Posted on by — Leave a comment

Blackjack Luck

It’s the Big Winner’s Secret Ingredient

by Howard Grossman

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. II, #1, March 1982)
© Blackjack Forum 1982, 2013

[Note from Arnold Snyder: Howard Grossman, founder of the Las Vegas Blackjack Academy, a school for card counters, played high stakes blackjack professionally for many years. An original teammate of Ken Uston’s, he jumped the fence in the early 1980s to work for Las Vegas casinos as a card-counter catcher.]

Despite all of the lengthy discussions and the numerous books on the virtues of card counting, one and only one thing has started more big winners on the road to success—LUCK! Now I’m not saying card counting doesn’t work, or that blackjack can’t be beaten (Ugh! Heaven forbid!) What I’m saying is that most, if not all, big winners owe Lady Luck a big thanks for their success.

Let’s face it. People learn to count cards to make money and usually want to go from rags to riches. They start with meager bankrolls and most will never make enough to payt expenses, let alone keep expanding their bankrolls. Many technically fine players will meet with early bad fluctuations, or they will not make enough money to make the hassle of playing blackjack for profit worthwhile.

I’ve found most big winners (including myself) did a “little” overbetting at the beginning, and received the blessing of good upwward fluctuations. With this initial good fortune, combined with fine blackjack skill, and eventually the knowledge of proper bet-sizing, a few “lucky” people have become big winners.

Now, armed with an adequate bankroll, a good player—through experiences from playing and reading good material—can consistently make fairly huge sums of money. A big winner learns to accept his losses (without hurting his ego), and more importantly, knows when it’s ripe to win large sums at one sitting.

He chooses a profitable game, puts on a good act, and realizes that the casino has pegged him as a temporarily lucky sucker. He doesn’t worry about the fact that he’s winning a lot of money and could easily lose it back. He has the advantage; he keeps pressing; he goes in for the kill.

To sum it up, a big winner must believe in his ability, really believe blackjack can be beaten, and never give the casinos an even chance. Blackjack is not an easy way of life, especially if you want to make some real money at it.

Snyder Comments: More than one blackjack pro have told me they are glad they’d never read my books when they started out, or they never would have tried card counting for profit. They started with small bankrolls, grossly overbet, and as luck would have it, soon had large bankrolls and a new way of life.

I won’t advise this. Many more players have told me that it wasn’t until they’d read decent advice on bet-sizing that they realized why they’d sometimes suffered such great losses, including total wipe-outs. Were the casinos cheating? Was their system no good? Were they actually terrible players? No, they were simply experiencing normal fluctuations.

How lucky for those few players who experience normal fluctuations early in their careers in a consistently profitable direction! One professional player told me he’d increased his initial $2000 bankroll to more than $50,000 in a single month. Sometime later he learned a bit of math, and calculated that he’d only had about one chance in a hundred of doing what he’d done.

“It hit me,” he said, “that for every lucky stiff like me, somewhere out there were 99 other players who’d quit or gone broke trying to do what I’d done.” ♠

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Casinos in South America

Casinos and Blackjack in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Paraguay

By RK
(From Blackjack Forum XXIV #3, Summer 2005)
© Blackjack Forum 2005

[Note from Arnold Snyder: I want to thank RK, a long-time Blackjack Forum subscriber and trustworthy reporter, for this report.]

[Note from R.K.: For me it is really a pleasure to share this information with you. The information on Argentina and Uruguay is most up-to-date, as I do most of my play there.]

Casinos and Blackjack in Argentina

Argentina has 71 casinos, some government owned and some privately owned. As you may know, the main game here is roulette (single zero) and punto y banca (baccarat). 

Blackjack was introduced in Argentina in 1980, with some weird rules, so it is a relatively new game here. But blackjack is growing in popularity in South America, especially with young people. 

Until the end of the 90´s the main casino in Argentina was the old Casino Central in Mar del Plata, on the Atlantic Coast (government owned then and now). It was opened in 1939 as a temple for all the gamblers in Argentina—a big place with a wonderful view of the sea. It’s a big casino with 103 roulette tables, 50 Punto y Banca tables, 20 blackjack tables and 2 craps tables too. And, of course, you will find plenty of slot machines. 

In summertime about 25,000 people gamble there every day. 

At the end of the 90´s a casino was opened in Buenos Aires (the capital of Argentina) after a long-awaited bill, and all the gamblers started to make long lines waiting for the opening of the casino each day. For the owners, it was a like a gold mine. 

This casino is a riverboat owned by the Spanish Cirsa Corporation (which also owns a lot of casinos in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia and other third-world places). Open 24 hours a day now, the casino is a 5-minute drive from downtown. It’s a big boat with four levels—the first one full of slots, the other ones filled with table games. As at other South American casinos, the main game here is single zero roulette. After that comes baccarat (punto y banca). The boat has 28 blackjack tables. 

The rules are 6 decks with 75% penetration (sometimes better), face-up games, ENHC, DOA, DAS, resplit aces 4 times. The limits are in local currency (1 dollar = 3 pesos) with various tables at 10-200 and 25-500. Only five tables are shoes, the others are 4-deck CSM’s.

One floor is for dollar play, with four tables (just one non-CSM)—there the limits are 5-100 (early in the morning) and 10-200 later. A high roller pit is also open (with play in dollars only) with three blackjack tables, all non-CSM shoes, and with limits of 25-500, 50-1000 and 100-2000. The heat is very low—of course, if you bet BIG, they will watch you, but mainly for security reasons. The PC’s are young people. Penetration is worse today, and sometimes they only put 60% of the cards in play. No tips are allowed there. 

The other casino is in Tigre (Provincia of Buenos Aires), a 25-minute highway drive from downtown. This casino is in a big building with three floors, of which two are full of slots (almost 2000 machines). On the third floor are the table games. The state is the owner of this casino, and the employees only want your tips (this is the main point).

The 16 blackjack tables are in the blackjack pit, where the limits are 10-400 and 20-600 (all in pesos). The rules are 8 decks, face up game, double 10 &11 only, no resplits, a push on a blackjack wins a player 50% of his bet, and if you get 10s on aces after splitting it counts as a natural and pays 3 to 2 (the same for when you split 10’s and get aces on them).

The penetration here is 83% and sometimes better (dealer discretion). But the best thing is it is fine to bet min to max if you want—the dealers and floormen will cheer with you if you tip them.  

The Provincia of Buenos Aires has 10 more casinos, some medium and the one big one (Mar del Plata) on the Atlantic, all with the same rules. 

Other states in Argentina have casinos too, including the Provincia of Entre Rios (200 miles from Buenos Aires), which has five casinos, all with blackjack. These are the rules: 6 decks, ENHC, double 10 & 11 only, no resplit of pairs, unlimited draw on split aces and one unusual rule: If your first card is an ace (face up games), you can place an additional bet on YOUR hand for half of your bet, and if YOU receive a blackjack, not only is this additional bet paid 2 to 1, but you also get the full payoff on your natural of 3 to 2.

No regular insurance (against a deaker blackjack) is allowed. Regarding penetration: The dealer deals down to the last 20-30 cards of the shoe. Limits are 5-200 (in pesos), and you may play all the spots you want. 

Other casinos in the country have standard strip rules with ES10 (Corrientes Casino and Salta Casino in the North of the country), but low limits. In the South, good rules can be found in Bariloche with ES against any card (limits 5-300). I was there one year ago, and found the PC’s were people with zero experience in blackjack. Also in the South, on the Atlantic Coast, are a few other casinos, some with good rules like ES, as well as good penetration, but low limits. 

Another nice place that I recommend is Iguazu Falls, in the three borders zone (Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay) 1000 miles from Buenos Aires. The show of the water falling is incredible, and there is also a casino (!!) with standard strip rules plus LS. All the play here is in American dollars.  

Casinos and Blackjack in Uruguay

Okay, Argentina has lots of casinos, but Uruguay is good too. In front of Buenos Aires is Colonia (Uruguay) where there is a small lovely casino with two blackjack tables. The rules are 6 decks, dealer takes a hole card but all bets lost when the dealer has a blackjack, DOA , DAS, resplit up to 6 times (aces too), you can hit your split and resplit aces, and if you get 10’s on them it’s a full-pay blackjack (same for split and resplit tens).

The penetration is 75% (sometimes better). The limits are in dollars (5-60), but you can arrange a higher max.

The national government is the owner of six or seven casinos in Uruguay. In Punta del Este (a beach for the rich people on the Atlantic shore) are three casinos. The biggest is the Conrad casino (the only private casino in the country)—a big casino with plenty of high rollers.

The rules there are standard strip rules, with penetration around 75%. All play is in American dollars, with limits from 5-500 to 100-5000 (or more). Here the pit does know about card counting, beware. The other two casinos have the same rules but better limits. Again, play is in American dollars. A few weeks ago I visited Punta del Este and found that the two government-owned casinos, trying to compete with the Conrad casino, had installed ES on their blackjack tables. This rule is still in effect. 

Casinos and Blackjack in Chile

It’s been two years since I’ve played in Chile, but I found good rules. The state is owner of these five casinos. Even if you’re there to play blackjack, you might want to visit Pucon (Chile), a beautiful and pleasant place where you can drive across the Andes.

There’s also a nice casino there. They have DA2, ES10, hole card, but no DAS. The limits are up to 800USD on the weekends. They play in Chilean pesos and the exchange rate is very bad in the casino. Be sure to exchange your money in Banco del Estado before 2 p.m. when they close. The other casinos are on the Pacific coast, in cities like Viña del mar, La Serena and Arica.  

Casinos and Blackjack in Paraguay

Paraguay has four or five casinos too, with two of them in Asuncion, the capital city. There are low limits there. The rules are D9, DAS, ES10, and the penetration is 80% or better. ♠ 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Think You’re an Expert?

A Puzzle for Blackjack Players

by Arnold Snyder

(Blackjack Forum Vol. III #1, March 1983)
© Blackjack Forum 1983

I’ve got some puzzles here for true blackjack fanatics. If you like working on puzzles, give them a try before looking at the answers. Some of these may take a while to work out, but all of them can be solved with just the data provided. (You don’t have to refer to any other blackjack books.)

If you have an intriguing blackjack puzzle, send it in to Blackjack Forum (along with the solution), and if it’s a good one, I’ll publish it. If enough puzzle-freaks are out there, we may make this a regular feature.

1. You are playing on a team with two other counters. You are sitting in the third base position. Your teammates are occupying two seats to your right at the same table. You are the Big Player, and currently have a table limit $1000 bet on the last spot. Your teammates are covering the other six spots with $10 bets. One of your teammates is keeping the Hi-Lo Count, and passes his running count to you with a secret signal. You generally use this information to size your bets. (The Hi-Lo Count values 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s, as +1, and counts 10s and As as -1.) Your other teammate is keeping the Roberts unbalanced ten-count (which counts all non-tens, including aces, as +1, and counts 10s as -2). He also signals his running count to you, which you are generally only using to make perfect insurance decisions. Since he is starting his count at 0, you insure whenever his running count is greater than +4. Your job is to count the exact number of cards played, and to keep a side-count of aces. In this way, you can ace-adjust the Hi-Lo Count for more optimal playing decisions, with an exact true count.

The game you are playing is a single-deck game with Vegas Strip Rules and late surrender. Because your two teammates had split and resplit pairs on three of their second-round hands, by the time the dealer gets to you, there are only 6 cards which have not been played, including the burn card, the bottom card, and the dealer’s hole card. There are no remaining aces. You are holding a pair of 6s vs. a dealer 8. You look to the Hi-Lo counter, and he signals you that his running count is 0. The unbalanced ten-counter signals you that his running count is -2. Should you stand? Hit? Double? Split? or Surrender?

2. After years of studying a Las Vegas dealer, you have finally figured out her tell. (A “tell” is a mannerism which a dealer might unconsciously display after checking her hole card, which would indicate to the aware player whether the dealer was pat or stiff.) To your great joy, the tell is 100% dependable. To your dismay, it requires a new counting system to decode. The dealer wears an uncomfortable pair of contact lenses. Her eyes are often blinking and squinting uncontrollably. What you have discovered is that she will indicate whether she is pat or stiff, after checking her hole card, according to whether her left eye or her right eye is twitch indicating the prediction, however, is the fact thatwith every card she deals, she reverses her “indicator”.hus, if her left eye is indicating pat, and her right eye isindicating stiff, and any odd number of cards are dealt fromthe deck, her left eye would now indicate stiff, and her righteye would indicate pat. If an even number of cards are dealtfrom the deck between n tells”, however, then the left and right indicators remain the same as for the last prediction.You are the only player at the table. You have been dealt a pair of tens vs. her upcard of a ten. You watch for her tell, and soon the twitching in her left eye indicates that she is stiff. You split and resplit your tens, until you have four hands, consisting of 10-5, 10-8, 10-7, and 10-2. She turns up her down-card, a 5, and hits it with a 4, thus beating all four of your hands. Noting that you had $500 bet on every hand, the pit boss romps you to dinner. The dealer gathers the cards and without reshuffling, deals another round. This time, you receive a pair of 7s, vs. her upward of 9. Her right eye is twitching. What is your best play?

3. On page 68 of Lawrence Revere’s Playing Blackjack As A Business, Revere provides a chart of “The Fine Points of Basic Strategy.. Based on Julian Braun’s computer analyses of the optimum basic strategy decisions for single-deck play, Revere advises that although the correct basic strategy is to hit 12 vs. a dealer 3, you would be better off to stand on 12 vs. 3, if two of your cards are: A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8, or 5-7. Instead of memorizing these 14 pairs, what simple rule could be substituted, which, if followed, would enable you to play in 100% agreement with Revere’s advice. Note: there are 58 possible combinations of cards which would make up a hand totaling hard 12. Your simplified rule would advise you to stand with and only with the exact same combinations of cards as if you were following Revere’s rule, and using his 14 pairs to make decisions.

4. A new game has just opened up on the Vegas Strip: Blackjacarat. In this game, all rules are exactly the same as in standard, single-deck, Vegas Strip blackjack, except that you may place your bet on either the player’s or the dealer’s hand. Note: since all other rules are the same, house rules are followed in playing the dealer’s hand, even when your money is bet on the dealer’s hand. Likewise, you make all decisions on the player’s hand, regardless of where your money is bet. You estimate that in the standard Strip game you can get an edge of about 1% over the house from card counting with a 1-to-3 spread. Approximately what kind of an edge could you get in Blackjacarat using the optimum strategy, and the same spread? a) 2% b) 4% c)50% d)100%

5. You discover that a certain dealer, due to his highly mechanized shuffle, always has the cards in a predictable order. If you can determine the pattern of the cards, you will always know the next card to be dealt. What card will be dealt next after this sequence: K, 10, 9, J, Q, J, 8, Q, J, Q, 7, K?

Solutions

1. You know that there are only 6 cards remaining, since you are counting the exact number of cards played. If your teammate who is keeping the unbalanced ten-count is accurate in signaling that his running count is -2, then you know that all remaining cards must be non-tens. (This count system will always end at a running count of +4 if you count down a full deck. Only 6 non-tens, valued at +1 each, could bring about this result.) Since you are keeping a side-count of aces, and you know that all 4 aces have been played, then all remaining cards can only be 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, as, or 9s. Since the Hi-Lo counter has signalled you that his running count is 0, and you know that no tens or aces are remaining, then all remaining cards must be valued at 0 in the Hi-Lo count system. You cannot have any Hi-Lo plus-valued cards remaining, or the Hi-Lo running count would not equal 0. Therefore, you know that all six remaining cards, including the dealer’s hole card, are 7s, 8s or 9s. Since your hand totals hard 12, any hit you take will have to give you a total of 19, 20, or 21. Since the dealer has an 8 up, and either a 7, or 8, or 9 in the hole, he will either have a pat 17 (8-9), or he will be stiff, take a hit, and bust. You cannot lose this hand if you take just one card, so your correct play is to double down.

2. Since the dealer’s up-card is a 9, the dealer will not check her hole card. (Hole cards are checked only when the dealer has a 10 or Ace, remember?) No dealer can give a tell, if she does not know what her hole card is, so your best play is to hit.

3. If you examine all possibilities, the first thing you would discover is that it is virtually impossible to hold any combination of cards totaling hard 12, which contains either a 4 or a 5, without also containing one of Revere’s 14 listed pairs. Since 10 of Revere’s pairs contain a 4 or a 5 (or both), you can eliminate all 10 of these pairs with the simple rule: Stand on 12 vs. 3 if any one of your cards is a 4 or 5. The next thing you would notice is that of the 4 remaining pairs, any combination of cards which would contain any one of these pairs, and equal 12, would contain one of two of the 4 remaining pairs: A-3, or 2-6. Thus, the simplified rule would be: Stand on 12 vs. 3 if two of your cards are A-3 or 2-6, or if one of your cards is a 4 or 5.

4. d) Your optimum strategy in Blackjacarat, as described, would be to place all bets on the dealer’s hand, then continue to hit every player hand, including naturals, until you busted. This would give you an advantage of 100% over the house. Experts may employ a few fine points of basic strategy, such as splitting and resplitting all pairs, then hitting all of these hands until they busted. The one exception would be that you would never split aces, since these hands would draw only one card each, often resulting in a player win. You could increase your 5-per-hour win rate by employing a number of sophisticated double-down strategies. While it would be profitable to double down on hard hands of 12 through 20 vs. any dealer up-card, these plays would lower your win rate to slightly under 100%, since the player would occasionally win. But we’ll get into these fine points of play as soon as Vegas World offers a version of this game.

5. The pattern here becomes obvious if you list the cards in sets of four, then read down the columns. The next card to be dealt is a 10:
K, 10, 9, J,
Q, J, 8, Q,
J, Q, 7, K,
?

Scoring

Give yourself 20% for each correct answer. No partial credit. If you scored:

100%: Perfect! You are indeed a blackjack expert. You’d be a welcome addition to any professional team . . . as long as you didn’t cheat!

80%: You’re far above average in your dedication to, and comprehension of, blackjack in particular and puzzles in general. You’d probably be a millionaire if you weren’t so obsessed with this game. Don’t you have anything better to do with your brilliant mind?

60%: This score may have flunked you in high school, but in this test it’s a good, solid pass. But don’t gloat. You just made it, bub.

40%: Yeah, but can you count cards? I mean, hey, so you didn’t have the time to spend on this silly test. After reading the answers you knew you would have gotten them all correct if you just would have put your mind to it, right? Right?

20%: Your subscription to Blackjack Forum is hereby cancelled. You must donate S100 to the First Church of Blackjack to reinstate your subscription.

0%: I hear they’re hiring pit bosses for the $2 games in Fargo, North Dakota. Send for an application form. You qualify. ♠

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Blackjack Dealer Was Flashing

Hole Card Tips for Beginners

By Arnold Snyder
(From Card Player, July 28, 1995)
© 1995 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Reader: Last week, the blackjack dealer against whom I was playing kept flashing her hole card in my direction. She wasn’t doing it on purpose; it was just the way she angled the hole card up as she slid it beneath her other card.

The only time that I could really tell what she had with certainty was when it was a facecard, because of all the colors. Most of my other reads were wrong.

I took insurance once when I thought that I saw an ace, but it turned out to be a three. I also mistook a five for an eight or nine once, and hit a hand that I really should have sttod on (thinking that she had a pat hand).

Probably the weirdest play I made was when I hit a hard 17 (and busted, of course), but it was the right play because I definitely saw a face card go underneath her nine up. One of the other players at the table got up and left when I took that hit!

I played against her for about two hours, and pretty much broke even. My bad plays due to my incorrect reads canceled out what I made from my good plays, when I clearly saw the face card.

I’m tempted to look for this dealer again very soon, but my reading ability leaves much to be desired. Do you have any suggestions on how I could take advantage of her more profitably? Also, are you sure this isn’t cheating? Could I be arrested for playing this way?

Answer from Arnold Snyder: Ever since blackjack has been played in casinos, sloppy dealers like the one you found have been taken advantage of by smart players. Professional gamblers refer to this type of dealer as a “front loader”, because the hole card is loaded beneath the upcard from the front by tipping the card up toward the player at the middle of the table. Dealers can also tip the card to either side at some point before loading it beneath the top card.

Dealers are taught specifically not to tilt their hole cards in this manner, or to shield the card with a hand during loading, precisely because a smart player can get a big edge if he or she knows what to do with such information. The precise edge available depends on what percentage of the time you’re able to read the hole card, how accurately you’re able to read it, how well you know what to do with the info, and how much you are willing to vary your playing strategy to take advantage of the info.

James Grosjean has run extensive analyses to figure out the best way to play hole card information under various degrees of certainty about your read. Much of his analysis is available in his book Beyond Counting. In addition, Norm Wattenberger’s Casino Verite software now has the ability to run extensive hole card simulations.

Other authors who have written extensively about hole card strategies are Stanford Wong, in his 1978 book Winning Without Counting, and Ken Uston in his 1981 book Million Dollar Blackjack.

If you run into a dealer who is flashing his hole card, and you haven’t had a chance yet to study all the nuances of proper strategy, here is a simple emergency strategy to use.

Down and Dirty Emergency Hole Card Strategy

First, forget normal basic strategy. You’re no longer basing your play on the dealer’s upcard. You’re basing your play on the total of the dealer’s hand, which you always assume (for playing purposes) will get hit with a ten if the dealer needs to hit.

If you know that the dealer is going to be standing, it should be clear to you, based on both your total and hers, what you should be doing with your hand. The only question is whether you think it’s wise to hit a hard 17 or higher.

If you know the dealer is stiff, you should definitely stand on all your stiffs, even if his upcard is a ten. The hand total is all that matters.

Also, if the dealer is stiff, you should double down and split pairs more frequently. You want to get more money on the table when the dealer is more likely to bust. If you can get away with splitting tens, do it. Double down on all soft totals.

If you know the dealer’s hand totals 7 to 11, you should hit your stiffs regardless of his upcard.

Again, this is a simple emergency strategy for when you run into a flasher but aren’t prepared. If you have ambitions to play blackjack hole cards professionally, you’ll need all the information you can get from the above-listed books.

And there is one more thing you should know if you’re going to try to take advantage of a hole card flasher–if the dealer can see you watching for the flash, she is going to very quickly correct her mistake herself.

Is Blackjack Hole Card Play Legal?

As long as you are merely taking advantage of the dealer’s natural sloppiness, and are not colluding with the dealer to flash her hole card to you (that is, paying her to show it to you), you are not cheating. [For comments on this issue from an attorney, see Blackjack Hole Card Play and the Law: Is Spooking Legal?, in the BJF Library.]

The danger of using hole card strategies, however, is that the weird plays you make might cause the casino to believe that you are colluding with the dealer. For a better idea of what can happen when a casino believes you’re cheating, even when you’re not, see James Grosjean’s article A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, as well as Richard Munchkin’s Interview with RC (RC is one of the all-time great hole-card players).

What To Do When You’re Not Sure of Your Read

It’s a lot more difficult to find flashers these days than it used to be, because casinos are much more aware of the professional players who specialize in these games. That actually tends to work out to the benefit of professional players, who have the skills to read more difficult flashes. More subtle flashes mean the pros can exploit these games a lot longer, as the casino tends not to find subtle dealer error as quickly.

Professional players are able to deal with more difficult flashes because they have spent so many hours dealing with this sort of thing. Like anything else, you get better with practice. I have a hole card practice device in my office that I’ve shared with various players that increases your skill more rapidly–it’s essentially a card funnel attached to a viewer, which you use to flash cards past your field of vision as fast as you can handle.

But even professional players often have to make decisions with less-than-perfectly-clear information. You may have to base your playing decision on an impression of massed pips on the cards, rather than a few pips surrounded by a lot of white space, for example. Again, consult the texts recommended above for what to do with imperfect information.

The one thing you want to be sure not to do is just guess. If you really have no idea what the hole card is except when it’s a face card, then you’d be better off sticking with basic strategy unless you read a face card in the hole. It can be extremely costly to violate basic strategy on uninformed guesses.

Also, do not be surprised if this flashing dealer does not flash her hole card by the time you return to play against her. My guess is that if she was obvious enough for a beginner to play, the casino will figure it out pretty quickly and coach him on his mistake. ♠

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Hole Card Techniques and the Law

Is Spooking Legal?

By Arnold Snyder (With comments by Stephen R. Minagil, Attorney at Law)
(From Blackjack Forum VII #2, June 1987)
© Blackjack Forum 1987

As reported previously in Blackjack Forum (Vol. V #3), on December 18, 1984, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada ruled conclusively that certain types of hole-card play are legal at Nevada’s casino blackjack tables. The specific hole-card case they ruled on was the State of Nevada vs. Einbinder and Dalben.

Steven Einbinder and Tony Dalben are professional gamblers who had been arrested at the Golden Nugget Casino in downtown Las Vegas on November 22, 1983, and charged with violating the State’s cheating statutes. Specifically, they were observed and videotaped to be playing in a manner whereby Dalben sat in the first base position at a blackjack table, placing table-minimum bets, from where he was apparently able to view the dealer’s hole card whenever the dealer checked under an ace or ten for a possible blackjack.

The videotaped evidence supported the State’s claim that Dalben was then signaling this hole card information to Einbinder, who sat on the third base side of the table placing bets of up to $700 per hand. The State claimed that Einbinder was playing his hand according to the hole-card information signalled to him by Dalben.

A few definitions of some of the various types of hole card play that might be affected by this case:

“First Basing” Hole Card Play

This is precisely the type of blackjack hole-card play described above, as engaged in by Einbinder and Dalben.

“Front-loading” Hole Card Play

This is a type of play in which a player views the dealer’s hole card, not when the dealer checks for a blackjack, but when the dealer “loads” the hole-card beneath his up-card. This type of blackjack play is made possible by a dealer who tips the card up towards the players to slide it beneath his up-card, and a player who is either short, or slouching at the table, such that his eye-level is low enough to read the value of the card.

“Spooking” Hole Card Play

This is a play where the player has an agent — a “spook” — positioned behind the dealer, most often seated at another blackjack table on the other side of the pit, which enables the agent to view the dealer’s hole-card when the dealer checks for a blackjack. [Note from Arnold Snyder: If you watch the movie Casino, the players who got backroomed by Ace Rothstein were spooking.]

The “spook” then signals the player at the table with the hole card information, so that the player may play his hand accordingly. Another type of spooking employs an agent in front of the dealer, but far enough away from the table so that his angle of viewing allows him to see the dealer’s hole card as per typical front-loading, except that this type of play requires yet another agent to signal the player or players at the table of the hole-card value.

The Las Vegas District Court where Einbinder and Dalben were tried found them not guilty, based on the fact that it was the dealer’s sloppy dealing style that enabled them to obtain an advantage over the house. The players were merely using their powers of observation to obtain information that would have been available to any player in Dalben’s seat.

The State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, and the not guilty verdict was ultimately upheld on the appeal.

Tony Dalben was kind enough to send me complete transcripts of the court proceedings. I’ve been studying these transcripts for some months now — 133 pages in total — to determine exactly what the Nevada Supreme Court found to be legal.

The actual order from the Supreme Court dismissing the State’s appeal is brief and to the point:

Respondents were charged with cheating at gambling and other related felonies. The facts of the alleged offenses were essentially undisputed In particular, the evidence showed that respondent Dalben was lawfully seated at his position at the blackjack table, that he did not use any artificial device to aid his vision, and that he was able to see the dealer’s “hole” card solely because of the admittedly “sloppy” play of the dealer. Respondent Dalben then communicated his information to respondent Einbinder. The district court ruled that respondents’ conduct did not constitute a violation of the cheating statutes. We agree.

Cheating is defined as the alteration of the selection of criteria which determine the result of a game or the amount or frequency of payment. NRS 465.083, see Sheriff v. Martin, 99 Nev.. 336, 662, P.2d 634 (1983). We have considered the briefs and the record, and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel. We conclude that in this case the district court correctly found that respondents’ conduct did not constitute cheating at gambling. Accordingly, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

This decision indicates that the Supreme Court considered it significant that Dalben “did not use any artificial device to aid his vision, and that he was able to see the dealer’s ‘hole’ card solely because of the admittedly ‘sloppy’ play of the dealer.” (emphasis added).

This wording of the decision explains in part why the Nevada Supreme Court may have been prejudiced against Taft and Weatherford (Blackjack Forum VI # 1), who were convicted of using a video device to view the dealer’s hole card — though I still believe that Taft and Weatherford should have been found not guilty. At the time of their “crime,” April 1, 1984, Nevada had no anti-device law, they were not touching or in any way altering the cards and their potential advantage was also derived from sloppy dealers.

At the time the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the district court conviction of Taft and Weatherford, January 28, 1986, I had not seen the transcripts for the Einbinder/Dalben trial. I was unaware of the fact that the Supreme Court had specifically mentioned that no “artificial device” had been used by Einbinder and Dalben. I can see now the difficulty this must have posed to Taft’s and Weatherford’s attorneys in defending their clients. The Einbinder/Dalben decision may have provided only weak support, if any, for hole card play as practiced by Taft and Weatherford.

Prior to receiving materials from Tony Dalben, I was also unaware of the fact that Taft’s attorney — John Curtas — and Weatherford’s attorney — Stephen Minagil — were the same attorneys who had initially represented Einbinder and Dalben, respectively. And although Curtas and Minagil were dismissed from the case prior to the final decision, it is apparent from the preliminary hearing transcript that their arguments in the Einbinder/Dalben case were what ultimately won this case for the defendants.

My criticism of Curtas and Minagil (Blackjack Forum Vl #1) for not defending Taft and Weatherford on the basis of the Einbinder/Dalben decision was short-sighted. It’s apparent to me now why Curtas’ and Minigal’s defense of Taft and Weatherford was a brand new ball game.

So, does the Supreme Court’s decision in the Einbinder/Dalben case protect hole card players other than “firstbasers”?

Does it protect “front-loaders?”

Does it protect “spooks?”

The Supreme Court decision does not directly refer to spooking, but direct reference to this playing style was made during the District Court preliminary hearing, the transcript of which the Supreme Court used to form their decision. The date of this hearing was February 17, 1984, and at that time Tony Dalben was being represented by Las Vegas Attorney Stephen R. Minagil.

On page 48-49 of the court transcript, Minagil is arguing for his client’s defense:

Minagil: ” . . . I would use the analogy that two people, a husband and wife, maybe unsophisticated in gambling, and the husband is standing next to the wife and turns to her and says, ‘Gee, I saw she had a ten. Maybe we shouldn’t hit this one.’ Is that cheating?”

Court: “We don’t have a husband and wife here that we know about. Let’s say someone is sitting on the other side of the pit, slouched down in the chair and when the dealer looked at the dealer’s card, the person sitting there could see the card and the person flashed the signal to the person. Is that cheating?”

Minagil: “I think so in that you have a person behind the table. That would be cheating. But these gentlemen, they sat where they are supposed to sit. They didn’t use devices. And this dealer made a mistake.”

Does this reference in the hearing transcript make it ill-advised for a player arrested for spooking to cite this Supreme Court decision as a legal defense of his action? Nowhere does the Nevada Supreme Court state that having an agent behind the dealer is illegal. And it could certainly be argued that such an agent, like Tony Dalben, might be “lawfully seated at his position” — albeit at a different table from the dealer, and that such an agent may be using no devices other than his powers of observation.

It seems to me that a “front-loader,” who obtains his information to play his own hand, or to signal information to another player or players at his table, would likely be protected by the Einbinder/Dalben decision, assuming no “devices” — mirrors, “shiners,” video, etc. — were being used to obtain hole-card information.

A front-loader who was not seated at the table, however, acting as a “spook,” could be a different story. What about a front-loader who is seated at the table, but who is obviously slouching, or laying his head on the table to peek at the dealer’s hole card? Part of the testimony considered by the Nevada Supreme Court, from the same hearing transcript, contained this line of questioning of Golden Nugget Director of Surveillance, William McDonnell (p. 34-35):

Minagil: “Mr. Dalben, who I believe you testified was sitting at the first base position, to observe the hole card of the dealer, he just sat there, didn’t he?”

McDonnell: “That’s correct.”

Minagil: “He didn’t get up and make any physical movement to peak at the card, did he?”

McDonnell: “Not on this occasion, no.”

Minagil: “All he was using was the power of observation; is that right?”

McDonnell: “That’s correct.”

Minagil: “You’re not aware of any rule that requires players to look away from the dealer when she’s looking at the hole card, are you?”

McDonnell: “No.”

Minagil: “So it’s the dealer’s responsibility to shield that hole card, is it not?”

McDonnell: “That’s correct.”

Minagil: “And if the dealer allows a player to see a hole card, she’s making a mistake; is she not?”

McDonnell: Yes.”

I called Dalben’s former attorney, Stephen Minagil, and asked him, as a Nevada attorney, exactly how he would expect the courts to interpret the Supreme Court’s Einbinder/Dalben decision, and just what obstacles this decision might present to an attorney who had to defend a player who was arrested for either spooking or front-loading.

I taped Minagil’s response, and have transcribed it here with his permission:

Steven Minagil: I’m concerned that there is not much protection provided by the Einbinder/Dalben decision with regards to “spooking,” i.e., employing agents not at the table. Each decision rendered by the Supreme Court is limited to its facts. In the Einbinder/Dalben decision the facts were that they were lawfully seated at the table and used no artificial devices to aid their vision. I believe those are the key facts upon which the decision is based.

I see the Court making a distinction between those facts and a situation where a person is assisting a player, and the assisting person is not at the table. I’m concerned that the Court would use the rationale of Taft and Weatherford, wherein they said that using the equipment put the player in a position of superior knowledge, and therefore altered crucial characteristics of the game.

As to “front-loading,” that is a person you have defined as obviously slouching or laying his head on the table to feign drunkeness, etc., in order to see the dealer’s hole-card. That is a tougher question. Even though one is obviously slouching, I believe that those facts are within the parameters of Einbinder and Dalben, because that person would be lawfully sitting at the table and not using artificial devices.

I’m concerned about a court still using the rationale of Taft and Weatherford, that is, by doing something in addition to merely sitting and playing, that the player is placed in a position of superior knowledge, thereby altering the crucial characteristics of the game. But I think the front-loading question is a lot tougher, that is, that the possibility of the Einbinder/Dalben decision applying to front-loading is greater.

I have a real problem with the spooking example, but not so much with the front-loading example. I think the defense counsel would have a much easier time in getting the Court to sit down and think about applying the Einbinder decision in a front-loading situation than in a spooking situation.

So, if you’re under the impression that the Einbinder/Dalben decision protects you as a hole-card player, be aware of the limitations of that protection. Cheating is a felony in Nevada. Don’t take unnecessary chances. ♠

[Note from Arnold Snyder: There have been significant court cases regarding blackjack hole card play since this article was written, and each has increased the case for the legality of hole card play when the player is merely taking advantage of a sloppy dealer.

See Interview with Bob Nersesian, (the attorney who represented James Grosjean and his playing partner in their case against Caesars and the Griffin Agency, as well as Interview with the Legendary Hole Card Player RC.]

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Interview with Bob Nersesian

An Attorney Fights Casino Abuse of Professional Gamblers in the Nevada Courts and Wins

by Richard W. Munchkin
(From Blackjack Forum XXII #4, Winter 2002/03)
© Blackjack Forum 2003

[Bob Nersesian is a partner in the Las Vegas law firm of Nersesian & Sankiewicz. He specializes in representing players in lawsuits against casinos. Richard W. Munchkin is a member of the Blackjack Hall of Fame and the author of Gambling Wizards: Conversations with the World’s Greatest Gamblers.]

RWM: Why is it that attorneys don’t want to take cases in which card counters have been manhandled by casinos?

Nersesian: Number one, there isn’t enough money in those cases. Number two, and this is really bizarre to me, people in our community don’t understand that the casinos are invading someone’s rights when a card counter is back roomed or handcuffed. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked with other attorneys about this stuff and the reaction I get is: “Well for god sakes, he was counting cards. What do you expect them to do?” My answer is, “I expect them to follow the law, not falsely imprison the guy, not hold him out there and walk him through the casino and embarrass him in front of the world.”The law says that if they suspect him of a felony or if he is suspected of committing a misdemeanor on premises, they can detain him. It does not say they can detain him because he is winning, and that is what they are doing. The public accepts that, and most of the lawyers do, too. Across this country professional gamblers are vilified as far as perceptions are concerned. What we are faced with is a private company who says, “We don’t like what you’re doing. You’re hurting us, so we are going to get back at you.”

The general perspective when I approach other lawyers and upper management of casinos about counters being handcuffed, which does occur regularly, they are as aghast as I am. The policy has been changed, and been put out in writing at some properties, after lawsuits that I’ve been involved in.

RWM: That’s good to hear.

Nersesian: They know they can’t do that. I’m giving the upper management some credit here. It’s the way business works. They put out a dictate that says, “We’re supposed to make money.” Then you get down to the functionary level where they don’t deal with management decisions or the overall policy decisions. They just get the directive, “Your job is to make sure we make money.” They don’t know the ins and outs and niceties about it.The next thing you know they are handcuffing honest people. When the upper management finds out about that, they are pretty straightforward about changing their policies and seeing that it doesn’t happen again. Historically, few lawyers have been willing to sue, and nothing happens because of it. The casino management isn’t even aware there is a problem.

RWM: What is a case worth when a card counter is handcuffed and maybe pushed around?

Nersesian: I don’t want to put down hard numbers, but the patron generally walks away with $5,000 – $15,000. That is provided all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. What I mean by that is there aren’t other reasons for what happened.The story that comes from my client in the first place is very rarely the story that you can see from the facts once things develop. For example, someone might assume they were back roomed for card counting, when in actuality they were back roomed because the casino suspects them of using a counting device. If that is the suspicion, and it’s arguably supportable, the detention can be found appropriate.There are usually videos of that back room, and the cases where I have been successful usually show the casino security lambasting my client and stating, “We saw you in the book. We know you’re a card counter. We don’t want your business.” The client is calmly standing there saying, “I told you outside that I didn’t want to come back here. Put away that camera. You are not going to take my picture. You have no business holding me here. You can ask me to leave. You could have done that out in the casino. Let me out right now.”

RWM: Is that what someone should do if detained?

Nersesian: First inform them firmly, but not physically, that you have no desire to accompany them anywhere.

RWM: Should you attempt to walk to the door?

Nersesian: Your call. I’ve had it both ways. Firmly state, “If you want to throw me out, tell me I’m 86’ed or trespass me. Do it now and do it quickly, because I intend to walk out that door.” If they say, “You’re not going,” or “You have to come with us,” don’t fight them, because they may beat the living daylights out of you.Do I want to see that kind of lawsuit? Not really. You get hurt on those. If they have determined that they are taking you to the back room, they will probably do whatever it takes to restrain you. Your firm statement that you desire to leave and they should not take you back there is all that is needed.

RWM: Unfortunately, the surveillance tapes don’t have audio.

Nersesian: No, they don’t. Once you get in the security office, say it again. That room is recorded with audio.

I want to give you an example of the way the attorneys here look at this stuff. I have a case going to trial on the 23rd. I’m suing a Gaming agent for what he did to a card counter. The court originally dismissed the action. This card counter spent a whole night in jail. He didn’t do anything illegal.When the court dismissed it, I had to go to the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and that court reversed the dismissal. Now we have a judgment of liability. I am $80,000 into this case. What do my friends who are lawyers think when I describe the events to them? The guy spent a night in jail. He has never been arrested in his life. He is a wonderful father of two.The question to me is, “What was he doing?” He was counting cards. When I ask them what they think it is worth, they tell me, maybe $2,000. I ask, “Why only $2,000?” I was talking to two lawyers just yesterday and they said, “Because he was a card counter.” I said, “So, that’s legal.” They said, “It might be legal but it doesn’t garner any sympathy.”There might be some truth to that. I don’t think it’s a $2,000 case. If it ends up being a $2,000 case, so be it. I still proved my point.

RWM: What was their excuse for keeping him in jail?

Nersesian: He was actually arrested because he refused to give this cop his name.

At the same time I am trying to sue six other Gaming agents. The courts keep throwing them out. I’m going to take these cases to the Nevada Supreme Court. If that doesn’t work, I will try for the United States Supreme Court.I can’t believe what these police officers think they are allowed to do. In one instance, and this one blows my mind, I have a client who plays video poker. He found a machine that had an edge and he played the heck out of it. It turned out the machine was misprogrammed. After he won on the machine, two police officers held him in custody for well over an hour and a half, and repeatedly requested that he return the money before he could leave, or alternatively go to jail. He did not do anything illegal.Here you have the Nevada State Police acting as collection agents for casinos. Isn’t that special?

RWM: Nevada is a very special place.

Nersesian: That one will be going to the Supreme Court for darn sure. Are they going to confirm the court throwing it out? They might. But I have been very impressed with the Gaming Control Board itself and the Supreme Court on gaming issues. Those three guys who make the big decisions. Or, the Nevada Supreme Court. The games tend to go out the window, and they are very judicious, both the Board, and the Supreme Court, about applying the law.

RWM: Really?

Nersesian: Yes. You hear people say that they are rubber stamps for the casinos—not true. From what I can see, at the agent level, those guys seem to have a perspective that they’re working for the casinos. However, the Supreme Court and the Gaming Control Board seem very guarded about their perspective, and that they are working for Nevada. That includes the taxpayers and the people who play in the casinos, as well as the properties.

You might be familiar with another case I handled, which happened at another casino. There was a programming error on a 50-cent video poker machine. A progressive jackpot for four of a kind, which would normally pay $250, instead paid $100,000. My client hit it.A Gaming agent, in a throwaway off-the-cuff opinion, effectively stated, “There is no liability here on behalf of the casino. The patron loses.” The Gaming Control Board unanimously held that the casino had to pay. You see the distinction? The Board recognizes that the integrity of our system is reliant upon expectations being met. That sure was no rubber stamp decision for the casino.

RWM: If it were a PPE [Park Place Entertainment] or MGM/Mirage property, do you think the decision would have been the same?

Nersesian: Yes, in my opinion that would not make a difference. You see some similarities in this case with the other slot case where the agents held him and tried to get him to give back the money.One thing that is most curious is the video of that incident. The police officers were citing the Nevada tax base, and implying that injury to that tax base was something they weren’t going to allow to happen. If you take that in context, and expand it out to its logical conclusion, what they are saying is, “We will not allow casinos to lose in this state.” There is a voiced attitude of the agents that patrons have to deal with every day.

I have a client who was back roomed and we tried very hard to get Metro to prosecute the casino for false imprisonment. We showed up at the station and requested they take a report. They wouldn’t take a report. I actually spoke to a police officer who said to me, “Well, he was card counting. Of course they put him in the back room. That’s cheating.”This is a police officer in the state of Nevada who thinks it is cheating to count cards. No, sorry, the Supreme Court of Nevada has said three times it is not cheating. Reason tells you it’s not cheating. Maybe so, but the guy on the street doesn’t view a professional gambler with any sympathy. It might be jealousy. Whatever the rational might be, there just isn’t a depth of sympathy for card counters and other legal advantage players.

If the cop on the street thinks that is the case, how are you going to get lawyers or the general public to look at these people as anything other than dreck? Are they dreck? Not the ones I know. My clients include business leaders, mathematics professors at national universities, and noted authors. They are not dreck.This whole concept of treating them as less than upstanding citizens is particularly curious when you balance against it the idea that the casinos are allowed to use their skills to make money, and they are the stellar citizens of Nevada. But a player who uses his skills should be persecuted. Isn’t that a curious perspective?

RWM: It certainly is. Do you have any other advice to the player when confronted by the casino?

Nersesian: Don’t show a fake ID. I know a lot of guys are carrying them. If you use another name, one thing that might add some protection is to go down to the Clark County Clerk’s office and register that name as a “registered assumed name.” The law regarding identification is ambiguous and I believe unconstitutional. The law says,NRS 205.465 Possession or sale of document or personal identifying information to establish false status or identity.1. It is unlawful for a person to possess, sell or transfer any document or personal identifying information for the purpose of establishing a false status, occupation, membership, license or identity for himself or any other person.Nersesian: Pretty broad, isn’t it?

RWM: Wow. So if my wife uses my player’s card in the slot machine, she’s committing a crime under that law.

Nersesian: There is an argument that she is. I don’t think this statute passes constitutional muster. It’s vague and fails to include a scienter element, but do you want to be the guy who spends two days in jail before being bailed out for $5,000 to see if that is true?There is also a statute, or ordinances, that deal with doing business under an assumed name. The argument will be when this statute is popped on someone who has filed that DBA certificate is that this is not a “false” identity. This is a legal, fictitious identity, and there has to be a distinction between the two, else the assumed name statutes would not exist.If you are going to use fictitious ID, file an assumed name certificate in the county where you are using it. Even then you can’t be sure you are not committing a crime, as far as Nevada defines one. Isn’t this fun?

Gamblers have gone to great lengths to avoid being noticed. Often the simplest diversion will add hours to the play. For example, I know of a case where a Gaming agent, a professional security officer, and a chief of security watched the wrong guy on the table for hours before they figured out he was getting signals. They were dumbfounded as to where his information was coming from.Then they watched the other guy at the table, since the first guy was not doing anything to get information. They watched the other guy for hours to figure out what the signals were. The signals were blatantly obvious. My point is not that surveillance is inept. My point is that players think all this stuff is known, and as soon as you do something they are going to see it. The simplest stuff can take years for them to decipher.

On the other hand, I have another case where a guy was popped twenty minutes after he sat down. He was 86’ed. He somehow was in Griffin. His spread was $50 to $200. He’s relatively an amateur.

RWM: Why is this a case?

Nersesian: He was back roomed. And he did everything right. He said, “I don’t want to go there.” They entered the back room. “I don’t know why I’m here. Let me go.” Then the beautiful part, the security guard says, “You’re here because we found you in the book. We know you’re a card counter.” Talk about handing it to me.To add insult to injury, he asks the security supervisor who says, and this is cute, “You’re here because you’ve committed a gaming violation.” He asked, “What violation?” The security chief essentially says, “I don’t have to tell you.” And he walks out.Then he kept telling the other security officers, “Let me go right now. You have no right to hold me. You know that I have done nothing illegal. Let me out that door.” They told him to calm down and he said, “I’m perfectly calm. I just don’t want to be here.” Then the supervisor comes back in and my client said, “Let me go.” The supervisor said, “First, I want to ask you some questions.” My client again said, “Let me go right now.” Eventually when it became clear they would get nothing, he was allowed to leave.

RWM: Should he have said, “Call the police.”

Nersesian: That’s the case where we did call the police. They said, “So? You were card counting.” I’ve got a letter from Metro saying, to paraphrase, “We choose not to investigate or prosecute. Our scarce resources cannot be used on such claims.” No, but if a casino calls them up and says they have a disorderly person, how long before they are over there hauling that guy away?

RWM: My first question to you was: Why don’t lawyers take these cases? Now I’m wondering: Why do you take them?

Nersesian: I do this because what is going on in this community is not some minor infringement in everybody’s day-to-day life. To be thrown into a back room against your will, and be told that you have to do whatever they tell you for however long they want—that is imprisonment. It is traumatic beyond what you or I could ever fathom.Those lawyer friends that I told you about, and they are dear friends, they think I’m tilting at windmills like Don Quixote. I get very angry with them. If you’re a lawyer, you took an oath. When I tell my friends that this is what I do to give back, their reaction is, “Well, that’s pretty silly. You’re giving back by making things worse.” The kind of cases I am talking about, the casinos think they can treat patrons as chattel, as pieces of property. These people are not chattel, and they have not done anything illegal. For a casino to think that they have some special position in society that allows them to do this to innocent people cannot be reconciled with the country we live in.That’s why I do it. Because it angers me that much. I don’t make money at this. It has been a money loser for years, but it is a matter of principle, and a wrong that needs righted.
Bob Nersesian can be reached c/o:

Nersesian & Sankiewicz
528 S. 8th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 385-5454

Casinos and Nevada Politics

The Nevada Gaming Commission and the State Gaming Control Board comprise the two-tiered system charged with regulating the Nevada gaming industry. The Commission and Board administer the State laws and regulations governing gaming for the protection of the public and in the public interest in accordance with the policy of the State.

The Nevada Gaming Commission is a five-member lay body appointed by the Governor, which serves in a part-time capacity. The primary responsibilities of the Commission include acting on the recommendations of the State Gaming Control Board in licensing matters and ruling in work permit appeal cases. The Commission is the final authority on licensing matters, having the ability to approve, restrict, limit, condition, deny, revoke, or suspend any gaming license.

The Gaming Control Board is made up of three full-time members, appointed by the governor to four-year terms. The gaming statutes require the board to include: one person with a minimum of five years experience in public or business administration; one person who has been a certified public accountant for five years or more, or who is an expert in finance, auditing, gaming, or economics; and one person with a law enforcement background.The Board’s purpose is to protect the stability of the gaming industry through investigations, licensing, and enforcement of laws and regulations. They also insure the collection of taxes and fees, and maintain public confidence in gaming. The Board implements and enforces the state laws and regulations through seven divisions. Those seven divisions are: Administration Division, Audit Division, Corporate Securities Division, Electronic Services Division, Investigations division, Tax and License Division, and Enforcement Division.

If a card counter or other casino patron were to have an interaction with someone from Gaming, it would most likely be someone from the Enforcement Division. The Enforcement Division is the law enforcement arm of the Gaming Control Board. It maintains five offices statewide and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.Primary responsibilities are: to conduct criminal and regulatory investigations, arbitrate disputes between patrons and licensees, gather intelligence on organized criminal groups involved in gaming related activities, make recommendations on potential candidates for the “List of Excluded Persons,” conduct background investigations on work-card applicants, and inspect and approve new games, surveillance systems, chips and tokens, charitable lotteries, and bingo.

For an in-depth look at the Gaming Commission, read License To Steal: Nevada’s Gaming Control System In The Megaresort Age, by Jeff Burbank. ♠

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Blackjack Combine

More Equitable Compensation for Blackjack Teams

By Marvin L. Masters
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. III #2, June 1983)
© 1983 Blackjack Forum

Want to make money faster at blackjack? Join a blackjack team!

A blackjack team, or combine, is a group of investors/players who combine their individual bankrolls and/or playing talents. Each blackjack player can then legitimately size his bets according to the total team bankroll.

For instance, four players with four identical bankrolls can combine their money and then bet four times their normal bets. Result: Each makes four times as much money, with no increase in risk. There are two provisos: (1) They must not play at the same table, and (2) the current total bankroll must be communicated frequently to the blackjack team players.

The “blackjack combine” concept differs from the standard “blackjack team” concept by a more equitable sharing of profits and losses.

Details of the Combine Concept for Blackjack Teams

A combine member may be an investor, a player, or both. The players bet the combined bankroll per Kelly principles, keeping half of all winnings for themselves. If a player loses, he gets no money for playing until the loss is made up. Then the 50-50 split resumes. The second 50% of player winnings goes to the combine treasury. The treasury works just like a money market fund: Investors share profits (and losses) in proportion to their current shareholdings.

This idea works with one player with no bankroll teamed with one investor who doesn’t play. If a plan doesn’t work for this situation, then it’s no good for more complex teams. Ken Uston’s team plan (in Million Dollar Blackjack ) does not work for this situation.

Uston’s plan says that the 50% allocated to players should be divided 25% for time and 25% for money won. Moreover, a loss is not made up. This method is inequitable and unsound because:

(1) It is difficult to define and keep an accurate account of “time.” Some players waste time in a casino; others are more efficient. Besides, equal time should not pay equal money to unequal players. Better to combine the time and skill elements, since those who work longer and play better will presumably win proportionately. That’s good enough, and much simpler.

(2) It would be very tempting for a player to delay reporting a win or time played when he knows that the group is losing. He would not get rewarded for his performance, so why not wait?

The key point here is that a win is not a “win” until any previous loss is made up. The play never “ends” until the combine is dissolved. It’s a continuous series. If that series is broken at arbitrary points in order to distribute profits since the last point, the overall profit for each person will depend on when the breaks occur.

To see that this is so, imagine that I had an investor who bankrolled me for monthly trips to Las Vegas for one year. Suppose I alternately lose $500, win $1000, lose $500, win $1000, etc., for the whole year. If we settle up monthly giving him 50% of every win and 100% of every loss, the investor ends up with nothing while I get $3000. If we settle up at the end of the year instead, we each get 50% of the profit, $1500 apiece. Using my method of not taking a win until a loss is made up, the payoffs are the same either way.

The bankroll “share” concept presents some interesting facets. Typically, 50% or so of the “declared” bankroll should be liquid, readily accessible to the treasurer and players. This liquidity percentage depends on the number of persons who may be playing at the same time, and the readiness with which money can be passed back and forth.

Because bet sizing is a personal matter (Kelly betting may be more, or less, aggressive than suits a person’s circumstances), an investor with, say, a $5000 bankroll may wish to “declare” anywhere from $2500 to $10,000. If the team is betting per Kelly then declaring only one-half of one’s bankroll is effectively betting half-Kelly. This policy will lower the probably win but will substantially reduce fluctuations and increase the probability of being ahead at any given time.

Conversely, the $5000 investor may want to declare in at the maximum for his holdings, or $10,000. His $5000 will satisfy the 50% requirement for a $10,000 declaration. Perhaps he has an alternative source of ongoing income that may be considered bankroll. Or he might want to make a lot of money fast, and be willing to risk the 50% chance of being a loser (when betting Kelly x 2) in order to have the chance at a big killing.

The treasurer must maintain a separate account for investors’ funds that are not part of the official combine bankroll, to be used for adjusting shareholding as instructed by the investors. A person may say, “I want all wins put aside for me. Keep my bankroll value constant.”

Or perhaps he needs the income now. Those who are declaring more or less than their real bankroll will give instructions to the treasurer to adjust “declaration” bankroll after a team win or loss according to their particular circumstances.

The half-Kelly investor will want this share reduced by only ½ of any loss, and increased by just ½ of any win. His separate account will be used for such adjustments. The Kelly x 2 investor wants his share increased by twice any gain and decreased by twice any loss. He will not need a side account, because his 50% requirement is automatically maintained by this policy.

Expenses, being a personal matter, should come out of a person’s own money. If a player has no money for expenses, the treasury can advance the required amount, to be repaid out of the player’s share of his winnings.

You can have a “team,” or numerous “teams” within a single combine. A “team” differs from a combine in that team members play as a team, working together in a casino.

The usual arrangement is for one team member to be a “big player,” placing large bets at various tables as secretly directed by low-betting teammates who are scattered around the casino doing the counting. A blackjack team can thus be part of a combine but in this case the team would be treated, by the rules of the combine, as a single player.

The treasury gets 50% of any wins, with the remaining 50% split among the team members in accordance with the team’s own rules. The big player, for instance, may be a highly skilled person to whom the team votes more than a normal share. ♠

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Blackjack Ball

The Most Elite Gathering of the Best Gambling Minds in the World

by Mark Truman
© 2017 Blackjack Forum Online

Every year in secret, the absolute cream of the global blackjack community convenes in the heart of Las Vegas. Somewhere, amid the bright lights and endless nights of the Strip, an incredibly gifted few gather to discuss, strategize and compete at the game they love.

Known simply as “The Blackjack Ball,” those in attendance aren’t simply high-rolling gamblers. The club assembled for the annual event represent the finest minds in what is termed “advantage play” in games of chance—and pretty much “playing smart” in any competition.

Professionals will use a variety of techniques to invert the casino’s edge in their favor, and while performing high-level maths amid the myriad distractions of the bustling floor at the Bellagio might be a feat too far for the average Joe, it’s not strictly against the rules.

Of course, this is not how the casino sees the matter. After losing stacks of cash to the attendees of the Ball and other such talented players, it’s hardly surprising that the house is keen to know exactly who makes up this ultra-elite club.

For this reason, many of the Ball’s guests live their lives under a pseudonym. Examples like “Dustin Marks” are tongue-in-cheek references to gambling lingo of yesteryear, and provide some level of security for the players using them. Additionally, attendance at the Blackjack Ball is by invitation only, insuring only a trusted few are permitted access to the event.

This makes an invitation highly prized, and tales of top level players waiting years for their chance to attend abound online.

Antidote for a Solitary Pursuit

The necessity of such an elite gathering likely arises from the lack of stage for these professionals to meet and compete on. Professional blackjack is a somewhat solitary pursuit, and while many players belong to teams, much of their working time is spent alone at the table or playing online. Many of those present first met one another at previous Balls, having little opportunity or cause to seek out fellow advanced players before.

That was part of the reason behind the event’s founding. Organizer Max Rubin explains: “It was a way for players of different blackjack teams and solo players to get together and hang out.”

Max first set up the clandestine meeting in 1997 and back then hosted proceedings in his own home. Since then, increasing attendance figures have given rise to the necessity of an alternative venue. The location, of course, is shrouded in mystery, and only those invited are privy to its whereabouts.

Online anecdotes from previous years’ attendees shine light onto the level of security required for players to emerge from their shadowy existence to meet, greet, and compare notes with the rest of their professional community. Stories of multiple levels of security checks to pass, and admittance being reserved for only those who arrive with a bottle of premium champagne are common—touches which add to the atmosphere of exclusivity and ensure a special evening is had by all.

The Blackjack Ball is more than just an exclusive shindig for the brightest minds in the game, however. Each year, a new addition is inducted into the Blackjack Hall of Fame at the event. For a guest to be considered, he or she must first be nominated by an existing member of the Hall, and then be approved by the attendance committee. Legend of the felt Don Johnson was fortunate enough to have his name immortalized this year.

Johnson may be the most widely known blackjack player ever. His victories in Atlantic City have been well publicized, and profits from these sessions run well into the tens of millions of dollars.

The Blackjack Cup

The highlight of the Ball for many is the annual Blackjack Cup, in which guests compete in a series of twenty-one rigorous challenges. Every facet of their abilities is tested, from speed card counting to general knowledge surrounding their craft. Participants are whittled down until a champion remains.

The challenge starts with a written test that is fiendishly difficult, and follows up with practical challenges that seem impossibly hard to an outsider. For many years, James Grosjean lifted the cup, until he was banned from competing by Rubin, in the interests of fairness for the rest of the field. But when Grosjean retired from the field of Blackjack Cup battle, the Cup itself was named after him.

The 2017 competition saw Anthony Curtis, a former blackjack and tournament pro and publisher of many classic books on advantage play, take the top spot. Curtis has also finished in the number two position in six of the previous twenty competitions.

In addition to the Hall of Fame inauguration and competition for the Grosjean Cup, attendees are treated to a different guest speaker each year. This year it was the turn of the grandfather of advantage play, Ed Thorp. Author of the distinguished guide, Beat the Dealer, amongst other classic titles, Thorp is largely responsible for most of the room’s fortunes at the felt. Mike Shackelford, authority on all things probability and chance, had the following to say about the 2017 speaker:

It would be hard to understate the impact Ed Thorp had on the game of blackjack. He was the first to publish both a basic strategy to a wide audience, to get the odds to almost breakeven, and how to beat the game by card counting. His book Beat the Dealer will go down in history as the quintessential book that changed the game.

Blackjack Hall of Fame

After the evening’s entertainment, the inauguration into the Hall of Fame, and the crowning of the world’s greatest blackjack player, the formal event comes to a close. What follows is an official after party, held at yet another secret location.

The annual event concludes with a second after party the next day, hosted by Hall of Famer Richard Munchkin. The Sunday party is a final chance to trade strategies, tactics, advanced concepts, and epic tales amongst the community. No doubt some hair of the dog is also required for those who overindulged at the previous evening’s festivities.

As the Munchkin after event winds up, so too does yet another edition of the Blackjack Ball. For many of those lucky (and skilled) enough to attend, the comradery enjoyed over this weekend in January must last a whole year. Back to the shadowy world of dodging pit bosses and performing advanced calculus they must creep.

At least, thanks to Rubin’s efforts in organizing this event, they can take comfort from the notion that they are not alone against the casinos, even if they feel that way the 51 other weeks of the year. ♠

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Atlantic City sexism and other capers; Falling Star

While we have no definitive idea whether Ocean Casino Resort CEO Bill Callahan is a male chauvinist pig, he certainly presents a convincing set of credentials in a Global Gaming Business puff piece. Never mind the efforts of predecessor Terry Glebocki (above, hounded out by the Illitch family), when it comes to Ocean’s reinvention from joke to overachiever, Callahan says he did it all himself, derogating previous administrations several times over in an ode to his own perspicacity. We’re sure that, by this point, Callahan has made some changes—like the new sports book—that are redounding to the good. But to take credit for everything … that requires a fair amount of gall.

Continue reading Atlantic City sexism and other capers; Falling Star