A $5000 SCORE Game

I have heard rumors from several sources that my SCORE numbers "must be" wrong. Since the only time I've ever produced a SCORE number was the Spring 2001 BJF, I'll address that number.

Since Schlesinger did not specify parameters for the game in question, it was my prerogative to define them.

Assume 30 hands per hour.

The edge was constant, approximately 35%.

Even with a bankroll of $10K, the player would hit the table limit everywhere in the world (to my knowledge) where the game could be found, so I decided to include a typical table max in my SCORE parameters. The table limit we were playing was a fairly typical one, $500. Since the "optimal" bet for a $10K bank would be above $500, we assume that the player maxes out, betting $500 per hand.

30 * about 35% * $500 = approximately $5000/hr.

So tell me why this number "must be" wrong. Because the game doesn't exist? So why was I in jail then?

Since you have never come on this board to provide anything of value other than to slam people or prove a stupid point we can only assume BC the 2nd ed. is due out soon, am I wrong?

but to answer your question,

So why was I in jail then?

because you mouthed off to the security gaurds.

You're perfectly welcome to define your own "optimal hourly win rate" measurement, but I think it might be less confusing if you avoided using the term SCORE. SCORE implies a bunch of things, like optimal betting and win/100 hands (not per hour). I would suggest not using the term SCORE for win rates that aren't per 100 hands.

But when all is said and done, I defer to your judgment. Anyone who publishes a book in LaTeX deserves the benefit of the doubt. ;-)

TP: You're perfectly welcome to define your own "optimal hourly win rate" measurement, but I think it might be less confusing if you avoided using the term SCORE.

Why is there any confusion at all? To my knowledge, I am the only person ever to provide a SCORE for the game discussed in the BJF article. The only people who seem to be getting confused are the ones who didn't even read the article, and don't even understand what game we were playing.

TP: SCORE implies a bunch of things, like optimal betting and win/100 hands (not per hour).

And I18? If you know a way to apply the I18 to the game we were playing, I'd love to hear it.

Don did not specify any parameters whatsoever for the game I was playing. Part of the appeal of using 100 hands is (besides the ease of division) that that is roughly how many hands you could play per hour in blackjack, and, at the end of the day, a blackjack SCORE gives us an idea of how much a counter could win per hour if he had a 10K bank, bet optimally, used the I18, etc. Since some games are a bit faster and some slower, defining a win rate/100 hands is a good standardization.

For our game, all of these things are irrelevant. To define a win rate per 100 hands in this game would grossly inflate the SCORE, and make comparisons to blackjack SCOREs misleading. A win rate/30 hands is much more reasonable. This number IS comparable to blackjack SCOREs. When you look through BJA and see SCOREs of 76, 80, 92, 150, etc., and then you look at our SCORE of 5000, then you should realize how strong our game was. [ML finds this comparison so lopsided that he concludes that (a) The 5000 number is wrong, or (b) The game doesn't exist.]

TP: I would suggest not using the term SCORE for win rates that aren't per 100 hands.

Since none of Don's parameters are specifically relevant to our game, I applied the spirit of SCORE in making a translation: (1) $10K bank OK, (2) optimal betting (implies table max, so use typical $500), (3) benchmark speed is 30 hands/hr [some games are faster, and some slower, but use win rate/30 hands], (4) optimal strategy, given in Beyond Counting.

If I used an expected win rate/100 hands, and reported a SCORE in excess of 15000, would that eliminate the supposed confusion out there? What if I did away with (2)? Now our SCORE is around 60000.

I think my 5000 SCORE is a reasonable number.

Your jealosy is just killing you, ain't it.

Please do not waste your time enlightening the numerous ignorami (?plural of ignoramous?) on this website. In my experience, and as you can see in this thread, you will hardly get any thank yous. On the other hand you will get plenty of know-it-alls correcting you, telling you that you live in a fantasy land, etc.
This is why I stopped making informative posts.

I would like to learn. I no longer subscribe to Blackjack Forum for various reasons. I have not read your article. If you were playing a game at a blackjack table with an invariant 35% advantage even if you only made thirty bets an hour your SCORE was massive. I commend you. Further, I would say your characterization was a fair one even if not precise because you corrected for the fact you could only make 30 bets per hour. SCORE does similarly in evaluating Wonging. However, if you had waiting bets at a lower expectation, it sounds like your overall expectation would not be 35% invariantly favorable which would change the SCORE. One of the points I had attempted to make in earlier posts on this matter is SCORE is not how much money a game might produce in an hour because, clearly with unconstrained bets, any player can exceed SCORE if they bet high enough.

It was within the constraints of a $10,000 bankroll optimally bet at a blackjack table that I expressed extreme skepticism a player could find games in LV any time he wanted which would produce a SCORE of $1,000. That was the claim to which I responded. A person who could do that doubles a bankroll in ten hours. Even a rather meager bankroll of $20,000 provides $10,000 in an easy day or $2.5 million a year. I know some mighty good players on some mighty good teams bankrolled much better than that and that kind of money is not made.
I realize there can be exploitable situations now and again. Absolute hole carding might provide what amounts to an invariant advantage of 5% which would translate to a SCORE of about $2500.

But I continue to doubt games at Blackjack tables in LV day in and day out present $1000 SCORE games, translating easily to $2.5 income playing half days and taking off weekends.

I'm not concerned about quibbling over terms. You have found a game that gives the player a 35% advantage. Would it be possible for you to share with us what that game is and how such an advantage can be had? If you don't want to post details, it is entirely understandable. However, without knowing what the game is and how the advantage can be achieved, the whole discussion is sort of pointless.

..No, that's what I actually mean! No blackjack.

Boot, email me privately.
I don`t think going into details on a public board is a good idea.

It was within the constraints of a $10,000 bankroll optimally bet at a blackjack table that I expressed extreme skepticism a player could find games in LV any time he wanted which would produce a SCORE of $1,000. That was the claim to which I responded. A person who could do that doubles a bankroll in ten hours. Even a rather meager bankroll of $20,000 provides $10,000 in an easy day or $2.5 million a year. I know some mighty good players on some mighty good teams bankrolled much better than that and that kind of money is not made.

only 10 hours??? Ever actually play 10 hours in a day? Say ML, I realize that since you're a red chipper you may not be familiar with this term, but there's a nagging little something out there called HEAT . For some unknown reason, casinos get a little squirmy when the rack starts going to the other side of the table. This so-called HEAT , and not any SCORE constraints, would stop a player (but not neccessarily a team) from making the numbers you suggest. Now, please do us all a favor and take your slobbering back to the NG page.

A $20,000 bankroll gives $2,000+ per hour using the figures posted.

A supposed pro posted the $1000+ SCORE figure and the same person says he plays that regularly. I have not played red in years but that is irrelevant. Math is math. A $1000 score game would have an optimal bet in the range of $250 for a bankroll of $10000 and I have often bet more than that on a hand.

If you are playing nickles at a $1000 SCORE game I can make as much betting $100 at a $50 SCORE game and have the bankroll to do that so again your figures do not scan. If cover requires you to keep your stakes down so low as to not be able to exploit the mathematics, what is the point of bragging about it. The game is not very good.

Cheating or extensive ability to see the dealer's downcard can produce SCORES of $1000. A reasonably straight game cannot and there are not that many LV games where you see the hole card. You apparently do not understand the concept of SCORE.

A person who could do that doubles a bankroll in ten hours.

those were your numbers, genius.

I have not played red in years but that is irrelevant.

Please.

If you are playing nickles at a $1000 SCORE game I can make as much betting $100 at a $50 SCORE game and have the bankroll to do that so again your figures do not scan. If cover requires you to keep your stakes down so low as to not be able to exploit the mathematics, what is the point of bragging about it. The game is not very good.

Please cite where it is mentioned by anyone that you "must keep your stakes so low"??? For fun, let's say we earn 10% of your theoretical $2.5. Hmmm, $250k, not bad...

I'd ask you to stop embarrassing yourself but this is too much fun.

I submit that he has more experience with mathematical simulation and play at the twenty-one game than most. He really does know what he's talking about.

Personally I have to say that I have become a fan of Anonymouse.

All that aside, I do notice on page 150 that there is a game with an edge of 34.8418%. Despite the people who say these games don't exist or are impossible to find, I have been lucky enough to play just such a game myself.

A couple things have become apparent to me. One is that many people seem to own a copy of Beyond Counting but few of them have read it. Maybe they skimmed through it and dismissed it saying, "Ah, it's just a bunch of numbers."

Second is, if you give a child a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When Morgan used the word SCORE the hammer-wielding children yelled, "you can't use a hammer that way. It is only to be used to evaluate card counting games using the illustrious 18." Well he was trying to put it in terms you would understand. Advantage players often talk in terms of hourly win rates which is sort of what SCORE tries to do. His game had a $5,000 per hour win rate. Sorry if he used a hammer to prop up the leg of a table or hung it on the wall as part of a piece of art. Hammers shouldn't be used that way.

It's just that card counters and advantage players speak two different languages. I, for one, will be more diligent in my translations.

Try to do your homework before you insult him.

Banger damage to aces in a double deck game, described as "side spotting aces," in my Blackjack Therapy. The diagonal bends can result in a visibl wear point.

It is also possible to have a can do on this by having a layout that is reflective, a shoe that is damged.

Now you did leave the can-do to others, but your math is excruiatingly exact.