To Tell but not To Burn

In Jesse May's book "Gambler's Guide to the World", he wrote about the great game in Curacao's Sheraton which might result in cancellation of the nice opton. I can understand why Jesse wrote about it cause that sell books. I wonder, are there better ways "to tell but not to burn" the nice games in a book?

You raise a good question. The reason that I really don't like John May's latest book is that it explains the concepts to people without really teaching them how to do it. The effect this has is to put heat on moves because casino people read the book and suddenly see a tracker, sequencer, wheel clocker... fill in the blank, around every corner. The players haven't learned to do it nor has the casino but since the casino now knows it exists they are on the lookout for it and it adversely effects the few who do know how to do it.

On the other hand you have a book like Beyond Counting. To me this book is brilliant in its conception because it is packed with really useful information but presented in a way such that the casino people just see a bunch of math and don't bother reading it. For the true pro this book is exactly what we want. It gives us the info and doesn't put any heat on the games.

Good cards

pro21@hotmail.com

The reason that I really don't like John May's latest book is that it explains the concepts to people without really teaching them how to do it. The effect this has is to put heat on moves because casino people read the book and suddenly see a tracker, sequencer, wheel clocker

There is no shuffle-tracking or wheel clocking information, which, so far as I know, is a roulette technique, in the book. What are you on about?
Did you read it or are you just copying the Bishop's comments?

On the other hand you have a book like Beyond Counting. To me this book is brilliant in its conception because it is packed with really useful information but presented in a way such that the casino people just see a bunch of math and don't bother reading it. For the true pro this book is exactly what we want. It gives us the info and doesn't put any heat on the games.

It doesn't put any heat on the games because it doesn't offer any detail at all about how to use the data in question. Hole-card information etc is valuable if you actually possess the means to exploit it, that is not provided.

was that there are many books that bring moves to the attention of the casinos without really helping the player. (one recent book was on wheel clocking) I, for one, am not ready to go out and take advantage of high-low stacking after reading your book.

was that there are many books that bring moves to the attention of the casinos without really helping the player. (one recent book was on wheel clocking) I, for one, am not ready to go out and take advantage of high-low stacking after reading your book.

High-low stacking, for better or worse, is my innovation. I can't see how alerting the casinos to its presence causes problems for advantage players since, myself and those I play with aside, no one was aware the method existed prior to the publication of the book. It is my damn business what I do with my own creation.

High low stacking is so old its new again. Maybe you really believe you invented it but I know people who played it in Nevada in the 50s! Real players all laughed up their sleeves when Lance Humble claimed dealers were cheating this way because we all new it would be a huge edge for the player if the dealer did this.

But since it was discussed so thoroughly:

What is the edge?
What is the SD?
Exactly which cards are big and which little?
What is the correct strategy if the dealer has a 2 up and a little in the hole?
How big a spread is required?

Those were just a few of the points I missed.

I'm sure that now that we have started this discussion on an open board there will be bosses in Vegas sweating players who re-arrange their cards and running to their superiors saying, "I think he's doing a high low stack."

"High-low stacking, for better or worse, is my innovation."

We argued about the merits of high-low stacking when you were in diapers! Give us a break, PLEASE!

Don

"The Gambling Papers, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Risk Taking, Volume X: The Blackjack Papers." Edited by William Eadington, University of Nevada, Reno.

Pp. 140-145. "The High-Low Pickup Count," by Harry J. McArdle.

You were how old then? Seven?

Don

I am well aware of the cheating technique known as the high-low stack. It has nothing to do with the "Stacker Play" chapter of Get The Edge At Blackjack.

The method I wrote is a means of ordering the cards to incorporate a systematic bias into the deck with any non-random shuffle in order to obtain a accurate method of card prediction without memorization. It is a legitimate advantage play method and has as much to do with sleight-of-hand as the hi-lo count system does.

Only two people who had not read the chapter could possibly make such a colossal error-I know this is true in Don's case but I expected better of Pro21.

We argued about the merits of high-low stacking when you were in diapers!

If your mental faculties keep declining at the same rate you will be the one in diapers before long.

Maybe you really believe you invented it but I know people who played it in Nevada in the 50s!

I've no idea what you are talking about exactly-but I know that there were not legions of advantage players systematically ordering the cards in order to obtain a reliable prediction of the card sequences in the subsequent deck. Card sequencing itself, of which this method is a derivation, was not formally discovered until many years later.
You are talking about some voodoo or cheating method I imagine.

This suggests strongly that you have not read the chapter-I can't seriously believe you could be ignorant of the fact this is a shuffle-tracking method after having read it.

Real players all laughed up their sleeves when Lance Humble claimed dealers were cheating this way because we all new it would be a huge edge for the player if the dealer did this.

Yes, that Humble was a moron.
My understanding of the cheating hi-lo stack method Humble wrote of is that is used in conjunction with the dealing of seconds. I have no idea how you think that gives the player a huge edge.

What is the edge?

That is a meaningless question unless you give me detail about a specific shuffle.
But, despite that, I offered some figures based on a generic shuffle. For example (pg 144) "If the shuffle is such that we arrange things so that we get the high card more than 20% of the time then we will have a 3.4% edge. Of course we can only order about half the cards owing to the number of dealer and cutoff cards, which we cannot control, so our edge is roughly half that" (ie 1.7%). Later on the page I refer to Wong's 46 & 71 strategy from Basic Blackjack which yields a .83% edge from partial hole-card prediction. If you add those figures together you get 2.53%, which I believe is a reasonable estimate from the gain from the method over a range of playable shuffles.
This figure does not include minimum bet losses incurred from ordering the deck.

What is the SD?

Single-deck.

Exactly which cards are big and which little?

The example presented makes is clear that aces and tens are high and others are low (pg 142).

What is the correct strategy if the dealer has a 2 up and a little in the hole?

Whatever the count tells you, or if you are not counting, use basic strategy. Its a waste of time memorizing numerous departures without perfect hole-card prediction.

How big a spread is required?

Depends. Some games exist where the cards can be ordered without misplays-then no bet spread is required. At the opposite extreme, where numerous minimum bettors are ordering cards as much as 12-1 would be needed to break even.
Again, the data is all there. The ceiling on card ordering misplays is about 10% x number of stackers. If the BP gains 2.5%, then you can do the math and work it out.

But the more I am away the higher the ratio of cuss words to content in Don's postings!?!?!?

But the willingness to apply the concept does go to GBV.

>The method I wrote is a means of ordering the cards to incorporate a >systematic bias into the deck with any non-random shuffle in order >to obtain a accurate method of card prediction without memorization.

That is correct and I'm telling you that there were advantage players taking advantage of this in the 1950s. I realize that you were not aware of this since no one wrote any books about it... which I think was my point.

That is correct and I'm telling you that there were advantage players taking advantage of this in the 1950s. I realize that you were not aware of this since no one wrote any books about it... which I think was my point.

So you expect me to seriously believe that a generation of post-war advantage players was using an advanced shuffle-tracking method against single-deck games, even though most single-deck shuffles randomize the deck enough to make this method unworkable? Years before card-counting (let alone ST) had been formally discovered, and BS was confined to an obscure technical paper no one read?
And that, further, you have absolutely no evidence to support this claim at all?
Well, this is very entertaining, if nothing else.

"even though most single-deck shuffles randomize the deck enough to make this method unworkable? "

Your book recommends handheld games and a single deck is a handheld game. Most handheld shuffles make it unworkable today and I'm sure most single deck games made it unworkable then but that doesn't mean all games are unworkable. The key for the technique is to find a sloppy dealer and if there was a sloppy dealer prior to Thorp I'm sure it was exploited.

"Years before card-counting (let alone ST) had been formally discovered"

Shuffle tracking is centuries old. From the winter 97 BJF, Steve Forte (who is one of the most knowledgeable men on card location, cheating and advantage play in the world) wrote the following:

There are references to taking advantage of inadequately shuffled cards as far back as the 14th century, and no doubt existed in the very first card games

Your book recommends handheld games and a single deck is a handheld game. Most handheld shuffles make it unworkable today and I'm sure most single deck games made it unworkable then but that doesn't mean all games are unworkable.

True. However, some shoe games are actually handheld-which is ideal for a stacking team. That was what I was getting at.

The key for the technique is to find a sloppy dealer and if there was a sloppy dealer prior to Thorp I'm sure it was exploited.

Possibly. But its a bit of a leap to make out that, if this did actually occur, the method was similar to the one I wrote about in GTEAB. If it was effective, it would have to be a radically different in approach because of the different shuffle styles and the absence of any computer-generated data as to how to exploit it. It would have been neccessarily primitive-any connection between any such purely hypothetical method and the one I wrote of is tenuous to say the least.
And, I must stress we have no evidence of this at all. I do make it my business to study these things and I have never even heard of the possibility that this sort of technique was being employed in the 50's. Maybe someone would care to back up Pro21's story or provide a reference?

Shuffle tracking is centuries old. From the winter 97 BJF, Steve Forte (who is one of the most knowledgeable men on card location, cheating and advantage play in the world) wrote the following:

There are references to taking advantage of inadequately shuffled cards as far back as the 14th century, and no doubt existed in the very first card games

Yes, I've read the article, it is fascinating. But its one thing to take advantage of amateur shuffling-so few cards are displaced you just assume an unshuffled pack and anybody with a good memory can clean up. Its quite another to do the same thing under casino conditions.

Pro21 seems to be implying a general awareness of the potential of card ordering is equivalent to the Stacker Play chapter. I don't think that is any more true than saying a general awareness of the importance of card removal is equivalent to card counting.