Some comments & criticism of the Discovery channel "Beat the House" show

For the most part I was impressed by this show. I thought Anthony Curtis did an excellent job while on tv and was very vocal and clear. Vancura & Wong did reasonably good but didn't have the clarity and expression as Curtis, especially SW. Also, I thought about a third to half the show wasn't about "beating the house" and repeated some of the same things as the previous Casino Tech and the follow up show Casino Cops. I think this show will be good publicity for the casinos more than anything. On a minor note, I was a little surprised when I saw Stanford Wong. I suspected he was in his late 50's but would now guess closer to 70. But overall, its nice to have a little discussion of card counting on tv. Good job guys.

But all that wasted time standing around waiting to play does age one :-).

well, i came to this website base on BEAT THE HOUSE, as i suspected it was a clearinghouse for some bj information (esp on card countin). i assume that might be in the green or black areas, but i aint payin to simply find out. i agree that BTH was largely a compilation of the other shows. what a shame, especially for the discovery channel. i will tell you that as far as curtis and wong, i was less than impressed - we all know things go wrong at the tables but a little editing coulda made them seem more knowledgable (as i strongly suspect they are). further, the gent who showed the card counting ability with his feet (1,2,3 method) came across as an expert and also there for the enjoyment of the game). from a mathmatical perspective, i wonder if when a player makes a bad call on a table, lets say he splits 10s for an example, is it just an irritation to the other players but still maintains the mathmatics of your hand once play comes to you? you have a a pair of 8s against a dealers 8 for example? has the previous player really screwed you mathmatically, or is your hand against the dealers all you need to be concerned about? good luck guys!

It's generally been accepted that stupid play by other people at the table has no effect on you in the long run - they end up helping you as much as they hurt.

That is because sometimes the "stupid plays" gives you better cards than you would have gotten than if they had played it the "right way". But people usually only remember the times when they got hurt, not helped, so it SEEMS like people pulling boneheaded plays mess you up more often than not.

Could be, however the face fits with his real name.

. . .and it sure looks like the same Stanford Wong as on p. 192 of The Theory of Blackjack (6th Ed.).

Buick

.it is a clearing house for information. You may have to look around a bit but it's all here. Better yet, just buy a book on a simple count system such as KO or Hi-Lo and then practice at home. Card counting is not all that difficult but actually making money on a continual basis is. The simple fact is, as Stanford Wong has eloquently expressed it, is that you have to learn how to wager $100 to make $1 over the long-term. Most people won't be able to do it just because they won't be disciplined enough and won't be able to stand the irriating setbacks of fluctuation known as "standard deviation". This is not something for the weak-minded or weak-willed. It's also decidedly not a "get-rich-quick" scheme.

So they let the cameras follow them in... and let them count all the cards they wanted and jack their bets up to the moon when the count went up... and yes he gets a blackjack... and the dealer and the pit boss are smiling... you can't tell me that anything like that is ever going to happen if that wasn't on television... that whole situation was set up so that these guys were going to win... so that some greedy sucker sitting at home sees this and thinks to himself "I'm gonna be a professional card counter"... especially if they just got laid off from Lucent or took a hit in the market

Anyone who watched the show would have seen Olaf lose on a doubled split hand, and Stanford also lost a hand. So what? Curtis did hit three in a row but so what again?

Go troll somewhere else.

that sequence wasn't edited to look like "three in a row"?

& would only strengthen the argument if true.

the stupid player is a high roller. In some venues (not tourist traps where there are few "regulars" and policy is very objectively carried out), if you think you could see some heat and you notice a high-rolling, poor player, plant yourself down next to him and ham it up.

Many venues will not bar the buddy of a profitable customer. If the
high roller is a regular, it's just that much better... get to know
him and show up for a good hoot on the nights he plays.

Again, this generally is level-3 camo that only works in good 'ol boy
venues with fairly regular players where you can establish a reputation for helping the place more than you'll hurt it... or convincing it that you'll cost it way more by being barred than by playing there.

Spok