Having nothing else to do in the evenings between ladies in my life, I picked up a copy of Thorp's book BTD in 1975 and basically imprinted its Basic Strategy and hi-lo counting system on my feeble brain through repetition. I took a bus to Reno from nyc. Over three days I played 30 hours or so in as cheap games as I could find, getting barred from games at two casinos before I stopped being so obvious. Gradually I won a total of $200-$300. Head reeling, I departed the banks of the Truckee with a new vision of hell -- condemned to play lo limit blackjack for eternity. The next 31 years were spent away from the tables working on my bankroll so to speak. Last week I was in Vegas for unrelated reasons. I thought why not play a Martingale progression at roulette? (Deep thinking and clear insight have never been my strengths.) But I quickly found myself drawn to the bj tables. After all I had heard about casino countermeasures over the years i was surprised the game was pretty much as I remember it (this was at the mgm grand). One difference was the dealer has an electronic eye peek sometimes right away when he/she gets (a face card?) up to see if its blackjack. It seems to me this must help the player. Is this right? But of course they are playing multi-deck from a shoe rather than single deck as in the old days (I think it was 6 at mgm but it might have been 8). I didn't understand what the dealer was doing on the cut. He gave me a colored card to insert in the decks and then he put the decks in the shoe. What is he doing? Does the colored card determine the penetration? I remembered only dimly Thorp's BS but luckily didn't lose anything over an hour at the $50 min. table. But I realized how much I really like the game, especially now since I can afford it. So I've gone back to Thorp. The game simulators on the web are really great. But the BS seems to have changed slightly. No standing on 7, 7 vs Ten? No DD on 11 vs A? No DD on 8 except 6,2 vs 5 and 6? You don't draw on hard 16 with 2 cards but not three vs a Ten? These are all built into the web simulators but differ from Thorp's 2d Ed. which was refined by Julian Braun's work. Does anyone know how I can trace the changes to see if Thorp's work was modified with better data or if the modern web simulators are incorrect? It occurs to me from reviewing this forum that a lot of you are extremely skilled at this game and I apologize for jumping into these questions as a newcomer to the site and revealing the depth of my ignorance. (I wish to thank Shadroch for confirming to me that Thorp's BS still has validity in some situations. I am now trying to refine that.)
Youngster Rips Reno/Vegas Baffles Geezer
- Thread starter Bobaloo
- Start date
The colored plastic card serves two independant tasks.
When the dealer hands it to you and asks you to place it in the stack of cards,it is only for the cut.It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin(to win)or deep(to weep).All this accomplishs is changing the position of the cards. It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin or deep.
After the dealer puts the cards in the shoe,he then places the colored plastic card at the place where he will cut off the shoe.This is usually determined by the houses policy,and not by the players placement of the plastic card.
One plastic card,two distinct and seperate tasks.
When the dealer hands it to you and asks you to place it in the stack of cards,it is only for the cut.It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin(to win)or deep(to weep).All this accomplishs is changing the position of the cards. It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin or deep.
After the dealer puts the cards in the shoe,he then places the colored plastic card at the place where he will cut off the shoe.This is usually determined by the houses policy,and not by the players placement of the plastic card.
One plastic card,two distinct and seperate tasks.
Thanks for your explanations. Much appreciated.
I may not be all that observant, but I was surprised there weren't more differences vs the game of 30 years ago. Multi-deck is new, players cards are new (at least electronic ones are), and peeking with the electronic eye is new (I don't recall peeking at all from the old days). Oh yes, there used to be lots of silver dollars on the tables as well as chips. All the silver dollars in the country were sucked into Nevada; now it is the Franklins.
I suspect today the casinos code the players card with any suspicions they may have about card counting.
I guess I better look thru some of the other books referred to in this forum to see if the Thorp-Braun data was ever criticized. Thorp appeared to adjust for multi-decks by dividing the count by the number of decks remaining to get a "true count". I need to study the literature more to see how this concept evolved.
I may not be all that observant, but I was surprised there weren't more differences vs the game of 30 years ago. Multi-deck is new, players cards are new (at least electronic ones are), and peeking with the electronic eye is new (I don't recall peeking at all from the old days). Oh yes, there used to be lots of silver dollars on the tables as well as chips. All the silver dollars in the country were sucked into Nevada; now it is the Franklins.
I suspect today the casinos code the players card with any suspicions they may have about card counting.
I guess I better look thru some of the other books referred to in this forum to see if the Thorp-Braun data was ever criticized. Thorp appeared to adjust for multi-decks by dividing the count by the number of decks remaining to get a "true count". I need to study the literature more to see how this concept evolved.
Not really. It was better when the dealers would peek under their tens and aces because it bent the cards more. It was almost like having the casino mark the deck for you.
Not in multi-deck games. The reason you stand on 7,7 vs. 10 in a SD game is because the card that will give you 21 (another 7) is already in short supply. In a multi-deck game there are plenty of sevens left to help you so you want to hit.
Well, it’s a close call. If the dealer hits his soft 17 then you would still double as part of basic strategy. If the dealer stands on soft 17 then you don’t double. I usually always double unless the TC is below +1 so that makes it easier to switch between either game.
No, the eights you have to wait for a positive TC before you double. Even doubling against a 5 or 6 takes a +TC to be correct.
That’s a bit of a trick. Basic strategy says to always hit 16 vs. 10, but standing on a multi-card 16 is a little trick that will help you out since it’s such a close call. Also, you can stand anytime the running count is positive.
I don’t think Thorp’s work was wrong, it was just meant for a different game than we play today. The basic strategy engine on this site lets you select different rules and see what the proper strategy is.
-Sonny-
Not in multi-deck games. The reason you stand on 7,7 vs. 10 in a SD game is because the card that will give you 21 (another 7) is already in short supply. In a multi-deck game there are plenty of sevens left to help you so you want to hit.
Well, it’s a close call. If the dealer hits his soft 17 then you would still double as part of basic strategy. If the dealer stands on soft 17 then you don’t double. I usually always double unless the TC is below +1 so that makes it easier to switch between either game.
No, the eights you have to wait for a positive TC before you double. Even doubling against a 5 or 6 takes a +TC to be correct.
That’s a bit of a trick. Basic strategy says to always hit 16 vs. 10, but standing on a multi-card 16 is a little trick that will help you out since it’s such a close call. Also, you can stand anytime the running count is positive.
I don’t think Thorp’s work was wrong, it was just meant for a different game than we play today. The basic strategy engine on this site lets you select different rules and see what the proper strategy is.
-Sonny-
Last edited:
Traditionaly, a dealer will keep dealing when the cut card comes out and continue to finish the round before shuffling.
The other method is to interupt, and shuffle,in the middle of the round when the cut card comes out.
And continue where you left off after the cards are shuffled.
When you play in these type of games its essential that you count the cards on the table during the shuffle and start this as your RC.
Since ive never played in these type of games, maybe somebody can explain this a little better than me.
I suppose you know that the dealer cannot tell what his hole card is, other than a ten or ace? There are special markings on the faces of these cards so the dealer can check for blackjack, but nothing else. Too bad. If dealers knew what other card was in the hole, they might telegraph it to players through inadvertent facial expressions or body movements (or even planned collusive signals).
Many thanks you guys for the comments and the suggestions. I guess I better get a copy of Wong's book if I want to see how Thorp's basic strategy has evolved. Also that will help me figure out what "wonging" means I bet.
Great message board, but damn! some of you fellas must be math geniuses. I'm gonna need to keep it simple or I'll just get confused at the tables.
Great message board, but damn! some of you fellas must be math geniuses. I'm gonna need to keep it simple or I'll just get confused at the tables.
any system > no system.
I have simplified my own system on 2D to just count total 10 valued cards burned.....you can run probabilities a lot easier than HI LOW and advanced techiniques you need to use on 6D for example.....32 is your starting number...count down (or up) and base bets on stack burned % compared to 10's left.......easy.:cool2:
I have simplified my own system on 2D to just count total 10 valued cards burned.....you can run probabilities a lot easier than HI LOW and advanced techiniques you need to use on 6D for example.....32 is your starting number...count down (or up) and base bets on stack burned % compared to 10's left.......easy.:cool2:
A few more book recommendations...
Professional BJ by Wong is a great book, and was the third BJ book I read,
after Thorp's BTD and Revere's "Playing BJ As A Business". But it is fairly
rigorous in the math area.
If you're uncomfortable with alot of math, there are many other books that
can help you out. Wong's "Basic Blackjack" , reviewed here
http://www.readybetgo.com/book-reviews/review-296.html
is mostly Basic Strategy. I haven't read it, so I don't know how much math
is in it.
Others, that I have read and can recommend are:
"Blackjack Bluebook II" by Renzey, which explains Basic Strategy and
goes into several counts, from super simple(KISS) to pro level(Mentor),
as well as other info for today's games. Easy to read and understand.
"Blackjack Blueprint" by Blaine is a training manual for learning to play,
and includes Basic Strategy, the Hi/Lo count, as well as many advantage
ideas. Might be more interesting for an experienced player, needing
to update to today's games.
"Blackjack for Blood" by Carlson is also quite good. It includes Basic
Strategy for single and multi-deck, a concise explanation of how he
developed his Omega II count, camouflage plays and gambler's risk.
Good luck.
I'm sure you'll do just fine.
It's not rocket science, and the basics haven't changed much over
the years. Shoe games make most of the differences.
BJinNJ
Professional BJ by Wong is a great book, and was the third BJ book I read,
after Thorp's BTD and Revere's "Playing BJ As A Business". But it is fairly
rigorous in the math area.
If you're uncomfortable with alot of math, there are many other books that
can help you out. Wong's "Basic Blackjack" , reviewed here
http://www.readybetgo.com/book-reviews/review-296.html
is mostly Basic Strategy. I haven't read it, so I don't know how much math
is in it.
Others, that I have read and can recommend are:
"Blackjack Bluebook II" by Renzey, which explains Basic Strategy and
goes into several counts, from super simple(KISS) to pro level(Mentor),
as well as other info for today's games. Easy to read and understand.
"Blackjack Blueprint" by Blaine is a training manual for learning to play,
and includes Basic Strategy, the Hi/Lo count, as well as many advantage
ideas. Might be more interesting for an experienced player, needing
to update to today's games.
"Blackjack for Blood" by Carlson is also quite good. It includes Basic
Strategy for single and multi-deck, a concise explanation of how he
developed his Omega II count, camouflage plays and gambler's risk.
Good luck.
I'm sure you'll do just fine.
It's not rocket science, and the basics haven't changed much over
the years. Shoe games make most of the differences.
BJinNJ
Last edited:
I intended to be tongue in cheek Zero ole boy; I played hundreds or thousands of hands over three days, working like a madman and wound up with a paltry few bucks to show for it. How dopey is that?
I dont think I said I was banned totally from any casino. I was told I could no longer play bj in two casinos, but that other games were ok. Remember this was 1976 and the casinos were still trying to figure out whether Thorp's strategy was really a threat or not. In one case, I was called in to the security office and told they had my photo and not to try to play again because I was counting cards and that was prohibited. In another case the pit boss simply came over and said "No more blackjack. You are welcome to play any other game." When I asked him why he said, "You are too good for us." This was pretty silly since I was just beginning to play as a counter and my skills were pretty low level.
The problem was it was obvious to these two casinos that I was counting and in Reno in 1976, they did not wait to see if I hurt them financially, they just refused to let me continue once they spotted me. Hell, I was probably moving my lips as I counted. Anyway, this happened on the first day and I played the rest of the time without incident. Except one dealer questioned why I raised my normal bet just before he dealt a blackjack. I was careful thereafter to spread my bets from 1 to 3 minimum units.
It is clear to me that you have to be a lot better today than i ever was to succeed in the casinos. Will they ban you today if they spot you counting without waiting to see if you are any good? I don't know.
It did occur to me at the mgm vegas a few weeks ago that it was odd that in my one hour of play they sent 3 different dealers to my table but since I wasn't counting and couldn't even remember most of basic strategy I couldn't have been a threat to them.
I dont think I said I was banned totally from any casino. I was told I could no longer play bj in two casinos, but that other games were ok. Remember this was 1976 and the casinos were still trying to figure out whether Thorp's strategy was really a threat or not. In one case, I was called in to the security office and told they had my photo and not to try to play again because I was counting cards and that was prohibited. In another case the pit boss simply came over and said "No more blackjack. You are welcome to play any other game." When I asked him why he said, "You are too good for us." This was pretty silly since I was just beginning to play as a counter and my skills were pretty low level.
The problem was it was obvious to these two casinos that I was counting and in Reno in 1976, they did not wait to see if I hurt them financially, they just refused to let me continue once they spotted me. Hell, I was probably moving my lips as I counted. Anyway, this happened on the first day and I played the rest of the time without incident. Except one dealer questioned why I raised my normal bet just before he dealt a blackjack. I was careful thereafter to spread my bets from 1 to 3 minimum units.
It is clear to me that you have to be a lot better today than i ever was to succeed in the casinos. Will they ban you today if they spot you counting without waiting to see if you are any good? I don't know.
It did occur to me at the mgm vegas a few weeks ago that it was odd that in my one hour of play they sent 3 different dealers to my table but since I wasn't counting and couldn't even remember most of basic strategy I couldn't have been a threat to them.