Q & A on my MIT review

Evidently my book review created some early Fourth of July fireworks. I apologize to those who already read my responses at RGE, as some of the following is redundant. However, my credibility has been questioned and I'd like to try to answer my critics.

CHIP HOARDING: The main controversy stemmed from my comments about converting 30K into chips. The problem in my original review is I wasn't clear enough on what I meant. First of all, the example was taken from Poker Nation (as Kim Lee correctly pointed out in a previous post), not BDTH. And I didn't spell it out well enough for everyone to get my point. There are a lot of good reasons to buy or hoard chips. But in that example, the players took their entire bankroll and converted it all into chips before playing a single hand. Why would you carry 100% of your BR first of all? And there is no need to buy chips and the ensuing paperwork before even knowing how much you will end up playing in that particular casino. The hassles of buying in and cashing out at each casino alone would be a nightmare. Plus putting all your BR into chips invites trouble for everyone except the most disciplines when the sessions start going South. Additionally the BP was to wait at the bar with his rack of chips until one of the three spotters found a RC of plus 60. I think that might be a rather long wait.

BET SPREAD: Some suggested I wasn't experienced in CC because I questioned going from a max bet of 2K to a max bet of 3 times 10K. I am quite familiar with the spreads necessary to beat BJ and have many times surmised most players don't win because they aren't aggressive enough in this area. However, the example above was to me an inconsistency in BDTH. To have a top bet of 2K for a lot of the book, then suddenly spreading to three hands of 10K seemed very odd. There are a lot of psychological and emotional reasons to stay with roughly the same top bet, regardless of casino limits. For instance, it you have a great weekend and win 30 top bets at 2K, then you might wipe it out in two rounds the next weekend by changing to 3 times 10K. Those swings are devastating. To me, it seemed like some elements of BDTH contained at least a semblance of a first hand story, but other times the author fabricated parts to fill out the puzzle and make it a little more sensational. When the only time in the entire book where they seem to lose is also the only time bets of 10K are mentioned, I questioned whether this was made up or the result of an out of control lush steaming and overbetting.

CARD CUTTING: I don't pretend to have the expertise in ST that others have. However, I asked my friends on the infamous Czech BJ team (who were very successful at ST) about cutting exactly 52 cards. They said it couldn't be done. Others have posted here claiming it can. I don't have the first hand knowledge to answer that one, but Kevin Lewis did say he could cut exactly 52 cards every time. The key word there is exactly. I find that claim very difficult to believe. Earlier in his essay, he stated they played HI-Lo because they "did not feel that the added value of more advanced systems outweighed the potential risk of casino error." Yet they gave up probably $1000 an hour by not switching to at least a two level count. If they didn't take the time or have the discipline to do a more advanced system, it is hard to imagine they put in the hours necessary to become that proficient in card cutting.

ESSAY: The real eye-opener for me was Kevin Lewis's essay at the end of BDTH. He suggests wanna-be card counters bet 4X kelly. He also says they "could have used the system employed by Dustin Hoffman's character in RainMain--One for bad, two for good." Any knowledgable BJ player who reads this essay (pages 252-257)will recognize how ludicrous this is. So my conclusion on the book was it far outstretched the limits of non-fiction. I hope this clears up some of the questions, but if not, let me know and I would be happy to try and clarify my views.

I don't know why there was such irrational animosity towards your review -- it seemed to have nothing to do with what you wrote -- there must be something else going on.

It is my experience that some in this community will attack anything I post. It seems you now also have your followers.

--Eliot

Thanks Eliot for your support. That means a lot.

Some of the problems addressed by James Morgan were reasonable to raise because I hadn't been crystal clear in expressing my point in the original post. Some (I feel incorrect) assumptions were made that hopefully have been answered as I clarified my meaning. Most of the misunderstanding was from people who might not have read BDTH and assumed I felt big money play and the MIT exploits were not possible. There is no question on that, just on the book's portrayal, which I felt had numerous inconsistencies and improbabilities. If experienced players read BDTH, I think they will agree.

However, that doesn't mean everyone will share my opinion. Some movies or books that I love get panned by some of my friends. So if others found it entertaining and enjoyable, then they got their money's worth out of the book. I just think it should have been presented as a novel rather than a true account.

Hi,

After reading various feedbacks regarding "Bring Down The House" I must say agree with the people who said that the book has been exaggerated a bit.

What makes this book so easy to laugh at is that they try to pass everything in the book as things that really happened, whereas "The Counter" is clearly a fiction with some parts based on a real professional BJ player.

My question though, regards the end of the book when Raven started performing the so-called "17-card count" which allows him to know the dealer's hold card on the first round of everyhand. Is this also something that's been made up? Otherwise how could this technique be so credible whereas the 52-card cut is so unbelievable? My own guess is that maybe with the 17-card cut you do it by hand (pick the card up like in poker or something when your opponents offer you the cards to cut) Whereas with the 52-card cut you have to do it by sight (and then inserting the cut card at the exact point). This is my only explanation, since after some practicing I can pick about 50-54 cards off the top of a 6-deck of cards, but I know there is no way I can be anywhere that close with a cut card.

Anyone who considers your opinion to be nonsense,is nonsense itself.

Hi,

After reading various feedbacks regarding "Bring Down The House" I must say agree with the people who said that the book has been exaggerated a bit.

What makes this book so easy to laugh at is that they try to pass everything in the book as things that really happened, whereas "The Counter" is clearly a fiction with some parts based on a real professional BJ player.

My question though, regards the end of the book when Raven started performing the so-called "17-card count" which allows him to know the dealer's hold card on the first round of everyhand. Is this also something that's been made up? Otherwise how could this technique be so credible whereas the 52-card cut is so unbelievable? My own guess is that maybe with the 17-card cut you do it by hand (pick the card up like in poker or something when your opponents offer you the cards to cut) Whereas with the 52-card cut you have to do it by sight (and then inserting the cut card at the exact point). This is my only explanation, since after some practicing I can pick about 50-54 cards off the top of a 6-deck of cards, but I know there is no way I can be anywhere that close with a cut card.

You raised an excellent point as I feel that is one of the flaws of my novel. Much of my book, though fiction, is taken from real experiences. In the case of the 17 card cut, I knew a friend who did it in Reno back in the 80's. He claimed to be able to hit it consistently (with a cut card), but I never tried as it looked too difficult to me. However, I included it in my novel since it created an excellent device for a dramatic finish and I certainly hoped the story worked for you since you sound like you must have read it.

I tried to keep everything in my novel credible, but I felt I might have stretched it in that scenario, although it is possible. Since card cutting is not within my area of expertise, I can only surmise that the more cards one tries to cut, the more difficult the accuracy. For instance, cutting three cards exactly should be easier than thirty. And the point Kevin Lewis made was they cut exactly 52 cards every time. Again, I might be wrong, but I find that awfully hard to believe. To state that after weeks of practice you could accurately cut within a few cards of 52 would make sense and still work in the example Kevin Lewis used where they took advantage of seeing the bottom card on the shoe after the shuffle. But 52 exactly, every time does not seem credible to me. Nor does the fact he would not cut the ten to his hand. When your only knowledge of the shoe is the one exposed bottom card (which was his example in the essay) there is no card steering or any other good reason (at least that I'm aware of) why you wouldn't want the face card.

Again, thanks for the comments and I do hope you enjoyed my novel.

Thanks very much for answering. I thoroughly enjoyed your book and personally hold it to be even a more realistic book than Bring Down The House. (even though your book is clearly a fiction and the MIT book was passed off as non-fiction) I was just really curious about how much truth there was behind the 17-card cut and whether it was doable. Thanks again.

"There are a lot of psychological and emotional reasons to stay with roughly the same top bet, regardless of casino limits. For instance, it you have a great weekend and win 30 top bets at 2K, then you might wipe it out in two rounds the next weekend by changing to 3 times 10K."

This sentence from your post shows your lack in understanding how the big teams with huge bankroll operate. Look at it this way, if you have a $10 000 bankroll and the only game in your small town has a max bet of $25 you will never bet more than $25. If the next weekend you make a trip to Vegas, why would you limit yourself to a top bet $25 when you can do much more money by having a top bet of, say $100 ?

I suggest you just keep it shut. If you want to start another thread on how blind you can be....well...do it but you are loosing our time.

Sorry my example didn't fly for you. It's possible a big team might have such a dramatic variance between trips on max bets, but given the same BR (no new influx of money) it is unusual. If a team had a BR to play 3 times 10k, then it is odd they would bother with game restricting them to one hand of 2K.

To use your example (10K BR visiting a $25 joint), my top bet was $1000, but I would almost never play a club with a max of $200 or less. If the MIT team had a normal max of 3 times 10K, then that would almost be like me dropping down to a smoky, dingy $25 club in Sparks, Nevada. And that my friend would never happen unless they had the world's greatest rules, fantastic penetration and free donuts.

Also, unless the 3 times 10K example was for ace tracking, they would almost certainly be triggering a massive amout of CTR's. The amount of chips you'd need to keep to avoid them at that bet level would be staggering if you wanted to play several different casionos. The only practical way that I could see to consistently play that type of action would be to have throw-away BP's who are willing to use their real names for the CTR's and then get shelved after they are discovered, which could happen fairly quickly at that level.

Maybe the 3X 10K sequence in BDTH happened. It is possible. But I stand by my earlier assertation that the book is rife with examples that stretch the imagination. THE COUNTER, being fiction, took some poetic liscence to create dramatic tension. However, in BDTH, there were some scenes that seemed fabricated to me, such as when the head of Griffith shows up in the Bahamas to threaten the life of Kevin Lewis.

And the point of the whole argument is BDTH claims to be a true account of the MIT team. Taken individually, some of the events were possible. Taken collectively, I don't believe them or swallow them.

Few of here (or anywhere) have the life time of experience that KB has -- without personal experience on a team with max bets of $1k or more, I wouldn't even begin to think of challenging his knowledge and experience.

--Eliot

The reason I wouldn't drop down from my $1000 top bet to play a $25 or $50 club is because relatively speaking it wouldn't be worth my time. The same holds true for MIT. If they had a BR large enough to bet 3 X 10K in counting games, the return on investment would not justify wasting their energy in a 2K club.

For argument's sake, let's assume they had a BR of 2 million. If the team played 500 hours with a single top bet of 2K, their expectation might be roughly $600 an hour with a few spotters. Taking out expenses and assuming half of all profits go to the players, that leaves the investors a little less than $300 an hour or $150,000 for 500 hours of play (a reasonable starting point for a year of play).

That gives the investors an ROI of 7.5%. Not exactly enough to get anyone excited--especially with the inherent risks involved and knowing that your BP has several potentially dangerous vices. My guess is any smart money man back in the roaring 90's would have been wiser to fund the MIT whiz kids in a start-up business instead.

Obviously there might have been different BR's, but my point is the book makes jumps like that without any details to authenticate their story.

"If they had a BR large enough to bet 3 X 10K in counting games, the return on investment would not justify wasting their energy in a 2K club."

Can you understand that few joints would take 3 x 10K on a regular basis and that playing a max 2K game from time to time should remain an option ???

"Taking out expenses and assuming ..."

You know what ? At these bet levels you are actually making money out of your expenses thrue airfares refunds and loss rebates !

Also, you are taking the 2K bet as a usual max bet for these teams to calculate their yearly expectation. Did you read anywhere that they were "strictly" betting 2K max ??? Review your numbers and think again...

It seems as if your criticisms are based on big team play in general, rather than what is described in BDTH. If you get a chance to read it, I think you'd agree there are numerous inconsistencies in their story.

As for the variance in max bets, let's go back to your example of a player with a $10,000 BR and $100 top bet. Would he waste his time playing in a sawdust joint with a max bet of $10? That is roughly the equivalent of dropping down to 2K from 3 hands of 10K. 2K as a top bet may still seem like a lot to you, but it would constitute a very poor ROI in a multi-million dollar BR, yielding hardly more than bank CD's in the 90's.

I do not know what the MIT's normal BR was and what their normal top bet was. I just pointed out how odd it was to how such variance between max bets. Perhaps there were other circumstances, such as ace tracking involved, but again the book is missing details in many areas (and this example is just one) that would give it a lot more credibility in my eyes.

Since card cutting is not within my area of expertise, I can only surmise that the more cards one tries to cut, the more difficult the accuracy. For instance, cutting three cards exactly should be easier than thirty. And the point Kevin Lewis made was they cut exactly 52 cards every time.

There is a trick to this. You are right, if you just stab the cut-card in and hope its very difficult to get right without months of practice.
However, there is nothing to stop you using visual cues. Eg the depth of the shoe, and the cut-card itself, have a length which is equivalent to some number of cards. Eg if you place the cut-card against the leading edge of the pack, and twist it round with one edge embedded in the pack, you will get the same number of cards cut out every time. This is several decks worth usually. So, in practice I can cut out several decks worth with almost perfect accuracy but would struggle to even get a 17-card cut right most of the time.

Another consideration is that the natural breaks in the deck caused by shuffling mean that a random cutter is likely to cut at certain points more than others, in the same way that an old book repeatedly opens at the same page. If a dealer breaks the pack into 39-card segments for example, its not that hard to locate a 39 or 78-card cut-point, you are just looking for the line of least resistance.

Another difficulty I have with the claim of Kevin Lewis (exactly 52 every time) is even if he could do it in practice (which I still have trouble believing, especially every time), it is much much harder to do in the casino. You have to act like you are not studying the shoe and placing the cut card with precision. If you do, then that arouses heat on any future cuts.

He has to be comical ali ( the iraq information minister) surely that is the only explanation for his non-sensical rants.

contains so many exaggerations + distortions as to be mainly a fun read, especially if you know some of the characters. He can't even get the Strip geography right. I agree with DD' that beginning advantage players would be much better served reading Huston's stuff like MDBJ. It surprises me (and I wonder if its true/ I don't go to Don't site) that Don would so recommend a book like this.

However, many (if not most) serious pro's- including the big teams like MIT- who play primarily shoes think that a one-level will ultimately get more money than a higher-level count. This is for several reasons like fatigue factor, error rate, speed of play, ease of sims, ease of training new players, ability to pass counts, etc. I certainly believe this to be true and switched "down" from Carlson's Omega II count to hi-lo in 1999 and have never even considered using anything other than hi-lo since.

It surprises me (and I wonder if its true/ I don't go to Don't site) that Don would so recommend a book like this.

No, that seems very out of character. I wouldn't imagine any one would last thirty seconds on Don's team if they wanted to bet 4x Kelly or use drugs in their recreational time. I'd have thought it more likely he'd have Walter Thomason as a BP.