John Scarne Revisited

[JSTAT]

Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
From: [email protected] (JStat44864)
Date: 1996/04/29
Subject: Re: Blackjack by Scarne

John Scarne finally admitted that he had a card casing system in his book "Scarne's Complete Guide To Gambling"(1986). On page 370, Scarne explains his COUNTOWN SYSTEM. This method did not fit into computer programs and more importantly wins.

Scarne was the first counter to barred at Bugsy Siegel's Flamingo in the 40's. Subsequently, he was barred from all Las Vegas casinos. Scarne was rebuked by the casino sponsored gurus because he had the guts to reveal a valid winning blackjack method. This system is by far, the best single deck method ever devised.

In a nutshell, this system requires you to buy 20 additional chips to be used for the "countdown". Take four chips off this stack and place it next to the remaining 16 chips. The four chips represent aces while the 16 chips represent tens, jacks, queens and kings. As you go through the deck, take off the chips from these stacks as they are played. If, for example, 1/2 of a deck remains and 8 chips are left from the ten's pile and four chips remain on the aces pile. Since this situation has produced a 2-1 ratio from the normal 4-1 ratio of ten cards to aces, we will get blackjacks 9.6% of the time instead of 4.8% of the time. You will NEVER find and exploit this advantage with Stanford Wong's or Arnold Snyder's counts.

John Scarne was the ultimate insider who sought to reveal the truth of this great game. But as usual, you suckers will believe in people who can manipulate computer simulated outcomes better than they can handle cards.

John Scarne's "Countdown System" also works perfectly regarding insurance. While ALL the "recognized" experts can only offer approximations, Scarne's
method will give you the EXACT percentage of the insurance bet. When the ratio of tens and aces is under 2-1, then it is favorable to take insurance. You can also do this with double- deck and beyond if you wish. In the double deck, just adjust your stacks of chips to 32 and 8, for tens and aces respectively. When over the 2-1 ratio, don't take insurance.


Sorry about going off topic about addressing winning with Scarne's count, but with all the sarcasm leveled at me for telling the truth about gaining the edge in this great game, I feel honored to battle the deceptors of this newgroup. Remember, it's the message, not the messenger, that you should analyze!

JSTAT

 

[creeping panther]

Jstat

Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
From: [email protected] (JStat44864)
Date: 1996/04/29
Subject: Re: Blackjack by Scarne

John Scarne finally admitted that he had a card casing system in his book "Scarne's Complete Guide To Gambling"(1986). On page 370, Scarne explains his COUNTOWN SYSTEM. This method did not fit into computer programs and more importantly wins.

Scarne was the first counter to barred at Bugsy Siegel's Flamingo in the 40's. Subsequently, he was barred from all Las Vegas casinos. Scarne was rebuked by the casino sponsored gurus because he had the guts to reveal a valid winning blackjack method. This system is by far, the best single deck method ever devised.

In a nutshell, this system requires you to buy 20 additional chips to be used for the "countdown". Take four chips off this stack and place it next to the remaining 16 chips. The four chips represent aces while the 16 chips represent tens, jacks, queens and kings. As you go through the deck, take off the chips from these stacks as they are played. If, for example, 1/2 of a deck remains and 8 chips are left from the ten's pile and four chips remain on the aces pile. Since this situation has produced a 2-1 ratio from the normal 4-1 ratio of ten cards to aces, we will get blackjacks 9.6% of the time instead of 4.8% of the time. You will NEVER find and exploit this advantage with Stanford Wong's or Arnold Snyder's counts.

John Scarne was the ultimate insider who sought to reveal the truth of this great game. But as usual, you suckers will believe in people who can manipulate computer simulated outcomes better than they can handle cards.

John Scarne's "Countdown System" also works perfectly regarding insurance. While ALL the "recognized" experts can only offer approximations, Scarne's
method will give you the EXACT percentage of the insurance bet. When the ratio of tens and aces is under 2-1, then it is favorable to take insurance. You can also do this with double- deck and beyond if you wish. In the double deck, just adjust your stacks of chips to 32 and 8, for tens and aces respectively. When over the 2-1 ratio, don't take insurance.


Sorry about going off topic about addressing winning with Scarne's count, but with all the sarcasm leveled at me for telling the truth about gaining the edge in this great game, I feel honored to battle the deceptors of this newgroup. Remember, it's the message, not the messenger, that you should analyze!

JSTAT

I know players tossed for doing this very thing. In fact one of our posters uses the chips for a specific reason.

Don't get caught.

CP

 

[shadroch]

Anyone stupid enough to follow Scarnes blackjack strategy will get exactly what they deserve. The old queen is dead, and has long been discredited. Let him be.

 

[JSTAT]

Anyone stupid enough to follow Scarnes blackjack strategy will get exactly what they deserve. The old queen is dead, and has long been discredited. Let him be.

Scarne's "Countdown System" is valid, it is not "stupid." Explain why this method should be "discredited"? It sure seems clear the advantage we will obtain and "deserve."

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[FLASH1296]

I strongly suggest that the reader enjoy pp. 51-62
of Arnold's Snyder's The Big Book of Blackjack (2006)
for a fascinating disquisition on John Scarne.

 

[callipygian]

Date: 1996/04/29

That's pretty much where I stopped reading.

Why don't you repost some Doug Grant stuff while you're at it?

 

[JSTAT]

That's pretty much where I stopped reading.

Why don't you repost some Doug Grant stuff while you're at it?

What about Scarne's method? See what I mean about some folks ignoring the message?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[zengrifter]

Scarne's "Countdown System" is valid, it is not "stupid." Explain why this method should be "discredited"? It sure seems clear the advantage we will obtain and "deserve."

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

Scarne's casing system is a HOAX - NEVER EXISTED - Scarne LIED. zg

 

[JSTAT]

Scarne's casing system is a HOAX - NEVER EXISTED - Scarne LIED. zg

The Scarne's casing system works. It was published in his 1986 book. Therefore it exists. How can it be a "HOAX" when it is in a copyrighted book published by a major publisher? I've never seen it published before. Again, this system requires you to buy 20 additional chips to be used for the "countdown" at a single deck game. Take four chips off this stack and place it next to the remaining 16 chips. The four chips represent aces while the 16 chips represent tens, jacks, queens and kings. As you go through the deck, take off the chips from these stacks as they are played. If, for example, 1/2 of a deck remains and 8 chips are left from the ten's pile and four chips remain on the aces pile, is a good thing. Since this situation has produced a 2-1 ratio from the normal 4-1 ratio of ten cards to aces, we will get blackjacks 9.6% of the time instead of 4.8% of the time. How can this method be wrong?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[itakeyourmoney]

The Scarne's casing system works. It was published in his 1986 book. Therefore it exists. How can it be a "HOAX" when it is in a copyrighted book published by a major publisher? I've never seen it published before. Again, this system requires you to buy 20 additional chips to be used for the "countdown" at a single deck game. Take four chips off this stack and place it next to the remaining 16 chips. The four chips represent aces while the 16 chips represent tens, jacks, queens and kings. As you go through the deck, take off the chips from these stacks as they are played. If, for example, 1/2 of a deck remains and 8 chips are left from the ten's pile and four chips remain on the aces pile. Since this situation has produced a 2-1 ratio from the normal 4-1 ratio of ten cards to aces, we will get blackjacks 9.6% of the time instead of 4.8% of the time. How can this method be wrong?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

Are you his publicist or something?

 

[zengrifter]

How can this method be wrong?

I said it was a hoax. How can it be wrong? It was coupled to Scarnes terribly flawed basic strategy which sets the OTT housEdge at 2%. zg

 

[sabre]

How anyone could have ever thought that removal of 10s from the deck leads to an increase in player edge is beyond me ...

 

[callipygian]

What about Scarne's method? See what I mean about some folks ignoring the message?

What message do you have that's worth reading? I've been one of the nicer people to you on this board (I know, not saying much), but I'm going to stop doing that.

You constantly post about how your systems work even though they're universally derided and how people posting on boards are total idiots. Without contesting anything you claim, why do you keep on trying? If people here are total idiots who don't read your posts and don't "get" your YouTube videos, why don't you go find someplace where people do all of these things?

You've posted Scarne before. Was there a single comment which was even neutral, much less positive? You've hawked your systems before. Was there a single person who ended with a positive opinion of them?

Now, you're rehashing 13-year-old posts from r.g.b. as if this were some gold mine that has been waiting to be discovered. It's not. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's worth anything, there are a load of blackjack books that I swear have been put out by the casinos to try and intentionally waylay wannabe counters.

At what point does "I'm right, everyone I talk to is wrong" going to become, "maybe I'm not right after all"?

Stop hawking your sh*tty systems.

P.S. Do you even know who Doug Grant is?

 

[JSTAT]

What message do you have that's worth reading? I've been one of the nicer people to you on this board (I know, not saying much), but I'm going to stop doing that.

You constantly post about how your systems work even though they're universally derided and how people posting on boards are total idiots. Without contesting anything you claim, why do you keep on trying? If people here are total idiots who don't read your posts and don't "get" your YouTube videos, why don't you go find someplace where people do all of these things?

You've posted Scarne before. Was there a single comment which was even neutral, much less positive? You've hawked your systems before. Was there a single person who ended with a positive opinion of them?

Now, you're rehashing 13-year-old posts from r.g.b. as if this were some gold mine that has been waiting to be discovered. It's not. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's worth anything, there are a load of blackjack books that I swear have been put out by the casinos to try and intentionally waylay wannabe counters.

At what point does "I'm right, everyone I talk to is wrong" going to become, "maybe I'm not right after all"?

Stop hawking your sh*tty systems.

P.S. Do you even know who Doug Grant is?

I know who Doug Grant is. I signed the FAQ on him. Why can't you address Scarne's "Countdown System" instead of attacking me? With "nicer" people like you, who needs enemies? Again what is wrong with Scarne's counting method?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

Here is part of the Doug Grant FAQ I endorsed:

Doug Grant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
last significantly edited December 15, 1996
endorsed by 65 members of the r.g.b community


Q1: Why does this FAQ exist?
Q2: Who is Doug Grant?
Q3: What are the present and past Doug Grant aliases?
Q4: What are the features of Doug Grant's writing style?
Q5: What is the history of the spamming and bombing problem on
rec.gambling.blackjack?
Q6: How do we know all these addresses are aliases for Doug Grant?
Q7: What should we do about Doug Grant's net abuses?
Q8: Doesn't Doug Grant have the right to spam, bomb, and libel as part of
his right to free speech?
Q9: How can I avoid reading Doug Grant's articles?
Q10: Who endorses this FAQ?


Q1: Why does this FAQ exist?
A1: (Abdul)


The main purpose of this FAQ is to provide a concise explanation of the
Doug
Grant spamming problem. This way, we can avoid following up to his spam
while not letting naive readers believe that our silence is an indication
of
acceptance of Grant's activities. It can serve to educate posters to the
newsgroup and Internet Service Providers on how to deal with this
individual. This FAQ is endorsed by dozens of readers of
rec.gambling.blackjack (see Q10.)
Believe me, there are many things I'd rather be doing than fighting
net.abuse. I know you feel the same way. I thank you for your time in
reading this material and helpful action you subsequently take. It's sad
that we, the netizens, spend 10 times as much energy controlling spam as

Q7: What should we do about Doug Grant's net abuses?
A7: (Abdul, Ray DeGennaro, John Clarkson)


Abdul:
The first thing you should do is a NOP (null-operation.) Avoid following
up
to his inciteful uninsightful posts. Posting follow-ups just creates more
of
a "spam burden" for readers of rec.gambling.blackjack. Worse, follow-ups
provide fuel for Doug Grant to rant more.


John Clarkson:


As a psychologist... I learned during my internship not to expect
rationality from a crazy person. You might spare yourself some grief by
not
trying to reconcile Mr. Grant's beliefs and accusations with any rational
scheme. Just say, "Nice doggie..." as you back out of the room.


Abdul:


The second thing you should do is forward via email any inappropriate Doug
Grant articles (or email) with full headers to the appropriate Internet
Service Provider. Preface with a business-like letter explaining
the problem and that it is related to the newsgroup rec.gambling.blackjack
and whatever user address. The ISP may be happier if you send just one
big email message. Don't stoop to Doug Grant's level by spamming.

Abdul:
However, after over a year of trying these approaches, and many more, Doug
Grant still is making it nearly impossible to conduct discussions on
rec.gambling.blackjack. Ignoring him helps to reduce the amount of spam,
but
does not eliminate it, since every post on every topic is a stimulus to
induce him to post his rantings as a follow-up, and at some point with
each
alias he bombs the newsgroup with dozens of identical messages. And while
we
have had success in getting some of his accounts knocked off the net, some
ISP's are not very responsible in the fight against net.abuse.


Go to the Irresponsible ISP Jihad Page at the Doug Grant web site for
information on how you can help in the campaign to remove irresponsible
ISP's from as much of the net as possible if they do not take action
against
spammers such as Doug Grant originating at their sites.


In other news, a moderated rec.gambling.blackjack.mod is in the works.
Vote
"yes" when the call for votes comes around.


Q8: Doesn't Doug Grant have a right to bomb, spam, and libel as part of
his
right to free speech?
A8: (Abdul)


No one has the right to bomb, spam, and libel on the net. Not me, not you,
and not Doug Grant. These activities violate almost all ISP's usage
policies
and interfere with the rights of others to be heard. The Net Abuse FAQ
defines spam as 5-20+ different messages with substantially the same
content
over a period of 10 days. Doug Grant has spammed innumerable times and
outright bombed the newsgroup with dozens of identical messages several
times. Doug Grant does not have the right to maliciously destroy a
newsgroup
like this. Doug Grant does not have the right to assert that Abdul, Steve
Jacobs, Mike Solinas, Ralph Stricker, Eric Holtman, and just about
everybody
else on rec.gambling.blackjack are casino agents and con-men, because they
are not. (See the Doug Grant Libel page.)


In the "real" world, no one has the right to call your telephone number
repeatedly at 3 am with the same recorded message, no one has the right to
rant endlessly with a bullhorn inside a restaurant, and no one has the
right to publish malicious lies about another individual. Furthermore,
"free speech" in the U.S. only applies to restricting the government's
ability to restrict individuals' speech, and the U.S. government certainly
is not involved here.


Q9: How can I avoid reading Doug Grant's articles?
A9: (Abdul)


You can avoid reading Doug Grant's messages by putting the following into
your kill file, if you are using rn or trn:


/[email protected]/f:j
/[email protected]/f:j


and so on for all his aliases. For other newsreaders, consult your
documentation for how to set up kill files, filters, or scoring.


Q10: Who endorses this FAQ?
A10:


[email protected] (John Clarkson)
[email protected] (Scott F. Larcher)
[email protected] (Abdul Jalib)
[email protected] (Augie Chiausa)
[email protected] (Becky)
[email protected] (Bill Vanek)
[email protected] (B J Robinson)
[email protected] (Bryan Moore)
[email protected] (Bob R)
[email protected] (Maverick I)
[email protected] (Richard L. Beresniewicz)
[email protected] (gj bart)
[email protected] (Bob Sweeney)
[email protected] (Bud Obermeyer)
[email protected] (Chip Jarvis)
[email protected] (Carroll Lassettre)
[email protected] (Cynthia Chittick)
[email protected] (Dean Waters)
[email protected] (Mike Deck)
[email protected] (Daniel Efron)
[email protected] (Ray DeGennaro)
[email protected] (Don Kirkpatrick)
[email protected] (Doug Neubauer)
[email protected] (Earl Baker)
[email protected] (Benjamin Duranske)
[email protected] (Edmund C. Hack)
[email protected] (Ed Baker)
[email protected] (Ed Brizzolara)
Ed Pizio
[email protected] (Mike Van Emmerik)
[email protected] (Eric J. Holtman)
[email protected] (SEM)
[email protected] (Dmitry Gromov)
[email protected] [email protected] (William Hrabb)
[email protected] (Robert Fagen)
[email protected] (Steve Jacobs)
[email protected] (Jeff Esposito)
[email protected] (Jeffrey F Kawski)
[email protected] (John Murphy)
[email protected] (Jack McGee)
[email protected] (Jordan Lewis)
[email protected] (John Chandler)
JSTAT
[email protected] (Joe Willis)
[email protected] (Keith Russell)
[email protected] ()
[email protected] (Michael Dalton)
[email protected] (Michael A. Solinas)
[email protected] (Matt Hart)
[email protected] (Monte Christensen)
[email protected] (Mike West)
[email protected] (Tyler K)
[email protected] ()
[email protected] (Rob Palmer)
[email protected] (psybj)
[email protected] (Wild Blue Ventures)
[email protected]
[email protected] (Rusty Martin)
[email protected] (Steve Kelly)
[email protected] (Seth Breidbart)
[email protected] (Rob V.)
[email protected] (Spiney Norman)
[email protected] (JMS)
[email protected] (Rudolph Tatay)
[email protected] (Tom Sims)
[email protected] (Tom Turcich)
[email protected] (Michael Lewis)
[email protected] (Willard Rogers)
[email protected] ("G.S.")
[email protected]

 

[zengrifter]

Like I said, Scarnes BS was so flawed that any validity to his chip-case-10count system would be lost.

(Even if his system was not a hoax, which it was). zg

 

[callipygian]

I know who Doug Grant is.

Are you Doug Grant?

 

[shadroch]

Are you Doug Grant?

Does it really matter?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Why not just use Hi-Opt I?

Scarne's "Countdown System" is valid, it is not "stupid." Explain why this method should be "discredited"? It sure seems clear the advantage we will obtain and "deserve."

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

The system you are describing, a single-ended tens count plus an ace sidecount, is a perfectly legitimate count. Using the chips as an abacus is unnecessary and a tell.

Despite it being a legitimate count it is weak compared to the more common counts available. If you want to count 10's with an ace sidecount, use Hi-Opt I with an ace sidecount.

 

[Katweezel]

Dig him up

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSTAT View Post
I know who Doug Grant is.
(Calli) Are you Doug Grant?

Hey JSTAT, Doug Grant died a long time ago. Can you please stop digging him up? If you want to get out of the past, Doug reincarnated as Ion Saliu. You can talk about Doug's bones with Ion, down on his website.

 

[JSTAT]

The system you are describing, a single-ended tens count plus an ace sidecount, is a perfectly legitimate count. Using the chips as an abacus is unnecessary and a tell.

Despite it being a legitimate count it is weak compared to the more common counts available. If you want to count 10's with an ace sidecount, use Hi-Opt I with an ace sidecount.

Using Hi OptII is a good alternative to Scarne's Countdown System. Practicing Scarne's method at home is a no brainer exercise to assimilate the asymmetry of aces and tens to others. The method is burned in our minds. Unconsciously, we have the advantage when we play single or double deck blackjack games in casinos. No need for an abacus.

JSTAT