"Uses computer to evaluate BJ skill"

The CBJN includes this comment in regards to the Mirage and the MGM; "Uses computer to evaluate BJ skill." If one of the main goals of using these computers is to flag players who fluctuate there bet amounts based on running count totals, I would like to know the following; How extensive is the computer coverage? Is every player (red, green and black) at every table being evaluated and if so, is this monitoring 24/7? I have heard that these computers are very sophisticated and even camouflage will not deter them because the bet fluctuations during positive counts and the lack there of during negative counts is too obvious. Does this mean that all card-counters should avoid the hotels that have these computers? But if all hotels eventually use these computers on all tables, would that not spell the end for all card-counters? Is the sky starting to fall? Just wondering.

You won't get better answers on the freepage than you'll get on Green Chip.

Since I have dropped my Green Chip membership because I'm on the road so much, I'd welcome a discussion of this on the free board, or on the CBJN board.

Essentially, what the computers do is keep the perfect count, then see what the correlation is between playing actions and betting. Since no system a human mind can handle can ever do better than maybe 75% or 80% as well as the computer can do, the casino looks for correlations at about those levels or higher.

There *are* ways around it, however. The method I've developed will probably never exceed, or seldom even reach, a 50% correlation, yet still yields a positive expectation. Indeed, it has been a far more reliable and consistent winner for me than the more traditional methods.

If a computer just checks correlation between bets and count it would miss out on the shuffle trackers.
In order to be more comprehensive the system would have to establish a correlation between bets and appearance of high cards.

Francis Salmon

Who here can say for sure that they know the programming software for this counting computer. Who designed it? What count systems are programmed? Is the player betting an exact correlation to the count? All the computer, if there is one, can do is make calculated "guesses" on who is counting. It would still be up to the pit to decide whats really going on. It could be just a lucky player. Besides that, you would need a human entering the data. It would be a little too obvious to have a card scanner not to mention some device that can tell what you are betting hooked up to every camera globe. Not that I don't believe it, it could happen, but it seems a little overboard, even for big money casinos.

The computer doesn't have to track any one specific counting system. It can keep the "perfect" count, and allow for the fact that actual systems in use can only approach those actions, and alert security of too-high correlations.

Frankly, the pit doesn't care about playing correlations so long as the betting is not highly correlated.

A shuffle tracker who just cut 20 small cards out of play will place high bets during the whole shoe and the computer with its perfect count will give him a bad rating. What do you say about that?

Francis Salmon

Nevada is always going to offer you a tough game. Why challenge them? There are easier games to be found. Hint: Native casinos. Most of their patrons are morons and they don't know what it's like to be taken off for a big number so the heat level is minimal or even non-existent. The major downside is that the table limits are much smaller than in Nevada.

It's a good point but I would have thought that the programmers will also be aware of this and it may not be too difficult to include.

However, it does 'muddy the waters' more and would possibly be detected using an overall 'count per shoe played' to adjust the betting patterns in some cases.

If they didn't address this issue then, similar to your example, if you knew that high cards had been cut out of play, you may still be betting the minimum despite the count being high positive.

Cloud the issue even further - what about 'Ace Locators' ? They could quite easily bet big amounts even on negative counts - I wonder if this has been addressed.

Best regards

'Switch'

What`s so funny about educating casino survaillance people ? We could expend for hours here on things that they don`t really know or understand...Do your things and don`t expose it too much on public boards. This is a PUBLIC forum.

It is very easy to program a computer to catch shuffle-tracking.

In my opinion, computer evaluation is much more useful in catching ST than in catching straight counting.

If it isn't clear to you how to write such a porgram, just send me an e-mail (which I can identify as coming from you), and I will explain it on more detail

Peter Griffin was involved in the design of one of the programs and it can identify both counters and trackers when used by a knowledgeable surveillance person. Now on to another topic.

I know it's dead easy to design a program to catch shuffle trackers and I even gave the algorythm for it in my first post of this thread.
My question was not about what was doable but about what was presently being done.
But may be Gman is right and we shouldn't talk about this here.

Francis Salmon

I'm a programmer too, at least thats what I went to college for. It is easy to program the algorithm for it but you still need a live person to operate the program and enter physical data. A computer cannot tell for sure if a person is counting because of mistakes, variations in betting, change up of play, wonging in and out of different tables, etc.

About not talking about it, I don't know why not. Any private message board can be read by anyone willing to pay the membership fees, and don't you think that if someone in the casino business was really interested, don't you think they are paying right now.

About not talking about it, I don't know why not. Any private message board can be read by anyone willing to pay the membership fees, and don't you think that if someone in the casino business was really interested, don't you think they are paying right now.

We don't discuss such thing on Green Chip either. It serves no useful purpose to discuss these things on any public website.

I am a bit more forthcoming on Green Chip. Yes there are casino spies there. But at least casino spies have to go to the trouble fo coughing up sme cash and getting a password before reading them. Here, they get the information for free.

I suspect that for every casino person who reads GC, there are 10 who read the free Pages.

There is some tension between helping other players and educating the other side. There are trade-offs to be made. On GC, we reach the serious players, and the spies have to pay to read, which reduces their number. Here on the Free Pages, the ifno is given out for Free for the other side, and the players get no additional benefit.

However, having said all that, I have also declined to comment a lot about algorithms for identifying AP on GC.

PS to Francis: I re-read your post, and I see that I misunderstood it the first time. Sorry.

"On GC, we reach the serious players, and the spies have to pay to read, which reduces their number."

If you think the information posted to GC is safe from prying eyes; respectfully, I think you are wrong.

Anybody you might be concerned about has the $4.25 per month to listen to what is talked about if they choose to.

If you are concerned about posting it here; I'd be just as concerned posting it in there.

You are a boss at some casino. Somebody tells you that they saw a post on a Website about XYZ. The post could be about your casino, or it could be about something else of interest.

The source could be anybody. It could be a customer who told you something they read; it could be another employee; it could be a kid ; it could be your kid who was surfing the Web; it

Case A: It is on a Free site and you just click a mouse and read the post.

Case B: It is on paid site and you have to cough up some money and get a password, etc.

Which is more likely to be read?

I keep my bankroll is a safe, and I lock the doors to my house when I go out. This does NOT make my house �safe� from burglary. However, it is safer that if my money out on the kitchen table and left the front door unlocked.

Now I never said that post on GC are safe from casino spies. I acknowledged that they would be read by casino people. I just noted that the cost-benefit analysis was much more favorable on GC.

I 'suppose' you have a point.

:)

Certainly GC is not the only pay-site around, and subscribing to them all would be considerably more than $50 per year. On the other hand, subscribing to the standard bearers would only be a couple black chips per annum; a drop in the bucket for any decent size casino.

Still, I'd keep the really good stuff to myself.

Have a good night.