your count, you could very easily destroy the advantage by losing count (and subsequently, gaining false information about the slugs).

The best books would be Arnold Snyder's Shuffle Tracking Cookbook, Blackbelt in Blackjack, 2nd Edition, and George C's Shuffle Tracking for Beginners.

You shouldn't be thinking about counting systems in terms of PE and BE, because they're not completely reliable. Check out Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack for SCORE comparisons. Here's a good reason why PE is not a good measurement.. http://www.extremebj.com/extreme/books/brhhis.htm ...

You should check out http://www.bjstats.com to simulate the conditions with different counts to see the difference in performance.. go to the "calculate" tab...

Hope this helps..

Zengrifter - Red 7 Count
Posted by Bubb Rubb on 06-Jan-2005 21:07:19 (#11617)

Zengrifter,

I browsed some older messages on John May's CC Cafe and I noticed that you used to recommend an improved version of Snyder's Red 7 count.

Do you still use and/or recommend this?

Thanks.
Bubb

No actually...
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Jan-2005 22:00:02 (#11647)

Browse this board and you will find my 1-2D 'composite 'GrifyKO' version of KO. zg

grift-KO(1-2D)
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Jan-2005 00:54:58 (#11662)

grift-KO(1-2D)

Posted By: zengrifter
Date: 5/12/04 1:44:50 p.m.

Here are my approximated/composite-type 1-2D RC indices for KO:

(feel free to recommend improvements)

INS=+3

12 /2=+4, 3=+4, 4=IRC, 5=IRC, 6=IRC

13 /2=IRC, 3=IRC

15 /9=+9, 10=+4, A=+8

16 /9=+6, 10=KC, A=+7

8 /3=+8, 4=+6, 5=+4, 6=+4

9 /2=+4, 7=+4

10 /10=+4, A=+4

11 /10=IRC, A=KC

A6 /2=KC

A7 /2=KC

A8 /4=+4, 5=KC, 6=KC

A9 /5=+4, 6=+4

XX /5=+4, 6=+4

SUR:

88 /9=+2, 10=+2, A=+2

16 /8=+5, 9=0, 10=IRC, A=IRC

15 /8=+7, 9=+4, 10=0, A=+3

14 /10=+4, A=+5

8 decks better?
Posted by barbie on 07-Jan-2005 10:15:36 (#11623)

Is an 8-deck game with favorable rules and .75 pen actually better for wonging in than a similar 6-deck game? Seems once pos count is established, you'll get many more hands to play from the longer shoe. Correct? Any sims on this?

VERY few play 8 decks
Posted by eyesfor21 on 07-Jan-2005 10:30:23 (#11624)

ya may as well play csm(fake blackjack) give me a break!

8 decks
Posted by investor on 07-Jan-2005 15:26:21 (#11627)

Would somebody with more expertise and intelligence please answer the original question? Wouldn't 8 decks actually be better for wonging due to longer shoes and more hands to play??

Answer: little if any difference
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 07-Jan-2005 16:43:59 (#11633)

Good counts will last longer but they will also be fewer between. Nobody wants 8 decks but sometimes it is the only game available, and I'd rather play an 8D game with good pen than a 6D one with bad pen. It is beatable with both Wonging and play-all tactics. It's also a great application for shuffle tracking.

If you are a Wonger shop for pen, easy in-and-out of a table, and lack of heat first because they will all buy you more advantage than 6D vs. 8D.

Auto. Monkey, are you as OFFENDED as I am....
Posted by phantom007 on 07-Jan-2005 23:57:33 (#11658)

"investor" suggests that "someone with more expertise and intelligence" answer the original question.

Then he/she says something like "Wouldn't 8D be better because of more hands at Positive Counts?".

I do not usually FLAME, but "HaHaHaHa, TeHe, TeHe, etc."

One Tunica store that I frequent, when you are the ONLY player at the table in their High Limit Room, will allow you to chose the # of Deck(s) as long as your min. is One Black. Options are 1D, 2D, or 6D.

Have I ever been so STUPID?...I always chose SD!

Next trip, I am going to request a 24-Deck game.......that way, if the TC tanks, I can leave the table, drive up to SouthHaven, MS (the closest WalMart), do some shopping, stop at 1-2 Topless bars, then go to the Laundrymat in the RV Park at Sam's Town and do a load or two, then reappear just about the time the TC justifies a 2-unit bet.

phantom007.

exactly no pro or good player would chose 8dk
Posted by eyesfor21 on 08-Jan-2005 12:38:09 (#11670)

Investor guy is looney.
He will lose,we all know!
How many books show pros playing 8 dk?
How many good players even want to play 8 dk?
Don't even bother playing.
The accuracy is so much lower in 8dk is crazy.
But good luck investor and let us know how much you lose,
but hey you may get free dinner on the house.

So if you had a choice...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 08-Jan-2005 14:35:52 (#11673)

...between playing 6D, 2D pen with no surrender and 8D, 2D pen with late surrender which would you pick?

8 decks
Posted by barbie on 08-Jan-2005 15:30:32 (#11674)

Wow, I really started something here! Look, as I understand this business, you generally want fewer decks because you can get into higher counts faster -- BUT they're fleeting. With more decks, IF you wong into favorable counts, you can get many more hands played at a given table and spend less time wandering pits backcounting and maybe drawing even more heat than you would by spending more time playing more hands at fewer tables. That's what I was wondering anyway. If the sims refute this, ok, but I don't think it's quite as dumb as you "experts" make it sound. Lighten up!

But you are missing a very important idea
Posted by Sohrab on 08-Jan-2005 20:40:13 (#11678)

You do not make money betting when count is high. You make money betting when count is high and then it goes down after you bet. You bet, then Ace, 10 hit table, count goes down, you are winning. You bet big when count is high because you hope count is about to go down.

If count stays high, you are not getting benefit of the high count.

This is why 1 deck is good. The count goes up and down.

don't forget...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 08-Jan-2005 22:41:31 (#11683)

If you are talking about the TC, it doesn't have to go down for you to be winning. Only the running count has to drop.

We're not joking because the QUESTION was dumb
Posted by Sonny on 08-Jan-2005 22:24:12 (#11679)

> Wow, I really started something here!

Yeah! The best questions always stir up a lot of attention.

> Look, as I understand this business, you generally want fewer decks because
> you can get into higher counts faster -- BUT they're fleeting.

Exactly, but they are also more frequent. You will have more favorable opportunities with fewer decks, assuming the penetration is equivalent. The penetration will be the biggest factor with this.

> With more decks, IF you wong into favorable counts, you can get many more
> hands played at a given table and spend less time wandering pits backcounting
> and maybe drawing even more heat than you would by spending more time playing
> more hands at fewer tables.

This is a good theory, but not quite true. Although you will get to play a few extra hands each time you sit down, you will be sitting down less frequently when there are more decks in play. You will spend more time walking around and watching the tables, which will probably draw more heat. The surveillance people like to call these people "vultures." Overall you will be playing less hands per hour which will reduce your hourly win rate as well as making you look more conspicuous.

> If the sims refute this, ok, but I don't think it's quite as dumb as
> you "experts" make it sound. Lighten up!

These guys are just having a little fun with the new guy. You should see them when they REALLY get into it! There's nothing rowdier than a good nerd-fight! Instigators like "investor" only fuel the fire. It's certainly not a dumb question, but to argue with the more experienced players about something he hasn't done much research on is going to create quite a stir around here. Everyone here has been playing at a proffesional level for many years (and some of them have played full time for several decades) so you can trust our advice.

Hopefully we've managed to answer your question.

-Sonny-

Ony one answer!
Posted by Sonny on 08-Jan-2005 16:20:49 (#11675)

> ...between playing 6D, 2D pen with no surrender and 8D, 2D pen with late
> surrender which would you pick?

Well, a 1-12 spread in the 6-deck game (H17 DAS NS 4/6 dealt) will win 0.28 units per 100 hands whereas the 8-deck game (H17 DAS LS 6/8 dealt) will win 0.55 units per 100. If we backcount these games we could raise our EV to 1.05 and 1.29 units respectively, each with about a 23 unit SD per 100 hands.

I think the answer is clear...NEITHER! I doubt that any serious player would play either of these games unless, as you mentioned, there were great shuffle tracking, sequencing, front loading or team play situations involved. After all, the most successful players are the ones who know when NOT to bet.

-Sonny-

Several of the Statues in Cesear's Palace...
Posted by phantom007 on 07-Jan-2005 15:28:01 (#11628)

are actually 8-Deck wongers! They stood stationary so long that with the low humidity, they actually turned to stone. Security then moved them into the alcoves all over the casino, just to get them out of the way.

Certainly, you are correct that when +++ situations arise in 8D, especially early on, then they will more hands/rounds.

However, I estimate that TC above +5 would occur about 3% of the time in 8D. And obviously, would tend to occur more frequently towards the shuffle card.

One would certainly suffer from boredom, and would stand out like a sore thumb...standing there for sometimes hours just to get down a few bets.

Surveliance: "Yes, we think you have an 8D Wonger on bj-28. He stood there watching the game for 5 hours, then bet 4-hands, and now has been watching 3 more straight hours".

Pit: "Yeah, we are already onto him. He will make a good match to the statue on the east entrance, so the GM said to leave him alone".

phantom007.

statue
Posted by pooker101 on 07-Jan-2005 15:39:31 (#11629)

That provided a much needed laugh thanks

I applied...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 07-Jan-2005 16:39:13 (#11632)

... for a statue position at Caesar's. They turned me down because I'm circumcised.

Re-Apply, but this time.....
Posted by phantom007 on 07-Jan-2005 23:28:12 (#11657)

try either Fig or Grape-leaf covering.

Also, appears that Cesears actually caused the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)....statues without arm(s), and especially noses are very popular.

So before your next 8D Wonging session, try cutting off your nose and at least one arm. You should get the job!

During my last trip to Greaser's, I mean Cesears, which FORTUNATELY was over 2 years ago, BR would only allow me to play the 8D game with $10 min. Heat was minimal, since I was largely spreading between $10. and $10. Tried to tip the Dealer several times, and got a lecture about "Barber Pole" betting being discouraged.

If allergic to Fig and Grape Leaves, suggest Rogaine....they do make some exceptions to those with 4lbs. of Pubic Hair.

phantom007.

statues
Posted by investor on 07-Jan-2005 16:34:53 (#11631)

Cute with the statues. But if you sit down at an 8d game where TC is around 2 after a deck or two (not so rare), you might get 20 or more hands dealt at decent or even great counts at one table, instead of wasting time walking around looking at 6d games. Isn't an 8d game with .75 pen and a RC in teens after a deck or 2 equiv to a 6d shoe that BEGINS with a good pos count right off the top and still has FOUR WHOLE DECKS left to deal? Who wouldn't jump at a game like that??! There may be a flaw in the analysis, but I'd like somebody with some expertise to address it seriously, if possible.

Sims
Posted by Koolipto on 07-Jan-2005 17:41:55 (#11636)

I've never played an 8 deck shoe and don't profess expertise, but I'll offer this up. If you use the sims contained in BJRM for 6DS17DAS75% and 8DS17DAS75% you can compare the attractiveness of the two games. SCORE for Play all on 6D 18.81 and on 8D is 10.85. SCORE for Wonging is 39.03 and 25.89 for 6D and 8D respectively. I think that sums up the debate.

The Sims in BJRM also show frequency of particular TC's. Percent of time spent at TC>= +1 is 27% for 6D and 25% for 8D. Percent of time spent at TC>= +4 is 5.1% and 3.5% respectively. Granted, you spend more total time in the 8D shoe, so the # of times you reach those count levels will tend to equalize, but now you have spent more time trying to get to the same place. You can make your own estimates. In any event, the SCORE's tell you that the game is not as good.

True, but...
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 07-Jan-2005 18:59:30 (#11638)

... you are going to have fewer opportunities to Wong in if you are backcounting 8D shoes than 6D or 4D. If I was backcounting both a 8D and a 6D shoe I would rather Wong into the 8D one after 2 decks than the 6D one with 2 decks. But there is no difference between Wonging into a 6D shoe after 2 decks or a 8D one after 4 decks, assuming the pen is the same in both games. And when you Wong in to any game it is very unlikely the good count will remain for more than a couple of decks anyway so don't count on being able to play it all the way down to the cut.

The whole purpose of Wonging is to transcend the disadvantage you get in multi-deck games and it does that job very well so if you are planning a Wonging trip 6D vs. 8D should not be a the top of your list of considerations.

Seriously...
Posted by Sonny on 07-Jan-2005 19:36:13 (#11640)

> There may be a flaw in the analysis, but I'd like somebody with some
> expertise to address it seriously, if possible.

There is very little to be said for the 8-deck game. A 1-12 spread in a decent 8-decker will return about 0.77 units per hour whereas the same spread in a 6-deck game with the same rules and similar penetration would return 1.36 units. If you back count the 8-deck game with the same spread then you can raise your hourly EV to 1.36 units, but using the same technique on a 6-decker would win you 1.98 units. Even an extraordinary 8-decker (S17 DAS LS) with seven decks dealt would only grant you 1.84 units per hour. This is all straight out of Schlesinger's book.

The bottom line is that 8-deck games will have slightly longer positive counts but they will be less frequent. You would be doing much more watching than necessary. Although many of the posts above are jokes, they are still accurate and they come from players with plenty of expertise. You'll have to excuse the light-hearted wit of these guys. Sometimes it's hard to take questions about 8-deck games seriously. Although there can be good opportunities, as Auto Monkey mentioned, they really don't stack up to 6-deckers unless there are unusual circumstances or advanced techniques involved.

-Sonny-

statues
Posted by investor on 07-Jan-2005 20:40:02 (#11643)

Great analysis. Thanks to all, statues included.

"The Blackjack Zone" is now in stock...
Posted by The Mayor on 07-Jan-2005 15:52:31 (#11630)

We finally have the physical copies of "The Blackjack Zone" in stock and will be shipping the pre-ordered copies out later today. You are welcome to now enter "The Blackjack Zone" ...

At present "The Blackjack Zone" is only available for purchase through this web site. Soon it will be available through a number of fine online bookstores and websites (and in their catalogs), and it may be available in a bookstore near you before too long.

Here is a bit from the introduction that tells about the level and audience this book was written for.

===========================================

Introduction

You've just come home from another night at the local casino. It was so frustrating, that guy at third base hitting his 12 against the dealer's 6. If only he knew how to play; he ruined the table when the shoe was good. He busted. The dealer turned over a face card and then drew to a 21. It cost a bit too; you had $50 out on that bet. The dealer would have busted, except for that lousy play. And then everything went bad. It was like the table had turned upside down, the cards were out of order, and what had started out as a good night ended up a disaster. If only other people knew how to play the game right, you would win more consistently.

If you have ever had the experience described in the previous paragraph, this book is perfect for you. You have had a lot of experience at the tables, have a good sense about the variations in rules that occur in the game, and are quick to make decisions about your hands and bets.

You've decided to take the next step. You are willing to cast in to doubt all you believe about how the game should be played and start over from scratch. You acknowledge that you have bad habits at the tables that are losing you money, though you are not quite sure what those habits are. You want someone to explain to you why the things you think you know about blackjack and gambling are not going to succeed over the long run. You are ready to devote yourself to learning something about blackjack: to study, to practice, and to work hard at the game. If this describes you, then you are the right person to read this book.

===========================================

Congratulations, it's a good book! *NM*
Posted by LVBear584 on 07-Jan-2005 17:34:49 (#11635)

Question about bet spread
Posted by Beginning Counter on 07-Jan-2005 18:15:25 (#11637)

Hi,

I'm a beginning counter and have some questions about betting. I honestly don't know how to figure it out and can't seem to get a straight answer.

I have a Vegas trip coming up. I plane to play 2 deck and 6 deck at the $5
to $10 level. I'm going mid-week and this seems realistic.My plan is to bet
as follows. This was based on some bits and pieces I have read. I am using
Hi Lo.

For 2 deck

TC <=1 - 1 unit
TC = 2 - 2 unit
TC = 3 - 4 unit
TC >= 4 - 6 unit

For 6 deck

TC <=0 - 1 unit
TC = 1 - 2 unit
TC = 2 - 4 unit
TC = 3 - 8 unit
TC >=4 - 10 unit

Firstly, does this make sense? Also, how can I figure this out? Do I need a
program? In both Knockout Blackjack and Blackjack Bluebook II there are
tables that tell you what to bet based on their count. In Professional
Blackjack he talks about Kelly betting but I'm very much a beginner and
don't have a "real" bankroll, just vacation money.

Sounds good to me
Posted by Sonny on 07-Jan-2005 19:57:01 (#11641)

The bet spreads you have above are fine. They are a little small, but they are fine for a beginner who wants to get some live practice. You should expect to win about 1 unit at the 2-deck games and about 0.6 units at the 6-decker. If you Wong into (and out of) the shoe game you can raise your EV to around 1.41 units per hour.

I got those numbers from Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger, although any good blackjack software will let you try out different bet spreads and see how they change your win rate. Also you should check out bjstats.com and play around with the charts and tables there. If you get some software you will be able to custom make charts with any betting and playing style you want. That is the best way to get an accurate idea of how much money your particular style of play will win you.

And, most importantly, keep asking questions here. There are many excellent players who can help you.

-Sonny-

P.S.- And let us know how you do on your trip!

ideas...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 07-Jan-2005 23:04:20 (#11654)

I'm a hi-lo user. I was using your TC=2 point to up my bet, but some playing around with CVCX showed that for my favorite 2D game on the MS coast, ramping up at TC=1 was the correct strategy. My mode of operation now is to scout the rules/pen/etc, then run the sims to see how to play at each different table/casino..

Another reason to have CVCX in your arsenal of advantage tools. This way you can answer such questions quickly, accurately, and fiddle with the parameters if you want to know how it will affect your EV.

CVCX will compute your optimal bet ramp, based on the spread you want to use. Can't live with jumping from 1 to 5 units at TC=1? Enter your custom ramp and see what it does to your EV. Etc.

I just recently changed my 2D bet jump point to +1, and a 1400 hand playing session, spreading 1-8 with reds saw my initial $1000 trip BR climb to 2265. About 3x what CVCX said I should do, but I'll take it. But buy CVCX. Then you won't have to ask anyone what is the best thing to do, you just ask your computer, which never gets tired and which is always available to handle questions. :)

Thanks
Posted by Beginning Counter on 08-Jan-2005 23:35:38 (#11686)

Thanks for all the info. A few months back I had purchase Blackjack Attack and felt that the math was over my head. But the tables in Chapter 10 turned out to be more easy to understand than I had thought.

I've been practicing with CV every day. This has been good because I set up the 2 deck game for face down and use that to practice counting the table quickly.

A full report will follow the trip!

NETeller
Posted by Hurricane on 07-Jan-2005 19:10:52 (#11639)

I was considering using NETeller for my online play. Does anyone out there have experience with NETeller? Pros/Cons? Is there a better option?
Thanks in advance!

~BTW: I wasn't sure if this topic was appropriate for this board or the general non-BJ board

Good experience from me
Posted by Sonny on 07-Jan-2005 20:10:39 (#11642)

I used them a few years ago when PayPal stopped funding online casinos. I never had any problems with them. They do require you to have a login name, a login number and a password, which can be a little more tricky than having to remember only two things. They also give you "points" for certain transactions that can be redeemed for entries into their cash drawings.

Overall I would say that they were good.

-Sonny-

Nothing but positive experience *NM*
Posted by Bubb Rubb on 08-Jan-2005 01:00:54 (#11663)

MS Scotia Prince Conditions?
Posted by Snowmaster on 07-Jan-2005 21:34:29 (#11644)

Anybody know what the rules and playing conditions are on the MS Scotia Prince cruise/ferry between Portland, ME and Yarmouth, NS CAN ?
I won $200 on the wheel of fortune slot when I was on board 2 years ago... before I got wise to BJ. Hope to get some good playing time in before a Foxwoods trip in the summer.

'The Card Count King' *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Jan-2005 22:45:12 (#11650)

'Breaking Vegas' starts taping in Minden

by Jo Rafferty
January 7, 2005

"Cameras up, everybody," yelled the director to the four actors standing or sitting around the blackjack table at the Carson Valley Inn on Thursday.

One Sony High Definition Cinealta camera marked "A" held still on two actors sitting at the table while the "B" camera followed the movements of a man with a dark afro and beard wearing a shiny rust-colored shirt and a large gold medallion.

"We use two of them and they're synchronized," said Andon Dansie, script supervisor and production assistant for Atlas Media of Hollywood.

"The A camera is the main shot and the B camera is side views and background."

The hairy thespian in the scene is David Brown playing Ken Uston in "Card Count King," one of four episodes of "Breaking Vegas," a History Channel documentary series being shot at the Inn Wednesday through Saturday this week.

His '70s outfit was chosen by Michael Holdaway, costume designer.

continued here - http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20050107/News/101070010

It's about time!!!
Posted by The Mayor on 07-Jan-2005 23:24:30 (#11655)

There was just a movie made about Stu Ungar, about time Uston got his due.

maybe I'm being a hypocrite here...
Posted by Garo on 08-Jan-2005 20:38:45 (#11677)

but aren't these movies bad for us? I say hypocrite because I got into counting after watching the History Channel special on MIT. The more people get interested in this subject the more will do it, and some of them will succeed. Aren't we worse off with more card counters out there?

We love these movies!
Posted by Sonny on 08-Jan-2005 22:34:47 (#11680)

> The more people get interested in this subject the more will do it, and some
> of them will succeed.

Not necessarily. The more people who try it the more people will fail. They will not practice enough, they will get drunk and sloppy at the table, they will not play accurately, they will not understand risk-of-ruin and go broke (and probably give up because they think it doesn't work), they will not take it seriously, they will not understand the concepts behind card counting, etc. There are numerous reasons why these people will fail. We see new people posting on these sites all the time. Very few of them stick around. Many of them cannot shake off their "gambler's" mindset. Others just want a quick way to make money. Others just want to know how to break even on vacation. Of the thousands that try, less than one will become a serious threat to the casinos.

> Aren't we worse off with more card counters out there?

The more people who are throwing away their money at the casinos, the more the casinos will lighten up on us. If they see card counters playing inaccurately (without an advantage) then they might even give us good ones a little less heat. In any case, the casinos will be making more money once these movies come out.

-Sonny-

I agree
Posted by stainless steel rat on 08-Jan-2005 22:37:29 (#11681)

The only problem the movies will cause is that the tables will be more crowded, and there will be fewer low-limit tables at the classier places due to increased demand...

I agree
Posted by suicyco maniac on 08-Jan-2005 22:37:32 (#11682)

Putting card counting out into the mainstream via TV is bad for us..because of the reason you spoke of as well as increasing casino paranoia and also the thing that I hate the most...ploppies pointing out "you must be counting cards" or other statements like that...right now most of society thinks you have to be Rainman or a math profesor to count cards and I'd like it to stay that way...of course some could argue we are doing the same thing here by discussing counting all the time but at least the general public has to go out of their way and do some searching to come across this or other sites....that being said I look forward to watching the special on Ken Uston. SM

Most wannabies will never go the distance
Posted by Stealth Bomber on 08-Jan-2005 23:29:38 (#11685)

to be good enough to consistantly beat the game. For every one that can even play a break even game or better, there must be hundreds who will fail and fall into the big web and have their $ taken. I think the attention these type of movies bring, can only make the casinos even more money than they even realize.

those not going the distance
Posted by Victoria on 09-Jan-2005 00:21:25 (#11687)

Is not the point in my mind. Sure there will be a ton of new wannabees who will fail, but when I think about how this will effect me, I come to this conculsion: Anything the alerts and educates casino types, will likely hurt me. Anything that gives ploppies a glimpse, can come back and hurt me.
There is also the possibility of a worsening of rules.
Also, some of those pit types might figure out that women can do this too.

I also enjoy these movies, just do not want anyone else to see them.

Victoria

What's the % of AP's to non AP's?
Posted by Stealth Bomber on 09-Jan-2005 08:40:07 (#11688)

Anything the alerts and educates casino types, will likely hurt me.

This is most likely true only because of the worry and paranoia contained within the pea-brained casino management people.

The way I believe it is actually happening in the real world is: The more the public is educated, the more wannabies are created, resulting in more "less than break even players" (losers). The casinos make more money because of the few people who are able to beat the game and the hype created therefrom. We will always be better for the casino industry than not. In fact, they should pay us extra to continue doing even more of what we do.

Just a thought
Posted by ZOD on 09-Jan-2005 19:42:37 (#11699)

I hope it works that way in the real world. But, to play devil's advocate for a minute, the following could happen: The not ready for prime time players flock to the tables in droves as a result of the hype from the books and movies. The casinos respond to these masses by worsening the rules to fleece these novices even more. The players all go broke because, while they understand that counting can work, they don't understand what determines a "good" or an "inferior" game.

Maybe, maybe not. But I still think that the best thing for counters is to educate ploppies on what constitute good games and bad. For instance, making sure that basic strategy cards have an "advantageous rules" list as well as H/S/D/SP tables. We know that picking the right game is even more important than what count strategy we use. If ploppies know this too, and are selective about the games THEY choose, the casinos would have no choice but to offer better games if they indeed want to keep blackjack alive. Then, we all benefit.

On a side note, I love to talk blackjack with ploppies at the table. I can usually steer the conversation to what a ripoff 6/5 is, and how I don't trust those damn continuous shufflers. I guarantee that most ploppies wouldn't sit down at either type of table when I get through with them.

I guess it's just my small way of making a difference. (grin)

Best...

ZOD

I was just thinking....
Posted by Garo on 10-Jan-2005 04:25:53 (#11707)

I was just thinking the same thing earlier tonight. If there were some way to get information about quality of games to ploppies easily then the casinos would have no choice but to offer good games. Perhaps some of you rich old counters who live in Vegas could take that on as a project. Perhaps some kind of advertising at McCarran, handouts or posters listing the best blackjack games in town.

Advertising an Internet link...
Posted by Stealth Bomber on 11-Jan-2005 01:11:25 (#11717)

could be a hot set-up for informing the general public of what's hot and what's not, including the do's and don't's in Vegas. Award the "good" casinos with positive media buzz.

How about simply a list of good ones and bad ones?

Advertising...I am amazed Barrack does not
Posted by Dali-lama on 11-Jan-2005 07:52:28 (#11718)

see the $$$$ in advertising that it offers better games than
the strip. I was on fremont the other day and crap joints were hoppin'
...I walk into LVC, 4 BJ tables open, of which one, a $5.00 table was the only one busy. Just opening up more $5.00 tables would make that place a
fortune. Let me run these places...:-)

GSN's WORLD SERIES OF BLACKJACK
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Jan-2005 22:50:00 (#11652)

GSN's WORLD SERIES OF BLACKJACK
Returns With a Stellar Line Up of the World's Top 40 Players
Season Two Players Include Joe Maloof (Owner of the Sacramento Kings), Rene Angelil (Husband of Celine Dion), and MIT Mike (Last Year's Champion)

Distribution Source : PRNewswire

Date : Monday - January 03, 2005

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Jan. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Premiering on January 21 at 10 PM ET/PT, GSN's WORLD SERIES OF BLACKJACK is back for a second exciting season with 40 of the world's top blackjack players all vying for over $500,000 in cash prizes and the title of the world's top blackjack player. The series premiere's on Friday, January 21 at 10 PM ET/PT.

Shot at the legendary Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino Las Vegas, the invitation only tournament will have viewers on the edge of their seats until the final card is drawn. Returning players from season one back for a second chance are:

* Stanford Wong, the Godfather of Blackjack, has authored several books on Blackjack, including "Basic Blackjack," and "Casino Tournament Strategy." A professional gambler for over 40 years, Wong is also an inductee into the Blackjack and Video Poker Halls of Fame and resides in Southern California.
ADVERTISEMENT

* Micky Rosa, who is credited with authoring the M.I.T. thesis on blackjack, is featured in the NY Times best-selling book, "Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas For Millions." He now resides in Australia and works in investments.

* M.I.T. Mike, Last years champion, balances his blackjack play with work in the non-profit sector in Washington, D.C., nurturing and mentoring high school students. He also is featured in the NY Times best-selling book, "Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas For Millions."

* Anthony Curtis, one of the world's most recognized gambling authorities and Las Vegas resident, is the author of "Bargain City-Booking, Betting, and Beating the New Las Vegas," and "The Art of Gambling Through The Ages," as well as the publisher of the Las Vegas Advisor.

* Regina Guzior, legally blind, is credited as one of the best female blackjack players in the country -- she hails from Michigan.

* Michael Konik, a true Renaissance man, expert blackjack player, and successful author of gaming books, "Telling Lies and Getting Paid" and "The Man with $100,000 Breasts: And Other Gambling Stories." He also is a jazz musician and a golf columnist for Delta Airline's in-flight magazine.

* Ken Einiger, an aggressive blackjack player and former champion of the Mandalay Bay Blackjack Tournament, recently placed third in the Hilton Million Dollar Blackjack Tournament. Originally from New York, he also lived in Fort Lauderdale before moving to Las Vegas.

* "Hollywood" Dave Stann, the undisputed Bad Boy of Blackjack, also an actor, uses psychology to gain the advantage over other players. He is a resident of Southern California and is the dealer on GSN's CELEBRITY BLACKJACK.

* Jimmy Pine, a lifelong gambler known for his winning expression "pay the little man," is also a professional singer who resides in Rhode Island.

* Ken Smith, a software and website developer has won over 30 blackjack tournaments to date and founded a popular blackjack tournament website -- http://www.blackjackinfo.com/. He resides in Mississippi.

Rounding out the remaining competitors are the following tournament players:

* Rene Angelil -- Born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, noted fan of blackjack, Rene Angelil is most known as Grammy Award winning Celine Dion's husband. Since 1985, Angelil has won many tournaments.

* Joe Maloof -- President of Maloof Companies, Maloof's favorite casino game is blackjack. Maloof has been playing the game since the age of 16, and has won one million dollars in the highest stakes blackjack tournament ever.

* Dr. Richard Taraska -- A Board Certified Emergency Medicine M.D., Dr. Richard Taraska not only has a love of Ferrari's (he owns one), he is an avid tournament blackjack player. Citing the fact that he has attained a level of discipline while he plays blackjack, "If you play blackjack correctly, the casino advantage is only slight -- you can't win all of the time, but with enough discipline you can walk away ahead more often than not."

* Nicki Vermeulen -- Nikki Vermeulen is in a casino everyday, as a cocktail waitress. She has learned her game by watching other's play and as such, she has sharpened her skills. Her biggest win thus far in one game was $12,000.

* Chuck Gorson -- At almost seven feet tall, and having won over $1 million in tournaments for the last 15 years, Gorson has earned a six-figure income as a professional gambler. After capturing $50,000 in a 1989 blackjack tournament at the Aladdin Casino, Gorson sold his successful chain of talent and modeling agencies and never looked back. Today, he's one of America's top gambling professionals, with a string of tournament victories in every casino and every casino game.

* Erica Schoenberg -- An accomplished match champion, model and pro-beach tournament volleyball player, Schoenberg was bit with the blackjack bug one year ago when she turned $25 into $2000 at the tables. Schoenberg plays the game twice a month when she is not busy teaching kickboxing and working as a personal trainer.

* Robert Blechman -- Having played in over 300 blackjack tournaments all across the country and many foreign countries, Blechman has won well over $1 million dollars. When he is not playing the game, Blechman works as a paralegal and he is a California native.

* Joe Pane -- A retired Brooklyn police officer complete with the accent, Joe Pane is one of the most accomplished blackjack tournament players around. He has played in over 500 tournaments and has almost a half a million dollars in wins to his credit. Pane is a writer for http://www.blackjackinsider.com/, and resides in Las Vegas.

* Jason Geraci -- Rhode Island native Jason Geraci plays blackjack with his instinct over typical advantage play. His favorite part of playing blackjack is "catching a run, and knowing enough to send it in when the cards are flowing."

* Henry Tamburin -- Henry Tamburin is a blackjack enthusiast and noted book author. He has since authored ten books including the popular "Blackjack: Take the Money & Run," "Craps: Take the Money & Run." He also hosts the popular web site for casino players at http://www.smartgaming.com/ and publishes the monthly "Blackjack Insider Newsletter" for blackjack players at all skill levels (http://www.bjinsider.com/).

* Viktor Nacht -- Viktor Nacht is an avid blackjack player, owner of RGE Publishing, Ltd., and the webmaster of AdvantagePlayer.com, the world's busiest blackjack website. It is Nacht's goal to "add sex appeal to the somewhat mundane world of legitimate blackjack methods and techniques, and educate average players about how they can get the most from their play."

* Eric Kiel -- Eric Kiel is the defending champion of blackjack's biggest event, the Las Vegas Hilton Blackjack tournament where he took home $1 million dollars. Residing in Texas, Kiel is a successful small business owner as an oilfield consultant and enjoys fast cars, old cars and anything mechanical.

* Brian Zembic -- One of the notorious gamblers in the world who will bet on anything, Brian Zembic's most famous wager required him to get breast implants, which he still possesses. Known to his blackjack peers as "Brian the Wiz," Zembic says his biggest accomplishment is "having blackjack putting him through life without having to really work."

* David Page -- Going by the nickname of "Legend," David Page is one of the most accomplished tournament blackjack players, and considers tournaments his passion. His unique style is to annoy other players and take them out of their game. He is currently working on launching an online gaming website that will allow tournament blackjack to be played much in the same way tournament poker is played online.

* Kevin Blackwood -- Since teaching himself how to count cards from a book, Kevin Blackwood started playing blackjack with just a few twenty dollar bills and has since won over one million dollars at the tables and is considered the best card counter in the world. Blackwood, the author of the book "The Counter," enjoys the mental challenges, quick decisions and memorization of the game.

* Lorna Fox -- Lorna Fox considers herself a professional blackjack player and plays three to four times a week, and says her favorite part of playing is "meeting different people all the time, and not having to answer to a boss."

* Angie Moneytaker -- Angie Moneytaker got the blackjack buzz a few years ago, when she entered the Hilton Million Dollar Blackjack Tournament on a whim. It was when she qualified for the finals that she became addicted to tournament play. She plays online weekly, and hits the tables in Las Vegas a few times a year.

* Rick Jensen -- Rick Jensen is currently on a seven year winning streak in tournament blackjack -- he has won one tournament each year for the past seven. The competition, winning, and the friends he has made are his favorite part of playing blackjack.

* Marshall Sylver -- Not only is Marshall Sylver a skilled blackjack player, he is well known as one of the world's leading hypnotists. Sylver enjoys the tension involved with blackjack, and says, "It's just a game."

* Nancy Kubasek -- Nancy Kubasek is a seasoned tournament veteran, and is known for wearing a blue wig for good luck. Kubasek has a history of making a number of final tables every year in various tournaments where the top prize is over $10,000.

* Tyrone Jackson -- Chicago native Tyrone Jackson enjoys beating casinos at their own game. He says he has "pioneered the technique of using shuffle tracking techniques in actual blackjack gameplay."

* Michelle Richards -- Michelle Richards was once one of the most feared casino managers in the business, now she takes her game to the other side of the table where she faces off against many of the same players she has banned from playing the game.

* Russ Hamilton -- Having played blackjack professionally since 1990, until he began being asked to leave the tables, Russ Hamilton considers himself a professional gambler, having played for the past 30 years. In addition to his blackjack skills, Hamilton also plays Poker and won $1 million dollars in the World Series of Poker in 1994.

* Leann Moell -- Leann Moell, or "Lean" as her friends like to call her is the youngest player in the tournament at 21 years old. Moell currently works as a table games supervisor at Barona Valley Ranch Casino & Resort, and plays the tables in Vegas once a month.

* Rick Blaine -- Native New Yorker Rick Blaine has been playing the game of blackjack since the early 1980's. He is currently a part-time professional as a financial executive with a Fortune 500 company, and he plays at least six times a year overseas.

* Katya Underhill -- Master of disguise Katya Underhill has been a professional full time player since 2000, after a friend took her to Las Vegas, and she says she hasn't looked back since. Her biggest single win at the tables was $32,000, and says her favorite part about playing blackjack is that any play can make money for the player.

* Rick Swogger -- Arlington, Texas native Rick Swogger says the probabilities of blackjack are his favorite part of the game, and he tries to play as often as he can, just about once a month or so. He recently placed second place in the March qualifier Million Dollar Blackjack 2 quarter finals.

* Kamila Lis -- Born and raised in Warsaw, Poland, Kamila Lis is a very skilled blackjack player. She began learning the game as a dealer at the Sands, CalNeva and Peppermill casinos in Reno, and then took that information and made money playing the game in other casinos. She has played in many international cities around the world including Warsaw, Amsterdam, Sun City, Hong Kong and Macau.

* Jean Scott -- Better known in the blackjack world as "Queen of Comps," Jean Scott has been a winning player for the past 20 years. Most recently, Scott took first place in the Rio Blackjack Tournament in June, 2004. Scott also works outside the world of blackjack as a writer on different gambling subjects, and before retiring, she was a high school English teacher.

* Charlene Ono -- Although Charlene Ono's biggest prize money won in a game of blackjack was $25,000, she says her biggest accomplishment in blackjack thus far is having been invited to play in this tournament. She plays the game monthly, and enjoys winning and meeting different people from all over the world.

WORLD SERIES OF BLACKJACK is produced by Montana Productions for GSN. Paul Abeyta and Peter Kaikko serve as the series' executive producers.

The Golden Nugget Las Vegas is one of the premier hotel-casinos in Nevada and the largest in downtown Las Vegas, offering 1,805 deluxe guest rooms and 102 plush suites and penthouses. Winner of the AAA Four-Diamond Award for 27 consecutive years, the Golden Nugget is the most luxurious resort in downtown Las Vegas, and consistently receives critical acclaim for exceeding customer expectations. The property is a foundation member of the Fremont Street Experience, which was developed in 1996 to attract and entertain visitors to the area. A 38,000 square-foot casino space features more than 1,208 of the most popular slot and video poker machines, 68 table games including blackjack, roulette and craps, as well as keno and a complete race and sports book and a poker room. Amenities of the property include headline entertainment, five world-class restaurants, a complete spa and salon, 12 meeting and banquet rooms accommodating up to 400 people, and a year-round outdoor swimming pool with cabanas. Additional information and online reservations and travel packages are available at http://www.goldennugget.com/.

GSN, the Network for Games, is the only U.S. television network dedicated to game-related programming and interactive game playing. The network features game shows, reality series, light sports, documentaries, video game programs and casino games. As the industry leader in interactivity, GSN features 84 hours per week of interactive programming, which allows viewers a chance to win prizes by playing along with GSN's televised games via gsn.com. Reaching 56 million Nielsen homes, GSN is distributed in the U.S. through all major cable systems and satellite providers. The network is jointly owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment and Liberty Media Corporation. For further media information, visit GSN's press website at corp.gsn.com.
GSN

CONTACT: Nikki Lichterman of GSN, +1-310-255-6938, nlichterman@gsn.com

Web site: http://corp.gsn.com/
http://gsn.com/

The Steve Wynn Scotland Yard Report...
Posted by zengrifter on 07-Jan-2005 22:51:15 (#11653)

... is now posted on the nonBJ page! zg

Speaking of Ace Sidecounts
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Jan-2005 00:26:40 (#11659)

The subject of Ace side counts and so-called 'super-systems' like HiOpt2 have returned as recent discussion topics. Newcommers who are not familiar with my approach to the game may question why I do not advocate Ace sidecounts.

In fact from '76-'83 I played HO2 with dual A-7 multiparametert sidecounts. The following links will give the inside on why I switched to ZEN with NO sidecounts. zg

http://blackjackforumonline.com./content/sdcnt.htm
http://blackjackforumonline.com./content/hundred.htm

I must be psychic! *LINK*
Posted by Sonny on 08-Jan-2005 16:31:21 (#11676)

Not very long I guess!

Check out my postscript below:

http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?noframes;read=11625

-Sonny-

P.S.- We love ya Grifter!

Did Schlesinger Invent the I-18?
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Jan-2005 00:40:42 (#11660)

Answer: NO. And I might add that in addition to the history below, L.Revere advocated an approximated top20 as early as '68. zg

--------------------------------

Correcting the Public Record:
Peter Griffin, Arnold Snyder, Don Schlesinger and The History of the �Illustrious 18�

By Blackjack Historian

� 2004 Blackjack Forum

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXIV, #1, Winter 2004/2005)

Most players do not have access to the journals where the important blackjack discoveries were first published, and they do not have access to the materials that led to these discoveries. Most players therefore do not have a good sense of the history of many of the important blackjack discoveries, and tend to credit those who have been most aggressive about claiming credit, whether or not these people actually deserve this credit.

This article will provide a documented history of one of the most important blackjack discoveries, and seek to restore proper credit to the people who made the real original contributions to the game.

I would like to begin by addressing the history of the famous �Illustrious 18� index numbers. The Illustrious 18 are the �discovery� for which the blackjack writer Don Schlesinger is perhaps best known and most respected.

In his September 1986 article on the Illustrious 18 (Blackjack Forum Vol. VI #3), titled �Attacking the Shoe!: A Revealing Study of the Relative Gain Available From Using Basic Strategy Variations for the Hi-Lo System in a 4-Deck Game,� Schlesinger claims credit for the seminal discovery that most index numbers contribute very little to player win rates. Specifically, he states:

�More than ten years ago, when I taught myself to count cards using Lawrence Revere�s text, I had no one to consult with for learning the index numbers. Over the years, as I grew more expert in the subject I suspected that most of the numbers I had learned (some 165) contributed very little, if anything to the overall gain available from the Point Count. Furthermore, despite hundreds of books and articles published on blackjack, I have not to this day seen a study which would tell a player which index numbers are most important to learn based on the amount of total gain which can be obtained by their use. In this respect, I believe that the chart presented near the end of this article contains information which has never been published before and which should provide some revealing facts for consideration by the blackjack playing community.

�Note that the insurance play all by itself is worth over one-third of all the gain. The �Big 3,� insurance, 16 V. 10, and 15 v. 10, account for nearly 60% of the total gain available while the top 6 plays contribute almost 75% of the advantage. The first half of the chart (9 plays) garners over 83% of the edge and the �even dozen� (top 12 plays) provides more than 90% of the total gain. I believe this is the first time that such information has been accurately quantified in a published article.

�Of course, the ramifications of this study are quite clear. If you are a practicing hi-lo player and have diligently committed to memory 150 to 200 index numbers, you may be interested to learn that for this particular game and style of play, you might just as well throw 90% of your numbers away and keep the �Illustrious 18� for further play.�

I will document in this article that Schlesinger should not receive credit for this discovery, despite his claims in this article and elsewhere, because the discovery was made, and published, years before Schlesinger�s article.

In this article I will show that Schlesinger was aware of this published information, though he failed to acknowledge these prior researchers and authors.

This article is based upon a review of over one hundred published and unpublished documents related to the development of the Illustrious 18 and especially the original discovery that most index numbers relate very little to actual player win rates.

The History of the �Illustrious 18�

The first discussion of the relative potential gains from the different playing decisions was published in the first edition of Peter Griffin�s The Theory of Blackjack, (GBC, 1979). On p. 30 of his book, Griffin provided a chart titled �Average Gains for Varying Basic Strategy.� (The chart is available in more recent editions as well.) The chart shows, in thousandths of a percent, the perfect gain a computer, with a perfect count of all cards in a 75%-dealt single-deck game, could get from making a strategy departure from basic strategy based on his count information. You can get an idea for yourself of which play variations are most valuable by looking for the biggest numbers in Griffin�s chart. The very biggest number�186 (or 0.186%)--is for the insurance decision. The second biggest, 95 (or 0.095%), is for the 16 v. 10 decision. To show you the value of these decisions, as indicated by this chart, imagine yourself playing in this game, except that the only play variations you are allowed to make are the insurance and 16 v. 10 decisions. In a game with no house edge, these two decisions alone, if based on perfect count information, would gain you an edge of about 0.28% over the house.

But Peter Griffin made no recommendations about how to use this information in the real world of playing at the tables. The first author to publish an interpretation of Griffin�s data and actual playing recommendations based on it was Arnold Snyder in his 1980 paper �Algebraic Approximations of Optimum Blackjack Strategy,� republished by the University of Nevada in 1981. In this article, he states:

�From Griffin�s table of �Average Gains for Varying Basic Strategy,� note that some hit-stand decisions alone are worth more than all pair-splitting decisions combined� From the practical point of view, the only pair-splitting indices worth learning at all are splitting X-X vs. 4, 5, and 6. Of the doubling indices, only 10 and 11 vs. X, and 11 vs. ace are worth varying basic strategy for. A sophisticated player would memorize strategy indices according to potential profitability� [T]he recommendations of most systems developers to learn and utilize strategy tables for pair-splitting, surrender, and most double-down decisions are ill-considered, since the potential gains from such strategies are so negligible that most players should not chance making errors by attempting to employ such indices. The information provided in Theory of Blackjack, in conjunction with the formula presented in this paper, is more than sufficient to develop a count strategy for any balanced count system as complete as any player could practically apply at the tables. Until system sellers analyze and incorporate into their systems the wealth of information in Griffin�s Theory of Blackjack, serious players should study this book themselves.�

Unfortunately, count system developers did not immediately follow up on this information.

In the June 1981 issue of Blackjack Forum (Volume I #2), in reviews of The World�s Greatest Blackjack Book by Lance Humble and Carl Cooper; Professional Blackjack (revised), by Stanford Wong; and Ken Uston�s Million Dollar Blackjack, Snyder wrote (p. 17):

�All three of these books also provide strategy tables for pair splitting, hard and soft doubling, and both early and late surrender. Most players should ignore these tables. As systems developers analyze and incorporate the wealth of information from Griffin�s Theory of Blackjack into their systems, players will be advised to use count information primarily for betting, insurance, and hit-stand decisions only. Basic strategy should always be followed for most other decisions. Griffin has shown that, other than for the splitting of tens, no pair splitting variation from basic strategy is worth more than one-thousandth of one percent. This means that for every $1000 of action, you may potentially gain 1 cent if you make this decision with computer accuracy. And this is in a single-deck game, head-on, dealt out 75% with Vegas Strip rules. In multi-deck games, each pair-splitting index you memorize and apply perfectly will be worth only a fraction of a penny for every $1000 of your action. My advice is don�t waste your time. Hard and soft doubling indices are likewise relatively worthless. I queried Griffin on his estimates for the value of early surrender and pair-splitting changes when doubling after splits is allowed. He informed me that the average gains from varying from basic strategy for these rules are negligible. Doubling after splits indices are not worth much simply because of the rarity of occurrence. Early surrender decisions are a waste of time because early surrender is available in multi-deck games only. Don�t chance making errors to potentially increase your profits by a few cents per hour. Simplify your strategy. Basic strategy will take the majority of the potential gain from these decisions.

�The insurance decision is worth 200 times as much as any pair splitting decision in a single-deck game. The hit-stand decision for 16 vs. 10 is worth almost 100 times as much. The only pair splitting indices you may want to learn are for splitting 10�s vs. 5 or 6. The only double-down decisions of minor value are for 10 and 11 vs. ace, and 10 vs. 10. These are the only double and split changes which would pay more than a dime per $1000 bet in a single-deck game. Again, I urge you to get Griffin�s Theory of Blackjack so you can see where the money is.�

Then, on September 30, 1981, Snyder published his own Zen Count, which was the first counting system designed to take into account the actual relative gain from using various index numbers with a real-world type of count. With his Zen count, Snyder included the �Zen 25� index numbers, explaining that most of the potential playing strategy gain available from card-counting was provided by these 25 index numbers. The Zen 25 were selected for use in any number of decks, including single deck. Snyder wrote (Blackjack Forum Vol. 1 #3, September 198, p. 8) �The [Zen] tables are condensed to include only those strategy decisions which are of significant value, based on Griffin�s �average gains� table (Theory of Blackjack page 30) as proposed in BJF #2, (p. 18-19).�

A year later, in the September 1982 issue of Blackjack Forum, Volume II #3, Snyder, responding to a letter from Marvin L. Masters, wrote that in multiple-deck games he would revise the Zen list of 25 recommended indices to a smaller list of only 18 indices.

Marvin L. Masters wrote: �The major strategy changes worth learning (BJF Vol. II, #2, p. 7)� are for single deck. Shoe strategy changes at, say �3 or less are of no interest to me: I�ve left the table at �2.�

Snyder responded: �This is a good point. There is no reason to learn strategy indices you would never use, and there is rarely any reason to continue playing in a shoe game when the true count goes down to �2. For shoe players, table-hoppers etc., I would revise the list of 25 recommended indices to a smaller list of only 18 indices, if I were using the Zen Count and assuming I leave the table at �2. Of course, if you have no trouble with the memory work you might also add a few more positive indices since playing these hands accurately will become more important to your win rate as your bet size increases. I�d like to thank Don Schlesinger also for pointing this out.�

I think it important to note that the acknowledgement of Schlesinger was not for any comments, public or private, that Schlesinger made regarding the 18 most important indices, but for comments Schlesinger had made in private correspondence regarding the point Marvin L. Masters made about negative indices being unimportant to table-hoppers. Technically, this was not a �discovery� of either Marvin L. Masters� or Don Schlesinger�s, however�credit for that belongs to Stanford Wong. In his first edition of Professional Blackjack (Pi-Yee Press, 1975), Wong advised table-hopping players to ignore index numbers below �2. Marvin L. Masters was simply pointing out the obvious and Snyder acknowledged that Schlesinger had sent a letter to Blackjack Forum with a similar comment.

Snyder�s recommendation of such a short list of indices caused controversy. In the March 1982 Blackjack Forum (Volume II #1), in the article John Gwynn Tests the Zen Count, Snyder wrote (p. 3):

�Many of my subscribers have purchased the Zen Count strategy from me, and Gwynn�s simulation answers the most frequently asked question I get from Zen Count players. Can the Zen Count really win with such condensed strategy tables? The Zen Count has by far the simplest set of strategy tables ever published for a count which claims to be an �advanced� higher-level system. Many players who receive the strategy from me immediately write and request �the complete� tables. If you want to know how simple the Zen Count tables are, keep in mind that Gwynn simulated the Zen Count exactly as I have published it. There are a total of only 25 indices: 18 hit/stand, 3 doubling, 3 splitting and 1 for insurance. By comparison Uston�s APC was simulated exactly as Uston published it in his book Million Dollar Blackjack, using a total of 161 indices (43 hit/stand, 76 doubling, 41 splitting, 1 insurance.) Hi-Opt I was simulated in its complete form, as available from International Gaming, with 202 indices (62 hit/stand, 94 doubling, 45 splitting, 1 insurance). After simulating the Zen Count, Gwynn wrote to me: �It really is amazing that Zen with only 24 [indices, plus insurance] is so good.��

On p. 4 of the article, Snyder shows that the Zen Count had a win rate of about 0.03% greater than Hi-Opt I, while Uston�s APC, using all 161 indices had a win rate about .03% greater than the Zen Count.

Snyder wrote on p. 6:

�My advice for most players is to stick with a simple level one counting system and to simplify your strategy tables. You are probably wasting your time if you are trying to employ more than a few dozen indices.�

And on p. 30, regarding Dr. John Gwynn�s simulations to test the effect of pair-splitting on a player�s win rate:

�Some sample results, assuming Northern Nevada rules in a single-deck game, using the Hi-Opt I counting system: If flat-betting, the gain from splitting pairs according to the Hi-Opt I indices, instead of basic strategy only, is about .06%. Of this total gain approximately .05% is realized from applying the indices for splitting tens. The other .01% gain is due to all other pair splits. Likewise, if playing basic strategy for all decisions other than splitting pairs, and betting nothing any time the true count is less than +0.5 and betting one unit any time the true count is equal to or greater than +0.5, Gwynn�s simulations result in the following per-hand win rates:

1. Splitting all pairs as per Hi-Opt I indices: +0.65%

2. Splitting only tens as per Hi-Opt I indices, other pairs according to basic strategy: +0.65%.

3. Splitting all pairs according to basic strategy only: +0.60%.

�As Gwynn commented in his letter to me which accompanied his results: �All of this bears out your contention that only splitting tens is really worthwhile using indices; basic strategy is adequate for all other pairs.��

Even Gwynn, who had run the simulations that Peter Griffin used to revise his �Average Gains for Varying Basic Strategy� chart, expressed surprise at Snyder�s discoveries in the letter accompanying the data he had submitted to Blackjack Forum.

Snyder�s correspondence continued to be packed with questions from players regarding the importance of the index numbers beyond the 25 Snyder recommended in the Zen Count for single deck, and the 18 he recommended for shoe games.

In 1983, in the first edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack, in his discussion of the Red Seven Count, on p. 42, Snyder wrote:

�First of all, insurance is the most important strategy decision. In single-deck games, assuming you are using a moderate betting spread, insurance is almost as important as all other strategy decisions combined�As for other playing decisions, there are only a few to remember. Any time you are at your pivot or higher stand on 16 vs. 10 and stand on 12 vs. 3. In single-deck games, the 16 vs. 10 decision is the second most important strategy decision for a card counter�insurance being first. The 16 vs. 10 decision is more important than all pair splitting indices combined! After you find these few strategy changes easy, there are a couple of others you can add which will increase your advantage. At your pivot plus 2, or higher, with any number of decks, stand on 12 vs. 2; stand on 15 vs. 10; and double down on 10 vs. X. In multi-deck games, you will be taking advantage of about 80% of all possible gains from card counting by using this strategy��

I think it interesting to record at this point something of Schlesinger�s view of these recommendations at the time Snyder published them, initially six years prior to publication of Schlesinger�s �Attacking the Shoe!�

In the March 1984 Blackjack Forum Vol. IV #1 (p. 36), the following letter from a reader was published:

�Letter from California: �With 8-8 vs. 10, do I split instead of surrender even when the deck is rich?��

Snyder�s published reply to this reader: �You would be playing more accurately if you surrendered 8-8 vs. 10 when the count was high enough, but your expected difference in win rate from learning and applying an accurate count strategy on this play would be measurable in pennies per year, even for a high stakes pro. The situation is rare and the gain is negligible. Forget about it. It�s a waste of time to consider it.�

Schlesinger sent a letter, dated June 24, 1984, for publication in Blackjack Forum, regarding Snyder�s answer:

��I think you have never quite understood how important surrender is to a high-stakes player. And it is for the very reason that you say to forget about making the play that I would never forgive myself if I had $500 out and failed to make the play. The point is that we don�t get hundreds of thousands of chances at this 8-8 v. 10 surrender in our lives. We get perhaps one or two in a lifetime, as you suggest. Thus, the negligible difference never has a chance to be negligible! If I split those 8�s (at Caesars, for example) and then double and/or split after, I might wind up with $2000 on the table. And I might lose it all, instead of losing $250 by surrendering. Now please don�t lecture me about expectation. I know all about how I could also win the $2000 and that when you multiply by the probability of each, it comes to pennies or dollars. Well, you go ask the dealer for your pennies when he sweeps away the $2000! Maybe five years later, when the hand comes up again, you�ll have another chance to get your money back. As for me, it is a cop-out to claim that you would purposely and knowingly play a hand incorrectly because you were too lazy to �clutter your brain with worthless strategy indices� when you could, instead, cultivate your act and seek better table conditions. You know what, Arnold, some of us can actually walk and chew gum at the same time! Would you believe that I can really roam a casino back-counting, look natural doing it, and miraculously remember the number for 8-8 v. 10 all at the same time! Amazing, huh? �In any event, Arnold, stop telling people to play incorrectly, particularly when they play for thousands of dollars, because playing wrong doesn�t matter. How can you sleep giving advice like that?� [This was a hand-written letter and the underlining is his.]

Snyder had his typist prepare Schlesinger�s letter for publication, with Snyder�s response. But Snyder decided not to publish it at the time because he felt Schlesinger�s argument was so wrong that publishing his letter would cause Schlesinger public embarrassment. The response that Snyder had prepared for publication pointed out that if, in fact, we should all learn the index number for 8-8 v. X because this hand might occur at a time when we had a big bet on the table, then we should, in fact, simply learn the full 150-200 index numbers for all decisions. Any of them might occur some time when we have a big bet on the table. Schlesinger didn�t understand, at this point, the logic of reducing the number of indices based on actual dollar value. The reason for reducing the number of indices wasn�t because they had no value. It was because a simpler set of indices would allow players to play longer, with less mental fatigue, little actual dollar cost, and fewer errors.

It is amusing to me that, in 1986, three years after this letter, Schlesinger included no surrender numbers in his �Illustrious 18.� Moreover, his �Fab 4� surrender indices, published 11 years after his letter to Snyder, in December of 1995, did NOT include 8-8 v. X.

Don Schlesinger�s article on the �Illustrious 18� (�Attacking the Shoe!�) takes the work of Griffin, Snyder, and Gwynn regarding the most important indices in terms of gain, and works out precise numbers for one particular situation: a player using the Hi-Lo count with a particular 1-12 spread in a 75%-dealt four-deck game.

My simulations show that a player who uses Schlesinger�s 18 rather than Snyder�s recommended 15 indices for shoe games, in a 6-deck shoe game dealt 75%, using a 1 to 12 spread, has an expectation of roughly an additional three hundredths of a percent. In simulations of a single deck game dealt 65%, with H17 and a 1 to 3 spread, Snyder�s 18 and Schlesinger�s 18 came out exactly the same, at a .99% win rate (100 million hands, standard error .02%). Using the full 25 indices Snyder recommended for single deck, the sims for the single-deck game show a win rate for Snyder of 1.01%, versus Schlesinger�s .99% (100 million hands, standard error .02%).

The optimal set of indices changes not only with the number of decks in play, penetration, play-all versus tablehopping styles, other advanced techniques, and the spread you use, but will also change based on the count system you use. The optimal set for the Hi Lo is not the same as the optimal set for the Zen count, and so on.

Schlesinger deserves credit for pointing out that in shoe games where card counters must use large spreads, the doubling indices for 9 v. 2, 9 v. 7, and X v. A gain in value. However, his claim of being the originator of or even the first to publish the seminal discoveries about the relative value of various index plays is false. He was not the first to tell players �which index numbers are most important to learn based on the amount of total gain which can be obtained by their use.� He was not the first to quantify and write about the relative value of the insurance play or 16 v. 10 or 15 v. 10, or other important plays, as he claimed in �Attacking the Shoe!�, or to write about the total gain available from a small number of the most important indices. He was not the first to discover or recommend that players might just as well throw 90% of their numbers away. He just failed to acknowledge the contributions of the real originators of condensed strategy tables.

Griffin�s 1979 play variation ranking, for 1-Deck (top 18 plays):

Insurance; 16 v. X; 14 v. X; 15 v. X; 13 v. X; 13 v. 2; 12 v. 4; 12 v. 3; 13 v. 3; X-X v. 6; X-X v. 5; 11 v. X; 13 v. 4; 16 v. 7; 12 v. X; 16 v. 9; 14 v. 2; 10 v. X

Snyder�s 1981 Zen 25 for all #s of decks:

Insurance; 16 v. X; 16 v. 9; 15 v. X; 15 v. 2; 14 v. 2, 3, 4; 13 v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 12 vs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 11 v. A; 11 v. X; 10 vs. X; X-X v. 6; X-X v. 5

Snyder�s 1982 recommended Zen 18 for table hoppers who leave at �2:

Insurance; 16 v. X; 16 v. 9; 15 v. X; 14 v. 2; 14 v. 3; 14 v. 4; 13 v. 2; 13 v. 3;; 12 vs. 2; 12 v. 3; 12 v. 4; 12 v. 5; 12 v. 6; 11 v. A; 10 vs. X; X-X v. 6; X-X v. 5

Schlesinger�s 1986 recommended indices for a 4-deck, 75%-dealt game, for a Hi-Lo player using a specific 1-12 spread.

Insurance; 16 v. X; 16 v. 9; 15 v. X; 13 v. 2; 13 v. 3; 12 v. 2; 12 v. 3; ; 12 v. 4; 12 v. 5; 12 v. 6; 11 v. A; 10 v. X; 10 v. A; 9 v. 2; 9 v. 7; X-X v. 6; X-X v. 5

clearly he did
Posted by stainless steel rat on 08-Jan-2005 08:25:02 (#11668)

Why? Where did the name "illustrious 18" come from? Sure, others might have found the same BS departure indices along with others. But just as surely, Don picked this particular 18 as "the most important departures". Otherwise no mathematician would get credit for anything after the digits 0-9 were created, since everything since has used those as a foundation...

Even had he not run billions of rounds of sims to find which departures are most important and which are not, he would be just as creative to pick a departure from here, a departure from there, using data generated by others, to conclude "these are the most important 18 departures".

Otherwise I doubt anyone in your list could be given credit for _any_ of those departures since I'd bet that many "unknown" players had already discovered many of them without writing a book to reveal them.

I don't know Don personally. But academically speaking, since he was the first to speak precisely of 18 bs departure indices that he called the I18, he certainly will be remembered (correctly) as the person who enumerated them as a group. Someone else could enumerate the "wonderful-22" and get credit for that. If they include all or most of the I18 (which they would probably have to do to be useful) they would give credit to him for the first 18 departures and add the additional ones they think also important, and the new list would be their creation..

I believe this problem is related to the concept of the I-18 as a group, which Don came up with, as opposed to the I-18 as a group of individual departures, none of which Don (or probably any of the other authors you mentioned) came up with themselves. IE I doubt you'd find Don claiming that he invented the 16 vs 10 BS departure index, even though it is possible that his use of CV Data might have improved the accuracy of the actual index on occasion. He simply made life simpler for new and aspiring counters by writing "these are the 18 departure indices you should learn first."

Galileo
Posted by Sohrab on 08-Jan-2005 10:53:50 (#11669)

Some say Galileo invented almost nothing but put together things others invented and then he took credit. But because he put them together where all could see and use, like Newton "shoulders of giants" could use it.

Black Jack Attack puts things together in one book that were in many books, papers, and things nobody knew about but experts. Maybe Arnold Snyder wrote in 1981 about using small indexes but who how many could find or read this paper?

Highlights of '05 BJ Ball
Posted by zengrifter on 08-Jan-2005 00:48:54 (#11661)

The 2005 Inductees to the Blackjack Hall of Fame and winner of the Blackjack Cup
posted by TheBish http://blackjackforumonline.com./

The 2005 inductees to the Blackjack Hall of Fame are Julian Braun and Lawrence Revere. Their biographies will be added shortly to the Hall of Fame page on this board.
Lawrence Revere died in 1977. If you use a true count, you owe something to Lawrence Revere.
There is an interview with Julian Braun in the library of this site, as well as a eulogy by P. Ruchman. Julian Braun died a few years ago. Braun's programs were used to develop virtually all of the early count systems.

The winner of the Blackjack Cup is RWM, who will now hold the title of World's Best Blackjack Player for the upcoming year. This is the second time RWM has won it. (I couldn't get close enough to the final table to see how he triumphed over his worthy opponents.) Also at the final table were Previn Mankodi, previous winner James Grosjean, and Phil B.

Blackjack Cup: the full story; Stanford Wong highly sought
posted by TheBish on 01-04-2005 17:26

RWM won the chip shuffling competition (despite having the smallest hands).

James Grosjean won the arm-wrestling contest (he works out).

RWM and Grosjean shared the money on counting down a deck. They were actually beaten by the legendary Phil B., who was not only fastest but got the count right, but Phil forgot that a +1 count meant that the removed card had to be a high card (different specialty).

Phil won the shuffle-tracking competition (off by only two cards).

RWM won the card-pitching competition (has been pitching cards at dealers for a long time).

The signal-passing competition was a joke, because they all know each other's signals.

Bill Benter, the richest gambler in the world, bought RWM in the calcutta. RWM had the right to buy 50% of himself, and did. RWM went for $900, and the return was $6200.

Second place finisher James Grosjean also went for $900, for a $3300 second place return. RWM also owned 1/3 of Grosjean, so he cleaned up. James didn't own any portion of himself.

Other highlights of the party included numerous pros seeking tips from Stanford Wong on how to throw dice.

BJ. Ball '05
Posted by dbase on 08-Jan-2005 06:50:47 (#11665)

in the article you mentioned a word about Bill Benter the
richest gambler in the world.
Question: is he still playing the horse racing in Hong Kong?
regards
dbase

Sounds so cool!
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 08-Jan-2005 14:32:02 (#11672)

I'd love to go to one of these sometime!

Roger Baldwin, et al, didn't make it?
Posted by anon on 09-Jan-2005 10:25:44 (#11689)

Sort of invalidates the concept.

Tommy Hyland on Discovery
Posted by Beginning Counter on 08-Jan-2005 23:28:16 (#11684)

Discovery - Times has been doing a series of shows about Las Vegas called Casino Diaries. They had an episode where they were following Tommy Hyland around and then they are in the security room at the Hard Rock when they spot Hyland and have him ejected. Why would he expose himself on TV if he is still continuing to play? Seemed very weird.

I saw that show a while back
Posted by The Mayor on 10-Jan-2005 14:45:45 (#11712)

From what I understand, Hyland mainly runs teams -- but he doesn't play on those teams.

Here is a curiosity. I am spotted by APs in casinos based on my photo on this page (and other photos on the Internet) with some frequency. But I have not yet been recognized in a casino by a PB or other security based on these same photos. My belief is that for the *low to mid* level player, you are essentially invisible, no matter how public you are.

--Mayor

Hyland
Posted by eyesfor21 on 10-Jan-2005 15:33:06 (#11713)

When one is on tv there is always a chance of a production company wanting
to make a movie on the person in this case Hyland. Uston loved
the limelight too.Why not obtain a little bit of fame and then
you will have more credit for books,possible movies and who knows
what else-sounds good to me.

reasonable bankroll
Posted by barbie on 09-Jan-2005 10:58:49 (#11690)

I'm going to play a good 6d game (.75 pen, surr, das, s17) spreading 10-100 (50 @ +2TC and 100 @3)). I'll be doing a semi-wong, playing virtually no neg cts, and little or no cover. What's a reasonable bankroll, and how much $/hr win can I expect? Thanks again!

More information than you want or need...
Posted by The Mayor on 09-Jan-2005 12:35:27 (#11691)

 

PROFESSIONAL BLACKJACK ANALYZER 

<Version: PBA 4.3.7> 

 

Results for file:  C:\PBA437\BARBIE_1.txt 

January 9, 2005 

 

The following rules were specified in the rules menu: 

R>--------------------------------------------------- 

6- deck shoe 

Insurance offered 

Dealer stands on soft-17 

With dealer blackjack, player... 

     Loses one bet max 

On ties, player pushes, except... 

     Loses with 22-26 

Resplit to make four hands 

Resplit aces allowed 

OK to split unlike 10s, like J-Q 

Check hole card under 10, A 

Double any hard total 

Soft doubling allowed 

surrender two cards 

     late surrender against A 

     initial hand only 

After splitting... 

Double any hard total 

     Soft doubling allowed 

     Double two cards only 

 

Shufffle used was: Random Swaps 

Dealt to 72 cards remaining. 

R>-------------------------------------------------- 

 

The following counting system was used: 

C>-------------------------------------------------- 

System name:  Hi-Lo                

 

Count indices... 

2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    T    A     

1    1    1    1    1    0    0    0    -1    -1     

 

Minimum count for playing decisions:  -10 

Maximum count for playing decisions:  20 

C>-------------------------------------------------- 

 

B>--------------------------------------------------- 

The following betting system was used: 

  KB_2                 

 

On count...       Bet... 

 

  <= 0    $10.00 

   =+0    $10.00 

   =+1    $10.00 

   =+2    $50.00 

   =+3    $100.00 

   =+4    $100.00 

   =+5    $100.00 

   =+6    $100.00 

   =+7    $100.00 

  >=+8    $100.00 

 

Shuffle when count < -1 

True count is running count per 1. deck(s) 

B>--------------------------------------------------- 

 

The following simulation results were obtained: 

S>--------------------------------------------------- 

Edge:    1.44 

Standard error:    0.03 

Sigma:   1.84 

Desirability index (DI):   7.82 

 

Number of hands simulated:   41,000,000 

Number of hands aborted:   0 

Average hands per shoe:   32.07 

Number of extra players:   0 

Simulated hand is at position:   0 

Number of cards burned at start of shoe:   0 

Number of cards to remove and count... 

     before player decision:   0 

     after player decision:   0 

 

Average initial bet: $23.41 

Profit per hand:    $0.34 

Standard deviation per hand:    $43.05 

Profit per 100 hands:    $33.66 

Standard deviation per 100 hands:    $430.51 

 

Win percentage of total hands:    42.51% 

Loss percentage of total hands:    48.84% 

Tie percentage of total hands:    8.65% 

S>--------------------------------------------------- 

 

Detailed simulation results: 

D>--------------------------------------------------- 

Count:        Edge:         % of hands:   Average Bet:  St. Dev.: 

-10           00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-9            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-8            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-7            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-6            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-5            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-4            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-3            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-2            00.00         00.00         $0.00         $0.000 

-1            -01.01        10.23         $10.00        $11.500 

-0            -00.53        22.38         $10.00        $11.410 

0             -00.33        10.75         $10.00        $11.373 

+0            00.05         22.59         $10.00        $11.374 

1             00.60         14.60         $10.00        $11.398 

2             01.16         08.20         $50.00        $56.938 

3             01.75         04.77         $100.00       $114.099 

4             02.42         02.75         $100.00       $114.331 

5             03.26         01.62         $100.00       $115.338 

6             03.88         00.92         $100.00       $116.089 

7             04.53         00.55         $100.00       $116.534 

8             05.75         00.29         $100.00       $117.281 

9             06.10         00.17         $100.00       $117.029 

10            07.17         00.09         $100.00       $117.637 

11            08.52         00.05         $100.00       $117.845 

12            09.24         00.02         $100.00       $118.313 

13            09.05         00.01         $100.00       $117.303 

14            12.48         00.01         $100.00       $117.469 

15            11.40         00.00         $100.00       $119.676 

16            21.77         00.00         $100.00       $115.487 

17            12.28         00.00         $100.00       $109.625 

18            17.11         00.00         $100.00       $99.671 

19            -25.00        00.00         $100.00       $122.474 

20            04.17         00.00         $100.00       $125.000 

D>---------------------------------------------------

bankroll size?
Posted by barbie on 09-Jan-2005 13:10:28 (#11692)

Thanks so much, Mr. Mayor! And what about bankroll size? Would 10K or so keep me going?

10k will give about a 3% ROR
Posted by The Mayor on 09-Jan-2005 13:22:38 (#11693)

Here are some ROR numbers.

Your average bet (or unit) in PBA is $23.41.

Bankroll = 200 units = $4682, ROR = 18.26%
Bankroll = 400 units = $9364, ROR = 3.33%
Bankroll = 600 units = $14046, ROR = 0.61%

thanks
Posted by barbie on 09-Jan-2005 13:26:45 (#11694)

gotcha. Thanks again!

Blackjack Software
Posted by mike on 10-Jan-2005 09:59:06 (#11709)

Hi,

I'm looking for the best software around that can (for any given rules) calculate house edge, play optimum basic strategy and possibly also take into account the cards actually in play.

I don't want this to incorporate card counting as I�m looking at online play only (where I understand the RNG create the cards from a newly shuffled shoe each time).

I know there a plenty around and that many are very good programs, but even the good ones seem to use different methods to calculate the play (all based on mathematics though).

I know these cannot give you an edge in a negative expectancy game but they can make sure you keep the house edge to a minimum.

Can anyone give me their opinions of any they have used?
Thanks in advance

Mike

playing hours/year
Posted by known pro on 10-Jan-2005 13:01:41 (#11711)

At the end of 2004, some posters were telling us the number of hours, played in 2004. I want to add to these numbers, that you really must put much much more hours in this game. I play min. 150 hours/month !!, necessary to extract money in the dimension of 40K and more.
Another number I want to add is, that in 2004 I was driving 35000 miles on the highways.(outside US)

thats alot of hours
Posted by wongout on 10-Jan-2005 19:13:26 (#11715)

certainly the more you play the more you make but the best thing about lots of hours is it provides a better shot at having a winning year. To play 150 hours/month is quite an achievement depending on your bet level. At the higher levels its tough to get the hours in since you always get calls; ctrs etc and really have to keep the sessions short and move around to stay in biz. I dont know your spread/bet size but I'm impressed with your work ethic. One of the advantages of being a non-pro is that you can play when you want.

good luck

wong out

Agree
Posted by suicyco maniac on 10-Jan-2005 20:08:54 (#11716)

I agree with Known Pro...I only managed to get in 1,200 hours this year due to heat, backoffs, etc fortunatly I still ended up ahead for the year but my high point was way back in March...My new years resolution is to get in more hours of play this year. Its all about the hours... SM

Trip Report- The Midnight Gambler II
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 10-Jan-2005 17:01:54 (#11714)

I knew I shouldn't have gone, but my curiousity got the best of me and last week I signed up for a cruise on this casino ship sailing out of Freeport NY.

Freeport NY is on Long Island and a town of beach, seafood, and seafaring. The town alone is worth a visit.

The first thing you notice after boarding the boat is how run down everything is. Dirty carpet, slot machines with broken faces. When they pulled the covers off the BJ tables it was even worse. Ripped vinyl and cigarette burns on everything. The craps table looked like somebody crapped on it. A small buffet was served before the tables open, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be but if you are prone to seasickness at all, don't. You'll spew.

I watched them spread the decks as the tables opened. Cheap, bent off-brand decks that the dealers have to reconstitute at the end of the cruise, but they were all honest decks. Table limits were $5-100, $10-200, and $25-$300. The crown was low class and it's difficult to get a seat at the $5 table, and BJ is clearly the most popular game on board, more so than even slots. Patrons seem to all know one another and they bring their own cards and play gin rummy on the tables before they open. The ten BJ tables have 9 spots each and 9 people will actually be playing at one time.

Penetration was awful, down to 2-3 decks on an 8 deck shoe. Rules are S17, DOA, DAS, LS. Never have I seen dealers so sloppy! Improper card handling and bad procedure are universal here, and the dealers are as unfriendly as they are sloppy. The shuffle is a single-pass stepladder followed by a weird 4-way chop-up. The tables all have optical peekers, but the dealers seem to use them or not use them at random. Dealing speed is good and apparently the dealers are under pressure to deal as fast as they can.

I had a bad night at blackjack, kept on getting good counts shoved up my butt and I was down a few hundred. Expectable even in a good game though. There are some other advantage opportunities available onboard. There is a cheap plastic double-zero roulette wheel that some players might find interesting. I myself took a break from BJ and spent a good hour playing Caribbean Stud, appearing drunk and exhausted. As I was playing, the person who appeared to be the casino manager literally sat on the table facing away from me smoking cigarettes. Had a reasonable session there and went back to a $25 BJ table, aggressively Wonging in and out as this casino manager sat on the table behind me, occasionally brushing me with his swinging feet. Another losing session unfortunately.

Overview: This is not a place for a card counter, even a Wonger. The best-case penetration is on the low side of playable. The sessions are short and the crowd oppressive. Experts in other forms of advantage play may find opportunties here. No matter what, approach this game with the same caution you would a remote, unregulated Indian joint, because other than the guy with the cigarette I had no idea who or what was in charge or what your recourse would be if you had a problem with this casino.

playing time
Posted by micahg1 on 11-Jan-2005 14:06:28 (#11722)

How much time did you actually have to play on the trip. I am new to card counting using hi - lo and I18. I live on LI and was thinking of going on the boat just to get some practice in a real casino environment. I would probably be mostly flat betting the minimum and basically just seeing if I could do it.

Don't even think about it
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 12-Jan-2005 01:30:00 (#11726)

Repeat: this is not a place for a card counter! It's not even a real casino environment. The only players who will make money there are certain experts in taking advantage of screwed-up situations.

If you live on LI, your best bet will be to take the ferry over to Mohegan Sun on a weekday and play the $10 6D games near the Wolf Den. In addition to the Illustrious 18 learn the surrender indices for 16 vs. 9, 16 vs A, 15 vs. 9,X,A, and 14 vs X, and you've got the beginnings of a card counting career. Good cards and have fun!

thanx for saving me the trip (nt) *NM*
Posted by micahg1 on 12-Jan-2005 03:15:46 (#11729)

Getting a lot of pop-ups and add banners...
Posted by Stealth Bomber on 11-Jan-2005 09:09:59 (#11719)

when exiting CC.com. They have nothing to do with BJ. ??

Not possible
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Jan-2005 09:16:25 (#11720)

The only thing that creates pop-ups here is the monthly poll (which is a third-party piece of software). There is nothing else here that does that.

You might have some spyware or a hijacker in your browser.

The Grosjean award...
Posted by Greasy John on 11-Jan-2005 14:54:56 (#11723)

So James Grosjean won a $400,000 award for his treatment at the Imperial Palace. Is this award still in effect, or has it been overturned? Was Bob Nersesian his attorney? Would appreciate any info anyone might have.

Plenty of Info on Blackjackforumonline.com *LINK*
Posted by Titaniumman on 11-Jan-2005 18:18:58 (#11724)

Would appreciate any info anyone might have.

I think Mr. Grosjean himself can satisfy your request quite nicely, thank you very much.

But do you know...
Posted by Greasy John on 16-Jan-2005 20:44:41 (#11787)

if the $400,000 award still stands as of this date.

Thanks, GJ

Certainty Equivalent Question for Mayor
Posted by MJ on 12-Jan-2005 00:22:58 (#11725)

Mayor,

I see this term from time to time and am curious to know exactly what it means. On CVCX it is defined as "the value of a wager". How would you explain the meaning of this term?

In the "Hot Shoe" DVD Andy Bloch from the MIT team mentions "certainty equivalent" when talking about how the players are paid. He says something along the lines of after a playing session a player would find the EV for various hands that they played(using a SIM), then subtract the variance to calculate the certainty equivalent. In this fashion players are paid based upon the CE that they generate. So this way players were encouraged to make money and reduce variance at the same time.

For some reason I still don't quite grasp this concept. Can you give an example as it pertains to the paragraph above? In other words can you show me how to use the CE to calculate a players earnings. If the CE is positive does that mean I am GUARANTEED to make money from a wager because there is no risk? Thanks for any help.

-MJ

We need someone from economics...
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2005 18:22:34 (#11735)

I will do my best, but my understanding of this is limited...

>I see this term from time to time and am curious to know exactly what it means. On CVCX it is defined as "the value of a wager". How would you explain the meaning of this term?

That is really how I would define it too. Here is an example. Suppose you make a wager with a 10% edge and bet $100. Sure it has an EV of $10, but it also has some variance associated with it. Someone comes along and offers you $110 to buy that bet from you. Would you take it? In a heartbeat! You get your EV with no variance! Now, someone comes along and offers you $1 for that wager. That is, they offer you $101. Now, the more certain you are of getting your EV, the less you want to accept this offer. If you are absolutely certain you will get your EV, then there is no way you will take it. If you want income with no risk, you will gladly sell your bet to earn a buck.

So, on the open market, this wager has a value based on its implied risk. It is not $110 and it is not $100, it is somewhere in between. That can only be determined by the current market forces. That value is the CE of the wager.

As for the MIT team, it goes the same way. Each team member is playing with an EV for his action. The member can live with the full risk and possibly not earn a thing (or even lose), or he can let market forces (competing team members) determine the true value of what he is doing, and be guaranteed to be paid that amount (which will be less than EV, but more than nothing).

This is my understanding, and I could be completely wrong! I hope someone else will come along and add something to this.

--Mayor

Another question
Posted by MJ on 13-Jan-2005 00:40:23 (#11744)

Thanks Mayor! In the case of the $100 wager with a 10%Expected value, if somebody offered $101 for it how much variance should there be in order to accept this offer? Mathematically there must be a point when accepting the wager becomes our advantage no? I would imagine the probability of winning the hand would have to be very low...maybe around 1%.

In the case where somebody buys my wager for $110 does that mean the CE becomes $110-$0 = $110? In other words EV - Variance = CE.

-MJ

From bjmath.com
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Jan-2005 08:56:42 (#11750)

Here is the discussion from bjmath.com (their Kelly.faq):

Q3: What is "Certainty Equivalent"?

A3: Would you rather make a bet of $200 on a coin flip with an average profit of $20 or accept $5 risk-free? Would $10 risk-free persuade you not to make the bet? How about $15? Your "certainty equivalent" (or risk-free equivalent) is the amount that participation in the bet is worth to you. -- perhaps $5, $10, or $15 in this example.
The Kelly criterion with Kelly number 0.3 advises you to maximize the expected value of u(x) = x^(1-1/k) / (1-1/k), where k = 0.3 and x is your resulting bankroll. If your bankroll is $10,000 then the $200 bet gives an average value of u(x) of

55% * u(10200) + 45% * u(9800) = some number

If instead you were offered an amount "CE" risk-free the average value of u(x) would be

100% * u(10000 + CE) = some other number

These two expressions are equal when CE = $13.38. This is the "certainty equivalent" of the above bet for you if you are a Kelly better with the Kelly Number 0.3 and with a $10,000 bankroll. This amount, $13.38, is how much participation in the bet is worth to you. In particular, if the CE for this bet were negative the bet would be worth a negative amount to you and you should avoid it if possible.

Kelly bets
Posted by Garo on 12-Jan-2005 02:55:34 (#11728)

I know that if you bet double the kelly bet you will eventually reach a bankroll of zero, but is this 3/4 kelly, 1/2 kelly, or 1/4 kelly?

Full...
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2005 08:57:03 (#11732)

The Theorem is that if you are playing from a bankroll and your bet size is always at least 2xkelly (kelly being full kelly from that bankroll) then you will go broke with probability 1.

Hi-Opt 1 vs Hi-Low
Posted by Crazy Counter on 12-Jan-2005 17:53:40 (#11734)

Beginner here. What makes Hi-Low better than Hi-Opt 1 (as seems to be the general consensus)? Which would you choose, Hi-Low or KO for frequent play in AC with occasional play in Las vegas?

Reply
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2005 18:24:27 (#11736)

Ace neutral counts are better for single-deck games, but even then need a side-count of aces to show their power. For any multi-deck action, you should use High-Low over Hi-Opt I. As for why this is true, well ... let me just defer to computer simulations. See the tables in Blackjack Attack #3 (by Don Schlesinger).

Ace neutral counts are better in single deck games?????
Posted by Dali-lama on 13-Jan-2005 09:17:53 (#11751)

Mayor, the first two sentences are at odds with one another.
I use hi-opt 1 in sing. and double decks. Hi-lo in six decks.
But if I had to do it all over again....I'd probably just learn
Hi-lo...its so simple.

Scratches head...
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Jan-2005 09:25:49 (#11752)

>Mayor, the first two sentences are at odds with one another.

I don't see that. I'm scratching my head...

>I use hi-opt 1 in sing. and double decks. Hi-lo in six decks.
But if I had to do it all over again....I'd probably just learn
Hi-lo...its so simple.

With so few single-deck games around, High-Low is the best all-around choice you can make for a first system.

--Mayor

ordered Wong's Professional Blackjack
Posted by Crazy Counter on 13-Jan-2005 23:18:36 (#11766)

Thanks. I ordered Stanford Wong's "Professional Blackjack" book. I'll keep reading here and learning from you geniuses!

anyone like KISS STAGE 2?? *NM*
Posted by tripod on 13-Mar-2005 01:05:23 (#12437)

The Forgotten Man of Blackjack *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Jan-2005 00:12:07 (#11739)

The Forgotten Man of Blackjack
By Jerry Patterson

Part 2: Harvey Dubner And The High-low Point Count System

It is interesting to speculate on what might have transpired if nothing more would have been done in the development of card counting systems following the 1962 publication of Thorp's book. The game certainly would not have been as popular because of reasons noted in earlier articles and few, if any, additional blackjack books might have been published. Thorp and his cumbersome ten-count system probably would have been forgotten and you may never have heard of Lawrence Revere, Ken Uston, Lance Humble, Richard Canfield, or Jerry Patterson.

But additional work was done and it was performed by a man who has since become "the forgotten man of blackjack." His name is Harvey Dubner and he invented the Point-count System - the system which led to scores of developmental projects, over 100 published blackjack books with the end not yet in sight, blackjack teams, concealed computers and shuffletracking.

Why isn't Harvey Dubner recognized for his point-count system - a fantastic contribution to the world of blackjack? What is the impact of this early breakthrough on the current state of the art in blackjack card counting systems?

To find the answer to these two questions, we must start by moving forward one year after the first edition of Thorp's book was published in 1962 - to the Fall Joint Computer Conference held in Las Vegas in 1963. On a whim, the conference organizers decided to include a Panel Session on "Using Computers in Games of Chance and Skill." Ed Thorp, author of the all-time best selling blackjack book, Beat The Dealer, was designated as Chairman of the Panel and experts on the various casino games, including blackjack, roulette and baccarat, were invited to speak, this author among them. You can guess who stole the show - Harvey Dubner with his description of his High/Low Point-count method.

I'll never forget that session for as long as I live. Not realizing that most "computerniks" (as they were called at that time borrowing the suffix from the Russian Sputnik satellite) were also inveterate blackjack players, they scheduled the Panel Discussion in one of their smaller meeting rooms. The room filled up and overflowed 45 minutes before the session was scheduled to start! Hundreds of conference attendees were pushing and shoving to get into the room.

The crowd, of course, had been drawn by Thorp. They were expecting revelations on the game and anticipated using his imparted wisdom immediately following the session to make a killing at the blackjack tables. Thorp moderated the panel and introduced the speakers one by one.

Allen Wilson, who subsequently wrote The Casino Gamblers Guide, described his approach to finding biased roulette wheels and then presented an interesting graphic on the evolution of blackjack's basic strategy. Beginning with the original strategy derived by Cantey, McDermott, Maisel and Baldwin, his graphic displayed the advantage the player achieved - beginning with slightly minus and increasing up to around 0.1 slightly positive as new studies were conducted by various groups and individuals between 1958 and 1963.

After one or two more presentations, Tony C. presented our findings resulting from the first blackjack computer simulation model I had programmed for the IBM 709 computer. They were significant mainly because we had validated Thorp's ten-count system with a totally different method than his mathematical formulation - playing it in over 500,000 simulated hands.

Then Dubner was introduced. After a short background discussion on how he had come to invent the point-count method leading to advantage blackjack, he described the approach. Dubner kept a count of remaining high cards (10,J,Q,K,A) and low cards (2,3,4,5,6) as the cards were played and divided its difference by total cards left to play. He called the result the High-Low Ratio and used this to size his bet.

His presentation was enthusiastically received by the standing room only crowd and he was given a round of applause at its conclusion. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Dubner was mobbed by the crowd all wanting copies of his handout on the point-count system. Here at last, many were saying, is a system that is practical, that can actually be used in the real world of casino play.

This interesting historical background lays the groundwork for describing the impact of Dubner's breakthrough on the evolution of the scores of point count system development projects that followed. They

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Home

Basic Strategy Engine

Rules of Blackjack

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game

Card Counting

Interviews

Blackjack Blog

Message Boards

Blackjack Tournaments

Gambling Online

Newsletter Archive

Books & Software

Get Strategy Cards

Threads 1531 to 1560

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 1531 to 1560

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game