Disappearing Spots at the Blackjack Table

by Arnold Snyder

(From Card Player, December 14, 1990)
© 1990 Arnold Snyder

A reader wrote to ask me why a popular Nevada casino had six playing spots on its blackjack tables instead of the traditional seven. There are two good reasons for this break with tradition that we’ve been observing in the past few years — fear and ignorance.

The six-spot blackjack table is another one of those foolish countermeasures that wastes playing time, reduces action, and costs the casino money. This is what it boils down to in theory: A casino wants to offer single-deck games because they attract players. Unfortunately, one-deckers also attract card counters, who strike fear into the hearts of casino managers.

What most upsets the pit personnel about one-deck blackjack games is that a card counter might beat these games with a flat bet. Generally, casinos identify card counters by watching for their betting spread. If a player continually ups his bet only after a lot of low cards come out of the deck, he’s told to take a hike. But what if the player is flat betting and winning? Is he a counter or just a lucky punter?

Some years ago, a mathematically inclined gaming equipment supplier realized that if a blackjack table had only six spots instead of seven, then the house would be dealing out 5% fewer cards in a typical full-table, two-rounds-and-shuffle one-deck game. This diminished penetration would cost any card counter at the table a few tenths of a percent in potential advantage. A few tenths of a percent represents a significant reduction in profit potential.

To illustrate this point, I’ve run two separate computer simulations of 20+ million hands each. Both simulate single-deck games with Vegas Strip rules and full tables. The only difference between these simulations is that in one the blackjack table had seven spots, while in the other, the table had six. All of the players are counting cards using the Zen Count (from Blackbelt in Blackjack), and flat-betting one unit on each hand. There are two rounds between shuffles.

So with a full table of flat-betting card counters, the house loses at a rate of about 0.3 percent less with six players at the table than with seven. The third-base player (Player 7 in the 7-spot game, but Player 6 in the 6-spot game), who gets to see the most cards before making his strategy decisions, is taxed one-half percent by the elimination of just one playing spot. Hey, this six-spot table isn’t such a bad idea for casinos after all, is it? I suppose this is what the gaming table supplier argued when he was hustling these new layouts.

But, let’s consider a few side effects of this brilliant new table design. Let’s say a casino has 20 blackjack tables and they switch from seven spots to six spots. At peak business hours, they can now accommodate only 120 customers, instead of the previous 140. Same amount of floor space, same number of tables, pit bosses, dealers, but they’ve lost 20 customers. This effect asserts itself around the clock, even when the house isn’t full — it now requires seven dealers to accommodate 42 customers instead of the previous six. They have effectively cut their operational efficiency by more than 14 percent.

On top of this, every dealer in the house will be dealing a slower game. Why? Because he’ll be spending a greater proportion of his time shuffling. Regardless of whether he’s dealing to six or seven spots, the dealer takes the same amount of time to shuffle the cards. The only difference is that with seven spots, there are 14 player hands between shuffles; with six spots, only 12 hands. That’s 14 percent less action between shuffles.

By installing six-spot tables, a casino is electing to serve significantly fewer customers, with significantly more employees, at a significantly slower rate. Still, you might argue that this drastic reduction in operational efficiency will save money because there are so many card counters these days.

That’s baloney. If you stick a card counter in that cherished third base seat at every table in the house and assume that the other players at the table are your “average” gamblers who lose at the rate of 1.5 percent, the house would still be realizing more profits with seven spots than with six. You have to bear in mind that although the six spot table reduces the card counters’ potential gains by a few tenths of a percent, it does not have any effect on the non-counters. The house will not win a few tenths of a percent more from each of the non-counters. This countermeasure, which only affects the few card counters that may be playing in the casino at any given time, is heavily taxing the casino’s efficiency at generating action with every other blackjack customer who plays there—around the clock, 365 days a year.

The six-spot blackjack table is one of the most costly countermeasures a casino can impose. If you get your kicks from laughing at ignorant house policies, look for casinos that put six-spot tables on multiple-deck games. [Since this article was written, the MGM Grand in Las Vegas has taken top stupidity honors!] Since shoe games are dealt to a cut card, and not any specified number of rounds, the number of spots at the table has no effect whatsoever on card counters. Casinos with multiple-deck six-spot tables are simply engaging in financial masochism.

And there are the casinos with single-deck, seven-spot tables whose dealers only deal one round between shuffles These casinos ought to conduct a survey with a stopwatch and calculator to estimate how much action is lost per table per hour because the dealers are spending twice as much time per player hand shuffling the cards. They should then figure out how many card counters would have to be feasting on those tables, if two rounds were dealt, before the house approached a break-even point from their loss of action with one round between shuffles. Unfortunately, casinos never conduct time and motion studies.

Send the meaning of life (and fast, before I conclude that my nightmare vision of reality is true) to: The Bishop c/o Blackjack Forum.   ♠

The Davies Card Counting System for Beating the Royal Match Side Bet

by John Leib
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XIV #1, March 1994)
© 1994 Blackjack Forum

An advertisement for the Davies System appeared in Blackjack Forum, December 1993, along with a short review by Arnold Snyder. The purpose of the Davies Card Counting System is to profit from the “Royal Match” proposition on some blackjack layouts.

Just What Is “Royal Match”?

The Royal Match wager is offered before a round is dealt, and is independent of the blackjack implications of the play of the hand. The amount which can be wagered is limited by the casino, but is generally related to the amount wagered on the blackjack hand.

The Royal Match wager wins when the first two cards dealt to the wagering hand are of the same suit; otherwise the wager is lost. If the wager is a winner it is paid off at odds of 3 to 1 (4 for 1), unless the cards are the king and queen, in which case the odds are 10 to 1.

Obviously, there are some situations in which the Royal Match wager has a positive expectation for the player. (A clear example would be 13 cards remaining, all hearts.) The Davies System relies on a counting scheme and attendant strategy table to select the rounds on which the Royal Match wager should be made.

Testing the Davies System for the Royal Match Side Bet

I was immediately interested in this new money-making opportunity so, at Arnold’s suggestion, I wrote to CCS and Associates, the publisher of the Davies System, offering to perform an independent, unbiased analysis, and to publish the results in Blackjack Forum if, and only if, they and I had agreed to this beforehand.

By return mail I received a copy of the Davies System and a letter signed by Lee R. Bakewell, whom I presume is a principal in CCS and Associates. The letter showed interest in my proposal, but did not agree at that time to publication of the results.

On January 5th I got their agreement to evaluate the Davies System and to publish the results. For system comparison purposes, I included a parallel evaluation of perfect Royal Match decisions (taking the wager whenever it had a positive expectation). Both faced the same situations at every card level from 47 remaining to 6 remaining, in 50 million randomly shuffled decks. Table 1 contains the results of the simulations used in that evaluation.

What Do The Davies Count System Simulations Say?

The first question I had was, “How efficient is the Davies System?” The meaning of “efficiency” in this context is the ratio of winnings using the Davies System to what would theoretically be possible using perfect play. This turned out to be a question which had 42 answers, one for each level of penetration.

I had decided that the best playing situation to hope for on a continuing bases would be head-to-head play, with seven rounds dealt before shuffling. So what were the meaningful levels in going through the deck? Clearly, the first round is out because we know the Royal Match expectation for this round is -3.77%. So I approximated the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th rounds as coming with 45, 39, 33, 27, 21, and 15 cards remaining, respectively. (You may not like my choices. If not, the raw data is in the table so you can select your own.)

One might suggest playing out the blackjack hands to get the specific penetration for each round, for each deck. I agree with the purity of such an approach, and welcome anyone to do their own 50 million decks of corresponding data. I doubt that the effort would be worth it, but I would be very happy to see how closely we agree.

It may surprise you how well the Davies System did on the question of efficiency. Averaged over the selected penetration levels, it extracted 75.49% of what would have been the reward for perfect play. This is impressive because the Davies System is quite simple, but yet is quite powerful.

Hourly Royal Match Win Rates

Is Royal Match for you? Well, what are your goals? As a curiosity, the Royal Match can be beaten. But for how much? Can you retire on your Royal Match winnings?

Let us return to “the best situation for any system: head-to-head play, with seven rounds dealt before shuffling”. Using my selected levels for Royal Match wagering opportunities and $50 wagers whenever a wager is called for, perfect play returns an average of only $3.24 per deck played, while the Davies System returns $2.44. You can, of course, select your own levels and calculate your own winnings per deck.

At $2.44 per deck, what does this imply in money-making terms? If we are fortunate enough to get 200 rounds per hour, with seven rounds per deck we would expect to get about 29 decks per hour, yielding about $69.84 per hour.

Enough to live on, of course, but will you generally get this kind of game? If you find yourself with six other players, the $50 Royal Match wager returns per deck (30 cards remaining) 24 cents with perfect play and 21 cents with the Davies System. With 35 decks per hour, this translates into $7.30 per hour. This may not be enough to live on, and you must contend with playing blackjack too, and may have a difficult time with the count for that.

Some methods of play can improve the average winnings per deck. For example, if the player always takes two hands when the Davies System calls for it on the sixth round (21 cards lef) this round would return an additional 48 cents per deck on $50 Royal Match wagers. This might come at a stiff price, however, by reducing the likelihood of a seventh round, which shows a profit of $1.55 (and there would be a strong correlation between wagering on the sixth round and wagering on the seventh round). If, however, you do get the seventh round after this two-hand sixth round, it will come significantly deeper into the deck, perhaps with 13 cards remaining and its attendant $2.12. If you are getting seven rounds per deck, it may be better to try spreading to two hands on the seventh round (15 cards remaining). If this works, it would increase the per-deck return by $1.55.

So much of the success of the Davies System depends on how deep the dealer goes before shuffling. This would appear to be more important than how many hands per hour you play because of the great increase in expectation with penetration.

How to Read the Davies Royal Match System Simulation Tables

The table has four columns: LEFT, TxS-BETS, TxS-EDGE, and EST-EDGE, where “x” indicates which decision criterion was used: “P” for “Perfect”, “D” for “Davies”. LEFT indicates the deck penetration, and gives the unseen cards at the moment of making the Royal Match wager decision. TxS-BETS shows how many times in 50 million decks that the x-algorithm indicated the wager should be made. TxS-EDGE shows the return on those wagers for each unit wagered, divided by 50 million, and is given in percent. EST-EDGE is the sum of the theoretical advantages for those wagers divided by 50 million, and serves as a check on the simulation. These values will be close to those in the preceding column if the simulation is correct.

For calculating effectiveness, actual results of the wagers (TxS-EDGE) were used, not the values in the EST-EDGE. To find the amount won per deck on $50 Royal Match wagers, add the values in the TxS-EDGE column at the levels of penetration expected when Royal Match wagers may be made. Divide this value by 2 to get the per-deck winnings in dollars.

Parting Comments on the Royal Match Side Bet

Royal Match will probably never make anyone rich at the table, but it does offer some positive expectation opportunities which can be tapped for additional profit. The Davies System provides a fairly strong approach to these profits, yet is quite simple. It does take work to prepare for casino play, and probably more concentration than most effective blackjack card counting systems.

The question of whether attention to the Davies System count will cost the blackjack counter more in blackjack win than that won from Royal Match remains unanswered at this writing. If you have mastered basic strategy and that is what you play, then you should be able to concentrate on the Davies System and add a few extra dollars to salve the wounds caused by your blackjack losses. (I note no casinos that are identified as offering Royal Match have blackjack rules such that basic strategy does not lose.)

A further question in my mind is will a casino deal to a player who is playing the game only for the Royal Match play? Somehow, I think a $2 blackjack wager with an occasional $50 Royal Match wager (never off the top!) would not be tolerated for long, especially if it becomes clear that the player is winning with this approach. It strikes me as a more-difficult problem to camouflage a winning Royal Match system than to camouflage a winning blackjack counting system.

On January 8, Lee Bakewell sent me written confirmation of his agreement to publication of the results of my analysis of the Davies System, along with some enhancements designed to improve the system’s effectiveness. I immediately incorporated these enhancements and ran a new set of 10 million decks to see how beneficial the enhancements, indeed, were. The results, shown in Table 2, were quite impressive.

(NOTE: You will see that the TPS-EDGE and EST-EDGE columns for PERFECT PLAY are different in some corresponding entries between the two tables. You may wonder why this is the case. It is because they are each the result of an independent simulation and represent a different set of samples, with the resultant difference for these average values. The difference is small in all cases.)

Using the same penetration levels as before for head-to-head play, I found the efficiency of the Davies System Enhanced to be 91.73%, when compared to perfect play over these ten million decks. With $50 Royal Match wagers, this translates to an average of $3.01 per deck, or about $85.90 per hour in the fast, head-to-head game, a 23% improvement over the non-enhanced version. In the seven-player, two-round game, the average profit per deck (30 cards remaining) is about 23 cents. (Perfect play gives a profit of 25 cents per deck for this set of 10 million decks.)

This improvement comes at a price: The counting system is more complicated and would, therefore, increase the time to train for actual casino play, the concentration needed in the casino, and the difficulty in pursuing a point count playing strategy for the blackjack hand. In my opinion, only a rare few would have the discipline to accurately count for both Royal Match wagers and blackjack play, while the rest would have to rely on basic strategy for blackjack playing decisions. This would be ripe for a team approach to protect the blackjack wager while finding the lucrative Royal Match opportunities.

Below is a summary of things you should know as a result of these simulations. It shows six different playing conditions and gives the average profit per deck, profit per hour, and expectation on Royal Match wagers when called for by the Davies System. Both regular and enhanced versions are included. The columns labeled “EXP” is the average expectation on Royal Match wagers and is calculated as the total amount won divided by the total amount wagered, expressed as a percent.

A significant observation can be made to support that the benefits of the enhanced version over the regular version lie in the higher expectations. (I understand that the Davies System now being distributed is the enhanced versions, and earlier purchasers have been updated.) Much of this comes from inhibiting wagers which would otherwise be called for. While making 23% more money, only about 80% as much was wagered. This makes it much safer from a “risk of ruin” point of view.

As you can see, this table does not form a smooth curve and interpolation/extrapolation might be dangerous.

What More Can We Do?

It would be interesting to see what the combination of Davies System and blackjack counting can do, with various approaches to the blackjack wager and number of hands, and with various depths of penetration. I hope to explore these questions for a future issue of Blackjack Forum.  ♠

Summary of Davies Royal Match Card Counting System Analysis

	REGULAR VERSION	ENHANCED VERSION
Players	Rounds	Hands/Hr	$/Deck	$/Hour	Exp	$/Deck	$/Hour	Exp
7	2	70	$0.21	$7.30	2.82%	$0.23	$7.88	3.21%
4	3	100	$0.43	$14.25	2.48%	$0.47	$15.67	2.96%
3	4	120	$0.91	$27.38	2.73%	$1.27	$38.14	4.73%
2	4	150	$0.35	$13.17	2.07%	$0.40	$14.92	2.53%
2	5	150	$0.83	$25.00	2.11%	$1.13	$33.83	4.48%
1	7	200	$2.44	$69.84	3.77%	$3.01	$85.90	4.33%

TABLE 1
ROYAL MATCH ANALYSIS

50,000,000 Decks Played	PERFECT	DAVIES
Per Deck Win on $50 *Bets:	$3.2380	$2.4444
	Efficiency:	75.4910%

PERFECT PLAY

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	10562306	0.8829%	0.9037%
46	16832	0.0003%	0.0003%	25	9810734	1.0417%	1.0344%
45	91650	0.0025%	0.0010%	24	9619151	1.1746%	1.1755%
44	146757	0.0034%	0.0023%	23	11710914	1.3514%	1.3520%
43	276459	0.0044%	0.0054%	22	11711140	1.5230%	1.5277%
42	402526	0.0118%	0.0106%	21	12496058	1.7238%	1.7361%
41	865461	0.0180%	0.0200%	20	12418021	1.9801%	1.9705%
40	1361867	0.0253%	0.0326%	19	13747058	2.2378%	2.2193%
39	1735815	0.0510%	0.0491%	18	12883330	2.5094%	2.5157%
38	2094195	0.0699%	0.0714%	17	13102034	2.8387%	2.8231%
37	2851369	0.0975%	0.1006%	16	14695124	3.2548%	3.2346%
36	3503400	0.1346%	0.1354%	15	15394673	3.6472%	3.6670%
35	4083919	0.1816%	0.1752%	14	16479167	4.1245%	4.1187%
34	4862287	0.2207%	0.2228%	13	15976203	4.7407%	4.7228%
33	5710462	0.2607%	0.2772%	12	17587821	5.4030%	5.4060%
32	6557465	0.3243%	0.3396%	11	18146368	6.1340%	6.1340%
31	6710487	0.4235%	0.4094%	10	18710903	7.3941%	7.4136%
30	7472002	0.4839%	0.4884%	9	14717051	8.3194%	8.3259%
29	7813685	0.5783%	0.5732%	8	12944131	9.4726%	9.4689%
28	8331258	0.6770%	0.6673%	7	17422067	12.2727%	12.2413%
27	9032900	0.7909%	0.7821%	6	24435568	14.1606%	14.1772%

THE DAVIES SYSTEM

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	13590557	0.6797%	0.7015%
46	16832	0.0003%	0.0003%	25	14428971	0.8323%	0.8385%
45	102973	0.0022%	0.0009%	24	15328227	0.9727%	0.9696%
44	356620	0.0022%	0.0009%	23	16885566	1.0489%	1.0466%
43	718453	-0.0006%	-0.0001%	22	19641568	0.9908%	0.9972%
42	1135989	-0.0016%	0.0005%	21	22509849	0.9637%	0.9597%
41	1607271	0.0019%	0.0058%	20	24362612	1.0763%	1.0774%
40	2203403	0.0100%	0.0158%	19	24376220	1.4059%	1.4032%
39	2784001	0.0227%	0.0284%	18	23855593	1.7579%	1.7626%
38	3299284	0.0453%	0.0468%	17	23135185	2.1845%	2.1714%
37	3771649	0.0669%	0.0743%	16	22761011	2.6146%	2.5867%
36	4309693	0.1095%	0.1085%	15	21646282	3.0950%	3.1219%
35	4777867	0.1503%	0.1430%	14	20644515	3.7246%	3.7313%
34	5175336	0.1782%	0.1847%	13	20905208	4.2307%	4.2300%
33	5509838	0.2141%	0.2386%	12	24082712	4.3297%	4.3337%
32	5875004	0.2813%	0.3013%	11	29575747	3.9535%	3.9621%
31	6411455	0.3723%	0.3618%	10	32428895	4.3252%	4.3423%
30	7400492	0.4172%	0.4198%	9	29099947	6.4594%	6.4693%
29	9021576	0.4726%	0.4666%	8	23998472	9.3691%	9.3665%
28	10740177	0.5164%	0.5153%	7	23875685	11.4091%	11.3733%
27	12300661	0.5910%	0.5877%	6	24018501	13.9370%	13.9517%

TABLE 2
ROYAL MATCH ANALYSIS
(ENHANCED VERSION)

10,000,000 Decks Played	PERFECT	DAVIES
Per Deck Win on $50 *Bets:	$3.2773	$3.0065
	Efficiency:	91.7349%

PERFECT PLAY

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	2111717	0.9011%	0.9037%
46	3383	-0.0001%	0.0003%	25	1961015	1.0119%	1.0345%
45	18353	0.0030%	0.0010%	24	1923584	1.1717%	1.1754%
44	29395	0.0007%	0.0023%	23	2342628	1.3226%	1.3514%
43	55223	0.0069%	0.0054%	22	2342291	1.5149%	1.5271%
42	80786	0.0099%	0.0106%	21	2500231	1.7312%	1.7363%
41	173071	0.0314%	0.0201%	20	2484415	1.9170%	1.9703%
40	272096	0.0311%	0.0326%	19	2748569	2.2354%	2.2189%
39	347388	0.0316%	0.0490%	18	2576641	2.5515%	2.5140%
38	418217	0.0779%	0.0712%	17	2619991	2.8304%	2.8222%
37	569621	0.1220%	0.1003%	16	2938812	3.2253%	3.2333%
36	700850	0.1308%	0.1352%	15	3077918	3.7214%	3.6654%
35	815824	0.1678%	0.1753%	14	3294481	4.0757%	4.1162%
34	972648	0.2258%	0.2229%	13	3194823	4.7808%	4.7220%
33	1141664	0.2774%	0.2773%	12	3516535	5.4100%	5.4016%
32	1310725	0.3056%	0.3396%	11	3628065	6.1460%	6.1280%
31	1341341	0.3993%	0.4096%	10	3740120	7.3129%	7.4044%
30	1493329	0.5048%	0.4883%	9	2940757	8.3377%	8.3151%
29	1560046	0.6066%	0.5729%	8	2585983	9.4554%	9.4556%
28	1665641	0.6758%	0.6668%	7	3483027	12.1492%	12.2308%
27	1805680	0.7901%	0.7819%	6	4887680	14.1385%	14.1776%

THE DAVIES SYSTEM

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	2381229	0.7913%	0.8018%
46	3383	-0.0001%	0.0003%	25	2550639	0.9312%	0.9318%
45	20589	0.0019%	0.0009%	24	2735606	1.0888%	1.0566%
44	71525	-0.0088%	0.0009%	23	2986979	1.1860%	1.1759%
43	150862	-0.0007%	-0.0001%	22	3335243	1.2898%	1.2869%
42	250891	0.0097%	0.0003%	21	3632284	1.4592%	1.4512%
41	369402	0.0194%	0.0044%	20	3737665	1.6570%	1.7130%
40	502906	0.0165%	0.0138%	19	3604193	2.0733%	2.0626%
39	622449	0.0090%	0.0279%	18	3397649	2.4518%	2.4193%
38	719314	0.0598%	0.0488%	17	3196603	2.7735%	2.7796%
37	802202	0.0901%	0.0787%	16	3083429	3.1543%	3.1544%
36	892655	0.1192%	0.1149%	15	3042799	3.6075%	3.5434%
35	964436	0.1332%	0.1522%	14	3212390	3.7979%	3.8684%
34	1024690	0.2054%	0.1959%	13	3517161	4.3052%	4.3008%
33	1075104	0.2500%	0.2506%	12	3787099	5.0876%	5.0407%
32	1137433	0.3071%	0.3124%	11	3758762	6.0972%	6.0692%
31	1232305	0.3604%	0.3728%	10	3447739	7.1186%	7.2093%
30	1402885	0.4500%	0.4349%	9	2931329	8.3254%	8.3024%
29	1669190	0.5104%	0.4992%	8	2498463	9.3508%	9.3534%
28	1939498	0.5979%	0.5751%	7	1994831	10.1246%	10.1801%
27	2178521	0.6854%	0.6738%	6	1334755	10.4211%	10.4522%

Video Blackjack in South Carolina: Too Good to be True

by Outgoer and the Eradigator
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XVIII #3, Fall 1998)
© 1998 Blackjack Forum

To scout or not to scout? Our friend “Springbok” asked us to scout a game for him in South Carolina after “Carolina Maddog” made a post on Arnold Snyder’s private message board about great video blackjack (VBJ) games in South Carolina. The games did appear too good to be true, with an estimated advantage off the top of about 1.2% to 1.5% (depending on the frequency of the “oops” feature). To top it off, the double-deck game supposedly had 75% penetration with a spread of between $1 and $100 and the ability to play up to five spots—with no heat!

What could be better? Playing at 100 hands per hour with a reasonable spread this game could have been worth up to $300 per hour, with moderate risk compared to normal live blackjack. (Snyder had commented that 500 hands per hour might be possible on these machines. This would be realistic for ordinary VBJ machines, but with most video blackjack carousels, much more than 100-200 hands per hour are rarely possible.) If all this information was correct then the game would be worth exploring.

So, we decided to scout the game—despite our misgivings about it possibly being too good to be true. We were well aware of the existence of video blackjack machines with crooked software made by a major manufacturer (SEGA) that posted great rules but were in fact rigged to pay out at fixed percentages just like ordinary slot machines (see “Rip-Off Robo-Dealers” by Allan Pell, Blackjack Forum, December 1992).

In Nevada and New Jersey at least the gaming regulations make such games illegal by virtue of the fact that the probabilities in video card games must be based on random shuffles and deals, to match those of the live table games they simulate. But who knew what the situation would be like in South Carolina where there is no gaming commission? The only information we had from Carolina Maddog was that the machines were manufactured in South Carolina, manufacturers unknown.

Video Blackjack in Myrtle Beach

Anyway, we headed off to the sunny vacation spot of Myrtle Beach—just a couple of hours drive from the “South of the Border” Truck Stop on I-95. We decided to check Myrtle Beach out while we were there—it certainly seemed a better place to stay than the truck stop.

In Myrtle Beach we found quite a few places advertising video blackjack games—they were all basically small gambling joints. Some are larger than others, and it is doubtful whether many of them would have been able to handle big action. We had no problem with being paid despite the $125 max per day payout law that exists in South Carolina. They seemed to just print out multiple tickets if you win more than $125, but some places did have signs that said they would strictly enforce the paying out of only one ticket per day (which is what the law technically requires).

We could not find any of the double decks mentioned by Carolina Maddog. In fact, one of the biggest problems we had was determining how many decks were used. Most machines did not tell you how many decks were used and the operators didn’t appear too clued up either—which meant having to find out by counting the number of cards of the same suit.

We also found that most of the machines did not have the 5-card charlie rule. However, we did find one (with the 5-card charlie rule) that said it was four decks. About two decks were dealt, giving poor penetration of only 50%. The others we found with the 5-card rule also seemed to be (at least) 4 decks, with two decks dealt out. Obviously the game was not worth as much if there were only 4-deck or greater games and no double-deck games. Also, the bad penetration seriously reduced the advantage we could get from card counting (and so also increased the risk if we were to flat bet in order to get the approximate 1% advantage from the 5-card charlie rule).

We found a lot of different games in Myrtle Beach, with different rules, that were made by different manufacturers. The machines didn’t seem too professionally made and the manufacturers’ names normally just appeared as stickers on the machines, with local or 1-800 contact telephone numbers on them.

Now comes the problem of assessing honesty—something that should not be taken lightly given the apparent lack of regulation. We decided to play for small stakes until we felt comfortable with the games. We just used the hi-lo running count and kept a record of how long we played for and our net results. We also decided to contact the manufacturers and ask them about their games.

Virtually every place we played at we lost. As most people who understand statistics realize though, it takes quite a lot of play to reach a statistically significant conclusion on a game’s honesty. In some games though, we found that we kept getting high running counts near the shuffle point. In fact, in one place we ended on a positive running count 12 times in a row. Now, that is more statistically conclusive and did make us a bit suspicious of the honesty of these games. More on what the manufacturers had to say later.

South of the Border Video Blackjack

A bit disillusioned by Myrtle Beach, we decided to check out for ourselves the infamous “South of the Border” tourist trap that Carolina Maddog had originally posted about. Maybe there were better and more honest machines up there.

As reported by Carolina Maddog, we found two types of games, one with a male voice, another with a female voice, both with the “oops” feature. The one with the male voice had a penetration of about 75 cards but was definitely not a double deck game as Carolina Maddog had posted. At the “Orient Express” (where Carolina Maddog played) we counted four suited cards of the same denomination in one shuffle; they also had a triple 7s jackpot that was for “suited 7s.”

So, although they did not have a sign saying how many decks the machines used, it must have been at least four decks. We played what looked like the same machine (also a male voice) at the “Silver Slipper,” but there we found a sign above the machine saying that the game was dealt from eight decks. It also said that it had a “random deal,” for what that is worth. We played for 2.5 hours at low stakes, again lost, but this time only had six more positive shoes than negative shoes.

When we decided to contact the 1-800 phone number on the machine for the manufacturer, guess what? It turned out to be a limo service!! We also found that the machine with the female voice does not seem to have a shuffle point (which could mean it shuffles after every hand OR just doesn’t show you when it shuffles). We played one of these machines for about two hours and kept a running count, which ended about even.

On arriving back in Myrtle Beach we decided to do a bit more investigating by finding out about the regulations surrounding the games and what we could glean from some of the manufacturers. Both sources proved enlightening, but we did not hear what we wanted to hear.

Posing as potential purchasers, we asked one manufacturer about how the house can get an edge when it offers good rules like the 5-card charlie. The reply we got was that he thought the normal advantage on the video blackjack was about 15%! The scary thing, though, was that he said they sold an additional software program that would stabilize your advantage up to the state regulatory limit of 20%. He said that some places chose their version that enabled you to set that advantage lower so as to encourage business from high rollers.

This manufacturer was really trying to sell us his “cheating” software, saying it was better than the other company’s cheating software. He claimed his was better because it provided a random deal to the customers, and just changed the dealer’s hole-card depending on the player’s cards so as to maintain the advantage at a fixed %! He claimed that this was technically legal because it provided the players with randomly dealt cards.

He said he thought the others were not technically legal because they stacked the deck against the players (by keeping a larger proportion of the high cards behind the cut card). In an earlier discussion with a colleague of his it was claimed that their software had been checked by the S.C. Department of Revenue, which was satisfied that it complied with the state regulations.

This manufacturer told us that everyone who bought a machine from him also bought this add-on software. He even told us of one operator who declined the special software but was back after a few months because he had had a losing month. He also told us of one place that had the software from the other company (that stacked the decks). Funnily enough, this was one of the places we had played at where we kept getting high running counts.

So, obviously, there seem to be two main types of “cheating” software on the market—one that stacks the decks so it is like always playing at a bad negative count (even though the count keeps going up!), and another that alters the dealer’s cards as required. In the first case it is fairly easy to detect cheating by keeping a count. However, in the second case (and in possibly numerous other ways) cheating can be very difficult to detect except after analyzing the outcome of lengthy play.

We then contacted the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (SCDORT) to find out a bit more about the regulations. In speaking with them on the phone, it appeared that their main concern was with collecting the annual license fees that applied to video gaming machines. However, they did send us a copy of the legislation that governs the operation of video gaming machines (Article 20: Video Gaming Act – 1993 Act No. 164, section 19A, effective July 1993).

This legislation requires each machine to be licensed (s. 12-21-2778) and regulated by the SCDORT. Of specific interest are the following two sections:

12-21-2774 (1) which says that each licensed machine “may not have any means of manipulation that affect the random probabilities of winning a video game.”

12-21-2782 (A) (1) “The Department of Revenue and Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations regarding the type of machines that may be licensed providing for minimum technical standards to ensure that the games are random, have a minimum payback of at least eighty percent, are secure and accountable, do not operate in a misleading or deceptive way, …”

We wonder how SCDORT could possibly approve either type of “cheating” software? Do they seriously see nothing legally wrong with such software or is it the case that there is no enforcement of this legislation? Apparently there are some court cases that revolve around the video game industry but we were not able to find any details about these. Also, at present, the video gaming industry is the subject of much heated political debate. So changes in legislation may be imminent.

Final Analysis: South Caroline Video Blackjack

We eventually decided to give up on the games. We felt that the big problem for anyone wanting to play these games was that even if you do find an honest game there would be nothing stopping the operators from adding software to rig it afterwards. Then you could lose a ton of money in a short time if you thought the game was still on the level.

In our opinion, Carolina Maddog must have been extremely lucky. Either he was lucky enough to stumble upon an honest game or he was invoking some special powers from the First Church of Blackjack! One of the best ways to prove a game is honest is to beat it. So, even given his limited hours, the amount Carolina Maddog won would have been quite a feat if he had played a game with a 10-20% vig.

Interesting enough, the suppliers of the machine with the female voice (not the one Carolina Maddog played) claim it is random. However, when we inquired about the specialized software they said that although they did not supply it, they assured us that it would not be a problem to buy it from another source and add it on.

After spending a short holiday in Myrtle Beach we had to head out early because Hurricane Bonnie had its own plans. The mayor of Myrtle Beach suggested that it would be in our best interests to evacuate. Similar advice seems to apply to video blackjack in South Carolina—it’s in your best interests to avoid it.

So, be warned, although there might be honest video blackjack games in South Carolina, if you don’t find one you’re sure to lose your shirt if you play for serious money. ♠

The Gambler’s Crimp, Shading Decks, and Other Methods for Marking Cards

by Howard Collier, with photos by Christi Collier
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XIII #4, December 1993)
© 1993 Blackjack Forum

In 1902, S. W. Erdnase wrote, “A perfect understanding of the risks that are taken may aid greatly in lessening the casualties.” This is extremely profound. Blackjack table or no blackjack table, Erdnase laid out the truth about cheating and marked cards in his turn of the century publication, Artifice, Ruse and Subterfuge at the Card Table.

My life as an amateur magician changed forever late one summer evening when my mentor gave me a copy of the Erdnase book re-titled, The Expert At the Card Table . It was my fourteenth birthday and it broke me out of my Houdini phase forever, much to the relief of my mother.

The Expert at the Card Table is every good sleight of hand artist’s primer. If you gamble for money, it should be your primer too, particularly now with casinos popping up all over the place. North American natives, privileged with “nation within a nation” status, can now open casinos. Revenue-poor cities and states are also turning to casino gambling in an effort to refill their treasury coffers. Up and down the Mississippi, 24-hour, permanently moored riverboats have recently opened, much to the delight of everyone.

So, now that we can gamble in bars, tents and riverboats, everything is great. Right? No, not really. If you open a bunch of casinos, you’re going to need a bunch of dealers. Experienced ones would be nice, but truth is you’ve got five riverboats with 40 blackjack tables each. Assuming your 40 tables are always busy, you need 200 dealers for just the first 8 hour shift and there are three shifts a day. Suddenly, anyone who can count to 21 and shuffle a deck of cards is looking good to you.

Now think about this. If you were a grifter hustling blackjack, would you rather work in Nevada where the patrons are guarded and house security knows the tricks of your trade, or would you rather grift someplace where no one has ever grift before?

My point here, folks, is that it’s good to know thy game. Educate yourself. There are vultures. Vultures are everywhere. The majority of cheating in private games is accomplished with marked cards. Some methods are very sophisticated and some are very simple. There are lots of different ways cards can be marked. Some of these methods might work in a casino staffed by amateur pit and security personnel.

Easy Methods for Marking Cards or Exploiting Existing Marks

You can buy a factory marked, factory sealed deck of Bicycle brand readers from most magic shops. Factory marked Bicycles are examples of shade work. To shade a deck, an artist will sit with a paint brush and trim the thickness of some part or other of the design work on the back of the card. Note the flower petals in the upper right hand corners of this rider back. (See the illustraton above.)

If you have talent with a paint brush, you can find the proper shades of red and blue inks (also at the magic stores), and create customized decks for your own specific needs. The ever-popular “Bee” back design (the standard deck in many casinos) lends itself beautifully to shade work. (See the illustration below.)

Could a cheat get his own deck(s) into a casino? It depends on how amateur the operation is… (See Steve Forte’s article, “Don’t Be a Mark for Marked Cards,” for more information on cardroom controls.)

No artistic talent? Got an iron? Heat it up and press the backs of all the 10 count cards, deadening the shine. This ploy makes ready identification possible — if you know what to look for.

Don’t own an iron? Put a single drop of water on the back of a card. Wipe it off in a few minutes and it will leave a small dull spot. You can see it if you hold the deck at the proper angle to reflect light. (These marking techniques are too subtle to illustrate with photos.)

Go back to the magic shop and ask the kid behind the counter for a magician’s “card marker.” (See the illustration directly above.) A card marker is a handy little device to own. The card is inserted between the jaws of the marker and pressure is applied. The resulting mark can be felt, which means an accomplished second dealer could know without peeking whether the top card should be dealt or not.

Batch variations in the printing run can also be taken advantage of by cheats. You will find that you can buy two identical decks of cards (with borderless backs, such as Bee decks) and the ink on the edges will create a specific edge shading for each deck. This shading varies from deck to deck because of the cutting and printing process. Remove the tens from one deck and replace them with the tens from the other. The variance in the two decks’ edge shading makes “reading” the edges of the tens possible.

Daub, a sticky substance smeared onto the backs of cards, is undoubtedly the most worked subterfuge in private games. This is because you don’t have to bring in your own cards, but simply do your work on the spot. You can actually buy daub, but nobody does. Most folks make their own. Green or blue eye shadow works well on blue back decks, as does pencil graphite, ash from the ever present cigarette ashtray or dirt from the sole of the shoe.

Classically, daub is placed into the recessed head of a button sewn under the edge of the cheat’s jacket or vest. To mark a card with daub, he simply touches the back of any card with daub on his finger. The mark is faint but good enough to be seen later — if you know what to look for.

With the exception of daub, the work discussed here has been of a mechanical nature (i.e., there is a physical, permanent mark on the card). This is why daub is good (for the cheat). Along comes the last few rounds of the game and the daub artist begins wiping the backs of the cards along the table to remove the daub as he folds. This would be impossible in a normal casino environment, and would probably be difficult for a blackjack dealer to accomplish anywhere. Every cheat worries about covering his tracks — except for the sleight of hand artist.

The Gambler’s Crimp for No Permanent Mark

A sleight of hand artist uses the gambler’s crimp — a method that will leave no permanent mark on the cards. If you’re a cheat, this is a very good thing. If there are no marks on the cards, cheating is virtually impossible to prove. There are about a million different ways to do the gambler’s crimp. Some ways are better than others.

The natural act of picking up a playing card from the surface of the table lends itself to the gaff. Simply pick up a card (see the illustration directly above.) between your index finger which is on the back of the card and the thumb and middle which are on the face. By pressing the index finger down onto the back of the card, you create a little “V” shaped crimp in one corner of the card. There are dozens of crimping methods a dealer might employ in the “natural” handling of the deck.

Education doesn’t have to be costly. Learn the tricks of the trade to protect yourself from marked cards and other forms of cheating. I recommend Erdnase’s The Expert at the Card Table, especially if you play much blackjack in boats that go nowhere, roadhouse bars, decorated warehouses, and converted fire stations.

[Editor’s Note: Howard Collier is a 5th generation Texan and a sleight of hand expert. He resides in the Chinatown district of Los Angeles County. He wrote and produced the video, The Business of Blackjack (out of print).] ♠

Casino Surveillance Turns the Tables on Card Counters by Arnold Snyder (From Blackjack Forum Vol. XVIII #1, Spring 1998) © 1998 Blackjack Forum Online This article was initially titled: “The Two Faces of Camouflage.” My original outline had Part I dealing with the camouflage techniques card counters and other advantage players can use to disguise their skills from the casinos. Various Blackjack Forum writers and reporters — including G.K. Schroeder and Jim Taylor — contributed their thoughts on this subject. Part II went into the methods the casinos have been known to use to hide their surveillance efforts from players. A month ago, I realized that this feature had grown too large for a single issue; I had to split the article into two issues. As I have continued to work on both articles, I’ve also recently decided to publish Part II first, in this issue of Blackjack Forum, with Part I to follow in the next issue. This was not a coin-flip decision on my part, but a decision based upon what I see as exigency. Most of the books on card counting published in the past 3+ decades have provided varying amounts of advice on camouflage, always from the blackjack players’ perspective. Little has been written, however, on the devious tactics used by the casinos to hide their own surveillance spies. Many players are unaware of the fact that the casinos’ espionage efforts often go well beyond the eye-in-the-sky. This article provides no information whatsoever on how to play blackjack. There are no strategies, no system evaluations, no game recommendations, no tips on how to win. Yet, I believe this to be one of the most important articles we have ever published in this magazine. I suspect that many players will become angry reading what is contained herein. Not as angry, however, as the casino spies who find themselves, and their tricks, exposed. Longtime friends I have on both sides of the table — and I do have friends within the casino industry — may write me off their Xmas card lists this year, but I will let the chips fall where they may. My obligation, as always, is to my readers. The information herein is what you, my faithful flock, need to know. And, I think you will agree, many card counters need to know this now. In the next issue of Blackjack Forum, we’ll look at camouflage from a more comfortable perspective. Knowing that many casino spies read this magazine, we’ll focus on the art and science of camouflage, rather than on specific ploys that would educate the spies as well as you. For now, let’s delve into the dark side of casino surveillance, beyond the hidden cameras . . . Harrah’s Sneaks In Every coin has two sides. Never forget that the casinos are every bit as devious as you are when it comes to camouflage, and they will sometimes go to great lengths to disguise their spies. I learned firsthand about how serious the casinos took this business twelve years ago. (See Blackjack Forum, Dec ’86, “A Spy in the House of Zen.”) At the time, I was still a mailman, but once a month I was hosting “Blackjack Roundtables” in my Oakland apartment. I publicized these meetings in Blackjack Forum, which at that time had fewer than 1,000 subscribers. The Roundtables were informal discussion groups where mostly local Bay Area card counters and blackjack aficionados could meet and trade stories. Occasionally, out-of-town Blackjack Forum subscribers would show up if they were vacationing in San Francisco, but these meetings were generally small (12-36 attendees), always held in my livingroom. Admission was $12. Unbeknownst to me, one fine evening Harrah’s Tahoe Casino in Stateline, Nevada, sent a pit floor supervisor down to one of the meetings. I learned about this when a local Berkeley doctor, who had long been a comped guest at Harrah’s when he went to Tahoe, was barred on sight when he showed up at the casino to play one weekend. Harrah’s was up front with him about the reason for the barring. “You attended Arnold Snyder’s Blackjack Roundtable last month,” the pit boss explained. The dumbfounded doctor was shocked when the floorman then announced, “I was there.” When the doctor tried to play at Harvey’s across the street the next morning, another Tahoe casino where he had long been a comped guest, he immediately found himself surrounded by security guards. He was ordered to leave the casino. Harrah’s had apparently alerted the other Tahoe casinos that this high rolling doctor was a dangerous pro. The doctor called me from Nevada from a pay phone, in a very agitated state of mind, as soon as he had left Harvey’s Casino. “You’d better tell everyone who attended that Roundtable last month they can’t play at Harrah’s anymore,” he said. “Their floorman recognized me, and I recognized him. He was there.” The thought that a casino would send an employee 200 miles into a different state, posing as a player for the purpose of spying on card counters, opened my eyes to the lengths the casinos would go to in order to find card counters. Howie’s Angels Not long after this, I learned of another counter-espionage ploy being used in Las Vegas and Laughlin to identify professional blackjack teams. According to the late Paul Keen, my Las Vegas reporter at that time, ex-Uston teammate turned freelance counter catcher, Howard Grossman, had been training attractive women, who had become colloquially known as “Howie’s Angels,” to flirt with big players who were suspected of having team affiliations. According to Paul, the women would allow themselves to be “picked up” by the players in order to meet their friends and associates, get room numbers, license plate numbers and anything else they could gather to expose team operations. Paul said that when the big teams learned about this — some of them the hard way — they finally got very serious about enforcing team policies against associating with non-team members during playing trips. As Paul put it (paraphrased to the best of my recollection): “Howie knew what these guys were like. He had been there. He was one of them. Card counters have the same mentality as the casinos — they think women are dumb. If I had wanted to get myself into a private team meeting, I couldn’t do it to save my life. But some of these guys thought nothing of dragging along the bimbos they’d picked up that day by flashing wads of money around the tables — hookers, cocktail waitresses, any babe would do — women were like trophies to some of these guys. Remember all those photos Uston put in his books, where he’s got an unidentified babe hanging on each arm? The ‘Angels’ put an end to that kind of thinking!” Other Las Vegas counters told me stories about Howie’s Angels for a period of time in the mid-to-late ’80s. Unfortunately, Paul Keen — my original source — isn’t around anymore to provide any more information on this, and I lost contact with Howard Grossman years ago. (In the early ’80s, he contributed items to this publication occasionally. I’m not so sure he’d be interested in divulging much about this sordid episode in his life in any case!) I called Anthony Curtis, who knew both Paul and Grossman back then. I asked him if he’d ever heard of Howie’s Angels. He laughed. “Heard of them?” he said. “I dated one of them!” He couldn’t provide much in the way of juicy details, other than that he’d gone out with a woman back in the mid-’80’s who had been trained to count cards by Grossman, and that the term “Howie’s Angels” was well-known to the local Vegas counters. Internet Interlopers One of the easiest ways these days for the casinos to infiltrate the ranks of card counters is over the Internet. Every day in cyberspace, you can find card counters electronically congregated, sharing vast quantities of information. You may enter these discussions anonymously, and represent yourself as being anyone you want to be. In the Spring ’97 issue of Blackjack Forum, I stated: ” . . . casino personnel are lurking on every gambling website, and are specifically targeting the ‘players only’ forums and chat rooms . . . There are no ‘players only’ areas on the web! ‘Safe’ areas are a myth! Surveillance guys are just like writers; they go wherever the hell they want, and they believe they have a right to do this, by hook or by crook. It’s their job! They’re paid to do this . . . I know five players who have been added to the Griffin book . . . because of information initially published ‘anonymously’ on a popular blackjack web page. Casino personnel read the posts, put two and two together, and identified the players. Protect yourself. Always assume that anything you post on the Internet will be read by casino pit and security personnel, possibly at the very casinos where you play.” There were, in fact, five players I knew who found themselves with names (some with photos) in the dreaded Griffin Book as a direct result of posts on a public blackjack Web site. With respect for these players’ privacy, I will only say that a discussion about a unique playing opportunity in a specific location, with a veiled reference to a large blackjack team, led a casino lurker to investigate the possibility that this play might be going down in his casino. He struck pay-dirt. Five big money players who had been welcome comped customers found themselves booted from the blackjack tables in one fell swoop. Within days, they found themselves unable to play in any of the casinos where they had previously been welcome. They were not yet in Griffin, but — as with that Berkeley doctor in Tahoe — the casinos in this area were now faxing their names and photos around to each other. American casinos refer to these local agreements they have with each other to immediately fax information on suspicious or undesirable players as a S.I.N. (Surveillance Information Network), an appropriate acronym. I learned about this Web site fiasco from one of the players who called me and asked me to look on the Web site in question to see if I could find the posts that got the team busted. The player told me he’d asked one of the casino hosts whom he’d known for a long time why they had all been barred so suddenly. The host told him there were some Internet posts that made the casino suspicious. “We never posted anything ourselves,” he said, “but one of our guys called a friend about the potential value of the promotion we were playing. He made no mention of the specific casino. Unknown to us, the guy he’d called posted a message about it on that site, and someone else who we don’t even know followed up with a message that contained a blackjack team reference. The promotion was unusual, so it wasn’t hard for the casino to figure out they were being discussed on the Internet. So, they went looking for a blackjack team and just like that, we were busted.” The following month, all five players learned they were in the Griffin Book, perfect examples of the old World War II adage: “Loose lips sink ships.” Many card counters are naive about casino surveillance. In the old days, surveillance was almost solely dependent on the intelligence and experience of the pit boss. If you could fool the boss, you had it made. Counters who still think this way are setting themselves up for a fall. Surveillance in the major casinos these days takes place behind the scenes. Pit bosses are no longer expected to be detectives and bouncers; they are glorified clerks and bookkeepers who specialize in employee and customer relations. It’s their job to continually record player betting levels, making sure the dealers’ check racks are replenished as necessary, the cocktail waitresses are keeping the glasses full, the VIPs are getting the comps they want, the dealers are rotating and taking their breaks properly, the number of open tables is appropriate for the crowd conditions, and any disputes that arise in the games are settled quickly and fairly. Keep everything running smoothly; that’s the prime job for a pit boss. Surveillance is a different department. These are real detectives, not former dealers who rose up through the ranks. Surveillance departments today have lots of full-time employees and multi-million dollar budgets. Back in the mid-’80s, Harrah’s Tahoe physically sent a floorman 200 miles into California to infiltrate my blackjack roundtable. Today, the surveillance cops don’t have to travel so far; they surf the net. When I go into many of the blackjack web sites today, I am astonished at the amount of sensitive information posted on public message boards by players. There seems to be no consciousness whatsoever that the casino surveillance folks are right there, and in many cases may be the ones who are asking the questions, joining the discussions, and attempting to milk players for whatever they can get out of them. How Casino Spies Sneak In I know for a fact that there are casino personnel with passwords even to restricted areas of blackjack Web sites. One casino executive was present when the subscription price of a restricted board was budgeted for the surveillance department. “Let’s just say I was present during a very amusing conversation,” this casino person said, “when a couple of casino execs were explaining to the president of the hotel why he had to give them the money to join.” This, in fact, describes the entire process of infiltration. Instead of just cutting a check on an official casino account, surveillance personnel must use personal checks or credit cards, then get reimbursed by the casino. No false ID, fake mustaches, or computer hacking are required. Last Spring, when Blackjack Forum did its first exposé on casino surveillance systems, we published the name of the president of Casino Software & Services — Oliver Schubert. Casino Software & Services is the Las Vegas company that markets the Blackjack Survey Voice counter-catching software. Stanford Wong must have been chagrined to learn that Schubert was affiliated with this company, because Schubert was also a subscriber to his Black Chip page. Schubert, we might assume, did not send in his subscription payment on the Casino Software & Services checking account. But (luckily?), he had used his real name. So, Wong immediately canceled his Black Chip subscription. But, is this an effective protection technique? Wong knows it is not, and he has told his subscribers that it is not. Yet, for some reason, this makes them all feel safer, like their privacy has been protected. Half of the big money card counters I know have credit cards in names other than their own. It is perfectly legal and easy to obtain such cards. Does it not occur to players that if Oliver Schubert wants to read and participate in the Black/Green Chip discussions, all he has to do is call in his credit card order under a different name? You cannot keep casino people out of restricted areas by simply stating: “No Casino People Allowed.” Most casinos have policies that professional card counters are not allowed at their blackjack tables, but do counters still try to sneak in? Counters, even when specifically ordered to leave, often sneak back in, using fake ID, disguises, even risking arrest for trespassing. If Stanford Wong discovers that some girlfriend of an employee of Casino Software & Services has subscribed to the Black Chip, and he suspects that Schubert may have given her the money to do this, and that she may have given Schubert the password, could Wong have Schubert arrested for trespassing? Is there any legal deterrent to keep casino spies out of the so-called restricted areas of players-only web sites? And even if such a deterrent existed, how on earth would Wong discover that someone had a credit card in another name, or a friend who subscribed, or whatever? I asked Steve Forte — who has been a casino consultant for the past ten years or so — if he knew any casino personnel with access to restricted blackjack Web pages. He said he’d heard casino personnel discussing items they’d read on one of these sites many times, but that he did not know of any specific casino execs who were on it. “But people in surveillance have that spy mentality,” he said, “They get into that kind of stuff.” A few days later, Steve said, “You asked if I knew any casino people who had passwords to that Web site. Well, I asked one guy I know yesterday, and he says he’s been on it from the beginning.” The Futility of Spy Hunting Other players, who understandably yearn to meet fellow blackjack enthusiasts, attend gatherings of card counters sponsored by various Web sites. With regards to the possibility of casino spies at these types of parties, all I can say is: 12 years ago Harrah’s sent a floorman, posing as a player, 200 miles into a private home in Oakland, California; so what are the chances a casino today would send a spy into a public restaurant just down the block from their casino? To me, it’s not a question of if there are casino spies at these events, but which of these events have been infiltrated, and which attendees are the spies? When I quit the roundtables in 1986, many of those who were regular attendees complained. They were nickel bettors with little fear of being barred. They simply loved talking blackjack with other card counters, probably much like many of the party-goers today. “We’ll take our chances,” they pleaded with me. Some suggested that attendees be required to sign statements that they were not affiliated with any casino. I talked with my attorney about what I might do to legally restrict admission to players only. I felt such an immense responsibility for the misery and embarrassment I had caused to this doctor who had just wanted to meet with other blackjack players for camaraderie. But there was no satisfactory solution that I could see. Although I enjoyed the company of nickel bettors, it was the players at the higher end of the spectrum that made the Roundtables such a joy for me, and a real learning experience. It was at a Roundtable where I first met Al Francesco — he just showed up one night. Gustav Shoe, the Mad Russian, Sam Case — all were regular attendees. None of them would ever return. Two years after they’d started, and at the height of their popularity, the Roundtables were dead. For 12 years I have grieved over the loss of those living room blackjack discussions. They were so much fun, so informative and edu- cational in so many ways. For years I had hungered for this face-to-face contact with other players who shared my passion. The main lesson I learned from the Roundtables, however, was the hardest one of all. How to Counter Counter-Camouflage In the Casinos: 1. Big money players should always be wary of other players who are overly friendly — especially attractive, flirty females. 2. If you do pick up a date while on a playing trip, do not tell this person that you are a card counter; and, 3. Do not introduce this person to any of your companions or teammates, if you are involved in a team. I do not know if any casinos still use “angels” to identify counting teams, but it would not surprise me. Also, do not assume that an angel will necessarily pick you up at the tables. If you are suspected, you could just as easily be followed and picked up later in a bar or lounge. At Public Events: 1. Black chip card counters should avoid all public gambling events that might indicate greater than average intelligence, including U. of N. Gambling Conferences, the B.A.R.G.E. convention, etc. Tournaments are probably okay. Lots of high-rolling jerks enter tournaments. 2. Green chip counters who attend public gambling events that might indicate intelligence should remember that many casino personnel attend these events. Be careful what you say to others, and know whom you’re talking with. 3. Be especially careful about being seen with known blackjack authors and experts. I knew a moderate stakes counter who was barred at Caesars Tahoe during the 1981 Gambling Conference because he was seen talking with Ken Uston. 4. “Card Counters” events (like Blackjack Roundtables!) should probably be avoided by any player who puts enough action on the tables to qualify for RFB. Also, it is probably safest to attend these functions in areas where you don’t play. If you play in Las Vegas, it would be much safer to attend a party in Mississippi or Reno, etc., if you never intend to play there. And be suspicious of anyone who seems to be trying to get personal information out of you. Do not provide your real name to the group. On the Internet: 1. Always assume that casino spies are lurking. They are, and they may be posting messages and asking questions that make them seem like players. 2. If you provide trip reports, do not include information that could identify you to casino spies. If you provide the time(s) and date(s) of your play/observation, do not include your win/loss result, betting spread, etc. 3. If you discuss your methods of camouflage, a playing style that works, etc., do not be so specific that the next time you play you could be recognized by your unique approach. 4. Never relay precise events, conversations, etc., that took place while you were playing. Always alter your descriptions of these events sufficiently that you could not be identified as the person telling the story by someone else who was present (like a dealer, floorman, etc.). Unless there is some good reason for doing so, do not mention the name of the casino where the incident took place. All you need is one surveillance agent who reads about an event that took place in his casino to start asking questions among the employees who might remember this event. Naturally, if you were standing in an aisle, not playing, and you witnessed something unusual that you were not personally involved in, then go ahead and be specific. But remember that if you are identified via a website post, you may never know why you are getting heat when you return to some casino weeks or months later. Also, there will be casino spies who will know who you are every time you post under the same name. 5. If you are contacted via e-mail by another “player,” as a result of some message you posted, be aware that this may not be a player. Be extremely careful about divulging personal information about yourself to strangers in cyberspace. 6. It is probably safe for small stakes players to attempt to make connections with other small bettors. Casino spies are unlikely to waste their time with small fry. But public message boards are no place for big bettors to attempt to form teams or make connections. This is extremely dangerous. 7. If you post your e-mail address, be aware that you can often be identified by this address. America Online users, for instance, can obtain the names/addresses of other AOL users from AOL’s directory. If you use AOL, be careful not to supply your real name and address where other users can look you up. 8. Remember to protect the games, as well as yourself. Stating that a specific casino has great penetration is probably fine. The casino knows this, and knows that card counters look for deep penetration, but made a conscious business decision to deal deeply, usually to increase the action on the tables (and thus the drop and hold). Posting information about specific dealers who deal deeply if you toke them, however, is best left off the boards where casino spies have access. Likewise, reserve information about specific dealers who inadvertently flash hole cards or accidentally overpay bets, specific pit bosses who seem particularly stupid, etc., for your personal friends and acquaintances. Are Public Blackjack Web Sites Too Dangerous? Public blackjack Web sites can be a worthwhile meeting ground for serious blackjack enthusiasts. But players who visit these sites must use the sites for what they are, and they are not “players only.” Accept this fact, and be careful what you say. Whenever you see others posting dangerous messages, tell them. I often suspect that some of the “loose lips” posts that appear on many blackjack web sites may be placed by casino personnel. If you play at the comp level, it is reckless to publicly announce the dates you will be in Reno or Las Vegas for the purpose of setting up meetings with strangers. When someone on the web appears to be trying to get personal information out of another subscriber, be suspicious. It is not necessary to fling accusations at others. Give all the benefit of the doubt; assume that some players are naive rather than evil. The casino surveillance departments already buy every book and software program that comes on the market. I know this because they contact me with questions about these products. The casino spies are no longer all sitting in the surveillance video rooms looking at monitors. They are actively seeking out the players who threaten their tables. And they are seeking them out in their homes. Don’t find yourself barred because of “anonymous” words you posted on the Internet from the comfort of your living room. Get your head out of the sand. Take this business as seriously as the casinos do. Protect yourself. ♠