Posted on Leave a comment

When One Team Player Loses Big

Suspicions Arise…

By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, January 1997)
© 1997 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Player:  I am part of a small group of friends who have formed a blackjack team. We have been playing now for about 4 months, and have been winning very slowly. Recently, we were going over everybody’s numbers and found that of the six of us, three of us are ahead in winnings, two players are close to break even, and one player is pretty far behind. We have all played a different number of hours on the team, though everyone is between 120 at the least and 200 at the most. We test each other all the time on card counting skills and index numbers, and I know the break even players, as well as the big loser, are capable card counters. Those of us who have been winning, however, are beginning to suspect that our non-winning blackjack teammates may be embezzling from the bank, and just claiming losses.

The big loser on the team, by the way, has the most hours in, almost 200, and he is down about $14,000. We all use a spread of about $25-250, and we estimate about a 1½% advantage. My ballpark estimate of the big loser’s result is that he is about 3 standard deviations below his expectation, which, as you know, is highly unlikely. I am personally up about $47,000 right now (I’m the biggest winner), and I have slightly fewer hours in than the big loser. This is very irritating to me, personally. I don’t like mistrusting a friend, but this guy’s losses just seem impossible. What do you think of lie detector tests?

Answer:  Based on the number of hours you have in, and assuming you play under typical crowded casino conditions, I would guess you and the big loser each have about 10,000 hands of play in. Based on your spread, I’d guess your average bet to be about $100. If we assume you’re right about your estimated 1½% advantage, then at this point you should each be about $15,000 to the positive. He is $29,000 below this. You are $32,000 above this. This is to say, he is losing at the rate of about 1½%, and you are winning at a rate of about 4½%. You know what? This is exactly why players join blackjack teams!

Both of you are experiencing radical fluctuations in opposite directions. If you were flat betting, then on 10,000 hands one standard deviation would be about 1%. This would mean that both of you guys were about three standard deviations from your expectations. But you’re not flat betting. You’re using a 1-10 spread. So, you have to figure out your standard deviation on each bet size, and if you do this, you will find that the results of your relatively few big bets skew the overall results quite dramatically — in fact, 10 times as dramatically as the results on your $25 bets! I’m sure both of you are well within two standard deviations of your expectations. Try to realize that a $14,000 loss is a loss of only 56 big bets (sized at $250). I’ll bet not one out of twenty hands is played at the $250 level, so in 10,000 hands, you’ve probably got about 500 of these big bets. It is not at all unlikely to lose an extra 56 units in 500 bets, just due to normal fluctuation with card counting.

It always amazes me how card counters can attribute wild positive fluctuations to skill, but suspect something crooked must be going on whenever wild negative fluctuations appear. If you play blackjack a long time, you will get used to these kinds of results, and believe me, when it’s your turn to be the big loser, you will suffer greatly when your teammates suspect you of either dishonesty or incompetence. This type of paranoia has destroyed many blackjack teams (and friendships).

Which is not to say I think your friend is honest. Frankly, I’ve never met the guy. He may be a weasel.

So, with regards to lie detector tests, I am not opposed to the idea at all. Most of the bigger, more successful, blackjack teams have used them. Bear in mind that it is important to test all players, not just losers. I once talked to a player who finally quit team play because he found himself so suspicious of his fellow teammates that he began misreporting his own results, and pocketing team money, to make up for what he thought his teammates were stealing from him! And he never even had any proof! He may have been the only crook on the team!

His method of embezzling, however, was not to exaggerate losses, nor to claim losses when he’d won, but simply to underreport his wins. He was a big winner on this team, so he was the player least likely to be suspected of dishonesty.

You may want to read up on lie detector tests also. They are considered fairly accurate, but they do have limitations. It is a known fact that some con artists (professional liars) can fool the tests. (And wouldn’t many card counters — even honest ones — fit in this category?) It is also a known fact that innocent people sometimes fail the tests just because they are nervous personality types who are afraid of being accused of something they didn’t do.

In any case, what your team is going through right now is a major reason why so many blackjack teams fail. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.   ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Lie Detectors for Blackjack Teams

The Politics of Polygraphs on Blackjack Teams

By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, September1997)
© 1997 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Reader:  I have been playing for a blackjack team for about six months now. I believe I am a good player, but I have had some pretty bad losing sessions. I have been informed by the team leaders that before I can play any more, I must submit to a lie detector test. Apparently, the team has a contract with a private investigation agency in Las Vegas that regularly tests their team members.

When I first joined this blackjack team, I was told that all players had to submit to lie detector tests if asked. It seemed like a remote possibility at the time. Now, I’m terrified. I have been 100% honest in my dealings with the team, and I’ve never stolen a penny. But, I’ve read that these tests are unreliable, and it scares me to death to think I might be “identified” by some piece of electronic equipment as a liar and a thief. I’ve read that lie detectors actually measure “stress.” If so, I’m a dead duck, because I am really stressed out about this test, even though I’m innocent. If this test ruins my career, can I sue the agency that gives the test?

Answer:  No. Prior to submitting to the test, you must sign a form releasing the agency from any such liability.

Most big money blackjack teams use polygraph tests. Some test all players; some test randomly chosen players; some test only players under suspicion. Players who have undergone such tests tell me your apprehension is normal. One player said he could not sleep at all the night before the test, and went in for his test a nervous wreck. When it was over, he was sure he’d “flunked.” Another said he was sweating profusely throughout the test, and whenever the “loaded” questions were asked, he could feel his heart pounding in fear, even though he knew he’d been honest. He was also sure he’d failed. Yet, both of these players passed. This is not to say that the tests are always accurate, only that it is normal to feel very stressed out by the prospect of being tested, and that this stress will not necessarily foul the results.

Polygraph experts will tell you that the tests are usually 90 – 97% accurate, depending on the number of questions asked. The more questions, the lower the accuracy. And some people just don’t give valid results.

Blackjack teams usually have six major areas of concern: 1) Did you report all wins/losses accurately? 2) Did you report expenses accurately? 3) Did you ever play under the influence of alcohol or drugs? 4) If you are being paid for hours played, did you report your hours accurately? 5) If there is some confusion about money transfers from player to player, did you report those transfers accurately? 6) Did you violate any procedures that the team may require to maintain a high level of competency, i.e. did you drill properly on the strategy prior to play, count down X number of decks, etc.?

It is unlikely that you will be asked questions about all of these areas of concern. The team leaders will instruct the examiner to ask about two or three of these areas of concern, depending on your circumstances and their suspicions — if they even have suspicions. Some blackjack teams really do test players randomly, just to keep everyone honest. If a team is losing, it often saves the investors worries to know that the team is seriously confronting all possible problems.

When you go in for the test, the examiner will go over all of the questions he will ask you. There should be no “surprise” questions. Surprise questions, according to reputable polygraph examiners, tend to foul the results.

Also, 90 – 97% accuracy is pretty impressive, but not if you’re in that 3 – 10% of the population that just doesn’t test accurately. One blackjack team leader told me that he has used polygraph tests for many years, and will always use them, but that he would never allow the test results to be his sole criterion for judgment.

“If I personally don’t trust a player,” he said, “I don’t care what the polygraph shows. He could come up smelling like a rose, but if I lose faith in him, and I think he could be ripping off the team, that’s it. My gut feeling means more to me than the test results. By the same token, if someone fails a test, and I think this person is a straight arrow, I wouldn’t automatically let that person go. These tests aren’t 100% accurate. I might watch this person more closely and talk about this with my associates, just to make sure I’m not deluding myself. But my judgment of a person’s character is always foremost in my decisions.”

In any case, if you’re going to play on a big money blackjack team, you’d better get used to the idea of getting a lie detector test occasionally. All of the smart teams use them. They’re just a standard condition of employment for professional players.   ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

When to Surrender

Late Surrender Basic Strategy: Why the Correct Strategy Doesn’t Make Sense

By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, February 1994)
© 1994 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Reader: The widely published and disseminated blackjack basic strategy for late surrender seems to me to be wrong. The strategy that is accepted is to surrender a hard 15 vs. a 10, and hard 16 (excluding 8, 8) to a 9, 10 or Ace. Although I am not using high-level blackjack mathematics or computers for my reasoning, it seems to me that the correct strategy would be to surrender every hard 15 or hard 16 (except 8, 8) any time a dealer shows 7, 8, 9, 10 or Ace.

My reasoning is that any time you take a hit on 15 or 16, over half of the cards in a full deck will bust you. If you have a 15, drawing a 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen or King will bust you. That equates to 7 out of the 13 possible cards to draw. If a blackjack game consists of four decks, and the player holds an 8 and a 7 versus a dealer 7, and those are the only cards that have been played, then 109 of the 205 unseen cards will bust him.

If a player is over 50% likely to lose all his bet, then it seems advantageous to surrender one half of his bet all the time. If my reasoning is flawed, I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why.

Answer: This is a wonderful question because your argument is so persuasive, that to anyone — other than a mathematician — it makes perfect sense. First of all, you are 100% correct in most of your analysis. In a four-deck game, there are a total of 208 cards (52 x 4). If you remove a player hand consisting of a Seven and an Eight versus a dealer upcard of Seven, you will have 205 unseen cards remaining.

Of those 205 remaining cards, 109 cards (all remaining Sevens and Eights, plus the Nines, Tens, Jacks, Queens and Kings) will bust the player’s hard 15. One hundred nine cards represent 53% of the 205 possible hits. Furthermore, you would also expect to lose at least some of the 47% of the hands which you did not bust with one hit, depending on the ultimate totals of your own hand and the dealer’s hand.

So, since you know you’re going to lose more than 50 percent of your 15s played out against a dealer Seven—no doubt about it!— why don’t the “experts” tell you to surrender this hand as basic strategy, and hold your losses to an even 50 percent and no more?

This makes perfect sense, right?

WRONG!

This is what happens when amateurs try to do a dangerous stunt like statistical analysis. Statisticians are the Evel Knievels of the math world — trained professionals who dare to perform their feats of mental wizardry without any safety nets. But please, don’t try it yourself at home. You’re liable to start devising your own “basic strategy,” and the next thing you know, you’ll be panhandling for pocket change, wondering where your savings went!

Let’s simplify this problem. Forget about decks of cards. Instead, let’s use marbles in a vase.

Put 100 marbles in an opaque vase — 47 white marbles and 53 black marbles. You have to reach in and draw out one marble. If you draw a white one you win $1, and if you draw a black one you lose $1.

It is obvious from the start that you are going to lose 53 times out of 100 draws.

Therefore, if I offer you a surrender option, whereby you may simply give me 50¢ per draw, rather than risking a dollar to draw a marble, would you surrender?

No!

You’re forgetting that when you don’t lose, you win. In our marble example, you will expect to lose $53 on every 100 draws, but you offset this loss by winning $47 out of every 100 draws. So, your net result after 100 draws will be a loss of only $6. If you surrender 50¢ on all 100 draws, you will lose $50 instead of losing only $6! So, just because you know you’re going to lose more than 50 percent on a specified hand does not make it a surrender decision. No way!

What percentage of your hands do you have to expect to lose before you would be better off surrendering half your bet?

Consider the marbles…

If I had 60 black marbles (losses) and 40 white marbles (wins), what would be my net result from 100 draws?

-60 + 40 = -$20.

Still not enough black marbles to make surrendering a wise decision. What about 70 black marbles and 30 white ones?

-70 + 30 = -$40.

Still not enough black marbles. How about 75 black marbles and 25 white ones?

-75 + 25 = -$50.

Aha!

This is our break-even point, where 100 draws would result in the same expectation (-$50) as 100 surrender decisions.

Since 75 is exactly 3 x 25, then you know that surrendering half your bet is the optimal strategy decision only if you will lose more than three times as many hands as you will win!

With cards, instead of marbles, the math is not so simple because some hands will push, and we don’t know the precise win/loss percentages for Seven, Eight versus Seven without a more detailed analysis showing all of the possible player totals versus all of the possible dealer totals. But the simple fact remains that unless you expect to lose more than three times more often than you expect to win — don’t surrender.

If you want to work out all of the possible outcomes yourself, use a computer to cycle through all of the possible hands, because there are many thousands of possibilities. You could spend months trying to figure out what to do with 15 versus 7.

Instead, trust the dozens of mathematicians and computer programmers who have all come to the same conclusion — don’t surrender that hand. It’s true you will lose more than 50% of these hands. But you will not lose more than three times as often as you will win. And that’s how you determine your surrender basic strategy. ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Losing Your Insurance Bet?

Blackjack Insurance: Is it a Sucker Bet?

By Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player, May 1997)
© Arnold Snyder 1997

Question from a Player:  My problem is that I have this feeling that I’m taking insurance far too often. I lose this bet a lot, even though I only take insurance when my true count is +3 or more. (I’m playing mostly in six-deck games in Mississippi and Louisiana.)

On my last trip, I put in 19 hours at the tables over a three day period. I kept track of all my insurance bets. I took insurance 14 times, won 5 times and lost 9 times. I realize this is a very short test from the statistical point of view (I’ve been reading your column for years!), but my experience on all of my trips is similar to this. I lose the insurance bet way more than I win it. This is just the one trip where I kept track of my results.

What’s worse, when I win the bet, I don’t really win anything, I just break even on my hand. Winning is actually more like pushing. When I lose the insurance bet, however, I not only lose the insurance, but I still have to play the hand against a dealer ace, which also often loses. I’m starting to think this insurance bet is just a sucker bet for card counters.

Blackjack Insurance: A Side Bet, Nothing More

Answer:  Many players are confused about the way insurance works because, in casino jargon, you are “insuring your hand.” Insurance is a side bet, and has nothing to do with the results of your blackjack hand.You are simply betting that the dealer has a ten in the hole. If he does, you win 2-to-1. It is not a “push” for your hand.

For example, you have a $100 bet on the table. You have a 16 vs. a dealer ace. Let’s say the insurance bet does not exist. The dealer peeks at his hole card, flips over a ten, and you lose your $100.

Now, assume insurance is offered. You have a true count of +5, so you put out $50 for insurance. Now, when the dealer flips over his ten, he pays your $50 insurance bet at 2-to-1 ($100), but you still lose your hand, so you break even.

Since, without the insurance bet, you would have been minus $100, this $50 bet gained you $100.

The actual result on your blackjack hand will be exactly the same regardless of whether or not you take insurance. If, for example, the dealer has a blackjack, you lose; if not, then you have to play out your hand vs. whatever he does have.

Also, your analysis of your blackjack insurance results indicates that you did pretty close to what you would expect as a card counter. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say all of your insurance bets were $50 each. Since you lost 9 times, this is a $450 loss; since you won 5 times (at 2-to-1), this is a $500 win. So, you’re $50 ahead of where you would have been had you never taken insurance.Technically, your fourteen $50 insurance bets would total $700 in action. A $50 win total on $700 action would mean that insurance has paid you at the rate of 6.67% — which is more likely a positive fluctuation in your favor than a negative one.

Remember, if you win your insurance bet just half as often as you lose it, you break even. So, it will always seem like you lose this bet more than you win it, even when you are making money on it.  ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Do Blackjack Computers Play “Perfect” Strategy?

Test of a Blackjack Computer’s Betting Efficiency

Letter from Dr. Data Fehnworp
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XIV #4, December 1994)
© Blackjack Forum 1994

I’ve had a hands-on demonstration of the Perfect Play Blackjack Computer advertised in recent issues of Blackjack Forum. The computer is a Z80 (old 8-bit microprocessor) on a 3 x 3 printed circuit board incased in plastic. Another chip on the board looks like it might be the voice chip. There only appears to be 16k RAM on board.

Anyhow, I had the seller set up Thorp’s classic 100% advantage deck remainder: two 7s and three 8s. The computer came up with a NEGATIVE bet recommendation, but proceeded to make the correct (stand) strategy recommendation. Same thing for two 7s and four 8s.

The vendor seemed surprised at the negative bet recommendation. For the record, in order for a blackjack computer to come up with the “perfect” bet recommendations for any deck residue, it would have to probabilize all player and dealer cards, along with every possible course of action for the player using a binary tree type program. This is essentially recreating Thorp’s “arbitrary subset” program in real time on every hand!

The price of the Perfect Play Computer is $10,000. The $4,000 quoted in the ad is for a lend/lease arrangement. The blackjack computer was hooked up to a speaker for the demo. The quality of the “speech” was only adequate for the purpose, I suppose. The earphone is practically invisible when inserted far down close to the eardrum. There are no wires going to the earphone; the user must wear a transmitter at chest level.

Input was through four spring switches that can be placed anywhere in your shoes for maximum accuracy and comfort. The values of the cards are repeated to the user as they are input. This is an important, user-friendly feature.

Betting Efficiency vs. Betting Correlation with the Perfect Play Blackjack Computer

Snyder Responds: It is my understanding that the Perfect Play computer uses Keith Taft’s old “David” chip, enhanced with the audio output. This computer was also bootlegged for many years under the name “Casey.” As such, its negative bet recommendations on the hands you described would be expected.

This blackjack computer was designed to play perfectly (or close to it), but bets are determined using Thorp’s Ultimate count, a single parameter point counting system described in Beat the Dealer (Random House, 1962/66). Thorp’s Ultimate count has a 100% betting correlation, but this is not the same thing as 100% betting efficiency.

No single parameter card counting system has 100% betting efficiency, and no concealable blackjack computer that I know of has ever been developed that could utilize an arbitrary subset program to analyze betting opportunities with perfect accuracy. This would be so time consuming that it is impractical. Other than for deep single-deck betting situations, it would also be pretty worthless.

Thanks for the first-hand product report.

To read more about blackjack computer card-counting and shuffle-tracking play, see the Interview with Keith and Marty Taft. ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

How to Count Cards

…and Chew Gum at the Same Time (Tips on Counting Technique)

By Kyle Sever
(From Blackjack Forum, Vol. XXI #2, Summer 2001)
© 2001 Blackjack Forum

[Note from Arnold Snyder: This truly is a terrific collection of tips on how to learn to count cards. One of the things I like best about Kyle’s tips is that they not only make you a good card counter, but they will also help to prepare you for advanced techniques for beating blackjack, like hole-carding.]

One of the most important fundamentals in blackjack is the utilization of proper card counting technique. Trouble is, I have never seen an explanation on how to do so.

It’s not uncommon for an author to say that once you can count down a deck in less than twenty-five seconds, you’re about ready for the casino, but lack of proper card counting technique can hinder your development as a card counter and/or get you into bad habits. It will not only slow down your counting, but will limit your ability to use more advanced methods of advantage play and cover.

Technique for Visualizing the Count

One of the most common card counting errors is maintaining the count by repeating it in the head. Assuming the player is using the hi-lo, when he or she sees a five, immediately +1 should go into the head. However, many players will literally talk to themselves and say “plus one” or perhaps “one” in their heads. In negative counts, this type of player needs to say something in addition to the number to indicate it’s negative, such as “minus one” or “m-one.” If someone doesn’t like negatives I would bet money it’s due to poor technique.

Instead of maintaining the count by repeating the number in your head, it’s advisable to visualize it and keep it visually in front of you as if it was stuck there with glue. When visualizing the number, don’t picture it on the table or anything external; then you would be focusing your eyes on only one spot. Instead, visualize it in your head. As new cards come across the table, the visualized number should be changing in your mind. When you are waiting between rounds, instead of repeating the count, the number should be held in place as if you had eyes in the back of your head.

When applying this technique, the number in your head shouldn’t change after each individual card that you proceed to see. You should generally take in multiple cards at once and after counting the group, the number should change. This method is faster and easier since many cards cancel out. The exception is when there is a potential bust card, since if the player busts the dealer will place the cards from the busted hand immediately into the discard tray.

Card Counting Tecnique and Talking

One of the best things about counting visually is that it will greatly facilitate the skill of counting and talking simultaneously. If you are saying the count in your head and someone tries to start up a conversation, you will have problems maintaining both the inner voice and outer voice. It is best to use just one voice and use another form of memory, visualization.

I can recall only one personal resource on how to count and talk the same time but was disappointed by the explanation. One noted blackjack author and web host had a short article that explained how someone could maintain the count using physical means, such as counting with your hands, fingers or chips so the counter could keep the count while talking.

I have two problems with this method of counting cards. First, it presupposes that you would be counting using auditory methods. Instead of focusing on how to count with good technique, the author was showing how to minimize the effects of counting with poor technique. Second, it can look conspicuous.

Card Counting Practice Technique

Once you begin to get the basic visualization technique down, it will take time to increase your speed. When counting cards, focus only on relevant information. Once your eyes pick up enough information to obtain the value of the card(s), don’t focus on it any more. If your eyes see a gob of paint, it’s a ten. You really shouldn’t care if it is a king, queen, jack or a ten. If you use the Hi-Lo, and you see a few spots on the card, then poof, it is +1. You don’t care if it is a three or four, heart, spade, etc. Just be careful not to count the ace as +1.

If you see a moderate amount of paint (7, 8, 9), the count would be 0. Your eyes should be like a camera, taking shots and quickly processing the information. Your camera doesn’t need to take multiple pictures of the same item.

One reason multi-level systems are more difficult is that it takes longer to discern the properly assigned number to a card. When using a higher level system such as Brh-1, which assigns a +3 value to the five, your camera must zoom in, and it forces you to look more specifically at the number of spots on the card or the number in the index. A one level system, on the other hand, requires you only to look and see if there is a low to medium density of pips on the card.

In order to facilitate recognition of cards, I recommend that you practice without the index and focus on the pips. If you use a regular deck of cards, white out the indexes of the whole deck, or at a minimum, do it to all non-face cards. Another way to efface the indexes is with a hole-punch, or simply tear them. If you have a computer you can use Smart Cards or Casino Verite and practice with them. Learning to count this way is especially helpful when back-counting. When far away from the table it’s not easy to identify the index but it’s usually feasible to see the rest of the card.

When initially learning to count and talk the same time, don’t jump into a full-blown conversation. Sit at home and say a one-syllable word and hold it out loud. Just say something like “Woooooooonnggg.” While holding the word, try counting. Try to keep the sound of it as consistent as possible. Although doing this will make you sound like an opera singer, it’s a good exercise to learn to talk while counting. (Sorry Arnold, even though you’re a bishop, I don’t recommend blackjack players worship you while practicing due to your name!)

If you are having trouble doing this task then I recommend you soften your voice. I don’t recommend you practice by talking in intervals because this may lead you to do most of your counting when not talking and/or when your voice is attenuated. Eventually, variation in speech should increase and you should be able to talk continuously.

Being able to count and talk the same time is important but it’s just as important to count and listen at the same time. Try listening to the radio or listen to the television while counting and try to comprehend what is being said. Once you reach this level of proficiency, you will feel confident if someone in the casino wants to strike up a conversation. Once again, if you rely on auditory counting you may find yourself struggling to distinguish between what two voices are telling you.

Practice with different IRC’s (initial running counts). If you don’t like negatives then try starting the count at –10. Exaggerate the practice. It’s analogous to a baseball player loosening up by swinging two bats. If you can learn to handle difficult situations then when it comes to game time, it should be easier.

I highly advise the use of a computer program to facilitate practice. With a computer, your practice sessions will be more efficient since all it takes is a click of the button to pick the cards up. Two of best practice programs currently out on the market are Casino Verite by Norman Wattenburger and Smart Cards by Richard Reid. Casino Verite has long been accepted as THE program to imitate real world casino play. Its superb graphics, attention to detail and number of options can make you feel like you are playing at any number of games around the world. However, the very nature of what makes the program great is also its downfall.

I don’t feel Casino Verite is the best choice for newer players or for those really trying to improve their skills. The process of learning to count cards must be broken down into different drills. Although Casino Verite does have some drills, they are limited in scope. The software was designed, first and foremost, to imitate casino play and not for counting training or practice.

To improve your counting skills, I recommend Smart Cards by Extreme Blackjack. To the best of my knowledge, there isn’t any software like it. It seeks to improve the most fundamental skill in all of blackjack: counting.

It has a number of ways to let the user practice and drill along with multiple ways of distributing the cards. The variety of count settings is important since it will train you to recognize cards quickly without setting you within a rigid method of counting. A rigid method of counting is when you start at the same direction and count in the same order each time. The drills in Smart Cards will train your eyes to move in different directions.

Once you start to master counting, I would then consider the purchase of Casino Verite. I think of it as card counting maintenance software. It gives you a chance to use your index numbers, betting spread, and card counting skills all at one time and, by occasionally practicing on it, you can maintain your counting skills once you have gotten your system down. Now if Extreme Blackjack would only put a playing module in Smart Cards

Newcomers often wonder how fast they should be able to count before they are ready for the casino. There is no easy answer to this. In fact, I used to spend too much time counting down decks and not enough time playing hands. I could count down a deck by hand in 15 seconds, yet had problems when I tried to play hands against the computer.

My advice would be to first count down decks until you can do so without the voice in your head and do it in 20 seconds by hand or 15 seconds by computer program. Once you can do this, try doing the same while talking. Once you get this far, don’t worry about making the card counting Olympics. Go play some hands and stick with that, occasionally going back to count down decks. Consider doing this even more if you are gonna do some back-counting. Once you count down a deck quickly and play your hands while talking and listening to someone else, then you’re about ready to tackle the casinos.

If you do decide that you want to get your speed as fast as possible, remember that no matter how much you work at it, there is a limit to what you can do. One blackjack author has said that it’s possible for some magicians to riffle through a deck and memorize the entire deck sequence in a matter of a couple seconds. I would certainly think that a magician could do it since such a feat would make a decent magic trick! In fact, the current world record for memorizing the order of cards in an entire deck is thirty-four seconds, a record set by Andi Bell in 2000.

Overall, your counting will be very slow at first since you are re-training your brain. But eventually, your counting speed will exceed what you were able to do before. In fact, after many years’ experience, some counters don’t even try to count at all and they find that they know the count. You may find yourself counting cards inadvertently if you are just watching a game of blackjack for the fun of it.

Tips on Card Counting Systems

Another advantage of counting visually is that it will be easier to handle more complex systems. If you have wondered how some people manage multiple counts at once, they don’t usually repeat the count in their heads. It’s much easier to handle multiple pieces of information by visual means.

If you don’t intend to learn a multi-parameter system, but would like to upgrade to a higher level system such as UBZ II or Brh-1, then you will find that visualization will help you master the increased complexity. Although good technique will improve your ability to handle more intricate systems, I’m not necessarily advising you to change counts. The greatest benefit will be speed of play and cover, including the ability to count and talk the same time.

Card Counting Technique in the Casino

I don’t recommend getting into a routine when counting cards in a casino. Any type of fixation can be bad for cover and counting order is no exception. Many card counters count in the same fashion round after round.

For example, a common way people count a face up game is to start at the right and follow the deal counting each new card they see. However, you may not want to start at the right all the time in this type of situation. Depending on how you are acting with the other players, and your seating position, it’s sometimes best to count by starting at the left.

For example, if your attention was focused for a second on something that was going on West of the table (for example, a boss points out something special in the casino), it would be easiest and look most natural to count the cards at 3rd base first. Counting in different ways will give you flexibility at the table that will minimize the amount of energy you use. You must be able to adapt your counting to what you are doing outside of counting the cards.

The best example of how flexibility earns $$ is when back-counting more than one table. When doing this, you can’t spend too much time counting one table, especially when both tables are in sync, that is, when the actions of the two dealers correlate. Your eyes must go back and forth.

Card Counting Technique: Conclusion

There are several advantages in using visualization and good technique at the blackjack tables. The greatest plus will be cover and speed of play. You will focus on the count using less energy and your brain won’t be buzzing as much after a long day at the casinos. Your speed of play will increase and you will be able to count and talk the same time. Perhaps you will even consider changing to a more powerful card counting system. In the end, this all means more $$ in your pockets.

I wish you all good luck in your card counting training. Before long you may be counting cards like Peter Griffin, using Hi-Opt I with all five side-counts! ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Risk of Ruin for Basic Strategy Players

Blackjack Betting and Risk of Ruin for the Basic Strategy Player

By Brother William
(From Blackjack Forum Vol XV #3, September 1995)
© 1995 Blackjack Forum

[Editor’s note: Brother William’s article about fluctuations in your blackjack bankroll when flat betting and playing basic strategy have a new relevance for players who are taking advantage of online casino bonuses or loss rebate plays. If you are a basic strategy player for any reason, study the article and chart below to get a handle on the normal fluctuations you can expect in your blackjack bankroll. –Arnold Snyder]

In the June 1995 issue of Blackjack Forum, I suggested that it would be helpful to basic strategy blackjack players to print detailed risk charts indicating standard deviation (fluctuation) for flat betting when playing basic strategy. I think there is a danger for players who are milking comps and promotions in not understanding these risks.

In an attempt to remedy this problem, I have created an all-purpose risk chart for the basic strategy player. I hope basic strategy blackjack players will study this chart carefully.

How to Use the Blackjack Basic Strategy Betting Risk Chart

Assumptions:

1. House advantage over the basic strategy player is 0.54% (which would correspond precisely to a 6-deck shoe game with Strip rules, but works pretty well for most games available anywhere, as the house edge is usually set around ½% over the basic strategy player).

2. 60 hands per hour of play. (This is pretty close to what you’ll average with a full table.)

3. Flat betting 1 unit per hand.

Regardless of what your unit size is, you may use this chart simply by multiplying. If you were playing $1 per hand, then all of the chart entries in units can simply be read right from the chart in dollars and cents. Example: betting $1 per hand for 16 hours of play, as per the assumed game conditions, you would have an expected loss of $5.18. You will be within one standard deviation (SD) of this expectation 68% of the time, which translates to an actual result between a loss of $39.27 and a win of $28.90. You will be within three standard deviations 99.7% of the time, which translates to an actual result between a loss of $117.80 and a win of $86.69.

Using a $100 betting unit, if you intend to play a total of 16 hours of basic strategy in this game and you’re willing to accept a risk level of three SD’s, simply move the decimal point two places to the right. You would expect to lose $518.00, but your actual result 99.7% of the time would fall between a loss of $11,780.00 and a win of $8,669.00.

So, if you can stand the thought of losing somewhere around $12,000 every rare once in a while in 16 hours of play, you can afford to flat bet this game with black chips.

The charts are very easy to use with flat bets of $1, $10, $100 and $1000, because you simply have to move the decimal point. For flat bets of $5 or $25 or whatever, just use a pocket calculator.

Note that the entry in the “expected loss” column can be used to estimate what you are actually “paying” for any comps your action buys.

Blackjack Basic Strategy Risk Chart
# hoursexpected
loss (units)
SD %SD levelsloss
(units)
win
(units)
10.3214.21    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
8.84
17.69
26.53
35.39
8.20
16.39
24.59
32.79
20.6510.01    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
12.70
25.40
38.09
50.79
11.40
22.80
34.21
45.60
30.978.201    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
15.73
31.46
47.19
62.92
13.79
27.57
41.36
55.14
41.307.101    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
18.34
36.67
55.01
73.35
15.75
31.49
47.24
62.98
82.595.021    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
26.69
53.38
80.08
106.77
21.51
43.02
64.52
86.03
123.894.101    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
33.40
66.81
100.21
133.62
25.63
51.26
76.88
102.51
165.183.551    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
39.27
78.53
117.80
157.07
28.90
57.80
86.69
115.59
206.483.181    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
44.59
89.17
133.76
178.34
31.63
63.25
94.88
126.50
247.782.901    68%
2    95%
3    99.7%
4    100%
49.52
99.04
148.55
198.07
33.97
67.93
101.90
135.86

Again, I hope any basic strategy blackjack players out there will study this chart carefully. The bankroll you save my be your own. Good luck! ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Banking California Blackjack Games

A Banking Team for Player-Banked Blackjack

By Arnold Snyder
(From Card Player , April 1994)
© 1994 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Reader:  Some of the Indian reservations here in Northern California now offer player-banked blackjack. Table limits go up to $100 at one such casino, and $200 at another, at least on the few visits that I’ve made to these places. Most players bet in the $5-25 range most of the time, even when the table limit is higher, but still it takes a pretty healthy bankroll to bank one of these games. I’ve seen dealers bust a few times in a row at a crowded table, breaking a bank in a few minutes, just by minor bad luck.

There are not many card counters at these tables, and much of the blackjack play is pretty atrocious by Nevada standards. I have taken to banking these games fairly regularly, and with great success. I must admit, however, that the bankroll swings are enormous. I’ve had more than one losing night, though I most certainly win most of the times I’ve banked.

Here’s my question: I have been talking to some friends who are card counters about combining bankrolls with me to go after these games with a “team” approach. In other words, if four of us would each put up $5,000, we could play off of a $20,000 combined bankroll.

It seems to me that if we were each banking a different table, we could play off of the common team bank with all of the positive aspects of blackjack team play. We would get into the long run faster. One player’s losses would likely be hedged by the other players’ wins, etc. Is my thinking right on this? In a sense, a well-financed banking team would almost be like being a casino ourselves! Am I right?

Answer Regarding Blackjack Banking Teams

Yes, you most certainly are right. Playing off of a common bank should cut your short term risk and flatten the wild fluctuations you’ve been experiencing.

Your scheme to “take over” the tables is very similar to what some teams of professional players did in Arizona a few years ago when “social” gambling in bars was legalized. The Arizona bar gambling, unfortunately, became quite overrun with cheats on both sides of the table, primarily due to a complete lack of gaming controls.

My understanding of these California Indian reservation casinos, with player banked blackjack, is that the games are somewhat more regulated, and more closely monitored by the casino personnel, than were the Arizona bar games.

But be careful. Anytime you gamble with large amounts of cash in relatively loose blackjack games, controlled more by players than by casino personnel, professional cheats will be tempted to get in on the action. Be especially careful if players are allowed to handle their cards, or if dealers are allowed to use varying dealing procedures.

Also, if you are offering limits of $100-200 per hand on blackjack games you are banking, your suggested $20,000 bankroll could prove to be too small if a lot of players decide to play table limits. As long as most players are betting in that $5-25 range, with a smattering of larger bets, you shouldn’t have a problem affording the negative fluctuations. One table full of high rollers, however, could put you out of business in no time flat, just due to normal fluctuation. ♠

Posted on Leave a comment

Blackjack in Prague

The Traveling Gambler: Prague Spring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Money Changers

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

2. Taxi drivers

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

3. Con men and thieves.

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

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

Posted on Leave a comment

The Blackjack Hall of Fame

The Blackjack Hall of Fame Honors Professional Gamblers

© 2005-2012 Blackjack Forum Online

After taking stock of my life, I find my most valuable acquisition
is the wisdom I’ve learned through gambling.

— N. M. “Junior” Moore, The Crossroader

[Note: This is the article about the Blackjack Hall of Fame published in BJFO in 2012. Since then, other Hall of Famers have been added. I will update this article following the 2022 Blackjack Ball. – A.S.]

In the Winter of 2002 a diverse selection of 21 blackjack experts, authors, and professional players were nominated by the top professional gamblers in the world to the Blackjack Hall of Fame. Voting for the Blackjack Hall of Fame was open to the public for about a month on the Internet, and the final voting was completed at the 2003 Blackjack Ball in January, an event open only to the top professional players.

The primary voting for the Blackjack Hall of Fame is done by professional players. There are two reasons for this. First, the founders realized that professional players are the only ones who know the full accomplishments, at and away from the tables, of people who are professional blackjack players. That is because many of these achievements must be hidden from the public in order to protect sensitive information from reaching the casinos.

Second, the founders felt that it is professional players, whose survival depends on such knowledge, who know best which authors and theories have truly been original and truly had the greatest impact on the game, especially on players’ ability to win at the tables.

The Seven Original Inductees into the Blackjack Hall of Fame

There was a remarkable concurrence between the voting of the public and professional players on the original seven inductees to the Blackjack Hall of Fame.

The seven original inductees to the Blackjack Hall of Fame (in alphabetical order) were: Al Francesco, Peter Griffin, Tommy Hyland, Arnold Snyder, Edward O. Thorp, Ken Uston and Stanford Wong.

You may be familiar with some of these names. (Knowledgeable card counters are familiar with all of them.) Griffin, Snyder, Thorp, Uston, and Wong are primarily known to the public through their research and writings on blackjack. Francesco and Hyland are primarily known to professional players (and casino game protection personnel!) for their relentless and highly successful team attacks on the casinos.

Subsequent Inductees into the Blackjack Hall of Fame

The following year, at the 2004 Blackjack Ball, two more inductees were added, again with primary voting done by professional gamblers at the Ball. The two added members: Keith Taft, a brilliant inventor who has spent more than two decades milking the casino blackjack games with his high-tech electronic devices, and author Max Rubin, known for his book on milking high-value casino comps, Comp City, as well as his work on developing some of the highest-edge blackjack team plays.

At the 2005 Blackjack Ball, Julian Braun and Lawrence Revere were inducted, and in 2006 professional gambler James Grosjean was elected to the Blackjack Hall of Fame. In 2007, Johnny Chang was elected, and in 2008 Roger Baldwin, Will Cantey, Herbert Maisel and James McDermott, also known as The Four Horsemen of Aberdeen, were elected for their pioneering work in developing the first accurate blackjack basic strategy. You will find more information about each of the Hall of Fame members below.

Recent inductees include: Richard W. Munchkin (2009), Darryl Purpose (2010), Zeljko Ranogajec (2011), and Ian Anderson, 2012. Richard Munchkin and Darryl Purpose have logged many years as high-stakes players around the world, including with several of the great blackjack teams. They have made money at blackjack using virtually every form of advantage play ever invented, and they were part of the development of several high-edge methods. Darryl Purpose began with the Ken Uston team, and was known as the fastest card counter in the world. Richard Munchkin is the author of Gambling Wizards.

Zeljko Ranogajec ran the most sophisticated and profitable blackjack teams in Australia and continues to deploy his teams in innovative plays in casinos around the world. Ian Anderson is a high-stakes player and author of Turning the Tables on Las Vegas , an esteemed work among professional blackjack players as the first work to seriously address card counting camouflage, and how to get away with high-stakes play long term. (Anderson also wrote a guide for lower-stakes players, titled Burning the Tables in Las Vegas.)

Nomination of candidates has now become the permanent responsibility of the members of the Blackjack Hall of Fame. Every year, the current Hall of Fame memberrs submit names of possible candidates to each other, with biographical information and reasons for consideration. No limitations are placed on the number of names that can be submitted in this initial part of the process. All seven members then vote on their top seven choices, with all members’ votes counting equally. Each member’s votes are provided to all other members to insure the integrity of the process.

The purpose of the Blackjack Hall of Fame is twofold: to honor people of exceptional accomplishment in this field, and to educate the public about the creativity, intelligence, drive, and courage of great players whose achievements at the tables have largely been hidden from the public. The rules for public voting require that the biographies of the nominees be posted wherever the voting takes place.

Last year (2003), the Barona Casino actually created the physical Hall of Fame, similar to the Binion’s Horseshoe’s “Wall of Fame” for great poker players. Each inductee has a plaque with his photo and a few words about his contributions and accomplishments. There is also a museum of cheating devices. There are marked cards, computer shoes, “hold-out” gizmos for card-switching, and all kinds of cool stuff.

An interesting side note: the Barona Casino, which is sponsoring the Blackjack Hall of Fame, has awarded to each inductee a permanent lifetime comp for full room, food, and beverage in exchange for each member’s agreement never to play on Barona’s tables. Arnold Snyder says: “I must admit that this membership and lifetime comp is definitely the strangest thing I’ve ever won from a casino. I’ve been thinking of calling around the casinos of Vegas to see if I can get similar terms.”

In any case, let’s look at the eleven current Blackjack Hall of Fame members, and explain why they were chosen by professional players for this honor.

Members of the Blackjack Hall of Fame and their Achievements

Julian Braun

Julian Braun died in 2000 and his only book, How to Play Winning Blackjack, is long out of print and a collector’s item. For ten years in the early days of card counting, he did a vast amount of the computer work for some of the top authors.

He did the programming for the 2nd edition of E.O. Thorp’s Beat the Dealer . His programs were used to develop all of Lawrence Revere’s systems, as well as the Hi-Opt systems. Of the “pre-Stanford Wong” professional players (the pros playing before the first edition of Wong’s Professional Blackjack came out in 1975), most were using either Thorp’s Ten Count, Thorp’s Hi-Lo, Hi-Opt I, Hi-Opt II, Revere’s Point Count, Revere’s +/-, or Revere’s Advanced Point Count. These were the most popular and widely disseminated systems in use for about ten years, and Julian Braun’s programs were used to develop all of them.

See Arnold Snyder’s Interview with Julian Braun in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

John Chang

John Chang has been known by casinos and the public for over 20 years as manager of the MIT blackjack team, which has won many millions of dollars from casinos in Las Vegas and around the world using a variety of card-counting and other professional gambling techniques, many of them first analyzed and pioneered by John.

John remains active as a professional gambler, and many other professional players continue to use his analysis and innovations to beat blackjack and other casino games, so we’re going to have to wait a few more years to tell you the best stuff about John Chang’s career and accomplishments.

For more information on John Chang and the MIT blackjack team, see The MIT Blackjack Team: Interview with Team Manager Johnny C.

The Four Horsemen of Aberdeen: Roger Baldwin, Will Cantey, James McDermott and Herbert Maisel

The “Four Horsemen of Aberdeen”” (Roger Baldwin, Wilbert Cantey, Herbert Maisel and James McDermott) were inducted into the Blackjack Hall of Fame in 2008 by the unanimous decision of the current living members of the Hall of Fame, including (alphabetically) Johnny Chang, Al Francesco, James Grosjean, Tommy Hyland, Max Rubin, Arnold Snyder, Edward O. Thorp, and Stanford Wong.

The Four Horsemen were inducted for their pioneering work in publishing, in 1956, the first accurate basic strategy for the game of blackjack. The strategy was first published in an article in the Journal of the American Statistical Association; later the strategy was published for a mass audience in the 1957 book Playing Blackjack to Win .

Ed Thorp credits Baldwin, Cantey, Maisel and McDermott with being the impetus for his own research into the game. The four mathematicians provided Thorp with all of their data in 1958, which ultimately led to the publication of Thorp’s Beat the Dealer in 1962.

Although the Four Horsemen did not realize it at the time, the strategy they published in 1957, which also included the first legitimate card-counting system, was the first published blackjack strategy to provide a player advantage over the house with a flat bet. Recent computer simulation carried out by ETFan at Blackjack Forum Online, using the PowerSim blackjack simulation software, shows that the strategy provided a player edge of 0.1%.

One of the particularly impressive things about the Four Horsemen’s accomplishment was that they determined an accurate basic strategy using only desk calculators (or what used to be commonly called “adding machines”), as they began their work while in the Army in 1953, and computers were not available to them at that time. Although the game of blackjack had been played in casinos for 200 years, and although all of the other common casino-banked games had been mathematically analyzed by this time, blackjack had not been analyzed because all of the experts agreed that the game was simply too complicated.

Although the Four Horsemen were never widely known by the public, blackjack aficionados and professional players have always revered the four mathematicians as legends.

Here are a few comments about the Four Horsemen from the members of the Blackjack Hall of Fame:

James Grosjean: “I must have heard a thousand different players tell someone at a blackjack table ‘The book says this’ or “The book says that.’ These guys are the book.”

Johnny Chang: “When I first read the 1957 article they wrote that appeared in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with an accurate basic strategy, I couldn’t fathom how they had accomplished this using desk calculators. It just seemed impossible.”

Al Francesco: “Without these guys, none of us would even be here.”

Cardoza Publishing has published a 50th anniversary edition of the Four Horsemen’s Playing Blackjack to Win , along with interviews and other historical information about these men who changed blackjack history. Arnold Snyder has provided an Introduction for the book, and Ed Thorp has written the Foreword, in which he states: “To paraphrase Isaac Newton, if I have seen farther than others it is because I stood on the shoulders of four giants.”

For more information on Roger Baldwin, Will Cantey, Herbert Maisel and James McDermott, see The Four Horsemen and the First Accurate Blackjack Basic Stragegy .

Al Francesco

Al is one of the most highly respected blackjack players in the history of the game. This is the guy who literally invented team play at blackjack and taught Ken Uston how to count cards. Ken once said to Arnold Snyder: “I owe everything to Al. He really might be the greatest blackjack player there ever was, and he’s also a real gentleman.”

Al is primarily known to the general public through Ken Uston’s books as the mastermind who created the “big player” (BP) team concept. Al started his first blackjack team in the early 1970s, and until Uston’s first book, The Big Player, was published in 1977, Al’s teams were completely invisible to the casinos and extracted millions of dollars from them.

Virtually all of the most successful blackjack teams that came after The Big Player was published—the Hyland team, the MIT team, the Czech team, the Greeks—used Al’s BP concept to disguise their attacks, and that approach is still being employed profitably by teams today.

Al is known by professional players for his highly inventive approaches to beating the casinos, though many of his methods cannot yet be written about because they are still in use by players. See RWM’s Gambling Wizards: Interview with Al Francesco in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Peter Griffin

Peter was the math genius who first proposed using the mathematical “shortcuts” developed by statisticians for estimating answers to highly complex problems to analyze and compare blackjack card counting systems. He was the first to break down the potential gains available from any card counting method to two prime factors: the Betting Correlation (BC) and the Playing Efficiency (PE).

These two parameters facilitated highly accurate estimation of any system’s potential win rate in any game using any betting spread, without extensive computer simulations. He described how these methods could be used to evaluate the differences between single-level and multi-level counting systems, as well as the value of using multi-parameter methods (keeping more than one count). This book was a milestone for system researchers, developers and players, the most important analysis of card counting systems since Thorp’s Beat the Dealer.

Blackjack researchers have been using Griffin’s methods ever since. Any proposed counting system, regardless of its level of simplicity or complexity, can quickly be broken down to its BC and PE, and its comparative value to other systems and methods can be determined.

Over a period spanning 20 years, Griffin published dozens of technical papers in mathematical journals and at academic conferences, all gambling related. Even in his most technical writing, wit and off-the-cuff quips are the hallmarks of his style.

Griffin authored two books: The Theory of Blackjack (1978, revised many times since, published by Huntington Press), and Extra Stuff: Gambling Ramblings (1991).

Peter Griffin died in 1998 at the age of 61.

See Peter Griffin’s article, “Self-Styled Experts Take a Bath in Reno”, in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

James Grosjean

James Grosjean started playing blackjack professionally while a graduate student in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Chicago. He happened to spot his first dealer hole card at a Three Card Poker game not long after, began running original analyses of how best to play the opportunity, and never looked back.

James Grosjean is the author of the professional hole-carder’s bible, Beyond Counting, which established for the first time the accurate edge and playing strategy for a number of hole carding plays and other professional gambling techniques. Grosjean has also worked with Keith Taft on a blackjack computer that was used in a casino situation where computer play was legal. Keith Taft, another member of the Blackjack Hall of Fame, called James Grosjean’s programming “brilliant.”

Like Tommy Hyland, James Grosjean has taken on serious legal battles with the casinos to establish the legal right to play with an advantage. After suffering false arrest at Caesars and Imperial Palace, he successfully sued both casinos and the Griffin Detective Agency. In fact, James Grosjean’s lawsuit was directly responsible for bankrupting the Griffin Agency and stopping them from libeling other professional gamblers.

See James Grosjean’s articles in the Blackjack Forum Professional Gambling Library for more information. Grosjean’s articles include: CTR-Averse Betting42.08%Scavenger BlackjackBeyond CouponsIt’s Not Paranoia If…”, and A Funny Thing Happened On My Way To The Forum.

Tommy Hyland

Tommy started playing blackjack professionally in 1978 while still in college. That was also the year he started his first informal blackjack team. He’s never looked back. For more than 25 years, he has been running the longest-lasting and most successful blackjack team in the history of the game.

Tommy Hyland and his teammates have played in casinos all over the US, Canada, and the world. He has used big player techniques, concealed computers (when they were legal), and had one of the most successful “ace location” teams ever. He has personally been barred, back-roomed, hand-cuffed, arrested, and even threatened with murder at gun-point by a casino owner he had beaten at the tables.

Every year, the Hyland team players take millions of dollars out of the casinos. And even though Tommy has had his name and photo published in the notorious Griffin books more times than any other player in history, he continues to play and beat the games wherever legal blackjack games are offered. He has also fought for players’ rights by battling the casinos in the courts.

Despite his fearsome reputation, Tommy is polite, soft-spoken, and always a gentleman. He is as loved by players as he is hated by the casinos. In an interview conducted by Richard Munchkin in 2001, Tommy said: “If someone told me I could make $10 million a year working for a casino, I wouldn’t even consider it. It wouldn’t take me five minutes to turn it down… I don’t like casinos. I don’t like how they ruin people’s lives. I don’t think the employment they provide is a worthwhile thing for those people. They’re taking people that could be contributing to society and making them do a job that has no redeeming social value.”

Read RWM’s Gambling Wizards: Interview with Tommy Hyland in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Lawrence Revere

Lawrence Revere was both an author and a serious player. He died in 1977. His only book, Playing Blackjack as a Business , initially published in 1969, is still in print. If you ever look at the “true count” methods being employed pre-Revere, you will understand why Revere was inducted into the Blackjack Hall of Fame.

The card-counting methods in use prior to Revere’s book were cumbersome and mentally fatiguing to use. In the second edition of Beat the Dealer, in which Thorp first proposed the Hi-Lo Count, he mentioned a simplified method of using the count, though he never developed it as a full system. Revere had a leap of brilliance that led him to come to the conclusion that the simplified method of obtaining a “true count” that Thorp had mentioned could be fully developed and employed with the most powerful of point count systems.

Revere’s method was so simple compared to the alternatives, that it has been employed by virtually every serious balanced point count system developer since, including Stanford Wong, Ken Uston, Lance Humble, and Arnold Snyder. As a serious player, Revere’s knowledge of the game included such esoteric techniques as shuffle-tracking and hole card play.

Max Rubin

Max is the author of Comp City first published in 1994. In this book, Max exposed techniques even non-counting players could use to get an advantage over the casinos by exploiting weaknesses in the casinos’ comp systems.

The initial manuscript for Comp City included advanced comp-hustling techniques that could be used by professional card counters, but the editors at Huntington Press decided to delete this section from the book in order to appeal to the wider market of recreational players. These excluded portions were published in Blackjack Forum in June, 1994, and can be found now in the BlackjackForumOnline.com Library.

See Max Rubin’s article, “Counting Cards in Comp City” in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Max Rubin is also known for developing one of the highest-edge methods of blackjack team play. Since Max is still out there deploying this play, that’s all that can be said about his playing career at the moment.

Arnold Snyder

Arnold Snyder is a professional blackjack player who has been writing about casino blackjack for 30 years. His first book, The Blackjack Formula (1980), revolutionized the ways professional card counters attacked the games by pointing out, for the first time, the relative importance of deck penetration (over rules or counting system) to a card counter’s win rate.

His discovery has since been borne out by numerous independent computer simulations. In fact, it’s become bedrock knowledge among card counters today that penetration is the name of the game, and many find it hard to believe that for the first two decades of card counting, players did not know this.

Snyder also went against the grain in the early 1980s by recommending that players start using highly simplified sets of strategy indices based on data from Peter Griffin’s analyses (see “How True Is Your True Count?”). Snyder also developed and published (in Blackjack for Profit) the first-ever unbalanced point count system.

In his 2003 The Blackjack Shuffle Tracker’s Cookbook: How Players Win (and Why They Lose) With Shuffle-Tracking (Huntington Press), Snyder revealed the most powerful method for beating today’s casino shuffles, and provided the first numbers available on the high edges that can be gained from different approaches to shuffle tracking.

Since 1981, Snyder has been the publisher and editor of Blackjack Forum, a quarterly journal for professional gamblers (now published online).

Snyder is also the author of Blackbelt in Blackjack and other works directed at serious players who are new to playing blackjack at a professional level. His book Radical Blackjack, a memoir of playing blackjack at the highest stakes, with the details of the methods used to beat the casinos, will be available in Spring 2013.

Keith Taft

Keith is not well-known to the general public, but among professional players he is revered as an electronics genius who has spent more than 30 years devising high-tech equipment—computers, video cameras, and communication devices—to beat the casinos. Blackjack was his initial target, and always remained his prime target.

Taft’s first blackjack computer, which he completed in 1972, weighed 15 pounds. Over the years, as computer chip technology developed, his computers became smaller, faster, and lighter. By the mid-1970s, he had a device that weighed only a few ounces that could play perfect strategy based on the exact cards remaining to be dealt.

If it were up to Keith, his son Marty’s name would be right along his in the Blackjack Hall of Fame, as the two have worked as partners since Marty was a teenager. For 30 years they have jointly created ever-more-clever hidden devices to beat the casinos, trained teams of players in their use, and have personally gone into the casinos to get the money.

Keith and Marty may, in fact, have literally invented the concept of computer “networking,” as they were wiring computer-equipped players together at casino blackjack tables 30 years ago in their efforts to beat the games. Taft equipment has been involved in some of the highest-edge plays that have ever taken place in blackjack history.

When Nevada outlawed devices in 1985, it was specifically as a result of a Taft device found on Keith’s brother, Ted—a miniature video camera built into Ted’s belt buckle that could relay an image of the dealer’s hole card as it was being dealt to a satellite receiving dish mounted in a pickup truck in the parking lot, where an accomplice read the video image then signaled Ted at the table with the information he needed to play his hand.

A pair of Keith’s “computer shoes” and a photo album of Keith’s devises are on permanent display in the Blackjack Hall of Fame museum at the Barona Casino in Lakeside, California.

An in-depth interview with Keith and Marty Taft was published in the Winter 2003-04 Blackjack Forum, and is available in the BlackjackForumOnline.com Library.

See RWM’s Gambling Wizards: Interview with Keith and Marty Taft in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Edward O. Thorp

Edward Oakley Thorp is widely regarded, by professional players as well as the general public, as the Father of Card Counting. It was in his book, Beat the Dealer, first published in 1962, that he presented his Ten Count system, the first powerful winning blackjack system ever made available to the public, and the first published successful mathematical system for beating any major casino gambling game. All card counting systems in use today are variations of Thorp’s Ten Count.

When Thorp’s book became a best-seller, the Las Vegas casinos attempted to change the standard rules of blackjack, but their customers would not accept the changes and refused to play the new version of the game. So, the Vegas casinos went back to the old rules, but switched from dealing hand-held one-deck games to four-deck shoe games, a change that the players would accept.

Unfortunately for the casinos, in 1966 Thorp’s revised second edition of Beat the Dealer was published. This edition presented the High-Low Count, as developed by Julian Braun, a more powerful and practical counting system for attacking these new shoe games.

In 1967, Thorp published Beat the Market (coauthoried with S. Kassouf), and shortly thereafter started (with J. Regan) the first market neutral derivatives-based hedge fund. To put it in the vernacular, he made zillions.

For many years Ed Thorp wrote a column for Gambling Times magazine [now defunct]. Many of these columns were collected in a book titled The Mathematics of Gambling , published in 1984 by Lyle Stuart. In 1961, working with C. Shannon, Thorp invented the first wearable advantage-play computer.

Thorp has an M.A. in Physics and a Ph.D. in mathematics. He has taught mathematics at UCLA, MIT, NMSU and UC Irvine, where he also taught quantitative finance.

To read more about Edward O. Thorp’s early experiences as a card counter, see “The First Counters: My Blackjack Trip in 1962 to Las Vegas and Reno with Professor Edward O. Thorp and Mickey MacDougall” by Russell T. Barnhart in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Ken Uston

Uston burst onto the scene in 1977 with the publication of The Big Player , co-authored with Roger Rapaport. In this book, Uston exposed the secrets of Al Francesco’s big player teams. The book caused a falling out between Al and Ken which lasted for years, as Al felt Ken had betrayed his trust as well as his teammates.

But there is no denying that this book caused an upheaval in the world of card counting, changing the ways that professionals looked at the game and attacked it. Three of the most successful international blackjack teams—the Tommy Hyland team, the MIT team, and the Czech team—all were founded in 1978, the year after Uston’s book was published.

Al and Ken later patched up their relationship and Uston went on to start many blackjack teams of his own. He was a personality on a grand scale, who legally challenged the casino industry in the courts of both New Jersey and Nevada. (See Ken Uston Sues Nevada.) His playing career spanned two decades of play at the highest levels, and included card counting, BP teams, hole card techniques, and concealed computer play.

Ken was also the author of Two Books on Blackjack (1979), Million Dollar Blackjack (1981), and Ken Uston on Blackjack (1986).

Uston died in 1987 at the age of 52. To read more about Ken Uston, see Arnold Snyder’s Interview with Ken Uston, and RWM’s Interview with Darryl Purpose (a long-time Uston team member) in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Stanford Wong

Stanford Wong self-published his first book, Professional Blackjack, in 1975. It was later published by the Gambler’s Book Club in Las Vegas, then revised and expanded numerous times and published by Wong’s own company, Pi Yee Press.

Wong is widely regarded as one of the most creative developers and sharpest analysts of systems and methods for beating the casinos. In Professional Blackjack, he described a never-before-revealed table-hopping style of playing shoe games, a method of play now known as “wonging.” Professional Blackjack had a profound impact on serious players because it provided card counters with an easy yet powerful method for attacking the abundant 4-deck shoe games that had taken over Las Vegas. Many pros still think of card counting opportunities as “pre-Wong” and “post-Wong.”

In his second book, Blackjack in Asia—a book priced at $2,000 and one of the rarest gambling books sought by collectors today—Wong discussed the unique blackjack games he had discovered in Asian casinos as a professional player, along with the optimum strategies he had devised for beating them. The book also included underground advice for exchanging currencies in these countries on the black market; as well as an account of his own hassles with customs officials when he attempted to leave the Philippines with his winnings. This book reveals more of Wong’s anti-establishment personality than any of his later books.

In 1980, Wong published Winning Without Counting, originally priced at $200, and again, this book is a collector’s item. He not only discusses many hole card techniques that had never before been mentioned in print—front-loading, spooking, and warp play—but he also delved into many clearly illegal methods of getting an edge over the house, including various techniques of bet-capping, card switching, card mucking, etc. He was widely criticized (by those in the casino industry) for the amusing way in which he discussed and analyzed such techniques, but anyone with half a brain could see that he was merely informing players with a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor.

Wong subsequently published: Tournament Blackjack (1987); Basic Blackjack (1992); Casino Tournament Strategy (1992); Blackjack Secrets (1993); and since 1979 has published various newsletters including Current Blackjack News, aimed at serious and professional players. In addition to writing about blackjack, he has written other gambling books on subjects as diverse as horse racing and video poker.

See “Blackjack Tournament Strategy” by Stanford Wong in the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library.

Richard Munchkin, Darryl Purpose, and Zeljko Ranogajec

Richard Munchkin, Darryl Purpose, and Zeljko Ranogajec, as active players, have asked that we withhold additional information on their achievements in blackjack at this time. ♠