in movie 21 the Ben and Fisher were betting thousands of dollars and they won..they were sure that they win but i think that its impossible..when you count cards you can now that there are a lot of high cards left so you can be sure that you will get 20 but theres a danger that dealer will get 21 so its nonsens to bet 100000 dollars for one hand..this is also the reason why i think that card countong isnt very efficient..
self-assurance of players
- Thread starter jarry
- Start date
ihate17
Well-Known Member
Life is never like the movie
Forget the movie. It simplifies things and makes counting appear to be like turning the casino into your personal ATM.
At the same time, you seem to know little about blackjack or cardcounting, though I am not sure what you mean by efficient unless you are trying to compare the movie to real casino experience.
At a high count, you still can not be sure that you will get a 20 but here is what you do know. You know that the chance of someone getting a blackjack is higher than usual and if you get that blackjack you get paid a bonus and if the dealer gets it, he gets no bonus. Thus you have an important advantage here.
You also know that because of a high number of big cards that if you get a double down hand or a split hand (especially against a dealer stiff) you will have a much bigger chance of winning these multiple bet hands than usual.
You also know that if the dealer is showing a stiff that he will bust more often in a high count.
These are the things that give you an advantage even though both you and the dealer have exactly the same chance of getting the high cards.
Efficient: Needs a definition here but if you mean that you will be sure to win all your big bets (like in the movie) then cardcounting is definately not efficient. You get an edge, 1.5-2% overall, perhaps 4-5% on really nice counts, but that is it, the movie makes one, who does not know better, that perhaps the edge is 100%?
Cardcounting gives you an advantage, just an advantage.
ihate17
Forget the movie. It simplifies things and makes counting appear to be like turning the casino into your personal ATM.
At the same time, you seem to know little about blackjack or cardcounting, though I am not sure what you mean by efficient unless you are trying to compare the movie to real casino experience.
At a high count, you still can not be sure that you will get a 20 but here is what you do know. You know that the chance of someone getting a blackjack is higher than usual and if you get that blackjack you get paid a bonus and if the dealer gets it, he gets no bonus. Thus you have an important advantage here.
You also know that because of a high number of big cards that if you get a double down hand or a split hand (especially against a dealer stiff) you will have a much bigger chance of winning these multiple bet hands than usual.
You also know that if the dealer is showing a stiff that he will bust more often in a high count.
These are the things that give you an advantage even though both you and the dealer have exactly the same chance of getting the high cards.
Efficient: Needs a definition here but if you mean that you will be sure to win all your big bets (like in the movie) then cardcounting is definately not efficient. You get an edge, 1.5-2% overall, perhaps 4-5% on really nice counts, but that is it, the movie makes one, who does not know better, that perhaps the edge is 100%?
Cardcounting gives you an advantage, just an advantage.
ihate17
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
just when i think i've got it made.......
just when i think i've got it made, that's when the boom comes down on me, lol and when i think there is no way this hands gonna work, boom i win it.
so but yeah, like ihate17 is saying, a good bit of the trick is just knowing when it's a good chance for getting the 3/2 paying snappers, good chance of a successful double down and a good chance of winning an insurance bet. other than that your pretty much winning and losing hands as normal, which boils down to losing more hands than you win.
so not a real lot of self assured anything going on.
just when i think i've got it made, that's when the boom comes down on me, lol and when i think there is no way this hands gonna work, boom i win it.
so but yeah, like ihate17 is saying, a good bit of the trick is just knowing when it's a good chance for getting the 3/2 paying snappers, good chance of a successful double down and a good chance of winning an insurance bet. other than that your pretty much winning and losing hands as normal, which boils down to losing more hands than you win.
so not a real lot of self assured anything going on.
ok so theres a chance abou 2 or 3% but there are (or was) players who won a millions of dollars in blackjack..was it just because of luck and their experience?
i know you cant be sure that you will win but casinos have spent a lot of moeney for special programmes to detect card countes-just because 2%?
i know you cant be sure that you will win but casinos have spent a lot of moeney for special programmes to detect card countes-just because 2%?
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
just guessing, but i'd suspect there was a hell of a lot of luck involved if they won millions but doubtless their skill was the over riding factor.
but to really know you'd need to know specifically what advantage, and what standard deviation and just how they bet and what their play strategy was for each particular game they went up against. oh, yeah and how many hands they got in.
ihate17
Well-Known Member
individual counters vs well financed counting teams
Casinos have thrown millions of dollars away worrying about small time individual counters who could never win enough money to even slightly dent casino profits, while at the same time have failed to put that money into detecting well financed teams. Or at least have not been that effective against teams. In fact, the latest all knowing table game systems are devised more for cutting comps, employees and catching novice counters but have no defense against team play. So those special programs you mention have so far proved themselves to be worthless concerning this subject.
As an individual counter you can play only one table at a time. If you wong in only on good counts you will win more than playing all but variance is a strong factor as reaching the long term takes awhile. While a big team can have several tables occupied by spotters flatbetting and others perhaps just counting down tables. They can have several "big players" who are signaled in at different tables/casinos who will be placing big bets. The fact that they can cover so much means that they reach that long term faster.
The movie just shows winning but in reality they had losing sessions, losing days and perhaps losing months. It is just when you add up all of their wins and loses, they won a lot of money. I think Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack" gives a more realistic report of the ups and downs of team play when he talks about the AC experiment and how that many of the teams there went broke.
ihate17
Casinos have thrown millions of dollars away worrying about small time individual counters who could never win enough money to even slightly dent casino profits, while at the same time have failed to put that money into detecting well financed teams. Or at least have not been that effective against teams. In fact, the latest all knowing table game systems are devised more for cutting comps, employees and catching novice counters but have no defense against team play. So those special programs you mention have so far proved themselves to be worthless concerning this subject.
As an individual counter you can play only one table at a time. If you wong in only on good counts you will win more than playing all but variance is a strong factor as reaching the long term takes awhile. While a big team can have several tables occupied by spotters flatbetting and others perhaps just counting down tables. They can have several "big players" who are signaled in at different tables/casinos who will be placing big bets. The fact that they can cover so much means that they reach that long term faster.
The movie just shows winning but in reality they had losing sessions, losing days and perhaps losing months. It is just when you add up all of their wins and loses, they won a lot of money. I think Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack" gives a more realistic report of the ups and downs of team play when he talks about the AC experiment and how that many of the teams there went broke.
ihate17
Imagine you are,by far, the best looking guy you can imagine, and have a wardrobe thats even more impressive.You are going to a dance club full of single woman. Will you get every single woman you try for? Of course not, but you'll most likely do very well.
Same goes for an expert card counter. They won't win every bet, or every trip even, but in the end they will do quite nice.
Same goes for an expert card counter. They won't win every bet, or every trip even, but in the end they will do quite nice.
callipygian
Well-Known Member
The number of people who have won a million dollars in blackjack because of skill has got to be small. Maybe zero.
First of all, if you're aiming to win a million dollars in blackjack, you've probably got a bankroll of at least a few million to begin with. The number of people who have become rich by playing blackjack is very likely zero.
Secondly, almost all the teams that people talk about have been large and externally funded. That means that even if the team wins ten million dollars, it's highly unlikely any single team member gets a million - if half gets returned to the investor, and a team of 10 splits the remainder, each person on the team gets 5% of the winnings.
Thirdly, people exaggerate their winnings. In the book, the MIT team is playing at the MGM Grand during the Tyson-Holyfield riot; MGM Grand changes their purple ($500) chips because of theft during the riot, and the team recruits strippers to help them cash their duffle bag full of $500 chips. The truth of the story pretty much ends with MGM Grand changing their chips - the team had only a few chips (not a duffle bag full) and they just walked up to the counter politely and showed ID to change their chips. (You'd be stupid to hand over that kind of money to a stripper anyway.)
None of the people whose lives were depicted in the book or the movie retired on blackjack winnings - they graduated from MIT, took fairly mundane technology-related jobs, lived fairly decent upper-middle class lives, and likely made far more money from book and movie royalties than from blackjack.
Although you paint with a broad brush alot of what you say here has some merit. At the same time your generalization of the MIT team in question is not quite accurate. First off not all even graduated from MIT. There are at least 4 of this team that I personally know that still use blackjack as their primary income in one form or another. The real discrepency lies in the idea that these team members made money off the books and movies. Speaking only for the players loosely portrayed in BDTH and the movie 21, the only one who benefitted monetarily off those was the the Kevin Lewis/Ben Campbell character. All others received no royalties. They may not have retired on blackjack winnings, but all that I know have made well over a million dollars in blackjack, and are still going.
As far as those that make a million dollars using blackjack as a source of income, its just as naive to say there are none as it is to say there are many. I have never made close to a million dollars in one year playing blackjack. I have made much more than that in my lifetime however. Furtheremore as far as my own team, I have never had a bankroll ever approach 7 figures. As well as other than my first year have I ever had one less than 6 figures. I am not alone in this scenario, but as you know its not common. Its good to know the truth about what rewards skillfully playing blackjack will get you. It takes money to make money, this should be no surprise. But being cynical about those who really do it does not make whats false true.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
just curious here. everyone talks about how many or who made a million in a year or what ever.
how about the greatest amount lost in a year or what ever by a skilled team?
:whip:The teams did not actually have a max bet. They were limited by the table max and how many big players that were in the session.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
You have to be wary of what anyone tells you in this business. Somebody telling me they've won a million dollars playing blackjack is like somebody telling me they're in the Mafia. Those who actually do these things know to keep their mouths shut so the fact that they are telling me this means it is very unlikely to be true.
Casinos will never have to worry about AP's because the number of people who play with advantage as their intent will always be minuscule compared to the the number of gamblers. AP has been around for decades and this fact has never changed even now when books and computers capable of doing the job are commonplace. There are certain things that teams can do that individuals can't but I don't see the point of teams larger than just a few people, as diminishing returns sets in quickly. Gaming is by its nature an individualistic act, not practical for large organizations.
But I'm glad for the movie 21, because it has surely convinced some casino executives that the silliness shown is what it takes to beat them.
callipygian
Well-Known Member
While that's true, of the people who are named on Wikipedia, 4 out of 5 attended MIT, as did most of their recruits.
Bojack1 said:
Which supports my assertion that none of them made enough money on the team to stop playing. I'm not contesting that there aren't professional blackjack players, I'm contesting that any of the team members of fame (and by extension, none of their subordinates) made any life-changing amount of money.
The variance and EV of the team's bankroll is pretty easily estimated from Mike Aponte's interview: the largest dip that a team bankroll took was $300,000 over 3 months, but they won back $500,000 over the next 2 months. Let's take as an upper limit that the team made $500,000 every 2 months - that's $3,000,000 a year, or $150,000 per 10-person team member if half goes back the bank.
Bojack1 said:
Over how many years? If they've been playing for 20 years and earned a million dollars, that's not exactly life-changing.
Bojack1 said:
I didn't know that. Sucks to be them!
Attending a college and graduating from it are 2 different things. Not everybody finishes their degree. I agree that some did not have enough money to retire on at the time, but thats only relative to the type of lifestyle you choose to live. Some of the heavily invested players on the later teams made enough to live a modest life for many years if they chose to. They just chose to keep making money instead, just not at the same pace. Of course for the ones in question they didn't have to make as much anymore to live a comfortable lifestyle. It is lifechanging money if you make enough to where you have no idea what a 9to 5 job is but yet make a 6 figure income with a savings to boot. No they didn't cut off the main team with millions in everyones pockets, but if you left college with a few hundred thousand dollars plus an avenue to add to that every year, thats all you need especially if you're doing what you like. Most would see no need for life changing, if thats already their life.
callipygian
Well-Known Member
I think I see the discrepancy in our opinions.
I think my definition of life-changing is different because this was MIT in the 1990's - I consider the baseline of "life" to be pretty high given that a fair number of MIT graduates from that era literally retired at age 25 with millions from the dot-com era, and people were regularly pulling in $100,000/yr jobs straight out of college.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Back in the 80's I was accepted to MIT and didn't get to go because I was too damned poor. Had to piece together my degree at state and community colleges, part-time. The school does have some prestige but it doesn't make you a superhuman. In general you get out of education whatever you put into it, and I appreciate my no-frills education apparently more than certain people who had everything handed to them.
From that perspective, I'm prepared to say unequivocally that anyone who drops out of college to play blackjack is a fool. AP is an excellent part-time job primarily because it doesn't prevent you from having a full-time job. But the casinos can take this away from us any time they want if they think it's worth it. Education no one can take away.
callipygian
Well-Known Member
Seriously? That sucks. MIT wouldn't do anything for you (grants, loans, etc.)?
Automatic Monkey
Banned
No, this was 1981. Complexion and genitalia unacceptable for receiving any student aid.
All top colleges ensure that any person admitted can afford to go, no matter how poor they are. They can and do help in all situations, and will NEVER abandon a good student due to finances.
Sure, you'll be in debt for a long time, and if you have an aversion to that I can see foregoing the opportunity, but IMO it's a foolish move. Student loans are the easiest (and cheapest) money you'll ever get.