The Dealer Was Flashing
by Arnold Snyder
Interview with RC – A Vegas Hole Card Player
by Richard W. Munchkin
Hole Card Techniques and the Law: Is Spooking Legal?
by Arnold Snyder w/Stephen R. Minagil, Attorney at Law
An Ace Tracker’s Lament
by Darryl Purpose
By Marvin L. Masters
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. III #2, June 1983)
© 1983 Blackjack Forum
Want to make money faster at blackjack? Join a blackjack team!
A blackjack team, or combine, is a group of investors/players who combine their individual bankrolls and/or playing talents. Each blackjack player can then legitimately size his bets according to the total team bankroll.
For instance, four players with four identical bankrolls can combine their money and then bet four times their normal bets. Result: Each makes four times as much money, with no increase in risk. There are two provisos: (1) They must not play at the same table, and (2) the current total bankroll must be communicated frequently to the blackjack team players.
The “blackjack combine” concept differs from the standard “blackjack team” concept by a more equitable sharing of profits and losses.
A combine member may be an investor, a player, or both. The players bet the combined bankroll per Kelly principles, keeping half of all winnings for themselves. If a player loses, he gets no money for playing until the loss is made up. Then the 50-50 split resumes. The second 50% of player winnings goes to the combine treasury. The treasury works just like a money market fund: Investors share profits (and losses) in proportion to their current shareholdings.
This idea works with one player with no bankroll teamed with one investor who doesn’t play. If a plan doesn’t work for this situation, then it’s no good for more complex teams. Ken Uston’s team plan (in Million Dollar Blackjack ) does not work for this situation.
Uston’s plan says that the 50% allocated to players should be divided 25% for time and 25% for money won. Moreover, a loss is not made up. This method is inequitable and unsound because:
(1) It is difficult to define and keep an accurate account of “time.” Some players waste time in a casino; others are more efficient. Besides, equal time should not pay equal money to unequal players. Better to combine the time and skill elements, since those who work longer and play better will presumably win proportionately. That’s good enough, and much simpler.
(2) It would be very tempting for a player to delay reporting a win or time played when he knows that the group is losing. He would not get rewarded for his performance, so why not wait?
The key point here is that a win is not a “win” until any previous loss is made up. The play never “ends” until the combine is dissolved. It’s a continuous series. If that series is broken at arbitrary points in order to distribute profits since the last point, the overall profit for each person will depend on when the breaks occur.
To see that this is so, imagine that I had an investor who bankrolled me for monthly trips to Las Vegas for one year. Suppose I alternately lose $500, win $1000, lose $500, win $1000, etc., for the whole year. If we settle up monthly giving him 50% of every win and 100% of every loss, the investor ends up with nothing while I get $3000. If we settle up at the end of the year instead, we each get 50% of the profit, $1500 apiece. Using my method of not taking a win until a loss is made up, the payoffs are the same either way.
The bankroll “share” concept presents some interesting facets. Typically, 50% or so of the “declared” bankroll should be liquid, readily accessible to the treasurer and players. This liquidity percentage depends on the number of persons who may be playing at the same time, and the readiness with which money can be passed back and forth.
Because bet sizing is a personal matter (Kelly betting may be more, or less, aggressive than suits a person’s circumstances), an investor with, say, a $5000 bankroll may wish to “declare” anywhere from $2500 to $10,000. If the team is betting per Kelly then declaring only one-half of one’s bankroll is effectively betting half-Kelly. This policy will lower the probably win but will substantially reduce fluctuations and increase the probability of being ahead at any given time.
Conversely, the $5000 investor may want to declare in at the maximum for his holdings, or $10,000. His $5000 will satisfy the 50% requirement for a $10,000 declaration. Perhaps he has an alternative source of ongoing income that may be considered bankroll. Or he might want to make a lot of money fast, and be willing to risk the 50% chance of being a loser (when betting Kelly x 2) in order to have the chance at a big killing.
The treasurer must maintain a separate account for investors’ funds that are not part of the official combine bankroll, to be used for adjusting shareholding as instructed by the investors. A person may say, “I want all wins put aside for me. Keep my bankroll value constant.”
Or perhaps he needs the income now. Those who are declaring more or less than their real bankroll will give instructions to the treasurer to adjust “declaration” bankroll after a team win or loss according to their particular circumstances.
The half-Kelly investor will want this share reduced by only ½ of any loss, and increased by just ½ of any win. His separate account will be used for such adjustments. The Kelly x 2 investor wants his share increased by twice any gain and decreased by twice any loss. He will not need a side account, because his 50% requirement is automatically maintained by this policy.
Expenses, being a personal matter, should come out of a person’s own money. If a player has no money for expenses, the treasury can advance the required amount, to be repaid out of the player’s share of his winnings.
You can have a “team,” or numerous “teams” within a single combine. A “team” differs from a combine in that team members play as a team, working together in a casino.
The usual arrangement is for one team member to be a “big player,” placing large bets at various tables as secretly directed by low-betting teammates who are scattered around the casino doing the counting. A blackjack team can thus be part of a combine but in this case the team would be treated, by the rules of the combine, as a single player.
The treasury gets 50% of any wins, with the remaining 50% split among the team members in accordance with the team’s own rules. The big player, for instance, may be a highly skilled person to whom the team votes more than a normal share. ♠
by Mark Truman
© 2017 Blackjack Forum Online
Every year in secret, the absolute cream of the global blackjack community convenes in the heart of Las Vegas. Somewhere, amid the bright lights and endless nights of the Strip, an incredibly gifted few gather to discuss, strategize and compete at the game they love.
Known simply as “The Blackjack Ball,” those in attendance aren’t simply high-rolling gamblers. The club assembled for the annual event represent the finest minds in what is termed “advantage play” in games of chance—and pretty much “playing smart” in any competition.
Professionals will use a variety of techniques to invert the casino’s edge in their favor, and while performing high-level maths amid the myriad distractions of the bustling floor at the Bellagio might be a feat too far for the average Joe, it’s not strictly against the rules.
Of course, this is not how the casino sees the matter. After losing stacks of cash to the attendees of the Ball and other such talented players, it’s hardly surprising that the house is keen to know exactly who makes up this ultra-elite club.
For this reason, many of the Ball’s guests live their lives under a pseudonym. Examples like “Dustin Marks” are tongue-in-cheek references to gambling lingo of yesteryear, and provide some level of security for the players using them. Additionally, attendance at the Blackjack Ball is by invitation only, insuring only a trusted few are permitted access to the event.
This makes an invitation highly prized, and tales of top level players waiting years for their chance to attend abound online.
The necessity of such an elite gathering likely arises from the lack of stage for these professionals to meet and compete on. Professional blackjack is a somewhat solitary pursuit, and while many players belong to teams, much of their working time is spent alone at the table or playing online. Many of those present first met one another at previous Balls, having little opportunity or cause to seek out fellow advanced players before.
That was part of the reason behind the event’s founding. Organizer Max Rubin explains: “It was a way for players of different blackjack teams and solo players to get together and hang out.”
Max first set up the clandestine meeting in 1997 and back then hosted proceedings in his own home. Since then, increasing attendance figures have given rise to the necessity of an alternative venue. The location, of course, is shrouded in mystery, and only those invited are privy to its whereabouts.
Online anecdotes from previous years’ attendees shine light onto the level of security required for players to emerge from their shadowy existence to meet, greet, and compare notes with the rest of their professional community. Stories of multiple levels of security checks to pass, and admittance being reserved for only those who arrive with a bottle of premium champagne are common—touches which add to the atmosphere of exclusivity and ensure a special evening is had by all.
The Blackjack Ball is more than just an exclusive shindig for the brightest minds in the game, however. Each year, a new addition is inducted into the Blackjack Hall of Fame at the event. For a guest to be considered, he or she must first be nominated by an existing member of the Hall, and then be approved by the attendance committee. Legend of the felt Don Johnson was fortunate enough to have his name immortalized this year.
Johnson may be the most widely known blackjack player ever. His victories in Atlantic City have been well publicized, and profits from these sessions run well into the tens of millions of dollars.
The highlight of the Ball for many is the annual Blackjack Cup, in which guests compete in a series of twenty-one rigorous challenges. Every facet of their abilities is tested, from speed card counting to general knowledge surrounding their craft. Participants are whittled down until a champion remains.
The challenge starts with a written test that is fiendishly difficult, and follows up with practical challenges that seem impossibly hard to an outsider. For many years, James Grosjean lifted the cup, until he was banned from competing by Rubin, in the interests of fairness for the rest of the field. But when Grosjean retired from the field of Blackjack Cup battle, the Cup itself was named after him.
The 2017 competition saw Anthony Curtis, a former blackjack and tournament pro and publisher of many classic books on advantage play, take the top spot. Curtis has also finished in the number two position in six of the previous twenty competitions.
In addition to the Hall of Fame inauguration and competition for the Grosjean Cup, attendees are treated to a different guest speaker each year. This year it was the turn of the grandfather of advantage play, Ed Thorp. Author of the distinguished guide, Beat the Dealer, amongst other classic titles, Thorp is largely responsible for most of the room’s fortunes at the felt. Mike Shackelford, authority on all things probability and chance, had the following to say about the 2017 speaker:
It would be hard to understate the impact Ed Thorp had on the game of blackjack. He was the first to publish both a basic strategy to a wide audience, to get the odds to almost breakeven, and how to beat the game by card counting. His book Beat the Dealer will go down in history as the quintessential book that changed the game.
After the evening’s entertainment, the inauguration into the Hall of Fame, and the crowning of the world’s greatest blackjack player, the formal event comes to a close. What follows is an official after party, held at yet another secret location.
The annual event concludes with a second after party the next day, hosted by Hall of Famer Richard Munchkin. The Sunday party is a final chance to trade strategies, tactics, advanced concepts, and epic tales amongst the community. No doubt some hair of the dog is also required for those who overindulged at the previous evening’s festivities.
As the Munchkin after event winds up, so too does yet another edition of the Blackjack Ball. For many of those lucky (and skilled) enough to attend, the comradery enjoyed over this weekend in January must last a whole year. Back to the shadowy world of dodging pit bosses and performing advanced calculus they must creep.
At least, thanks to Rubin’s efforts in organizing this event, they can take comfort from the notion that they are not alone against the casinos, even if they feel that way the 51 other weeks of the year. ♠
By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, January 1997)
© 1997 Arnold Snyder
Question from a Player: I am part of a small group of friends who have formed a blackjack team. We have been playing now for about 4 months, and have been winning very slowly. Recently, we were going over everybody’s numbers and found that of the six of us, three of us are ahead in winnings, two players are close to break even, and one player is pretty far behind. We have all played a different number of hours on the team, though everyone is between 120 at the least and 200 at the most. We test each other all the time on card counting skills and index numbers, and I know the break even players, as well as the big loser, are capable card counters. Those of us who have been winning, however, are beginning to suspect that our non-winning blackjack teammates may be embezzling from the bank, and just claiming losses.
The big loser on the team, by the way, has the most hours in, almost 200, and he is down about $14,000. We all use a spread of about $25-250, and we estimate about a 1½% advantage. My ballpark estimate of the big loser’s result is that he is about 3 standard deviations below his expectation, which, as you know, is highly unlikely. I am personally up about $47,000 right now (I’m the biggest winner), and I have slightly fewer hours in than the big loser. This is very irritating to me, personally. I don’t like mistrusting a friend, but this guy’s losses just seem impossible. What do you think of lie detector tests?
Answer: Based on the number of hours you have in, and assuming you play under typical crowded casino conditions, I would guess you and the big loser each have about 10,000 hands of play in. Based on your spread, I’d guess your average bet to be about $100. If we assume you’re right about your estimated 1½% advantage, then at this point you should each be about $15,000 to the positive. He is $29,000 below this. You are $32,000 above this. This is to say, he is losing at the rate of about 1½%, and you are winning at a rate of about 4½%. You know what? This is exactly why players join blackjack teams!
Both of you are experiencing radical fluctuations in opposite directions. If you were flat betting, then on 10,000 hands one standard deviation would be about 1%. This would mean that both of you guys were about three standard deviations from your expectations. But you’re not flat betting. You’re using a 1-10 spread. So, you have to figure out your standard deviation on each bet size, and if you do this, you will find that the results of your relatively few big bets skew the overall results quite dramatically — in fact, 10 times as dramatically as the results on your $25 bets! I’m sure both of you are well within two standard deviations of your expectations. Try to realize that a $14,000 loss is a loss of only 56 big bets (sized at $250). I’ll bet not one out of twenty hands is played at the $250 level, so in 10,000 hands, you’ve probably got about 500 of these big bets. It is not at all unlikely to lose an extra 56 units in 500 bets, just due to normal fluctuation with card counting.
It always amazes me how card counters can attribute wild positive fluctuations to skill, but suspect something crooked must be going on whenever wild negative fluctuations appear. If you play blackjack a long time, you will get used to these kinds of results, and believe me, when it’s your turn to be the big loser, you will suffer greatly when your teammates suspect you of either dishonesty or incompetence. This type of paranoia has destroyed many blackjack teams (and friendships).
Which is not to say I think your friend is honest. Frankly, I’ve never met the guy. He may be a weasel.
So, with regards to lie detector tests, I am not opposed to the idea at all. Most of the bigger, more successful, blackjack teams have used them. Bear in mind that it is important to test all players, not just losers. I once talked to a player who finally quit team play because he found himself so suspicious of his fellow teammates that he began misreporting his own results, and pocketing team money, to make up for what he thought his teammates were stealing from him! And he never even had any proof! He may have been the only crook on the team!
His method of embezzling, however, was not to exaggerate losses, nor to claim losses when he’d won, but simply to underreport his wins. He was a big winner on this team, so he was the player least likely to be suspected of dishonesty.
You may want to read up on lie detector tests also. They are considered fairly accurate, but they do have limitations. It is a known fact that some con artists (professional liars) can fool the tests. (And wouldn’t many card counters — even honest ones — fit in this category?) It is also a known fact that innocent people sometimes fail the tests just because they are nervous personality types who are afraid of being accused of something they didn’t do.
In any case, what your team is going through right now is a major reason why so many blackjack teams fail. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. ♠
By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, September1997)
© 1997 Arnold Snyder
Question from a Reader: I have been playing for a blackjack team for about six months now. I believe I am a good player, but I have had some pretty bad losing sessions. I have been informed by the team leaders that before I can play any more, I must submit to a lie detector test. Apparently, the team has a contract with a private investigation agency in Las Vegas that regularly tests their team members.
When I first joined this blackjack team, I was told that all players had to submit to lie detector tests if asked. It seemed like a remote possibility at the time. Now, I’m terrified. I have been 100% honest in my dealings with the team, and I’ve never stolen a penny. But, I’ve read that these tests are unreliable, and it scares me to death to think I might be “identified” by some piece of electronic equipment as a liar and a thief. I’ve read that lie detectors actually measure “stress.” If so, I’m a dead duck, because I am really stressed out about this test, even though I’m innocent. If this test ruins my career, can I sue the agency that gives the test?
Answer: No. Prior to submitting to the test, you must sign a form releasing the agency from any such liability.
Most big money blackjack teams use polygraph tests. Some test all players; some test randomly chosen players; some test only players under suspicion. Players who have undergone such tests tell me your apprehension is normal. One player said he could not sleep at all the night before the test, and went in for his test a nervous wreck. When it was over, he was sure he’d “flunked.” Another said he was sweating profusely throughout the test, and whenever the “loaded” questions were asked, he could feel his heart pounding in fear, even though he knew he’d been honest. He was also sure he’d failed. Yet, both of these players passed. This is not to say that the tests are always accurate, only that it is normal to feel very stressed out by the prospect of being tested, and that this stress will not necessarily foul the results.
Polygraph experts will tell you that the tests are usually 90 – 97% accurate, depending on the number of questions asked. The more questions, the lower the accuracy. And some people just don’t give valid results.
Blackjack teams usually have six major areas of concern: 1) Did you report all wins/losses accurately? 2) Did you report expenses accurately? 3) Did you ever play under the influence of alcohol or drugs? 4) If you are being paid for hours played, did you report your hours accurately? 5) If there is some confusion about money transfers from player to player, did you report those transfers accurately? 6) Did you violate any procedures that the team may require to maintain a high level of competency, i.e. did you drill properly on the strategy prior to play, count down X number of decks, etc.?
It is unlikely that you will be asked questions about all of these areas of concern. The team leaders will instruct the examiner to ask about two or three of these areas of concern, depending on your circumstances and their suspicions — if they even have suspicions. Some blackjack teams really do test players randomly, just to keep everyone honest. If a team is losing, it often saves the investors worries to know that the team is seriously confronting all possible problems.
When you go in for the test, the examiner will go over all of the questions he will ask you. There should be no “surprise” questions. Surprise questions, according to reputable polygraph examiners, tend to foul the results.
Also, 90 – 97% accuracy is pretty impressive, but not if you’re in that 3 – 10% of the population that just doesn’t test accurately. One blackjack team leader told me that he has used polygraph tests for many years, and will always use them, but that he would never allow the test results to be his sole criterion for judgment.
“If I personally don’t trust a player,” he said, “I don’t care what the polygraph shows. He could come up smelling like a rose, but if I lose faith in him, and I think he could be ripping off the team, that’s it. My gut feeling means more to me than the test results. By the same token, if someone fails a test, and I think this person is a straight arrow, I wouldn’t automatically let that person go. These tests aren’t 100% accurate. I might watch this person more closely and talk about this with my associates, just to make sure I’m not deluding myself. But my judgment of a person’s character is always foremost in my decisions.”
In any case, if you’re going to play on a big money blackjack team, you’d better get used to the idea of getting a lie detector test occasionally. All of the smart teams use them. They’re just a standard condition of employment for professional players. ♠
By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, February 1994)
© 1994 Arnold Snyder
Question from a Reader: The widely published and disseminated blackjack basic strategy for late surrender seems to me to be wrong. The strategy that is accepted is to surrender a hard 15 vs. a 10, and hard 16 (excluding 8, 8) to a 9, 10 or Ace. Although I am not using high-level blackjack mathematics or computers for my reasoning, it seems to me that the correct strategy would be to surrender every hard 15 or hard 16 (except 8, 8) any time a dealer shows 7, 8, 9, 10 or Ace.
My reasoning is that any time you take a hit on 15 or 16, over half of the cards in a full deck will bust you. If you have a 15, drawing a 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen or King will bust you. That equates to 7 out of the 13 possible cards to draw. If a blackjack game consists of four decks, and the player holds an 8 and a 7 versus a dealer 7, and those are the only cards that have been played, then 109 of the 205 unseen cards will bust him.
If a player is over 50% likely to lose all his bet, then it seems advantageous to surrender one half of his bet all the time. If my reasoning is flawed, I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why.
Answer: This is a wonderful question because your argument is so persuasive, that to anyone — other than a mathematician — it makes perfect sense. First of all, you are 100% correct in most of your analysis. In a four-deck game, there are a total of 208 cards (52 x 4). If you remove a player hand consisting of a Seven and an Eight versus a dealer upcard of Seven, you will have 205 unseen cards remaining.
Of those 205 remaining cards, 109 cards (all remaining Sevens and Eights, plus the Nines, Tens, Jacks, Queens and Kings) will bust the player’s hard 15. One hundred nine cards represent 53% of the 205 possible hits. Furthermore, you would also expect to lose at least some of the 47% of the hands which you did not bust with one hit, depending on the ultimate totals of your own hand and the dealer’s hand.
So, since you know you’re going to lose more than 50 percent of your 15s played out against a dealer Seven—no doubt about it!— why don’t the “experts” tell you to surrender this hand as basic strategy, and hold your losses to an even 50 percent and no more?
This makes perfect sense, right?
WRONG!
This is what happens when amateurs try to do a dangerous stunt like statistical analysis. Statisticians are the Evel Knievels of the math world — trained professionals who dare to perform their feats of mental wizardry without any safety nets. But please, don’t try it yourself at home. You’re liable to start devising your own “basic strategy,” and the next thing you know, you’ll be panhandling for pocket change, wondering where your savings went!
Let’s simplify this problem. Forget about decks of cards. Instead, let’s use marbles in a vase.
Put 100 marbles in an opaque vase — 47 white marbles and 53 black marbles. You have to reach in and draw out one marble. If you draw a white one you win $1, and if you draw a black one you lose $1.
It is obvious from the start that you are going to lose 53 times out of 100 draws.
Therefore, if I offer you a surrender option, whereby you may simply give me 50¢ per draw, rather than risking a dollar to draw a marble, would you surrender?
No!
You’re forgetting that when you don’t lose, you win. In our marble example, you will expect to lose $53 on every 100 draws, but you offset this loss by winning $47 out of every 100 draws. So, your net result after 100 draws will be a loss of only $6. If you surrender 50¢ on all 100 draws, you will lose $50 instead of losing only $6! So, just because you know you’re going to lose more than 50 percent on a specified hand does not make it a surrender decision. No way!
What percentage of your hands do you have to expect to lose before you would be better off surrendering half your bet?
Consider the marbles…
If I had 60 black marbles (losses) and 40 white marbles (wins), what would be my net result from 100 draws?
-60 + 40 = -$20.
Still not enough black marbles to make surrendering a wise decision. What about 70 black marbles and 30 white ones?
-70 + 30 = -$40.
Still not enough black marbles. How about 75 black marbles and 25 white ones?
-75 + 25 = -$50.
Aha!
This is our break-even point, where 100 draws would result in the same expectation (-$50) as 100 surrender decisions.
Since 75 is exactly 3 x 25, then you know that surrendering half your bet is the optimal strategy decision only if you will lose more than three times as many hands as you will win!
With cards, instead of marbles, the math is not so simple because some hands will push, and we don’t know the precise win/loss percentages for Seven, Eight versus Seven without a more detailed analysis showing all of the possible player totals versus all of the possible dealer totals. But the simple fact remains that unless you expect to lose more than three times more often than you expect to win — don’t surrender.
If you want to work out all of the possible outcomes yourself, use a computer to cycle through all of the possible hands, because there are many thousands of possibilities. You could spend months trying to figure out what to do with 15 versus 7.
Instead, trust the dozens of mathematicians and computer programmers who have all come to the same conclusion — don’t surrender that hand. It’s true you will lose more than 50% of these hands. But you will not lose more than three times as often as you will win. And that’s how you determine your surrender basic strategy. ♠
By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, May 1997)
© Arnold Snyder 1997
Question from a Player: My problem is that I have this feeling that I’m taking insurance far too often. I lose this bet a lot, even though I only take insurance when my true count is +3 or more. (I’m playing mostly in six-deck games in Mississippi and Louisiana.)
On my last trip, I put in 19 hours at the tables over a three day period. I kept track of all my insurance bets. I took insurance 14 times, won 5 times and lost 9 times. I realize this is a very short test from the statistical point of view (I’ve been reading your column for years!), but my experience on all of my trips is similar to this. I lose the insurance bet way more than I win it. This is just the one trip where I kept track of my results.
What’s worse, when I win the bet, I don’t really win anything, I just break even on my hand. Winning is actually more like pushing. When I lose the insurance bet, however, I not only lose the insurance, but I still have to play the hand against a dealer ace, which also often loses. I’m starting to think this insurance bet is just a sucker bet for card counters.
Answer: Many players are confused about the way insurance works because, in casino jargon, you are “insuring your hand.” Insurance is a side bet, and has nothing to do with the results of your blackjack hand.You are simply betting that the dealer has a ten in the hole. If he does, you win 2-to-1. It is not a “push” for your hand.
For example, you have a $100 bet on the table. You have a 16 vs. a dealer ace. Let’s say the insurance bet does not exist. The dealer peeks at his hole card, flips over a ten, and you lose your $100.
Now, assume insurance is offered. You have a true count of +5, so you put out $50 for insurance. Now, when the dealer flips over his ten, he pays your $50 insurance bet at 2-to-1 ($100), but you still lose your hand, so you break even.
Since, without the insurance bet, you would have been minus $100, this $50 bet gained you $100.
The actual result on your blackjack hand will be exactly the same regardless of whether or not you take insurance. If, for example, the dealer has a blackjack, you lose; if not, then you have to play out your hand vs. whatever he does have.
Also, your analysis of your blackjack insurance results indicates that you did pretty close to what you would expect as a card counter. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say all of your insurance bets were $50 each. Since you lost 9 times, this is a $450 loss; since you won 5 times (at 2-to-1), this is a $500 win. So, you’re $50 ahead of where you would have been had you never taken insurance.Technically, your fourteen $50 insurance bets would total $700 in action. A $50 win total on $700 action would mean that insurance has paid you at the rate of 6.67% — which is more likely a positive fluctuation in your favor than a negative one.
Remember, if you win your insurance bet just half as often as you lose it, you break even. So, it will always seem like you lose this bet more than you win it, even when you are making money on it. ♠
Letter from Dr. Data Fehnworp
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XIV #4, December 1994)
© Blackjack Forum 1994
I’ve had a hands-on demonstration of the Perfect Play Blackjack Computer advertised in recent issues of Blackjack Forum. The computer is a Z80 (old 8-bit microprocessor) on a 3 x 3 printed circuit board incased in plastic. Another chip on the board looks like it might be the voice chip. There only appears to be 16k RAM on board.
Anyhow, I had the seller set up Thorp’s classic 100% advantage deck remainder: two 7s and three 8s. The computer came up with a NEGATIVE bet recommendation, but proceeded to make the correct (stand) strategy recommendation. Same thing for two 7s and four 8s.
The vendor seemed surprised at the negative bet recommendation. For the record, in order for a blackjack computer to come up with the “perfect” bet recommendations for any deck residue, it would have to probabilize all player and dealer cards, along with every possible course of action for the player using a binary tree type program. This is essentially recreating Thorp’s “arbitrary subset” program in real time on every hand!
The price of the Perfect Play Computer is $10,000. The $4,000 quoted in the ad is for a lend/lease arrangement. The blackjack computer was hooked up to a speaker for the demo. The quality of the “speech” was only adequate for the purpose, I suppose. The earphone is practically invisible when inserted far down close to the eardrum. There are no wires going to the earphone; the user must wear a transmitter at chest level.
Input was through four spring switches that can be placed anywhere in your shoes for maximum accuracy and comfort. The values of the cards are repeated to the user as they are input. This is an important, user-friendly feature.
Snyder Responds: It is my understanding that the Perfect Play computer uses Keith Taft’s old “David” chip, enhanced with the audio output. This computer was also bootlegged for many years under the name “Casey.” As such, its negative bet recommendations on the hands you described would be expected.
This blackjack computer was designed to play perfectly (or close to it), but bets are determined using Thorp’s Ultimate count, a single parameter point counting system described in Beat the Dealer (Random House, 1962/66). Thorp’s Ultimate count has a 100% betting correlation, but this is not the same thing as 100% betting efficiency.
No single parameter card counting system has 100% betting efficiency, and no concealable blackjack computer that I know of has ever been developed that could utilize an arbitrary subset program to analyze betting opportunities with perfect accuracy. This would be so time consuming that it is impractical. Other than for deep single-deck betting situations, it would also be pretty worthless.
Thanks for the first-hand product report.
To read more about blackjack computer card-counting and shuffle-tracking play, see the Interview with Keith and Marty Taft. ♠
By Kyle Sever
(From Blackjack Forum, Vol. XXI #2, Summer 2001)
© 2001 Blackjack Forum
[Note from Arnold Snyder: This truly is a terrific collection of tips on how to learn to count cards. One of the things I like best about Kyle’s tips is that they not only make you a good card counter, but they will also help to prepare you for advanced techniques for beating blackjack, like hole-carding.]
One of the most important fundamentals in blackjack is the utilization of proper card counting technique. Trouble is, I have never seen an explanation on how to do so.
It’s not uncommon for an author to say that once you can count down a deck in less than twenty-five seconds, you’re about ready for the casino, but lack of proper card counting technique can hinder your development as a card counter and/or get you into bad habits. It will not only slow down your counting, but will limit your ability to use more advanced methods of advantage play and cover.
One of the most common card counting errors is maintaining the count by repeating it in the head. Assuming the player is using the hi-lo, when he or she sees a five, immediately +1 should go into the head. However, many players will literally talk to themselves and say “plus one” or perhaps “one” in their heads. In negative counts, this type of player needs to say something in addition to the number to indicate it’s negative, such as “minus one” or “m-one.” If someone doesn’t like negatives I would bet money it’s due to poor technique.
Instead of maintaining the count by repeating the number in your head, it’s advisable to visualize it and keep it visually in front of you as if it was stuck there with glue. When visualizing the number, don’t picture it on the table or anything external; then you would be focusing your eyes on only one spot. Instead, visualize it in your head. As new cards come across the table, the visualized number should be changing in your mind. When you are waiting between rounds, instead of repeating the count, the number should be held in place as if you had eyes in the back of your head.
When applying this technique, the number in your head shouldn’t change after each individual card that you proceed to see. You should generally take in multiple cards at once and after counting the group, the number should change. This method is faster and easier since many cards cancel out. The exception is when there is a potential bust card, since if the player busts the dealer will place the cards from the busted hand immediately into the discard tray.
One of the best things about counting visually is that it will greatly facilitate the skill of counting and talking simultaneously. If you are saying the count in your head and someone tries to start up a conversation, you will have problems maintaining both the inner voice and outer voice. It is best to use just one voice and use another form of memory, visualization.
I can recall only one personal resource on how to count and talk the same time but was disappointed by the explanation. One noted blackjack author and web host had a short article that explained how someone could maintain the count using physical means, such as counting with your hands, fingers or chips so the counter could keep the count while talking.
I have two problems with this method of counting cards. First, it presupposes that you would be counting using auditory methods. Instead of focusing on how to count with good technique, the author was showing how to minimize the effects of counting with poor technique. Second, it can look conspicuous.
Once you begin to get the basic visualization technique down, it will take time to increase your speed. When counting cards, focus only on relevant information. Once your eyes pick up enough information to obtain the value of the card(s), don’t focus on it any more. If your eyes see a gob of paint, it’s a ten. You really shouldn’t care if it is a king, queen, jack or a ten. If you use the Hi-Lo, and you see a few spots on the card, then poof, it is +1. You don’t care if it is a three or four, heart, spade, etc. Just be careful not to count the ace as +1.
If you see a moderate amount of paint (7, 8, 9), the count would be 0. Your eyes should be like a camera, taking shots and quickly processing the information. Your camera doesn’t need to take multiple pictures of the same item.
One reason multi-level systems are more difficult is that it takes longer to discern the properly assigned number to a card. When using a higher level system such as Brh-1, which assigns a +3 value to the five, your camera must zoom in, and it forces you to look more specifically at the number of spots on the card or the number in the index. A one level system, on the other hand, requires you only to look and see if there is a low to medium density of pips on the card.
In order to facilitate recognition of cards, I recommend that you practice without the index and focus on the pips. If you use a regular deck of cards, white out the indexes of the whole deck, or at a minimum, do it to all non-face cards. Another way to efface the indexes is with a hole-punch, or simply tear them. If you have a computer you can use Smart Cards or Casino Verite and practice with them. Learning to count this way is especially helpful when back-counting. When far away from the table it’s not easy to identify the index but it’s usually feasible to see the rest of the card.
When initially learning to count and talk the same time, don’t jump into a full-blown conversation. Sit at home and say a one-syllable word and hold it out loud. Just say something like “Woooooooonnggg.” While holding the word, try counting. Try to keep the sound of it as consistent as possible. Although doing this will make you sound like an opera singer, it’s a good exercise to learn to talk while counting. (Sorry Arnold, even though you’re a bishop, I don’t recommend blackjack players worship you while practicing due to your name!)
If you are having trouble doing this task then I recommend you soften your voice. I don’t recommend you practice by talking in intervals because this may lead you to do most of your counting when not talking and/or when your voice is attenuated. Eventually, variation in speech should increase and you should be able to talk continuously.
Being able to count and talk the same time is important but it’s just as important to count and listen at the same time. Try listening to the radio or listen to the television while counting and try to comprehend what is being said. Once you reach this level of proficiency, you will feel confident if someone in the casino wants to strike up a conversation. Once again, if you rely on auditory counting you may find yourself struggling to distinguish between what two voices are telling you.
Practice with different IRC’s (initial running counts). If you don’t like negatives then try starting the count at –10. Exaggerate the practice. It’s analogous to a baseball player loosening up by swinging two bats. If you can learn to handle difficult situations then when it comes to game time, it should be easier.
I highly advise the use of a computer program to facilitate practice. With a computer, your practice sessions will be more efficient since all it takes is a click of the button to pick the cards up. Two of best practice programs currently out on the market are Casino Verite by Norman Wattenburger and Smart Cards by Richard Reid. Casino Verite has long been accepted as THE program to imitate real world casino play. Its superb graphics, attention to detail and number of options can make you feel like you are playing at any number of games around the world. However, the very nature of what makes the program great is also its downfall.
I don’t feel Casino Verite is the best choice for newer players or for those really trying to improve their skills. The process of learning to count cards must be broken down into different drills. Although Casino Verite does have some drills, they are limited in scope. The software was designed, first and foremost, to imitate casino play and not for counting training or practice.
To improve your counting skills, I recommend Smart Cards by Extreme Blackjack. To the best of my knowledge, there isn’t any software like it. It seeks to improve the most fundamental skill in all of blackjack: counting.
It has a number of ways to let the user practice and drill along with multiple ways of distributing the cards. The variety of count settings is important since it will train you to recognize cards quickly without setting you within a rigid method of counting. A rigid method of counting is when you start at the same direction and count in the same order each time. The drills in Smart Cards will train your eyes to move in different directions.
Once you start to master counting, I would then consider the purchase of Casino Verite. I think of it as card counting maintenance software. It gives you a chance to use your index numbers, betting spread, and card counting skills all at one time and, by occasionally practicing on it, you can maintain your counting skills once you have gotten your system down. Now if Extreme Blackjack would only put a playing module in Smart Cards…
Newcomers often wonder how fast they should be able to count before they are ready for the casino. There is no easy answer to this. In fact, I used to spend too much time counting down decks and not enough time playing hands. I could count down a deck by hand in 15 seconds, yet had problems when I tried to play hands against the computer.
My advice would be to first count down decks until you can do so without the voice in your head and do it in 20 seconds by hand or 15 seconds by computer program. Once you can do this, try doing the same while talking. Once you get this far, don’t worry about making the card counting Olympics. Go play some hands and stick with that, occasionally going back to count down decks. Consider doing this even more if you are gonna do some back-counting. Once you count down a deck quickly and play your hands while talking and listening to someone else, then you’re about ready to tackle the casinos.
If you do decide that you want to get your speed as fast as possible, remember that no matter how much you work at it, there is a limit to what you can do. One blackjack author has said that it’s possible for some magicians to riffle through a deck and memorize the entire deck sequence in a matter of a couple seconds. I would certainly think that a magician could do it since such a feat would make a decent magic trick! In fact, the current world record for memorizing the order of cards in an entire deck is thirty-four seconds, a record set by Andi Bell in 2000.
Overall, your counting will be very slow at first since you are re-training your brain. But eventually, your counting speed will exceed what you were able to do before. In fact, after many years’ experience, some counters don’t even try to count at all and they find that they know the count. You may find yourself counting cards inadvertently if you are just watching a game of blackjack for the fun of it.
Another advantage of counting visually is that it will be easier to handle more complex systems. If you have wondered how some people manage multiple counts at once, they don’t usually repeat the count in their heads. It’s much easier to handle multiple pieces of information by visual means.
If you don’t intend to learn a multi-parameter system, but would like to upgrade to a higher level system such as UBZ II or Brh-1, then you will find that visualization will help you master the increased complexity. Although good technique will improve your ability to handle more intricate systems, I’m not necessarily advising you to change counts. The greatest benefit will be speed of play and cover, including the ability to count and talk the same time.
I don’t recommend getting into a routine when counting cards in a casino. Any type of fixation can be bad for cover and counting order is no exception. Many card counters count in the same fashion round after round.
For example, a common way people count a face up game is to start at the right and follow the deal counting each new card they see. However, you may not want to start at the right all the time in this type of situation. Depending on how you are acting with the other players, and your seating position, it’s sometimes best to count by starting at the left.
For example, if your attention was focused for a second on something that was going on West of the table (for example, a boss points out something special in the casino), it would be easiest and look most natural to count the cards at 3rd base first. Counting in different ways will give you flexibility at the table that will minimize the amount of energy you use. You must be able to adapt your counting to what you are doing outside of counting the cards.
The best example of how flexibility earns $$ is when back-counting more than one table. When doing this, you can’t spend too much time counting one table, especially when both tables are in sync, that is, when the actions of the two dealers correlate. Your eyes must go back and forth.
There are several advantages in using visualization and good technique at the blackjack tables. The greatest plus will be cover and speed of play. You will focus on the count using less energy and your brain won’t be buzzing as much after a long day at the casinos. Your speed of play will increase and you will be able to count and talk the same time. Perhaps you will even consider changing to a more powerful card counting system. In the end, this all means more $$ in your pockets.
I wish you all good luck in your card counting training. Before long you may be counting cards like Peter Griffin, using Hi-Opt I with all five side-counts! ♠
By Brother William
(From Blackjack Forum Vol XV #3, September 1995)
© 1995 Blackjack Forum
[Editor’s note: Brother William’s article about fluctuations in your blackjack bankroll when flat betting and playing basic strategy have a new relevance for players who are taking advantage of online casino bonuses or loss rebate plays. If you are a basic strategy player for any reason, study the article and chart below to get a handle on the normal fluctuations you can expect in your blackjack bankroll. –Arnold Snyder]
In the June 1995 issue of Blackjack Forum, I suggested that it would be helpful to basic strategy blackjack players to print detailed risk charts indicating standard deviation (fluctuation) for flat betting when playing basic strategy. I think there is a danger for players who are milking comps and promotions in not understanding these risks.
In an attempt to remedy this problem, I have created an all-purpose risk chart for the basic strategy player. I hope basic strategy blackjack players will study this chart carefully.
Assumptions:
1. House advantage over the basic strategy player is 0.54% (which would correspond precisely to a 6-deck shoe game with Strip rules, but works pretty well for most games available anywhere, as the house edge is usually set around ½% over the basic strategy player).
2. 60 hands per hour of play. (This is pretty close to what you’ll average with a full table.)
3. Flat betting 1 unit per hand.
Regardless of what your unit size is, you may use this chart simply by multiplying. If you were playing $1 per hand, then all of the chart entries in units can simply be read right from the chart in dollars and cents. Example: betting $1 per hand for 16 hours of play, as per the assumed game conditions, you would have an expected loss of $5.18. You will be within one standard deviation (SD) of this expectation 68% of the time, which translates to an actual result between a loss of $39.27 and a win of $28.90. You will be within three standard deviations 99.7% of the time, which translates to an actual result between a loss of $117.80 and a win of $86.69.
Using a $100 betting unit, if you intend to play a total of 16 hours of basic strategy in this game and you’re willing to accept a risk level of three SD’s, simply move the decimal point two places to the right. You would expect to lose $518.00, but your actual result 99.7% of the time would fall between a loss of $11,780.00 and a win of $8,669.00.
So, if you can stand the thought of losing somewhere around $12,000 every rare once in a while in 16 hours of play, you can afford to flat bet this game with black chips.
The charts are very easy to use with flat bets of $1, $10, $100 and $1000, because you simply have to move the decimal point. For flat bets of $5 or $25 or whatever, just use a pocket calculator.
Note that the entry in the “expected loss” column can be used to estimate what you are actually “paying” for any comps your action buys.
| Blackjack Basic Strategy Risk Chart | |||||
| # hours | expected loss (units) | SD % | SD levels | loss (units) | win (units) |
| 1 | 0.32 | 14.2 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 8.84 17.69 26.53 35.39 | 8.20 16.39 24.59 32.79 |
| 2 | 0.65 | 10.0 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 12.70 25.40 38.09 50.79 | 11.40 22.80 34.21 45.60 |
| 3 | 0.97 | 8.20 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 15.73 31.46 47.19 62.92 | 13.79 27.57 41.36 55.14 |
| 4 | 1.30 | 7.10 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 18.34 36.67 55.01 73.35 | 15.75 31.49 47.24 62.98 |
| 8 | 2.59 | 5.02 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 26.69 53.38 80.08 106.77 | 21.51 43.02 64.52 86.03 |
| 12 | 3.89 | 4.10 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 33.40 66.81 100.21 133.62 | 25.63 51.26 76.88 102.51 |
| 16 | 5.18 | 3.55 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 39.27 78.53 117.80 157.07 | 28.90 57.80 86.69 115.59 |
| 20 | 6.48 | 3.18 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 44.59 89.17 133.76 178.34 | 31.63 63.25 94.88 126.50 |
| 24 | 7.78 | 2.90 | 1 68% 2 95% 3 99.7% 4 100% | 49.52 99.04 148.55 198.07 | 33.97 67.93 101.90 135.86 |
Again, I hope any basic strategy blackjack players out there will study this chart carefully. The bankroll you save my be your own. Good luck! ♠
