I just finished reading Bringing Down the House and I was wondering if anyone on these boards has any experience with that sort of team play or knows anything about its feasibility (not in terms of massive bankroll but in terms of the spotter/big player strategy).
...but team play has suffered from a massive brain drain unparralelled since the Soviet Union in the 50's. Almost by definition any one still doing this isn't knowledgeable enough about gambling in general to be successful at it...and these people are recruting...
you mean because anyone any good is already barred from every casino on earth?
You should just e-mail the members of the teams that do this and tell them they don't know how to make money.
Math Boy
Tommy Hyland and John Chang of MIT and Greek's people... they seemed knowledgeable...
You should just e-mail the members of the teams that do this and tell them they don't know how to make money.
They know how to make money, at least the better ones do. What they don't know is how to make enough of it.
MIT is the perfect example. I consider 25K pathetic on that bankroll. Do you disagree? Do you really think I couldn't do better? Come to think of it, aren't you doing better?
I am aware that some of the teams such as CORE and the LVCHM (though you'd have to subtract legal expenses and downtime there) look into stuff that is a little more interesting but that isn't what we are talking about here, which is the fairly traditional stuff.
We've had a few "counting sucks-oh no it doesn't-oh yes it does" threads. Usually someone crops up and says something like "Well-the MIT team/Grosjean's crowd/Core/Greeks/Czechs etc seem to do alright". In the past its been difficult to contradict this because the only people who know what these teams get up to and make are on them and they weren't talking.
That changed with the MIT book and the Grosjean case. We know quite a lot about what these teams get up to. And the ROI the methods they use get by their own published testimony is about a fifth of that of a garden variety bonus hustler makes (after three years of major deterioration in the online gambling scene). Do the math, the information is all out there in public sources. I'm not genuflecting at the mention of Hyland's name because the guy was on TV a few times.
Now if I was unwise enough to talk about the gains from methods with real money-making power-affiliate rebates, red/blue blackjack, line-shopping with the betting exchanges, exploiting arbitrages between spread firms and offshore bookmakers, "non-runner no bet" promos" on the horses for example,I could make a reasonable case for saying the "famous" temas make about a hundredth of the ROI a competent and technologically clued-up outfit could make with the same bankroll.
Note these methods are just stuff I can mention because I had a major hand in determining their profitability in the first place. A lot of stuff out there I can't talk about because it would compromise others, as Math Boy knows well.
You can look at your ability to earn as having two constraints: capital and time. Not everyone in a team has an investment, so investors are expanding their earning potential by using players and skimming some of the return on the players' time. Players who do not have much capital can expand their earning potential by using investors' money. Leveraging these two constraints is part of the key to making better money.
It is simplistic to say that no one doing a certain play is a good gambler. I know very talented solo counters.
The MIT was a pretty funny book. Other people read it and think "wow, how can I set up a bp team". I read it and go "damn that's a lot of heat. And it can't be fun getting beat up by that prick Andy Anderson."
Math Boy
I read the John C interview in BJ Forum. He said that the MIT team made 10 million over 20 years. That doesn't seem too bad to me.
Where is that info on what Grosjean earns?
In the past its been difficult to contradict this because the only people who know what these teams get up to and make are on them and they weren't talking. That changed with the MIT book and the Grosjean case.
Just a quick couple of comments. First, the MIT book is reality-based fiction. As such, I wouldn't trust any numbers in it. Second, Grosjean was backroomed after playing a game with a 35% flat bet edge. That equates to a pretty big ROI. I may be misunderstanding, but you're not suggesting that this game was a waste of time, right?
Just curious,
MF
Who is Grosjean- I'm unfamiliar with him? Also, what is ROI?
people in BJ Hall of Fame like Hyland and Francisco, who I can trust? You?
Grosjean wrote "Beyond Counting".
Just a quick couple of comments. First, the MIT book is reality-based fiction.
Most seemed to think the prose was florid but the facts were basically accurate. However, occassionally over the years I was in the same place at the same time as this and various other MIT teams, and some of the details didn't match in the book.
As such, I wouldn't trust any numbers in it.
Maybe you are correct. I can't see why they would make up figures which presented them in an unfavourable light though. Someone suggested they have massaged the stats because of the IRS, I don't know.
Second, Grosjean was backroomed after playing a game with a 35% flat bet edge. That equates to a pretty big ROI. I may be misunderstanding, but you're not suggesting that this game was a waste of time, right?
I don't want to get into slagging Grosjean's lot off again, but you have to consider in this case that a)you have to do an awful lot of preliminary scouting to find a game like this and b) they had to fight a court case to get the money. Thats a hell of a lot of downtime and legal and other expenses. I think there are easier options. Also, Grosjean is as willing to massage the truth as Mezrich based on his comments about his introuduction to Beyond Counting. I'm not saying he lied but I got the feeling the whole picture wasn't revealed about the case.
people in BJ Hall of Fame like Hyland and Francisco, who I can trust? You?
Try using your intellect and not depending on anecdotal evidence from others. It is not that difficult to compare card counting vs other methods.
I'm sure is a billionaire by now with all this massive ROI.
I realize that a $50 bonus on $100 deposit at an internet casino is a big ROI, but it don't pay the rent.
I realize that a $50 bonus on $100 deposit at an internet casino is a big ROI, but it don't pay the rent.
It gets you more than 25K a year with a fraction of the risk.
ROI only properly applies when the unit size can be scaled relative to the current bankroll size. Such an opportunity would have a high ROI for a small bankroll. It would also have a CE very close to the expected value, but for a large bankroll the ROI would still be $50/BR size.
...But the shortcomings of ROI don't even come close to masking the massive difference in returns from the comparitive strategies here.
Whichever way you look at it, 25K PA is a pathetic return on that bankroll. Its a much lower figure than I would have dared to suggest a casino team would make. I could make that on 10K, so could most people of average intelligence.
