Posted on Leave a comment

The Easy OPP Count: A New Approach to Card Counting

The OPP Card Counting System: A New, Easier Approach to Counting Cards

By Carlos Zilzer
[From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXV #1, Winter 2005/06]
© 2005 Blackjack Forum

Introduction by Arnold Snyder

[Many blackjack players find even the simplest of the traditional card counting systems too cumbersome to use comfortably in casinos. I think the Red Seven Count is about as easy a counting system as has ever been developed up to now, but it’s not the answer for everyone. Many players simply don’t play in casinos often enough to maintain their counting skills, and do not have the time to practice sufficiently for their occasional casino trips.

Carlos Zilzer has developed a unique method of counting cards that is even simpler than the Red Seven Count. In fact, he tells me he has taught a few of his friends to use his “OPP Count” and they mastered it in a matter of hours. When I first read his method, I didn’t doubt that an amateur could learn it very quickly, but it wasn’t clear to me whether it would have much value in comparison with more traditional counting systems where we always weigh the high cards versus the low cards as cards are dealt.

Because there was no commercially available blackjack simulation software on the market that could handle the new method Carlos had devised for counting cards, he wrote his own program and begun testing his system on a simulator of his own device. But when he discovered ET Fan’s PowerSim software, he realized that it was much faster and more versatile than his own program, so he began running more extensive simulation tests with PowerSim. When he discovered that PowerSim was producing results comparable to his own software program, he submitted an article to Blackjack Forum describing his system and the simulation results.

The OPP Count is such a radical simplification of traditional card counting methods that I wanted to see more data before publishing the system. I asked Carlos to run more extensive tests not only of his system as described in the initial article that he submitted, but of numerous variations of the system, along with simulations of the Hi-Lo Count in the same games for comparison with his method. I also requested that he set counters on his simulations so that I could see that cards were being dealt accurately and randomly.

Carlos spent weeks running the simulation tests I requested and sending me spreadsheets with printouts of his results. He then compiled some of the most important data from these tests into a new Blackjack Forum article describing his system, its development, and the results of his simulations. I am proud to publish Carlos Zilzer’s OPP Count as one of the first truly new methods of counting cards to be developed in many years—a method that is surprisingly strong for its incredible simplicity of use, and the ease with which most players could learn it. — A. S.]

The Easy OPP Count System

Part 1: The Basic Idea Behind Card Counting

The whole idea behind card counting is to determine how rich or poor the shoe is at any time with cards favorable to the player or the dealer. A shoe rich in high cards (tens and aces) is favorable to the player, while a shoe rich in low cards (2s through 6s) is favorable to the house.

All modern card counting systems that I am aware of assign a negative value to the high cards and a positive value to low cards. The main difference between the systems is the value assigned to the different cards.

As an example, the popular Hi-Lo system assigns the value -1 to the tens and aces and the value +1 to the low cards, 2s through 6s. As the cards come out of the shoe, players add the values of those cards to obtain what is called a running count, which can be a positive or negative number depending on the proportion of low to high cards dealt from the shoe. With balanced counts, before making a betting or playing decision, the player divides the running count by the number of decks that have not yet been dealt to obtain what is called the true count.

Counting this way is not easy, as the player needs to pay attention to the cards while they are being dealt and then must make mental calculations. There are easier counting systems that eliminate the calculation of the true count by assigning positive values to more cards than those with negative values. For example, the Red Seven Count developed by Arnold Snyder has the same card values as the balanced Hi-Lo Count, but assigns a value of +1 to the red sevens, creating an imbalance of +2 per deck.

The goal of a good card-counting system is to be as simple to use as possible without losing the power to accurately determine when the player has the advantage. The OPP count does exactly that: It is a very simple method to learn and use that will give you results comparable to the Hi Lo Count. It is a running count system requiring no math at the tables, and it’s even easier to use than the Red Seven.

The main difference between this new counting system and all of the traditional ones is that it uses new factors to determine the composition of the remaining decks. It is the easiest way to count cards with a high degree of betting accuracy.

Part 2: The Mathematical Coincidence

In a deck of 52 cards there are 20 high cards (tens, faces and aces). There are also 20 low cards (2s through 6s). Since 52 / 20 = 2.6, if you shuffle a deck and start dealing cards you will see one high card every two or three cards–or every 2.6 cards on average–and you will also see one low card with the same frequency.

It has also been determined with computer simulations that each player or dealer hand will receive an average number of cards very close to 2.6 cards in blackjack games with the European no-hole-card rule. (The actual number determined after the simulation of billions of hands using different simulators is 2.63.) With standard US rules, in which the dealer hand receives a hole card, the average number of cards per hand, including the dealer’s hand, is closer to 2.7.

Now we have something very interesting: Since the average blackjack hand contains 2.6 to 2.7 cards, and the proportion of low cards in a deck (and high cards in a deck) is exactly 1 out of every 2.6 cards, then it follows that the average player or dealer hand can be expected to receive one high card and one low card.

With the help of computer simulation (see my results below), it has been shown that any player or dealer hand will actually receive an average of about 1.02 low cards and 1.02 high cards per hand (with US rules where the dealer takes a hole card). In the table below, you will find the results of a 100 million hand simulation using PowerSim for a 6-deck game.

Results of the simulations counting high cards per hand
Total dealt cards:548,128,487
  
Total dealt hands:202,156,193
Total high cards:205,973,883
  
Average total cards/hand:2.7114
Average high cards/hand:1.0189
Results of the simulations counting low cards per hand
Total dealt cards:548,141,978
Total dealt hands:202,156,772
Total low cards:205,384,220
  
Average total: cards/hand:2.7115
Average low cards/hand:1.0160

This data is the basis of the OPP counting system. OPP stands for One Per Person. As I will explain, the number of low or high cards per hand will give a very good indication of the composition of the remaining decks.

Part 3: Developing and Testing the Easy OPP Card Counting System

I first tested counting the number of high cards that were dealt per round and comparing this number with the total number of hands dealt per round.

Imagine a blackjack table with three players and the dealer dealing the first round of the shoe. These are the first round hands:

Player 1Ace, 10 — Blackjack
Player 210, 2, 7 — 19
Player 38, 6, 10 — (bust)
Dealer10, 3, 6 — 19

As you can see there were 4 hands played and 5 high cards were dealt (an ace and 10 to Player 1, a ten to Player 2, a ten to Player 3, and a ten to the Dealer).

The OPP count was obtained by subtracting the total number of high cards dealt from number of hands played, in this case, 4 – 5 = -1, for an OPP running count of -1.

The next round the hands dealt were:

Player 110, 5, 5 — 20
Player 2Ace, 2, 5 — 18
Player 38, 6, 7— 21
Dealer9, 5, 3 — 17

At this time there were again 4 hands played, but only 2 high cards were dealt. Thus, the count for this round will be 4 – 2 = 2. The new running count is now -1 + 2 = +1 (The -1 is the running count from the previous round.)

This process continues until the end of the shoe, adding the running count of each round to the cumulative running count of the prior rounds.

None of the commercially available blackjack simulation programs could be adapted to test this new counting system, so it was necessary to develop a simulator for this job specifically. The first simulations I ran, using my own simulation program, were performed in the beginning of 2005 using a program specially written for the tests. It was slow but returned the data I was looking for. With the new powerful and fast open source PowerSim simulator, available on this Web site, simulations that used to take me about two hours are now performed in eight minutes.

The first step was to verify that the count was producing logical results. We would expect the count to present a normal distribution of positive and negative counts with the majority of counts around zero, and a reasonable spread of counts on both the positive and negative side.

The chart showed the PowerSim results for 100 million rounds of a player using basic strategy in a six-deck game. About 80% of the hands were played with running counts between -6 and +6 and approximately 14% of the hands were played at a zero running count. But the graph showed that the count was negative more times than positive. This is not what we would expect for a traditional balanced counting system, which would tend to produce a more symmetrical pattern of counts on either side of zero.

The next step, however, was to see how well the player’s advantage correlated to the count. In order to have an accurate counting system there must be a strong relation between the count and the player’s advantage. This was the case in all negative counts, but the results at high positive counts were not well-correlated to the player’s expectation.

The chart showed that the relation between the running count and the advantage was almost linear up to counts of +12, but that the relation became erratic at counts higher than +12. I tried several simulations with PowerSim and always got inconsistent results starting at counts of +12 and above.

I next wanted to see what the overall player advantage would be using this counting system with a bet spread. I ran a 100 million-hand simulation using the following bet ramp: 1 unit up to count +1 and ramping up 2, 4, and 16 units respectively at counts +2, +3 and +4. The following results were obtained using the PowerSim simulator:

Advantage with 1-16 spread0.3271%
Average bet (units)2.683

Although it was possible to get an edge using this method, these results were very disappointing and were not comparable to the results obtainable with a traditional card counting system. The system’s power represented less than 40% of the betting gain that could be obtained with the standard Hi Lo Count in the same game.

Before dropping the idea I decided to reverse the OPP counting method. Instead of subtracting the number of high cards dealt per round from the number of hands in play, I decided to test the system subtracting the number of hands in play from the number of low cards dealt per round.

Here’s how it modified the counting method:

Imagine a blackjack table with three players and the dealer dealing the first round of the shoe. These are the first round hands:

Player 1Ace, 10 — Blackjack
Player 210, 2, 7 — 19
Player 38, 6, 10 — (bust)
Dealer7, 7, 5 — 19

As you can see there were 4 hands played and only 3 low cards were dealt (a 2 to Player 2, a 6 to Player 3, and a 5 to the Dealer).

The OPP count is obtained by subtracting the total number of hands played from the number of low cards dealt, in this case, 3 – 4 = -1, and that is the OPP running count.

The next round the hands dealt were:

Player 110, 5, 5 — 20
Player 2Ace, 2, 4, 10 — 17
Player 38, 6, 7 — 21
Dealer10, 4, 3 — 17

At this time there were also 4 hands played but 7 low cards were dealt. The count for this round will be 7 – 4 = +3. The new running count is now -1 + 3 = +2 (The -1 is the running count from the previous round.)

This process continues until the end of the shoe, adding the running count of each round to the cumulative running count of the prior rounds.

So I reversed the OPP counting method in this way, comparing the number of low cards dealt to the number of hands in play. We again have a normal distribution of the counts with more than 80% of the counts occurring in the range from -6 to +6. But this time the count distribution is more positive than negative.

This graph showed that there was a much more linear relation between the running count and the player expectation. The unpredictable results obtained at high counts when using the OPP method to compare high cards to hands dealt do not occur when we compare low cards to hands dealt. With this OPP counting method, the player starts to have an edge over the house when the running count reaches +5.

I then ran a simulation applying a bet ramp of 1 unit up to a count of +5, and ramping up to 2, 4, and 16 units at counts of +6, +7, and +8 respectively. The following results compare the OPP with the Hi Lo Count with a similar 1-to-16 bet ramp. (Both systems were tested using basic strategy only.)

OPPHi Lo
Player edge with bet ramp0.6359%0.7723%
Average bet (in units)2.9072.547

As shown in the table above, the new system has a betting power equivalent to 82+% of the standard Hi Lo system, but with far greater ease of use.

A new and very simple count system has been born: the OPP Count system. The player counts only the number of low cards dealt per round and compares this with the number of hands played in the round.

Mathematical Considerations

Many players may wonder why counting the high cards versus hands dealt was less efficient than counting the low cards versus hands dealt. That is because the OPP method does not really have us comparing low cards with high cards as with a traditional card counting system.

Instead, we are comparing low cards or high cards with something that has a frequency distribution of its own—that is, the number of cards per hand. We know that the overall average number of cards per hand is 2.7, but that the number of cards per hand will also vary with the count. It is logical that the number of cards per hand will be higher when the count is rising because more cards will be required to complete the hands when extra low cards are being dealt.

Consider what happens when counting high cards per hand if we have a hand with 3 or 4 low cards, then hit with a high card and bust. Because this hand contains only one high card, it is counted as “zero,” since there is no discrepancy from the normal number of high cards (one) that should occur per hand.

If we were counting the low cards, this hand will accurately reflect the fact that the count has gone up in the player’s favor, since more than one low card has been dealt to it. It is less probable to have a hand with 3 or 4 high cards in it, because such a hand would require either a soft or stiff hand to start with that we hit with multiple aces. Multiple-high-card hands would be rare, while multiple-low-card hands would occur more frequently, and produce a more accurate measure of advantage.

Analyses of Two-deck and Eight-deck Blackjack Games

In order to configure a system usable in most situations, I performed simulations with PowerSim to determine the effectiveness of the OPP count in games with two decks and eight decks, again comparing the betting gain with the gain from Hi-Lo.

Two Decks

Applying a bet ramp with a spread of 1 unit up to a count of +1 and ramping up 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 units respectively at counts of +2, +3, +4, +5 and +6, the following results were obtained using the PowerSim simulator (again, with both systems playing basic strategy only):

Two deck performanceOPPHi Lo
Player edge with bet ramp0.8218%1.0073%
Average bet (in units)2.0971.875

The power of the OPP count is again about 82% of the standard Hi Lo with no index play.

Eight Decks

Applying a bet ramp with a spread of 1 unit up to count +7 and ramping up 2, 4 and 16 units respectively at counts +8, +9 and +10, the following results were obtained using the PowerSim simulator (again with both the OPP and Hi-Lo playing basic strategy only):

Eight deck performanceOPPHi Lo
Player edge with bet ramp0.4416%0.5772%
Average bet2.6912.249

The betting power of the OPP count is shown to be about 77% of the standard Hi Lo in the eight-deck game.

Testing Alternative Counting Strategies

I also tested alternatives for the OPP system, including:

  • Count only tens
  • Count nine and tens
  • Consider 3 to 7 as low cards
  • Consider 3, 4, 5 and 6 as low cards
  • Consider 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as low cards
Playing Indexes for the Easy OPP Card Counting System

The only playing index tested so far for the OPP count is the insurance index, which adds an additional 0.009% edge to all games tested (2, 6 and 8 decks)

The running count insurance index for a 6-deck game is +12. For a 2-deck game the index is +5, and for an 8-deck game the index is +14.

[Snyder comments: It is not intuitive that the insurance gain from a 2-deck game with 75% penetration would be the same as the insurance gain from an 8-deck game with 75% penetration, as this would not be the case with a traditional card counting system.

The OPP Count, however, does not correlate well with the insurance effects of removal since ten-valued cards are not actually counted. I suspect that OPP running count indices for some of the more important strategy decisions, however, especially standing on 15 or 16 v. Ten, will be found by Carlos and others through continued simulation tests, as the counting method will probably correlate very well with these decisions.]

THE OPP COUNT

Basic Strategy

Before learning any count system it is a must to master basic strategy . The use of basic strategy will provide the player with the minimum advantage for the house. The counting system will turn that small house advantage into a small advantage for the player. Not using basic strategy may give the house such a large edge that no counting system will be able to turn the advantage to the player’s side.

OPP Rules

Value of the Hands:

  • A hand with no low cards (2 – 6) has a value of -1
  • A hand with one low card has a value of 0
  • A hand with 2 low cards has a value of +1
  • A hand with 3 low cards has a value of +2 and so on
  • Split hands are considered new hands

This value is independent of the total number of cards in the hand. For example:

Ace, Ace, 2, 2, 10, 3 has an OPP value of +2

2, 3, 5, 3, 6 has an OPP value of + 4

7, 7, 7 has an OPP value of -1

Ace, 10 has an OPP value of -1

6, 7, 8 has an OPP value of 0

9, 8 has an OPP value of -1

10, 6, Ace has an OPP value of 0

Counting the Cards

It is very easy to mentally count up or down in positive numbers. Considering that 80% of the hands will be in the range of -6 to +6, I recommend starting the running count for the OPP system at +6 at the beginning of a shoe. In this way, the count will very seldom reach negative numbers.

Wait for the dealer to deal the first two cards to each player, as well as the two dealer cards (upcard and hole card, if dealt). You can speak, make jokes, and drink your soft drink. You don’t have to count anything while the cards are being dealt. If someone gets a blackjack and the dealer pays him and places his cards in the discard try, subtract one from your running count. Then check the hand of each player as they are making their playing decisions.

 Beginning of the shoe:Running count +6
Player 4Ace, 10 (blackjack)Running count +5 dealer took the cards to the discard try
Player 1Ace, Ace, 2, 2, 10, 3Running count +7
Player 22, 3, 5, 3, 6Running count +11
Player 37, 7, 7Running count +10
Player 56, 7, 8Running count +10
Player 69, 8Running count +9
Dealer10, 6, AceRunning count +9

If any player happens to split hands, they should be considered new hands and the value of the original hand should be ignored.

The best way to practice the system is to play blackjack at home. Use a deck and start dealing cards to three imaginary players and to yourself as the dealer. Practice the count as indicated above while you play each hand. In this way you will see and practice counting all possible hands that can appear in real life games. You will learn to count spilt hands and to count very fast while the dealer is collecting the cards after a dealer blackjack.

[Snyder comments: My method of counting with the OPP system is a bit different. Before the hands are dealt, I immediately subtract the number of hands in play. So, if I use Carlos’s suggestion to start counting at +6, with three players at the table each playing one hand, I make my count +2 before any cards are dealt (subtracting one for each player hand and the dealer’s hand).

Then, as each player plays his hand, I simply add the total number of low cards in it. When the next round starts, again assuming three player hands are being dealt, I’ll immediately deduct 4 from the current running count, and repeat as above. One of the best features of the OPP Count is that it makes back-counting and table-hopping a breeze. You can approach a table and quickly scan for the total number of low cards on the layout, then subtract the number of hands that were in play after you get your low-card count.]

You will see that the OPP is very easy to learn and to master. When you feel proficient counting the cards at home, you can practice in an Internet casino playing for fun money at a table with multiple players. Be aware that the count won’t mean anything in an Internet casino where the online software shuffles after every round. You will only use these games as a practice method.

After you have practiced enough at home, go to a casino and start counting while other people play. When you feel comfortable sit at a table and start playing using the OPP count.

You will see that you will get used to the system very fast, and that it really does not require 100% concentration except when each player is making his playing decisions. The only moment you will need to count quickly is when the dealer has a blackjack, as he will collect the cards of all the players’ hands very quickly.

Betting to Win

Once you have learned this very simple counting method the only thing you need to do is wait for the right moment to increase your bet.

If you have started at a running count of +6, wait until the count reaches +12 for a six-deck game, +14 for an eight-deck game, or +8 for a two-deck game. At these counts the advantage has shifted to the players. The higher the count value, the higher the player edge, and the bigger your bet should be. We call this point where the advantage turns to the player’s side the “pivot.”

Be very patient. Only about 18% of your hands will be played at counts over the pivot in shoe games, and the player advantage will not occur in all shoes. It is possible that you won’t have an advantage for several shoes, or even all night. Also remember that there is no warranty that you will win most of your hands when the count reaches the pivot. There is always “variance” in gambling results (you may call it luck). Remember that there will be many times when you will lose high bet hands.

The following table shows the recommended bet ramps for games with two, six, and eight decks, to get the best advantage for the player at the minimum risk. The first three columns are the running counts where you raise your bet, according to the number of decks in the game. The fourth column is the recommended bet in “betting units.” And the fifth and sixth columns show the bet in dollars for $5 or $10 units.

For example, if you are sitting at a $5 minimum six-deck table, you may set your bet unit to $5, and if the count reaches +12 you bet 2 times your betting unit, or $10. If the count reaches +14, you will bet 16 times your betting unit, or $80.

Running count8 deckRunning count 6 deckRunning count 2 deckUnits
to bet
$5 table$10 table
Less than +14Less than +12Less than +81$5$10
+14+12+82$10$20
+15+13+94$20$40
+16+14+1016$80$160
+17 or more+15 or more+11 or more16$80$160

If the count reaches values of zero or less during two consecutive rounds in the shoe it is recommended to stop playing until the beginning of the next shoe. This will save you a lot of money.

[Snyder comments: I will point out here that Carlos is playing primarily in South American casinos where card counters are uncommon and camouflage is not a big necessity. Players in the US or elsewhere must always bear in mind the heat factor. His two-deck betting strategy would likely get you booted out fairly quickly in many US casinos.

For playing shoe games in the US, a back-counting strategy would likely be more advisable (and more profitable) than a 1-16 spread. To back-count is to watch the cards being dealt on a table without playing, ready to jump in and play when the count goes up and you will be starting play with an advantage.

Table-hopping is an extension of back-counting that pros use in big casinos, which tend to have multiple pits with many blackjack tables. Table-hoppers leave the game when the count goes negative and start play at another table. They refuse to play when the casino has a big edge.]

The Insurance Bet

Basic strategy recommends not taking insurance, but card counting sometimes indicates an insurance advantage for the card counter.

With the OPP Count, if we start our count at +6 at the beginning of the shoe, the insurance index is +18 for the six-deck game, +20 for the eight-deck game, and +11 for the two-deck game. This means that if you are playing in a six-deck game and the running count reaches +18 or more, and the dealer has an Ace up, you should place the insurance bet, because you will win the bet more than 35 % of the time. Simulations with PowerSim have confirmed these index numbers.

Final Thoughts on the Easy OPP Card Counting System

OPP is a very simple system to learn and to use. Practice at home, go to a casino and stand near a table and practice the count while others play. I know people who have mastered the system in less than a weekend and now they are part of the select group of players who are making money playing blackjack. ♠

[Note: Although hundreds of independent researchers and mathematicians have proven that card counting is a winning strategy over the long run, gambling is always risky. Anything can happen in the short run. No one can ever guarantee that you will win even when you are playing with an advantage. Never gamble with money you can’t afford to lose.]

Posted on Leave a comment

A Year of Card Counting: The Results

A First Year In The Blackjack Pits

By G.K. Schroeder
(From Blackjack Forum, Vol. XIV #2, June 1994)
© 1994 Blackjack Forum

One of the things that happen when you take up card counting is that you start running into blackjack players everywhere.

My optometrist, for example, has played the Hi-Lo count for several years. He knew exactly what I meant when I asked for a pair of contact lenses that would provide optimal vision at the distance of from 3rd base to 1st base.

And there are a couple of people at the office who claim to count cards, as well as a multitude of basic strategy players of varying skills.

My neighbor, Gordito, is a newer member of the card counter culture.

He was stopped for speeding one night on his way back to southern California from Las Vegas. He told the lady CHP officer that he was in a rush to get home to tell his wife about a sizable win at blackjack. He let it drop that he was kind of a “semipro” blackjack player.

The next thing he knew the officer was asking him questions like whether or not you should split 2s when double after split is allowed. He claims that he got out a deck of cards and, while she held the flashlight, played a few hands on the hood of his car. I don’t believe the part about playing cards on the hood, but I know Gordito well enough to know that he did talk his way out of the ticket.

Most people have a good time with blackjack (it can be played just for fun) but most of them don’t win. On the graveyard shift at the Golden Nugget or Frontier in Las Vegas you may find a card counter at every table. Sometimes they don’t play well and you wonder how they’re feeling about blackjack, overall. Blackjack is a gloomy business when you’re in a losing streak. You begin to speculate about which curve of what fluctuation you were born on.

The blackjack mathematicians refer to the card counter’s financial journey through time as a random walk with an upward drift. This definition does not serve for the ups and downs of single-deck blackjack. Single-deck is too often like a sweaty calamitous trip through heaven and hell that ends with your wallet being on fire. But a good part of the time the cards and the casinos will give you an average chance to win, and that should be all you need.

Our blackjack literature is filled with amazing techniques, statistics and formulas, but most of it comes from professional players who bet black chips, or from the blackjack scientists. What is it like for the average player? Since many Blackjack Forum readers are part-time players or blackjack hobbyists, I thought it might be interesting to review the playing records and experiences of a serious nonprofessional card counter. My neighbor Gordito, mentioned above, has complete records of his first year in the pits as a part-time card counter.

Gordito had been playing basic strategy with some occasional casual counting (if “casual” card counting is possible) since Playing Blackjack as a Business came out in the 70s.

About two years ago Gordito was in Laughlin with his family and late one night won $300 in a couple of hours of play at a $5 table. He knew that this win was due to good fortune rather than skill, but he began to wonder… could an expert player beat the house in the 90s? Could a man approaching middle age with a stressful job, three kids, two dogs and two mortgages make blackjack into a profitable hobby? (He claims that he took a green chip and placed it on the pillow beside each of his sleeping children and asked for help from above.)

Did he have the discipline? Did he have the time? Did he have the money? He picked up a couple of the newer blackjack books (especially Arnold Snyder’s Blackbelt in Blackjack), bought a few decks of cards, and spent the next three months playing 11,000 hands of double-deck blackjack on the breakfast bar. He played four hands against the dealer, naming three of the players after his children and the fourth after one of his dogs. He kept meticulous records.

A little over a year later Gordito owned 30 books on blackjack and related subjects, six blackjack software programs and had spent at least 100 hours programming a blackjack database. He had made 22 trips to Las Vegas and Laughlin. Gordito would never be the same. Following are some of the results of his first year as a card counter.

As you can see from the chart below, Gordito did not “clean up” at the blackjack tables, but he did make more than enough to pay for his trips. His expenses were modest. For most of the year he had a company car with free gas, and he got a few free rooms at the Frontier. He did not make enough to cover the blackjack books, subscriptions and software, or the gifts for his children (they got tired of slot cups after a while).

Total hands played: 18,900
Hands per hour all decks: 88
Hands per hour single deck: 83
Hands per hour double deck: 93
Total wagered: $245,000
Avg. bet: $13
Win rate single-deck: 0.98%
Win rate double-deck: 0.44%
Win rate overall: 0.78%
Most hands lost in a row: 8 (twice)*
Most hands won in a row: 6 (many)*
No. casinos played: 63
Casino most played: Frontier (24x)
Casino wagered most: Frontier, $15,400
Most trips won in a row: 3
Most trips lost in a row: 3
No. times had to sleep in car: 1
No. of times had to use ATM: 1
No. taps on the shoulder: one close call
Note: Gordito defines a “session” as a period of play at the same game in the same casino without serious break–meaning you can change tables or use the rest room, but you can’t change the number of decks you’re playing or take time out to eat.Statistics on hands per hour, average bet, and win rate are by necessity approximations. Hands per hour is based on many hours of stopwatch work. The hands per hour for single-deck, as shown below, include playing two hands per round about half the time. Average bets are based on the results of computer simulations, with adjustments made at the end of each session based on an estimate of actual bet spread.

*Hands won or lost in a row are for within single sessions. If records had been kept for consecutive losses that spanned sessions, Gordito thinks that they would show that he lost at least 10 hands in a row somewhere along the line. It should be noted that the above statistics, although they may be typical for a first year of part-time blackjack, are not statistically relevant due to the small sampling. 19,000 hands of blackjack is not in the fabled long run.

So far blackjack has been a positive experience for Gordito, although the game has become something of an obsession. He practices every day and, no matter how dreary things may be at work or in life in general, he always has the next trip to prepare for and look forward to.

He has increased his efficiency at day-to-day chores. He gets them done quickly so that he can find time for blackjack. He still never misses a little league game or a school program, but he attends these events with his pockets full of flash cards and charts (he can often be seen standing in some lighted area passing pieces of paper between his hands and mumbling to himself).

His family is also generally enjoying his experience. They’ve gone along with him on four of his trips. The children argue about whether the buffet is better at Palace Station or the Mirage. They anxiously await his telephone reports when he’s away by himself. If no one is at home when he calls, he leaves messages on the answer machine such as “I just got my throat ripped out at Alladin’s but I’m still up three dollars. Be in Barstow at about seven and home by 9:30.”

The family plays blackjack together with Gordito as dealer. He tries to analyze the personalities of his children by how they handle doubling and splitting.

He has a kitchen cupboard full of stacks of cards glued together at different thickness with the correct number of cards in each stack written on the bottom. He likes to strew these throughout the house so that he can walk into any room, see a stack of cards, and call out something like “12 cards! Multiply by .7, 1 ace” and then turn over the stack to see if he’s right.

On the other hand, he endures considerable flack from his family for spending too much time with blackjack. Being a blackjack player has its ups and downs. Following are a couple of Gordito’s learning experiences:

Card Counting Lesson #1: Losing

Gordito started out his career by winning the first three trips. On the fourth trip he paid $18 for a brand new room at the Golden Nugget in Laughlin—they had just opened the hotel portion—and he danced happily out into the casino thinking things like, “What a deal… What a life!” and then lost $390 in two hours with an average bet of $10.

There is a kind of nausea and paranoia that can afflict even experienced players when an uncommon losing streak happens. Just one terrible session can do it if you don’t have much experience, and that is what happened to Gordito. He went to bed in the room that had now cost him $408 and, prior to falling into a restless sleep, determined that in the morning he would make up his mind about whether or not to quit blackjack forever.

In the morning he felt a little better. He made some instant coffee from the hot water tap and reviewed the grievous session of the previous night. He quickly realized a couple of his mistakes.

For one, the game at the Nugget that night had been lousy. He had played with half a dozen dealers and none of them were offering decent penetration. He should have abandoned the Nugget after a few minutes instead of playing for two hours. (He was greedy, he not only wanted the nice room for $18, but he also wanted to come away with a big win.)

Secondly, he had allowed a hot dealer to irritate him. The dealer was a wimpy guy with a bald head and an insubstantial mustache. Instead of being apologetic, like many dealers will be when they are hot and the customers are getting restless, this dealer was arrogant and kept saying “bribery helps” and then would sweep up the losing hands with sadistic pleasure. In addition, the dealer would suddenly shuffle after only a round or two though there were only two players at the table. The longer Gordito played, the madder he got, and the madder he got, the more he lost.

Having had these insights in the fresh light of morning, Gordito decided to not give up blackjack forever, but rather to get better at it and to never let a dealer get to him again. He then walked over to the Pioneer Casino next door and lost $90 in 20 minutes.

He stayed in Laughlin another day and, by winning $10 or $20 here and there, managed to go home down only $305. Gordito refers to this trip as “Blackjack: Lesson No. 1.”

Card Counting Lesson #2: Winning

Driving home at the end of a trip, Gordito stopped at Whiskey Pete’s on the border of California for one last session. At the time, Whiskey Pete’s was a good place for low stakes single-deck blackjack. He thought he might add a few dollars to his winnings. The dealer was the friendly, talkative sort. He was a tall man and dealt very quickly from the high position with the cards floating down onto the spots. A card would just be settling down on one spot as the next card left his hand, so there was a nice effect of cards being continuously in the air.

Gordito was tired so he decided to just bet the count and not worry much about camouflage. Sometimes in these types of casinos you can get away with almost anything if you bet nickels. If it looked like they were getting on to him, he would simply get up and leave—he was already going to be late in getting home.

As it turned out, he had one of those miraculous runs of luck where everything worked. As the dealer gabbed about some property he was buying and about the other job he had at Arizona Charlie’s, Gordito spread mercilessly between one hand of $5 and two hands of $20, and played every hand to his advantage regardless of how it might look to the pit bosses.

Within a few minutes he was up $200. The other players were caught up in his win streak and applauded when he split tens on one of his hands and doubled down on a soft total on the other, and won all three. He kept checking for pit boss eyes but, during the entire session, despite the exclamations and applause, a boss never approached the table.

After about a half hour he began to lose his big bets and realized that he wasn’t playing well. He not only wasn’t counting aces, but he was having trouble remembering the running count. When he cashed out he was disappointed to discover that instead of a good win, he was down a few dollars. He had apparently lost more big bets toward the end than he had thought. In any case, it had been exciting to take over a blackjack table for a while and not get any heat.

Gordito initially marked this session up as the lesson: “Don’t play when you’re tired.” He didn’t know that the lesson was not over.

Gordito keeps detailed playing records and follows a basic rule of waiting three months between sessions at the same casino on the same shift. Three months after the above session, he returned to Whiskey Pete’s on the way into Las Vegas. As he walked between the blackjack pits the lady boss in the pit to his left took one look at him and picked up the phone. Gordito looked to the right and observed the boss on that side answer his phone and then look directly at him. Two pair of eyes watched as Gordito suddenly looked at his watch, muttered something about being late, and attempted to look casual as he turned around and exited the casino.

After another three months had passed, wearing a baseball cap and mirrored sunglasses, he crept into Whiskey Pete’s through the side door, where they displayed Bonnie and Clyde’s bullet-riddled car, and cased the blackjack pits from a bank of slot machines.

He spotted a nearby blackjack table with an empty stool and walked directly to it, counting down the cards on the table as he approached.

He sat down just as a hand ended and bought only $40 in chips so that the dealer would not have to announce his buy-in to the pit. The count was high, so he placed $20 on his spot. He won the hand and the count was still high, so he spread to two hands of $20. At this point he noticed a red dress pressed up to the table next to the dealer. He looked up into the unfriendly eyes of the lady pit boss. Her name tag said Carol. Gordito flat bet $20 for two rounds, losing both bets, but the red dress didn’t leave. He suddenly looked at his watch, muttered something about being late, and once again tried to look casual as he exited the casino.

It would be another six months before he could safely play at Whiskey Pete’s and, ironically, by that time they had ceased to offer single-deck blackjack and instead offered double-deck blackjack with bad penetration. There were several lessons to be learned from the Whiskey Pete’s blackjack experience but, as in lesson number one, the main lesson has to do with the various and insidious aspects of greed.

During the period covered in this story, Gordito played the Hi Opt I with indices from -10 to +10. It required a full year of play for him to get the ace count and true count adjustments down to where they were almost automatic. He is now halfway into his second year of card counting and is feeling comfortable playing the Omega II. His average bet is up to $20 and rising.

I asked him what advice he would give an aspiring counter and he said: “Practice every day, don’t over-bet your bankroll, never drive on Las Vegas Boulevard, and avoid playing blackjack in places where they don’t have the casino name on the backs of the cards—otherwise you may not know where you are.” If this seems a bit sarcastic, Gordito’s general view these days is that the only way you learn to play for keeps is to play for keeps. ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Other Games, Weird Rules, Promos, Side Bets

The Over/Under Report
by Arnold Snyder

The Over/Under Side-Bet Is Spreading Fast
by Arnold Snyder

Risk of Ruin for Video Poker and Other Skewed-Up Games
by Dunbar and Math Boy

Betting Cheap Claimers (reviewed)
by Joel H. Friedman

How to Bet NFL Futures
by Dan Gordon

Banking California’s Weird BJ Games
by Arnold Snyder

Banking Blackjack Games in California
by Allan Pell

What Went Wrong at Morongo?
by L. J. Winsome

Blackjack Switch
by Arnold Snyder

Oregon’s Weird 17 Rule
by Arnold Snyder

Royal Match: What’s It Worth?
by John Leib

A Keno System That Works?
by Arnold Snyder

How to Beat Slots
by Arnold Snyder

Multi-Action Blackjack: Basic Strategy and Card Counting
by Arnold Snyder

Smart Sports Bettors Guide
by Dan Gordon

Enter the Video Poker Pro
by Arnold Snyder

How to Play Pontoon
by Arnold Snyder

Beat the Lotteries!
by Arnold Snyder

Improve Your Horserace Profits on Exactas and Quinellas
by Dunbar

Costa Rican Rummy
by Arnold Snyder

Super Sevens
by Arnold Snyder

Death of the “Free Ride” Rule
by Arnold Snyder

Blackjack Surrender
by Arnold Snyder

Bradley Peterson Shows How It’s Done
by Arnold Snyder

Posted on Leave a comment

Interviews

Interview with Al Francesco
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with Johnny C
by Richard W. Munchkin

An Interview with Julian Braun
by Arnold Snyder

Interview with Keith and Marty Taft
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with a Vegas Hole Card Player
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with Tommy Hyland
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with Darryl Purpose – Grizzled Veteran of the Blackjack Wars
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with the Blackjack Traveler
By Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with Ken Uston
by Arnold Snyder

Interview with Bob Nersesian
by Richard W. Munchkin

Interview with Andy Blumen
by Arnold Snyder

Interview with Bob Bright, Day Trader
by Arnold Snyder

Posted on Leave a comment

Online Gambling Articles

[I quit playing in online casinos in 2006, right after the Fed’s UIGEA law made it illegal for U.S. banks to do transactions with online casinos. So, most of these articles will be obsolete info for U.S. players. But, some U.S. states do now allow players within their state to play in online versions of their state’s casinos, and many international players still have access to worldwide online casinos. So, I’m going to keep this information available for those who may still find it useful. – A.S.]

How Much Can You Win Online on $10 or $20 Free Play?
by the Editors of Blackjack Forum

Online Casino Bonus Play
by Arnold Snyder

Online Casino Sticky Bonuses
by Arnold Snyder

Online Gambling FAQ
by Arnold Snyder

Intro to Smart Online Casino Gambling
by Deep 21 and Nothing but Net

How to Play Video Poker for Online Bonuses
by Arnold Snyder

Best Online Blackjack Strategy
by Arnold Snyder

Getting Rolled by LucknRoll
by Radar O’Reilly

How to Play Pontoon
by Arnold Snyder

Posted on Leave a comment

Cheating Articles

Dangerous Shoes
by Steve Forte

How to Stack a Deck
by Sam Case

Marked Cards in Casinos?
by Steve Forte

Marked Cards Primer 101
by Howard Collier

Stock Control Shuffles
by Sam Case

The First Line of Defense: Selective Shuffling
Sam Case

The Laughlin Lay-a-way
by Sam Case

The Second Deal, Part I – The Strike Second Deal
by Sam Case

Part 2: The Push-Off Second Deal
by Sam Case

Your Options When You Are Cheated in a Casino
by Sam Case

Ripoff Robo-Dealers
by Allan Pell

Video Blackjack Machines That Cheat
by Outgoer and the Eradigator

Sega’s Crooked Video Blackjack
by Joel H. Friedman

Cheating Blackjack Dealers in Puerto Rico
by Harry J. McCardle

Phast Phun in Phoenix
by Arnold Snyder

Dealers with ESP
by Arnold Snyder

Posted on Leave a comment

Legal Articles

A Funny Thing Happened on My Way to the Forum
by James Grosjean

A Nevada Court Victory for Card Counters
by Robert A. Loeb, Attorney at Law

What to Do if You Are Barred
by Robert A. Loeb, Attorney at Law

Card Counting in the Courts: Caesars and Circus Try to Frame Hyland Team Players
by Arnold Snyder

Hyland’s Blackjack Team on Trial, Part 2
by Arnold Snyder

Interview with Bob Nersesian, Attorney at Law
by Richard W. Munchkin

Is Spooking Legal?
by Arnold Snyder & Stephen R. Minagil, Attorney at Law

It’s Not Paranoia if . . .
by James Grosjean

Why I’m Suing in Nevada
by Ken Uston

Interview with Andy Blumen
by Arnold Snyder

Money Laundering, Structuring and Forfeiture Laws
by L. J. Winsome

Missouri Prohibits Barring of Card Counters
by Robert A. Loeb, Attorney at Law

Fake I.D. = Real Risk
by Andrew S. Blumen, Attorney at Law