Derren Brown on Blackjack

How does he do it?

  • Card counting

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Remembers every card

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • All set up

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Harman said:
I don't know how many of you have seen this youtube clip of Derren Brown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1mweFSqACU
How does he do it?

Also, post below if you know what the most accurate blackjack counting system is, if you could master it perfectly.. cheers :)
Click to expand...

iv always wondered about that clip there. he hits a 16 v 6. at what count would you do that.... something extremely low... and then why would you have a big bet out at that point... humm???
 
la_dee_daa said:
iv always wondered about that clip there. he hits a 16 v 6. at what count would you do that.... something extremely low... and then why would you have a big bet out at that point... humm???
Click to expand...

The clip explains it entirely. He is not counting. He is memorizing, which is the most effective AP of all. He can know the exact odds (if he's mentally agile enough, and all signs are that he is) of hitting a sixteen against a dealer six at that particular point in the shoe. There must have been a boxcar full of aces and/or twos and/or threes and/or fours and/or fives in comparison to sixes and higher to justify such a bet. But the count is immaterial, if you know every card that's been played and can calculate in your head the odds of winning by drawing vs. the odds of winning by standing. No wonder that he was barred. Every casino should have a neon sign at the entranceway: "Losers welcome. Winners will be barred." At least, that's my read. I'd be interested to hear how others feel.
 
He's not using a "system."

He's doing what I call, "truely counting the cards." He is doing what was depicted in Rain Man which, by the way, is based on a real person. In the example of hitting a 16 vs. a dealer 6, it's not unbelievable (if he trained since early childhood or if he was a "social idiot-savant" like Rain Man) that no fives have been drawn as he is partially through a six-deck shoe. And maybe many, many sixes came out already.

Thus, any balanced "system" that you might be using may actually be saying that the TC is near zero because of all the sixes that came out. However, he has information about every shoe that he plays that we couldn't even conceive of. He knows he has 16 and the dealer has 6 but he also knows there are 24 fives remaining in the 156 cards left unseen. He has to hit his because the dealer has more than twice the chances of getting one of those fives as he does. She could flip one for an '11'; she could then hit again for a sixteen or a 21; she could flip for a sixteen and hit to a 21 (which is exactly what he was hoping to do).

A similar scenario could have occurred with fours. Twos, sevens, eights and nines are of negligable value for neither the player nor the dealer. However, he keeps track of every card for every piece of information he can handle. FIVE IS ACTUALLY THE MOST VALUABLE CARD THERE IS FOR THE DEALER so it's pretty easy to imagine why he'd hit a 16 vs. 6. It's also why I use a system that recognizes fives.

To give you an idea of how powerful "true card counting" is, imagine the following. I (using Halves) can get a very small edge by flat betting six-deck shoes. They have to allow surrender, I have to always wong-out at a negative Halves TC of -0.75, I have to have perfect BS deviations from -1 to +10, I have to truncate the divisor, I have to use half deck divisors, I have to bet two boxes at all times and get this, there can never be anyone else at the table. THIS GUY COULD GET AN EDGE BY FLAT-BETTING 8D/H17 SHOES WITH OTHER PEOPLE AT THE TABLE.
 
EyeHeartHalves said:
He's doing what I call, "truely counting the cards." He is doing what was depicted in Rain Man which, by the way, is based on a real person. In the example of hitting a 16 vs. a dealer 6, it's not unbelievable (if he trained since early childhood or if he was a "social idiot-savant" like Rain Man) that no fives have been drawn as he is partially through a six-deck shoe. And maybe many, many sixes came out already.

Thus, any balanced "system" that you might be using may actually be saying that the TC is near zero because of all the sixes that came out. However, he has information about every shoe that he plays that we couldn't even conceive of. He knows he has 16 and the dealer has 6 but he also knows there are 24 fives remaining in the 156 cards left unseen. He has to hit his because the dealer has more than twice the chances of getting one of those fives as he does. She could flip one for an '11'; she could then hit again for a sixteen or a 21; she could flip for a sixteen and hit to a 21 (which is exactly what he was hoping to do).

A similar scenario could have occurred with fours. Twos, sevens, eights and nines are of negligable value for neither the player nor the dealer. However, he keeps track of every card for every piece of information he can handle. FIVE IS ACTUALLY THE MOST VALUABLE CARD THERE IS FOR THE DEALER so it's pretty easy to imagine why he'd hit a 16 vs. 6. It's also why I use a system that recognizes fives.

To give you an idea of how powerful "true card counting" is, imagine the following. I (using Halves) can get a very small edge by flat betting six-deck shoes. They have to allow surrender, I have to always wong-out at a negative Halves TC of -0.75, I have to have perfect BS deviations from -1 to +10, I have to truncate the divisor, I have to use half deck divisors, I have to bet two boxes at all times and get this, there can never be anyone else at the table. THIS GUY COULD GET AN EDGE BY FLAT-BETTING 8D/H17 SHOES WITH OTHER PEOPLE AT THE TABLE.
Click to expand...

We have a difference in semantics. Normally card counting refers to the tracking of the balance of little cards to big cards. To me, this guy practices card memorization. he has a memory location for each and every card in each and every deck. He's a living computer. This is why casinos will not allow computer devices at the table. Whereas a card counter has a 1 to 2 percent edge, this guy probably has a double digit edge. I wonder what his edge is when there are only a few cards left to be dealt with 80% pen? Lol I wonder how long it takes to learn to use his memory technique?

It's basically what you see in those "how to" memory books. I remember being able to memorize a number of over a hundred digits when I was into this. The way its done is by attaching a sound to each number in the string, so that you create a sentence representing the entire 100 digit number. You only needed ten sounds. All you have to do is recite the sentence or sentences in your head and translate it back to numbers.
 
aslan

That technique is still exactly how APs such as Semyeon Dukach and Tommy Hyland perform "ace-sequencing." And of note, ace tracing is a way to beat blackjack that doesn't follow either of our definitions of card counting but cards are literally counted.
 
EyeHeartHalves said:
That technique is still exactly how APs such as Semyeon Dukach and Tommy Hyland perform "ace-sequencing." And of note, ace tracing is a way to beat blackjack that doesn't follow either of our definitions of card counting but cards are literally counted.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't call them card counting in the traditional sense, but yes, it is counting cards.
 
Sonny said:
The most accurate counting systems are:

Thorp Ultimate for playing
RAPC for betting
Ten count for insurance
Click to expand...
Presumeably that would be the inferior 1971 version Ace-reckoned, but I don't know that statement to be true, regardless. zg
 
zengrifter said:
If Thorp Ultimate is Ace-reckoned with over-weighted A (-9) then is NOT a good PLAYING strategy. zg
Click to expand...

My bad. I should have said Thorp Ultimate for betting, not for playing. The best for playing (assuming a single-parameter system) would be UAPC. The point is that the "most efficient" point counting system depends on which element you are trying to optimize.

-Sonny-
 
Sonny said:
My bad. I should have said Thorp Ultimate for betting, not for playing. The best for playing (assuming a single-parameter system) would be UAPC. The point is that the "most efficient" point counting system depends on which element you are trying to optimize.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...

For playing, Griffin has A-T: 51, 60, 85, 125, 169, 122, 117, 43, -52, -180 for a PE of .703, IC of .922
 
My bad again, UAPC isn't single-paramater. Man, those trolls really threw me off my game! It looks like Sonny needs to crack down on the pest problem.

-Sonny-
 
A little theory

*2334320-1-4(A-4vsX+1)

1.02334320-1-3-4(.997)
2.02334320-1-4,0(.68)
3.42334320-1-5,0(.93)


Add or Subtract the Secondary, to Implement the other two counts, given the situation.

Example:*

Count: +17/+12

Betting;(Add)+17/+12=+29

Ins(subtract)+17-12=+5

Note: If you choose to reverse the tags of the secondary(A+4vsX-1)then naturaly you would do opposite in the above example.

The Secondary count, can also be used to enhance PE. from .7 to .8 through mult-parameter adjustments.

_____________________________________________

VAPC converted into RAPC

2223220-1-3(A-4vs3,4,5,6+1)

BC.997
PE.68
IC.90

Multi-params could also be used.
___________________________________

2233210-1-3(-3+)

BC.995
PE.66
IC.89

_________________________________

2223210-1-2-3(*+4)

BC.994
Pe.66*
IC.85*

With Reckoned Ace and SC.

*Optional
__________________________________________

Just plain obsurd!

0000010-100
02222000-20
200100000-3
 
Last edited:
Best card counting system

Sonny said:
My bad again, UAPC isn't single-paramater. Man, those trolls really threw me off my game! It looks like Sonny needs to crack down on the pest problem.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...

I liked the way Snyder puts it. It can be a little confusing. At least for me..lol


Some players find card counting easy, and/or are so dedicated to practice that they can accurately apply higher level card-counting strategies. By a "higher level count," I mean a count that assigns card values other than +1, -1, or 0. A "multi-parameter count," on the other hand, is one that keeps separate running counts for various cards. I am of the opinion that the most difficult higher level single parameter card counting system (i.e. - no "side counts") are easier to play with accuracy, than the "simplest" level one multi-parameter card counting systems.

Most card counters, including serious professionals, should stick with level one single-parameter card counting systems. Some players may obtain a slightly greater advantage by applying a higher level single-parameter count strategy. I've analyzed more than 100 different single-parameter systems, including both those that are currently available and some that are purely theoretical to determine the "best", in terms of potential returns on the dollar.
 
Hi, im a long time lurker,

This post is old, and my opinion doesn't hold much weight as compared to the senior members of this board. But I would like to throw in my two cents.

If Derren Brown (DB) did memorize the cards seen he would intuitively be 'counting' the cards.
However, all CCs know that no matter your knowledge of the deck composition, you do not know the order of the cards; DB could not have possibly known the order of the cards.
Hence, even if DB knew all the Fours were left in the deck, he could not have known if a Four was the next card. Mathematically speaking, by hitting on a 16 v 6, DB was incorrect-he was lucky. If you watch the clip, the dealers next two cards are 9 and 10, either of those cards could have been DB's Four card, but instead he caught the Four.

DB's memorization of the deck is an inaccurate and imprecise way to play blackjack. Although it is still a cruder method of AdPlay with a subconsious application of Indicies; DB will still lose money in the long run.

Another prime example of why DB will lose overall but won due to variance is this.

There is 52 cards remaining; there are 10 Sixes and 10 Fives; 32 Tens left. For a HiLo count this is in a 4D game with no cut card: (80 lows minus the 20 lows left) minus (80 tens minus 32 tens left) = RC 12; converts TC12 (12/1). Using indices of 16 v 10 as TC0 and 15 v 10 as TC4.

In this scenario, DB would bet big because he knows theres lots of tens left in the deck. Essentially doing a RC to TC conversion with bet progression. However, during play DB gets 16 v 10 or a 15 v 10, what does he do?

If he knew there were only Tens, Fives and Sixes left, he will hit, to either improve to 21 or 20 to beat a highly probable Dealer 10 10.

BUT, mathematically this is incorrect. In fact DB should SIT on 16 v 10 and 15 v 10. DB is more likely to BUST if he HITs. The fact that the dealer can get a 10 on the next card is irrelevant; because if the dealer gets anything OTHER than a 10, the dealer is MORE likely to BUST on the THIRD card by being forced to draw to 17. There is approx 38.5% of a Five or Six draw or 61.5% of a Ten on 1st draw. While there is approx 44.5% chance 2 Fives, 2 Six, or combination of Five and Six occuring of the 2nd draw. In these both scenarios, the Dealer will have a higher chance of busting on the second draw.

Therefore by not BUSTING FIRST, DB is more likely to WIN.

In conclusion, the mathematical foundations of BJ is more valuble than memorization of the cards and by CC you maintain a better accuracy and decision than 'fuzzy' logic employed by DB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top