Category: Blackjack

The Traveling Gambler: Prague Spring

by BJ Traveller (with Mark Dace)
(From Blackjack Forum XXIV #3, Summer 2005)
© Blackjack Forum 2005

[Editor’s Note: BJ Traveller is not only a successful professional gambler but the author of the best-selling Chinese language book in the U.S. market in 2002. Three of his Chinese-language books on gambling are currently available at all World Bookstores, including Beat 21, BJTravelling, and TZL Teaches. TZL is BJTraveller’s Chinese pen-name, and it translates as “The gentleman carrying son (…to casinos).” Here is his account (again with partner Mark Dace) of counting cards, shuffle tracking, and scorching the blackjack tables of Prague. BJTraveller is seeing the world–one blackjack table at a time. — Arnold Snyder]

There are many casinos in Prague. Perhaps too many! I read a news article about Prague that stated that the Czech Republic has the highest casino density in all of Europe.

The VIP Casino Group, operating three casinos in Prague, started offering full early surrender (ES) on their blackjack games in early 2004. A counter I know of who played 22 sessions and won $40,000 was barred. He swapped the location of the game with me for some information on another game that I knew of. I had played at Prague before and believed that I was dealt seconds on that occasion, but I decided to go regardless.

Prague is known as the museum of architecture because it has not been damaged by wars for 800 years. I consider it to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. The city also has a great public transportation system, which allows travelers to stay at a not-so-centrally-located but much cheaper priced accommodation. There are also many good Chinese restaurants around the city central area, which is very important for my critical culinary tastes.

When I arrived in Prague late in August, many advantage players, including ChanceKing and some others from the UK and Greece, were already playing the game regularly. Except for two local counters, most AP’s played hit and run for several days. I used to play like that on good games but with much regret as many good games deteriorated while I gave them a rest, playing other not so good games. I started playing a torch burn style for the Prague game, and decided that I would stop only after being barred or having the game deteriorate. The rules of the game were 6D, S17, early surrender, ENHC (however, the dealer did NOT take players’ doubles or splits when the dealer had a blackjack, only their original wager), DoA, DAS, no RSA, and re-split to a total of 4 hands. The edge for the player was about 0.2% off the top. The maximum wager was $400. I jumped my bets without disguise, following along with the local card counters who had befriended the casino staff. I was half-shoed very fast while playing heads up at the higher limit table, while the local counters at smaller maximum tables with crowded playing conditions enjoyed 75% penetration. I made about $200 an hour in 2004 playing 4 to 5 hours a day against a slightly trackable 50% penetration game. I played it for two and half months, leaving only because of visa restrictions. A Malaysian card counter, who was winning about $400 a day playing long hours, and Mark Dace, who was tipped by me about the game, were barred during the period I was absent.

The casino group finally had enough of card counters and canceled early surrender as a New Year’s gift on January 1, 2005. I might have been the first professional player to be informed of its unfortunate demise while playing in the casino on the morning of New Year’s Day. (Note: This day is of little importance to me as Chinese mainly celebrate the Lunar New Year. Thus, I was “working” on that day.) The casinos also half-shoed all the blackjack tables. They still offered early surrender against 10 and the games were still trackable so I played on for several weeks winning about $100 an hour.

An interesting side story about daily life “working” at the VIP Casino involved a young girl, a restaurant owner who was also a Chinese and who played quite big. She played poorly and hated basic strategy players, so she changed tables when she saw somebody at her table hitting 15, 16 or A,7. It was the late stage of the early surrender game so there were advantage players at almost all four blackjack tables. She was hopping around like a grasshopper and complaining about why there were so many ploppies. What she didn’t realize was that she was the real moron there.

I left the Czech Republic for another early surrender game in South America, but when I returned to Prague, in early May, I found that I had been barred. Luckily I scouted the Banco Casino, where Mark had played after getting barred by VIP, and found that they were now offering a double deck game. The game started on April 15. It was S17, early surrender against ten (ES10), DoA, DAS, ENHC, no RSA, and 50% penetration–about minus 0.04% off-the-top. One could play all seven boxes. The two local card counters, who had migrated to the game already, had won about $50,000 jointly. I attempted to show the casino some mercy by politely playing two hands of $20 off the top while the local counters spread from one hand of $4 to seven hands of $200! The casino started restricting player bets to five boxes, and shortly thereafter only two boxes. They also raised the minimum to $20. The 50% deck penetration was executed by inserting a shuffle card at the middle of the two decks and the game was dealt from a shoe.

The two local counters, a Japanese counter, and my assistant and I enjoyed the game for about half a month, winning about $100,000 combined. The casino also operated the only Hold’em tables in the city and had some big roulette players who bet multiple thousands of dollars a hand. A Chinese restaurant owner who was driven out by the VIP group’s bad penetration also migrated to Banco and lost about $100,000 in a month, which definitely prolonged the life of the game. This Chinese restaurant owner lost heavily most of the time and stood on totals of 6 or soft 17 sometimes. He thought poorly of my hitting hard 16 and offered me a partnership playing under his (very, very stupid) intuition strategies. I learned later that his wife watched his gambling losses closely so he tried to get other big players’ funds to satisfy his lust for bigger action.

The casino general manager was a blackjack player and very experimental. The double deck game now became 33% penetration and H17. However, he also started offering a single deck game and it was S17, two hands maximum for any one player, table limits of $20 to $200, and 50% penetration! I won $6,000 very fast but ended up dead even on the first night. There was a shuffle card used and the game was dealt from a shoe.

The single deck became a regular game several days later. I noticed one of the local card counters cashing out quickly so I inquired as to why he did this. The local counter urged that I not get too greedy for the purpose of the longevity of the game. I agreed and complied. On this session, I stopped playing after a win of $4,200 in two hours.

The nice single deck rules did not last long, however. Within days, the table limits became $40 to $200, S17 was changed to H17, and 33% penetration substituted for 50%. Sensing that the game might not last long, I tipped off several capable advantage players. Only one, Orson, showed up in time. The single deck deteriorated further, down to two rounds per shoe regardless of the number of players. I happened to be sitting at a table opposite Orson and we could see the decks’ back cards on the opposing table. I signaled Orson to meet me in the men’s room and we agreed on signals for big and small bottom cards. One exposed back card is worth much in single deck and we could sometimes see two cards, both before and after the player cut the deck. Sometimes the small bottom card (which was cut out) was offset by a new big bottom card. With the poor penetration, depending on how thin the player cut was, we could easily steer both cards behind the cut card placement. When both bottom cards were small cards, we could bet big off-the-top.

The fun lasted only about an hour. The dealers became quite aware and alert and asked for another cut card to cover the bottom of the pack of cards. The two-rounds games were still beatable, however, and I won about $2,000 a night.

Additionally, Banco gave a 5% rebate on session losses of over $1,000. I lost $3,900 on day shift and received $200 in loss rebate. The loss was fully recovered, plus some profit for good measure, on the night shift. The casino, unfortunately, did not see the humor in this recovery and the single deck became a game with only one round being dealt for me. Time to leave.

There have been many discussions on blackjack sites about cheating in Prague. I believed I was dealt seconds in two casinos. A third casino name came out in the discussions I read. One of the cheating casinos, The Royal, was closed down after a grenade explored in front of it. The grenade was thrown by the Israeli Mafia. The casino was reported to be closed due to its problematic ownership. However, a manager at a VIP casino told me it was closed because of their cheating the players. The other two cheating casinos were still operating. A former staff from one of the casinos confirmed the cheating to me.

The Austria Gaming Group also runs a casino in Prague. The penetration was only so-so but they allowed ES10 and RSA. I did not have much patience for such a game and spread up to 140 times my minimum. The casino didn’t like this and half shoed me whenever possible. This casino was giving players $4 a day to play through a coupon promotion, so I still played there sometimes. Banco gave also $4 a day. My assistant was more patient and won some money through a similar deal.

I scouted other Prague casinos. Most were not playable. A casino on the riverside was block trackable but gave bad penetration after several winning sessions. Another casino nearby did not regulate its dealers’ shuffles. Some dealers were sequential trackable.

I believed I had made most decisions correctly in how I played the Prague games and extracted maximum or near maximum value from the good games. The only move that might have been more profitable was to have continued playing when the single deck was S17 with 50% penetration, ignoring the local counter’s warning.

Prague is one of the “must see” cities. The hotel reservation service at the airport can provide ample choices. I stayed at the Olsanka Hotel and the Hostel Akat. Both places posted walk-in prices and I got a 10% to a 20% discount as a long time guest.

Last but not the least, some important issues. A tour guide warned me about the three pests of the Prague tourism scene. They are the money changers, the taxis, and the con men/thieves.

1. Money Changers

Many post two prices. You lose 20% or even 30% changing several hundred dollars, as the attractive price posted is for changing more than $3,000.

2. Taxi drivers

Most taxis parked in the downtown area used crooked meters. I was cheated twice. The taxi drivers fled after I mentioned the police. Another player told me he had asked for the police but was forced to pay at gunpoint many years ago. The Prague mayor was charged five times the correct fare while wearing a disguise. Always ask the casino or the hotel receptionist to arrange for a taxi.

3. Con men and thieves.

A stranger holding a map asked me directions to the Metro station bus to the airport. Two big guys, wearing ties and dark blue sweaters, showed up questioning whether we were changing money and asked to check for fake Czech currency. The stranger handed over a big stack of money for inspection immediately. I took out my wallet, which also contained some Euros. The “police” then asked to check the Euros too, which aroused my suspicion as this had nothing to do with their initial request concerning their own country’s money. An American card counter had warned me that he once encountered fake Romanian police on a train checking money. I put my wallet back and asked to see their IDs, which did not have photos. The police flashed their IDs again. I invited them to go to the police station with me. One of the alleged policemen asked in a threatening tone of voice for my cooperation. I walked away. The three of them stood there watching.

[Note: I went back to Prague a month after Banco started shuffling up after one round on their single deck. Splitting was not allowed and there was no more surrender. The single deck was shuffled after every round and players were restricted to two boxes. The double deck’s penetration was 25%, but one to seven boxes were allowed. They only allowed a 1-6 spread per box, however.] ♠

Interview with Ken Uston

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Volume III #2, June 1983)
© 1983, 2005 Blackjack Forum

[On the evening of February 21, 1983 I met with Ken Uston at his San Francisco apartment. This is a transcription of the interview, which was taped.]

Ken Uston on his Casino Lawsuits

Snyder: Some card counters feel you’re personally responsible for ruining the blackjack conditions in Atlantic City. Many players think that card counters would have a better deal today had Ken Uston never arrived with his teams, and his publicity, and most especially his lawsuits against the casinos. Do you think your personal vendetta against the casinos has hurt card counters, and do you feel any responsibility for having made the game tougher for blackjack players?

Uston: I sort of expected you’d ask that question. To answer it, you’ve got to go back before Atlantic City. A lot of people who make that complaint are people who started playing in New Jersey. Not all of them, there are some Nevada people who feel I’ve ruined the game with all the publicity . . . but what they forget is that when we started playing back in ’73, they treated us like criminals.

Sure, we were making a lot of money, and we were putting a lot of money on the tables, and we were making very high bets. But the point is we were treated like crooks. It wasn’t some nice, polite atmosphere that exists today in Atlantic City and even in Nevada. We were trailed. We were hustled into backrooms. I got my face broken and went to the hospital, I guess because some pit boss noticed who I was . . . To this day I don’t have feeling in part of my mouth. We were really treated with gross disrespect.

At the time, I guess I felt it was wrong, and probably there was some vindictiveness there, too. But, anyway, I started these lawsuits in Nevada. And then, we went to Atlantic City, and we ran into the same situation where, sure, the Commission made some mistakes I guess by, first of all, saying you can’t have a hole card, and then saying you will have surrender, never realizing the implications of early surrender, until, I think, Julian Braun originally figured it out, then everyone else realized what it meant.

So, the Commission put themselves in a bind, and then Al Merck, who was one of the original commissioners, a very gentlemanly kind of a guy, was speaking up for the little guy. He insisted that the casinos deal down to two-thirds of a shoe. When you combine that with early surrender, and the fact that they couldn’t throw people out, and the betting ratios that were allowed, it ended up with a terrible circus in January of ’79.

It was a debacle. The card counters were some of the tackiest people that I’ve seen. They didn’t tip a dime, they smirked, they laughed at the dealers, laughed at the pit bosses, they’d throw their money around, sit down and disrupt play, then jump up . . . It was terrible . . . Our guys were gentlemen. The Czech team was sort of disdainful at first, but we had a meeting with them and said, “Hey, the more these casino people hate you, the quicker you’re going to end up ruining it for everybody.”

Snyder: Do you feel that if you had not been in Atlantic City at all, the casinos would have come down on the counters anyway?

Uston: Yes. I had no great love for counters who acted that way. I talked about this in One Third Of A Shoe. Avarice vs. greed. Casino avarice vs. counter greed. That’s really what it was – two very greedy bunches of people, on to the same thing. But, eventually, and I believe, unjustifiably so, we were barred . . . My first reaction, immediately, was: here we go again with this bullshit, and I am going to sue…

Snyder: Some people feel like these lawsuits are something you go through for the publicity value. How do you feel when you’re single-handedly taking on the casino industry in court? Is it just a show?

Uston: Whenever I go into court, or whenever I’m before these commission hearings, I get this terrific feeling of being oppressed. At the surrender hearings in the summer of ’81, I had that same feeling. All these lawyers for the casinos and all these casino representatives. There are these fairly unknowledgeable Commission people, and you never know if they’re truly objective or not. You just get the feeling that you don’t have a chance.

If you saw The Verdict or one of these movies where it’s the little guy against these . . . you just don’t have a chance . . . I lost the case with the Commission, then it was sent to the lower court, and they sent it back to the Commission again, and all this time the meter is running. I’m paying lots of money . . . But at that point I was pretty well committed, and I said, “Whatever it costs, I’m going to go through with it.”

We lost at the Commission level, and I thought wrongly. I had a proposal that I really thought was fair, that is basically what they’re doing today, by the way – except for the fact that my proposal didn’t include shuffle-at-will. It was fair because it meant that the very good player, the exceedingly good player, who could get into the long run by playing 500 hours, is going to have an edge. But 99% of the counters, including those tacks that were in there in January of ’79, chances are they’re not going to make it.

Snyder: In December of ’79, the Atlantic City casinos experimented again with a no barring policy, and your team won a lot of money. The casinos used the successful experience of your team as part of their ammunition to reinstate a barring policy. Wasn’t this fair from the casino’s perspective?

Uston: That’s the period we won a total of 50 grand in ten days. We were way the hell on the right side of the curve. We didn’t deserve to be there. Mark Estes, who was doing our runs on the calculator, estimated we were three sigma to the right or something. It was just absurd how lucky we were. . . It was great. It was a dream. But all the other guys only won about $300.

We used to have meetings with these guys because I wanted this experiment to continue. It was interesting. There were very few card counters there compared to January, and that’s because the game was tougher. There were some teams that went back and actually lost their banks. Howie Grossman’s team lost about 30 or 40 grand. The Czechs were in the hole. They were stuck a 100 grand at first, but they dug out and finally ended up with about 100, or 150. . .

But the casinos blatantly lied to the Commission. They told them that we had been responsible for losses over $4 million. They had a special task force at Caesars, and one of the girls on the task force – I know her to this day; she’s a floorperson over at the Claridge now – she told me that she was instructed that “If anybody walks out of here with a lot of bucks, put them down as a counter.” They were told to absolutely and blatantly lie to the Commission.

Snyder: How did you finally win your case?

Uston: We appealed to the Appelate Court. A year and six months later, we won. And then they (the casinos) took it to the Supreme Court in New Jersey, and we won that . . . After the Supreme Court decision, we had another hearing, and you should have seen the casino people there. They were there in droves. They had a half-a-million dollar, maybe a one million dollar show.

They had helicopters and limousines; they had ECON people; they had a guy they flew in from, I think, Sweden or Amsterdam or someplace, to testify. All these casino people there, and there was nobody to testify for the counters. It was so funny. They had this vast report, and here I’d stayed up all night the night before – I was out partying – and I took a look at this thing and I said, “If they’re going to have limousines I’m going to have a limousine, too.” It was so ridiculous. I took a little portable typewriter that just about types, and I went to a Howard Johnson’s about a half a mile from the Commission hearing, just before the thing, ’cause I didn’t know what I was going to say . . .

I typed a list of proposals outside the men’s room of the Howard Johnson’s. I’d put the typewriter on a high chair. I had one piece of paper which Frank Dees nicely xeroxed for me so I could hand a copy to the Commission. And that was the counters’ side. A piece of paper prepared in 45 minutes . . . I really thought that we’d lost that one, but I think we won because I got up on the stand and I came out objectively.

Snyder: Did it ever occur to you that you might be hurting card counters with your fight to eliminate barring? Did you feel you were acting with the counters’ best interests in mind?

Uston: I was not trying to get it where the Commission would set up a set of rules whereby a bunch of counters could go in and just take out a lot of money. On the other hand, I felt that, gee whiz, it would be awfully exciting if they set it up where a really good player, or a group of players, could come in and in the long run win.

That might have been naive because there were some huge banks floating around in those days. I mean the Czechs were talking 400,000. I didn’t really have any surreptitious plan of raising a half-a-million dollars and going in with 300 players and trying to do it that way – I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have done it if the opportunity was there. I guess I would have tried, especially if everybody else was acting crazy . . .

Remember also that I can’t ever say that from day one I knew exactly what I was doing. I follow trends and things; I make errors sometimes; I make mistakes; I change my way of thinking; I react to what’s around me. I can’t really say that I was really trying to represent the best interests of counters necessarily. I was merely fighting this battle that pissed me off.

Every time I walked into a Commission hearing, I’d get mad because I’d see Joel Sterns, who was so full of it – I mean he is such a bullshitter, and he’s so effectively a bullshitter, that he could get these Commission people to believe his absurdities. He will attack me personally if he has to–he’s called me a carpetbagger and names like that–and at the end of the meeting he’ll come over and say, “Nothing personal, Ken. It was just part of the case.”

He’s a very charming man, and that’s why he’s one of the best lawyers in New Jersey. So anyway, my point was that basically I suggested that what the casinos do is what they’re doing today – with the exception that they not be allowed to shuffle at will. I felt that if they followed my suggestions then a really good player could have an edge over the house. I really went to bat for the fact that they shouldn’t change the rules.

Snyder: Are you planning to pursue your Nevada lawsuits? Is the Nevada casino scene much different from Atlantic City on this level?

Uston: A lot of people don’t remember the days back in Nevada when we were criminals, and we were chased and hit and beat, and Mark Estes was grabbed into the back room and he has bruises on his arm–in fact, he won a decision from Hilton–Coombs handled the case. They just don’t remember that, and I do.

I remember those guys, and there are still some real thugs down there, these old line antediluvian casino types . . . They just assume you’re a piece of shit. If they don’t want you in there, out you go. You’ve made your last bet. They don’t even explain. they just hustle you out the door. I react real negatively to that because I believe it’s wrong. Now the big issue is, what’s the story in Nevada. And I’m really wondering. A lot of people are saying that this (the lawsuit) shouldn’t be pursued in Nevada . . . and I sort of have set it up, but I haven’t followed through, and I think I’m going to, but I’m, sort of . . . I just don’t know. . . .

Ken Uston on his Books

Snyder: Some knowledgeable players get upset when inside information is published, which has not previously been published. You probably ran into some flak when Million Dollar Blackjack came out with the big front loading chapter.

Uston: Oh, I sure did . . .

Snyder: As a writer who is presenting new information to the public, what are your feelings about accusations that you’re betraying the secrets of professional blackjack players?

Uston: A lot of my information on front loading and spooking came from my closest friends, who developed a lot of these techniques. These were techniques that we developed ourselves. Now, I’m not saying that other people haven’t used other methods of beating the house. But when you talk about front loading and spooking and first-basing, this is stuff that our original team, basically, plus team two, team three, and some of the other people developed, or Val, my friend, developed.

Val had made a lot of money at blackjack with hole card play. He likes hole card play. He doesn’t like to play on the square. I’ve never really been into hole card play. I’ve done it on occasion, and it’s a beautiful thing to know what that card is underneath there every time, to be able to bet $500, $1000 a hand right off the top and know you’ve got a 2% edge or whatever, depending on the hole cards you see. But all the stuff about the relays, and training with the pips, and cutting the cards off – that’s all personal stuff that either Val or I or our teammates developed and worked with.

When I wrote that book, Million Dollar Blackjack, I put off writing about front loading and spooking a long time. Stan Roberts read the chapter about 3 years before it was developed and he called me up and he started salivating at the mouth. He wanted to put it out and charge $500 for it and form a special front-loading team. He had all these ideas, and I held off because Val was still out there doing it and I had some other friends out there doing it.

Now, I knew that there were some other people out there that were front loading. There’s one big team that is still doing it, that I wasn’t associated with. I knew the guy a little bit, a casual acquaintance; I didn’t particularly like him and he didn’t particularly like me. But I felt absolutely no allegiance to him. The only people I felt allegiance to were our group.

And the point was that I put off publishing that information for three years, and when I finally came out with it, none of our group was using any of those techniques. We were all onto other things – real estate, or whatever the hell. I felt that since we developed the information – sure there’s probably some other team out there, I don’t know who they are other than this one guy that I met – but I felt totally justified in publishing it, especially since I waited so damn long.

Interestingly enough, the one thing that I didn’t write about in the book –I didn’t refer to it by name, I sort of very casually alluded to it because there were people that were still using one other technique: first basing–I stayed away from that subject.

However, one of the guys who used to be on one of my teams wrote something to Wong, and Wong wrote about first basing the first time I ever saw it in print, about a year before Million Dollar Blackjack came out. I felt that that shouldn’t be written about, because the guys were making money on it. I didn’t address that subject. As it turns out now, it’s fairly common knowledge. It’s been written about a number of places, and it’s becoming almost impossible to do because they (the casinos) are going to no-hole-card.

Snyder: Most knowledgeable card counters, including other authors on the subject, are unanimous in praise of Million Dollar Blackjack as an important work on the subject. The one portion of your book which has received the most criticism, in my estimation, is your final recommendations of other authors’ books and systems. For example, you highly recommend Stanley Roberts (aka Sludikoff’s) book, Winning Blackiack. Do you feel your recommendations in Million Dollar Blackjack are your objective opinions of the books listed, or were you in some way influenced by your publisher’s biases and prejudices?

Uston: When I first made up the list, I only had about 4 or 5 books on it. I had Thorp ‘s. I had Humble ‘s. I had Revere’s, and, I think, Julian Braun’s. Maybe one other . . . I can’t remember. There weren’t that many books on the list. There was pressure put on me by Stanley to put on some other names.

For example, I left off the Rouge et Noir book, which I thought was okay, but not one of the top five. Stan said, “You’ve got to put it on there. After all, he’s going to sell the book, and blah blah blah. He talked me into it. He didn’t force anything, and he wouldn’t have put anything on there if I hadn’t agreed, if I was absolutely adamant about something. And, obviously I had to put his . . . Oh, I put Stanley Roberts’ book on. I did. Because I figured, hey, he’s going to cream me if I don’t. Why make him mad?

I put his book on, but I really don’t feel it belongs there. Now, as far as Wong, when I search my motivations. . . Winning Without Counting, I really don’t feel that’s a professionally based kind of a book. There’s a lot in there that is done for commercial purposes. The idea of making so much about the warps, which we tried and find just doesn’t work. I know that in our case, any time we tried screwing around with the warps, you make two errors an hour, and we’ve lost more than we’ve gained by making the correct guesses. Except for that one venture in Seoul that I mentioned in the book (Million Dollar Blackjack), where it was so obviously warped – they were using single-deck, didn’t want to change the cards for the whole day – and the guys pulled out 65 grand or 35 grand, whatever it was.

Snyder: Then it didn’t have to do with pressure from your publisher.

Uston: No. Although, I imagine that had I included it, Stan would have hit the roof. You know how Stanley is. He gets really emotional about things. And you can print that, too, because I told him, “Stanley, why don’t you run your business out of love and friendship, rather than on suspicion and lawsuits. You’d do much better.” But he just likes to combat. He’s a tough guy to do business with.

Ken Uston on the Coin Flipping Scam

Snyder: I’ve heard a couple of different versions of a curious story about you. I wonder if you could give me the facts, assuming there are any. I think blackjack players tell Ken Uston stories the way pool players tell Minnesota Fats stories.

Uston: I get an awful lot of them. I can’t tell you how many people have said they’re former teammates! People I’ve never heard of!

Snyder: The story goes like this: In an elevator, sometimes a parking lot, you got into a coin flipping, or a coin tossing contest with someone, and lost a lot of money. You then tried to get your blackjack team to pay for the money you lost out of the team bankroll, because had you won, you allegedly assured your teammates, you would have put your winnings into the team bankroll.

Uston: That’s absolutely true.

Snyder: Well, maybe you can fill in some of the details. You’ve said that you never gamble, that you are an investor, and that you only risk money on positive expectation ventures. How do you justify a contest like this as a positive expectation gamble?

Uston:I was playing at the Holiday Inn. I remember driving down the Strip thinking, “Where the hell am I going to play?” I was feeling very paranoid at the time about the fact that I wasn’t contributing to the team the way I should be, because of the fact that I couldn’t play very many places.

Somehow, I sauntered into the Holiday, and I got a game at the single deck table there. You know the one–the one that’s colored red instead of green. And, I’m sitting at the table and playing–I don’t remember if I was winning or losing but there was this crazy guy at third base, a big fat guy. He’s talking and playing, and obviously recognizes me, but the people in the pit don’t. At some point he comes over and sits next to me. He flipped a coin and he put it underneath a dollar bill. He said to me if I can guess what it is he’ll give me . . . I think $500 – I can’t remember the numbers – but if I guess wrong, I give him $100.

He’s a crazy guy. He just lost about $2000 over the third base. He’s a terrible player, just throwing his goddamn money around. And I’m saying to myself, “Here I am playing through all this shit it was a full table–waiting through all this shit, waiting for a 2% edge. And this guy gives me an edge of . . . whatever the figure was. And I looked at him at first and said, “What?” And he meant it. So, I said “Okay, Heads.” And I lost and I gave him a hundred bucks. He’s a very good con. He does this for a living. His problem is he’s an inveterate gambler. He’s told me, and I fully believe him, that he’s made two or three hundred thousand dollars doing this at various places around – race tracks is one place that he particularly does this.

Anyway, I left the table at that point, really fascinated with this thing. God, what the hell is going on? So we went to the bar and had a drink, then we went back to the Jockey Club. I invited him back. Initially, we were going to go to the Aladdin and have a drink, but at the last minute, I said (snaps fingers), “Let’s go to the Jockey Club.” That’s a significant factor. We walked into the Jockey Club bar, and we’re sitting there again, and he’s good with the con, saying, “Ken, I don’t want to do it again. You’re too nice a guy.” Naturally, he’s sucking me in beautifully.

So what he does the next time, he has it where these people sitting around the Jockey Club bar are all my friends. We came at the last minute. There could be nobody there he knew. There couldn’t have been any way he knew we were going there. And he says to someone in the bar, “Why don’t you flip the coin, and you call it. And if you’re right, I’ll give Kenny $800. But if you’re wrong, Kenny’s got to give me $100.” And I’m thinking, “This guy’s crazy.” And I want to get my hundred bucks back. There’s some con in me, too, sure. And I go along with it. And I lose. And then he offers me greater odds, to the extent that I finally end up losing just under $10,000 to him. I think it was $9,400.

So, at the very end, to get the nine grand to give him – I mean, it’s not a lot of money. We’re playing off a $100,000 bank. But, I lose $9,400, and I have to go to my safe deposit box at the front of the Jockey Club to get the money out of my box. Now, get this bit. This is incredible. He says, “I’ll tell you what, Kenny. I don’t want to take your money. You’re too good a guy, really.” All the rap, he goes on and on and on and on.

And he turns to the clerk at the desk. May God be my witness, all this is totally true. He says to the clerk at the desk, “You flip the coin, and if the bellman calls it right, I’ll call off the S9,400. And if he doesn’t call it right, Kenny, you pay me $9,400. He’s giving me a $9,400 to 0 bet. And I lost. And I gave him the money. I told the team about this, that I lost a total of $9,400.

The first thing I did, I ran up to one of our rooms, and I said, “You would not believe I got a 90% edge over this guy!” And I explained what was going on, and they were all very suspicious. I’m saying, “No, you’ve got to see this!” But what happened was, to make a long story short, we had a meeting to determine whether or not it should come out of the team money, and the net result was that it didn’t.

Snyder: That was just the way I heard it. They refused to cover your loss.

Uston: I took a polygraph on it. They were worried about the whole issue, why I’m out there flipping coins, and that the extent of the loss was exactly $9,400. We had a big team meeting, and a discussion, and they said, “No, it can’t come out of the team money. It’s got to come out of your money.”

Snyder: Do you know how the con worked?

Uston: Yes, I met the guy. He came back a little later. He stayed away from me for a while because, he thought, with me being a big gambler and all that, I was going to get the mob after him. But he finally came back about 3 or 4 months later. To that day, 3 or 4 months later, I was convinced I’d had an edge over this man. There was no way – I wasn’t flipping the coin, he wasn’t flipping the coin, I wasn’t calling it, somebody else was . . . Two totally different people!

Well, he came back and he explained the way it worked. First of all, he said that he has very quick eyes, and he can flip a coin to land any way he wants–which is totally irrelevant because he wasn’t flipping the coin. But because of his ability to see coins, he knew what the coins were when they were flipped by another person. And he said he was uncannily lucky that night. Eight out of ten times he won the bet legitimately. There were a couple times when he didn’t, and what he did was somehow talk the person out of it.

The way he did it, if this guy said “Heads,” he’d say, “You sure you want to make it heads? You don’t want to make it tails?” In other words, after the other guy guessed it, he would engage in a little rap for a while, and either he’d talk the person out of it, or increase the odds and have another flip. Somehow, by doing that, and being able to know whether the person was right or wrong, plus having the correct thing going for him 8 out of 10 times anyway, he totally pulled the wool over my eyes. That’s how he did it. It’s so funny, because later in Atlantic City he lured another team member of mine. I won’t tell you his name, but it was December of ’79. Anyway, the story’s true.

Snyder: What’s happening with your movie?

Uston: The final script just came through a month ago. Frank Capra, Jr., the producer, called me about two weeks ago. He claims that the president of Warner Bros.,., after hearing the story, and seeing some of the material said, “We have another Rocky,” and “This is a man about whom a film has to be made.”

Then, he said he’s meeting with the president of Columbia, and then with the owner of 20th Century Fox, and then with Caesars production company. I do know that Caesars wants the movie to be filmed there. I’ve seen that letter from Caesars, so I know that’s not bullshit. The budget’s $7.9 million – not including the star and the director. So, this is what I hear. But it’s been so damn long. The first screenwriter they picked, I felt he was wrong for the job. He turned out a piece of junk.

Snyder: Do they now have a screenplay that they’re satisfied with? I know in your last newsletter (Dec. ’81.), you said that the third screen play had been scrapped and it was back to the drawing board. That was the last I’ve heard of the movie.

Uston: It’s a finished screenplay. I think it was the seventh draft.

Snyder: Do you like it?

Uston: I think it’s average. But everybody else I talked to likes it. I’m too damn close to it. I wrote one. I’m so sick of the language in it . . . You know, after you read a book 5 or 7 times, it’s got to be awfully good to like it the next time, even if it’s a little different. The last time I just skimmed through it. It didn’t turn me on, but maybe I’m too close to it. It might be really good.

Snyder: But it does look like the film will happen eventually?

Uston: If somebody said to me, “Ken, put $10,000 on whether the movie’s going to be made or not,” I’d put $10,000 on “No.” That’s how I usually assess things, in terms of yes or no. I’ll be absolutely delighted it if happens, and, frankly, surprised.

Snyder: Before I publish this interview, Ken, I’ll transcribe it, and send you a copy. If there are any portions you have second thoughts on making public statements about, you’ll have the option of deleting statements, if you choose.

Uston: You may print anything we’ve said here tonight, because that’s just the way it is. ♠

Blackjack History: Baldwin, Cantey, Maisel and McDermott and the First Accurate Blackjack Basic Strategy

By Arnold Snyder
© 1997 Blackjack Forum

[Note: This 1997 article about the Four Horsemen was written prior to our discovery that all four authors were still alive and before their subsequent induction into the Blackjack Hall of Fame. – A.S.]

Letter from F.M.:

I recently found a used copy of the 1957 classic, Playing Blackjack to Win. This is the book written by four mathematicians — Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel, and James McDermott — that contained the first accurate basic strategy for casino blackjack. As an avid follower of the blackjack scene for the past ten years, I was familiar with this book by title and reputation, though I had never before seen a copy.

I must tell you I was frankly amazed when I read it. I had no idea how far ahead of its time it was. Not only was the basic strategy nearly perfect, but the chapter on “partial casing” must be recognized as the first valid card counting system ever published, a credit that has always gone to Edward O. Thorp.

I don’t mean to discredit Thorp for his monumental Beat the Dealer (Random House, 1962), but shouldn’t we consider honoring Baldwin, Cantey, Maisel and McDermott, whose book came out five whole years earlier than Thorp’s, as the true fathers of modern card counting?

This is the 40th anniversary of this astonishing little book. I think if more card counters had actually read this impossible to find classic, these authors would be elevated in the blackjack community to a more prominent stature.

Please, Bishop, before 1997 fades away, how about a tribute to these four forgotten authors who really started it all?

Answer from Arnold Snyder:

It is a shame that this groundbreaking book is not more widely available. I do not know if the publisher, M. Barrows & Co., ever even issued a second printing. [Note: Playing Blackjack to Win has now been reissued by Cardoza Publishing, but the first edition is still a collector’s item.]

The copies of this book that have survived these 40 years are few in number, as the plastic spiral binding and the cheap pulp paper have not held up well through the decades. If you are lucky enough to find an intact copy in a used book store, grab it. Rare book dealers who know the value of this little gem will not let it go cheaply.

Expect to pay $25-$75 for an intact copy in poor to fair condition, and quite a bit more for a copy in good to excellent shape. A broken plastic binding is common , as that thin 1950s plastic is very brittle after all these years.

The First Accurate Blackjack Basic Strategy

As for your comments on the importance of this book, and its deserved place of honor in the hearts of blackjack players, I must concur. For the single-deck Vegas Strip game the authors analyzed, their basic strategy analysis was devastatingly accurate. That they conducted their research by hand on crude mechanical calculators — what used to be called “adding machines” — is truly remarkable. Their hit/stand strategies, both hard and soft, are 100% accurate, including the recommendations that hard totals of 12 should be hit against 2 and 3, and that soft totals of 18 should be hit vs. 9 and 10 only.

The only errors in their hard doubling strategy is that they failed to advise doubling down on 8 vs. 5 and 6 — borderline decisions true for single-deck games only. They missed a few more of the soft doubles, but nothing very serious in terms of dollar value.

Even on the pair split decisions, they made only three errors in their entire chart — erroneously advising that 2s and 3s be split vs. 2, and that 3s also be split vs. 3. These are also close decisions, and in double-after-splits games, are correct plays.

Any player who used their basic strategy today would not be giving up more than a few hundredths of a percent over perfect basic strategy.

The First Blackjack Card Counting System

As for their “Chapter 10: Using the Exposed Cards to Improve Your Chances,” this truly is the first valid card counting system ever published for casino blackjack, some five years prior to Thorp’s Beat the Dealer. In fact, it could be argued that this counting strategy they advised was actually the first “ten count” strategy, as they provide 16 changes to basic strategy, depending on whether or not various numbers of the last cards dealt were either ten-valued or “low cards” — which they defined as Aces, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s.

But, although they were undeniably the first authors to grasp and publish the concept of a card counting system, and the type of logic that must be employed for it to work, their strategy itself is very crude, and would be unlikely to add much gain to the player. They did not realize that tens and aces were more valuable to the player than the low cards, so they failed to provide any advice on proper betting strategy. Their advised technique for making use of the cards seen, though on the right track, did not even begin to take the advantage available to counters who might be watching for both tens and low cards.

I doubt the value of their strategy changes were worth more than a few tenths of a percent, if that, even in the deeply dealt single-deck games they faced. (They also acknowledged this in their book.) They did the important groundwork for card counting theory, and surely were more responsible than anyone for Thorp’s ultimate development of his truly powerful counting strategies, but their “partial casing” system simply wasn’t much of a winner.

In any case, I am glad you wrote to me, and jogged me into recognizing the anniversary of these four long-forgotten researchers, Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel, and James McDermott, who stand as giants in the field of blackjack strategies. They truly were the ones who started it all. ♠

Your Ticket to the Big House (Part I)

by Thomas B. Duffy, Attorney at Law

(From Blackjack Forum XIV #1, March 1994)
© Blackjack Forum 1994

[Ed. note: Eleven years ago, concealable blackjack computers were legal and growing in popularity. Then, Nevada outlawed them. New Jersey followed suit, passing laws against them, albeit with less harsh penalties. As more states legalized casino gambling, these computers were on the rise again. As we have stated in Blackjack Forum in the past, we believe these anti-computer laws are unconstitutional. That provides little comfort to the blackjack player, however, who may be caught using one of these devices. The cost of getting such a case into the federal courts would be substantial. In 1994, I asked New Jersey attorney Tom Duffy, who specializes in representing professional gamblers, to provide an update on the computer blackjack laws. Since then, California has made use of a concealable gambling computer a misdemeanor. However, some foreign countries still have no cheating statute regarding these devices. Before even considering play with a concealable computer, make sure to get reliable advice on the current legal situation where you are thinking of playing. — Arnold Snyder]

The recent flurry of states seeking to legalize casino gambling presents much opportunity for the skillful player. There is, however, also much risk as the political, legislative and judicial infrastructure of these states must acclimate themselves to the rather unique legal questions posed by legalized gambling. A case in point that has recently come to my attention is some recent Mississippi legislation.

Mississippi passed rather comprehensive anti-cheating statutes on April 20, 1993 (Laws 1993, ch. 488, formerly H.B. 507). For the most part, these statutes were badly needed. Apparently, Mississippi had been charging gambling cheats with ill-suited crimes such as theft and larceny which gave defendants too many avenues to wiggle out of the charges against them. Unfortunately for the readers of this magazine, this backlash includes a new law which relates to the use of computers at blackjack and other games. Additionally, the wording of these statutes calls into question the legality of practices long held to be legal in New Jersey and Nevada.

I will begin with this last point. Paragraph 2(b) of the new law (codified at Miss. Stat. Ann. §75-76-301(b) states, “It is unlawful for any person [t]o place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game….” This paragraph, like all of §301, was taken word for word from Nevada §465.070 titled “Fraudulent Acts.” Obviously, the meaning of this section turns on the word “available.” I assume that this provision was not meant to outlaw card counting; in fact, one could make a good case that the highlighted words were inserted to save card counting, and similar strategies such as handicapping, from being illegal. However, §465.070(2) is extremely inappropriate for wholesale importation to Mississippi. First, in Nevada, this section was mainly meant to address the “fixing” of pari-mutual and sports betting events. Neither of these bets is legal in a Mississippi casino. Second, a 1989 amendment added the words “increase or decrease” and “to determine the course of play” to the Nevada statute. These amendments, while also covering other crimes, were primarily aimed at “spooking” at blackjack. Once again, spooking is not possible in the Mississippi casinos — hole cards cannot be checked by hand.

We must look at the general cheating statute to get a true idea of the havoc §301(b) might wreak. Both Mississippi §75-75-307 and Nevada §465.083, as amended in 1981, provide, “It is unlawful for any person, whether he is an owner or employee of or player in an establishment, to cheat at any gambling game.” “Cheat” is defined in both statutory schemes as meaning “to alter the selection of criteria which determine: (a) The result of a game; or (b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game.” While it is not clear exactly what conduct this does cover, it is clear that there are some cheating schemes not covered by this general statute. That is exactly why there is a more specific statute. There is a theory of statutory construction, especially applicable to more specific statutes such as §301, that every word must have been put there by the legislature to effect some purpose. Many of the issues, however, addressed in §301(b) are inapplicable to Mississippi gaming. What is a judge to do? Tell the truth — that the legislature was asleep at the switch when they pilfered this particular paragraph from Nevada — or give the paragraph some meaning. Most judges will, obviously, choose the latter course of action.

Giving meaning to §301(b) in a casino environment without pari-mutuel and sports wagering broadens the inquiry concerning usually unavailable information about the outcome of a casino game from whether such information was acquired by conspiracy (e.g., spooking) or “by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by fraud or fraudulent scheme” (to quote the New Jersey cheating statute §5.12-113) to whether such information is available to all — an irrelevant inquiry where, as in blackjack, the players do not compete against each other. Furthermore, this inquiry can also be irrelevant where the players do compete against each other: all poker players base their play of the game on their “hole” cards — which are unknown to the other players. A broad interpretation of §301(b), in addition to outlawing poker as we know it, would also call into question practices which are legal in Nevada, such as front loading or even adjusting one’s play to take advantage of a card the dealer exposed in error. (I assume these irregularities cannot be seen from all player positions.)

The “device” section, §75-76-303, was lifted, word for word, from Nevada §465.075, and is likewise over inclusive of unintended activities. It states:

It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:

1. in projecting the outcome of the game;
2. in keeping track of the cards played;
3. in analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. in analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game, except as permitted by the commission.

The problem here centers around the use of the words “any device.” The New Jersey “device” statute reads “an electronic, electrical or mechanical device.” The word “device” is undefined in both the Nevada and Mississippi statutes. “Gaming device” is defined and encompasses “any … contrivance, component or machine.” Webster’s, on the other hand, uses the definition, “that which is planned out or designed; contrivance; stratagem.” Card counting is a “device” within the Webster’s definition but it is not if the Mississippi courts read the “contrivance … or machine” definition into the “device” statute.

The defendant in Sheriff of Clark County v. Anderson, 746 P.2d 643 (Nev. 1987), argued that this lack of a definition of a critical word in the statute made the entire statute constitutionally unenforceable. The trial judge agreed and dismissed the charges against Anderson. The prosecution appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court which considered the case for two years. The court held that, while the statute would be unconstitutionally vague as applied to some hypothetical defendants, it was not vague with regard to Anderson’s conduct of using “computer shoes” at blackjack. Having won a theoretical victory, the prosecutor wisely decided not to proceed with the case against Anderson.

Had Anderson been convicted, it is doubtful the statute could have withstood either direct or collateral attack in the Federal Courts. The Nevada Supreme Court’s analysis was arguably correct on the issue of vagueness. The problem is that statute is so vague it is also “overbroad”‘: a special legal term meaning it infringes on the exercise of expressive and associational rights. These “device” statutes, especially when read with companion legislation making manufacturing, selling or distributing “devices”‘ intended to be used to violate the law, violate the First Amendment right to disseminate information.

As I have stated, Webster’s includes “stratagem” (such as counting) within the definition of “device.” As such, anyone using a strategy is theoretically at risk for prosecution. Furthermore, anyone who intentionally assisted in preparing the strategist for his or her bout with the casino could be liable under the companion legislation. Is Sega at risk if the strategist learned how to count from using a video game it manufactured? Probably not. Is Peter Griffin at risk for distributing the effects of removal — to two decimal places — in his book The Theory of Blackjack? Quite possibly, especially when one considers the argument that these indices must have been intended to be fed into a “device” such as a computer because they are so complicated no human could cope with them. Finally, I leave the question of whether Arnold Snyder could be prosecuted for selling Griffin’s book to the reader to ponder.

Such an overbroad law “hangs over [people’s] heads like a Sword of Damocles.” Obviously, “the value of a Sword of Damocles is that it hangs — not that it drops. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 231 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972). Such a law has a “chilling effect” on Professor Griffin and Book Seller Snyder, who are both within a class of persons classically protected by the First Amendment. If this chilling effect is substantial, the law is “facially invalid.” Facial invalidity can be argued by any defendant, even someone like Mr. Anderson who was engaged in an activity that clearly could be prohibited if the statute had been properly drafted. The courts use the blunt instrument of declaring laws facially invalid to force legislatures to carefully draft laws to avoid constitutional conflicts. This tool is not significantly different from the “exclusionary rule” which forces the police to obtain evidence through legal means. In sum, I believe that the Federal courts would invalidate the Mississippi and Nevada “device” statutes because the word “device” is overbroad and, at the same time, central to the meaning of the statute — eliminating any possibility the word could be overlooked to save the statute from validity. Still, the prudent course of action, obviously, would be to avoid any activity that might come within these statutes.

I also caution players from taking too much solace from the “except as permitted by the commission” language in §303. I assume the commission has absolved our pad and pencil carrying brethren at baccarat and roulette from any liability under this statute. Given the draconian penalties for violating this section (see below), I cannot make any such assumption about card counting. This is especially true given the counter’s persona non grata status in most, if not all, casinos.

For the entrepreneurs among us, as mentioned above, I note that §75-76-309 and Nevada §465.085(1) state, “It is unlawful to manufacture, sell or distribute any cards, chips, dice, game or device that is intended to be used to violate any provision of this chapter.” The above analysis notwithstanding, it would be extremely unwise to sell computer devices in or mail them to either Mississippi or Nevada. The standard disclaimers on the sale of these devices that they are “just for fun” and “for scientific research” provide no relief. The more powerful, expensive and stealthy a device is, the harder it becomes to deny that it was not “intended” to violate the law. Furthermore, given the harsh penalties involved, no lawyer, myself included, could overlook the possibility of having his or her client testify against the manufacturer in return for a lighter sentence.

Finally, the penalties exacted for violating any of the above sections are extremely harsh. Under §75-76-311(a), first offenders can be sentenced to up to 2 years in the State Penitentiary. Subsection (b) throws the book at recidivists: sentences can run up to 10 years. Both sections provide for fines of not more than $10,000 per offense. The Nevada penalty statute is similarly bifurcated. A first offender can be sentenced to “not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.” A recidivist loses the benefit of the disjunctive clause and must be sentenced to at least one year in the state prison and may also be fined up to $10,000.

Compare these penalties to the New Jersey “device” statute which provides for a maximum sentence of 90 days and a $500 fine for each offense — with a presumption against incarceration for those without prior criminal records. Perhaps most importantly, the New Jersey sentence, if any, would be served in the Atlantic County jail — a reasonably pleasant facility populated by pimps, petty thieves and more serious offenders who can afford good lawyers who keep them out of state prison. The Nevada state prison may provide a slightly more interesting environment. I hear the population is just about evenly divided between death row inmates and gambling cheats. The imagination runs wild thinking about the Mississippi State Penitentiary — maybe John Grisham will enlighten us about it in his next novel. Until these laws regarding blackjack computers and other devices are clarified, either by amendment or judicial interpretation, I highly recommend that one of his stories be as close as any player of even moderate skill come to the Magnolia State.

[Ed. note: Nevada’s anti-device statute has also been copied into Illinois’ and Iowa’s lawbooks.] ♠

Or, Absolutely Moronic Play That Costs You Nothing

by Allan Pell
© 1992 Blackjack Forum
[From Blackjack Forum Vol. XII #3, September 1992]

Imbicilicus Touristicus, commonly (albeit perhaps cruelly) known among card counters as the Stupid Tourist, is a unique species that makes its primary habitat within the gambling establishments of Nevada’s Vegas Strip territory. Imbicilicus can also be found in northern Nevada, Stateline, Reno, and also in outlying areas of the world wherever gambling is present.

Although Imbicilici, as a species, are diverse, they all possess an important common trait — they know zip about games of chance. Imbicilicus is the preferred prey of gambling establishments, having swallowed, in a glassy-eyed manner, its natural enemy’s bait that “gambling is fun and exciting.” Imbicilicus plays only to play. This factor, combined with the total lack of game knowledge, makes survival of this species’ bankroll short-lived.

How then can our species, Predacious Cardus Counterus, benefit from the habits of Imbicilicus? We can assume some of the outrageous and stupid characteristics of Imbicilicus, however, we must not make any plays which will actually cost us money. We shall become, in effect, Predacious Imbicilicus Imposturus.

Before my stint in Japan, I made my living as a writer in television. Characters and story lines come easily to me. The real secret to it is that writers don’t make up characters; we find them on the streets and then put them on paper. My “Imbicilicus Blackjack Act” didn’t have to be invented. I only had to mimic and refine what was already there. And believe me, the idiots are abundant.

Distinctive Markings And Colors Of Imbicilicus: Cultivating That Proper Look

All varieties of this species, in fact, look like dumb tourists. Cruise the Vegas Strip in summer and you’ll see them — displaying herding instincts and migrating between Circus Circus and the volcano at the Mirage.

Gambling towns are tourist attractions, and 80% of their traffic is out-of-state. So, look like you’re from out-of-state. Appear to be on vacation. In the summer months, sport shorts, tee-shirts, a cap, and brand new tennis shoes. If you’re young, your tee-shirt should display a Michigan State, a U.C.L.A., or “I’m With Stupid” logo. Your hat should have any kind of logo but John Deere — that’s the local Reno look.

If you’re thirty to forty-ish, keep the shorts but wear an Izod Lacoste or Polo shirt – and have the collar turned up. Very important! This is no longer fashionable in Vegas and it tells everyone that you’re a hick from Armpitsville. [Note: A slight sun-burn will seal the deal that you’re a seasonal visitor.] If you’re in the autumn years, wear anything you like. Your age is your best cover — just be your crotchety self.

In the winter, delete the shorts. Bum Gear sweat-pants or jeans. Leather coats or snow boots when appropriate will be your best cover for young to forty-ish ages. Look like you’ve been skiing. This works well in Reno, Stateline, and also Vegas. It tells them you’ve been hitting the slopes.

The waist bag (fannypack) is the single most important piece of apparel worn by Imbicilicus. The waist bag is to the tourist what the woods are to the bears. The more colorful your waist bag the better. It should sport a logo like Aspen, Disneyland, New York — anything! The pit bosses and dealers notice these little details.

The key to the logo is to have it tell a story of where you’ve been, without saying where you’ve been. The Michigan State logo on your tee-shirt tells them where you’re from. The Aspen or Squaw Valley logo on your cap tells them what you are doing or how you got to the area. And the shorts, sweat pants and waist bag confirm that you are Imbicilicus. The absolute worst look would be to dress up like a character from a James Bond movie: wraparound sunglasses, black suit, etc. Dress like Imbicilicus. Your welcome will wear out slower, if at all.

Vocalizations In The Wild: Your Card Counting Camouflage Legend

In the spy trade, a “legend” is your cover background. The worst thing for you to do at a blackjack table is to sit and be an emotionless card counting machine. You must learn to converse with the indigenous Imbicilicus, the dealers and the pit bosses. Pick a simple legend — something you know about — and stick with it. The simpler the better. Make your “travel legend” fit your apparel. If you talk about skiing, make sure you know about the resort you’ve been to. Make sure it’s open. Know the conditions, etc.

Pick a personal legend using your own name, but only your first name. Never use a pseudonym. You may get called upon to provide ID. In Nevada, you must provide ID upon request, and if your pseudonym doesn’t jibe with your actual moniker, you may have to answer some uncomfortable questions. Never sign up for the Player’s Club and the like. You don’t want the casino tracking your action and having your address at the same time. Your personal legend can be anything from brain surgeon to Congressional Aide. I used the legend of civil rights attorney in Reno once. No one touched me.

Keep your legend within an area you can freely converse in. Talk to other players. Talk to the dealer. Talk to pit bosses. Crack jokes! When I get a blackjack, I lay the cards down one at a time saying, “Meet Mister Black and Mister Jack.” When you win do the tequila dance, when you loose piss and moan. Talk! Talk! Talk! If you can’t count and talk, learn. I personally keep track of my running count between rounds with chips. Many pit bosses believe that counters can’t talk and count. Play along with these foolish mortal beliefs. The trick is to hide in plain sight.

The Playing Habits of Imbicilicus: Buying Into The Game for Camouflage

Never display the extent of your bankroll. Do as Imbicilicus does. Appear to possess a short bankroll. At small stakes games of $1 to $5 minimums, buy in with 30 to 50 bucks. At larger stakes games, $10 to $25 minimums, lay no more than $200 on the table when you make your first appearance.

If you fluctuate down, pull out some more bills from the waist bag. Imbicilicus always digs deeper to chase losses. If you cash into a game with $100 or more, the pit bosses in most casinos make a note of your action on paper and track you more closely. Never use the teller machines in the casinos in which you play. Many mark their money to see if it’s drawn from their machine. And it’s simple to line up your name, bank account number, etc., with the eye-in-the-sky picture of you drawing money.

In larger clubs, purchase $40 worth of dollar slot tokens from the slot cashier’s cage. Dump them into a boob bucket (plastic containers supplied by the casino). Scout the blackjack tables with boob bucket in hand. Amble along like Imbicilicus. Wong, sit-in, whatever. The boob bucket provides lots of cover. Circus Circus boob buckets (carried from and to the casino) are tops in boob buckets.

More Card Counting Camouflage: Dogging the Game

Imbicilicus always dogs the game with lack of knowledge. To be a complete blackjack neophyte, on your first round dealt in a face-down game, hold your cards with both hands. This will merit a reprimand from which you must sincerely and quickly apologize. Do this only once per casino per session! Do not invoke the ire of the dealer!

If, on your first round, you must hit, lay the cards down behind your bet and verbally ask for a hit. The dealer will then tell you how to do it. Pretend to be intimidated and choke-up on the implementation. Now, this will earn you a crash course on playing etiquette from other players and the dealer. The dealer will physically show you how to hold the cards and scratch for a hit. More apologies are now due, but it’s worth it because you are now firmly and solidly cast as Imbicilicus.

Bust & Tuck Camouflage, Or, Standing On 22 And More!

This is my next step — and my favorite because after this they’ll think you belong in a developmentally disabled center. There are several ways to play these.

Firstly, seemingly a zillion percent of the time you will draw stiff hands. I love 8, 7 on a dealer’s 10, then hitting to get another 8 or 7 early in the session. Basic strategy dictates hitting 15 against 10. You will break more often than not, but when you do, why not make it pay?! Make them think you’re Imbicilicus. When you break, tuck your cards under your bet. Wait for the dealer to discover your mistake. Look embarrassed!

Now you’ve earned more cover. Keep your cards to yourself until the dealer exposes your first mistake. Afterwards, hold the cards looser. Either other players will tell you your totals or the dealer will to speed the game. Players who can’t count the card totals surely can’t count the cards!

The bust and tuck ploy also works with multiple-card soft hands and all hard hands of four or more cards. Note: if you stay in the game a while, appear to get up on the learning curve and let your skill progress. Tell the dealer you’re getting the “hang of it,” thanks to everyone’s help.

You may also have help from the dealers. They’ll sound out your totals so you can totally concentrate on the count. [Note: I don’t recommend this on crusty, old dealers who don’t talk, who’ve been with the casino since the lot was cleared, and who show no emotion. This type of dealer could care less if you slid under a burning gasoline tanker.]

Toss The Winners!

This is the opposite spin on bust and tuck. You will hit to 21 on three or more cards many times. Turn a winning hand into both a winning and cover-inducing hand. Thinking you busted, toss the multiple card hand and one of three things will happen.

1. Another player will catch the mistake.

2. The dealer will catch the mistake and give it back to you.

3. If neither another player nor the dealer catches it, catch it yourself at the last possible moment, showing the greatest amount of embarrassment and shock you can muster!

Use your fingers to count up the totals while moving your lips silently. Remember to always look embarrassed! You can’t lose on this move. It costs you nothing and only deepens your cover as Imbicilicus. (After doing this dozens of times, to date, I’ve never had a dealer scoop up a 21 without catching my mistake.)

The Multiple Choke Card Counting Camouflage

You will draw two small cards and then hit to get another small card, then another. This is great! If strategy dictates, hit again and prepare to choke on the total. Show your hand to the dealer asking if it’s “too many?” Either 20, 21 or bust make them work for cover. This choking technique can be used indefinitely, even after you’ve worn out some of the above moves.

Indecision, Indecision. . .

It’s just what it sounds like. Don’t know whether to hit your 16s against the 10s?! Don’t know whether to double, split or stand?! Ask advice from other players, especially one that you know knows basic strategy. If the advice is bad, ignore it. Make faces, whine, piss and moan. It only helps you. It especially helps when you need an extra few seconds to calculate a difficult true count and make that strategy decision.

Brilliantly Stupid Blackjack Play

As you can see, “stupid camouflage” without “stupid costing” camouflage will postpone casino analysis of your card counting play. Cost-free stupid play will allow you to hang in there until you are ready to strike. And when you do, there are two ways to do it. 1. Traditional parlay cover play. 2. Nuclear War, meaning whack it out when you have a big, big advantage. Remember to play the “steamer” if you choose this method. I advise playing only one short session per casino per day else they’ll get wise when they see you’re actually playing perfectly.

Remember, luck has nothing to do with this game.

Sayonara from Pell-San. ♠