At one time, the website CardCounter.com held an active message forum with many contributors. When the previous site owner planned to shut down the site, he allowed us to archive the messages here at BlackjackInfo. They are formatted as they originally appeared, but no further comments on threads are permitted. If you want to discuss any of these topics, please do so at the BlackjackInfo Forums.
Welcome to the new message board
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Oct-2002 13:21:21 (#1)
Welcome all to the new message board format!
I decided to upgrade the message board software. I will leave the other board up for a while for reference, but ask that you please move the discussions to this board.
You are encouraged to create a profile, and to password protect your posts. This will allow you to delete your posts if you chose, and to make sure no one else will be able to post under your handle.
The rules for posting here are simple:
1) No foul or abusive language.
2) Mythology cannot be promoted or encouraged.
3) No posts that might endanger individuals.
Also, on a human note, I ask that each of us be patient, not take things too personally, and always try and be as helpful as possible in our posts.
Happy posting!
--Mayor
Re: Welcome to the new message board
Posted by ZOD on 21-Oct-2002 19:56:15 (#118)
Mayor,
Just a note to say I enjoy the new message format. You've got a great site here. Keep up the good work...
ZOD
Howdy Pardner! (NM)
Posted by kansas on 17-Oct-2002 13:35:52 (#2)
The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Oct-2002 13:36:26 (#3)
The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions...
-------------------------
... that are due to various good-conditions (like deep pene% and high count betting opps) is that they are often the ones where we experience our biggest losses. we need a good name for this apparent paradox. zg
Re: The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sess
Posted by learning to count on 18-Oct-2002 10:13:43 (#20)
Hey ZG how ya doin! I agree the losses at high conuts are frustrating. It happens frequently to me. All I can say is that the deviation devil is mischievios. I have learned not to get cocky and bet over the prescribed bankroll limitations. I use Schlesinger's betting model from his article on wonging in BA ATTACK II. TC = +1-+2 bet 1 unit, +2-+3 bet 2 units, +3-+4 bet 4 units, +5-+6 bet 6 units and over +6 bet two hands of 6 units. I have been happy with this. When I play, I play for long periods of time, and I wong wong wong. I play at a low ROR. I bet red and have a good bank roll. I dont live from my bankroll and I am not supporting myself from my winnings. I am lucky enough to maintain a bankroll for playing. I do play for the comps and work hard to break even or cut an edge.
ZG I know what you mean about the flow of the game and your questions on whether or not subjective reasoning can be used in Black Jack.
My big thing is how the hell do I still win when I screw up the count or make a wrong playing decision. Then when when I know my counting for the day is dead on and I am almost psychic and can predict the cards comming out, lose?.
All I can offer is READ the books on the mathematics behind all this lunacy. I am half way through BJA II on my second reading and I had to get help. Face it I am dumb. My math is limited to two semesters of business algebra in college, I should've got a BS.
Anyway as I start to understand how the formulas work and apply them to the prescribed game,bank roll, bet units, size of bet, hours of play, penetration....etc you can start to see the odds of what will happen next. Be it long term expectation in terms of deviation, profit/loss, odds of the dealer breaking, odds of possible black jacks.
In the end I think it is deviation that causes us to get frustrated. Listen I have had high TC"S at the end of a shoe, 1 deck or less cut, and I expect to at least get a 20 or 21 total with two cards but end up getting a bad hand or lower than the dealers final hand. The all time frustration is when the ploppies around you get black jack after blackjack...jeeeeze! Mayor comments please: even you have to admit that maybe some one is standing behind you with a pin punctured straw doll when this happens at high counts.
I firmly believe this game is hard pressed math and nothing else. I do believe that cheating goes on. Human nature is the force behind this. Hard to prove though. I have been playing for Three years with One year of solid counting with ill 18 and fab four indices. The casinos have been doing this since Bugsy's time and have had enough time to figure how to manipulate the cartds and hey bugsy worked for MURDER INC.. LTC
Re: The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sess
Posted by learning to count on 18-Oct-2002 10:16:48 (#21)
Oh sorry the name I give it is "Three shots of Tequilla".
Introducing myself
Posted by lifesabet on 17-Oct-2002 13:53:07 (#4)
Hello all,
Ive been following this site off and on for a few months now, have emailed the mayor a few times, and now I think Ill be posting. I guess I need to state that there may be a hidden agenda and Ill do my best to avoid it or at least
make it known.
Im a programmer. My experience in the past has been trade processing on an options exchange for a group of highly theoretical, high-edge, low-risk market makers.
About 6 years ago I moved offshore and started writing trade-processing software for an online sportsbook (note
how I call it trade-processing, its all the same). Since then Ive worked with a few sportsbooks and believe Ive done very well in the area at writing manageable house-edge sports software that has a great deal of control in identifying and managing risk on a per-customer basis.
I needed a new start and for the past year have been unemployed. I wanted to work on a casino game to test my ability and to learn a new operating system, database, and programming language. As my first project, I picked blackjack for many reasons. Its hard to overcome the trust issue for online games of chance/skill so I set my hurdle as high as possible with bj. I wanted a game that would require a high volume of transactions (to test the platform), that is skills based (much like sports), and was hoping I could make a game that could actually be beaten unlike 99% of the online casinos that shuffle up and practice other techniques which end up being a joke.
The mayor seems to think I will not succeed, but then Im a stubborn one. Im hoping to create a game that can be beat, that can be managed by a super sharp cyber pit-boss, and that can attract a huge number of players that would otherwise have nothing to do with traditional online blackjack versions.
By this time next year, I may be broke. I may have succeeded greatly, or most likely, Ill be somewhere in between.
Anyways, thats my introduction. You now have my agenda so if you call me on it, Ill be open. Again, Im trying to build a bj game that can make money for the house, and bring players in who otherwise would never give it a shot. Ill have plenty of input but almost always, it will be from the other side of the table. I will have tons to learn, Im not a player myself, though I certainly consider myself a student of the game.
Best regards to all, I hope to bring up some controversial subjects, and will most likely play the devils advocate many times. I hope to learn, and I hope to bring some insight that may help others learn too.
Please welcome my presence, -lifesabet
cyber-pitboss ?
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Oct-2002 14:46:52 (#8)
The beatable cyber game that is nonetheless unbeatable... a BJ-koan, eh? Anyway the BJ games are primarily beatable in the realm of scientific-bonus-play - another words, analysing -
1)the bonus value offered to new and repeat customers
2)the rules and play-action-req., and
3)then detirmining the risk-quotient as relates to your BR and the confidence you have in that particular casino's integrity.
The above basis for e-casino advatage play is easily neutralized if the gaming software analyses the 'playing style' and degree of play-time that a customer places, thus tossing 'suspected' "e-bonus-counters" into a bin for further scrutiny, though notwithstanding they should be allowed to collect in those cases.
As for offering beatable e-BJ games, a savvy cyber-pitboss would catch them each within a few to several minutes, certainly wouldn't take more than 50 hands, yes?
Therefore, devote your efforts to developing the cyber-pitboss and select licensed e-casinos can safely choose to offer deeper penetration to entice new customers more competitively.
Cyber-pitboss, Good idea! zg
Hi 'lifesabet"
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Oct-2002 16:31:26 (#9)
I think your idea is great, the problem I posed was that once you create software that deals deep into a deck and identifies player's skill level before deciding to shuffle or not (or alert the "pit"), you are also creating software that allows the online casino to cheat. They can cheat in several ways, through preferential shuffling, through only allowing decks to be played out that immediately (after the first round) get a negative count, through dealing different depths to different skills of players, and through allowing you to exclude players whose skill is at a certain level or above.
There is no guarantee that your software isn't capable of this, and therefore from a distance, it looks like "cheating" software for the casino, even though your intention is to allow skilled players to be enticed.
I wish you good luck, and I truly hope you are successful! But I am not convinced that all who use your software will do so with the same honest heart that I know you have.
--Mayor
how many hands...
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Oct-2002 16:56:27 (#10)
...does it take a computer to identify positively an advantaged counter? zg
Re: how many hands...
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Oct-2002 17:35:37 (#11)
I can usually spot a good player in about 2 seconds. There is a lot of software out there that already does this sort of thing, that is used by survelience companies. The problem is, the cards have to be entered by hand, so they have to suspect someone in the first place, which usually happens by a call from the pit. The same programming ideas could be used on every player seamlessly at on online casino.
Honestly, ZG, how long does it take you to identify a good player?
--Mayor
Re: how many hands... OFTEN
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Oct-2002 18:04:26 (#12)
Often, prior to the first hand, BUT statistically speaking I beleive that it should take at least 30-60 hands minimum to verify by computer, but I'm guessing. zg
Re: how many hands... OFTEN
Posted by lifesabet on 17-Oct-2002 20:48:27 (#14)
As Ive stated before, Im not a blackjack player, Im just trying to learn the game, and Im programming as well.
Im pretty sure that a program could identify a card counter quickly. I dont quite understand how the mayor would identify someone within a few seconds. Maybe its body language that I dont understand from the online world. I would expect it involves primarily what table the player decides to sit down to, or which tables he/she's standing up behind waiting to jump into. Maybe it involves what he/she's watching and how quickly they scan the table. Or maybe it requires an abnormal deal of cards, and some sharp reaction to them. The computer cannot do this, this gives an edge to the player, but it stops right there.
The computer can be very sharp. As the mayor states, an online game could do this quickly and seemlessly, but I really believe that no software companies have given this any thought. They give you the worst rules, the most decks, and an autoshuffler. In fact, in my experience of researching games, Ive come accross a few that would actually allow me to set a return percentage (now what does that tell you?). Basically, I dont believe there are too many games out there trying to attract you sharper folks.
Not that I would want sharp folks, but I just dont think Id be able to avoid them and still offer a game that attracts the people who play blackjack for the very reason that it is beatable. Im naively convinced (maybe wrong) that there are just too many square players out there that let the emotions get to them, and no matter how hard they try, will not master the game. This leaves room for the rest of you.
Id expect my game to be able to identify a counter as soon as something strange occured. maybe you just got up and left after the first hand of high cards. Maybe you upped your bets after seeing a bunch of 4/5/6s dealt on the first hand. Maybe you played really sharp basic strategy and not wonging, but grinding it out and adjusting your bets only slightly not to be noticed, and then made a sharp adjustment to basic strategy.
Im not out to drive every winner out of the casino, in fact I believe there are 3 important types of players that must win.
A) the lucky gambler every once in a while
B) the house consistenly, week to week.
C) the sharp player (just as long as it doesnt cut into the house).
If I were running an operation, and I knew what my break-even needs were to cover expenses, and I knew someone like the mayor were playing, and not overcoming my square action, and teaching 300 students who are very interested in the game but not yet masters, I think Id want him to play and win almost as much as I had won (but definitely not more).
As I said, Im convinced that there are enough students of the game, and not enough masters of the game, to attract the action in the game for the reasons its gotten so big, that you dont have to blow the market by ruining it for the few that have worked hard enough and deserve to win (a little) consistently.
Again, its a question of not what is right or wrong, but what will work. What is right will blow the casino out of biz and it wont much benefit you after that happens. You want to win, and if you want to continue to get paid, you had better hope the casino wins too. Fair is great, but dont forget how the opportunity gets there in the first place.
-lifesabet
Re: how many hands... OFTEN
Posted by JamesB on 17-Oct-2002 21:24:27 (#16)
I think that determining an advantage player would solely depend on the play and how the cards come out. The number of hands they played wouldn't matter as much compared to how they played them.
Mayor and ZG, both of you make the comments "in about 2 seconds" and "before the first hand". I hope those were sarcastic comments, or do you honestly believe that anyone's ability or intent to count can be "read" by simply looking at them?
Re: how many hands... OFTEN
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Oct-2002 21:31:03 (#18)
Yes, I was exaggerating for effect. But, I can usually tell in under 10 minutes, and often much less.
I was playing a shoe, a stranger walked up when the count was huge and put down $1500. When the count tanked he walked away.
I was playing single deck. A guy came off the top with the table max, a few face cards fell and he played the table min. He later took insurance on a T-6 with a max bet.
There are certain situations where it is just easy. Too easy. And I wonder how these guys get away with their play the way they do, me with my humble 20-1 spread in single deck, am put to shame by the guy I saw who spread table max to table min in single deck.
--Mayor
Re: how many hands... OFTEN
Posted by JamesB on 17-Oct-2002 22:06:46 (#19)
Good points, all of them. As for their (your examples) willingness to play boldly, one can only assume this draws whatever heat there is away from you...so good for them!?
Re: Hi 'lifesabet"
Posted by lifesabet on 17-Oct-2002 18:25:17 (#13)
I could go on for hours on the subject of special treatment for special players, but Ill save it for a more appropriate time. Suffice it to say, I plan on giving operators complete control to treat (and mistreat) a player however they choose, but I will not give them access to cheat.
Is preferential shuffling cheating? You say yes, but a casino might argue that its exactly the same thing as a player making the choice to play through a great shoe, or get up and walk as soon as those face cards start showing just after the shuffle. I do not plan on actual advantaged
preferential shuffling for the house, but I plan to give the house the choice to reduce the penetration for a player who continually walks away from decks that are not advantaged. (sorry mayor, just being honest).
Im going to go out on a limb and be as extreme as I can to show you how far I think I can go, and still be fair. I welcome any heat I may receive from this statement, and Ill stay open minded so you may change my mind.
I think its fair for the house to say before every single hand:
These are the rules of this table RIGHT NOW.
Knowing the rules, you now have the choice to bet or walk!
The cage is right over there if you dont like these rules.
Now if I were to start with liberal rules, and tighten up too fast, I would be called a cheater. I would probably make a few mistakes and turn off some players who are willing to lose in the end. I certainly would not be very popular. But in the most extreme sense, if everyone knows the rules, and everyone has a chance to continue, or stop, is this not fair?
There is a fine line that I will try to walk. If a game is programmed to be fair then you will never be cheated by a dealer. You will be able to play more games per hour if you so chose. You will be playing against a house that does not pay license fees to a corrupted gaming control board. You will be playing against a house that does not have nearly the same overhead that a land based establishment has. This leaves lots of room for value both for the advantaged player, and the house. It should be a more fair market for all involved. Im not sure it can be achieved, but these are the goals and reasons that Im working in that direction.
I hope to run many ideas across the posters and readers here. I hope to learn what I will be able to get away with without cheating anyone, yet enabling the house choices to control risk and stay afloat.
Needless to say, the same exact product may NOT be offered to each and every player. However, value will be offered to everyone, some folks may get more. It will still be a cat and mouse game just like the real world. I think it will be close to fair, and it will have to work.
-lifesabet
Like Tony Soprano would say...
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Oct-2002 21:06:03 (#15)
(thats right) FOGGITABOUTIT! zg
ROR and Deviation
Posted by BjFool on 17-Oct-2002 14:14:42 (#6)
What's an acceptable ROR? 5%,10%, etc.
how can one avoid or limit to a minimum the frustrating fluctuations (SD)? I prefer making less profit per session and make sure i don't go through violent deviation swings.
tx
Re: ROR and Deviation
Posted by The Mayor on 17-Oct-2002 21:27:33 (#17)
>What's an acceptable ROR? 5%,10%, etc.
I would not be happy with more than 2% ROR. It is definitely a personal thing. Sort of like different investments, some have high risk but offer high returns, others are low risk, but you have to invest more to get a decent return.
>how can one avoid or limit to a minimum the frustrating fluctuations (SD)?
Wong and play games that have surrender. These two will decrease your SD substantially, while only mildly increasing your EV. The net result is a much straighter road to the promised land.
--Mayor
Re: ROR and Deviation
Posted by kansas on 17-Oct-2002 14:42:14 (#7)
That is up to you to decide. Most Pros play with less than 2% ROR, but then they are looking at having to get a real job if they go broke. Some people have what they call a 'hail mary' bankroll. They play with 20%-25% ROR, and if they go broke before doubling it (and then playing with more reasonable risk), they simply quit the game until they can rebuild another bankroll. I would think that anything over 10% becomes almost certain doom if you play for any length of time.
Ways to reduce variance: smaller bets, larger bankroll are obvious answers. Be very disciplined about wonging. Only enter games when you have an advantage, leave as soon as the count is negative. The smaller the number of decks being used, the less the variance. Spread to 2 hands, betting only about 70% on each hand of what you would normally bet on 1 hand. Don't play marginal games. Seek out good edges. Avoid trying to grind out a poor penetration game.
When you win and make a big increase in your bankroll, don't resize your bet unit and start making larger bets, use these winnings to increase your bank size and reduce your ROR. On the other hand, don't reduce your bet size if you have lost a large portion of your bank. Resizing your bets after losing 50% bank will reduce ROR, but it will also take you much longer to dig out of your hole.
Learn to hustle comps. Get cash back from the casinos. Enter every free promotion, tournaments, and take them up on all offers. Reduce your expenses, eat and drink on the casinos tab, not yours. Free food, Free drinks, Free rooms, Free entertainment, and other free perks can be looked at as contributions to the bottom line.
need advice..computer sims and real world
Posted by justlearning on 18-Oct-2002 15:36:35 (#26)
hey. Man, I'm so glad you decided to change software because now I can participate on the forum. I am a newbie when it comes to card counting. I haven't completely decided on a system and am experimenting right now. I made a computer program that will simulate a blackjack game. Right now, I know you, Mayor, say to go more with betting efficiency but I am leaning toward a system with good playing efficiency. It seems on my program that a system with good playing efficiency has less fluctuations in profit gain. I live in Indiana have been to a few casinos but am not that experienced yet in that either since I am rather protective of my money and a little paranoid that someone in the casino is going to know what I'm up to. I plan on playing single Deck and Double Deck as much as possible. Anyone in Indiana or Illinois know where the good double deck games are? I just want to know from those of you who test on computer programs, how accurate do you think a computer program can be? I am taking into consideration penetration % but my shuffling is one thing that I'm not sure about. I just don't want to take a grand to a casino and lose it. Thanks...justlearning
Re: need advice..computer sims and real world
Posted by The Mayor on 18-Oct-2002 17:07:58 (#28)
You said: I just want to know from those of you who test on computer programs, how accurate do you think a computer program can be?
The answer is that they can be as accurate as you like. It depends on the question, and the type of algorithms developed to answer that question. In many cases, they are 100% accurate (combinatorial analysis). In other cases, where you are getting approximations, the longer they run, the more accurate the result.
I think your question really is: "do the results computers predict allow us to gain insight on real casino results?"
The answer is YES. Real life in casinos has a variety of other factors that we learn to deal with, but if a computer tells you something is good, then it is also good in a casino -- there is nothing about "the real world" that makes computer simulations invalid. Quite the opposite, it has never been shown that real world conditions produce outcomes that contradict computer simulations.
Let us know what type of programs you are writing and the readers here will do what they can to give you good advice.
--Mayor
Re: need advice..computer sims and real world
Posted by justlearning on 18-Oct-2002 18:56:38 (#29)
Well, I have had a lot of time on my hands lately due to some personal problems of mine that will blow over in the next few months. With the time, I wrote a program in basic. It relies around the fact that there are 13 cards in a suit and 52 cards in a deck. 0 is 2, 1 is 3, 2 is 4, 3 is 5 up until 9, 10,11, and 12. 8 through 11 are 10's and 12 is the ace. So 27 is a 3 card since 27/13 has a remainder of 1 and 1 is 3. Anyone can write one of these and it will help you all that much more when you enter the casino. Or if you have money, buy one. I don't have any money. The good thing about writing one is that you can change anything you want. I'm hoping to pursue a career as a professional gambler. That's what brought me to the site. I majored in mathematics in college and after 5 years of it, I realized I didn't have anything to do with my knowledge. Is anyone just playing bj as a career?
Re: need advice..computer sims and real world
Posted by The Mayor on 18-Oct-2002 19:27:41 (#30)
Greetings fellow programmer,
I have some C++ code I wrote for a few classes. I'll post it here when it is much further along (all my Blackjack sims were written in Java up until now).
What you described is one way to have the computer create the deck data structure. In my programs, I use a "Card" object, then a "Deck" is an array of "Card" objects. A "Hand" is an array of "Cards" as well, but dealt from a "Deck" object. I also have classes for a "Round" for "Dealer_Strategy" for "Player_Strategy" and for a few other objects. Altogether there are about 10 classes interacting.
Object oriented programming really rocks when it comes to programming blackjack!
Have far have you gone in actually getting your program to play/sim blackjack?
--Mayor
A special greeting to MSRI
Posted by The Mayor on 18-Oct-2002 20:29:31 (#31)
MSRI = Mathematical Sciences Research Institute.
MSRI is one of the top locations for mathematical research in the world, and is associated with UC Berkeley. I am writing to welcome all those who are visiting this site from that location!
And remember, the second Galois Cohomology Group is isomorphic to the Brauer group.
--Mayor
Re: A special greeting to MSRI
Posted by WongHalves on 21-Oct-2002 14:04:44 (#104)
Enough, already! I come to this forum to AVOID thinking about quadratic forms. It would be nice not to encounter the term "Brauer group" -- a hurtful term in the wrong context.
What link is there between algebraists
and card counting? Am I just a stereotype?
Excellent site, by the way. Thanks to the Mayor and all the thoughtful contributors who've posted here in the past few months.
Back to splitting my tens...
Re: A special greeting to MSRI
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 14:15:56 (#105)
Nice of you to speak up!
My Ph.D. dissertation won an award in a local newspaper for the most difficult to comprehend title:
"Green Functor Constructions in the Theory of Associative Algebras."
It is fun to have someone reading here who may actually understand that title 8-)
--Mayor
question to Mayor and MSRI
Posted by Math Dunce on 19-Oct-2002 02:57:49 (#40)
How can one compute the square root of a number wthout a calculator?
Re: question to Mayor and MSRI
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 09:53:01 (#41)
Compute the square root the old fashion way... use the same method the calculator uses, only do it by hand!
Here are four methods to compute the square root of x.
1) Successive approximations. Simply start squaring numbers. If you get larger than x then your guess is too large, if you get smaller than x, then your guess is too small. Continue this until you are happy with your result (kind of like the old hi/lo guessing game).
2) Use the power series expansion for (1+y)^n (being careful to stay inside the radius of convergence). To use this, simply pull of as large an integer square from the number as you can, and use the forumla to get the rest. (n = 1/2).
3) Use the method you were taught in grade school. Here is a link: http://home.attbi.com/~rthamper/html/squareroot2.htm
4) There is a recursive method as well, but I don't recall it. It is an application of Newton's method from Calculus.
Best luck with your computations!
--Mayor
Hi Opt II and AO II ...
Posted by branmuffin on 18-Oct-2002 23:13:07 (#32)
Hi Opt II and AO II w/side counts for aces......
Both of these 2 level counts seem to be rated the highest for overall
efficiency in varying conditions by reputable sources CV etc.
I already know +/- but I want to learn a more powerful count. I play SD,
DD, 4 and 6 deck shoes.I like to spread 1-4 in SD and DD games and from 1-8
to1-12 in multi-deck games.
I try to play in games where I am looking at -0.35% house edge off the top. My ideal
conditions are SD DD dealt more than 60% and multi-deck games 75-80%+ penetration.
Am I correct that these are the two most powerful counts ? If not which
count/s are?
If you use either count do you like them and why?
Thnx Lee
Re: Hi Opt II and AO II ...
Posted by computerilliterate on 19-Oct-2002 00:31:45 (#34)
Hey. I don't know if you want the Mayor to reply, specifically, but I think I'll add my two cents if you don't mind. Here are my ideas about the whole betting efficiency and which system is the best debate. Hi-opt II is pretty good but I've never used it or tested it. I'm just going on the numbers. Thorp proved that when you remove certain cards that it changes a players advantage by a certain percentage:
card %change
5 +.64
4 .52
6 .45
3 .44
2 .37
7 .30
10 -.53
A -.49
9 -.13
(Humble and Cooper, World's Greatest Blackjack Book)
So if you look at those numbers then you want a system that is proportionally in tune with those stats. Like Thorp's Ultimate which is 5 6 8 11 6 4 0 -3 -7 -9 . The 11 iss the 5 card which Thorp said boosted your advantage by .64. Hence, it is the biggest number in the system. I would suggest Wong's Halves . I read this stuff in a book so I'm no expert just relaying the information.
Re: Hi Opt II and AO II ...
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 01:00:24 (#35)
I like your name 8-)
You, no doubt, have looked in chapter 11 of Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack, 2nd edition (if not, do so immediately). It gives the complete answer to your question. Hi-Opt II and AOII run neck and neck for most of the simulations Schlesninger presents.
A top pro I know who uses Hi-Opt II only for 1 and 2 deck games. Don't bother with side counts in shoe games, it just doesn't pay. WIth shoes, go with Hi-Lo or Halves, it's easier and essentially more powerful since you cut down your fatigue factor. Halves has the nice quality of being a single parameter system which is nearly as powerful as the multi-parameter systems, and can be used against any number of decks. Another top pro I know switched from a fancy multi-parameter system to playing Hi-Lo on everything -- because he played on teams where they had to relay the count, and that's what everybody else knew.
If you want to notch up your game, all the study in the world will not pay as much as Hi-Lo at a very good game. You might consider staying with what you know, and doing the foot work to find those great games. When you find a 6d shoe game, dealt past the 5 deck point, you are in fat city.
At any rate, these are my random thoughts, I hope others will offer theirs.
--Mayor
Re: Hi Opt II and AO II ...
Posted by branmuffin on 19-Oct-2002 01:25:53 (#36)
Mayor & CI :
Thanks for the quick response. Great Site !!
Re: Hi Opt II and MISCONCEPTION
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 01:47:58 (#37)
The misconception that is prevalent about advanced ace-nuetral level-2 counts is that a typical user can exact the full potential gain using just an ace-density estimate. You cannot (see Uston on BJ '86, Snyder BJF '82) - a proper full-gain use of an ace-neutral side-count for betting REQUIRES a secondary count over-layed onto the primary count consisting of (in the case of the aforementioned counts) A-2v2/5+1.
Without an accurate seconday count you are working harder to obtain ONLY the advantage that is otherwise available to you from an easier ace-reckoned level-2 count such as RPC or ZEN - and speaking of which, if you were ONLY going to incorporate a side-count of 1 card, in a level-2 modality, the strongest sytem you could play in theory would be ZEN (or similar), which contains a compromised ace-value, combined with a side-count of 7s with a bi-valuate playing adjustment.
Other methods for increasing the gain of your current play would include simply upping the #indices of your level-1 count to 50+ and/or using a bigger spread and/or (my favorite) playing faster. All of which are preferred over the out-dated subject systems.
zg
The Man Who Cracked The Code to Everything ...
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 02:16:09 (#39)
For those of you who missed the June issue of Wired, enjoy. zg
---------------------
The Man Who Cracked The Code to Everything ...
... But first it cracked him. The inside story of how Stephen Wolfram went from boy genius to recluse to science renegade.
By Steven Levy
Word had been out that Stephen Wolfram, the onetime enfant terrible of the science world, was working on a book that would Say It All, a paradigm-busting tome that would not only be the definitive account on complexity theory but also the opening gambit in a new way to view the universe. But no one had read it.
Though physically unimposing with a soft, round face and a droll English accent polished at Eton and Oxford, Wolfram had already established himself as a larger-than-life figure in the gossipy world of science. A series of much-discussed reinventions made him sort of the Bob Dylan of physics. He'd been a child genius, and at 21 had been the youngest member of the storied first class of MacArthur genius awards. After laying the groundwork for a brilliant career in particle physics, he'd suddenly switched to the untraditional pursuit of studying complex systems, and, to the establishment's dismay, dared to pioneer the use of computers as a primary research tool. Then he seemed to turn his back on that field. He started a software company to sell Mathematica, a computer language he'd written that did for higher math what the spreadsheet did for business. It made him a rich man. Now he had supposedly returned to science to write a book that would make the biggest splash of all. And, as someone who'd followed his progress since the mid-1980s, I was going to see some of it.
full story - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/wolfram_pr.html
On a personal note...
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Oct-2002 12:48:31 (#80)
I have a "distance" number of 2 from Wolfram. I met this lovely lady named Janet Malouf at a mathematics conference. She was an unemployed mathematician, but really fascinating. Janet lived around Bakersfield, CA at the time. To make ends meet she would buy items on sale at some stores then return them to others for a profit (saying she lost her receipt). I told her about blackjack and she got very interested. I ended up lending her my original copies of Million Dollar Blackjack and several other valuable books. She got very excited about the prospect of playing blackjack until she found out that Kenny Uston was dead. She then whined "I don't want to play if Kenny is dead." I never did get my books back. I had a crush on Janet, but she was going with this Isralie Physicist that was nominated for the Nobel prize.
What has this to do with Wolfram? Janet worked for Stephan Wolfram for a couple of years. The details of that "working" relationship can not be repeated here.
--Mayor
players card
Posted by lucky on 19-Oct-2002 15:09:20 (#45)
When one has a players card, do the casinos keep track of the wins? Have received some comments lately from the casino staff about how I win every time.
Its good to help others to a degree as remember the more people that knowthe game well, the better chance the game gets worse, as its the bad players money we are taking.
but hey a little help for 1000 an hour is decent though.
Re: players card
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 18:31:30 (#53)
>When one has a players card, do the casinos keep track of the wins?
I am sure this varies by casino. I am sure many casinos do keep track of both wins and losses. You can take advantage of this by only giving the boss your card *after* you have lost a bundle and they have seen it.
--Mayor
Re: players card-YES
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 18:35:58 (#54)
YES, wins ARE tracked, as are losses - if you can pocket 3-15u per session/hour you can negate this factor - many times I have "converted" a win of 20u into a loss of 20u, and verified same when my host shows me my player reading. zg
Re: players card-YES
Posted by John on 21-Oct-2002 18:36:13 (#114)
Can you say what it takes to get a free night or a free flight as a comp?
I thought the card counter is supposed to try to be unnoticed, "convert" their chips to hide a winning session, and never bring attention to their play. Yet on this site it seems that its good to be carded for the comps...but doesn't that kind of blow one's cover, allow casinos to document your winnings and losses, flood your home with obnoxious telemarketing promotions and useless junkmail?
Also, doesn't every place have its own card so unless you play at the casinos for which you have a card, you won't necessarily get much of anything but free meals and drinks?
Re: players card-ITS A FINE LINE
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 18:52:31 (#115)
ITS A FINE LINE, in that up to and exceeding 20% of your potential win can be realized in comps - if you only play $5u then the comps will pay for all of your minimal meal requirements - if you play $25u you will look suspicious NOT to have a Pcard - this is where multipleIDs can come in handy, though there are many cautions to be aware of if you use multipleIDs in a casino venue - often I use friends to get Pcards in their names - and don't knock the promo offers, they can be quite generous. Recommended book - MRubin's 'Comp City'
I hate that obnoxious junk mail
Posted by kansas on 22-Oct-2002 08:34:01 (#132)
The casinos are always sending me mail with coupons that can be exchanged for free money. It gets to be tiresome, to have to go to a casino every couple of weeks, and collect a couple $100 in freebies. Why can't they just leave me alone?
Not aware of any joints doing telemarketing, but I guess someone could call, and I would just hang up on them like I do everybody else.
In most places, you raise more attention by not having or refusing to get a card, then you avoid by remaining anon.
If the free comps and offers you do get become too annoying, let me know and I will take them off your hands.
On sarcasm and humor on message boards
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Oct-2002 11:51:16 (#135)
I am not sure your sarcasm was pure enough to really drive home your point. I think that some people might think you are speaking from your heart, about your deep resentment at receiving free money. After all, who among us hasn't winced at the pain of opening a free offer for a room from a casino, only to realize that they have to visit that casino to redeem it.
Message boards do not have the ability to translate either humor or saracsm well, and hence a disclaimer is usually necessary to warn the reader.
But thanks for the smile,
--Mayor
In my own case...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 12:07:20 (#136)
In my own case, I rarely see the offers in the mail because each time I receive a Pcard I typicall use a PHONEY ADDRESS (phoneyID) or the mail goes to the friend or relative that obtained the card for me - also, I beleive that you can indicate "NO MAIL OFFERS" - right now however, the casinos are mailing offers like crazy - free rooms and chips and BJ coupons at a higher gradient than previously. zg
Your Personal Standard Deviation?
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 16:00:02 (#46)
The concept and formula of computing one's personal StDv is provided here by Malmuth for poker pros, it is perhaps valid for BJ as well? I have suggested to several BJ pros that this method, occaissionally re-calc'd every 30-70 sessions, could provide a counter with an ideal addt'l tool... Mr.Mayor, what is YOUR personal StDv? zg
------------------------
Computing Your Standard Deviation
by Mason Malmuth
http://www.twoplustwo.com/mmessay8.html
Everyone plays poker differently, and no two poker games are identical. This means that no two skilled or unskilled players will have identical results. Specifically, no two players will have exactly the same win (or loss) rate, and no two players will have exactly the same standard deviation.
In the essay titled "How Much Do You Need?" standard deviations for different poker games were given based on one expert's playing results. You, the skilled player, should estimate your own standard deviation for the particular game or games that you play. In addition, this estimation should be updated every so often to account for natural changes - such as new players - that the games go through.
The easiest way I know to estimate your standard deviation is to use the following formula. This formula was derived by Mark Weitzman and is the maximum likelihood approximation for the standard deviation.
Complete article and formula here -
Re: Your Personal Standard Deviation?
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 18:05:08 (#50)
You asked what my personal Std. Dev. is. The basic problem is that Standard Deviation is based around individual samples of some fixed size. If you take my win/loss per day, well some days I play 30 minutes, other 12 hours. If you want to know my win/loss per hour, I don't keep records of that. It is simply not possible to give a uniform value for the sessions or the period over which a sample is taken, and therefore it does not make sense to talk about it on an individual basis. In addition, I have changed counting systems, bet schemes, and play a variety of games. Any one of these will have an effect on my STD DEV. that would need to be measured separately.
I am dubious 8-)
In Blackjack, STD DEV does not depend on style of play, the way it does in poker. Poker players can be "loose" (read that -- high STD DEV) or "tight" (that is, a low STD-DEV). They can be passive or agressive. Tight agressive is the winning style, as I am sure you know.
In blackjack, if you play correctly your STD DEV will be fairly close to the predicted value in the long run.
--Mayor
Re: Your Personal Standard Deviation?
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 19:03:13 (#60)
My own journal and tracking always includes time-played, so my StDv can be based on a re-calc for every 30-70 sessions. Such tracking makes the BJgame more personal - I'd recommend that every counter know his StDv, just we know our personal winrate. A valuable, if only to further reinforce the risk-flux-reality of the undertaking. zg
Confused by several SF21 plays
Posted by John Nubro on 19-Oct-2002 17:55:16 (#47)
Regarding SuperFun21 basic strategy rules, such as, A,4 vs 5 does D4, as well as many similar examples:
Doesn't this rule mean that the player's "4" is comprised of
three cards(A,2,A) and that he probably forgot to split aces or double down with A,2 previously? Isn't there a sequential play at work here which precludes certain rules like this one from ever being invoked in the first place, barring player error? If I am not greatly misunderstanding something here, then wouldn't a more simplified SF21 basic strategy matrix be the welcome result?
Re: Confused by several SF21 plays
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 19:12:00 (#61)
D4 = double UNLESS holding 4 cards, in which case hit and go for the 5&6 card bonuses. wait, now I'm confused! zg
Re: Confused by several SF21 plays
Posted by John Nubro on 20-Oct-2002 01:51:50 (#69)
I'll spell out my confusion in detail so that it can be understood by anyone.
The dealer shows a 5 for all of the following scenarios:
1. I'm dealt an A,4. The rule says D4 so I double down rather than hit. I'm using this rule because I must have an ACE to even be looking in this area of the SF21 strategy table.
2. I'm dealt an A,A so I split aces and pull tens...done.
3. I'm dealt an A,2 so I double down and finish my hand holding no more than 3 cards. the A,4 and whatever I pulled.
4. I'm dealt an A,3 so I double down and finish my hand holding no more than 3 cards. the A,3 and whatever I pulled.
5. How can I ever have soft fifteen AND hold "4 or more cards" unless I have failed to play properly in the first place? For example:
I am dealt A,2 I hit and receive an A. I hit and receive another A.
NOW I have 4 cards total: A,2,A,A which is equivalent to A,4 and so I use the rule D4 and HIT instead of doubling down, going for the 5 or 6 card automatic win.
I now repeat my original post since I failed to spell out the previous info which was merely implied by the original post:
Doesn't this rule mean that the player's "4" is comprised of three cards(A,2,A) and that he probably forgot to split aces or double down with A,2 previously?
Superfun "Basic Strategy" chart errors
Posted by LVBear584 on 20-Oct-2002 17:25:58 (#90)
You've noticed some of several errors on the commonly available Superfun 21 "basic strategy" charts.
There are many more play variations and count indices that are needed to beat this gamne.
Superfun 21 is not recommended for other than Las Vegas-based full-time players, who have the time and patience to learn the dozens of variations. Even then, it is beatable only with a large (for single deck) spread, and only under very specific playing conditions.
If you're not a Las Vegas full-timer, forget this game.
You wrote, "... wouldn't a more simplified SF21 basic strategy matrix be the welcome result?"
Yes. There is one, including a "risk-averse" version. Email me directly if you want to discuss it further, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, <u>Superfun 21 is not recommended for other than Las Vegas-based full-time players.</u>
SF21 Fun-14 KO vs. regular KO comparison
Posted by John Nubro on 19-Oct-2002 18:02:02 (#49)
I noticed that the KO counts of the FUN-14 best plays for SuperFun21 are quite different from the regular KO single or double deck counts...
I was wondering if anyone had analyzed the difference in expectation (let's say 5:1 bet spreads) when using the "Fun-14 KO plays" vs. using the regular KO single or double deck KO counts in SF21.
Re: SF21 Fun-14 KO vs. regular KO comparison
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 18:52:55 (#57)
NO analysis is needed to detirmine that the 1-5 spread at SF21 will yield 1% LESS than a 1-5 std1DBJ. SF21 need a heafty 1-10 spread and reasonable pene. A year or more ago when the game first surfaced, it was not liked by the public and the bosses didn't watch it either - I would routinely jump from $10-$200+ - now they are alert, they bar, and the game itself is more popular. zg
Where's the Mayor?
Posted by Linus Blankett on 19-Oct-2002 19:33:17 (#62)
Mayor,
I was looking foward to meeting you at the Greenchip Party last weekend. What happened?
Linus
Re: Where's the Mayor?
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 19:45:56 (#63)
I would rather not discuss the matter in a public forum. Let's just say that I am a somewhat contraversial person, and the powers that be thought it for the best.
Stop by Santa Barbara some time!
--Mayor
Re: Where's the Mayor?
Posted by zengrifter on 19-Oct-2002 21:01:17 (#64)
Mayor - Are you saying that you were requested NOT to attend the GC party(s)?? zg
Re: Where's the Mayor?
Posted by The Mayor on 19-Oct-2002 21:06:47 (#66)
"Requested" is too polite of a word.
I won't be answering any more questions about this issue on this board.
Nuff said 8-)
To George I
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Oct-2002 10:08:24 (#73)
Hi George,
I am not going to permit your thread dealing with Chaos Theory, Target21 and Clumping. Please read the posting guidelines at the top of the Main Message Board.
Allow me to suggest www.johnpatrick.com as a viable alternative site.
I also suggest you read (or re-read) all my essays on Mythology.
--Mayor
Re: To George I
Posted by BjFool on 20-Oct-2002 11:04:11 (#74)
I just want to say that the science of numbers (Math) is a pure science and any claims of winning systems based on anything other than mathematical work falls under the "mythology" area and cannot be taken seriously; numbers do not lie, it's as simple as that.
Re: To Mr. Mayor
Posted by George I. on 20-Oct-2002 12:18:08 (#75)
I respect the board`s policies and in the future I will try to avoid to break`em.
I`m a little confused about your comments on the chaos theory.I did`n`t know that exists such a theory in BJ.Also
I thaught that Chaos Theory has a mathematical base.John
Patrick is not on my favorites list.
I included a link to a Chaos Theory site for the others hoping that they will treat this theory as it is.
Re: To George-I WELCOME
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 12:21:37 (#138)
George, you have been encouraged to explain your "proos" at the Yahoo Card Counters' Cafe at - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/ please do return THERE and enlighten us. zg
Fibonacci?
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Oct-2002 13:20:39 (#84)
>> Fibonacci Quarterly, 8 articles <<
I noticed that you have posted articles to the above... does Fibonacci have bonafide math-apps, or is it just a novelty? Could it have any possible app to BJ? zg
Re: Fibonacci?
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Oct-2002 13:32:55 (#86)
The Fibonacci sequence has a huge number of applications in a wide variety of areas of mathematics and physics. I encourage you to read the book "The Divine Proportion" by H.E. Huntley to get started. A simple google search will also give you insight on the many applications of this area of mathematics.
I have several research papers published in the Fibonacci Quarterly, and many other on the topic of Fibonacci numbers appearing in top mathematic's journals. I have also attended and spoken on my research at the international conference on Fibonacci Numbers, at the Western Number Theory Conference, at the First meeting of the Canadian Number Theory Association, and in a variety of other venues. I continue to work in this area, and have another paper that is being prepared for publication.
As an expert on Fibonacci numbers and their applications, I will say that there is absolutely no connection or application between Fibonacci numbers and blackjack.
--Mayor
Off Subject ..Poker on Travel Channel
Posted by branmuffin on 20-Oct-2002 18:36:36 (#91)
I know this is offtopic but TravelChannel has 2 full hours of Poker starting tonite 8pm est -10pm est ..check it out.
I played for a living for 4 years in mid 90's ..cant seem to get it out of my blood.
If real poker and decent bj games come to FLA..I'll be in clover
Re: Off Subject ..Poker on Travel Channel
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Oct-2002 19:28:23 (#92)
>> I played for a living for 4 years in mid 90's ..<<
---------
Re: Off Subject ..Poker on Travel Channel
Posted by branmuffin on 20-Oct-2002 19:52:04 (#93)
Yea I knew all that statistical bs.I played over 5500 hours mostly 10-20 and 15-30 Holdem.
My average in 10-20 was $28 an hour ..15-30 $33 an hour.I dont reemmber my exact sd for either game but I remember it being about 8-10 big bets an hour or $160-200 in 10-20 and $240-300 in 15-30.
This was in AC and all over the country mostly California in 1994-1997.I think that most players play better now making games tougher in last 5 years.
Low limits games can be ground out but all card rooms in last 5 years have raised rakes ridiculously.All low limit games in miss.,calif now have rakes that take a minimum $150 per hour off a table..thats tuff to buck ..lowers hourly average to neglible amounts and increses sd.
I am just generalizing now..Gotta play time games not raked games..10-20 and up.
There are always exceptions to the rule.
2-Deck(?) Pitch BJ
Posted by CanKen on 20-Oct-2002 20:28:58 (#94)
Hi Mayor:
Thanks for your detailed answers to the questions of a low-stakes, conservative, but serious player,(Oct. 14 post). As a retired math teacher, I find blackjack to be a fascinating hobby both for playing and studying. My original goals were entertainment, excitement, and mental excercise. Reaching the point where I expect to win in the long run, and beat the casino for a few hundred per year is a bonus. I doubt that anyone can make significant money playing the game that I am stuck with 95% of the time, an 8-deck game with a $100 table max.
Re: 2-Deck(?) Pitch BJ
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Oct-2002 21:48:02 (#95)
Niether game is playable, but between the two the 8D handheld is worthless - the poor pene 6D game may have some possibilities - first of all, plan to use a very large spread - secondly, exit neg-counts early - lastly, check to see if you can follow the diluted cutoffs through the shuffle (ie, 'cutoff tracking' is the simplest form of shuffle-tracking, though rare to find a game that lends itself to this '1st-gen' ST technique) - if it does turn out to be a good cutoff tracker the poor pene is actually to your advantage.
Returning to the 8D handheld game - I invented an advantage play for those last january when I walked into a downtown LV club that treated me well - I saw what appeared to be a 2D empty table - as I got close I saw that the backs of the cards spread were the SAME color as the ones sitting for play in the 'random-ejection' shuffler, yet the obligatory "handheld/multideck sign" was NOT on the table - I threw out three max bets and the dealer dealt me three stiffs and himself a 10 - I looked up quizically and asked "when did you guys start dealing 2Ds face-up?" He answered "this isn't 2Ds this is 8Ds, handheld 8Ds" - I fiegned mock surprise "but there's no sign!" - he looked at both ends of the table and called the pitmanager over - "No sign" I reiterated - she called the asstSB over, "can I help you?" - "no sign" I again reiterated in mock anxiety - he scanned up then down the table then said "we are very sorry, whatever I can do" - I said "ok switch my garbage hands for three BJs" - he said he couldn't do that BUT he could call it a dead-hand - he was still apologizing as I scooped my bets and proceeded to the real2D tables. zg
Eureka! (and deja'vu)
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Oct-2002 22:10:11 (#96)
Eureka, Ive just realized that the 8D/2D-handheld games may very well be highly beatable - on the theory that they ONLY shuffle 2Ds at a time - 4 segments that maintain their proximate order - similar to the method that I used on the 1st-gen CSMs reposted below. The same method may also work for the 6D/1D handhelds that are less prevalent! zg
---------------------
CCCafe post# 306
From: zengrifter
Date: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: beat a continuous shuffler?
I was the first US player (I believe) to soundly
beat a continuous-shuffler-shoe (CSM)! The year was
mid 1986 and two 1st generation CSM prototypes were
installed at the LV Golden Nugget.
When I first saw
the units, I thought to myself "the end is near!" I
wouldn't think of playing against the infernal things, but
I noted that they were quite popular - players who
liked them did so for the same reason that the casino
liked them, no wasted time shuffling. It was clear to
me that the machines were unbeatable.
On subsequent visits to the Nugget, I had several opportunities
to peer inside the machines - they were often open
because they would jam frequently requiring the floor
personnel to prod inside with a fountain pen. Even after
peering inside several times, I did not readily perceive
any weakness or vulnerability.
Early one
morning several weeks later, as I collapsed into bed at
my rented high-rise condominium at the prestigious
Marie Antoinette, after an exceedingly severe losing
streak that previous evening, I thought of the CSMs as I
quickly fell asleep.
And in that 'almost sleeping
alpha brain wave state' the answer suddenly hit me like
a brick and jolted me awake! In an instant I knew
that those machines were the most beatable blackjack
games in town - the 'gestalt' or full perspective of
the CSM's inner workings, in lieu of my blackjack
knowledge, was dramatic and immediate.
The machines
contained only three decks - the only shuffle process
involved about one-third of a deck at a time, a total of
nine segments that, in turn, were not being further
mixed together - nine distinct segments that maintained
distinct count characteristics, changing only slightly and
gradually, as the CSM cycled them around
perpetually.
My first stop was the Nugget's health spa (still the
best in town for my money) and by the time I got out
of the steamed bath I had the whole process clearly
mapped in my cerebrum - it was a simple matter of
identifying the two or three high-plus segments and locating
them as the three decks cycled round and round like a
merry-go-round - simply a matter of counting the number of hands
between key segments.
The pit was relaxed and
un-concerned about advantage play at the CSM tables, clearly
they were all off the mind-set that they could not be
beat by counters. I spread my bets wildly between
segments sometimes only bedding $10 and other times
betting two or three hands of $300-$500. After my first
three hours I was up over $6,000, and I graciously
accepted a comp for three at the gourmet room that evening
as well as lunch in the buffet.
I played the
CSMs four more times in the course of 14 days for a
total of 15 hours and accumulated nearly $12,000. On my
next to last play I began to get some scrutiny and
spotted a pit-critter observing me while semi-hiding
behind a nearby pillar. Eventually he came forward and
introduced himself - he was Asian and coincidentally his
name was Wong, the senior '21 Games Director' at the
Golden Nugget.
Mr. Wong was friendly and told me
that my "betting style" was "unique." I was relaxed
and flattered as I introduced myself as a "mechanical
engineer" from California. I told Wong that I had invented
a new betting system - based on progressions and
rhythms. I also told him that I had run the "so-called
basic strategy" on my personal computer and that I
found serious errors in it - hence, I had created "my
own basic strategy" that I "could prove afforded the
house less then 1.5% advantage." I also explained that
my unique progression/rhythm betting scheme would
"of course not win in the long run," but that "it
will win in the short run." Further, I had elected to
concentrate my play on the new shuffling shoes because "they
allowed me to get into the short run faster and stay in
the short run longer!"
Wong liked my answer,
and I schmoozed another gourmet room comp from him,
this time for four.
After my fourth and final
play, and another $3,000 win, I headed south on Las
Vegas Boulevard and was pulled over by a metro squad
car. The solo sergeant checked my ID, while saying
that I didn't commit any traffic violation, and he did
not cite me - the adolescent in me could not resist
asking him if he knew former Las Vegas police detective
Bob Griffin (now the head of the industry's most
pernicious detective agency). He acknowledged that Griffin
was "a friend" and I told them to "say hello for
me."
I learned years later than a sophisticated team
held back for two years, waiting for the machines to
become more proliferate and management more comfortable,
then hit the Nugget and Mirage hard in 1988-89 for an
"upper six figures amount."
Needless to say, today's CSMs are nothing like those 1st
generation models. ZG
Great post!
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Oct-2002 22:32:25 (#97)
Thanks for sharing your amazing story.
--Mayor
Re: Eureka! (and deja'vu)
Posted by lucky on 20-Oct-2002 23:28:55 (#98)
Yes ,the so called dd game that uses 8 decks(or maybe more)
is a scam that many casinos try to pull(no signs either).
This is where many bjack websites
should try to stop instead of teaching more about conting-already
enough skilled players.
A good one zen and others is do do that stunt you pulled, but on purpose
which I did recently at pala,in S.CA. Many sorry losers playing huge hands
there and they had no idea that it was 8 deck,or whatever.
Posted indices
Posted by Felix on 20-Oct-2002 23:45:45 (#99)
Hi Mayor,
I noticed the play variations listed in your System Indicies section for "0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,-1" for a six deck game are different than those stated, in Humble's book, for Hi-Opt 1 with four(+) decks. Why is this? I'm sure I'm just missing something simple.
Re: Posted indices
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Oct-2002 23:59:12 (#100)
Hi,
I don't know why they are different. 6D vs. 4D is pretty close. I used Wong's PBJA software which computes the indices using combinatorial analysis and not using computer simulation of millions of hands. I am sure either set will work just fine. I have confidence that Wong's software gives exactly the right index as predicted by combinatorial analysis. Indeed, the indices his software predicts for the Halves system directly contradict in many cases those published in his own book, Professional Blackjack!
The thing to remember is that the true value of an index is not worth very much in practical terms. For example, the most commonly used index is 16 vs. T, which is variously quoted as 0 or +1. If you play that index as +2 for your entire life the amount of EV you give up wouldn't buy a cup of coffee.
Think about it, how often do you make the decision 16-T when the count is actually between 0 and 1? So first of all, the even is extremely rare. Then, the index is the break even point between the two plays, hence right around the index you could pick one play or the other and they would be roughly even in their EV. Thus, for practical purposes, all indices are approximate, and if the value given is within 1 of the "correct value," that's good enough.
Indeed, there may be no such thing as an absolutely correct index for any play, since ultimately each index needs to be computed for every composition of your hand, various game conditions, etc.
For example, you would always hit 14 VS. T, wouldn't you? I don't even keep that index in my arsenal. But what if you are playing single deck, and your dealt 7-7? Then you stand, right? Even when the count is -1 (the two 7's and the T).
Indices are good to learn, but strategy variation is not that important to playing a winning game (especially in multiple deck), and most of the plays you make where you vary are because the count is way above/below the index.
As you can see, your question is one I have thought about before -- I just wish I had a few better analogies to really bring home the point 8-)
--Mayor
Re: Posted indices ADDT'L SPIN
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 01:29:47 (#101)
My additional spin is that, "precise index" is a misnomer if not an oxymoron - I advocate rounded and risk-averse composite (2D algebraic) indices of at least 50+ in number (I started in the 70s when we routinely learned 150-200+ index#s (i#) and still use 100 myself)
Liberal rounding of the i# allows you to personalize your i# pattern for rapid deployment, time is money - secondly, as Mayor has indicated, the difference between hitting or standing with 16v10 at -1 to +1 is of no value - therefore I beleive that the 'coin-toss' wide-borderlines imposed by each of the i# can allow one the opportunity to access less conscious-mind areas of the brain and intuition - perhaps unconsciously we DO likely know that there is one extra 5 or 4 that warrants hitting the 16, or vise-versa, or even "let the force" or whatever have a free reign within the wide-border.
Many BJ posters beleive or strive for precision i#, whereas I opt for "fuzzy-logic" and algebraic (non-sim'd) i#
Also the coin toss can make for a cover play that I have used - flipping a coin to call my play or bet, especially big ones, repeatedly, even chronically, and sticking with the coin's decision (or if the coin is wrong too much, going aginst it, great fun)! zg
Re: Posted indices ADDT'L SPIN
Posted by Felix Rue de Guerre on 21-Oct-2002 03:48:05 (#102)
Mayor,
Gotcha..
thanks
Zengrifter,
Could you please explain the idea of composite/rounded indicies.
thanks,
Re: Posted indices INDEX TERMS
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 14:21:39 (#106)
INDEX TWEAKS/TERMS -
RA (risk-averse) = alternate index#s (i#) that decreasevariance/flux while resultingly increase EV. A prime example is 10v10. the RA index is higher by 70% approx, same true for 9v2. (Mayor, can you elaborate a bit on the concept of RA i#?)
Composite = a set of i# that reflects a compromise between the slight differences of 1,2,6D i#.
Rounded = i# is liberally rounded for simplicity and ease of deployment. For example 12v2=+5, 12v3=+3, round both i# for all future memory/use to +4. A more extreme yet acceptable approach is to round ALL +1,0,-1 i# to 0, etc.
Algebraic i# = i# obtained thru algebraic approximation rather than computor simulation or extrapolation.
zg
rounded/truncated indices.
Posted by kansas on 21-Oct-2002 14:27:09 (#107)
the value to deviate from basic strategy is calculated to be
exactly +1.82
rounded value +2 -- truncated (floored) value +1
Re: rounded/truncated indices.
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 14:37:03 (#108)
I guess my type of rounding would rightly be called "radical cross-index rounding" ala Snyder's HiLoLite, Fuchs' HiLoExpress, and GeoC's ZenLite. zg
Re: Posted indices INDEX TERMS
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 21-Oct-2002 16:15:13 (#111)
Am I correct, then, to extrapolate from this that if I were to compile a set of indecies that were within 1(or so) of those calculated through the combinatorial analysis, and grouped them in a way that made it easier to remember more of them, I would be in better shape than following rigid index values?
Also, I'm still a little uncertain of the concept of RA.
Thank you all.
-Felix
Yes, that is one approach.
Posted by kansas on 21-Oct-2002 16:31:48 (#112)
Many studies have shown you can be off by +1 on almost every index you use and it won't make very much difference overall.
Here is a good tip: if you are going to be off, it is better to be late than early. Example: say an index is +3. Player Late makes the play at +4. Player Early makes the play at +2. Player Late will do better than Player Early, in fact a basic strategy player may even do better than Player Early.
Risk Adverse indexs are useful if you are betting close to an optimal bet spread to the count, and your betting unit is closely scaled to the optimal amount according to your bankroll.
Using RA numbers, you don't alter basic strat and double down or split unless the count makes the move *really* profitable. By not making plays at the *optimal* count, you are giving up some EV or long term profit. However, you are reducing your variance and overall risk or ROR (Risk of Ruin). So, in order to compensate for your decreased risk you can increase your bet amounts or spread, and play with the same ROR without increasing your bankroll size. (Bet more - win more - same risk).
Yes, and NOT
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 18:21:23 (#113)
** My responses are embedded -
Am I correct, then, to extrapolate from this that if I were to compile a set of indecies that were within 1(or so) of those calculated through the combinatorial analysis, and grouped them in a way that made it easier to remember more of them, I would be in better shape than following rigid index values?
** I say yes, Kansas has provided addt'l considerations and an excellent addt'l insight into RA i#. Kansas' insights, notwithstanding, do NOT be afraid to round the i# pattern grossly, it won't matter except for increased ease and speed and i# - remember, there ain't no such thing as "precise i#"
zg
An example of rounding...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 18:59:11 (#116)
I agree with ZG.
For example, I use Halves, and I use the following "rounded" surrender indices for S17 multi-deck games:
16 vs. 9 -> 0
15 vs. T -> 0
15 vs. 9 -> 5
15 vs. A -> 5
14 vs. T -> 5
14 vs. 9 -> 10
14 vs. A -> 10
--Mayor
Re: An example of rounding...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 20:04:03 (#119)
Those fine i# are truly radical-cross-rounded i# - Mayor's Halves Lite zg
Clever cover ploy # 128
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 14:40:35 (#109)
Reprinted here for your enjoyment. zg
CCCafe post#: 316
From: zengrifter
Date: Mon Nov 22, 1999 12:52 am
Subject: Clever cover ploy...
Earlier this year when the newspapers announced
the acquisition of LV's Maxim Hotel & Casino by
Premier Interval, a timeshare developer, I decided to
capitalize on my knowledge of the principals of that
Calif-based company.
Shortly after the shift change to
graveyard, I blew in there with the persona of my snide,
inebriated act and settled in betting $10 - $40 (D10 SD),
not always with the count.
Within 15 minutes I
introduced myself as the CFO of the new company -
"in fact," I informed the 'Asst. Casino Mgr.' (Maxim for
shift boss) "I'm the guy that put the deal together to
buy this turkey from the BK trustee!"
As I answered questions about the upcoming 'changing of the
guard,' the off work private dancer playing at the table
called her gorgeous friend over and introduced me as
"the new owner!"
After the first 70-80 minutes,
I had passed muster with the pit - Dan the asst.
casino mgr. was happy to change the music selection and
adjust the volume level. By now my betting was becoming
quite aggressive - sometimes as low as $5 or as high as
2hands of $250.
I returned 2 more times on that
shift as 'the new owner' and played outrageous spreads
while guaranteeing a floorman's wife a job in sales,
agreeing to let the dance-girls open a billiard club,
informally promoting another PC to shift boss as soon as the
transfers were complete, and promoting two dealers to the
floor.
All totaled I played nearly 10 hours with outrageous
spreads at both 1D and 2D and won about $1500 (I should
have won more).
And this joint was (or still is?) the resort HQ of Griffin.
So the next time you need a good cover ploy in a small-indie
Everything "they" say about you is true, ZG >8-P (NM)
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 14:45:54 (#110)
Re: Everything "they" say about you is true, ZG >8
Posted by phantom007 on 21-Oct-2002 19:54:21 (#117)
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
Dear Mr. ZG:
I have no problems screwing casino's out of money. That is what they are trying to do to me, and they lie via misleading ads and promotions so as to make me, the "recovering ploppy" think that he/she has a chance for riches.
And that is why I attend to this and several other BJ websites...so as to "screw the casino's out of some $. I intend to expand my knowledge, expand the size of my "BJ Member", and via my method, the willingness of the said casino to accept same, then...SCREW LIKE I WAS 17 AGAIN!
But Sir, PROMISING JOBS, RAISES, PROMOTIONS, and the like...to those who most likely need them, BUT WILL NOT IN SHORT ORDER, GET THEM, is worse than most any casio promotion!
Certainly, there was a time, 20+ years ago, wherein most all BJ dealers may have been "Mechanics"...not so now...most are Single Mom's with kids, Married Dad's and Mom's with families, or even Downtown, Legal Immigrants trying to find the American Dream.
Sir, I was raised to be HONEST...but I do not mind lying to Casino Personel as regarding Losses, Wins, Luck, and the like, so as to sustain and/or improve my longevity at the Tables.
But Mr. ZG, to promise raises, promotions, and the like, is the same as offering 91% PAYBACK on SLOTS...YOU ARE A MEAN PERSON!
phantom007
Re: Everything "they" REMEMBER...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 20:06:45 (#120)
... you can NOT "screw the casino" without "fooling" the pit, and to some extent, the customers. zg
Re: Everything "they" REMEMBER...
Posted by phantom007 on 21-Oct-2002 22:08:54 (#121)
That's nice. Read my post again, and again, until it is undrstood, then take your $ of profit, and display it in front of the minimum wage crowd, and then tell me if I am right or wrong!
Re: Everything "they" REMEMBER...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 22:18:20 (#122)
Phant007 - this was table-hustle trash talk - you know like the dealers and PCs dish out to the players, but in reverse - beyond that, I don't shre your ethical distinctions - when I'm in a casino, I'm behind enemy lines. zg
Re: Everything "they" REMEMBER...
Posted by phantom007 on 21-Oct-2002 22:30:09 (#123)
Again, "that's nice". I certainly cannot match your skills in counting, computers, and the like, Sir.
But again, to PROMISE Big $ to those who need same, and to be unable to deliver same, when same is not POSSIBLE, is a travesity, when same is in YOUR CONTROL.
AGAIN, Your skills are superb, and Your methods are INFERIOR!
Sncerely,
phantom007.
Re: Everything - MEA CULPA!...
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 22:45:27 (#124)
...mea culpa, I'm shameless and a recalcitrant! mea culpa zg
Re: Everything "they" REMEMBER...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Oct-2002 22:47:57 (#125)
Phantom calm down. ZG was only working on the greed of the pit crew. This is about making money and beating the system. The average casino worker is there to make money by taking your money. Believe me they will use sex, booze, psychological marketing schemes and basically lie to take your hard earned cash. The only reason ZG's BS worked is because the casinoworkers were greedily vieing for what they believed was the new owners favor.
The casino industry has its roots in greed, theft, murder etc. to wit organized crime. This gambling thing is old as crime and the people who work in it' support it' and they are just as bad. Only the names have changed from bugsy to incorporated.
I have seen them get a high roller blind ass drunk and keep him and the the table open until he lost thousands. The guy was falling off the stool. All ZG did was verbally cut an edge and win a couple of extra bucks. NO one got hurt except the pit's greed! I toast you ZENGRIFTER and your tenacity!!!! LTC
PS I dont mean to be condisending phantom but this is not a one sided moral issue.
My "Motto"
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 23:18:23 (#127)
I agree that ZG's methods were not the holiest, but then, he is a "grifter." If you don't know the definition of that word, it will give you some insight to look it up. And he certainly lives up to it.
Earlier this year I worked on my personal motivation, finally coming up with my "motto."
My personal motto is: "Extract goods, services and money from casinos by whatever legal means possible, as often as possible, and help others to do the same."
--Mayor
Definition of "grift, grifted, grifting, grifts"
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 23:32:25 (#129)
From dictionary.com
grift Slang
n.
Money made dishonestly, as in a swindle.
A swindle or confidence game.
Re: Definition of "ZEN"
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 00:15:44 (#130)
Zen - A teaching that contemplation of one's essential nature to the exclusion of all else is the only way of achieving pure enlightenment.
Zen is the quest for oneness. For the enlightened man is said to be one with the law of causation, and the perceptions of Determinism on the one hand, or of freedom, choice and influence, on the other hand, are both error, presumably from uninspired failure to synthesize frames of reference (subjective choice and objective Determinism) into the correct Gestalt.
Zen is like unto the '60's. For, as the saying goes, If you remember it, then you where never there! For Zen is also the appreciation of the elusive, the cultivation of the experiential and intuitive, of immediacy, especially where definition may fail. The intellect of Zen does not seek to grasp Dialectically, but only to point, to indicate, and often seeks to fall back upon such common sense as that will be apprehensible experientially, even reliably, repeatedly and at will.
excerpted from-
Re: Definition of "ZEN"
Posted by JamesB on 22-Oct-2002 12:47:36 (#139)
I absolutely MUST get in on this discussion.
ZG - your story and the details of your activities during those three sessions kick ass! That is awesome.... and I would be proud to tell such a story in this forum. If you have more please share.
As for the whining going on out there, (I know I am about to be harsh - I apologize) realize where we are and whom you are. This is a forum devoted to increasing the knowledge and benefiting those who wish to practice their abilities and make some green. There is nothing dishonest about what this site is about (kudos Mayor).
But don't forget each and every one of you (myself included), casinos don't require you to enter and play. There is no commodity in a casino that we need to sustain life. So, if your attitude is "I am going to get back at the casinos for what they have done to me or society..." then you are misdirected. If it because of a wrong that the casinos perpetuated against you personally then....LEAVE! Who is the most wrong; the casinos for offering a slanted game or you for playing it? If you are crusading for the "rights" of a fair game then I gotta ask - "Who appointed you?" And if any of you achieved your quest - straightening out the casinos - what would you do next? Most would probably be board.
Whew..! ...But that's just my opinion, I might be wrong.
JB
Re: Definition of "ZEN"
Posted by phantom007 on 22-Oct-2002 21:02:13 (#157)
As Cartman on South Park says..."Screw you guys".
Well, not really, unless of course, you are pretty and have large breasts and wear pink silk panties....ooops, wrong Website.
Anyhow, I will state to any who will listen(read), it is OK to do to Casino's what they do to you...cheat, lie, and steal, of course, within the confines of stated rules and Advantage Play.
BUT IT IS NOT COOL, to promise wages and promotions to those who probably need it and will not get it.
THE ENEMY OR NOT, THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Any Casino Personel out there, current and/or former, willing to chime in on thisdiscussion, please enter now, and help me out!
phantom007
A gentle response
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Oct-2002 21:24:24 (#158)
Dear Phantom,
I don't preach absolutes, everyone is entitled to behave how they like within the confines of "legal" when it comes to extracting $$$ from casinos.
However, if you read my essays, you will find that I write often of themes that are in the spirit of your posts. I, for one, believe in treating all people ethically and decently, and agree that giving people false hopes for their future can be devastating to their lives.
Although this is my opinion, and an opinion we share, I also recognize the rights of others to be who they are. In particular, this vocation we share attracts some very interesting characters, and I happen to like those characters (for the most part) even if I don't always agree with their methods. That is why I run this site, not only for the mission but also because I like the diversity and character of the people who are on our side.
So, while I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, I also have tolerance for ZG and his actions, though I would never do the same.
--Mayor
My response and acknowledgment
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 23:26:47 (#160)
Phantom,
I DO agree in spirit and in fact with what you have reiterated - people are precious spiritual miracles, each. Humans have a short and poignant life that largely entails suffering - we suffer because we don't get what we want, we suffer because we get what we don't want, and we suffer still again because we get what we want and then we eventually lose it or we cease to want it.
I salute you for making an ethical and not entirely popular stand on this issue of people-well-being vs the corporations - infact, that spirit is a part of my family heritage - in the early turn of the century one of my great uncles, a surviving member of an infamous gang of outlaw brothers, had his prison sentence commuted by the President of that day, and he became America's first true prison-reform activist and a very eloquent speaker on the topic of "the greedy corporations and banks vs the people."
In my own case I have spoken out for years against the telecom and information monopolies and for free ownership rights in the airwaves, filed historic FOIAs, comments, briefs, appeals, on govt-agencies and in the UScourts, and even the largest joint appeal in the history of the airwaves, all for the sense of service and responsibility that I felt truly obligated to perform.
Tilting at very-real windmills can have its price, and at a time when I finally had the so-called American dream within reach I paid a high price for daring to buck the vested interests of telecom power and its grip on Washington regulatory and lawmaking processes to the detriment of "the people."
But despite the heavy repercussions that I was subjected to, I have not been hardened by the experience, but rather softened and more compassionate of people, both those I come into contact with and those who constitute the larger mass of humanity.
Thank you for pointing out the important ethical consideration of the cover ploy I shared with the group, kudos!
Cover + Risk Aversion w/ Insurance Betting?
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Oct-2002 22:49:19 (#126)
Cover + Risk Aversion (variance reduction) w/ Insurance Betting
When you are slightly below the insurance threshold feel free to take
partial to full insurance on 8,9,10,11,19,20,21.
When you are at the threshold or slightly above it insure
5,6,7,14,15,16,17,18 for less.
Well below the threshold always
insure 21 and 'occaisionally' insure 10,11,19,20.
Can someone refine or otherwise dismiss this
approach altogether?
On RA insurance bets
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Oct-2002 23:30:17 (#128)
I agree that the insurance bet is one that sticks out the most for the pit and other "eyes". When you insure your 16, but don't insure your T-T, they know what you're doing.
That being said, I saw a guy put down the table max at single deck and insure his 16, and a few hands later put down the table min. I think act goes a lot further than RA indices and careful planning.
If you always take insurance, then the times you are making the wrong play you have a small bet anyways, and when you are making the right play, you have a big bet. This is called "counter basic strategy" and is often used for cover.
There are many plays in "counter basic strategy", like doubling 8 vs. 6, 11 vs. A, standing on 12 vs. 2 and 3, that if you always do them, it costs you very little, because the time you shouldn't be doing them you have a small bet anyway. The money you give back can be considered the cost of cover.
Something to think about.
RA strategies are key. For those who don't know, RA (risk adverse) play means to make plays that greatly reduce variance with only a minor decrease in EV. Or conversely, have a large increase in EV with only a small gain in Variance.
However, I prefer to think of insurance as a separate side bet, wholly unassociated with the bet on the table. In this situation, if the count is very close (but just above) the index, then it may not be "kelly" justified to make the entire wager, and insure for less is correct. We would need to get a separate bet ramp for the insurance bets associated with the Crush count to get it pefect. I am sure this has all been done, maybe some reader knows much more and can say something.
--Mayor
Re: On RA insurance TWO INSTANCES
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 00:28:26 (#131)
TWO INSTANCES - where I would be inclined to use some of this arcane RA-insurance tactics - 1) If I'm fighting for survival (tournament, shortstakes, etc.) or 2) If I have an excellent game/pene and I'm winning with "lite scrutiny" from the pit. zg
--------
Here is MathProfs reaponse to a similar original post last year -
Risk Aversion and
Insurance
Posted By: MathProf.
in response to: Cover +
Risk Aversion w/ Insurance Betting (The Grifter®)
Partial insurance always reduces your variance. Now, if
you knew that insurance were a break-even proposition
(because 1/3 of the unseen cards are 10s), you would want
to try to reduce your variance.
Half-Insurance (which can be implemented by insuring one of two
spots) will reduce your Variance even on stiffs.
(Actually, about one-third insurance is optimal.)
If your choice on Insurance is all or nothing, then you
would take full insurance unless you have a stiff.
Over-insuring weak hands will actually raise your variance.
Clearly, with a big enough bet, there is some value in
trading off EV from insurance with risk aversion. You
could create different risk-averse indexes for
different types of hands.
But there is one danger.
If you are not keeping a 10-count, then there would
be slightly different insurance indexes for
different hand compositions. The HiLo index for 10-10
(which is the "best" hand to insure for risk-aversion)
is a actually somewhat higher, especially in
single-deck. The insurance index for 9-7 is actually lower.
I think cover considerations outweigh any fine
mathematical points in these insurance decisions, especially
in Nevada.
Will BJ21 Survive?
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Oct-2002 10:58:17 (#133)
I for one am pretty disappointed that bj21 no longer has it's free message boards. I was a paying member at one time just to check it out. I feel there are enough free resources on the Web that I don't need to pay for their services. I understand that there are costs involved with running a website, but hell that's what advertising is for. Hopefully this site will be able to replace the free boards at bj21. Good luck mayor!
My thoughts
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Oct-2002 11:45:43 (#134)
You may not know that bj21 was getting hit pretty hard by some folks who were posting personal information about others. The decision to close the free pages at bj21 was based on protecting the health and well being of their employees and others affected by the posts, it is not based on lack of revenue or the need to force people to pay for the green pages.
While I do not agree with the methods of the posters who closed down bj21, I believe they do have some information that should see the light of day, and I have asked them to contact me to work with them to produce a web page (or two) that correctly achieves the goals of their posts. They know first hand that I respect their mission.
In the mean time, I hope this site provides some opportunities for the community to continue its discussion of beating the game.
--Mayor
Re: My thoughts...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 12:17:26 (#137)
... are that the closure of bj21-free is GOOD for everyone! And IMHO it was the bj21 jack-booted post busters who brought on the attacks (we reap what we sow), YEAH! zg
my oppinion
Posted by Learning to count on 22-Oct-2002 13:40:54 (#142)
BJ21's idea of freedom of speech was what killed the free boards. The flaw,plopper sarcasm, odd off the mark posting etc. etc. was what killed the freedom at bj21. They allowed this info to come on with out censure. Look at RGE they have had no problems they edit and censure out the non related or attacking type posts. Hey its about A-D-V-A-N-T-A-G-E play, counting cards, MATH. Not VOODOO. Those other people should start thier own websites "Voodoo BJ21.plop" or "Play BJ to the poor house .com". They can all go there and argue who has the better progression strategy and how "to be a gambler".
Re: Will BJ21 Survive?
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Oct-2002 15:23:41 (#149)
Thanks for the info, I didn't realize just what had been going on.
Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Oct-2002 13:09:22 (#140)
I will be including a new poll on this site each month. The "what system do you use" poll is not a new idea. I would like some creative input on possible poll questions. I have thought of some weird ones:
1) what is the most you every won from a casino playing blackjack in a day?
2) what is the most you have won from playing blackjack in a year?
3) how many times have you been barred/backed-off?
This is just getting started. Your ideas are appreciated. And, if I like it, you bet it will be in a poll appearing soon.
--Mayor
Re: Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Oct-2002 16:04:56 (#153)
Here's one...
If the dealer over pays you, do you correct her mistake?
Re: Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by JamesB on 22-Oct-2002 16:39:38 (#156)
!@#$ (explanative) NO!
Re: Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Oct-2002 23:45:03 (#187)
It looks like I will be coming up with these on my own.
That should be fun 8-)
Let's see,
your favorite progression system is...
the seat that wins the most is...
john patrick is a...
Yes, it will be fun,
--Mayor
Re: Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Oct-2002 02:57:34 (#194)
seriously - how do you invoke good luck when you gamble - coin, perfume, talisman (rabbit foot, etc) clothing item, prayer-mantra-positive thinking, feng shui, none, etc.
zg
Re: Poll questions -- your input requested
Posted by lucky on 25-Oct-2002 11:01:10 (#198)
perhaps also in the poll, would include-
-ever done team play
-how many days straight have you won without a loss
Good idea though,keep us updated.
My last visit to Tahoe...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 13:33:15 (#141)
My last visit to Tahoe was a rollercoaster ride, here are some highlights -
(October 2000)
While staying at Harrah's Tahoe, playing decent single deckers, I got stuck over $15k at the 'nadir' - playing an average of 3hrs/day for 4 days at the 1D high-limit tables, I brought my loss down to $10k when I was informed that club would not tolerate any further 21 play by me.
Prior to the above barring and several more hours of play at Harrahs I lost $2k at Caesars nextdoor playing heads-up 1D in the high-limit salon - My betting was 3hands of $100 in neg-counts and 1hand of $500 in posi-counts - despite the uniqueness of my betting gambit, I was approached by the shift-mgr as I departed through the casino - he asked not to play any more bJ there (my consolidation-betting style wasn't what tagged me, it was the speed of my play - using that method I can play 300+hands/hr and played over 100hands in that 20min session) - I told him that I knew the surveillance departments in Tahoe cooperated and I made him an offer - I told him that I had a team in town and that if he instructed his surveillance NOT to forward my photo to the other clubs I would, in turn, keep my teammates out of Caesars for the remaining visit - apparently my ploy worked because I had no sense that Caesars had alerted the others - notwithstanding, I LIED to him, as my mates continued to pound Caesars for 2days.
Across the street at the Horizon I was also stuck $6k in my first 4 hrs of play - I turned it into a $4k win, playing a total of 8 hours at 1D and 2D - my single biggest round consisted of 3 hands of $250, with dealer showing a 3 - I split three 9s, doubled on 10, and spit As, with a total of $1,750 on the table I called the shift manager over to watch as the dealer busted - I am still a welcome player at that club and the pit manager shook my hand and told me "well done!" as I walked having swung back $10k.
Entering the small Lakeside (best rules in Tahoe - double any 2 cards and double after split 1D), I sat down at a $3 table (the only table open) with three other nickle players and bet 1-4 quarters in a non-count related progression for about 10 minutes, then I asked the dealer if he thought the house would give me a quarter game - he called the pit mgr 'Augie' over who warmly invited me to wait 10 minutes and they'd give me a game - on my first hand at my $25 table I spread to 3hands of $25, the dealer informed me that "3hands require 5x the minimum ($125) each - I looked at the Augie and he shrugged and said "3x ($75) each, for him," at which I mock hesitated then increased to 3x $75 and proceeded to lose all 3hands and including a doubledown - the count being slightly negative, I frowned at Augie and put out 3hands of $75 again and won all 3 - the count went further south and I increased my bets to 3X $100, and I won again. Now I was 'in like Flynn' - when the count was negative I would bet 3x $75-$100, when the count was positive I would bet 1hand of $300-$500 (house limit). A woman approached and bet a single quarter - I frowned at the mgr and reduced my bet to 2hands of $50 - she played a couple more hands and wandered off as Augie put a 'reserved' sign at my table and glowingly invited me to place "any size bet per 3hands, you now have a private game!" Now my bets ranged from 3x $25 to 1x $500 or 2x $350 or 3x $250. In 45 minutes I was ahead $6000, at which point Augie came behind me and said, "I have bad news" - I'm thinking he's going to bar me, but instead he says that "upstairs has decided that you must bet $125 each at 3hands" - oh well "sucking me in" I replied playfully, he says "sorry." So now I shift my betting to 3x $125 in negative counts and 1hand of $500 in posi-counts - winning three rounds of 3x $125 in amazing succession, I happily call out to Augie, "its working, thanks!" Exactly 60 minutes into the play I am up $10k when Augie taps my shoulder and informs me that "they decline your further play" - smiling I wave half my winnings in the form of 10 $500 chips and taunt, "do you guys want to try to win half of it back?" "No!" The romance was over. I managed to get a comped lunch from Augie before cashing out, the two remaining tables had a total 5 nickle players as I departed.
zg
Re: My last visit to Tahoe...
Posted by JamesB on 22-Oct-2002 13:57:56 (#143)
I would love to simply watch a session like that. Another good one ZG. Thanks.
What spreads do you find bring no heat?
Posted by ace on 22-Oct-2002 14:21:47 (#144)
I first got into reading about and practicing counting about 6 months ago though due to time constrictions so far have not tested myself in a casino environment.
What spreads do you find bring the least amount of heat? Prior to this, I was a $25-$50 unit bettor, all basic strategy, and would vary upwards as I got ahead and flattened out if I was behind. I would say usually my hands varried from $25 at the beginning to $200 to close out a run, though never from one hand to the next.
Is there a rule you try to stick by to attract the least attention?
Re: What spreads do you find bring no heat?
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Oct-2002 14:39:20 (#145)
If you have never tested out counting in a casino, you would not know this, but it is almost impossible to give a "universal" answer to this question.
At the El Cortez, a 3-1 spread in single-deck will get you booted.
There are many places I have successfully spread 20-1 in single deck.
In most shoe games, 10-1 or 12-1 can be sustained forever without a problem, and there are some who do not hesitiate to spread table min to table max at these games.
Experience is the only way to really know: the ability to read the subtle "heat", to know when to leave before you cross the threshold that gets you backed-off.
Test the waters at a few places, start with a small spread and move upwards until you get noticed.
If you want your first experience of heat cheap, play at the "Barbary Coast."
--Mayor
Re: What spreads do you find bring no heat?
Posted by ace on 22-Oct-2002 14:54:38 (#146)
Thanks Mayor.
Typically I stick to all 6 deck games. No mathematical reasons, just these are the games my friends enjoy so I always play with them. Lucky for me they have two things going for them. 1 - they are all BS players and if they dont know will always ask me for advice. No rebels here, splitting 10s or shite like that. 2 - They tend to play nice and slow. I think this gives me an advantage in terms of counting and being able to keep up.
I have played a great deal of 1D and DD but I just dont enjoy them as much, I really dont know why. And while I do want to make money doing this, the bottom line is that BJ has to be fun for me, or else I just wont play.
Right now I am using a program I got for my Visor called BJ Counter. It so far has been a most excellent training program and has a wide variety of features.
Thanks again for your advice.
El Cortez, and the 'art' of 1D play...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 15:16:36 (#147)
Speaking of the El Cortez, the following communique between a well known counter and I emphasized a combination of tactics that I have succesfully used for MANY hours of EC 1D play - the "xxxx casino" referred to in the communique IS the EC and I regulary play to win/lose $1000+ there - I have previously stated that IF you can play green at EC you can play black anywhere. zg
-----------------
The 'ART' of 1D PLAY...
bbbb wrote:
Mr. Grifter Hows things been going. I keep wondering when Barfakel is gonna have another Ratpack dinner...but in the meantime I'm planning a trip to [LV] right now for early May and have never played at your xxxx hangout. If my usual max bet is $200 bucks what approach would you suggest that I use for playing thatgame (or is that too rich for playing there a first time?)
Hey bbbb!
You CAN pull it off, and its a good test for anyone's act-strategy. Here's some suggestions -
1. Days and grave have the best pene, whereas swing is crowded and shorter pen regardless. Start with early day shift - arrive near the end of grave looking grubby and 'up all nite.' Start small with greens 1-4 posi-progresion (non-count-related) with an occasional 100 bill 'money plays' (count-related) - order drinks, Malibu rocks is good because it looks hard but it isn't.
2. 15-30 minutes of progression play as the shift changes will get you into position - move tables a couple of times, demonstrating that you want to be left alone -
3. (Grifter's Gambit) Heads up'' compulsively' throw out 3 hands of $50 off the top, if the count tanks south bet the 3x $50 again and again oblivious to the neg-count. If the count goes posi, bet 1x $125, win bet $150, etc., lose bet $200 'steaming.'
4. (Sklanksy's Gambit) Bet $150 off the top, win bet $150 again regardless if count tanks, and again, etc. Lose and count tanks bet $50, win bet $75, then $100, etc.
5. (Opposition Gambit) Bet $75 off the top and count soars bet $100, count tumbles (still posi) bet $200.
6. Ask for a $25 min game (you may or may not be granted) - Alternate between 3-4-5 above. (3 is strongest)
7. IMPORTANT - Make some incorrect plays - mostly stand on A7 v T/A, stand 16v T in neg count, split TTv 7 (neg count, small bet), etc.
8. IMPORTANT - Place an occasional $25 RMatch bet - xxxx has the better 3-10 payoff so you wont lose much by it - and if the 1st round or two passes without a particular suit showing up the RM is probably a posi-expectation.
9. You will feel that the PCs are sweating the action at first - they are NOT (they are sweating the dealers) - they watch the dealers very carefully because they are mostly break-ins - if the dealer makes an error that hurts you, pretend not to notice until the PC fixes it, then thank the PC. On days the main boss is wwww (bald, very sharp and likable), #2 guy is cccc. Once you're in with wwww on days you are in on grave too.
10. Lastly, when you are down to your last round or two you can "force" the shuffle by spreading again to 3hands.
Have fun with this and you can get a pretty wide spread with 66%-85% pene. xxxx typically gives the boot to $5 counters within 15 min, whereas you can play as described above for hours (best to limited your play to 2 hr with a meal break in the middle). Return in 24-48 hours on mid-grave and repeat performance ending shortly AFTER shift change into days. Use sparingly.
I will be in in early May as well, let me know dates and maybe we can hook up.
Regards, G
some heat observations
Posted by kansas on 22-Oct-2002 15:23:01 (#148)
Playing for fun is different then playing for money. If you are at a intelligent casino (a bit of an oxymoron), then they will recognize you as a recreational player, and not consider you a threat.
1. The bet levels you are talking about (1-12 spread in red) is not a big enough amount for a quality casino to worry about.
2. You are probably playing in "play-all" mode, which makes your hourly earnings even lower.
3. Your table full of friends are giving you cover. They won't back you off and risk offending the others in your party. If they are smart, your potential profits are being weighed against the potential losses of the people with you.
4. If they peg you as a "recreational" player, then they realize you are probably under-bankrolled. Even if you spread wider, they will just sit back and smile, knowing standard deviation wipe you out eventually.
Of course, in the wrong place, or with the wrong pit boss, all bets are off and none of the above holds true.
Learn to hide your winnings. Repeated buy-ins for more chips (even when you have lots of chips stashed in your pocket), etc. can also lengthen your welcome. Big winners get backed off quicker than what appears to be losers. Be polite. Obnoxious people get barred faster than friendly types.
What they are watching for are team players, or people seriously wonging the shoes. Someone who is betting $10 to $25 a hand, and then the next time they turn around, has spread to multiple hands at $500 per spot, maybe even going to another table before that shoe is finished. This behavior will get you the boot, as there are several advantage techniques that could explain this behavior (besides winning a lot of loot).
6D 1-12 "play all" ...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 15:52:00 (#150)
...will NOT cut it UNLESS you exit the table at -1. zg
For shoe games, How about
Posted by kansas on 22-Oct-2002 16:20:09 (#155)
6 deck spread 1-12 play all doesn't cut it, period.
You have to wong, unless you are exploiting a weak shuffle.
So for a recreational player to worry about heat is not necessary in the shoe game. It is very rare for a 'recreational' player to have the 20-30Gs required for a larger spread or bigger betting unit. If you are trying to limit your losses or even grind out a few bucks profit, count and spread away. Only the lowest sawdust burn joint is going to give that action any heat.
As I said, for a weak shoe game counter to get bounced, bad attitude or bad manners will get you the tap quicker than your counting skills. If this is a local joint, and you start camping out and becoming a fixture there, after several months they might get tired of the constant grinding of their profits, and will seek an excuse to get you out of the game. Hence, my advice of concealing winnings. This assumes you are adequately bankrolled and do play a highly skilled game. Of course, if you play small stakes frequently, you could consider a break even game, or slightly less than break even game, cheap lessons and practice to get to the highly skilled point.
You can't find very many other hobbies or games where you actually have a good chance of getting paid while you practice at becoming better. Most pasttimes become more expensive the more you decide to play and compete. For example, look at all the cost in golf clubs, golf lessons, greens fees, etc. one would have to pay to compete at a high level in golf (and practically zero chance of turning pro).
Just watch out for the standard deviation roller coaster, it is a wild ride.
Re: some heat observations
Posted by JamesB on 22-Oct-2002 16:07:07 (#154)
2 cents worth:
I'd be careful "hiding your winnings", as personal experience dictates, this may be the one massively obvious cover that will get you tossed in some places.
JB
Re: What spreads do you find bring no heat?
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Oct-2002 16:01:16 (#151)
I was playing single deck last night at a local casino. They've had single deck for only about 2 months now and it was the first time I played it there. I was spreading only 1 to 3 and would occasionally make a larger than normal bet on the first round to look like a ploppy. I never received any heat at all. I played for about an hour and was ahead by about 7 units. I colored up, walked around to find my wife, then cashed in. As I was leaving I noticed the pit boss eye balling me with a serious look on his face. I'm sure it was only a coincidence, but I'll wait a few weeks before going back there. When I do go back I'll increase my spread to 1 to 4 or maybe 5. At one point we had a running count of 11 with about half a deck remaining, man it was tough not to load up. But I knew if I did I would probably get caught.
Using BJRM 2002
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Oct-2002 16:01:18 (#152)
Using BJRM 2002 to Plan Your Trip to the Casino (rge21)
http://www.bjrm2000.com/Post/dontrip.htm
Recently, our illustrious host of Don's Domain, Mr. Donald
Schlesinger, planned and took a short trip to Las Vegas. Before he
left, he told me he used BJRM 2002 to help him prepare, and to set
expectations, and that the software proved to be very helpful.
That got me thinking that it might be interesting and informative for
all of you to see an example of what sort of things he did. So, with
Don's permission, I will be using some of the actual details of his
trip to show how useful BJRM can be, but I will change a few of the
facts to give him some "cover." For example, I'll change the count he
used, substituting the hi-lo, I will use $10 for his unit, and I'll
make some minor adjustments to the way he actually bet.
That said, here goes . . .
complete article and charts -
Re: Using BJRM 2002
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Oct-2002 21:26:37 (#168)
Don's use of BJRM for his trip seems more to advertise the product than a powerful demonstration of its value.
In practice, we play as strongly as we can get away with.
The only point of the sim really worthy of note is that in a game with surrender, you want the max bet out at +4 (and almost a full max bet at +3), whereas it is definitely +5 without surrender.
--Mayor
Re: Using BJRM SELF-AWARENESS
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Oct-2002 22:59:14 (#169)
A tool for gaining a 'gambling self-awareness' and perspective on the relativity of wins/losses from trip to trip. zg
No substitute
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Oct-2002 23:31:15 (#170)
There is no substitute for experience.
The truth is that you just have to play, a lot!
--Mayor
Debating the issue of "precision" indices
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Oct-2002 03:35:05 (#161)
CCCafe Post# 4539 of 16788
From: zengrifter
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2001 2:05 pm
Subject: Precise v. approximate indices
SBA's Karel Janecek, Zengrifter, and the MegalaDon
debating the issue of "precision" indices
Karel:
I never claimed that it is crucial to
have precise indices to half integer or so. PS: For
your information, the new version of SBA ready in a
week or two supports all the wonging-in, wonging-out,
and sitting-out features, which were used in the
rabbit, perfect, etc. article in fall BJF (Don
Schlesinger)
ZenGrifter:
Index precision even within 2-3 integers is NOT needed, even if RA. The wonging-in/out sim will not accomplish the type of betting sim needed for today's game, consolidation betting, card eating, psuedo-progressions, etc. -EXCEPT- to the extent that the relevant sim data has primarily already been gleaned and published (as note by you)and assimilated ("exit @ -1, enter @ +1," etc.)
Karel:
Well, then we are in disagreement again.
An error of 2 for index value is already
significant, especially for positive indices (with high bet
out). Of course, if this error is just in one index it
is not major. The error is usually significant if
you have all indices (randomly) with error 2.
In any case, it is useful to have precise simulated
indices rather than approximated ones, even though (or
rather even more because of ) in practical play one does
approximate estimates of the current TC. The point is that
the errors otherwise cumulate. For example, if
simulated indices are 1 TC off, and the player makes
estimate errors in actual play plus or minus 2 TCs, the
total errors range is between -1 TC up to 3 TC. In
relative terms, being off 1 TC all the time vs. being
precise is smaller difference compared to being off -1 TC
up to 3 TC vs. -2 TC up to 2 TC. The reason is that
the error cost is NOT A LINEAR FUNCTION of the error.
Being 3TC off 25% of time is quite a bit worse than
being 1TC off 75% of time, or being off 2 TC 37.5% of
time.
As a conclusion: Given that, in reality,
people need to estimate the current index with some
random errors, it is even more important to have the
simulated index (the starting benchmark) precise (or close
to precise).
Observe that this may seem quite contradictory to general intuition.
ZenGrifter:
The worst that I would imagine a sufficiently-skilled player being off in TC estimation is by 1 approximately 25% of the time - so the 'compunding effect' as you call it would be a fraction of your estimate.
One element that I beleive you have inadvertantly obscurred is the sub-issue of 'approximated' (algebraic-algorithm?) indices v. simulated. My positition being that algebraic indices rounded to within 2 integers, will perform equally, for all intent and purpose within 2-3/100s of 1% of the gain available from the most extensively crafted, precision indices (non-composition-dependent), floored, truncated, or otherwise. This is why index generation by the likes of SmartCards, NeUltra, BJ678, BJSrat, etc. is more than completely adequate.
In any event, I would not refer to index rounding within 2 or 3 integers to be an error, and I WANT TO accept the studies of ASnyder, JAustin, GeoC, and others that reveal that 'extreme rounding' does NOT lose significant power : -1/0/+1 = 0, +2/+3+4 = +3, etc. ASnyder's ZEN indices are rounded even more extremely: indices even more: -10,-5,0,+5,+10,+15. According to Snyder it was JAustin using SBA who found that... GeoC's grossly rounded indices underperformed precise indices by 2/100s of a percent, requiring over 2 billion hands to be conclusive. Therefore one would not play enough hands in a lifetime to gain a conclusive increased gain from the precision-simulated variety. ZG
Karel writes -
If all indices are 2 TC
(Hi-Lo) off, the loss will be most certainly larger. If
they are randomly off with maximum of 2 TCs
error, then your number may well be correct for
some setup. However, 3% difference is still
significant! This 3% is extra profit for free, with no
extra effort. A simple calculation shows that for $60
per hours expectation bettor, this extra profit
covers the cost of a simulator like SBA after just
a week of playing, purely from the optimization of
indices. (And there is much more.)
It is clear that for a decent player, it is just irrational
to use approximated indices when precise indices are
readily available.
Don Schlesinger writes -
Here's what I don't understand.
In any endeavor in life, there is a cost for being
"sloppy" and imprecise. Either a player wants precision,
or he doesn't.
Grifter makes it sound like we need to choose: either do all the "real-world"
things he is so enamored of (pseuso-progression, card-eating, etc.) or use precise indices.
Heaven forbid we should strive for "all of the above."
Makes no sense to me. You either want to play the game to the
maximum of your ability or you don't. Why try to convince
us, Grift, that sloppy is better? We should use the
most precise indices we can generate. And, those
should be the most precise RA indices, simply because RA
is better.
Yet, that set is still just ONE set of indices! Where's the problem?
Too much for your brain to assimilate? Fine. Settle for less. But,
don't try to convince others, who wish to make the effort, to settle for less.
Because, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but sloppy isn't going to
come out better than precise.
The whole thread is kind of pointless, don't you think, Grift?
ZenGrifter writes (to Karel)-
Some apparent errors in your analysis include the impossibility of obtaining precise/total dependent (a misnomer in any event) without specifying #decks and pene-level. Conversely your precise indices are only good for one game each - Bellagio 2D,s17,DAS,65%; or Silver Legacy 2D,h17,noDAS,75%; or Caesars 2D,s17,DAS,LS,55%, etc.
Further, because the borders for the hit-stand-double decisions are quite WIDE, as Snyder (and your predecessor John Imming/UBE) reveals, for what is truly a 'COIN TOSS' decision, reliance on so-called precise indices can actually be a slight detriment to performance - the wide-border/coin-toss decisions are an excellent opportunity to call into play 'intuitive' and meta-conscious awareness, which is why a human proficient counter can out play a computer programmed to play the same count system - the computer wouldn't notice that three 5s and three 4s played out in the first 1/2D of 2Ds, so 16v 10 is a stand @ -1, and other key card considerations - even if the conscious mind didn't register the card-depletion event, we all know that the brain didn't miss it, so these wide-border decision moments are a great opportunity for enhanced play that would otherwise be missed by over-reliance on so-called 'precision indices.'
ZenGrifter writes (to Don)
DS, replace 'sloppy' with 'fuzzy' and I will opt for fuzzy.
zg
Major BJ Breakthrough?
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Oct-2002 17:08:11 (#162)
World Gaming News
Top Gambling Experts Form New Company
to Assault Casinos
By R.U. Sirius
Gambling Newswire, Oct. 23, 1999, Atlantic City, NJ - The legalized casino industry was dealt a severe blow today with the announcement that two of the most feared expert gamblers/researchers in the world have joined forces. Ron "Boris" Fitch and Doug Grant™ have formed Fractals R Us Publishing™ and have simultaneously announced a breakthrough in the development of winning systems for table games.
Grant, best known as the most successful winning blackjack player and team organizer in the history of casino gaming has also been a tireless champion against casino cheating and bogus sellers of worthless card-counting systems. Fitch, who prefers to be called Boris, is the developer of the top-rated blackjack simulation software of the same name.
"Until now, players of blackjack and other table games were at the mercy of a RICO conspiracy between the casinos and the pathetic conmen system hustlers," says Grant, "this changes everything!" he gleefully exclaims.
"I have found a worthy partner and a brilliant associate," proclaimed Boris, "now will be the beginning of a new era in science-advantage gambling!"
Unveiled at a press conference held at the Claridge Resort and Casino on the beautiful Atlantic City Boardwalk was the new collaborative FractalClump™ 'RadiatingBias® blackjack system,' a first ever focused-distillation of the combined genius of the two brilliant game-strategists. "Counting doesn't work, as I have emphasized for years," Grant continued, "the casino game of blackjack is non-linear, but thru the relatively simple application of our patented fractal algorithm, Fractalrithm® players can predetermine the winning table for play and preset the amount that they desire to win."
"FractalClump™ is a most amazing discovery, and based upon the highest universal pattern," Boris went on to elaborate, "it is unlike anything ever devised for winning at casino table games and will have devastating effects on the gaming industry even as it benefits mankind as a whole."
Also present was Donald Trump, owner of The Claridge. "I am so excited about what this will mean to the customers that play at my casinos that I have decided to give the system to every player who stays at a Trump resort." "Yes," the darling Donald continued, "our casinos will lose money to every player who utilizes the easy to learn FractalClump™ system, BUT we will make it up in action!" The ever-smiling Donald proclaimed this new alignment with the noteworthy system scientists to be "a huge victory and win-win-win for all involved - players, Trump shareholders, and me of course."
Originally incorporated as 2+2=Uh? Publishing, the name was changed last week to reflect the company's new direction.
Also present, and indicative of the huge collaborative effort that lead to the fractal-gambling breakthrough, were the key board members of the Fractals R Us Publishing™ unit, Jerry Patterson, E. Clifton Davis, Ronald Dahl, David Popik, and the chair of the company's advisory board, Dr. Morton Jacobs.
"The day of the FractalClumpers has arrived!" explains the company's press secretary, Thomas Bolick, as Boris and Grant hold each other's hand high in a traditional victory stance to a bursting array of photoflash.
e n d
I recall this note...
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Oct-2002 17:36:58 (#163)
I recall when this was first published, and the casions broadcast it to the world, and were very proud of DG's work. So proud, in fact, that they were willing to teach it, or have DG teach it, to anyone who wanted to learn it.
You gotta know that if the casinos promote it to the public, it's got to be a losing proposition.
This was right around the time that Doug shut down rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated with his law suit.
-Mayor
Re: I recall this note...
Posted by BjFool on 23-Oct-2002 17:51:06 (#164)
So what are you suggesting Mayor? That this too-good-to-be-true proposition is nothing but a balloon full of hot air? a mirage? a hoax?
could you elaborate further more please, i know you have more insight and information than almost all of us and I think your opinion is important here
p.s. is it true that ,as I read in the article,counting never worked?
tx in advance
Re: I recall this note...
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Oct-2002 18:00:25 (#165)
Yes, this technique of beating the game is a fraud, never worked, and today is defunct and no longer available. If there was anything to it, you would be able to go to any bookstore and buy a book on it, and experts would be quoting it's EV.
What more is there to say?
--Mayor
Re: I recall this note...
Posted by BjFool on 23-Oct-2002 18:08:54 (#166)
It's reassuring to know that someone has done his homework,
it's truly appreciated, thank you Mayor
BJFool,
Re: I recall this note... MORE
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Oct-2002 02:50:04 (#223)
>>Posted By: The Mayor <advantageplayer@hotmail.com>
In Response To: Re: I recall this note... (BjFool)
Yes, this technique of beating the game is a fraud, never worked, and today is defunct and no longer available. If there was anything to it, you would be able to go to any bookstore and buy a book on it, and experts would be quoting it's EV. What more is there to say? --Mayor <<
--------------------------
...What more is there to say? Well first off, I wrote both press releases with tongue in cheek for bj.wreck group...
...and recently I discovered that Doogie took them as quite real with his response below for your amusement provided. zg
--------------------------
From: DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN (dggrant@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Re-post for Harvey, others
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
View this article only
Date: 2001-07-04 06:29:05 PST
Considering that I do not have any systems to sell, nope, nothing
No systems or software. And I do not know anyone by the name of
Boris, and certainly these idiots would not know a fractal
pattern analysis system if it bit them in the ass, this post
clearly demonstrates the desperation of the con men that wrote
it.
They want me to sell something so bad they can taste it. But I
know that if I sold any of my systems they would be worthless as
soon as Arnold Snyder got hold of them and sold them to the
casinos, like he did with one of my earlier courses.
So I am not selling anything. Nothing. No matter how much these
con men beg and whine to get their hands on my famous systems
(especially the one that Professor Peter Griffin said would win
more than Snyder or Wong's) I will not sell them. They are not
for sale.
Consequently, since they want it so bad, they feel the need to
simply fabricate some utter child like nonsense to try and con
the readers that in fact I am selling some system, which of
course I am not, and have refused several private offers from
some of the con men to purchase my copyrights.
So all the hype, con games, lies, libel and ridiculous and
childish posts like this one will not make me sell anything. My
systems will remain out of circulation forever, other than for
those that already have a license to use them, of course.
Today , I trade financial futures based upon systems I have
developed. I no longer play Blackjack professionally, or finance
or manage card counting teams. I have absolutely zero interest
in selling systems or software in respect to the casino industry.
Do not let the con men con you otherwise. The con men are
clearly desperate, or they would not resort to the time and
effort to so elaborately try and use cyberstalking and malicious
libel against me. They know what I post cannot be refuted, hence
desperation posts like this one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
The Mayor Wonders...
Posted by The Mayor on 26-Oct-2002 10:16:22 (#225)
Just about every person in this country was an expert in the Markets during the 90's, put your money anywhere and it made a bundle.
Question, is DG still doing it today? I wonder.
--Mayor
Re: The Mayor Wonders...YES
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Oct-2002 14:14:59 (#233)
YES - he's using "fractal-pattern-analysis" to trade commodities - supposedly - but actually developing a new following of beleivers - I am reminded of Eric Hoffer's classic 'The True Beliver' (or was that Rollo May?). zg
Re: Major BJ - FLASH There's More
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Oct-2002 19:11:09 (#167)
Inventor Sues over Gambling System
R.U.Sirius
Special Gaming Correspondent
Reuters 10/26/99, ATLANTIC CITY, Documents were filed in NJ State Court
today alleging fraud, theft, and racketeering against Douglas Grant,
the Fractals R Us Publishing Company, and others (see story 10/22/99).
"I will fight to the death!" proclaimed Thurstle Mullins on the steps
of the State Courthouse late this morning. The suit claims that it was
Mullins who made the casino-shaking discovery that provides the basis
for FractalClump™. The documents allege that a co-conspirator, Thomas
Bolick, posed for 2 years in a Mullins sponsored Internet practice and
research group as a participant known only as "Grampy." It was during
this period that Bolick, posing as Grampy, gained the confidence of
Mullins and stole the industry shattering algorithms that Mullins was
in the process of developing and patenting, the documents allege.
"This was my life's work," bemoaned Mullins, a high school drop-out
with a penchant for unorthodox mathematics, "I have followed in the
footsteps of great thinkers of the past, men like Tesla, Galileo, and
Liebniz and they too had their problems!"
"Fractalrithm® will change the world as we know it, I will not lose my
bid for immortality!" decrees Mullins.
The Mullins suit seeks damages in the amount of $200 million and a jury
trial. At press time defendants Grant and Bolick were unavailable for
comment. Another defendant, Harvey J. Cohen Ph.D., who also worked
secretly with Mullins, apparently not wanting to risk his credibility
within the so-called 'card counters' community, was asked to respond to
the litigative charges, to which he exclaimed "ROTFLOL!"
e n d
Re: Major BJ - FLASH There's More
Posted by JamesB on 24-Oct-2002 23:21:13 (#186)
...and it is all so reminiscent of the famous Quasar Apogee system. The good ones die young....
JB
Best Games on the Strip
Posted by Red514LX on 24-Oct-2002 00:52:52 (#171)
Right now I'm a basic strategy player. I go to Vegas about once a year and $5 flat bet in shoe-games on the strip. Basically, I'm looking to have a good time while keeping the house edge to a minimum.
I have three quick ?s
1. What are the best strip casinos to play basic strategy? (looking for stand on S17, double any card, double after split, late surrender, 6D multi-shoe game)
These other 2 ?s are just out of curiosity...
2. Which casinos have those dreaded CSMs?
3. What is the best counting system for playing 6D games? Is "halves" a good one? How about hi-lo?
Thanks for all replies!
Re: Best Games on the Strip
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Oct-2002 01:01:29 (#172)
1. What are the best strip casinos to play basic strategy? (looking for stand on S17, double any card, double after split, late surrender, 6D multi-shoe game)
MGM and Mandalay Bay are good games with all you ask, MGM has more $5 games. Surrender is a great rule, use it! Games with H17 and surrender include NYNY, Flamingo, Palms.
These other 2 ?s are just out of curiosity...
2. Which casinos have those dreaded CSMs?
Everywhere you turn. Also, avoid Super-Fun 21 and 6-5 single deck. But most casinos have a mix of games.
3. What is the best counting system for playing 6D games? Is "halves" a good one? How about hi-lo?
Hi-Lo is a fine system for 6D games, and a fine first system. Many pros use it.
--Mayor
Re: Best Games on the Strip
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 01:18:08 (#173)
**My responses are embedded -
Right now I'm a basic strategy player. I go to Vegas about once a year and $5 flat bet in shoe-games on the strip. Basically, I'm looking to have a good time while keeping the house edge to a minimum.
**That still is a costly wat to do LV when with just a slightrefinement of your game you could come out way ahead without counting.
I have three quick ?s
1. What are the best strip casinos to play basic strategy? (looking for stand on S17, double any card, double after split, late surrender, 6D multi-shoe game)
**There may NOT be such a game for under $25 min now, possibly a few at Mandalay and Tropicana and Luxur, but maybe NONE of the above, somone can look in Trckjack withy interactive search, or CBJN one joint at a time - whereas even Bellagio had such $5 tables just 2years ago, the low-limit s17 shoe is almost a thing of the past in LV.
These other 2 ?s are just out of curiosity...
2. Which casinos have those dreaded CSMs?
**Many, and if you don't count they are fine for your play.
3. What is the best counting system for playing 6D games? Is "halves" a good one? How about hi-lo?
**HiLo, KO, and Red7 are the asiest viable systems and they perform closely with Halves,dependent somewhat on the #i each system entails, I advocate 50+ i# and once you get to 50 and se how easy that is you can easily jump to 100
**But at least learn the methods by which you can get more out of the casino than it gets from you, and that entails coming to grips with your willingness and ability to take a risk of various magnitude and with how much capital you will place at risk (not counting). Try to answer that question for me. zg
Re: Best Games on the Strip CBJN
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 10:12:13 (#174)
A cursory scan of CBJN, the 'Zagat's' guide to BJ conditions throughout NAmerica indicates that you can find those rules with either 6-D at Mandalay, Luxor (both $10min) and MonteCarlo ($5min) - put your BS to better use though, learn to comp-count if card-count is not your bag. zg
Re: Best Games on the Strip CBJN
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Oct-2002 17:41:51 (#211)
From my last trip (very recent!):
6D, DOA, DAS, S17, LSR, 4.5|6 at MGM and MB
6D, DOA, DAS, H17, LSR, 5|6 at Flamingo, Palms
Movie tip - LOOKIN' TO GET OUT
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 11:40:22 (#175)
Its avilable in video, if you can find it, delightful. zg
-------------
LOOKIN' TO GET OUT
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/LookintoGetOut-1012679/about.php
CAST & CREW
Ann-Margret, Jon Voight, Burt Young
Directed by Hal Ashby
SYNOPSIS
In LOOKIN' TO GET OUT (1982), Hal Ashby, who had directed Jon Voight in COMING HOME, gives him free reign in a script Voight cowrote, although much of it has the feel of spontaneous improvisation on the set, with Voight cracking up and doing odd bits of physical comedy. He stars as Alex Kovac, a charming, happy-go-lucky gambler who's ten thousand dollars in debt to the mob in New York, leading him to flee to Las Vegas with his adoring but none-too-bright bosom buddy, Jerry (Burt Young). He hopes to win money at blackjack but doesn't have the stakes. Alex knows the Vegas scene well enough that they are mistaken for high-roller friends of the hotel manager, Bernie Gold (Richard Bradford), and they are given a free suite and advanced gambling money by the casino. Alex's ex-girlfriend, Patti (Ann-Margret), who's now, unknown to him, living in the hotel with Bernie Gold and their daughter, Tosh (Angelina Jolie), spots him in the lobby. But Alex is more interested in a waiter, Smitty (Bert Remsen), whom he remembers as a famous blackjack card-counter from years ago. He hatches a plot with Smitty to win back the money, ending with an incredibly wild, although realistically staged, blackjack game.
TIDBITS -
Although the film was made in 1980 it wasn't released until 1982.
The Las Vegas scenes were filmed at the MGM Grand Hotel (Bally's).
Angelina Jolie made her first screen appearance in Hal Ashby's 1982 comedy LOOKIN' TO GET OUT, which starred and was coscripted by her father, Jon Voight.
Real realistic or Hollywood realistic?
Posted by kansas on 24-Oct-2002 12:56:37 (#176)
"incredibly wild, although realistically staged, blackjack game"
Towards the end of the shoe, the count skyrockets, and our hero, finally having a chance to get even, starts laying out the big bets, only to continue to lose round after round, with the dealer getting 10-up blackjacks, and pulling miracle 6 card charlies on big double down bets. Finally, putting his last few chips in the circle, the scene is interrupted by the pit boss, who comes over and instructs the dealer to prematurely shuffle, and gives our hero the "You are welcome to play any game except blackjack" speech.
Is it realistic like that?
Re: Real realistic or Hollywood realistic?
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Oct-2002 13:06:25 (#177)
Your description sounds like 100 shoes I have played. I wish I had 100 that went the other way, count skyrockets and I pound out the max bets, winning every single one of them... and the pit doesn't notice.
8-)
Re: Real realistic or Hollywood realistic?
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 14:28:39 (#178)
Voight wrote the screenplay, and his brother was the bj-advisor, a budding counter who had taken lessons from Revere and had given Voight the idea. The legndary film counter's name was 'Smitty Carpenter' and he demonstrated two or three very powerful moves that may or may not be executable, but the whole flick was a gas, a real gem of a b-comedy! zg
other great bjack movies
Posted by lucky on 24-Oct-2002 17:25:13 (#179)
Grifters,boiler room,casino,and of course rainman.
One late session I was informed by the head pit,to give it all you got
Grifters and Boilerroom...
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 19:48:08 (#182)
... were NOT BJ movies and weren't very good either. zg
Re: Grifters and Boilerroom...
Posted by computerilliterate on 25-Oct-2002 00:33:13 (#189)
True, Boiler Room isn't a bjack movie but it is gambling if you think the stock market is gambling. I recommend Boiler Room. I loved it and watched it about 30 more times. I know this is off-topic and not really related to bj but since the topic is movies, I recently watched the movie, "Frailty", and it was pretty good. I like it so much that I'm going to watch it again later. If you like movies about serial killers, I recommend it. I got a twisted sense of humor and am basically just a twisted person. Don't bother with 40 days and 40 nights, though. I fell asleep while watching that and Mr. Josh Hartnett nearly made me vomit.
Re: Grifters and Boilerroom...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Oct-2002 02:20:48 (#193)
Frailty, Ebert and Roeper TWO THUMBS! Bill Paxton directs, way to go Bill! zg
Boilerroom...was amazing,,agree
Posted by lucky on 25-Oct-2002 10:57:17 (#197)
Also check out Prime gig,,,superb too.
Prime Gig was the movie...
Posted by zengrifter on 25-Oct-2002 14:42:05 (#204)
... that Boilerroom was meant to be! zg
Counters Welcome
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 04-Nov-2002 13:28:48 (#490)
Which Canadian Casino did you see that sign?
Biloxi BJ
Posted by ZOD on 24-Oct-2002 19:21:06 (#180)
Does anyone have current info on the bj conditions in Biloxi? It's been a couple of years since I've been. I'm particularly interested in 6D games (less heat) and which casinos and shifts might offer the best penetration. Also, I'm always on the lookout for a great steak. Any suggestions in that department would be appreciated as well. Thanks in advance.
ZOD
Re: Biloxi BJ
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Oct-2002 19:46:36 (#181)
I suggest that you invest in CBJN, the "Zagat's Guide" of BJ conditions or its interactive predessor, Trackjack.com, for reliable recon - but at a glance -
Beau Rivage
Casino Magic
Casino Magic(SL)*
Gulfport
Grand
Imp Palace*
Isle Capri
Palace*
President
Treasure Bay
*appears to offer exceptional game(s)
In other words MOST of the Biloxi clubs offer something playable across the 1-8D spectrum, happy hunting. zg
Re: Biloxi BJ
Posted by ZOD on 24-Oct-2002 20:11:10 (#183)
Thanks for the info and advice, ZG. I haven't subscribed to CBJN or Trackjack simply because I mostly play in local casinos. I only get out of town on gambling trips once or twice a year. I intend to get a good sampling of the tables in Biloxi; I'll report back on anything worthwhile. Best...
ZOD
English
Français
Italiano