JoeV said:
I agree that they were better funded but who says everything else was better. Even if it was I don't think the results would vary that much from a good player with a million dollar bankroll and a great one. They're both should win money in the 1 to 2 % range right? And if there recruiting process was so good how come they were burnt out in just a few years. Again I love the stories of the MIT teams, that what got me interested in counting. But I'm beginning to think what they did wasn't so special, besides getting people to give them millions of dollers to play with. Let me ask you EasyRhino, if you had a million dollar bankroll instead of the one you have now, based on what you have won already don't you think you would have won huge amounts of money too. What makes the MIT team any different than you?
OK Joe,
Initially the MIT teams were funed by outside investment. Now i'm going to stop talking about "teams" here and start talking about one in particular - the most successful one. There have been many different teams opperated out of MIT over the years.
The team detailed in Ben Mezrich's 'Bringing Down the House' were so successful that they were quickly able to buy their investors out. There achievements included streamlining the BP team technique substantially, and playing some of the highest stake blackjack ever to have been played for an extended period of time. Having the bankroll is one thing, getting away with playing at those stakes is an entirely different one.
It's all fine and well looking at the numbers and saying 'i could have earned...', but most counters - even back in the early 90's when the conditions were better and heat was less - wouldn't manage to get away with playing at the stakes that the MIT boys did for any length of time. They managed it for years, extracting an 8 figure sum from the casino coffers.
They had the act down to a fine art and had learned to blend in perfectly.
Also, they were/are better players than the vast majority of those playing the game today. When skill competitions have been run between them and other players, they normally always come out top (you can find out more about these if you look into the skills comps at the blackjack ball and other stories like that). I know the the Cezch team recruited a few of their players after the more major MIT team had disbanded and basically took the view that if you've played on the MIT team, no skills check-outs are required. I'm not going to enter into discussion on this point as it's not my place to say any more, but i know that on other teams they have been some of the most successful and profitable players.
Due to the fact that several former MIT players have ended up offering courses or products, many players want to make them out to be scamming the public and i suppose that in some ways that's a valid opinion. All of the information that these players have offered is out there else where for less cash. My opinion however is that if you can learn from the best, you should - and they've always offered a new view on the best methods which unlike many of the views out there have been based on a massive wealth of experience and knowledge.
RJT.