I was wondering about this recently. Since I have been reading this message board I have read about some fairly successful people playing blackjack with an advantage. The only difference I can see is that these people don't have million dollar bankrolls otherwise they would be making as much as the MIT teams. From what I read these kids from MIT got there money from investors so its not like they built themselves up to millions, they already had it. What makes that so great. On top of that they burned themselves out after just a few years, while there are regular counters playing for decades. What are you supposed to learn from that? I like the stories of the MIT teams, I just think they get a little more credit than they should. If a guy with a $10,000 bankroll can make money playing blackjack, why wouldn't he be able to make it with a million?
MIT teams overrated?
- Thread starter JoeV
- Start date
I imagine a lot of the "story" was fabricated in order to sell books and the Cable TV program about it. Clearly a lot of it was true though.
Still it seems likely that the casinos would actually want to publicize the MIT teams success in order to make the Average Joe think he's got a fighting chance. All these would be card counters who lose or break even actually help the casino.
Still it seems likely that the casinos would actually want to publicize the MIT teams success in order to make the Average Joe think he's got a fighting chance. All these would be card counters who lose or break even actually help the casino.
I agree with you but thats not really my point I'm getting at. What I'm saying is as far as those that really know how to count, what makes the MIT teams better than them? If a successful low stakes counter was given a million dollars wouldn't he be the one everybody talked about. Instead of making a few hundred he could be making tens or even hundreds of thousands. The skill didn't change only the bankroll. I'm a nobody but I practice alot and play fairly decent. I have made some money the 1 year I've been playing, but if my bankroll was 50 times bigger than i would have made 50 times more money and would have cleared $250,000 playing. And thats with only 1 person and no team play. I may be wrong but besides the cool story, MIT is responsible for higher casino awareness, worse playing rules, and no mid shoe entry. All I'm saying is give any good counter a million dollar bankroll and they will have similar success as the MIT teams.
I suspect the MIT teams were more exciting organizationally than at the individual player level. MIT teams might have been better recruited, trained, tested, funded, and organized than teams in the "old days".
It's the difference between finding five guys you know from back in the day and throwing together a bankroll, and setting up a "farm system" that can reliably throw fresh players at the casinos for year after year.
It's the difference between finding five guys you know from back in the day and throwing together a bankroll, and setting up a "farm system" that can reliably throw fresh players at the casinos for year after year.
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?
I think if you read into the MIT teams, you see that counting or shuffle tracking, ace tracking, whatever team you are talking about (the busting vegas book's teams made way more "not counting"...if you believe the story) isn't the whole story. Anyone can learn to count cards...but say you are a 25 year old white kid with the same size bankrolls...as they stated in the books....the stereotyping is going to be you are trying to count your way to riches. Those guys in BDTH where all asian BP, and thats the only kind of recruiting they would use, again based on stereotyping that all asian 20 somethings betting 10K hands are dumb rich kids with rich fathers back in Japan, Plastic surgeons in LA, etc etc. The aspects of "not counting" allowed them to play a long time without much heat...it took nearly 4 years in that one book before they started getting the boot. Now if you had 1 million, Im not saying you couldnt do it too, im just guessing the practice needed outside of the "cards" aspect is something that is going to be equally as important to keep your longevity. You wont be on the radar as fast if your Bank roll is 10 grand and you get 100 a hand, vs a million BR and 10K a hand...just a guess :cool2:
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.
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.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the casino's dont want you to win big over and over whether its skill or luck. So even if you had a huge bankroll, had the act down, and they couldnt prove you were a card counter or other skilled player....they can bar you just for dumb luck winning lots of money.
The fact that you can bet big will bring so much heat you will burn out long before a smaller staked BR player "grinding it out" in the same fashion. So I guess at that point, you have to wonder if you make more doing the shock and awe in a year or so, or by building slowly over 5-10-15 years.....who knows :cool2:
The fact that you can bet big will bring so much heat you will burn out long before a smaller staked BR player "grinding it out" in the same fashion. So I guess at that point, you have to wonder if you make more doing the shock and awe in a year or so, or by building slowly over 5-10-15 years.....who knows :cool2:
I think once you step into a High Limit area the reality of playing high stakes will make more sense. Initially they did get the money from investors yet after a short time, they struck out on their own making profits for almost a decade.
The Boston teams made a killing and so did the others after SI.
Sure you can make money with a 10k BR, you would approach it as if it were 100k or 1 million. You going to play the same regardless.
As far as them getting more credit than they deserve, I ca only reference Mike Aponte and Dave Irvine, they are great people and Highly skilled players. In fact, Mike Aponte has just had a Topps card awarded in his honor as a Blackjack player. Thats saying alot.
There are afew ways you can look at The MIT team. Read about them on a msg board, read about them in a mostly fictional book or, go meet them in person. I did the later and can not say enough about them. Overated? Not a chance.
The Boston teams made a killing and so did the others after SI.
Sure you can make money with a 10k BR, you would approach it as if it were 100k or 1 million. You going to play the same regardless.
As far as them getting more credit than they deserve, I ca only reference Mike Aponte and Dave Irvine, they are great people and Highly skilled players. In fact, Mike Aponte has just had a Topps card awarded in his honor as a Blackjack player. Thats saying alot.
There are afew ways you can look at The MIT team. Read about them on a msg board, read about them in a mostly fictional book or, go meet them in person. I did the later and can not say enough about them. Overated? Not a chance.
Last edited: