Question for authors

I admire the intellect of those who write about advantage play techniques but I don�t really understand why they do it.

Ian Andersen�s rather brilliant book is a case in point. I don�t mean to be facetious or smart-ass but this is my take on it: -

The �Ultimate Gambit� describes a very real method to avoid detection by casino tracking software. There are relatively few players worldwide that have the bankroll to take advantage of this. Those that do have the bankroll would, almost certainly, be using similar techniques (otherwise they are unlikely to have accumulated such a bankroll).

Arnold Snyder and others lifted the top off the sequencing and tracking cookie jar. James Grosjean�s superb work is also right in there and, of course we have our resident demagogue.

My point is this.

If I had the brains to figure out how to buck the house edge there is no way in the sweet wide world that I would tell anyone, let alone write a book about it.

I can understand writing about games and techniques that are no longer practical or available (like most of May�s esoteric nonsense) but why would you want to ruin the opportunities for those few people that have put in the hard yards to achieve their substantial bankrolls.

Is it for the money? (I doubt it, Don has told us there�s not much in it and he�s got a couple of web sites to promote his stuff)

A desire to inform and help others?

Ego?

Respect?

Yes, I know Thorp�s book helped make blackjack the popular and profitable game it is today (for the house) but publishing advanced techniques doesn�t really help the average player and it REALLY hurts the established professional.

At the end of the day I can�t help but feel that the these books have contributed far more to the demise of profitable opportunities for professionals than an army of MBs ever did, or could.

Don�t get me wrong, I�m not one of those professionals, I NEED these books and would pay many times the asking price for most of them, I�m just curious as to what motivates someone to publicly spill the beans, as it were.

Ed Thorp hadn't played any casino BJ when he went to Vegas, and not
a huge amount since. 62 edition sold a half million, and they are
still printing the 66 version. He and someone else we know made the
loot in the stock market. I wonder if there ever has been a person that could say " I won this major casino playing BlackJack?

It's for the same reason why you and many others, myself included, post answers to BJ questions on this website; because it's a passion. You mayt as well ask a person who wrote a book on African tree frogs why he did it, even though he knows that his book might heighten awareness and possibly make tree frogs a huge draw, making it harder for him to watch them(ok, i know, i'm stretching here-long day at work and that's all i could come up with on short notice). Hopefully, you catch my drift here. He obviously could be making more money being a science professor, but he'd like to contribute to his passion. Sure, ego plays a part, just as it does with every facet of life. Some of these guys have it in for casinos as a whole, but most also realize that they are a business like anything else, and therefore entitled to a profit. you, on the other hand, are entitled to get the very best deal you can, should you choose to shop around and be an informed consumer. Man, is that tree frog metaphor pitiful. I'm going to bed....

Arnold Snyder and others lifted the top off the sequencing and tracking cookie jar

You can't figure out how to sequence from Snyder's writings on the subject, which would not cover a sheet of A4.

I can understand writing about games and techniques that are no longer practical or available (like most of May�s esoteric nonsense)James Grosjean�s superb work is also right in there and, of course we have our resident demagogue.

Rubbish. Most of the techniques I write about are more accessible than card counting. You are not a professional so you are not in a position to know or pontificate.
Perhaps I should be exploiting, as Grosjean recommends, the numerous lucrative opportunities available at the wheel of fortune or casino war or friggin' monopoly?

but why would you want to ruin the opportunities for those few people that have put in the hard yards to achieve their substantial bankrolls.

The myth of the lone advantage player is just that. Most advantage play techniques are extremely crude in conception-it takes a network of individuals to further research, locate favourable games, and supply bankroll.

At the end of the day I can�t help but feel that the these books have contributed far more to the demise of profitable opportunities for professionals than an army of MBs ever did, or could.

Professionals are making more money than ever before out of gambling simply because the markets and opportunities are expanding. People who expect to make money by picking up a book which rehashes methods twenty to thirty years old, are not. And frankly, that is a good thing, if it means less of this type of whining.

Don�t get me wrong, I�m not one of those professionals, I NEED these books and would pay many times the asking price for most of them, I�m just curious as to what motivates someone to publicly spill the beans, as it were.

For me, the answer is that the fun is in figuring out how to get an edge. Actually playing the games to win money is not nearly as much fun for me as figuring out how to do it. After I figure out how to get an edge at a game, instead of using my new system to win money at that game I'd rather figure out a different way to get an edge or move on to a different game.

Stanford Wong

Perhaps I should be exploiting, as Grosjean recommends, the numerous lucrative opportunities available at the wheel of fortune or casino war or friggin' monopoly?

Grosjean includes monopoly, casino war, and wheel of fortune in Beyond Counting in order to illustrate the fact that given certain conditions any casino game can be beatable. He does not describe them so that swarms of advantage players can sweep down upon them and make millions of dollars.

Having said that, I agree that Rajim is out of line in calling your work "nonsense." In fact, I think that Beyond Counting and Get the Edge at Blackjack compliment each other rather nicely. You present the methods to obtain or locate opportunities, while Grosjean explains the math behind it.

Just my opinion,
MF

I've never heard of monopoly in a casino, except for a monopoly slot machine.

I assume, not having read the book, that you'd beat the wheel of fortune the same way you'd beat roulette - clocking the wheel for hours on end. I don't imagine it would be an effective use of my time.

As for casino war, I assume some sort of card counting would be involved. But how? Given that the dealer is as likely to wind up with a given card as you are, how could the removal of any card change the house advantage?

Is all this explained? Is it controversial?

Grosjean includes monopoly, casino war, and wheel of fortune in Beyond Counting in order to illustrate the fact that given certain conditions any casino game can be beatable. He does not describe them so that swarms of advantage players can sweep down upon them and make millions of dollars.

No he doesn't. I was just illustrating how easy it is to marginalize stuff flippantly. I'm glad someone is covering the new games. The last thing I want is to discourage new gambling research.

In fact, I think that Beyond Counting and Get the Edge at Blackjack compliment each other rather nicely. You present the methods to obtain or locate opportunities, while Grosjean explains the math behind it.

Yeah, I think that is true. Certainly the book sales are symbiotic.

I assume, not having read the book, that you'd beat the wheel of fortune the same way you'd beat roulette - clocking the wheel for hours on end. I don't imagine it would be an effective use of my time.

I don't think a bias significant enough to overturn the house edge would ever occur with a wheel of fortune. It is nothing like as delicate a piece of machinery as a roulette wheel. You'd have to have something obvious like a peg jutting out at right angles to get an exploitable bias.

Physical prediction methods however, can be more effective. Twenty years ago, Thorp noted in The Mathematics Of Gambling that if you could place bets just after the wheel had been spun and use a stopwatch, neither of which are generally possible, you could achieve a double or triple-digit expectation through approximate prediction of the wheel's likely final resting place.

Grosjean expands on this theory and borrows another idea from roulette advantage play: dealer signature. This is the theory that dealers settle into a predictable spinning pattern through the tedium of their job, which can be statistically analyzed and exploited. Grosjean supports this notion with a lot of data showing impressive advantages from this technique.
This method does work: I used something a little simpler and cruder on one of my first vegas trips seven years ago and won a little money with it. However, the problem I ran up against is that dealer signatures are not randomly distributed, once detected they may change for no apparent reason, or indeed they may change because the signature has been discovered. This means a hell of a lot of clocking and very little play-time, and an excess of frustration.

As for casino war, I assume some sort of card counting would be involved. But how? Given that the dealer is as likely to wind up with a given card as you are, how could the removal of any card change the house advantage?

Dead right. The effects of removal on the wager are too symmetrical for player and dealer for any card counting system to overturn the house edge. However, a tie wager is also offered at 10 to 1 (which is 11 for 1) that the dealer and player cards will be of the same rank. This has a 18.65%(ouch!) house edge off-the-top, but theoretically, if enough ranks were removed, the wager could become favourable, maxing out at a 1000% advantage if cards of only one rank remained, which should occur every couple of ice ages in any game with typical penetration.

I strongly disagree with Grosjean's method of analysis of the tie wager, but I won't get into that here. Basically, his conclusion is that it is theoretically possible to count but not as a practical matter, which is broadly correct.

Grosjean goes on to state that the most profitable method of beating war is to have information about the next card to be dealt (no method as to how to actually do this is specified), and that foreknowledge of an ace is worth 90% of the wager of the player.

was an instance of using used 21 cards at the end of 2000 ;-)(they use peak readers that rotate placement for aces and tens up!).

To find and correct the basic flaw first?

After I figure out how to get an edge at a game, instead of using my new system to win money at that game I'd rather figure out a different way to get an edge or move on to a different game. by SW.

I see. Why don't you move onto gamblings in Wall Street, just like Dr. Edward O. Thorp? I would love to see you to get into that direction so that we will become Wall Street Stock-Counters (WSSCs) rather than Dead-End Card Counters (DECCs). BTW, being a WSSC has some big tax advantages, i.e., no self-employment taxes & no NOL tax problems. SW, please think about it & do set up a website for WSSCs.

Why must you rely on SW to wipe, ah to do anything for you?

I have a great deal to say that I have not said about casino war. But we were talking about the Grosjean book.