Plan Your Play, Play Your Plan

by S. Yama
© 2003 S. Yama

The $1 Million Blackjack Tournament at the Las Vegas Hilton Casino has breathed fresh interest into tournament blackjack.

Thanks to Blackjack Confidential Magazine’s detailed descriptions, bet-by-bet and hand-by-hand, each month we can relive experiences of the contestants. For the last few months, perhaps starting with K. Smith’s article, BCM has included wonderfully telling tales of major tournaments.

Being able to view all cards in the order they were dealt, knowing the players’ bankrolls, bets and decisions, creates pictures of high fidelity and makes an analysis of each player’s strategy easy and revealing.

Looking at these play-by-play reports I’ve tried to imagine what could have motivated a player to bet or play the way he or she did. But then, it dawned on me: The majority of players are betting randomly and haphazardly, perhaps playing hunches. There was no planned strategy to their play.

I understand that blackjack tournaments are social events. Tournament players enjoy seeing one another during these tournament rendezvous. We meet, talk, joke around and gossip. We are genuinely happy for those blessed with success and share the sorrows of those not-so-blessed. Often, we complain about our lack of luck or somebody’s extraordinary luck.

Well, my advice here is to give luck a chance.

How? By having a plan on how to bet and play even before you enter a blackjack tournament.

Oh, I realize there is a small group of players who analyze tournament plays to death. But these same players achieve better results then most, too. The average player doesn’t need to worry about trying to pull a fanciful play that bring an additional percentage point or two to their game. Especially if, in doing so, they lose concentration or the effort obstructs the “bigger picture.”

Such fine points aren’t necessary. But, a basic tournament plan is absolutely necessary. It doesn’t have to be an ultimate plan.

After playing a round you should always ask yourself, “What could I have done better?” If you do this, chances are you will play better in your next round.

Here are some simplified strategies or ideas for playing at Las Vegas Hilton with an eye toward reaching the finals:

Casino Tournament Tips for Beginners

1. The less tournament experience you have, the more aggressively you should bet.
2. In the first half of a round you shouldn’t try to correlate to other players.
3. In the first half of a round, betting slightly more or less will have no strategic importance.
4. When trying to catch up with your opponent:

1. Use a betting progression starting with (pick one) 1/15^th, 1/7^th or 1/3^rd of your bankroll. Contrary to some opinions, my advice is to double down or split if Basic Strategy calls for it.
2. Bet big when your opponents bet small. It is twice as easy to win a maximum bet two times in a row than it is to wait until the last hand and get a swing (you win and your opponent lose) versus just one player.

5. The last few hands are most important.
6. Try to position yourself going into the last hand of a round. To get there you have to plan and succeed in the hand leading up to it.
7. Try to be in the lead (or in the top two places in a qualifying round) going into the last hand of a round with a lead within the following ranges:

1. Have any lead. Having any lead is often as good as having a big lead.
2. Have a lead of more than half of the maximum bet.
3. Have a lead of more than the maximum bet.

8. If you aren’t in the lead, try to stay within the following ranges:

1. Trailing by less than ½ of maximum bet (or half of leader’s bankroll).
2. Trailing by less than maximum bet.

9. Most of the time it will not matter by how much exactly you are leading or trailing as long as it is within the striking range.
10. The “double down” is one of the most powerful techniques you can use. When you double down regardless of what cards you have, or if you split a pair and play optimally, you will win one-third of your hands!
11. If losing your bet takes you out of contention, then bet the maximum.
12. If losing your bet would take you out of contention and you plan on drawing only one card, then double down.
13. When trailing, try to intersect ranges to determine your bet:

1. The smallest winning bet that gets you ahead of your main opponent if your opponent also wins. If you are betting before your opponent, try to guess what she or he might be betting when it is their turn.
2. The smallest bet, which when doubled, gets you ahead of your main opponent if your opponent also wins.
3. The biggest bet, which when lost, leaves you with more than half of your main opponent’s bankroll if your opponent also loses. If you’re betting before your opponent, assume that she or he will push.

14. Generally, when leading and there are two or fewer opponents and you bet first, bet less then your lead.
15. When leading and there are more than two opponents, bet slightly more then the bigger bet of the two:

1. The maximum bet minus half your lead over the next player.
2. If your opponent bets in front of you, risk the opponent’s bet times two, minus your lead, all divided by two.

16. When you need to swing your opponent, then draw to at least 18 and two points more then your opponent has.
17. When you need to gain on your opponent (you win, while she or he pushes, or you push while she or he loses), draw to at least 17 and one point more then your opponent has.
18. Don’t surrender small bets when Basic Strategy doesn’t call for it.
19. Proper use of surrender may be profitable but it is also complicated. Don’t use surrender if you haven’t mastered it.
20. Deal with one issue at a time.

To Win Casino Tournaments Keep It Simple

Perhaps the last point requires some additional comments. Analyzing tournament strategies can get so complicated that even the best players can get confused. Don’t panic. Stay focused by trying to answer prioritized questions:

Who is your main target (whom to “whack”)?

What is the difference between your bankrolls?

Is the difference bigger or smaller than half of the maximum bet?

Is it more than the maximum bet?

Do I have a lock?

Can I catch up with this player? Should I focus on another player?

How much will he or she lose or gain on this hand?

How much do I need to bet if we both win?

How much do I need to bet to succeed if we both win doubled bets?

What is the downside if we both lose? And so on.

Analyze one player at a time with questions and answers. This is a method of small steps. Don’t move to the next question until you have a clear answer to the previous one.

Don’t worry about mistakes. You will make mistakes in casino tournaments. I rarely play a round without finding a better play I could have made—twenty minutes after the game. Don’t insist that your way of playing is best. See if there was a better way. After awhile you may find that “coulda-shoulda-woulda” is more fun than what really happened at the table.

Have a plan for your next casino blackjack tournament. Good results will follow.

I promise,

S. Yama ♠

[Ed. Note: S. Yama is a professional casino tournament player who is widely regarded by tournament pros as one of the handful of top tournament players in the world.]

For more information on winning tournament strategy, see Casino Tournament Strategy by Stanford Wong and Play to Win: A World Champions Guide to Winning Blackjack Tournaments by Ken Einiger.

Legal Implications of Various Types of Fake ID for Professional Gamblers

by Andrew S. Blumen, Attorney at Law
(From Blackjack Forum IX #1, March 1989)
© Blackjack Forum 1989

One of the recurring problems for the professional blackjack player is being able to play in a casino that is dealing a good game without being recognized as a card counter by the casino employees. When that occurs, the player is usually barred.

So players go to great lengths to be able to play undetected. Among the props used by the player are false beards and mustaches, wigs, dressing and playing the role of the “hick from the sticks” and many other similar ruses.

In conjunction with the above props, many players obtain false identification documents (I.D.) so that when asked who they are by casino personnel, they can produce proof of a name not known by the Griffin Agency or the casino security. Players using certain types of false identification (I.D.) run the risk of federal and state prosecution. The following actually happened to a very successful “21” player.

Jim had been playing blackjack for many years all over the world. Because he was extremely successful, the number of casinos where he could play was dwindling to the point where he had to do something to fool the casinos or look for a new profession. Jim decided that the only chance he had of continuing his career as a professional “21” player was to convince the casinos he was someone other than himself.

Jim set about this endeavor the same way he did when learning to play blackjack. He visited various bookstores and searched through several mail order catalogues seeking literature which would tell him how to obtain identification documents (I.D.) in a name other than his own. He was amazed at the vast number of books and pamphlets published dealing with this subject matter. These publications included subjects on how to obtain birth certificates and death certificates, how to obtain drivers’ licenses while not physicalIy appearing at the motor vehicle office of that particular state, how to obtain social security cards and credit cards.

Armed with this information, Jim sent away to various states and received lists of people who had died at a very young age. He then requested the birth certificates of these dead people. Once he had these documents in his possession, he obtained a social security card in the false name and a driver’s license or l.D. card from the appropriate state. He also obtained a Notary Public stamp in a false name. Armed with these documents, Jim was ready to play in casinos within the United States under an assumed name.

However, Jim still had a problem. Since he travelled to foreign casinos on a regular basis, and since they request a passport as proof of identification, Jim went to New York and applied for a passport in the name of one of his fictitious identities. Jim intended to use this passport only when a casino requested it as proof of I.D. and would use his own passport for entering and exiting the country. By only using the false passport for casino purposes, Jim assumed he could not get in trouble.

Several weeks after applying for the passport, several FBI agents arrived at Jim’s residence in Nevada armed with an arrest warrant for Jim and a search warrant for his residence. Jim was arrested for “making a false statement in the application for a passport.” Jim was taken by the FBI to the Federal Building where he was initially held without bail pending his extradition to New York to face this charge.

During the search of his house, the FBI confiscated lists of births and deaths, several birth and death certificates, social security cards, drivers’ licenses, a notary public stamp, and numerous books on assuming a false identity. These items were turned over to the United States District Attorney’s office in Nevada. The U.S. Attorney presented these items to a Grand Jury which returned a multiple count indictment against Jim. Jim was charged with several counts of production of a false identification document, a federal crime.

Because there were two separate cases against Jim in the two different states, he had to hire two attorneys to argue his bail motions and to defend him at trial. His attorneys’ fees were sizeable. As a result of the criminal charges, Jim faced up to five years in prison and a fine not to exceed $250,000.00 on each individual charge.

In addition, the federal government had enacted “Sentencing Guidelines” which, if applied to Jim’s case, could have resulted in mandatory jail time. Due to some fortuitous circumstances, Jim’s cases were consolidated and negotiated to his benefit. The terms of the negotiations were that he pled guilty to making a false statement in the application for a passport and to two counts of production of false identification documents. All remaining charges were dismissed. Pursuant to negotiations, Jim received probation. He also was required to do 160 hours of community service and pay a modest fine.

Since the time this case was completed, the Uniform Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Had they been applied in Jim’s case, Jim would have faced a minimum of six months and a maximum of twelve months in prison. Depending on certain mitigating factors which would determine Jim’s offense level, he would most likely not have been eligible for probation. This result would occur although Jim had never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense before. As a result, Jim would have had to spend time in jail for these offenses.

It is important to note that to be charged with the crime of “production of a false identification document,” a person need only have such a document in his possession. It is not necessary to represent this document identifies you to a government official. Among the false documents which can result in criminal charges are drivers’ licenses, social security cards, passports and a notary public stamp in a false name.

Had Jim not applied for a passport in a false name, it is unlikely that he would have gotten the attention of the Feds. Therefore, without this attention, Jim would not have been indicted on the additional charges of production of false identification documents. It is for each individual to decide whether the risk of a felony conviction is worth the acquisition of false I.D.

Even without the Feds’ initial involvement, the player runs the risk of the casino notifying the Feds if you use false I.D. in their casino, should they discover this. Further complications could also result after arrest, including an Internal Revenue Service review of your financial affairs.

It is up to each individual to determine whether the risks are worth the potential rewards. Should a player decide to take the risk, it is important to remember never to use the false I.D. or give a false name when dealing with a government official. Confine your use to casino personnel only, and never attempt to obtain a passport in a false name. If you do, you very well could end up in jail. ♠

A Card Cheats’ and Crossroaders’ Paradise

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. II #3, December 1988)
© 1988 Blackjack Forum

[Before Arizona passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the state legalized “socail Gambling” in bars and nightclubs – completely unregulated. This article is about that “social gambling” experiment. I’m posting it in both the Cheating section and the Blackjack History section because this has nothing to do with the legal blackjack scene in Arizona today. – A.S.]

The way I hear it, the cheating was all a big mistake. Except for the squeaky-clean state lottery and your occasional church bingo night, there wasn’t much gambling in Arizona.

But what the hay, this is the Wild West, and cowboys will be cowboys. There were always a few bars and strip joints running backroom poker and blackjack games, your occasional crap table off in the corner. There were never any laws in the state prohibiting social gambling. Casinos were illegal, but Friday night poker games were just considered good clean fun.

The problem, as perceived by the lawmakers, was that some of these two-bit bars with backroom gambling were making decent money in the back room, and, naturally, paying no taxes on these ill-got gains.

It didn’t seem necessary, or even possible, to get rid of these friendly games. Social gambling had been going on as long as anyone could remember. No one was getting hurt. Organized crime wasn’t involved. There weren’t even any crossroaders or cheating (that anyone knew of). It was small potatoes.

You couldn’t expect the police to start busting the bar owners or patrons of these games. These weren’t criminals. They were fine upstanding citizens having a little innocent fun on payday. Everyone played a little blackjack some time. And what with the booming casino industry of Laughlin, Nevada, plastering their billboards all over the state of Arizona — just a few hours’ drive from Phoenix, well it just didn’t make sense to make an issue of it if Arizonans wanted to keep their entertainment dollars right in their own hometown.

But it was the principle of the thing. Bar owners were just not paying their fare share of the taxes. Not that there was any great tax potential from these nickel and dime games. Just the principle.

The last thing the legislators wanted to do was make it legal for the bars to run these gambling games. They didn’t want casinos in Arizona. They just wanted to clarify the law. If people wanted a little friendly social gambling, fine. But no casinos. Bars shouldn’t be banking these games, raking the pot in poker, dealing the blackjack and taking the house edge. It just wasn’t fair. And if there’s one thing that Arizona’s lawmakers pride themselves on, it’s their sense of fair play.

The solution seemed so simple. There wasn’t much argument in the legislature. They’d simply define “social gambling.” You want to play a little poker, a little blackjack, shoot some craps, fine. Any adult establishment could allow games like these right out in the open.

But the bars couldn’t bank the games. No one could bank the games. These would be friendly games between the players, and only between the players. Who deals? The players. Who sets the rules and the stakes? The players. Who rakes the pot? No one. In fact, it would be against the law for any establishment offering such games to charge their customers any cover charge to play, or to benefit in any way from these games.

If the players wanted to drink while they played, they could order drinks. But no bar was going to hustle drinks or pressure players to spend money. These were friendly games, played by mutual agreement of the players. Fair games. No house edge. No problems.

A Law Designed for Card Cheats

On August 18, 1987, Arizona Revised Statute 13-3301 was signed into law. “Social Gambling” was defined as “gambling which is not conducted as a business and involves players who compete on equal terms with each other in a gamble if all of the following apply:

• “a) No player receives, or becomes entitled to receive, any benefit, directly or indirectly, other than his winnings from the gamble.
• “b) No other person receives, or becomes entitled to receive, any benefit, directly or indirectly, from the gamble.
• “c) None of the players are below the age of majority (21 years).”

That seemed pretty clear. No casinos. No house edge. No banking the games. The law was straightforward. Friendly. Fair.

Jolee’s Lounge in Glendale, a suburb on the west side of Phoenix, was one of the first establishments to take advantage of the new law. Jolee’s owner, Joann Ashley, heard about the new law and figured the novelty of a couple poker tables might pump up her business. She thought her regular customers might enjoy playing poker and the tables would probably draw in some new customers as well.

She was right about the latter. Within several weeks it was hard to get in the door. There were crowds around her two tables waiting to jump at an open seat. Her regular customers weren’t so regular anymore. It just wasn’t the same atmosphere.

Heavy gamblers were controlling the tables, but there wasn’t much Joann could do about it. The law prohibited her from having much say about the games, lest she be accused of acting as “the house” for her own benefit. More disturbing to her were offers she was getting from professional card sharks. They wanted to give her a cut of their action in exchange for the use of her tables with their own dealers.

Worst of all, the big crowds did not spell financial success. Ms. Ashley learned, to her dismay, that gamblers drink a lot of coffee and not much else. She had always provided coffee to her customers for free. Within a couple months, her Friday night business had dropped from $1200 to $300.

By December of 1987, four months after Arizona’s “social gambling” law was defined, Jolee’s Lounge became its first casualty. Joann had taken out the poker tables. She didn’t have gambling anymore. But she’d lost her regular customers as well. She was forced to sell what was left of the business.

No one knows how many bars and night clubs in Arizona tried “social gambling” within the first year of the new law. But the Phoenix police department had a list of 22 full-time gambling establishments just in their county. The police didn’t know quite what to make of this new phenomenon. Unlike Nevada or New Jersey, Arizona law didn’t specify any game rules or regulations. There were no cheating statutes. No training or licensing of dealers or pit personnel. No pit bosses. No agency existed to oversee the games or to enforce laws designed to protect the public. There just wasn’t much of a law to enforce.

The new law had been in effect more than a year, in fact, before anyone had been indicted for a gambling violation. On September 15, 1988, Tommy Caselli, owner of Tommy’s Full House Casino on Camelback Road in Phoenix, was charged with a misdemeanor violation of the law. Tommy’s mistake, according to the assistant D.A. who was prosecuting the case, was that Tommy had advertised the gambling in his establishment. To the D.A., this indicated that Tommy would be “benefiting” from the games. Tommy stopped running his newspaper ads, and within a month, these charges were dropped.

Since then, other bars have been busted for running the games in their establishments with house dealers. Whether or not these charges will stick has yet to be seen. How long this wide open gambling will exist in Arizona is anybody’s guess. Most informed sources feel the state lawmakers will either outlaw social gambling, or more strictly define this recreation in order to rid the state of the current problems as soon as possible.

I spent three days in Phoenix in September with Blackjack Forum’s esteemed correspondent and Laughlin reporter, Pigbait, as my guide. Here are some of the technical data I collected on Tommy’s Full House Casino.

A Report from the Arizona Card Cheat Scene

On Thursday night, there were 11 blackjack tables in operation, as well as 5 poker tables and a crap table. On Friday night, there were 13 blackjack tables, and on Saturday, these increased to 15. Most of the tables were regulation 7 spotters with a “Harvey’s” logo on the felt. Some were card tables with a felt layout thrown over it. A few were card tables with no layout at all.

The game rules varied according to the dealer’s choice. I saw one 4-deck shoe game on two of the nights. All of the other games were 1- and 2-deck handheld. Players bring their own cards. Any player who is dealt a blackjack may take the deal. If you don’t have your own cards you can only exercise this option if some other player at the table will lend you his deck. Most players do not want the deal because of the risk.

The dealer sets the betting limits. I saw games with limits of $2 to $5, $2 to $10, $2 to $20, $5 to $20, $5 to $50, and $5 to $100. Most games have a $20 upper limit. The problem with taking the deal in such a game is that if you lower the limit (which is the dealer’s option), many players will leave the table. A few consecutive dealer busts at a full table with a $20 limit could wipe out a moderate bankroll.

Rules and procedures also vary widely. Many games are dealt to the bottom card, with all but the bottom and burn cards being played.

Many dealers show the burn card, and some won’t burn an ace. Most games are dealt face-up to the players so that players never touch the cards.

Sound like a card counter’s dream? One deck dealt to the bottom, all players’ cards face up? Someone pinch me.

Both soft 17 rules are used, and both Vegas and Reno doubling rules are also employed. Dealer’s choice. Most dealers do not offer insurance. Some do. Blackjacks pay 3 to 2, but most dealers do not use 50¢ pieces. If you get a blackjack with a $5 bet, you will be paid either $7 or $8. Again, dealer’s choice, but most dealers will alternate the underpay and overpay if you remind them.

Common oddities: No chips are used. All bets are cash on the table. A bill folded in half means “bet half” (i.e, a $20 bill folded in half in your betting circle means you are betting $10). Most dealers do not make change until after the hands are completed. A bill placed between two betting spots means you are playing two hands, betting half the bill’s value on each (i.e, a $20 bill placed between two spots means you are playing two hands, betting $10 on each). A $20 bill folded in half between two spots means you are betting a total of $10, or $5 on each of two hands.

Seconds Dealing, Marked Cards, Stacked Decks and More

Most dealers peek under tens and aces to see if they have a blackjack prior to completing the players’ hands. Some dealers peek under all of their upcards before completing the players’ hands. This may strike you as stupid — or it may strike you as a potential cheating move. Since there is no legitimate reason for the dealer to know his hole card in advance unless he has a ten or ace up, he could be seeking this information for any of a variety of scams.

This, of course, is the biggest problem you face if you gamble in Arizona. Avoiding the scam artists. One reliable source informs me that every card mucker and crossroader in Nevada has relocated to Phoenix in the past year, and that a large proportion of the games being dealt are crooked.

Marked cards are common, what with dealers supplying their own decks. You will not be able to detect the markings, which may often be nothing more than lightly sanded edges that allow the dealer to identify tens and aces. Be especially wary of any dealer who varies his upcard and hole card. The trick is for the dealer to always show a ten or an ace up, so that the players will always be hitting their stiffs and rarely doubling down or splitting. A move like this requires no other legerdemain, and is very strong.

Also, watch out for dealers who deal face down games, then don’t turn up alI of the players’ cards after a player busts. This is a classic move for a dealer working with a third base confederate when he wants the confederate to draw off a card or cards that he doesn’t want to deal to himself. Such a dealer may be using a marked deck, waiting for the top card to be the one he needs to make his hand. (Most games — even 1- and 2-deck — are dealt face up.)

Dealers who peek under all up cards — not just tens and aces — may be signaling their hands to confederates, or may want to know their hands in advance for many other possible cheating moves. Dealing styles are so amateur that it is not uncommon at all for dealers to peek under non-tens/aces. Most of these dealers probably do it because they’ve seen others do it, or it was always how they played in home games and they just want to know their hands.

Many cheats have been run out of games by players or bar owners who have caught them. This is a fairly regular occurrence in Phoenix games — especially dealers getting caught with “short” decks or marked cards. Sometimes, guns are drawn, though no instances of actual shootings have occurred yet to my knowledge. It is legal to pack a pistol on your hip in Arizona, and it is not uncommon to see gun-toting citizens. Remember, this is the Wild West.

Unlike Nevada or New Jersey, Arizona law does not spell out what constitutes cheating, therefore, no arrests have been made in these cheating incidents. Although these games are legal, don’t forget that these are back-alley games, with back-alley rules. If you’re accused or even suspected of cheating, you may have to deal with back-alley justice.

For this reason, I would strongly advise against “spooking” as a strategy — that is, positioning yourself behind a dealer so that you can signal a confederate at the table as to the dealer’s hole card. This is so easy to do in Tommy’s Full House Casino that you may be tempted to try and pull it off. There are no pit bosses. Just a few “security” employees of the bar whose main job seems to be asking customers to remove their hats because of the “dress code.” (No t-shirts! Stricter than Caesars Palace!)

You can stand directly behind most of the dealers and look over their shoulders. Nobody will stop you. But if somebody suspects you’re passing signals to your buddy at the table, your arguments that the “law” doesn’t cover this, or even that it’s an untested legal area in Nevada, may not wash very well with the bikers escorting you out the back door.

Also, watch out for inaccurate payments on winning hands. With all of the folded bills and bills between spots, etc., “errors” — which may or may not be intentional — are not uncommon. Some errors will work to the players’ advantage. The worst mistake I saw was a dealer who, after busting, did not collect the bets from the players who had also busted, but considered these hands pushes!

If it appeals to you to take advantage of amateurs and drunks, you’ll love Arizona.

Personally, I would not play in any game in Arizona that I was not dealing. I just don’t trust dealers who bring their own cards. I would also not deal a game unless I had arrived with friends who would be accompanying me out at night’s end. Dealers carry a lot of cash. I would also deal a face-up game so that players did not touch their cards. And I would be hyper-aware of spooking and front-loading possibilities as I dealt. I would also make change for folded bills and bills between spots prior to dealing the hands.

If you like craps, you’ll find an interesting back-alley style game at Tommy’s. Again, it’s players vs. players. No house. They’ve got a regulation size casino crap table with no layout on the felt. Players make up their own proposition bets by mutual agreement, set their own odds, etc. The don’t pass bet is popular since no numbers are barred; don’t bettors have a 1.4% advantage.

The poker games look very loose — lots of cash on the tables. Big pots. High-low split games were popular when I was there.

Personally, I wouldn’t go near the poker or crap games with my money. These games offer far more cheating possibilities than blackjack (assuming you’re dealing).

In any case, there’s a good chance the Phoenix lawmakers will do away with the whole gambling scene soon. I’ll keep you posted in these pages on developments as they occur. If you’re real sharp, and you’ve got a good sized bankroll, and a few big friends to escort you around town, you might want to check out Phoenix. It’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen in Nevada or New Jersey.

If you’re a casual player, stay home. This is no place for amateurs. If you’ve just got to see it to believe it, then check it out, but keep your wallet in your pocket. You’ll see some of the sharpest hustlers in the country cleaning the clocks of Phoenix locals night after night.

If you insist on playing, spend a few hours watching Steve Forte’s Gambling Protection Series (DVD 3 Set) on how to detect cheating moves before you hit the tables. You may not be able to see the moves, but it should add to your enjoyment of the games to know why you’re losing so consistently.

In the last week of October, Pigbait did a mini-survey of the action available in the Phoenix area. There are dozens of bars with one or two tables that he did not survey. Note that although there are no house rules, the smaller bars tend to develop an unwritten set of rules and procedures that the regular patrons agree on. If you try to deal a different game, you may have no one to deal to. ♠

• Angelo’s (E. Mesa): I table, 4-deck shoe dealt down to last 8-10 cards; double on any two cards; no insurance.
• Annie’s (Mill Ave., Tempe): 1-3 tables, 2-and 4-deck games; dealt face down: both double-down rules (dealer’s choice); dealer’s choice on insurance; limits 2-5, 2-20.
• Dancing Sunshines (32nd & McDowell, Phoenix): Open 24 hours; 2-3 tables; 2-decks; face up; no hand held deal (decks on table); no insurance; double 10-11 only; dealers almost always peek under any up card; limits 1-3, 1-5, 2-10, 2-20; any player may ask for the cards to be counted face up onto the table at any time to insure against short decks.
• J.J. McLinqus (University Ave., Tempe): 2 tables; I deck; hand held; dealer’s choice doubling; no insurance; limits 1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5,-10.
• Lester’s (Bell Rd., Phoenix): 3-4 tables; 1- or 2-deck; hand held; face down; both doubling rules; no insurance; limits 2-5, 2-10, 5-10, 5-20.
• Pool & Brew (32nd & Thomas, Phoenix): Open 24 hours; 2-3 tables; 2-decks; face up; no hand held dealing (decks on table, dealt with one hand); double 10-11; no insurance; dealer usually peeks under every up card; limits 2-5, 2-10, 5-50.
• Tommy’s Full House (Camelback Rd., Phoenix): 12 tables; 1-, 2-, and 4-deck; dealer’s choice on doubling rules and insurance; limits 2-5, 2-10, 2-20, 5-20, 2-50, 5-100.

Rebuttal to Snyder’s Review of Break the Dealer

by Jerry Patterson
(From Blackjack Forum VII #1, March 1987)
© 1987 Blackjack Forum

Patterson’s Remarks:

Arnold Snyder reviewed Break the Dealer — the new book coauthored by me and Eddie Olsen — in his latest blackjack newsletter (Blackjack Forum Vl #4). And he totally missed the major point — the most valuable piece of data in the entire book — game control techniques employed by the casinos and how much an understanding of them will work to the player’s advantage. It doesn’t matter whether or not he agrees with this data, he owed it to his readers to at least bring it to their attention.

You don’t need arithmetical proof that these techniques exist; all you need to do is open your eyes and observe what is going on at the blackjack tables. Further observation will tell you if the casino’s game control policies have any effect on your chances of winning or losing. This data will show you how to avoid casinos where your chances of winning are lessened, regardless of the strategies you use.

Snyder probably chose not to comment on these techniques because they can be verified without any complicated mathmetical (sic) formulas or computer simulation. Any ideas that cannot be neatly fit into a formula or a computer are, apparently, of no interest to him. Ninety percent of his comments were directed to the chapter on shuffle-tracking. Most of his criticism of this chapter boiled down to our ideas about cutting aces and low cards out of play to create more dealer breaking activity. He claimed that the ace is more useful to the player because of it’s (sic) impact on player blackjacks – which occur about once every 20 or 21 hands. Snyder does not accept the notion of a dealer breaking table. If he did, he would recognize the tremendous profit making power of a shoe where the dealer keeps breaking hand after hand and the players keep winning hand after hand. Who cares about getting blackjacks in a shoe like this – with a player advantage of 100% or more – a shoe where you start with $1000 and can leave with $2000 or more?

I’ve played in dealer breaking tables where I’ve bought in for $500 and left, 2-3 shoes later, with $5000 or more. And I didn’t get one blackjack during this entire duration! Few of the other players did either because the aces were not in play.

Snyder will argue that these are isolated events and not predictable, that luck is involved in being at these tables when the heavy winning action is occurring (sic). Not true! They are predictable. And their detection and prediction is the essence of the TARGET Method developed by Eddie Olsen and made available by me for over five years. Snyder has criticized this method since it’s inception because it doesn’t meet his preconceived notions of what a blackjack game is – a random shuffle dealing tens of millions of hands on a computer. Snyder keeps hoping that TARGET will go away, that if he keeps knocking it that somehow blackjack players will quit using it. There is a very simple reason why TARGET will not go away Arnold, and that is because it is a method that works for recreational players and serious players alike. There is no way that I could offer TARGET for sale to those blackjack players who seek me out if it didn’t work. I have been selling TARGET for five years and have always given a 21 day unconditional guarantee with every sale. And if the buyer wants more time to validate TARGET in the casino, I give it to him – no problem.

In your recent “sermon” (Blackjack Forum IV #4) you criticized “East Coast System Sellers” for marketing untested systems with no mathmetical (sic) basis and no computer verification. You, Arnold, are the one who is misleading the public (or at least your 1000 readers) with your apotheosis of card counting. The fact of the matter is, Arnold, that card counting just doesn’t work for the majority of card counters. They don’t understand standard deviation and what a statistical swing can mean to their bankroll with an advantage of little more that 1%. They know nothing and could care less about betting with the Kelly criterion. Long run? What’s that? To the majority of players it’s tonight’s session with maybe a few hundred bucks at most in their pockets. You and your other self appointed watchdogs are writing mainly to and for each other and to a small number of “blackjack freaks” who spend hundreds of hours at home practicing their “numbers” for every one hour they spend playing in the casinos.

To your other readers who hear about you through your advertising campaigns, you are giving them false hopes because your methods just don’t meet their needs in today’s world.

I am much more in tune with the needs of blackjack players in today’s environment than you will ever be. We get calls from hundreds of players over the course of a year. Many become TARGET Users. We follow up with these players in joint playing sessions in the casino, in periodic seminars, and in annual conventions – all at no additional cost. And outside of all of this follow-up, I get three or four calls a week from students who want to schedule a joint session. More often than not I do it. I enjoy doing this not only because it keeps my game sharp but also because it keeps me in tune with my students needs and up to date on how they’re doing.

A question for your readers: In his recent issue Arnold Snyder stated that he had 1000 readers and noted how hard he had worked over the last five years to build his subscription up to this level. Have you ever wondered why he publishes a newsletter? He charges $24 per year so his gross income is just $24,000. Subtract off his expenses and what does he make. $12,000? No more than $15,000. Why does he do it? The reason comes from page 5 of his last issue. “I’d like to thank all of my readers who continue to barrage me with letters, information, criticism, applause, etc. Believe me I’m a mail junkie and this feedback keeps me going.” Arnold Snyder is on an EGO trip. And his little mag satisfies his huge ego.

Eddie and I don’t work in Snyder’s random world; we work in the real world. And we play blackjack. We spend time in the casinos winning with our own methods. If Arnold Snyder was a winning player, would he spend as much time as he does on an ego trip? Why can’t he make 15 grand a year using his own methods? Either he’s a loser or his ego is even bigger than I think it is. ♠

[Note: Eddie Olsen, after receiving mathematical proof that the TARGET system was phony, dissociated himself from the TARGET system not long after this letter from Patterson was published. Olsen is now the publisher of the reputable newsletter, Blackjack Confidential, which focuses on blackjack tournament news.]

Why Even Phony Gambling Systems Get Testimonials

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum IX #2, June 1982)
© 1982 Blackjack Forum

On the last issue of Blackjack Forum, we published only three pages of “Letters,” due—as always—to our space limitations. I usually prepare a dozen pages of letters, then use what I have room for—usually five to ten pages. I’m always disappointed that those letters ready for publication miss the boat. Sometimes, I’ll save particularly interesting letters for a later issue. But more often than not, space limitations again get in the way.

I used to tell myself that one of these issues was going to be nothing but letters from cover to cover. No articles, no sermon, no casino conditions, no order form; just fifty pages of the letters that were left on the cutting room floor. It would probably be one of the most entertaining and educational issues of BJF ever.

I wish I could gather together and publish as a whole the scads of letters that contradict each other. That issue would have to be titled, “I Saw It With My Own Eyes!”

Some years back, in the same week, I received one letter from a player who had seen a successful application of Jerry Patterson’s TARGET system, and another letter from a player who had seen the failure of that system. The player who praised the system claimed he had seen a live exhibition of TARGET in action—in an Atlantic City casino!—by none other than Jerry Patterson himself, who had taken his new students into the field to demonstrate the efficacy of his strategy.

The player ended his missive by saying, “Jerry may not have computer simulation proof for TARGET, but he has tested it extensively in the casinos with teams of his own students. To me that’s more important. There are years of casino experience behind the TARGET system. The theory is solid. The casino shuffles are not random. That’s indisputable. It’s not like he’s selling some dopey craps system.”

The player who sent the letter that contradicted this viewpoint claimed he had been the record keeper on Jerry Patterson’s and Eddie Olsen’s first TARGET team a 6 month-long effort encompassing 17 players totaling more than 3000 hours of casino play. The outcome of this “successful” team, according to the computer printout which tallied the individual players’ results, was a win rate averaging $1.06 per hour.

An amusing postscript to these letters is the fact that Patterson is, in fact, now selling “…some dopey craps system.” If you’re on Jerry’s mailing list, you’ve probably received his latest flyers advertising his recent discoveries in craps and roulette. God only knows what kind of non-random streak theories are behind these brilliant strategies, but please don’t send them to me to analyze! I wouldn’t have believed Patterson would sink to these depths if I hadn’t seen his ad flyer with my own eyes!

A few direct quotes from Patterson’s flyers:

“The purpose of this letter is to convince you that you can win at craps and roulette. That a well-designed money management method can overcome the house advantage. And that after 10 years of research I have found the methods that will do just that….

The house advantage at craps is about 1.4% (if you only play the pass line taking full odds) and about 2.13% at roulette (if you only play the outside numbers). But, I have become convinced that a workable and well-designed money management system can overcome the house advantage. And that is what I am offering you….

A player makes his point and a round of cheers greets his win. The next point is established. A few more throws and he sevens out. Groans replace the cheers.” Meanwhile what are you doing at this table? You are quietly grinding out a profit. The other players are winning, losing, winning, losing.. but you are taking down units of profit in a very consistent fashion….

Are you beginning to get the idea? We are talking about a very disciplined approach to grinding out our profits…. We are content to grind out a profit. Table after table. Hour after hour….

At roulette we are exploiting a natural bias that occurs at every roulette table. And we are grinding out a profit at most tables. There are no table selection factors. You can use ROUGE ET COLONNE at any roulette table…

The (craps) Method does not give you a mathematical advantage over the casinos… Properly applied, however, it will give you a winning edge…. You may have one more question: If these methods are so good, why doesn’t everybody use them and drive the casinos out of business? Because the vast majority of casino players are gamblers who have no idea what discipline and money management are all about…

People are greedy and this is what the casinos play on — unadulterated greed. One final point bears repeating. I am not claiming to give you a mathematical advantage over the casino. I am claiming that, with the proper discipline and money management techniques, you can overcome the house advantage….”

Marvelous doublespeak! You can’t get “a mathematical advantage” (i.e., any mathematician would recognize these systems as baloney), but you can “overcome the house advantage” and get “a winning edge…” My favorite part of Jerry’s latest spiel is where he castigates other casino players for being “greedy.”

Many players fail to understand the theory behind progressive betting systems. It is not difficult to devise a methodical betting series that will win more often than it will lose even in negative expectation games.

The granddaddy of all such progressive systems, of course, is the Martingale—a system of immediately chasing every prior loss with your next bet. With this progression, it takes only one win to win your series, regardless of the number of prior losses. Technically, if you had an unlimited bankroll, and if you could find a casino with no limits on their maximum bets, the Martingale betting strategy would eventually beat any game offered. But those are big If’s.

Less radical progressive betting systems are generally methods of chasing your losses more slowly, stretching out the number of wins required to win your series. Such systems will fail less frequently than the Martingale due to bumping up against the maximum bet allowed.

The “safest” progressive betting system I’ve ever heard of is “Oscar’s System,” as detailed in Dr. Allan Wilson’s 1965 classic, The Casino Gambler’s Guide (now a collector’s item). Oscar was a guy who carried many thousands of dollars into the casinos, intent on winning only $1 per betting series at the craps tables, until his weekend’s play generated just a few hundred bucks – enough to cover his expenses.

He alleged to Dr. Wilson that in years of such play he had never gone home a loser! Could this be true?

Wilson contacted computer legend Julian Braun, who ran the whole thing through his computer for some two million pass line decisions. Braun’s computer results indicated that Oscar may well have been telling the truth, as the computer “lost” only one out of every 4,250 betting sequences – due to bumping up against the $500 maximum bet allowed, requiring the progression to be abandoned.

Most instructive about this simulation, however, was the total amount that was lost on these rare losing series, compared to the total amount won on the winning series. For the complete run, the system showed a net loss on the abandoned losing sequences of $548,000 or about 1.46% of the total $40 million wagered! As Wilson sums it up, “…This figure is remarkably close to the theoretical (house) edge of 1.414 percent.”

Statistically, if you send lots of players into the casinos with big bankrolls and Oscar’s system, dozens of them will go home having won a few hundred bucks for every one that will go home without his shirt. Each winning sequence nets $1. The average loss on an abandoned sequence, however, according to Braun’s computer run, is $13,100! In effect, one player, the “unlucky” statistical inevitability, is paying all of the other players’ winnings, plus paying the house their preordained edge.

Players who base their strategies on what they’ve seen with their own eyes are the casinos’ bread and butter. Allan Wilson and Julian Braun demonstrated this 25 years ago! Yet, I get dozens of letters every year from players who believe in progressive betting systems, based on their short term results.

To all of them I say, “Buy Allan Wilson’s book. Read Chapter Sixteen.”

Just because you’ve seen something with you own eyes doesn’t mean you’ve seen everything. ♠