Subterfuge

I notice a change in the tone of discussion on this board. The emphasis has shifted from figuring out how to get the money to how to avoid capture. This is a bad thing.

- Most counters lose money to casinos.
- Most people who THINK they're winners lose money to casinos.
- Most people reading and posting to this page lose money to casinos.
- Any casino that bars all counters is nuts. Believe me, they're not all that stupid. Not by a long shot.
- Getting backed off, barred, or trespassed, is not the worst thing that can happen to you. The worst thing is to play to a negative EV.
- Anyone who claims to be your friend, who diverts your attention away from the prime directive -- winning -- is, in fact, the enemy.

Suppose we read three top-notch blackjack books by highly respected authorities. Each has their pet method of camoflage. We decide we want to be REALLY smart and use all the camo we can get. Suppose a really fine counter gets 1.1% over on the shoe game you play. Each pet trick costs 0.4% in EV. This is not unrealistic. The camo described by Andersen, Uston, Schlesinger, and others is far more costly than you'd expect. Where does that put you? Right in the crapper at negative 0.1%.

An advantage player would rather cut off his arm than play long term to a negative EV. If you feel the worst thing can happen to you is a barring, then they've got you hooked. An advantage player has the casino hooked. THEY are playing HIM to a negative EV, and HE can bar THEM any time he wants -- just by walking out the door.

Anyone who doesn't have at least $20K of the casinos' money in his roll shouldn't even consider implementing some of the ideas posted here recently.

ETF

this is what I was alluding to in my post rearding Mr.C's 6 rules posted by his friend Toddler. But you put it much better.

As usual when it comes to BJ you are one of 3 or 4 that all should pay attention to. I would refer to you as a True Master, a BJ "Samurai"

Readers take note! Pay heed to this man.

Iggy.

- Most counters lose money to casinos.

The way most people will read this is that most counters do not play a good enough game to win consistently. That is not true. Try running a simulation on Cverite with even the most unreallistically error-prone player and the win rate is still marginally positive.

I do not think you meant to say that because you know it is untrue. Please clarify.

- Getting backed off, barred, or trespassed, is not the worst thing that can happen to you. The worst thing is to play to a negative EV.

Agree.

I agree with ETF that most counters lose money. There have been many informal surveys over the years that bear this out. The problem is that many people can count cards, but being able to count is not enough to make someone a long term winner. BR considerations, especially overbetting short-term, is likely the biggest problem, but there are others that have to do with discipline, and with work ethic. In 13 years of continuous play I have met too many counters who use half a system than a whole one, who give up too much in cover, who give up too much in tokes, and who fail to use true counts. To them all, I say Bonne Chance, PV

ET-Fan - Hello there. It has been a while, hasn't it? I want to start by saying that I did enjoy your post and understand your points. I am asking these questions out of pure curiosity as I am still learning some of the basic and finer points of this game.

Considering the plethora of narratives, essays, books and periodicals covering the exhaustive ways to get the money, it would seem to me that since the math of it all is somewhat finite, that the boundaries of how to mathematically obtain the money, including using the math of camo plays, have somewhat been reached.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that there may be a doppler shift to subterfuge since that may or may not have finite boundaries? When you say it is a bad thing, are you saying that from the perspective that because you feel it is being dicussed in abundance, that the casino environment towards counters has deterioriated so much that it is shifting our focus to this subject? Or are you saying that you require more information regarding the math? In all seriousness, I'm just attempting to understand.

In addition, doesn't it seem reasonable that subterfuge leads to longevity which leads to getting the money? Have I been putting this all together incorrectly? What I have not seen dicussed at length, and it detail (although it may not happen), are the finer arts of the well-rounded professional advantage gambler. It is entirely possible (and very likely the case) that I have not read enough, played enough or both. Although, there may be reasons that this subject has been broached and discussed more than others. For me, it is helpful.

I've always been of the mind that this game is a long term proposition. Hope I'm making some sense here.

toddler

If you assume that most counters start with a perfect knowledge of BS, and then make a number of EV impacting mistakes (faulty TC conversion, losing the count occasionally), and use a number of camo plays (always take even money, don't split tens, etc), then any sim will tell you that these counters are playing a positive EV game, albeit they may be playing to a small positive EV.

The other error of overbetting your BR is by far the most common, IMHO. However, the impact of this is not as obvious, especially from the casino's perspective. If a casino openly welcomes 1,000 counters who all play to an average EV of +0.5%, and all bet 2X Kelly for a total of 500,000 hours of play, then the casino must lose money unless I completely misunderstand the concepts involved. While 95% of the counters involved will go broke, the net loss for the casino will be equal to 0.5% of the total amount wagered by the entire group. What will happen is that the 5% of counters who are extremely lucky will win more than the other 95% lose.

The result is that MOST (actually almost all) counters lose money, but the casino also loses money by allowing the counters to play.

The other error of overbetting your BR is by far the most common, IMHO. However, the impact of this is not as obvious, especially from the casino's perspective. If a casino openly welcomes 1,000 counters who all play to an average EV of +0.5%, and all bet 2X Kelly for a total of 500,000 hours of play, then the casino must lose money unless I completely misunderstand the concepts involved. While 95% of the counters involved will go broke, the net loss for the casino will be equal to 0.5% of the total amount wagered by the entire group. What will happen is that the 5% of counters who are extremely lucky will win more than the other 95% lose.

Thats what I thought he meant. This needs clarifying though.

Very timely post, ET Fan. Those hundredths add up quickly. Have you reached that $100 milestone in lifetime tokes yet?

I take no issue with any of your points and would recommend that everyone personally archive your post. The meat and potatoes of feeding yourself at the buffet of blackjack requires you play with the greatest possible edge.

"Anyone who doesn't have at least $20K of the casinos' money in his roll shouldn't even consider implementing some of the ideas posted here recently."

I think that these players were exactly the target audience for Cellini's 'Six Traps' message. I think it also was taken out of context from a more general discussion about Las Vegas conditions, if memory serves. Mid-green to black chip players in Las Vegas have some very specific issues that those of us in the Midwest do not encounter. I think his post was addressing these parameters as a warning to high level players in sophisticated parlors such as Mandalay, Mirage, TI, Bellagio and Caesars.

But your observation is more general and valuable to us all. Don't give away EV from paranoia. This game is hard enough to beat as it is with a good system and disciplined play.

Muchas gracias.

The biggest problem with wining at blackjack even when using card counting is that the discipline required will bore most players out if it.

Big Slick

I think casinos that bar "counters" -- ie. people who seem to raise their bets by a factor of four or more toward the end of the shoe after lots of little cards come out -- are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Most counters lose money, and counters as a group lose money. The success of casino blackjack is primarily due to the counting mystique, and all the free advertising that entails. When Thorp wrote BTD, craps was the big table game. Faro was still popular. Blackjack? Who ever heard of blackjack!?

Most people who "count" (or think they count) have read approximately one (1) book on the subject. (I've met several people who claim to count cards, who can't name a single gaming author!) There's only a 50/50 chance it was a good book. Take, for example, this new book out by Stephen Mead, Beginner to Pro. He gives a count, a few play variations, and he recommends not overbetting your bankroll -- which he defines as never going higher than a 5 to 1 spread. There's no distinction made between shoe and pitch bet variation, and no nod to Wonging. He also mentions several progression strategies, withOUT spelling out that they don't increase the house edge -- which is tantamount to recommending them. Then he gives a cursory explanation of tracking. Just enough to get the reader in trouble with a capital "T", but with no recommendations for further study. The title certainly suggests this book is all you need to make it to the pros, but a counter equipped with just the knowledge in this book is practically guaranteed to lose, and lose quickly.

I don't believe it's possible for a person to read even one GOOD text, and be a long term winner. I used to think a person could read Blackbelt in Blackjack, and practice a month or two on the computer at home, and become competent to play. But oops -- BBiBJ is out of print. There are many wonderful books out, but I can't think of any one that takes you all the way from ploppy to AP. Blaine's book doesn't cover basic strategy, Wong's book is really not intended as a primer (it's an indespensable reference work), etc.

And it's even possible to be extremely well read, and still be a long term loser. Think of a musician wannabe who reads everything there is to read about music, and listens to everything, but can't blow a note. Then think how many kids played in high school band or orchestra day after day for 3-8 years, and can't blow a note today. Quite honestly, it's the rule, not the exception.

You can define "counter == AP" and then, naturally, all counters are long term winners. But that's a little silly, cause you can tell a counter just by watching him play for a half hour or so. (Sometimes you can spot one in five minutes.) But you CAN NOT spot a competent counter in less than two hours. And usually it takes much longer. (No, it ain't on account of all the fancy cover they lay down.)

Casinos who bar "counters" after 30 - 60 minutes of scrutiny are throwing out their best customers -- people who bet high, who don't know what they're doing. I sincerely believe they could be throwing away 20 - 40% of their table profits. I don't like casinos, so I hope they do this a lot.

ETF

No one doubts the fact that single and double decks are beatable. But you have to be aware of the fact that you have the edge only after you won a hand and the count is still positive. If you lost a hand but the count is still positive you may have some very small edge left because of blackjacks but the risk has also increased if you keep betting by the count. The increase of risk is not justifying to bet big because the count say so. Instead you should tie your future bets to your most recent performance in the game. On the other hand, if you won the previous hand and the count is still positive then if you increase your bet the risk has decreased for the next hand and probably is justifiable to bet more.

To my greatest surprise I still find players who insist that you keep betting by the count when you losing since that is just natural random expectation. It is nothing of normal to keep losing 10 hands in a row on positive counts. You have to be aware of that if you keep betting by the count in that scenario it can be �fatal� to your bankroll. Also, you have to be aware that the positive counts do not generate more winning hands by much. The most gain of any positive count is the fact that a small edge is gained from getting blackjacks. If you don�t get the normal ratio of BJs during positive counts you will not win in this game regardless of your betting spread.

Big Slick

or the "Holding & Hoping" system?

Isn't the book that published those strategies out of print? Do you have an extra copy?

Just askin..

cheers
bfb

Instead you should tie your future bets to your most recent performance in the game.

Nonsense.

"To my greatest surprise I still find players who insist that you keep betting by the count when you losing since that is just natural random expectation. It is nothing of normal to keep losing 10 hands in a row on positive counts. You have to be aware of that if you keep betting by the count in that scenario it can be �fatal� to your bankroll." -AK

So the count is high, say +5, and remaining high, and I keep losing hand after hand. Are you implying I should start flat betting the minimum after I have lost "X" hands in a row?

but I can't be sure because it's out of print I think.....

Anyone care to sell their copy? :)

cheers
bfb

He also went by AlexD30... same as this guys email address.
He caused a "roar" on Patricks sight a couple of weeks ago (now deleted). Heeeess... backkkkk.... :)

In addition, doesn't it seem reasonable that subterfuge leads to longevity which leads to getting the money?

Longevity doesn't lead to getting the money unless you're playing to a positive EV. Too much camoflage leads to a negative EV.

Even modest camo slashes EV substantially. We have a very slim margin of error to begin with. The casinos LOVE to read posts about camo. It takes money out of our pockets and puts it into theirs.

There is no perfect camoflage. Even if you have XRay eyes, and use holecard info to play like a crazy man, and keep your edge way down below 1%, they will STILL eventually kick you out on your ear based on cume win. So the question becomes: how much is camo worth, and how much does it cost? Many people, if they accurately assessed these parameters, would come to the conclusion that zero camo -- other than the act, which costs nothing -- is the best camo.

Most readers of this page are newbies. If you're starting out, you should probably be playing red. You should be out there PROVING to yourself that you are, in fact, a positive EV player. After you double a bankroll with an ROR of 5% or less, you have some statistical basis for feeling you are +EV. Once you have that much experience under your belt, you may realize it's so tough out there you won't want to give back 0.00001% to the b**tards!

Say you give up 0.4% in camo cutting your EV from ~1% to 0.6%. You can still get barred. An optimistic estimate might say you could double your playing time at a very sweaty property this way. So 2 X .6% beats 1 X 1%, right? WRONG. First of all, this assumes your time is worth exactly nothing. Second, if you play to a 66% greater EV, you can bet 66% more with the same ROR, so your win rate shoots up 177%! 2 X .6% does not beat 1 X (.6 + .6 X 177%). Not in this life, Charlie.

Really superb counters sometimes have losing years. Let's see, do we want to make that more likely, or less likely ... hmmmm ... I'll leave it to you.

ETF

Learn an ACT!

Camo is all about the "ACT".. FIRST! Play and bet correctly, master (refine) your act, and you'll be fine.

I've said this often and it bares repeating: Most people have a tough enough time countng their change, much less determining if someone is counting cards, including pit critters.

cheers
bfb