Where/Who the hell is Bryce Carlson?

[jack.jackson]

Has anybody seen or heard from Bryce Carlson?

Whats his real name?

How come he has done no interviews?

In his book he mentioned BJFB part2(has anybody heard about this)?

Why does he remain in the shadows? Anybody even heard of him..lol

Has anybody tried the Omega blackjack machine?

Does he even exist? Has anybody met him?

 

[ihate17]

I think he shows up at bj21.com sometimes

I think I have seen rare posts from him over there.

 

[rukus]

he's done one or two interviews that i can think of and has written papers/articles outside of his book BJFB. he does indeed post (if only rarely) on the green chip pages, always very insightful.

if you played high stakes as a professional, wouldnt you want to fly under the radar as well? how many blackjack tables can wong sit at these days without being harrased?

 

[jack.jackson]

he's done one or two interviews that i can think of and has written papers/articles outside of his book BJFB. he does indeed post (if only rarely) on the green chip pages, always very insightful.

if you played high stakes as a professional, wouldnt you want to fly under the radar as well? how many blackjack tables can wong sit at these days without being harrased?

Ya, I dont think anybody knows his real name or even what he looks like. He could post here and we wouldnt even know it.

 

[zengrifter]

Interview with Bryce Carlson

Bryce Carlson on Lawrence Revere (Archive copy)

Bryce Carlson is on the prowl - LA Times

 

[jack.jackson]

Interview with Bryce Carlson

Bryce Carlson on Lawrence Revere (Archive copy)

Bryce Carlson is on the prowl - LA Times

Thanks zen, great articles!

In the Beginning of the one with LR, he refers to Lawrence as Larry?

Also I like the part about the floating advantage:

" A few weeks later, while perusing Playing BJ as a Business (the red, spiral-bound, softcover edition) I noticed that Revere stated that the probability of a Blackjack with 4 decks is about 1 in 21 hands, whereas the probability with 1 deck improved to about 1 in 20.7 hands; he then went on to say that as 4 decks were dealt down to the one deck level, the probability of a natural increased from 1 in 21 to the 1-deck likelihood of 1 in 20.7. The more I looked at that statement the crazier it seemed."

This is so true to. Well maybe not. The deeper into the pack you get, the more BJs you start to notice? It is crazy

He hung up on bryce..lmao

 

[QFIT]

Thanks zen, great articles!

In the Beginning of the one with LR, he refers to Lawrence as Larry?

Also I like the part about the floating advantage:

" A few weeks later, while perusing Playing BJ as a Business (the red, spiral-bound, softcover edition) I noticed that Revere stated that the probability of a Blackjack with 4 decks is about 1 in 21 hands, whereas the probability with 1 deck improved to about 1 in 20.7 hands; he then went on to say that as 4 decks were dealt down to the one deck level, the probability of a natural increased from 1 in 21 to the 1-deck likelihood of 1 in 20.7. The more I looked at that statement the crazier it seemed."

This is so true to. Well maybe not. The deeper into the pack you get, the more BJs you start to notice? It is crazy

He hung up on bryce..lmao

Not only crazy -- but also incorrect.

 

[EasyRhino]

But QFIT, there IS something to floating advantage right? I mean, I know I slogged through that 100 pages from Blackjack Attack for some reason? It's just not enough of a factor to worry about, most of the time?

 

[zengrifter]

But QFIT, there IS something to floating advantage right?

Hell yeah. z(not QFIT)g

 

[jack.jackson]

Like I said, this guy is the slick of the slickiest. Nobody even knows his real name. Go figure guys!

I still cant believe Lawrence Revere hung-up on'em. Lmao

 

[QFIT]

But QFIT, there IS something to floating advantage right? I mean, I know I slogged through that 100 pages from Blackjack Attack for some reason? It's just not enough of a factor to worry about, most of the time?

Yes floating advantage exists. (See http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm).

It just doesn't affect BJ frequencies.

 

[zengrifter]

Yes floating advantage exists. (See http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm).

It just doesn't affect BJ frequencies.

What is the FA dependent on then? zg

 

[zengrifter]

What is the FA dependent on then? zg

Intuition? zg

 

[Alvaro]

I have read his book and I liked so much.

His estyle of writing is great for me.

And he gives a lot of good tips to be welcome at the casino the next time; the camuflage chapter is good, like the others as well.

But:

Even though AOII is quite strong, is difficult to implement, how many people are using it nowadays?

And the part of the book in which he tells the story of that couple "Gladys" and "Frank"...that goal is too rare to achieve. I dont think that's a good story to tell a beginner.

Any way was a good book for me.



Merry cristmas!

 

[The Chaperone]

What is the FA dependent on then? zg

The floating advantage occurs because your strategy variations and even your basic strategy plays become much stronger the deeper you get into a shoe.

As an example let's imagine two different scenarios in a deeply dealt 6 deck game:

-In the first scenario you are dealt 6,5 vs. 5 on the first hand of the shoe.

-In the second scenario, there is one deck left in the shoe, the running count prior to the hand being dealt is 0, and you are dealt the same hand 6,5 vs. 5.

In both cases you are doubling down of course, but in the first case you are doubling down from a pack with a HiLo True Count of .5. In the second scenario you are doubling down from a pack with a TC of 3! It is not hard to imagine that the double down in the second scenario is stronger. The floating advantage does not come from this one play of course, but it comes from all the possible hands you will encounter (stronger index plays as well) which will result in a bigger player advantage (or smaller player disadvantage) based on relative effects of removal.

As a practicality, it is best to assume the increase in player advantage at various deck penetrations is equal to that of the increase from the original player advantage of the game that you would get from playing a game with the same rule set only using a number of decks equal to the number of decks remaining in the shoe. For example if you are playing a S17, DAS, LS, nRSA 6 deck game the player advantage would be -.36%, but if you were playing a single deck game with the same rules, the player advantage would be .18%. The difference is .54%. Thus as a rule of thumb regardless of TC, you will have a .54% increase in advantage on the hands played with only one deck left to be dealt when compared to hands dealt at or near the top of the shoe.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Clarification: The FA will cause increased naturals at a constant true count.

8 decks: First card is a 10, chances are 128/416. (0.30769) The chances of the 2nd card being an ace are 32/415 (.07711) Chances of a natural on the first hand of a neutral shoe= 2 x 0.30769 X 0.07711 = 0.047452

1 deck: First card is a 10, chances are 16/52 (0.30769) Second card being an ace = 4/51 (0.07843) Chances of a natural on the first hand of a neutral deck - 2 x 0.30769 x 0.07843 = 0.048264

 

[The Chaperone]

Clarification: The FA will cause increased naturals at a constant true count.

8 decks: First card is a 10, chances are 128/416. (0.30769) The chances of the 2nd card being an ace are 32/415 (.07711) Chances of a natural on the first hand of a neutral shoe= 2 x 0.30769 X 0.07711 = 0.047452

1 deck: First card is a 10, chances are 16/52 (0.30769) Second card being an ace = 4/51 (0.07843) Chances of a natural on the first hand of a neutral deck - 2 x 0.30769 x 0.07843 = 0.048264

As QFIT has already pointed out, this is incorrect. Your 1 deck numbers are correct for a *single deck* game, but are incorrect for an 8 deck game with 1 deck remaining to be dealt and a TC 0. DUCY?

Hint: How do you know there are exactly 16 tens and 4 aces in that one deck. What if there are 20 tens and 0 aces?

 

[NightStalker]

Mixed

As QFIT has already pointed out, this is incorrect. Your 1 deck numbers are correct for a *single deck* game, but are incorrect for an 8 deck game with 1 deck remaining to be dealt and a TC 0. DUCY?

Hint: How do you know there are exactly 16 tens and 4 aces in that one deck. What if there are 20 tens and 0 aces?

Certainly these numbers are good for perfect single deck. But they are also good for one remaining deck with neutral count: there are equal highVs low cards remaining.. You are right that we cannot assure that there are 4aces and 16tens. It may contain all neutral cards.
But on an average:: It'll contain 16tens and 4 aces - and in theory we always count on the average.
I do agree with AM that FA will increase naturals on neutral counts.

Moreover your double down example is exactly saying the same thing. I'll try to explain with your own example:

As an example let's imagine two different scenarios in a deeply dealt 6 deck game:
-In the first scenario you are dealt 6,5 vs. 5 on the first hand of the shoe.
-In the second scenario, there is one deck left in the shoe, the running count prior to the hand being dealt is 0, and you are dealt the same hand 6,5 vs. 5.

You are saying once three little cards are present in the hand, count(dealer bust probability,successful double down) has increased. Same is the case with naturals: Once an ace(non-ten) is removed, probability that next card is ten has increased. IMO, you just said the same thing in a different manner.
Not trying to be aggressive, it's just my opinion..

 

[The Chaperone]

Certainly these numbers are good for perfect single deck. But they are also good for one remaining deck with neutral count: there are equal highVs low cards remaining.. You are right that we cannot assure that there are 4aces and 16tens. It may contain all neutral cards.
But on an average:: It'll contain 16tens and 4 aces - and in theory we always count on the average.
I do agree with AM that FA will increase naturals on neutral counts.

Moreover your double down example is exactly saying the same thing. I'll try to explain with your own example:

You are saying once three little cards are present in the hand, count(dealer bust probability,successful double down) has increased. Same is the case with naturals: Once an ace(non-ten) is removed, probability that next card is ten has increased. IMO, you just said the same thing in a different manner.
Not trying to be aggressive, it's just my opinion..

You're opinion is wrong. I am not saying the same thing.

The double down example shows that the relative amount of high cards to small cards has increased dramatically with the one deck left example but not changed much at all in the 8 decks left example.

In the BJ example, in a shoe game with one deck remaining and a TC of 0, when the first card is an ace, the odds of receiving a ten as a second card have actually gone down. The reverse is also true. If you receive a ten as your first card your chance of getting an ace as a second card has gone down as unlike a true single deck game, you do not know the specific composition of that remaining deck. All you know after you get your first card (ace or ten) is that you are now drawing from pack with a TC of -1. If you received a 5 or some other small card as your first card, you would actually have an increased likelihood of receiving an ace or ten as your second card as you would now be drawing from a pack with TC +1.

I will repeat one more time. The floating advantage has *nothing* to do with an increased likelihood of getting dealt a blackjack. It has everything to do with basic strategy (and in some case strategy variations) being much stronger plays at deeper levels of penetration. You have more information with one deck left than you do off the top of the shoe. Specifically, in my example, you have the information that the other 7 decks were count neutral, so you know the last deck will also be count neutral. When you are playing off the top of the shoe, you do not have this luxury. You do not have any idea if that first deck out of the shoe will have a count of +10, -5 or if it will also be count neutral.

 

[The Chaperone]

Counter-example

Let's say at some point in the middle of an 8 deck shoe, someone informs you that the next 2 cards are both black. This person does not know if both are spades, both are clubs, or one of each, he only knows that both are black. Now, if the next card out is a club, what are the odds of the 2nd card also being a club? By the same logic employed by AM and NS determining the above BJ probabilities, I would assume they think the odds of the next card being a club is 0%. Since on average out of those 2 black cards, there will be one spade and one club, once they see the first card is a club, they know for certain that the second card has to be a spade. I believe this to be massively incorrect.