Galang's new book

In Oliver Galang's new book: The Real Truth in Blackjack, (doing well on Amazon) he says words to the effect that cardcounting doesn't work because the dealer can get the same or better than you, no matter what the count is.
He initially made some money counting (and betting as much as $5,000 on a hand,) before he crashed and burned, going bankrupt.

As we here all suspect, he is speaking conclusions-nonsense, forged through the pain of his own bankruptcy, which likely happened because of ineptitude in one or more of the many aspects that go to make up that shining hero: a consistent long-term BJ winner. He was one, for a while, but could not hold or sustain any advantage, for reasons that he now blames Blackjack. Perhaps he could look a little deeper, but probably not, because on the back of the movie '21', his book is doing well, so far. Selling books can be easier than winning at Blackjack. NB

> As we here all suspect, he is speaking conclusions-nonsense,
> forged through the pain of his own bankruptcy, which likely
> happened because of ineptitude in one or more of the many aspects
> that go to make up that shining hero: a consistent long-term BJ
> winner.

There is also an interview with him on Good Morning San Diego (link below). I think his mistakes are quite clear from the interview.

�With $25 a hand I was winning like $1,000. I was like, �Wow, if I can win $1,000 off of $25, what do I do if I bet $100 a hand?� And it started building up from there�

That�s not exactly a winning strategy for bankroll management or bet sizing. He was probably playing with a 100% RoR from the start. Failure was the only possible outcome.

So why did he gamble?

�It�s kind of addicting. When you�re on a rush you think that you�re an expert at it and you can make a living off of it.�

That�s all too true. When you get caught up in the excitement and base your decisions on your emotions, bad things start to happen. That�s the easiest way to turn an AP back into a reckless gambler. If you can�t control your emotions, you won�t last long.

And what about now? He went completely bankrupt from gambling. He lost everything. Did he learn his lesson?

HOST: �So are you staying away from gambling?�
GALANG: �A little bit. I�m not gambling as much as I used to. I�m only playing the quarter tables.�

That sounds like a typical response from an addict. He went flat broke but still gambles his money away in the casinos. I just hope he has a better strategy now.

�Right now I�m working on a streak theory.�

Oh boy. He�ll be broke again next week�and the week after, and the week after�I guess for some people card counting really doesn�t work. Some people need to blame their failures on other things instead of taking responsibility for it themselves. Oliver Galang would have gone broke no matter what system he used. I think it�s a shame that he can�t accept that.

-Sonny-

Spending large portions of the bank on extravagances is the classic gambler's malady. It doesn't help matters if you weren't that good to begin with. If he's advocating streak play, then he should be writing books or maybe even running for president. I am sure he'll get lots of supporters in both camps.

I firmly believe that learning a counting system to near perfection is the easy part of being an AP.
Bankroll management, your ROR and the human emotions that play into this and the whole gambling scene become the hard and for some people the impossible part.
The addicted gambler for instance will know that at a +5TC he has an advantage but because he lost his last 3 or 4 big bets with an advantage he doubles, triples, or goes even higher than that on what should have been a much smaller, though max bet, on the next hand. Lose it and about half the time you will, and your bankroll takes a terrific hit.
Other players because of big bet defeats in the past may now tend to not spread enough to get a long term advantage over the game. Their bankroll will not take the instant hit of the above example but will slowly be taken by the house.
Then there are guys who even though they may know how to count they do not play only good games. Their need to play is stronger than their need to win, so they play games with bad pen or bad rules and again get slowly beat up.
Or you get the marathon loser. He makes his winning sessions short because of possible heat but when negative variance hits he may play forever believing that because he has an edge he will get it all back. Result could easily be smaller winning sessions and a few huge losing sessions. Another result can be a backoff when he is losing and making serious mistakes because he is playing tired.

I am sure that if I sat here long enough I could come up with more ways that cardcounters lose. Being a cardcounter and being an AP are not necessarily the same thing. Counting is just a component of advantage play but is not advantage by itself.

That post might need to be submitted to the archives section. Like they say, anyone can count but it takes real skill to snag the money. Most people quit because they never learned how to win.

I must respectfully disagree with Ihate17's assessment.
1.) If you bet double, triple what you should bet based on past big losses, that is NOT advantage play. That is gambling!
2.) If you don't spread enough because of past big bet defeats, That is NOT advantage play. That is gambling!
3.) If you choose to play inferior games just to satisfy your need to play, that is NOT advantage play. that is gambling!
Therefore, these are NOT ways that a "cardcounter" or advantage player loses. These are ways that a gambler loses!
However, nit picking aside, Ihate17 points out the lesson that take some a lifetime to learn, while others never do. excellent post!

A review on Amazon says the book is 40 pages long, printed on just one side, so if you are capable of dividing by 2, which most counters are very good at ;) the result is 20 pages of printed material. I'll stop by the local B&N and read the thing in 10 minutes, just out of curiosity.

The kid publishes ezines on various topics ranging from religion to losing weight, see link below. Something tells me he is F.O.S. as far as being a high roller and card counter. We all know the bankroll required to make a 5G bet, and I doubt this young man had it.

He does a decent job of promoting his work, but a Wong, Thorp or Uston he is definately not.

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Oliver_Galang

Published just once a month,

Cobbson

What you said is exactly what I said!!!

you stated "that you could come up with other ways that card counters lose." I was just saying that I dont believe the reasons you gave pertained to card counters. They pertainted to gamblers. Card counters make their decisions based on the count, not how many big bets they already lost, or gut feelings. Admittedly I was nit picking and stated that for the most part I agreed with you and commended your post. I apoligize for upsetting you.

I do not think anyone here with experience will disagree with the following statement: Most people who attempt cardcounting land up losers.
You appear to think that someone who masters a counting system has also mastered the kind of things I mentioned, which are not counting but have to do with proper spread and ROR. All I am saying is that cardcounting by itself is not advantage play. It is only an important component of what it takes to win.

You would not say that someone who can count down a deck in 20 seconds, knows how much to spread in different counts but has no idea of basic strategy or has a max bet of $100 with a $1,000 bankroll is an AP or would you?

I have a long time friend who knows what I do in casinos and a few years ago asked me to help him learn to be a cardcounter. I gave him several books, which he skimmed. He did learn basic strategy, the hi-lo count, how to spread and was well bankrolled but once on a casino table there were certain things he could not mentally overcome.
He could not hit his 12 vs 2 or 3 if anyone else but myself was at the table. He had the old voodoo taking the bust card thing in his head and could not get rid of it. Also, when he would start his spread might be $25-$300 but as soon as he was in the hole his minimum bet would go up to $75 ot $100, still spreading to a max of $300 till he lost a $300 bet and then he might go much higher or quit.
He would often quit a highly positive shoe when negative variance struck and watch me often win a nice amount. I would tell him that he was just a gambler who could count but that was not enough to win.

These are the kind of people I am talking about. Most of them are pure gamblers who learn how to count but that pure gambling instinct takes over and makes them lifetime losers.

If this does not make my opinion clear that counting and advantage play are not the same thing and that counting is just a component of advantage play, I give up.

ihate17

Your opinion is quite clear Ihate17. And I don't disagree with it at all. I disagree with your terminology. You consider someone who has learned to count cards, but doesnt know proper betting strategies, RoR, or money management a card counter but not an AP. I consider them a gambler. Once they aquire these additional skills, you consider them an AP. I don't consider them a card counter until they know the whole package and can implement it for positive ev. So no I don't differentiate between the two, except that a card counter (my definition) is only one form of AP.

I agree. A card counter is an advantage player, but an advantage player isn't necessarily a card counter. Someone who counts cards but doesn't understand money management, betting, or risk of ruin is neither.

Yeah thanks BJC. 40 pages divided by 2 = not a book. It might qualify as a comic. Pardon me for taking him seriously. He's had his 15 minutes of fame, made some BS quotes, and now he can resume his bible studies and perhaps televangelical, anti-gambling, crusader-rabbit career. He might turn up on TV again soon, Sunday mornings.
I'll look forward to getting the lowdown on card counting again, right from the horse's mouth. NB

I guess it gets down to semantics.
You say a counter who does not do the things needed to win is just a gambler.
I say he is a losing cardcounter who is also just a gambler.
Not a big deal at all here, sorry I got upset.

I am answering the question of, when you consider all the people who attempt to count cards, why do most of them land up being losers?

I also believe I played a few times in the San Diego area with the guy who wrote that mini booklet and remember him as someone who would spread wildly after losing several hands in a decent count. He would sometimes be betting two hands of 3-4 thousand each and though I do not know, I would guess he did not have the proper bankroll to back this up.