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 1681 to 1710

Binion's Update #3
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Mar-2005 23:10:56 (#12533)

Contrary to LVBear's dissappointing and apparently anomolous experience, posted below, my observation and polling of several Binion's dealers indicates that the official procedure for Binion's 1D 3/2 is Rule-of-7. The only dealers that I have observed not adhering to Ro7 are some of the newer less experienced ones. zg

I now mostly agree with zg
Posted by LVBear584 on 21-Mar-2005 01:56:07 (#12536)

I have spent a lot of time in there, mostly just observing. Dealers are all over the map. There is much confusion among dealers and floorpeople. Some are in new positons, and do not even know the fine points of the rules of some of the games they are dealing or supervising. There are some staff from Speedway casino who appear overwhelmed by the crowds at Binion's. Speedway staff are accustomed to a nearly-empty casino, and few players betting anything except coins.

Keep your eyes open and you may find opportunities at Binion's now that may not be there in the near future. Confusion and chaos is the skilled player's friend.

Clarification.....SD besides 6:5 at HS!?!!? *NM*
Posted by phantom007 on 22-Mar-2005 22:06:00 (#12567)

Yes, Virginia, 1D 3/2 is...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 22:46:36 (#12569)

...alive and well at Binion's. zg

Illustrious 14??
Posted by Garo on 20-Mar-2005 23:51:32 (#12535)

Why is the Illustrious 18 the Illustrious 18? Why do we include the four indices for BS deviation that are negative? Why would you worry yourself about deviations when the count is negative and (hopefully) you have a minumum bet out? Isn't this unneccesary work? Just a thought, someone please explain this to me.

Garo

Negative index numbers
Posted by Tom on 21-Mar-2005 08:37:35 (#12539)

When using a smaller bet spread with big units, negative index numbers become more significant. However if you use a huge spread, you're correct,these neg index numbers do very little. Keep in mind this is my opnion and not the Author of Ill 18.

because...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 21-Mar-2005 09:29:11 (#12540)

1. Sometimes you have to "play all". A good SD/DD game is an example, where you can't continually bail out when the count tanks. Fortunately it doesn't tank long as the shuffle is always not far away, but if it does, you will have to keep playing.

2. Because of (1) above, the negative indices are important, in that they are the most profitable of the negative indices, giving you a way to improve your EV in a negative-EV situation (negative count).

If you are a 6-decker (shoe), and wong out at -1, then there is no need to remember negative indices. If you plan on playing games where you can't continually "sit out when the count tanks" then those indices can help.

Breaking Vegas
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Mar-2005 14:13:25 (#12542)

The episode I saw last night was about Ed Thorpe and Mr. X. It was very interesting. At the end it says that Dr. Thorpe is believed to be worth several hundred million dollars earned mostly from his hedge funds. WOW!!!

I saw that too.
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Mar-2005 14:19:36 (#12543)

I noticed the $100 mill comment as well -- that surely must be an exaggeration. He sold 800k copies of Beat the Dealer, so that's his first million or so. Then he invested wisely, started 40 years ago. OK, maybe 50-100 million.

Thorp's "Newport-Princeton Partners"...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Mar-2005 17:04:35 (#12544)

...was/is very successful at implementing a hedge-fund strategy that was predicted in BTD second edition. He was also noted by the feds to be an "unindicted-coconspirator" of Milken and Boesky in the early 90s, resulting from their use of Newport-Princeton to "park" stocks. In an article about him in '99 Worth magazine estimated his wealth at over $400 million. zg

Historical discrepency in Ed Thorp episode
Posted by Garo on 21-Mar-2005 17:34:00 (#12545)

In the show he teaches his investor to count with Hi-Lo but according to "Beat the Dealer" at the time he was working with his investor he was using 5s count, and "[Hi-Lo] was not presented in the first edition because the needed calulations had not been completed" p75 1966 edition. I guess the History Channel used Hi-Lo in the show because it is what he is best known for, or they didn't think there was any difference.

What was the name of Thorpes hedge fund? *NM*
Posted by Tripod on 22-Mar-2005 06:37:17 (#12550)

The answer is quoted from...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 17:05:09 (#12561)

... a review of Ben Mezrich's Bringing Down The House -

"For those with a taste for risk, there is no casino like the modern finanical markets where the opportunity for profit and loss is far greater than the gaming tables of Las Vegas. The rewards that are available at investment banks and hedge funds attract some of the smartest people in the world. This was eventually the path followed by Ed Thorp.

While a professor at U.C. Irvine Ed Thorp became interested in the stock market. In 1967 he published Beat the Market: A Scientific Stock Market System which describes stratagies for trading stock warrants. Warrants act like stock options, but with a longer term. Thorp developed an early version of what has become known as the Black-Scholes option pricing formula. In 1969 Thorp left academia, never to return. He founded an investment fund, based in Long Beach, California, initially called Convertible Hedge Associates, and later renamed Princeton Newport Partners. Princeton Newport Partners was one of the most consistently successful hedge funds in history, making Thorp a very wealthy man."

Full review here - http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/bringing_down_the_house.html

Lay of tens letter
Posted by suicyco maniac on 21-Mar-2005 22:09:40 (#12547)

Check out the letter on blackjack forum online allegedly from a survielence employee. The artice is in the new issue of BJF titled "lay of tens" Very funny. If this guy is serious I just don't have the words to express my thoughts. SM

Here it is...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 18:45:52 (#12562)

... know thy enemy -

From Blackjackforumonline.com
Letter from Surveillance:

While doing some research for a "system" that is new to me I came across your site and found it very interesting. I have a question for you, if you don’t mind. I am researching a system called the Lay of Tens Method--or at least that is what I was informed it was called, but I am unable to find any information on it. We have a couple of new players that supposedly are using it (although very badly, because they keep getting their asses kicked) and I would like to learn the proper way to use this system. My limited understanding of this system is that it is not based on counting. You determine the action of your hand based on whether there is a ten or number of tens on the table. These people are standing on 4 through 9 and soft 12 through 16, doubling on blackjack, hitting hard 17 through 19--it is some really stupid play. I would like to really know what they are supposed to be doing, because they cannot be doing it correctly. I hope that you can help because I cannot find any information on this supposed system.

I don’t care if you wish to use this email for your site, but please do not post my name and casino. Again, I really liked your site and for the record a lot of us in surveillance see ourselves as the flip side to the counters' coin. You try to take advantage in your play and we try to catch you, a big game. ♠

[Name Withheld]

Bo Derek
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 22-Mar-2005 18:56:39 (#12564)

This is what I always thought "lay of 10's" was about.

We see this kind of thing all the time at the tables, mostly with unskilled players looking for 10's on the table to determine whether or not to take insurance.

Ten Count
Posted by SonOfBeve on 23-Mar-2005 09:04:00 (#12572)

I met a card counter at work who said he is banned from almost all las vegas casinos, we have records of him so I know he is good. He said for me to learn the "ten count." I have never heard of this particular count, anybody know anything about it? He said it would be easy to look up online, but I havent found anything.

The Ten's count
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Mar-2005 10:20:45 (#12575)

The Tens Count is for insurance purposes. Here is how it is played.

Start with a running count of -4*(number of decks).

Each T = -2
Each non-T = +1

If the count ever gets to be positive, then take insurance.

This system (I believe, haven't checked lately) has perfect insurance correlation. It is presented in Wong's "Professional Blackjack."

If you want to be a real masochist
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 23-Mar-2005 21:33:23 (#12582)

Yes the Tens Count does have an IC of 1. There's a usable balanced version of it: 10's are -2, Aces are neutral, everything else is +1, and you sidecount the Aces for betting true count adjustment and you can work the aces back into the insurance count to preserve the IC of 1. I simmed it once and it wasn't half bad, but I can't think of any good reason to use it.

Your count...
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Mar-2005 22:28:51 (#12583)

You just gave this count...

A = 0
T = -2
2-9 = +1

I use this count all the time.

Here is a puzzle, the count is as above, but the wager is not on the game of blackjack! If you know the answer, don't say (at least not on a public board).

--Mayor

By all means bust this if it's too specific
Posted by Theef on 24-Mar-2005 00:50:44 (#12585)

There aren't that many card games I can think of where counting would apply. Of those few, there's one whose rules seem to coincide with this count, but I was under the impression it wasn't beatable.
I wonder if...

a) this game is beatable after all and I ought to write a quick and dirty sim using this count.
b) this count doesn't make it beatable, but helps slightly while you're playing for comps, cover, or hole cards.
c) I'm thinking of the wrong game.
d) I'm thinking of the wrong game because I mistakenly believe counting doesn't apply to it.

(Hopefully I've kept this sufficiently vague.)

I think I know
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 24-Mar-2005 02:08:15 (#12586)

It's for one particular bet, for one particular game?

If so, eek, that's a tough one, what with the spread you need. Thought about it myself, and being I have a limited number of stores nearby to play in it might be good cover, but I'd better wait until I'm properly capitalized for it.

Eliot, you still have a TC conversion if I recall. Correct? *NM*
Posted by toddler on 28-Mar-2005 13:43:30 (#12613)

You are correct, sir! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Mar-2005 18:05:44 (#12615)

He gave you bullsh*t advice! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Mar-2005 13:14:02 (#12578)

Where is it?
Posted by lowlimit on 23-Mar-2005 23:14:40 (#12584)

I couldn't find the post anywhere--I wanted to laugh at that letter!

Anyways, the rule of three/lay of tens may have originated with a clumping system but it has since evolved. It is a quick and easy way to determine the density of tens in a group of cards. Just don't use the information as a clumping system--use it for ST.

are we still gambling
Posted by eyesfor21 on 21-Mar-2005 22:40:34 (#12549)

using card counting?
I hate gambling, AND hae never bought a lottery ticket
in my life,nor played bingo,nor played slots.
so??

answer
Posted by stainless steel rat on 22-Mar-2005 09:07:16 (#12551)

1. In the "long term" no. You will win if you play/count correctly.

2. In the "short term" yes. You can win or lose big sums of money when counting. You will win more than you lose, but you _will_ lose some.

Yes
Posted by Tom on 22-Mar-2005 10:55:57 (#12554)

Anytime we are at 'risk of ruin",we're gambling. There is no promise we will win, even if we play perfect. The less risk of ruin,the less we're gambling.

I agree with both.........
Posted by Anthony on 22-Mar-2005 12:24:09 (#12555)

Basically, if you don't play perfect, have the correct BANKROLL, and play the amount of time that makes up the "LONG RUN" (this is the hook that will get you if you don't have enough bankroll) then I guess it's not gambling, but I'm a little bit more than a begginning player.

Anthony

Anthony .. it's gambling dude.
Posted by Sun Runner on 22-Mar-2005 22:20:57 (#12568)

The sooner you warm up the better.

To make a real long post real short, even if you are playing to a 0.05%
risk of ruin; you are gambling.

Those that are able to do so are just better gamblers than the rest of us.

Absolutely we are still "gambling" *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 16:30:29 (#12559)

Gambling on a different level
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 22-Mar-2005 18:52:53 (#12563)

If you bet at the Kelly Criterion your absolute risk of ruin is about 13%. This is about the same risk of a woman getting breast cancer. What we're gambling on is not being one of the 13%. Regular self-examination is helpful.

Off course we are gambling
Posted by Victoria on 22-Mar-2005 20:45:54 (#12565)

Just because we are playing with an advantage does not mean we are gambling. If you were guaranteed to win everytime you put a chip in a circle, then I would not consider it gambling, but everyone one of us has had variance bite us often enough to know we are still gambling.

gambling
Posted by eyesfor21 on 23-Mar-2005 09:21:03 (#12573)

Does that mean we are gamling when we drive on the freeway,
we could crash it happens all the time too.
What if we start a business are we gambling too, the sucess
rate for starting ar business is very small.
Lets get the mayors take on the entire subject Iam curious.

Yes. anytime the outcome is unknown we are GAMBLING! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Mar-2005 20:37:44 (#12608)

So nonzero variance is a sufficient condition for "gambling"
Posted by Theef on 23-Mar-2005 10:05:45 (#12574)

In that case, there's not a single moment in anyone's life when they're not gambling. By this definition, the term is useless; it provides no information.

If, on the other hand, we take "gambling" to include all its connotations in society, then APs are certainly not gamblers. Gambling connotes an activity where the excitement comes from chance alone, without regard to the EV, and in fact, usually despite the EV which is almost always connoted to be negative. Gambling as society understands it is expensive at best and ruinous at worst. Clearly none of this applies to AP. To put it another way, the variance is what makes "gambling" fun and the EV is what makes it undesirable. For advantage play, precisely the opposite is true!

the definition
Posted by stainless steel rat on 23-Mar-2005 12:22:40 (#12576)

gambling means "to take a chance". It doesn't matter whether it is flipping a coin and you pick heads or tails, or even if you pick "edge". If someone bets you some amount that you can't do some task, say bench-pressing 300 pounds, and you just did it last night at the gym, then that would not be a gamble. But if there is any chance of failure, then that has to be a gamble...

Of course, non-counters are really gambling since luck is all they have, but then one could argue they are not gambling at all as they are going to go broke sooner or later...

definitions of gambling...
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Mar-2005 16:15:23 (#12581)

None of these seem to be quite what we think...

=======================================================================
v. intr.

1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.

2. To play a game of chance for stakes.

2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.

v. tr.

1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.

2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.

1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.

2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise

help on Uston ss
Posted by Lev on 22-Mar-2005 10:10:44 (#12553)

I play in europe,6 decks and i've been using hi-low but i need to know wich card counting system is the most efficient.i need more information on uston ss.i hope that someone can send me the tables.please

Re:
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 22-Mar-2005 14:02:23 (#12557)

The efficiency of the system is possibly the least important factor when it comes to getting the money out of the casino. This is assuming you are already using a viable system... which you are. The things that are required to get the money out of a 6 deck game are good big bet spread (at least 1:20), good penetration (at least 75%), and decent rules.

I can recall a noted expert, possibly Arnold Snyder, stated that whatever gains that may be attainable by using a more difficult system could also be attained using the simpler system by using a larger spread or playing more hands per hour. Somehting to think about.

Also, keep in mind that...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 16:29:01 (#12558)

...a 1-20 spread is not necessarily optimum - if you are in a "play-all" counts mode a 1-50 spread (ie, 2 hands of 25u) is best... BUT a 1-10 spread (ie, 2 hands of 5u) is quite sufficient if you are able to ONLY PLAY POSITIVE COUNTS.

And, in any event the level3 UstonSS is not the ideal count when several balanced and unbalance level2 counts will equal USS in million-hand simulations, and most level1 counts, like HiLo, are entirely adequate. zg

What is the best cardcounting strategy then? *NM*
Posted by Lev on 23-Mar-2005 06:01:43 (#12571)

Loaded Question.
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 23-Mar-2005 12:41:11 (#12577)

In my opinion, the best count for you at this point in your career based on the game you are playing would be the hi-low or KO. As stated in my earlier post, the count method is not the most critical, the key is getting the money on the felt when the count tells you to. Any count will tell you approx. when to do this.

More on Thorp and Michael Milken...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Mar-2005 16:32:50 (#12560)

... can be found in the ZenZone. zg

Funny dealer tonight
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 23-Mar-2005 01:52:59 (#12570)

Woman sits down and buys in, dealer calls for the PC to verify but he won't come, too busy chatting over at another table. Repeated yells for the PC, enough time to deal 2 or 3 hands passes, and the chants of "Hey dummy!", "Hey a-hole!" from the players begin.

He finally comes over, dealer passes chips to the player and the PC says "Hey wait, take those back, you over paid her." He pulls the stacks back, sure enough he had overpaid by $40, and the error is corrected. Next time the PC turns away from the table, the dealer smiles and quietly says to the table "Let's see if he hears me next time." He earned a silver for that one!

Unfortunately that was the only funny experience at the table tonight. I don't know how the dealer finds these low cards on monster counts, but he always does, and only for him. The dealer can pull a 5 on his 16 as easily as I can pull a 10 on a 12, it seems.

Counters' Paranoia 101
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Mar-2005 14:50:34 (#12580)

Paranoia 101: A Professional Gambler's Guide to Casino Heat

- By 98%

� 2003 Blackjack Forum
(From Blackjack Forum, Vol. XXII #3, Fall 2003)

Friends of mine who are not among the professional gamblers community often tell me that I am needlessly paranoid. Some blackjack players have even told me the same, sometimes going as far as laughing at my refusal to walk into a casino in their presence. Perhaps they are right to make light of my paranoia, but I think they are wrong. In fact, I often wonder if I am paranoid enough about casino heat to make it in this business for long.

When I walk into a casino under the guise of a gambler who is relaxed and comfortable in his environment, I am on high alert, looking for any signs of trouble. Awareness is one of the most valuable weapons in any advantage player’s arsenal and it should be honed to a preternatural level by anyone who intends to become serious in his casino exploits. Many of the ideas in this article have been discussed previously in the vast body of blackjack literature, but, in light of seeing many players in action in the casinos failing miserably to remain aware of their surroundings, instead becoming lost in their own worlds, I was inspired to reiterate some of these ideas and, in some cases, delve into them a little more deeply.

...continued here - http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/paranoia.html

Beginner's Head & Heat
Posted by Jim Penn on 28-Mar-2005 16:27:04 (#12614)

Within a short period of time everyone in the US will have a casino a few hours away by car. This will be their favorite, and more than likely the entire staff will get to know you quickly with a weekly four hour/8 hour sessions. Living in las Vegas is a big advantage to pro's who have to move from place to place for whatever reason. Hard to maintain your cover in captive casino to take full advantage of max betting plays. Majority of tables 10 min and 2/3 at Green entry. They put their most experienced dealers at the Green Table and everybody else at red. Spreading 25-200 would certainly bring many eyes.

CSM Question
Posted by Charlie Chang on 24-Mar-2005 03:46:29 (#12587)

CSM Question:

is playing a 6d CSM on the LV.Strip always
-.55 each and every round??
regards
Charlie

depends upon the rules
Posted by Victoria on 24-Mar-2005 11:24:39 (#12588)

I do not have my CBJN copy in front of me but I think your number is about right for the typical H-17 game. If you are playing a CSM (why???) with S-17 and typical other rules, I believe the number is about -.38% on a six deck shoe. S-17 is a very favorable rule for a basic strategy player.

The First Annual Halloween Blackjack Ball and "21.Com" Grudge Match
Posted by Viktor Nacht on 24-Mar-2005 16:33:13 (#12590)

Yes, this announcement is almost exactly 9 months too early. But rather than make this a surprise 6 months later when my plans start to show, I want to share the joy of conception with all of you. Video will be shown at the party.

For about two years now, I've wanted to have an egalitarian blackjack party that everyone could safely attend and celebrate our mutual love of the game. No elitism, no vitriol, no disdain for the "common" counter, and no blacklists based on petty personal jealousies. In other words, this party is for EVERYONE: Winged Monkeys, Moonies, City Government Officials, everyone. This isn't RGE's party for "our" people, but my personal effort to start a new tradition with everyone in the community that also coincides with my favorite holiday.

As such, please consider making plans to join us in Las Vegas on Saturday, October 29th, for the First Annual Halloween Blackjack Ball and "21.Com" Grudge Match. Time and location TBA. There will be a nominal door charge to cover the cost of the space, food, soft drinks, and entertainment. This is a not-for-profit event. 18 and older only, please, as I hope to book some vintage, cabaret-style entertainment...

Given the season, the crucial element of anonymity, and the fact that some of you are just plain ugly, costumes or disguises will be REQUIRED. To reward you for your efforts, there will be a contest for best costume... and worst disguise. Hint: If you're going for the worst disguise prize, take a look at a few episodes of the "World Series of Blackjack"...

And now the part you've been wondering about, the Halloween Blackjack Ball will also host the first annual "21.Com" Grudge Match, where teams from all of the major blackjack websites represented will be invited to compete in various blackjack and card manipulation skill tests to see which site will reign supreme as the "21.Com" Grudge Match Champions for the coming year. All losers will be required to link to the winner's site with the text "We got our butts whipped by..." I'm just kidding of course, since we all know AdvantagePlayer.com doesn't link to other sites. :) But we will make sure there is impartial judging (perhaps one judge from each site), and that this will be a fun and fair competition.

Finally, crass commercialism will not only be allowed, but is highly encouraged, at this event. Authors should bring copies of their products to sign, sell, and promote, and everyone is encouraged to pimp their favorite site or product in whatever manner they choose.

So please, if you love blackjack and want to spend a fun evening with a bunch of other people who love blackjack... and who also spend WAY too much time on the Internet, make plans to be in Vegas on Halloween weekend. We'll post more details and ideas as the months progress.

Good Cards,

Shall we consider a 'Team CC.com' ? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Mar-2005 16:54:13 (#12592)

I hope many show up...
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Mar-2005 09:53:41 (#12597)

Victor's idea sounds like a lot of fun, and I hope many from this site (and all sites) show up and enjoy the party. He is doing just the right thing, trying to show that all the bj sites have a least one strong similarity -- they are full of people who love the game. I applaud such peace making for its own sake.

As for competing against others, I gave up participating in competitive games many years ago, which was why I took up bj (the opposition is not a person, it is a business). I simply do not enjoy the experience of winning or losing to a person in an activity. But if you do enjoy such competition, and want to carry the torch of cc.com, you have my blessings!

--Mayor

Everyone email me your shoe size...
Posted by Theef on 25-Mar-2005 13:33:54 (#12600)

...so I can fit you for the wireless network of Bluetooth-enabled shoe computers I'll be designing. You guys can't lose!

I thought about superfine-resolution button-mounted cameras by which a computer could exactly measure and remember the characteristics of each card back, down to the micron, but the technology isn't there yet...

...and that's about as far as this joke's going.

ROAD TRIP
Posted by EYEinTHEsky on 26-Mar-2005 23:43:16 (#12610)

I guess Ill have to take the flight from AC to vegas for this one!!!! No need for shoe computers, Ill just use the good old car alarm transmiter..... LOLOL

I live in Vegas and would like to help...
Posted by Anthony on 27-Mar-2005 10:07:10 (#12611)

I live here in Las Vegas and would enjoy a party like this. If I could be of any help let me know.

Anthony

Those who can't compete, judge. :)
Posted by Viktor Nacht on 25-Mar-2005 15:43:29 (#12602)

There's still a lot to discuss and plenty of time to do it, but to keep things as fair as possible I'm thinking we might have a judge from each site that competes to round things out. Maybe the head of each "family," if you will. :)

I appreciate Eliot's support of this idea, since it will take his support along with many others to really pull this off the way I hope we can.

Good Cards,

Watch out for the guy in the monkey suit! *NM*
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 25-Mar-2005 16:52:47 (#12603)

The inside story of counting and 'Mr. X', Thorp, etc...
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Mar-2005 16:58:33 (#12593)

... previously untold, may be found here -

How BJ Counting Really Started
by Peter Ruchman

Part I
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/blackjack/050700.html
Part II
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/blackjack/051400.html
Part III
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/blackjack/052100.html

Ruchman columns
Posted by CanKen on 25-Mar-2005 18:28:31 (#12605)

Thank you very much for posting that link. There are many other interesting BJ articles in Ruchman's index.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Card Counter
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Mar-2005 17:52:54 (#12594)

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Card Counter

By Arnold Snyder

In the two-plus decades that we’ve been publishing this mag, we’ve covered many stories about professional players suffering physical abuse at the hands of casino personnel. Back in June of 1986 (“Why I’m Suing in Nevada”), Ken Uston wrote about a former teammate of his “…100 pounds soaking wet…” who had been dragged across the floor of the Flamingo Hilton and was back-roomed and bruised about the arms and legs by “…two huge uniformed Neanderthals.” Uston also wrote about his own 1978 beating at the Mapes Casino in Reno, a beating that broke five bones in his face and left him without feeling in the left side of his mouth. In March of 1988 (“The Horseshoe Trial”), Anthony Curtis updated us on the case of two card counters and hole card players who were beaten and hospitalized by Binion’s Horseshoe security guards. In the Spring 2001 issue (“A Funny Thing Happened on My Way to the Forum”), James Grosjean tells the story of his back-rooming, handcuffing, and arrest on false cheating charges at Caesars Palace, charges that were dropped after he had spent three days in jail and thousands in attorneys’ fees. In the Spring 2003 issue (“Blackjack Wizards,” by Richard W. Munchkin), interviewee “R.C.” discusses his being handcuffed, back-roomed and beaten up by half a dozen security guards at the Eldorado in Reno a few years ago, and having more recently been tackled and handcuffed by security guards at the El Cortez in Las Vegas.

In the past couple of years, it seems these types of incidents have been increasing, both in frequency and severity. On our website, there has recently been a lengthy discussion about a card counter who was “tortured” (thrown to the ground, handcuffed, and kneeled on) by Mandalay Bay security guards.

But, according to one industry spokesperson, players who express shock and outrage at this type of treatment are overreacting.

“We hardly ever beat a player badly enough that he requires hospitalization,” he insists. “I’m not saying it doesn’t happen—but that’s not the norm. And you should also keep in mind that when a player does require hospitalization as a result of a casino beating, the player actually gets to go to the hospital. The days when we just left them out in the desert are history. Players today can pretty much rest assured that if they beat us at the tables, they will not be killed. A relatively mild beating, with perhaps one broken bone—maybe a cracked rib or two—that’s it. This is a kinder, gentler casino culture today.”

... continued here - http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/SpareRod.htm

Plus-Minus Counting
Posted by jadern on 25-Mar-2005 09:25:38 (#12596)

When I started to practice my CC,, I would always get confused with adding and subtracting with the count starting at zero. The starting point I now use is 10 with 10 representing zero. Very rarely have to deal with counts that get below zero. Anything over 10, of course, is positive and anything below 10 is neg. Much easier for me, anyway. Any opinions?

IRC=10
Posted by CanKen on 25-Mar-2005 12:14:26 (#12598)

This works very well with an unbalanced count like KO. All you have to do is adjust your key count and pivot point.

Plus-Minus
Posted by jadern on 25-Mar-2005 12:41:08 (#12599)

I use Red 7. Like to play two-deck so I subtract 4 from 10 and start my IRC at +6 which would equal -4 if starting at 0. Much more efficient for me to be counting in positive numbers most of the time.

With a balanced count? Not so easy
Posted by Theef on 25-Mar-2005 13:40:56 (#12601)

Adding an initial running count may help you keep track of the RC, but you'll still have to calculate the true count, which has to be "unbiased" back to 0 before you perform the division or else it won't represent what you think it does.

Plus-Minus
Posted by jadern on 26-Mar-2005 09:25:13 (#12609)

It dosen't matter if you use a balanced or unbalanced count. I am simply switching 10 for 0. If the RC is say 6, in my count that starts from 10, it simply means the RC is now -4. If it is 13, then the RC is +3. It is just an easier way for me to keep track of the RC by not having to add negatives and positives back and forth around zero.

Take up a new game
Posted by Gorgon on 27-Mar-2005 12:36:45 (#12612)

If you don't like having to manage negative numbers, count down the Spanish deck by starting at zero. Because you have 16 tens missing from the shoe, the count virtually always goes into the plus zone. Just make sure you know what plus number constitutes an advantage so you know when to shove out the dough.

The Tommy Hyland Team Trial *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Mar-2005 18:17:36 (#12604)

The Tommy Hyland Team Trial in Windsor: Circus, Caesars, and the Hilton Corp. Team Up to Try to Frame Blackjack Players for Cheating

By Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XV #4, December 1995)
� 1995 Blackjack Forum

The initial news reports on the arrests of Tommy Hyland blackjack team members Christopher Z., Barbara D., and Karen C. came to the Blackjack Forum offices from newspapers all over the U.S. and Canada. On May 28, 1994, the three were arrested at the brand new Casino Windsor and charged with cheating at blackjack. The initial cheating charge was based on use of a “device”—pop-off beads the two women players were wearing to count the percentage of aces they had successfully tracked with an ace prediction strategy. When it turned out there was no law against players using a device in a casino in Canada, the province charged the players with fraud for use of signals at the table.

The Oakland (Michigan) Press reported: “While Chris Z. played the actual game, Barbara D. and Karen C. watched the cards. The practice is called ‘counting cards.’ … Keeping track in your head is OK. Using anything else is not. Dancey and Conroy used beads concealed in their clothes to count the cards… All three are charged with conspiracy to cheat at play and cheating at play, both of which carry two-year prison sentences… Gaming officials said they expected cheaters would test the dealers at Windsor, hoping to find inexperienced people manning the tables.”

... continued at link -

Story regarding Ken Uston's alledged drug use...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Mar-2005 19:38:41 (#12606)

... now posted in the ZenZone. zg

More "inside-story" on early Thorp and Mr. X *LINK*
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Mar-2005 20:01:35 (#12607)

The First Card Counters:
Blackjack History and My Trip in 1962 to Las Vegas and Reno
with Professor Edward O. Thorp and Mickey MacDougall

By Russell T. Barnhart
� 2000 Blackjack Forum
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XX #1, Spring 2000)

In the early 1960s much publicity occurred concerning a 28-year-old professor of mathematics, Edward O. Thorp, first of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at Cambridge, then of New Mexico State University at Las Cruces, finally of the University of California at Irvine, who was making blackjack history.

I read articles about him in the New York Herald Tribune (January 29, 1961), the Paris edition of the New York Herald Tribune (by Tom Wolfe, December 9, 1962), the Atlantic Monthly (January, 1963), Time (January 25, 1963), Sports Illustrated (January 13, 1964), Life (March 27, 1964), The New York Times (April 3, 1964), and so on.

... continued at link -
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/The%20First%20Counters.htm

Side Counting Aces with KO
Posted by Jaisen on 29-Mar-2005 13:33:20 (#12617)

My local casino offers SD H17 DOA NDAS with 50% pen during the day and 70% pen with a few friendly dealers. This place has 5 BJ tables and usually 3 are open and almost no one bets green. The catch is that I've discovered they employ counter catchers using Hi-Opt I.

My buddies recommends KO with side count of aces a/k/a Linux count because the power comes from its Tens count. The Linux indices are different from those in the KO book, e.g. Insurance is at RC of +2 with IRC of 0. Here are my questions:
1) What is the BC/PE/IC of Linux? I suspect it is stronger than KO
2) Is the higher win rate from Linux due to better DD information?
3) How correlated is Linux and Hi-OPT I?

Any feedback / answers is appreciated.

I* am unfamiliar with the Linux BJ strategy...
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Mar-2005 21:41:36 (#12623)

...would you please describe it in some detail? zg

I am still learning the system
Posted by Jaisen on 29-Mar-2005 23:35:25 (#12628)

You use KO tags: 2-7 is +1 and Tens and Aces are -1. At the basic level, the the main difference between Linux and KO is that you use the Ace as part of RC for betting purposes, but exclude the Ace from the RC for play variation, e.g. comparing the richness of tens to 2-7's. Linux is used in RC mode and is unbalanced.

Here's how my buddy explained to me: By side counting the Ace, for the basic level, the player gets a BC of KO, PE that is better than High-Opt I, and IC in the 80% range. So it would be appreciated if someone can comfirm this.

I can answer #3
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 29-Mar-2005 23:10:51 (#12626)

Unfortunately with all legitimate counts the increases in bet will be correlated. They wouldn't all work, otherwise. You need tactics more sophisticated than a non-expected count to beat game protection.

But, is the correlation 60%, 70%, 80% etc?
Posted by Jaisen on 29-Mar-2005 23:23:17 (#12627)

It's a given there exist positive correlation between card counting systems, but what would be the correlation between Linux (w/ Ace side count) and High-Opt I (w/ Ace side count)? If I had to make an educated guess, it would be 60%-70% because Linux counts two more cards than High-Opt I.

It'll be more than that
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 30-Mar-2005 14:08:21 (#12630)

What you need to calculate is how frequently will there be a shortage of 3's-6's without there also being a shortage of 2's and 7's. And realistically, how much more do you want to increase your bet because some extra 2's and 7's were dealt, being their effect of removal is so comparatively low?

If you're going to beat the heat at SD it won't be by changing your count. I use level 3 and they still catch me. Learn to hit-and-run, move around, cover play, cover act, etc. but probably the most effective is just determine how much of a spread they'll tolerate at your betting level and stick within it.

Level 3 counts
Posted by Jaisen on 30-Mar-2005 23:16:46 (#12638)

My understanding is higher level counts (e.g. level 3) improve the BC; side counts, OTHO, improve PE. In SD, insurance is the most important play variation, and Linux has one of the highest IC. If I can increase my ev through better insurance deveiations, the game is about breakeven. Also, you have to keep in mind this is SD, and play variation trumps BC.

Not quite
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 31-Mar-2005 03:55:17 (#12641)

Although PE is more important in SD than in shoe it sure doesn't trump BC. In a good SD game, flat betting you can get your advantage up to about +0.15% with a nice PE count like HO2. At the same time, you can play Basic Strategy and get your advantage up over 1% with a spread. Give me BC every time!

Higher level counts increase both PE and BC when used properly. Sidecounts also increase both, depending on which sidecount. If you're playing a lot of SD you have a few good choices, but the KO w/ aces you are using will be just fine.

The Long Run??
Posted by Anthony on 29-Mar-2005 16:36:47 (#12620)

Dear Pros:

What in your research makes up the long run? Is it 5,000 hands, 10,000 hands, or am I really off?

Thanks
Anthony

Not a pro...
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Mar-2005 18:47:09 (#12621)

I don't think being a pro has much to do with the question.

In practice, your results at the table mean very little over spans under 100,000 hands (approx 1000 hours). But that is not what "The Long Run" means. It is simply a statement that the "variance in blackjack is large".

To understand the law of large numbers, you really need a decent Statistics course.

5000 to 10000 hands is totally meaningless for blackjack.

2000 hours starts to approximate it. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Mar-2005 21:38:42 (#12622)

Even less of a pro's opinion
Posted by Sonny on 29-Mar-2005 21:48:33 (#12624)

> What in your research makes up the long run? Is it 5,000 hands, 10,000 hands,
> or am I really off?

Yes, unfortunately you are very far off. We all wish that we could reach the long run after 10,00 hands. I could reach it every weekend! :)

The distance of the "long run" depends on several factors such as win rate, variance, speed, and game selection.

The higher your win rate, the sooner you will approach the long run (notice that I said APPROACH the long run - not arrive!). Someone with a 15% advantage will realize their goal much sooner than someone with a 5% advantage. Since they are playing "more correctly" they should expect to see their results sooner.

They will also experience somewhat smaller fluctuations along the way. Obviously variance will play a large role in how far away the long run can be. The larger the swings are, the more likely you are to drift very far away from your expectation. The less you drift, the more you approach the long run (or, at least, the closer you stay to it).

However, 15% and 5% advantages are very unreasonable for most blackjack players. A player who only counts cards should not expect to exceed an overall 2% advantage which is why, as the Mayor rightfully pointed out, "the variance in blackjack is large." With only a 1% advantage you will experience huge fluctuations and have very little chance of nearing the long run. That is why bankrolls of 1000-2000 units are not uncommon among serious players.

Another factor is your speed. Someone playing alone at 200 hands per hour will begin to approach the long run in fewer hours than someone playing 75 hands per hour at a crowded table.

Okay, enough about the factors - lets get to the answers! I was taught to use Brett Harris' N0 formula to find the length of the long run (or, more correctly, the time it would take to reach your expectation with a given degree of certainty). Here's how it works:

Simply square your SD and divide it by your hourly win rate, then divide this by your per-hand win rate. Sounds easy, huh? Lets look at an example:

Your win rate is 2 units per hour with a 30 unit SD and you are able to play 100 hands per hour. The formula is:

(SD^2/Hourly EV)/(Hourly EV/Hands per Hour)

You would end up with:

(30^2/2)/(2/100) = (900/2)/(.02) = 22,500 hands

That's quite a bit more than you thought, huh? And it only gets worse. The formula tells you that you will have to play around 22,500 hands in order to overcome ONE standard deviation. This will encompass roughly 68% of the bell curve. To expand this to two standard deviations, and roughly 95% of the bell curve, you would multiply this number by four. So now you are playing 90,000 hands in order to have a 95% chance of reaching your expectation. Using the above numbers you would have to play for 900 hours to achieve that. Of course, you might win that much money after 600 hours and consider an early retirement. You might also play for 800 hours and still be in the red. You simply never know.

Now, playing a better game with a 2 unit win rate but only a 25 unit SD would reduce the number of hands from 22,5000 (and 90,000) to 15,625 (and 62,500). You have just saved yourself almost 69 hours (or 275 hours for the 95% certainty level). If you can also speed up your play to 150 hands per hour (and thus raise your hourly EV to 3 units) you can further reduce it to around 10,417 (and 41,667). Those two steps have reduced your initial N0 number from 225 hours to only 104 hours. This is why playing in good games can be so crucial to success.

As the Mayor indicated, the "long run" is simply a expression used to define a indefinite interval of time. The long run is not a goal but rather a journey. Expanding the original example above to three standard deviation would bring the grand total up to 3,600 hours with only 97% certainty. There is still roughly a 3% chance that you will not realize your expectation after 3,600 hours of play.

Still want to play blackjack?

-Sonny-

one quick comment
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Mar-2005 21:50:59 (#12625)

>Someone with a 15% advantage will realize their goal much sooner than someone with a 5% advantage. Since they are playing "more correctly" they should expect to see their results sooner.

Unfortunately, edge alone has nothing to do with the rate at which you approach the long run. Suppose you paid $1 for a 1billion-1 shot that paid 2billion dollars. That has a 100% edge, but the variance is so huge it would not be worth it.

I stand corrected
Posted by Sonny on 30-Mar-2005 09:13:29 (#12629)

> Suppose you paid $1 for a 1billion-1 shot that paid 2billion dollars. That
> has a 100% edge, but the variance is so huge it would not be worth it.

Well, that's really a matter of certainty equivalence. Many people would be willing to risk a buck for the chance to win $2 billion. Why else would state lotteries and progressive slot machines be so popular?

Regardless of my nit picking, you are right. In my example I did not indicate that the odds were constant for both advantages. Your example above clearly illustrates why advantage alone is not an indication of the rate at which a player will approach the long run. After all, how many state lottery players will reach the long run in their lifetime?

-Sonny-

Green Valley Ranch
Posted by SonOfBeve on 30-Mar-2005 18:04:21 (#12631)

GVR has a royal 20s shoe game if anyone is interested. I'm not sure how long its been there cause today was my first time at the casino.

Always note the %pene when you scout a game...
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Mar-2005 18:57:45 (#12634)

... also, we don't like to talk about the R20s bet here. zg

Simulation Needed
Posted by Kirk Warren on 30-Mar-2005 18:12:00 (#12632)

Can someone help me out. I've been counting for about 5 months now, but with my current bankroll, I would like to have a simulation run for expected value, standard deviation, etc. I use HiLo, and know the Illustrutious 18 variances to basic strategy.

Bankroll - 10,000
Bet Spread
>0 = minimum (probably $5)
+1 = $10
+2 = $20
+3 = $30
+4 = $40
+5 = $50
>+6 = $60 (which is a 1-12 bet spread)

Table conditions - 6 deck, no resplit Aces, double any two cards, double after split, dealer Hits S17, penetration 80% (always find dealers that cut 1 deck out, sometimes certain dealers will deal into 6th deck)

I prefer to play mostly in the mornings, with 1 or 2 people at the table.

Can someone run this simulation. I would like to know if my current spread is appropriate, my expected value, risk, etc.

Thanks. If its something you need to email to me, I can put my email address down.

no sim, but...
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Mar-2005 18:55:09 (#12633)

...it is sufficient, however, you need to abandon the shoe at TC -2 and go to another or wait... or play every other or 3rd hand in the -2 and below counts. zg

cvcx results
Posted by stainless steel rat on 30-Mar-2005 21:05:39 (#12635)

Your bet ramp is bad. Your expected win rate is about $7 per hour, which just barely edges out flipping burgers at micky-D's...

With that bankroll, CVCX suggests a betting spread of $10-$120 which turns your win rate into $21 per hour. The ramp suggested is this:

TC <= 1 10
TC = 2 50
TC = 3 90
TC >= 4 120

That produces a 12.3% risk of ruin...

Hope that helps...

You can probably get $20/100hands with lower RoR...
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Mar-2005 21:35:44 (#12636)

...and a top bet of $60 if you avoid the negative counts as I have recommended. zg

-2
Posted by Kirk Warren on 30-Mar-2005 23:16:43 (#12637)

I did forget to mention that I would opt out at -2.
I usually wait out the shoe or go to another table, if that table is starting a new shoe. Am I too assume, by not playing counts less than that, my win rate is higher than $7? I considered the $10 minimum, but that bet spread seems strange.

the problem
Posted by stainless steel rat on 31-Mar-2005 09:17:23 (#12644)

If you wong out at some level, you don't play as much. For example, wonging in at +1 above means you only play 28 of every 100 hands. For that 28 hands, your win rate is far higher than if you play all. But you are only playing 1/4 the total hands. That cuts into your overall win rate as CVCX shows in the numbers I posted.

You can't forget to factor in the "idle time". If you try the $25-$200 spread I gave, you ramp up your win rate significantly even with the 72% "idle time" where you are not playing...

Trip Bankroll
Posted by Kirk Warren on 31-Mar-2005 09:50:54 (#12645)

I've never been able to figure out, what would be correct trip bankroll then? How does one determine that? Is it possible to figure out trip standard deviation then, based on wonging out at -1 or 0.

Thanks

how I do it...
Posted by stainless steel rat on 31-Mar-2005 14:51:43 (#12651)

I simply use either CVData, to run a sim for the specific (exact) rules I will be playing, and then twiddle with either (a) the bankroll to let CVData tell me the optimal betting ramp and I twiddle until the min/max bet is what I want to play or (b) I set the minimum bet and ramp, and let CVData tell me the BR I need for an acceptable ROR.

Of course there are ROR calculators around, including the one in CVBJ. And yes, it is based on the standard deviation for the BR/rules/bet ramp you are going to be using...

Simple advice, play SD/DD if possible (Standard Deviation is lower) so long as you can play without getting tossed out...

more data
Posted by stainless steel rat on 30-Mar-2005 23:58:42 (#12639)

Wouldn't disagree that it would help. This was a play all sim. Just for fun, since CVCX handles back-counting, going back to the 5-60 spread, the hourly win rate for play all is $7.34. wonging in at 0 produces a win rate of $10.41. Going to +1 before entering wins at $11.64.

If you wong in at +1, you will play about 28% of the rounds dealt, but using the $5-$60, the ROR is zero with that big a bank... You could easily play $25 to $200 (1-8 spread) and make $25 per hour with a 12% ROR. Note that this isn't really a 1-8 spread since bets at a TC of 0 or less are 0...

Ace Prediction/Shuffle Tracking
Posted by Garo on 31-Mar-2005 00:00:15 (#12640)

Gentlemen-
Uncle Sam has seen to it that I cannot have a sufficeint BR to make card counting worth my time with a reasonable risk of ruin. I have two options, I can either give up or improve my edge. With that in mind, can you all give me a ballpark figure of my advantage using ace prediction and shuffle tracking? Thank you for your help.

Some help, maybe
Posted by Sun Runner on 31-Mar-2005 09:14:15 (#12643)

Garo -

Small BR? Go to BJ21.COM, 2/21/05, bigplayer's post on how to build a BR. Read MathProf's post that follows. I thought they were both well done posts.

Prediciting Aces? The real skinny on that endeavour is hard to come by for the regular folk.

ST'ing? The real skinny on that endeavour is hard to come by for the regular folk, but it's out there; you'll just have to dig it out.

Paying to much in income tax? Get a better tax guy. :)

that advice is spot on!
Posted by Garo on 31-Mar-2005 14:27:04 (#12649)

Thanks for your help, that advise was exactly what I needed, I recommend all the poor young guys read that post. The problem with back counting is I play in back-country IJs so the tables are usually either entirely full or entirely empty. I just have to grab a sack and go for it, and understand that I might lose. Thank you Uncle Sam, thank you for taking this poor young Airman's money. And thank you old wise men for lifting my spirits.

Back Country IJs?
Posted by Sun Runner on 01-Apr-2005 09:25:44 (#12655)

By 'IJ' do you mean Indian Joints? (No disrespect intended to the Native Americans.)

If so, are you having to pay a rake (a fee .. 25 cents to a dollar) each time you make a bet? I'm hoping not because the really bad news is you (in almost every case) can not beat that game long term ESPECIALLY if the games are that crowded.

The sick part of that is I've been in those places where they actually had a waiting list longer than Outback's to get a seat. And still, they hit soft 17, and still, they cut off 25% or use a continous shuffler.

And still .. they have people on a waiting list.

So sad it makes you laugh even still.

Dirty Old Uncle Sam putting his hand down your Underoos
Posted by Automatic Monkey on 31-Mar-2005 13:35:34 (#12648)

Yeah, he got me too. Not just taxes, but maxing out my tax exempt accounts, so it's not so painful. I'll be out of action for about a month to get my BR back to a point where I can safely play. You might want to consider backcounting, you can do that if you can afford a big bet equal to the table min.

math problem
Posted by eyesfor21 on 31-Mar-2005 07:36:25 (#12642)

Here is a math trick it may stump you.

1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head)
2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code)
3. Multiply by 80
4. Add 1
5. Multiply by 250
6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number
7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again.
8. Subtract 250
9. Divide number by 2

Do you recognize the answer?
Do you know why the it works?

kinda neat (spoiler)
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 31-Mar-2005 10:24:49 (#12646)

it multiplies the first three digits of your phone number by 10000 and adds the last four. The result is your phone number.

Or *LINK* *PIC*
Posted by Norm Wattenberger on 31-Mar-2005 12:01:23 (#12647)

((X*80+1)*250+y+y-250)/2
(20000*x+250+2*y-250)/2
(20000*x+2*y)/2
10000*x+y

That's jsut how I did it on my TI-92+ *NM*
Posted by Shaggy18VW on 31-Mar-2005 14:41:24 (#12650)

Belongs at one of the ... *PIC*
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Mar-2005 17:28:18 (#12652)

... OTHER BOARDS! zg

Yes it does... *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Mar-2005 18:17:43 (#12653)

The Victor Insurance Parameter
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Mar-2005 19:37:24 (#12654)

These articles describe a simple refinement for improving insurance bet accureacy. zg

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

The Victor Insurance Parameter, System-Specific
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/victorinsurancesupplement.htm
By Rich Victor

Blackjack Forum Spring 2005
� Blackjack Forum Online

[Editor's note: The predecssor to this article, The Victor Insurance Parameter, can be found in the Blackjack Forum Library.]
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/victorinsuranceoriginal.htm

My article introducing the Victor Insurance Parameter appeared in the Spring 2002 Blackjack Forum. Defined as the running count divided by the number of unseen aces, the Victor Insurance Parameter (VIP) is the optimal insurance parameter for ace side-counters who use a balanced primary count that disregards aces. The article presented user-friendly rules of insurance strategy—derived from VIP “threshold-values”—and summarized the VIP’s benefits for blackjack players in terms of accuracy and especially simplicity. But the emphasis on simplicity does not preclude consideration of customized threshold-values and strategy for specific counting systems.

The originally stated threshold-values (0.5, 1 and 1.5, respectively, for count-levels one, two and three) may be characterized as “generic” in that none of them is tailored to a specific counting system. Yet they are reasonably accurate for every VIP-compatible system at their respective count-levels. Moreover, the generic threshold-values serve as baselines from which to compute customized, highly accurate threshold-values for specific systems.

The lower the insurance correlation of a given system, the more diverse the count-values assigned to non-tens—and the more volatile the running count. Greater volatility inflates the average size of both positive and negative running counts—increasing the number of seemingly favorable insurance situations and dictating a commensurately higher threshold-value. System-specific threshold-values are determined, therefore, by dividing the applicable generic threshold-value by the VIP-enhanced insurance correlation of the particular system. This process yields the following threshold-values: .57 (rather than .5) for HiOpt I; 1.08 and 1.15 (instead of 1), respectively, for HiOpt II and Omega II; and 1.63 and 1.65 (as opposed to 1.5) for the Uston APC and the Victor APC, respectively.

While the appropriate strategy rule from the original article will produce a sizable insurance gain, you may prefer the enhanced accuracy provided by the customized threshold-value for your system. If so, and if you are using Omega II or either HiOpt count, insure when the VIP exceeds the prescribed threshold-value. For users of the Victor APC or Uston APC, a shortcut is available without sacrificing accuracy: Insure when 60% of the running count equals or exceeds the number of unseen aces.

Whether you travel the generic or customized route, the VIP is your shortest path to insurance efficiency. ♠

Courts rule: 6/5 Blackjack illegal
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Apr-2005 10:01:39 (#12656)

April fools!

Yaaayy!!!!
Posted by Sonny on 01-Apr-2005 10:24:06 (#12657)

Damnit! That's just cruel, Mayor. :)

-Sonny-

DITTO!....And while on this "vile" subject,
Posted by phantom007 on 03-Apr-2005 21:41:41 (#12671)

may I ask some "Really Stupid Questions?" Certainly, no decent AP will play this game except maybe for Cover AND Comps....I stress the "AND" because BOTH will be needed to overcome the House Advantage.

I must admit, I did play this game once in LV, just out of curiosity....NO BS at this table...lots of social play with "Low Rollers"...guy was betting $10/hand and had not one but THREE Friends behind him, cheering him on and offering advice. I was spreading $10-$100. I made the following observations:

1. 6:5 attracts the P.I.T.'s, i.e., Ploppies in Training. These folks have yet to grasp the concept "that a 10 always follows a 10"...certainly not true, but they are at the stage that a "7 always follows a 10", so DD on 14!

2. 1:10 spread generated NO HEAT, just caused a shuffle! Whenever I jumped bet by 10x...SHUFFLE...5:1's and less was ok. P.I.T.'s did not understand why the Dealer shuffled so much, but did not care either...gave them more time talk strategy for the next round..."I she shows an Ace-up, always take Ins.". Probably not a good bet with a "2-up".

3. My $1k buy-in lasted all of 30 minutes. Got "back-to-back" BJ's in Neg. Cts. P.I.T.'s kindly advised me that I should have bet more! "Sir, you could have won $240. instead of $24, if you bet like you did last deck". Thanks!

4. Left so mad at myself for playing such a STUPID GAME, that I forgot to get my free buffet comp.....was there long enough to order a "free drink", just was gone when it arrived.

Anyhow, MY STUPID QUESTIONS:

1. Any Readers/Posters/AP's been Backed-off/Flat-bet/Barred from 6:5, and/or heard of same happening to others?

2. Any Barred AP's (I mean "No More BJ", not 86'd) re-entered said stores, played 6:5, and had problems?

Thanks.

phantom007.

I wish I was barred!
Posted by Sonny on 04-Apr-2005 09:37:04 (#12674)

> 2. Any Barred AP's (I mean "No More BJ", not 86'd) re-entered said stores,
> played 6:5, and had problems?

"Sorry sir, no more 6:5 for you. You can still play regular 3:2 blackjack though."

I have heard of APs playing 6:5 a long time ago, but I have never heard anything since. I have also never seen any intellegent play at the 6:5 tables. I know that the game can be beaten but I think that most APs have found that it simply isn't worth the effort when there are better games out there.

I think that the pit would be upset if a barred player returned to play 6:5. It is probably more of an ego thing for them. "I told this guy not to play any more BJ and now he's doing it right in front of my face!"

If they know that you are an AP and can beat the game they will not want you playing at all. They may know that 6:5 is a losing game, but they also know that you are an AP. Why would an AP play BJ if he can't win?

-Sonny-

ignorance of the pit
Posted by Victoria on 04-Apr-2005 13:25:19 (#12675)

You have to realize that besides the few sharpe pit types there are many a clock puncher, who really do not quite understand just how bad a game 6/5 is. Besides them, you also have dual rates and just out of college types, who both lack game management experience. Let some dual rate see a known counter or barred player on a 6/5 table and he will immediately begin adding up brownie points if he is one who someday wants to be the pit boss. They will 86 you and perhaps try to figure out what is wrong with their game.

The only way you will find a counter at a 6/5 table, in my opinion, is if she can get hole card information. Of course that's just my opinion.

Victoria

Technically you can play 6:5...
Posted by Garo on 06-Apr-2005 13:38:50 (#12686)

If you are backed off from blackjack you can still play 6:5 since it isn't technically blackjack, correct? So if you have already been barred from playing blackjack at a place why not go back a spread wildly and back count and take advantage of the 6:5 game as best as possible for as long as possible? You have nothing to lose.

Mayor
Posted by MrPill on 01-Apr-2005 14:36:26 (#12658)

I will be in Vegas the last week of April and owe you a beer for the extra book.

If interested and you happen to be in the area also, send me an email and we can set up the details.

Pill

Thanks, but...
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Apr-2005 18:10:20 (#12661)

I will not be in LV again until early Summer. Mid-quarter blues...

A rain check then. *NM*
Posted by MrPill on 02-Apr-2005 04:59:17 (#12667)

Binion's Update #4
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Apr-2005 15:06:26 (#12659)

Most of the 2D dealers are dealing out 2/3rds+ of the deck. Add to that its a DAS game and most of the tables have rapid response shuffle-machines... so its a very playable game... estimated SCORE: 65+ zg

Good news about "The Blackjack Zone"
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Apr-2005 18:09:38 (#12660)

Today Barnes & Nobel ordered about 300 copies from our distributor and the book is going to be available nationwide at their larger stores! Wooohoooo!

Also, I will be on VegasTalk Radio again next Thursday at 6PM, be sure to tune in. The link is on the left ... that's me smiling about the Barnes & Nobel thing. Or click here:

http://www.vegastalkradio.com/scian.asp?a=1335

--Mayor

Barnes & Noble just called back and said...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Apr-2005 18:41:49 (#12662)

... APRIL FOOLS! zg

Review
Posted by Hal Jordan on 05-Apr-2005 10:35:06 (#12679)

Mayor,
I would like to congratulate you on your work with this book. The text is an excellent introduction to the world of advantage play. It does not bare any false pretenses as a guide for all levels of players, but rather it specializes as a cornerstone from which a newbie could begin to build a base of knowledge. After reading this book I would move it to the top of my list of choices for an aspiring card counter to read first. You do an excellent job of pointing out the intracacies of the game which go far beyond the mathematical theory of this sport.

Thanks you! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 05-Apr-2005 11:35:46 (#12680)

Understanding the Psychology of Losing At Advantage Play
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Apr-2005 19:37:15 (#12663)

Understanding the Psychology of Losing At Advantage Play:
You Are A Walking Casino

By Orange County K.O.
� Blackjack Forum 2003
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXIII, #1, Spring 2003)

During my relatively short blackjack career of almost 2 years, I�ve enjoyed some euphoric winning streaks and disastrous losing streaks. Like most players, I take the winning streaks in stride - of course I won, isn�t that the idea? The losing streaks, on the other hand, are much more difficult to handle. Extended losing streaks can be disappointing, debilitating, and downright depressing, no matter how sure you are that you were playing with an advantage. With experience, the inevitable swings become more tolerable and expected. I�ve suffered several miserable sessions in which I barely managed to avoid CTR paperwork - these sessions were the catalyst for writing this article on the psychology of losing.

... continued here - http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/phsylose.html

How did you know...
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Apr-2005 19:41:42 (#12664)

That is the subject of my next podium!!! Tomorrow...

"synchronicty" *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Apr-2005 22:19:44 (#12665)

Glad you're still doing the podium *NM*
Posted by suicyco maniac on 02-Apr-2005 03:20:53 (#12666)

Not the podium I thought...
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Apr-2005 09:55:50 (#12668)

I wrote a piece for Henry Tamburin's BJ Insider that will be all about why APs lose at blackjack. It will be out in about 2 weeks. I had thought I would use it as a podium, but instead decided to go with something else I wrote recently.

--Mayor

The pros describe some outrageous flux
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Apr-2005 21:07:56 (#12669)

Winners and Losers: True Tales of Winning and Losing Streaks
from the Blackjack Trenches

by George C., Tobaksa, Tommy Hyland, Taylor James, Dan Paymar, Pro21, Dustin D. Marks, JPDave13, Bob Loeb, Abbot Avarissa, Bill Haywood, Anthony Curtis, JC, Tinker, Cizef, Charles W. Lund, Max Rubin, James Grosjean, John Brahms, and Moe Cash.

� Blackjack Forum 2001
Blackjack Forum Vol. XXI, #3, Fall 2001

[New card counters are often astonished by what they consider to be "impossible" bankroll fluctuations. I recently sent emails out to a bunch of longtime players, some professional gamblers, some writers, some known, some not, and asked them if they had any memorable stories of wins or losses they could share with Blackjack Forum readers. I contacted card counters, shuffle trackers, team players, hole-card players, old-time concealed blackjack computer players, video poker players, tournament players, sports bettors, Internet gamblers, comp and coupon hustlers, and even an admitted cheater. If you think you’ve got an "impossible" tale or two, listen to what some of the pros have to say… — A.S.]

George C:

Losing 108 Top Bets: This was early in my high stakes card counting career. I’d had good success, trip after trip playing 1 to 8 in black, mostly great 1-D, 2-D and 4-D games. Thought it would be a great time to move to Vegas, with my then $100K bank and wife. I couldn’t have been more wrong, at least for a time. I played on for (3) solid months day and night 7 days a week. Back then, game protection was very weak. After several hundred hours of play, I found myself down 108 top bets. 1 hand of $800, then $600, then $400. For simplicity, I considered the loss to be 108 x $600. Almost sixty-five large down the tubes in an unbearable losing streak. Mentally, I was down the tubes too. It was a bit much for the wife to take, so she left me.

... continued here - http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/winnerandlosers.htm

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 1681 to 1710

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 1681 to 1710

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game