Just got my latest copy of Gambling Fool magazine. As always, it contains those familiar full-page ads telling me I can haul in mucho bucks anytime I want, that I won’t have to work for a living anymore and, in fact, I can even buy my own private jet and an island in the South Pacific if I just buy one of the advertised blackjack systems, which are so easy to use that some of the lower primates could probably learn them. It’s a good thing casinos don’t pay off in bananas.
Ads like this remind me of the comic book ads that used to catch my attention when I was a kid. I was a Superman addict. Every issue had a few pages of ads for mail order products that allowed me the fantasy of turning myself into the “Man of Steel.” Of course, there was the familiar “I-was-a-97-lb.weakling” pitch for turning my puny 12-year-old excuse for a body into something that looked like King Kong on steroids. According to the ad, I could do this in only 30 days with only 15 minutes per day of easy exercise. Or, for only a buck, I could get a secret ancient chart of the body’s “pressure points” which would immediately transform me into an invincible Master of the Oriental Fighting Arts. Muggers, thugs and NFL linebackers would gasp and tremble when I entered the room.
My favorite, however, had to be the ad for the “X-Ray Specs.” Here was a 59¢ pair of glasses that purported to give me Superman’s incredible x-ray vision — the ability to see through doors, walls, and most importantly — clothing. This ad always had a cartoon illustration of some dodo wearing the specs with his tongue falling out of his mouth while he’s gawking at a fully-clothed dish who’s striking a come-up-and-see-me-sometime pose.
For years, I read this ad and fantasized over the possibilities. Even at that age, however, my inborn cynicism told me the specs probably wouldn’t work. And 59¢ was too much to gamble to find out.
I’ll never forget that hot day in August, however, when my friend Ralph announced he had broken down and sent away for a pair of X-Ray Specs. Word spread through our neighborhood like wildfire. Every pubescent kid on the east side of Detroit had been fantasizing about owning pair of these goggles since they’d first laid eyes on a Superman comic. Now Ralph was going to realize our fantasies.
It must have been 10 weeks before the specs came in the mail. To us it seemed like an eternity of asking Ralph day after day, “Did they come yet?” We all had big plans for those wonder glasses. As soon as we saw that Ralph’s worked, we would all get some. We’d wear ‘em to school. The nuns would never suspect what we were up to. We’d go watch the girls play softball. The women of Detroit were about to become unwary exhibitionists for a gang of horny 12-year-old Catholic boys in funny glasses.
To make a long story short, the X-Ray Specs didn’t x-ray anything. They were ridiculous-looking cardboard and plastic gizmos that made the wearer look like a jerk. As Ralph described the phenomenal X-Ray power of the lenses when he slowly and reverently placed them on his eyes for the first time, “Well . . . Um . . . they just make everything look . . . Um . . . Blurry. . . .”
Alas, the women of Detroit were safe.
I haven’t read a Superman comic in quite a few years, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if X-Ray Specs are still being hawked to 12-year-old thrill seekers. Meanwhile, Gambling Fool magazine is publishing adult variations of this comic-book-mentality advertising. “Win a Million Bucks a Day Even if You’re Stupid!” I find it amusing how these ads for “incredible and amazing” gambling systems insist it doesn’t take much mental effort to get rich. That’s exactly who’s going to fall for this nonsense — people who don’t put much mental effort into anything.
If Ralph reads this ad, he’ll break down and have a check in the mail before his next mortgage payment is due. Six months later, when the bank is foreclosing on his house, if you ask him how his mail order blackjack system is working, he’ll say, “Well . . . Um . . . you see . . . Um . . . ”
“You can flip the coin,” he said. “If I call it right, you give me $100. If I call it wrong, I’ll give you $1,000.”
It was the winter of 1979-1980 in Atlantic City, and I had seen the character who made me this offer playing blackjack in Resorts for the past week. He was hard to miss because he was extremely loud and more than a little odd. I remember him leaning way over a blackjack table and asking a dealer in a shouting voice that broke my concentration 2 tables away, “YOU LIKE PIZZA? I LOVE PIZZA!!”.
I was in Atlantic City because the New Jersey Casino Control Commission had decided to conduct an experiment to see if casinos and card counters could coexist. The rules allowed the casinos, only Resorts and Caesars were open at that time, to shuffle up only when a player had tripled his previous bet. Otherwise the casino had to deal to the cut card, which was placed at least 4 decks into the 6-deck shoe.
The Atlantic City rules included early surrender, and the players had a 0.2% edge off the top. Even with the betting restrictions and mediocre penetration, the game was very good. Ken Uston’s team was there, as well as a group known as the Czech team. There were several smaller teams and many individual counters, too. I had formed a 3-person team for the occasion.
The coin-flipper first approached me when I was eating dinner alone in a greasy spoon a couple of blocks off Boardwalk. He had been eating with a friend, and then he came up to my table.
“I’ve seen you in the casino”, he said. “You like to gamble.” It wasn’t really a question, but I answered, “Sometimes.”
“How about flipping a coin for $100?”, he asked.
“No thanks”, I said. He asked why not, and I said that I only liked to bet when I had an advantage. I wasn’t interested in betting for the thrill of it.
He said, “What if I make it that you either win $1,000 or lose $100? You can flip the coin. If I call it right, you give me $100. If I call it wrong, I’ll give you $1,000.”
I said it would depend. The coin-flipper asked, “Depend on what?”. I told him that I would want to use a neutral coin, that he would have to call it in the air, and that we would have to let the coin hit the floor. I added that the money would have to be on the table, too.
To my surprise, he said, “Okay.”
As I went to the bathroom to take out some cash, I tried to evaluate the situation. Was it believable that this guy was offering me a fair bet on a coin-flip at odds of 10-1? I’d seen him betting black chips in the casino. He wasn’t awful, but he wasn’t counting. He appeared to have money to burn.
Still, the line from Guys And Dolls came to mind. It’s something like, “If someone bets you that they can make the Jack-Of-Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear, then you’d better be ready for an earful of cider.” At the same time, “$450 per flip” kept going through my head like some EV mantra. I took a few hundred out of my stash and returned to my table where he was still standing.
“You can put the thou in your pocket if you want”, said the coin-flipper, as he threw some money on the table. I didn’t want to do that, but I liked the fact that he offered it. Still, I was nervous leaving $1,100 visible on the table in this part of town, so we covered the small pile with a paper napkin. We called over my waitress and explained that we wanted a coin from the cash register. She brought me back change for a dollar, and I selected one of the quarters.
The coin-flipper said, “Okay, let’s practice one time.”
This struck me as odd, so I said, “Let’s just do it. I’ll flip the coin, we let it hit the floor, and you have to call it while it’s still in the air.” He asked why I didn’t want to just catch the coin rather than let it hit the floor. I said I thought there would be no room for doubt on the outcome if we let it hit the floor. That seemed okay with him, but he asked why I didn’t want to practice it once.
“Because, if we practice once, there may be some doubt about which flip is practice and which flip is “real”, I answered. He didn’t agree or disagree. He just said, “Let’s do it.”
I had the coin ready to flip on my right hand; my thumb was in position. I couldn’t believe I was getting 10 to 1 on a coin flip! But when I tried to get confirmation that “this flip counts, right?”, I never quite got the solid “Yes” that I was looking for. No matter how I asked, he always managed to leave a tiny doubt about whether or not the first toss was going to count. For example, at one point this exchange occurred.
Me: “Okay. This flip is going to count, right?”
Him: “Okay. Let’s see what happens.”
He seemed to be saying yes, but the “Let’s see what happens” left a door open for arguing that it did not count. Each time I asked for a definitive confirmation, he kept adding just enough to make me pause. I was considering other factors, too. He had a friend still at the other table, and I was alone. If there were a dispute, I would be outnumbered. Also, I didn’t know how to treat the bet–was it my money or the team’s money I’d be betting?
After 10 minutes of fruitlessly trying to get him to agree in a way that would satisfy my doubts, I made the most difficult “walk-away-from-a-game” decision I have ever made. I picked up my $100 off the table, said, “thanks anyway”, and headed for the door.
I had plenty of doubts later, though. That $1,000 I left lying on the table in that dumpy restaurant was like a siren calling out to me in my hotel room. Had I been too paranoid? What could he have done if I had put his $1,000 in my pocket before the flip, as he had offered, and then won the first flip? (Neither he nor his friend was physically imposing, but I had wondered about concealed weapons.) Shouldn’t I have been willing to risk a $100 loss on the first flip, just to see if he would pay the $1,000 and maybe chase it?
I assumed I would never be able to answer those questions, but 3 years later an article in the June ’83 issue of Blackjack Forum finally settled my doubts. As part of an interview with Ken Uston, Arnold Snyder asked Uston about a “curious story” he had heard. Snyder asked if it was true that Uston had “lost a lot of money” to a coin-flipper.
Uston replied that it was “absolutely true”. Uston had first met the coin-flipper at the old Holiday Casino in Las Vegas, where the coin-flipper had offered Uston 5 to 1 on $100 if Uston could call a coin flip. After Uston lost the bet, the coin-flipper kept offering Uston better and better conditions, and Uston kept losing. When the loss reached $9,400, Uston must have decided he’d had enough.
The issue of whose money was at stake came up, too. Some of Uston’s team members were less than thrilled when Uston declared it was a team loss. In the end, Uston had to eat the loss himself. Ironically, according to Uston, one of Uston’s team members later got taken by the same coin-flipper in Atlantic City, in December of 1979.
I can’t be 100% sure that my encounter was with the same coin-flipper who conned Uston and Uston’s teammate. But, what are the odds that two guys with the same act and coin-flipping skills were running around Atlantic City at the same time? I have to conclude that I was lucky to escape a thorough fleecing.
As advantage players, we are always on the lookout for a good bet. Our usual blackjack edge is so thin, that when presented with what looks like a truly great game, our eagerness to play can make us vulnerable to being conned.
There’s a lot of truth to the claim that no one is easier to con than a con artist. And after all, with our “act” and cover bets, we are not so far removed from the con mentality. So, when an unusually juicy opportunity presents itself, it’s wise to pause long enough to do a reality check, preferably while humming “Luck Be a Lady Tonight”. If you charge ahead without careful consideration, then keep a handkerchief handy to dry out your earful of cider. ♠
THE CARD COUNTER’S GUIDE TO CASINO SURVEILLANCE , BY D.V. CELLINI Review by Arnold Snyder
Unless the casino attitude toward card counters goes through some drastic change in the near future, such that counters are viewed by casinos as good customers who should be allowed to win whatever their talents allow, I cannot imagine any card counter not wanting (and needing) The Card Counter’s Guide to Casino Surveillance. This book by a casino surveillance director, writing under the pseudonym D.V. Cellini, is the first book ever to describe in vivid detail what card counters are up against, from the enemy’s perspective.
Aside from the education it provides, this book by D. V. Cellini is funny. The “Glossary” of terms commonly used by casino surveillance personnel is an education in itself. Hole card players are “peek freaks.” A big player who is circling the pit endlessly looking for his spotters’ call-in signals is a “buzzard.” A player who spends hours in the same seat, continuing even through a shift change, is a “headstone.”
If you ever play even at the green chip level, my advice to you would be to take four of those chips and trade them for this report. The long-run value of The Card Counter’s Guide to Casino Surveillance will far exceed the value of those four bets on the table. Virtually every card counter who rises above the nickel level eventually has problems with heat, backing off, and barrings from casino surveillance. Card counting is a skill that once developed leads to an inability to apply it anywhere at any high level. The more successful you are as a counter, the shorter your days. For most counters, this future of barring and harassment seems almost inevitable.
This book can change all of that. For the first time, you can know exactly what you’re walking into when you walk into a casino. The Card Counter’s Guide to Casino Surveillance is a nothing less than the enemy’s secret plans and documents on how to find you and attack you before you can do any damage. Cellini answers every question you have about how to disguise yourself as a tourist and gambler. This is the information you need before you’ve started having problems with heat. And if you have already had such problems, then Cellini’s book is the remedy. ♠
Playing poker with men is stimulating in a different way than playing only with women. The majority of men perceive woman as a passive creature who is incapable of high limit competition. You will have to become more aggressive to survive, but you can also use your feminine wiles to outwit your opponent at any monetary limit. When men stare at a pretty face (or chest) some lose interest in everything other than acting like Mr. Nice Guy. Reward them with a smile when they check. The more capable you are of boosting the male ego, the greater chance you’ll have of bluffing them. And if your bluff does succeed, don’t ever show; compliment him instead on how devilishly smart he plays.
Another advantage, when facing a bet from Mr. Nice Guy, is that you can always just ask, “Geesh, did you make that straight?” The more your male opponent craves female attention, the more truthful he’ll be. Flirting works best for the woman who is not overly aggressive and simply plays by the book.
There’s also the type of male opponent I call Daddykins. He’ll want to show-off to his little girl how much he knows about poker. This type of man longs for appreciation. Listen, nod respectfully, never challenge an opinion, and mentally catalog what he’s giving up. The more a player divulges how he plays, the easier it is to develop a strategy to beat him. An added bonus is he may also be a good player and teach you something valuable.
Use all your natural born assets, which includes your superior female sixth sense. Who understands a flying hormone better than us? Study your opponents; try to feel an opponent’s emotional highs and lows. When a person is upset his “mad” turns into aggression whether he has the cards or not. Don’t choose these times to try and outplay him with deuces. It seems like it should be the reverse, doesn’t it? No, even hormonal men can get lucky; so don’t be the one that dumps off her money and allows him to get his equilibrium back. Wait for a hand that is unquestionably the best and then be prepared to risk your stack. And remember – don’t make any good lay-downs at the river because we don’t care if he bluffs us before the chips go in, but after you’ve made a full round investment – CALL!
What if you’ve never won a beauty contest? (Personally, congratulations.) You are not weaponless, whatever your appearance, because just being a woman unsettles most men and you can use that to your advantage. The quiet woman has the ability to strike unexpectedly, and her raises will be taken seriously. You can limit your field more easily and your aces will hold up more often. But just because you can’t turn 10 heads in a row doesn’t mean you can’t always look well groomed and confident. You can’t fight the fact that looking good equates to feeling good about yourself. And confidence wins pots.
What if you’re a lifetime member of the National Organization of Women and find manipulating opponents with your feminine wiles offensive. Don’t let being a feminist be a negative. My main point is to understand what impression you are making at the table. If you sit down with a chip on your shoulder, there will be some man who can’t wait to knock it off. He will try to outplay you, and if he has more experience than you, he will succeed. So drop the attitude. Our objective is to win money, not prove the superiority of the sexes. You won’t be able to bluff with as much success as Miss Pretty, but you will get your good hands called more often. Be patient, your time will come. And don’t fall prey to chauvinistic remarks. You’ll hear plenty, and if you let it throw you off balance or put you in an attack mode you may as well brand a V for victim on your forehead.
Fearless, aggressive, and sharp-witted women aggravate the macho man the most. Be prepared to be disliked by some, and if this is a problem, coat yourself with an additional layer of shellac before leaving the house. You will always be the minority sex in a public cardroom, so don’t start any battles without provocation. Eventually there will be a man that is just as smart as you, plays better, and has sharper quills. Be prepared to back down and count to ten. Again, we’re not at the table to prove anything, we’re here to make money.
Not all men think women are inferior players. Don’t compartmentalize; size up your male opponents correctly from the start. The more experienced players, even if they are misogynistic, won’t let ignorance affect their reasoning.
One way to enhance your image is by never whining over bad luck or asking for set-ups. Remember, you only make your opponents feel good to see you miserable or out-of-control. In fact you are building up their confidence by displays of ill emotion. If you recognize it when you feel like pulling a stun gun out of your purse, GET UP and take a break. Go outside, look up at the blue sky, feel the breeze, remember the good things in your life – your baby’s smile, your dog’s wagging tail, anything that will transport you out of your self-inflicted mental darkness. And if you can’t shake it off, go back to the table, pick up your chips, and think like Scarlett, “Tomorrow is another day.”
Eventually you will earn the respect of your male opponents if you consistently play a tough game. Yet if you are seeking admiration you’ve chosen the wrong outlet or profession. High limit poker is tough, often hurts like hell, and only the resilient, determined, disciplined woman or man will experience a financially happy ending. ♠
Bet spread. The difference between a player’s lowest and highest wagers
Bird dog. See “Shill”
BFA. Black female adult
Black Book. See Excluded List
Bleed. The slow draining of the float or cheques tray by an advantage player
Bleeder. A winning player suspected of being an advantage player
BMA. Black Male Adult
Body talk. Non-verbal communication used by counting teams
Bone. A term used to describe a $1 value cheque, usually white in color
Brush. See “scratch”
Bullet. An ace card
Burn card. The first card off the top of a new shuffle that is sacrificed and not played (goes straight to the discard rack)
Burn joint. A casino where, due to the game rules or reputation of the dealers, a player should expect to get burned (get a bad game or run into cheaters)
Bust-out man. A dealer who cheats
Camouflage. An act to appear less of an intelligent player so as to remain welcome at a casino’s tables
Candy Store. A casino that tolerates advantage players due to ignorance or open-minded executives
Case bet. A last big bet in which a player bets all his remaining chips on a hand in an attempt to come back from losses
CC. Card counter
Cheques play. What’s said by a dealer to the pit boss when a player wagers black cheques or higher.
Clay. A chip or cheque
Curfew. An agreed-upon time for team players to end a play session
Dame. A card of the rank of queen
Daub. A foreign substance used to mark cards, can be anything from professionally-made color tinge to human body oil to ashes from the ash tray
Dead hand. A round called dead by a pit boss due to a complaint, misdeal, etc.
Deal me out. A term used to tell the dealer that you do not wish to play this round, as in “Deal me out this round.”
Decisions per hour (DPH). The number of decisions (win, lose, or tie) that a player makes during 60 minutes. DPH x # of players = HPH (hands per hour for a casino)
Defensive wager. A wager to reduce one’s potential loss
Desirability index. Win rate divided by the standard deviation x 100 = The D.I.
Discard rack. Plexiglas housing (usually smoke or red in color) used to hold discards
Double down. A blackjack play in which the player may bet an additional amount up to his initial wager to receive one, and only one, more card on his initial two-card hand
Double up. To increase your wager to twice the previous amount
Drop. The total funds removed from the table games’ drop boxes
Drop box. A self locking box locked to a games table that the dealer places all incoming funds into (outside cheques, cash, fill slips)
Drummer. A player who is tight with his or her money
Duffer. An inexperienced player, a.k.a. a ploppy
Dummy up. What pit bosses used to tell dealers when they wanted them to be quiet and deal
Dump. Said of a dealer who pays losing hands or gives away the hole card or hit card (intentionally). Also a term used by players to describe a table that is losing money to the players
Edge. The percent advantage, either for the player or the house. That is, the percentage of the amount wagered that the player or house can expect to win or lose, over time
EOR. Effects of removal
Even money. An offer of insurance from a dealer when a player has a blackjack and the dealer has an ace showing. Not always a sound wager. Also, a wager that pays 1:1.
Excluded list. The “black book,” maintained by the state, of players who are not permitted to enter or play in a casino in that state
Eye. A respectable term used to describe the surveillance department or surveillance camera
F comp. Free food comp
Face chaser. Said by casino personnel of a player who increases his wager after numerous small cards (non-tens) have been dealt. Also a term used by advantage players to describe Griffin agents
Fade. Slang for covering action or accepting a bet, as in to “fade” a bet
False cut. When a dealer falsifies a cut to cheat a player
False shuffle. When a dealer mimics the motions of a real shuffle but retains a clump or the entire preshuffle composition of the cards
Fill. The act of replenishing the cheque rack on a table game with more cheques
Fill slip. The paperwork that must accompany the above-mentioned fill
First base. The first spot (furthest seat on the right) on a blackjack table
Fish. A ploppy or someone easily “hooked.” A patsy
Fixed limit. The max wager a casino will allow or book on that game. Most states require casinos to post the table minimums and the fixed maximums.
Flagged. A player who is suspected of advantage play is “flagged” to be watched whenever he returns
Flasher. Said of a dealer who exposes his or her hole or hit card, sometimes on purpose to an agent
Flat store. A casino that cheats
Float. Cheque tray on a table game
Floor supervisor. A person placed in charge of a certain game area. Usually monitors four table games
Fluctuation. A term used to describe the roller coaster ride one’s bankroll may experience during a session or multiple sessions
Foul hand. A misdealt round that gets called off
Front loader. A dealer that exposes her hole card when burying it beneath the top card
Front loading. A play that takes advantage of a front loader dealer
Gallery. Non-playing spectators
Gambler. A player willing to wager without an advantage
Garbage. The discards
GCB. Gaming Control Board.
Gorilla. A “big player,” a.k.a. “money man”
Grand. Slang for $1000
Grave. The first shift of the day for casinos (starts at the end of the previous day, usually around 4:00 a.m.)
Gravy. A team’s or player’s overall winnings
Green. A $25 value cheque
Grifter. A term used to describe a cheater
Grift sense. That sixth sense good crossroaders have as to whether to continue with a plan or abandon it
Grind. Winning in a slow, small incremental manner so as not to draw any attention and make a profit over time
Gross revenue. Net win
Hand. The cards held by a player in one round of play
Handle. Total amount wagered in a casino
Hands per hour (HPH). The number of hands that a dealer can deal in 60 minutes, including to herself. HPH divided by (# of players + dealer) = DPH
Hard hand. A hand that can have only one total value, for example, a ten and a 7 = hard seventeen
Harrigan shoe. A shoe with a shield or horse-hair (bristle) covered opening
Heads up. Playing one on one with the dealer
Heat. Extra unwanted attention from a pit boss to a player who appears to be winning by means of advantage play
Heel peak. A method by which the dealer can peek the top card
HFA. Hispanic female adult
HMA. Hispanic male adult
High roller. A premium player, a.k.a. a “whale”
Hit. To request or deal another card to a hand. Also see “scratch”
Hold out. To hold out a card, a.k.a card mucking. Means to withhold a card illegally
Hold out device. A mechanical cheating device
Hold percentage. A casino’s table games’ win divided by the drop (buy-in) = hold
Hole card. The dealer’s face down card
Hop. A cheating method in which cards are cut in such a way as to return them to their original pre-cut state
Hot hand. A run of high valued cards
House. Another term for the casino
Humps. A.k.a. “belly strippers,” cards that have been altered by shaving the edges. Used in cheating to find specific cards
Hustle. Said of a dealer who solicits tips
Independent. A lone or solo card counter
Index. The printed values on the playing cards (2, 3, 4, 5, etc). Card counters also use this term to denote the count at which their playing strategy for a given hand changes
Index number. Card counter jargon used to identify the count for specific strategy deviations.
Insurance. A side bet that the dealer has a 10-value card in the hole when showing an ace for a top card. Pays 2:1
Jog. A method in which a cheating dealer marks a position in the deck or shoe; used to guide an agent to the place to cut
Juice. A term used to describe a casino employee who carries political weight or influence within the organization, as in “That boss has a lot of juice. ” Also used as a verb, as in “He was juiced into his job.”
K. Slang for thousand
Key card. A playing card used to predict an upcoming card or slug of cards, such as an Ace or clump of 10’s
Key employee. A casino executive
Kibitzer. A non-stop talking spectator
Knave. A Jack
Knock off. A playing card marked by sandpaper (for cheating purposes)
Lammer. A chip used to identify the dollar amount given to a player under credit conditions for taking or paying back markers
Large. A term for $1000; ten large = $10,000
Layout. The green felt cover on the table made of a nylon weave with a silk screened custom monogram showing the casino’s name, rules, etc.
Limit. The maximum wager a casino is willing to book. Usually displayed on the table game plaque.
Locator. One who plays to the “Key Card,” a.k.a. location play
Lock it up. Placing the cheques from a player’s lost wager into the tray.
Longevity. The amount of time measured in minutes, hours, days, weeks, or years before a casino gets wise and bars you
Luminous reader. Cards marked by special ink or substance that can only be seen with special glasses or contact lenses. Cheating
Marked cards. Cards that have been altered from factory standards in order to aid a cheater
Marker. A counter check made payable to the casino in exchange for cheques. Used for “playing” credit
Marker play. A player who plays against his own front money or previously established credit arranged at the cage
Martingale. A very old method of progression betting. A systems player.
Master report. The “rip sheet,” or summary sheet, of all wins, drops, fills, markers, etc. per table. This report includes a report on each individual game
Mechanic. A dishonest dealer
Milker. A tight wad player
Money man. See B.P., a.k.a. Big Player
Money manager. A player who makes calculated wagers according to bankroll size, edge, etc.
Monkey. An Asian term for a 10 card
Mucker. A player who switches cards on a table–a cheating move
Mug shot. A picture of a suspected advantage player, shot taker, or cheater, maintained in a file by casinos and official authorities
Multi-deck. A blackjack game that has more than 1 deck in play at the same time, as in double deck, 6 deck, 8 deck
Mystic. An irrational, unreasonable player
Natural. A two card total of 21 in blackjack
Negative deck/shoe. A deck or shoe with extra high cards depleted so that the count has swung below neutral
Negative swing. A losing period
Nickel. A $5 value cheque, a.k.a. red cheque
No dice. Casino term for No Deal, no way, not going to happen, etc.
Nurser. A player who “sweats” his cards; a card fondler
Nut. The casino’s overhead
Odds. A probability ratio, as in your odds of liking the movie “Stacey’s Knights” are slim to none at best!
Office. A signal given by a cheat to his partner
OMA. Oriental male adult
On the square. On the up and up, fair, honest. Not crooked or flat
Opener. A table card used to counter/verify the cheque inventory when the table was closed. The opener and the closer should match
Original. The first two “original” cards dealt to a player
O.T.T. Off the Top, the first round after a shuffle
Our cheques. Said of a player who is wagering with money he or she won from the casino, as in “She’s playing with “our cheques”
Outsider. A non-employee that works with an employee to embezzle/steal cheques from the table
No peek reader. An electronic card-reading device mounted on a blackjack table so that a dealer can check for an ace or ten hole card without seeing the actual value of the card
Pack. Deck of cards
Paddle. The clear plexiglas device used to push the currency (from buy ins and lost cash wagers) and fill slips into the drop box
Paint. Face card
Palming. Another term for mucking, mucker
Pan handler. A dealer who attempts to embarrass a player into toking
Partial insurance. To insure your bet for less than the full amount
Past post. To make a wager after the conclusion of the event wagered upon. Illegal cheating move
Pat. A strong two card total of 17(hard) or better, as in “a pat hand”
Payoff. The monetary amount one expects to receive upon winning the bet
PC. Hold percentage
Peek. To view the top card of the deck prior to dealing it. A cheating move
Pen. The area of the deck or shoe where the “sweat” or shuffle card is placed, a.k.a. penetration
Picture card. Face card
Pigeon. A sucker, easy mark
Pincher. Player who removes cheques from his wager after losing but before the dealer can pick up the lost bet. A cheat move
Pips. The spots on the face of the cards indicating their value
Pit. The area in which gambling is conducted; a.k.a. the Arena
Pit boss. An employee entrusted to oversee numerous Floor Supervisors in a pit
Pit clerk. Data entry clerk in charge of printing fill slips for the supervisors, marker input, player rating input, etc.
Ploy. A system or stratagem
Plus count. A term used to indicate that the composition of the deck favors the player due to an excess of ten value cards
Policy. A casino’s way of doing things: “It’s not our policy to take personal checks”
Power of the pen. Having the authorization to comp at the expense of the department or the casino
Press it up. To increase your wager, a.k.a. double your wager
Presser. Player who adds cheques to his/her winning wager after knowing the outcome is in their favor
Procedure. A casino’s written rules that employees must adhere to
Progression. A playing system that entails increasing or decreasing your wager after winning or losing a hand
Prove hand. An action requested by a floor supervisor (or higher) for the dealer to “back out” the cards from the discard rack and restore them to the correct players
Pull through. A false shuffle
Punter. An Australian term for a player
Puppy print. The Ace of clubs
Quarter. A $25 cheque. Also see “green”
Quitter. A player who loses and leaves
R comp. Free room comp
Rabbit hunting. Part of the procedure a dealer goes through to check new cards prior to putting them in play–to check the front and back of new cards
Rag, or rags. To a card counter, low cards
Rail thief. Someone who steals cheques from casino players at the tables
Rat holer. A player who secretly pockets chips in order to hide his winnings from a casino
Readers. Marked cards
Red. A $5 cheque, also see “nickel”
RFB comp. Free room, food, and beverage comp
RFBA Comp. Room, food, and beverage unlimited
Rider. A player who stands behind a seated player and wagers on the same spot. In some countries, the larger bettor controls the decisions on the hand
Rim. Slang for a marker or credit player
Rim Card. An index card used to track a premium player’s “rim” play
Ring In. To introduce an unfair deck into play to aid the casino, a.k.a. a “ringer”
Rip off. Slang for a ruse or sting
Risk of ruin. The risk or likelihood of a player losing all of his or her bankroll
Rolling. An expression called out by a dealer before turning a freshly shuffled deck on its side for squaring, as in “rolling the deck”
ROS. “Rule of Six.” Applies to single-deck games. Dealer will deal 5 rounds to 1 player, 4 rounds to 2 players, etc. Always adds up to 6.
Rover. A player who roams around looking for an empty seat so that he can play
Rummy. An inebriated player tolerated only because he has funds
Run. A long or unusual winning streak
Run up. Any type of deck stacking (cheating)
Runner. A cheater who fails to execute his move correctly and therefore must make a run for it
Running count. A count of the card values as the cards fall before converting to a true count
Ruse. A plan or means of deception
Sanded deck. A deck that has been marked with sandpaper for cheating purposes
Sawbuck. A $10 bill
Scratch. An old term used to describe the action that a player performs to request a hit
Second base. A term used to indicate the playing position at the center of the table. There is a difference between a base and a spot.
Shaved deck. A deck of cards that has been altered for cheating purposes
Shift boss. A key employee in charge of all pit activity during his or her shift. The shift boss reports to the casino manager
Shill. A player who is paid by the casino and bankrolled by the casino to play at empty games in order to attract others into playing
Shiner. A mirror like device used by a player to catch the image of the dealer’s hole card. Illegal under the device law
Shoe. A device used to hold multiple decks of freshly shuffled cards for dealing
Short lived play. Same as “short ‘n sweet” except that the player wins and then departs rather quickly. Also see the surveillance glossary at this Web site
Short ‘n sweet. A term used to describe the play session of a player who loses a lot of money rather quickly
Single Deck. A game dealt from only one deck
Snake bend. A card that has been marked for cheating purposes by quickly bending it from the upper left corner to the lower right corner
Snapper. In blackjack, any two card combination that equals 21
Soft double. A two card total that includes an ace that is doubled down on
Split. A rule option afforded by some casinos in which a player may take two identical value cards and split them into two hands (and wagers)
Spooking. Two players gaining an edge by having one see the dealer hole card (usually from behind the dealer) when the dealer peeks, then communicating the info to the other player.
Spot. The betting area or box in front of a player. First spot is to the dealer’s left; then go clockwise to spot 6 (or more)
Spotter. A member of a count team who grinds away at a table and signals in the Big Player when the count is high
Stand. To refuse any further hits on your blackjack hand.
Standard deviation. A mathematical term for describing the variance of a game
Steamer. A player who is chasing his losses
Stiff. In blackjack, a two-card hard total from twelve to sixteen
Stiff sheet. A folded up sheet carried by the CSM (Casino Shift Manager) showing his or her shift’s totals. Also see “Master”
Sting. See Ruse
Store. A casino
Stuck. To have lost money gambling, to be down, as in “We’ve got him stuck for $20K”
Suit. Slang for a casino pit employee
Sweat card. A plastic red, green, yellow, purple, or other color card used to mark the end of the portion of cards to be dealt in a deck or shoe. Indicates the “penetration”
System. To casinos, wagering or money management patterns erroneously employed by players to gain an advantage, in contrast with legitimate methods like card counting (casinos love systems players)
Table hopper. A player who hops from table to table to play fewer hands at a disadvantage
Tapped off. A dealer gets “tapped out” when relieved for a break
Tapped out. To have lost all your money
Tell. A facial expression (face dance) or gesture that gives a clue to an opponent
Theoretical hold. Percentage of wagering buy-ins that the house expects to keep on any given game or machine based on the house’s mathematical advantage and game speed. Always an estimate
Third base. The last possible spot to the dealer’s right on a blackjack table, a.k.a the last spot, or anchor
Tip. See toke
Toke. A tip (token of appreciation)
Tray. The float or tray on the table in front of the dealer that holds the house cheques
True count. Running count divided by the number of undealt decks
Truncating. To remove the decimal portion that follows an integer
TTO. This Trip Only is said when a player asks for an extension on a maxed out account. The casino may agree, but TTO
Turn. An action performed by a player to distract (turn) a casino employee. “Turning” is used for both legal and illegal purposes
Underdog. A player with a very small starting bankroll who builds it up to a small empire
Unit. Another term used for cheques or chips; 5 units could be 5 red, green, black, etc.
Vigorish. Slang for “commission,” a percentage of a win that the house takes to get its advantage in some games
Walk. To leave a table game
Walked with. Said of the amount a player leaves a gaming table with, part of a dealer’s report to a pit manager or higher, as in “He walked with $5K”
Warp. Cards that show a distinctive bend due to the dealers having to manually peek the hole card
Wash. A procedure that requires the dealer to “pizza wash” cards newly introduced to a game. The act of mixing the cards before shuffling by spreading and smearing them around on the table
Wave. The hand motion a dealer makes to offer insurance or the chance to wager prior to dealing a round
Wave off. A hand motion a player is required to make to show that he or she wishes to stand and wants no more cards
WFA. White female adult
Whale. Term for a premium player, a.k.a. high roller
Whiz machine. A fill, credit, and marker slip dispenser. It’s like a Pez dispenser, except it dispenses casino documents
Whole 9 yards. A slang term for a “case” bet
Win. Gross revenue, also see “net win”
Win rate. The amount the house or a player expects to win per hour, based on game speed, dollars wagered, and advantage
WMA. White male adult
X-Ray. Said of a player (cheater) who can read the cards from the backs, based on such marks as lime shade, nicks, etc.
Yard. A $100 bill, also see Benji, C-Note
Zebra. Radio call sign for the surveillance department, as in “Security Officer Williams to Zebra One”
Zoo lander. Also a “Lookie Lou,” that is, a non-playing, non-drinking, aisle-blocking, over-the-shoulder player who thinks he knows it all and tries to help you play your hand
[Editor’s note: This article first appeared in Card Player’s May 21, 1993 issue, some 2½ years prior to the first published announcement of Mikohn Gaming’s “Safe Jack” casino surveillance system for detecting card counters. Did I “invent” Safe Jack? No . . . I later learned that the original patent for the Safe Jack idea had been filed in December, 1992, five months prior to this article. —Arnold Snyder]
For some months now, readers have been sending me an advertisement, clipped from the pages of Gaming & Wagering Business (the industry’s leading trade mag), for “BJ Tracker,” a software package designed to aid casino surveillance departments in identifying card counters. The ad claims that a casino surveillance user will be able to identify a card counter “. . . in five minutes.”
“Is this possible, Arnold?” asks one reader.
“Sounds frightening . . . ” says another.
But let’s analyze the problem of identifying the card counter(s) among the masses of blackjack players, on the basis of observation of a short sequence of consecutively dealt hands. How many hands? Five minutes play at a full table would be about five hands per player in a shoe game; four hands per player at a one-decker (shuffle every other round). A solitary player at a table (a rarity these days) might play 12-16 hands in five minutes.
Why Safe Jack and BJ Tracker Won’t Work as Advertised
In a deeply dealt single-deck game, a card counter using a full set of strategy indices will vary his bet from basic on about 20% of his hands, or about one out of five. Depending on his betting strategy, he would likely raise his bet on one out of five hands also.
These variations from basic strategy and/or flat betting, as functions of the count, are not evenly distributed. In many sequences of 5-10 hands, there would be no variations from basic strategy, and no raised bets. In other sequences, there might be as many variations as basic strategy plays. So, it is conceivable that a card counter’s strategy might be identified (or, at least, suspected), from observation of five minutes play at a deeply dealt, head-to-head, single-deck blackjack game. Conceivable, but not likely. The ad claim is a bit far-fetched.
In multiple-deck blackjack games, these “count indicators” occur with less frequency. Depending on the number of decks in play, the shuffle-point, the number of players at the table, and the playing styles of the specific players being analyzed, the possibility of identifying any card counter(s) on any given short sequence of consecutively dealt blackjack hands is remote. In fact, in your standard six-deck blackjack shoe game, the likelihood that the ratio of low cards to high cards would change enough in five minutes to warrant any betting or strategy changes is slim at best.
What it Takes to Detect a Card Counter
Most non-card counters play fairly close to basic strategy with occasional variations. Many card counters do not play perfect basic strategy. Most counters use abbreviated strategy charts for the sake of simplicity and/or camouflage.
Any casino surveillance observation/analysis program would probably be able to determine which players in the general public were not card counters sooner than it could identify which players were. In fact, I’m tempted to develop and market my own software (“BJ Hacker?”), designed to identify the real idiots at the table, so that the casino/user could loosen up the comps based on real value.
In blackjack shoe games, picking out the card counters from the non-counters with any degree of accuracy, purely on the basis of observation/analysis of hands played, would probably require a data collection period of at least 45-60 minutes, depending on the speed of the game and the penetration. The deeper the penetration, the more accurate the analysis will be. (I hope the folks at BJ Tracker are advising the casinos who use their software to deal deeply in their shoe games — 85+% is best! — in order for the program to work optimally.)
Even more, I sincerely hope casino surveillance departments don’t start using this software to identify (and back off) suspected card counters “. . . in five minutes.” A lot of amateur card counters who don’t play a winning game, to say nothing of good customers who know nothing at all about card counting, might find themselves on the pavement.
This is not good. The most sophisticated of card counters — those who employ both playing and betting camouflage to violate card counting “logic” — would be unlikely to be identified by software that compares their play to the recommendations of popular published systems.
The introduction of “BJ Tracker” into the casinos’ arsenal of surveillance weapons, however, portends a future of increasingly sophisticated computer/electronic devices for protecting the games. This product may be overrating its abilities, but I suspect this to be the first of many such products we’re likely to see in the coming years.
Cards with magnetic strips could count themselves as they were removed from a wired shoe. An LED could signal the dealer to shuffle. An electronic credit/betting system could not only do away with chips, but electronically track the table performance, each individual player’s performance, and each player’s betting strategy. The totally electronic blackjack game, already a reality in the slot department, could become far more sophisticated and realistic than today’s prototypes. [Does this sound like Safe Jack, or what?]
Would such devices be accepted as fair by the various gaming regulatory agencies throughout the country? Would the public accept such controls on the game?
As the popularity of video/electronic games increases, the public acceptance of video/electronic control of table games might also increase. The big money players, however, are unlikely to embrace such drastic changes to their game. We haven’t yet seen an electronic variation of any casino table game that has become popular with money players. Players who bet $25 and up feel entitled to that human touch.
So, I don’t think casino blackjack will become an elite game for the few high rollers who can afford it. And I don’t think video blackjack will ever do away with human dealers. But you can be sure that the lower stakes games will continue to be testing grounds for electronic devices and controls, as casinos continue their never-ending battle with card counters. And you can be sure that more and more surveillance software will be developed as the security industry continues to computerize.
I wouldn’t worry too much about BJ Tracker or any of the other high-tech casino surveillance measures that are coming. Good card counters who understand casino comportment and basic camouflage probably have little to fear. Some less sophisticated card counters may find their potential careers cut short. But BJ Tracker is just the first product of its type.You can bet on it.
Send photos of Griffin agents, to be included in “The Card Counters’ Black Book,” to the Bishop at Blackjack Forum Online. ♠
[Note from Arnold Snyder: The purpose of this article is to help players who are already counting cards to decide if they should use a fixed, altered version of blackjack basic strategy for their playing decisions, rather than varying their playing strategy by the count.]
Card Counting Basic Strategy, Introduction
One day in 1999 I started thinking about the different ways a player can gain an advantage over the casino through card counting:
Count cards and use the count to change your bet while using Basic Strategy;
Count cards and use the count to deviate from Basic Strategy while flat betting;
Count cards and use the count to both change your bet and deviate from Basic Strategy.
Number 3 produces the greatest gain while requiring the greatest amount of effort. When using number 3, one can mitigate the effort required to a large extent by memorizing just the Top 16 indexes compared to a full table of 160+ indexes.
[Note from Arnold Snyder: The “Top 16” indexes referred to in this article are the 16 most important basic strategy deviations in a shoe game to a card counter’s win rate. They are: Insurance, 16 v. 10, 16 v. 9, 15 v. 10, 13 v. 2, 13 v. 3, 12 v. 2, 12 v. 3, 12 v. 4, 12 v. 5, 12 v. 6, 11 v. A, 10 v. 10, 10 v. A, 9 v. 2, and 9 v. 7. For the count at which you deviate from basic strategy for the playing of these hands, see your card counting system.]
Standard blackjack Basic Strategy ignores the bet spread that card counters use when the count indicates the deck has switched to a player advantage. The development of a Count Index Playing Strategy considers the count to determine when to deviate from Basic Strategy, but also ignores the bet spread. What kind of strategy could be developed if the bet spread were taken into account?
Let’s consider a six-deck game, 16 v. 10, where Surrender is not allowed. The Basic Strategy decision is hit. When using the Hi-Lo set of point count values, the index in the Count Index Playing Strategy is 0, meaning you should deviate from Basic Strategy and stand when the True Count >=0.
My thought was what is the best way to play 16 v. 10 all the time when factoring in the increase in your bet when the True Count >=0? If you are not going to deviate from Basic Strategy based on the count, does there exist a modified Basic Strategy that would improve your win rate?
Let’s call the modified Basic Strategy, to be modified to take into account a card counter’s bet-size variation, Card Counting Basic Strategy (CCBS).
In designing such a strategy, one thing I had to research was how sensitive the resulting set of modifications would be to variations in the bet spread and deck penetration? Things could get unwieldy quickly if there were substantial differences among Card Counting Basic Strategies as you used different bet spreads and factored in different levels of penetration.
For instance, if you use three different bet spreads, depending on the casinos you play, and experience four different levels of penetration at those casinos, you could be facing 12 different combinations and thus 12 possible sets of Card Counting Basic Stategies.
Developing a Card Counting Basic Strategy: Methodology
The Blackjack 6-7-8 Software, from within the program’s “Develop A Playing Strategy” module, provides for the development of a Card Counting Basic Strategy. First, let’s discuss how the program develops Basic Strategy, which is done by simulation instead of by using combinatorial analysis. The parameters to choose are:
number of decks
penetration
whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17
To replicate the results from using combinatorial analysis, one would choose the penetration to be a shuffle after each round. I preferred to choose a level of penetration that represents what you will experience at thetables, such as 75% for a 6-deck game.
Then the Blackjack 6-7-8 software takes each 2-card combination (for 16, for example, the 2-card combinations are 10-6, 9-7, and 8-8) and plays blackjack against the various dealer upcards. For one cycle, the program will stand each time. On the next cycle the program will hit each time, etc. until all the decisions have been played.
The results for the different two-card combinations are then combined by weighting the outcome for each two-card combination by a factor that reflects how often the two-card combination appears (for 16, 10-6 appears more often because there are four times as many 10s in the shoe as other types of cards). Once the results are compiled for the two-card combination for each decision, the result with the largest win determines the correct playing decision.
To derive CCBS, the parameters chosen consist of the three parameters stated above for Basic Strategy plus two more:
Betting Strategy (table of the counts with the bet amount at each count;
Set of point count values
The process for developing CCBS begins with the process used for Basic Strategy, modified to use the count for each hand to determine the bet amount. The program tracks the result for each hand which reflects the bet amount. For example, consider this Betting Strategy:
Count
Bet Amount
<=1
5
2
10
3
20
4
40
5
80
(You may use a different Betting Strategy to reflect optimal values for risk of ruin, but tests have shown no difference in the CCBS playing decisions for an optimal set of bet amounts vs. the ones in the talbe above, as long as each uses the same bet range from lowest to highest bet.)
Take 9 v. 2. For six decks, Basic Strategy says hit because the expected value from hitting is greater than from doubling down. The development of Card Counting Basic Strategy considers the result based on the bet according to the count for each hand played. For example, you win more of your double downs at the higher counts, and since you bet more at the higher counts, those wins contribute more to the positive part of the result compared to the losses from doubling down at the lower counts with a smaller bet. For certain decisions, this effect results in a deviation, or modification, of Basic Strategy.
Results of Play All with Card Counting Basic Strategy
For S17, DAS and LS, there are 17 playing decision changes from Basic Strategy. For instance, with Card Counting Basic Strategy you should double 9 v. 2. For 16 v. 10, when you can’t surrender, you should stand instead of hit. All the decision differences between Basic Strategy and CCBS are depicted later in the article. The effort required to master CCBS is the same as the effort required for Basic Strategy. And you don’t have to learn and recall any indexes.
What if your bet spread is 8 to 1 instead of 16 to 1? I hope you don’t use an 8 to 1 bet spread unless you’re doing quite a bit of Wonging in/Wonging out. But let’s assume you were to use an 8 to 1 bet spread and play all. Compare using Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with a 16 to 1 bet spread vs. Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with an 8 to 1 bet spread—there is no significant difference in win rate.
There is also no significant difference in win rate when using a Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with 83% penetrations vs. a CCBS developed with 75% penetration. This is good news if you were concerned about needing a plethora of CCBS tables in your arsenal.
You might find significant differences in win rates when comparing Card Counting Basic Strategy for extreme measures, such as 50% vs. 83% penetration, or a 4 to 1 bet spread vs. a 16 to 1 bet spread. You can also use the same Card Counting Basic Strategy with a variety of sets of point count values (such as Hi-Lo, K-O, and Red 7).
Let’s consider three scenarios for 6-deck, S17, DAS, resplit all pairs up to four hands, late surrender, insurance, with a 16 to 1 bet spread: 1) Hi-Lo for betting coupled with Basic Strategy; 2) Hi-Lo for betting and CCBS for playing decisions; and 3) Hi-Lo for betting and the Top 16 indexes for playing strategy. Here are the results from running simulations of 500 million rounds for each scenario (many of you use a bet unit higher than $5—naturally you would just multiply the dollar amounts listed here by the appropriate factor for your betting):
Scenario
Win Rate
Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic
.9062%
$1,450
2-CCBS
.9599%
$1,536
3-Sweet 16
1.0561%
$1,690
Card Counting Basic Strategy (Scenario 2) produces a 6% increase in amount won compared to Scenario 1, while using the Sweet 16 indexes (Scenario 3) yields a 10% gain over using CCBS.
Why Use A Special Card Counting Basic Strategy?
Perhaps you use a Count Index Playing Strategy, such as the Top 16 indexes, and are wondering why you should consider Card Counting Basic Strategy when you can wring a higher win rate by varying your playing strategy based on the count. First, you may make enough mistakes in trying to quickly recall whether to deviate from Basic Strategy that you negate the benefit of using count indexes.
But perhaps more significantly, Card Counting Basic Strategy provides potential camouflage. As casino surveillance has advanced to the point of being able to detect when a player correctly deviates from Basic Strategy, the length of your session becomes reduced.
In theory, with Card Counting Basic Strategy, since for quite a few playing decisions (17 decisions in this article’s illustration), you can always deviate from Basic Strategy, it may take casino surveillance longer to conclude that you are a skilled player. This should reduce the chance of getting barred. In addition, your table sessions can be longer, and you may have a higher dollar expectation per casino visit compared to using a Count Index Playing Strategy.
Let’s say that you are able to get away with playing 45-minute sessions when using a Count Index Playing Strategy. Using Card Counting Basic Strategy instead of a Count Index Playing Strategy, if you were able to extend your session by just five minutes, to 50 minutes per session, due to the camouflage benefit of Card Counting Basic Strategy, your expected dollar win would be the same as using a Count Index Playing Strategy for 45 minutes.
Card Counting Basic Strategy with Wonging In
What happens when you only play if the True Count >=1? The following table provides the results of the same three scenarios as before, with a 16 to 1 bet ratio: 1) Hi-Lo for betting coupled with Basic Strategy; 2) Hi-Lo for betting and Card Counting Basic Strategy for playing decisions; and 3) Hi-Lo for betting and Top 16 indexes for playing strategy.
Scenario
Win Rate
Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic
1.7114%
$2,738
2-CCBS
1.8394%
$2,943
3-Sweet 16
1.8804%
$3,009
Using CCBS produces an expected win of $205 more than using Basic Strategy while only giving up $66 to Top 16. Therefore, when you use a Wong-in tactic, CBS gets you very close to the result of the Top 16.
And with the camouflage potential of using CCBS, you should be able to extend the length of your playing sessions. Playing for 16 hours, 22 minutes instead of 16 hours (2% longer), your expected win using CCBS would be the same as it would with Sweet 16. Let’s say you could squeeze in an extra two hours of play with CCBS compared to using Sweet 16. Then CCBS would lead to an expected win of $3,311—$302 more than Sweet 16.
When Wonging in, you may want to reduce your bet spread to increase the longevity of your playing sessions. The following table shows the results of an 8 to 1 bet ratio (bet 40 for count >=4).
Scenario
Win Rate
Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic
1.4639%
$2,342
2-CCBS
1.5504%
$2,481
3-Sweet 16
1.5810%
$2,530
Using CCBS produces an expected win of $188 more than using Basic Strategy while giving up $49 to Top 16. Here it takes 19 minutes of additional play (a total of 16 hours, 19 minutes instead of 16 hours) for CCBS to yield the same expected dollar win as Top 16. For 18 hours of CCBS play vs. 16 hours of Top 16, CCBS would generate an expected profit of $2,791 vs. $2,530 for Top 16, an increase of $261.
The Card Counting Basic Strategy Playing Strategies
This table depicts the 17 CCBS decisions that differ from the playing decisions in standard blackjack Basic Strategy:
16 v. 10
Stand
15 v. A
Surrender (1)
12 v. 3
Stand
11 v. A
Double
9 v. 2
Double
8 v. 6
Double
A8 v. 5
Double (2)
A8 v. 6
Double (2)
A7 v. 2
Double (2)
A7 v. A
Stand
A6 v. 2
Double (1)
A3 v. 4
Double (1)
99 v. 7
Split
88 v. 10
Surrender (3)
77 v. 10
Surrender (1)
77 v. A
Surrender (1)
44 v. 4
Split
If allowed, otherwise hit.If allowed, otherwise stand.If allowed, otherwise split.
Conclusion
Card Counting Basic Strategy offers a higher win rate for card counters when compared to Basic Strategy because it takes into account the effects on your win rate of using a betting spread. For players who use a Count Index Playing Strategy, such as the Top 16, consider using CCBS for greater session longevity due to the camouflage value of CCBS, and perhaps overall greater longevity in your blackjack playing career.
To do your own CCBS computations, get the Blackjack 6-7-8 Software. For example, using the software, you may wish to analyze different bet spreads and numbers of decks. In addition, you can use various betting constraints, such as never increasing the bet more than twice the prior bet, to see how the different playing strategies compare.
Among the new Blackjack 6-7-8 Strategy Cards, one of the cards represents CCBS—the one titled Blackjack Counter Basic Strategy Card, 4-8 Decks. Each card contains four tables to cover the combinations of H17 & S17, and DAS & no DAS. An item for future study would be to determine whether the playing decisions would change for a CCBS developed for a Wonging in or out scenario, and what the impact on the win rate would be. ♠
Although Hal Marcus no longer sells his Blackjack 6-7-8 Software, you can run all the strategy simulations you can think of with Norm Wattenberger’s Casino Verite Blackjack Software.
One of the things that separates the successful, world-class blackjack pros from the struggling masses of card counters is mistakes. World class players simply don’t make many.
Some card counting errors are very costly, while some are negligible. It’s the costly errors the best players eliminate. Let’s categorize errors by type…
The first type — which I call “invisible” errors — are errors caused by purposeful ignorance of the correct play. This may sound pretty terrible to a new player, but this is one of the types of errors most frequently made by the world class players. This type of error, because it is purposeful, allows for cost control by the player.
For instance, the player is dealt a pair of 8’s vs. a dealer ace. He always splits them, regardless of the count, because this is the correct basic strategy play, and he has not memorized an index number for altering his play from basic.
Technically, at extremely low true counts (below -16 with the high-low, for instance), it would be incorrect to split the 8’s, and correct to simply hit. But there is so little dollar value to such a rare play as this that many of the best card counters don’t bother to learn it. The reason the play has so little dollar value is that a true count of -16 almost never occurs. And the chance of it occurring when you have a pair of 8’s vs. an ace is even more remote.
In addition, with such a low true count, you will almost positively have your minimum bet on the table (if you are still at the table at all) making an error on this play even less consequential. Assuming you’ve chosen the least costly strategy changes to ignore, invisible errors like these will make very little difference to your long run result.
Most successful pros avoid the much more costly “hunch” errors that less astute card counters fall prey to. Assume a player is dealt a hard 13 vs. an ace—a hand he would always hit, as this is the correct basic strategy play and he has no index number memorized for standing. But, he’s got his maximum bet on the hand, and he hates the thought of busting.
His high-low running count is +22, with only two decks left in the six-deck shoe, for a true count of +11. Since this play isn’t one for which he has memorized an index number, he’s not really sure if a true count of +11 is high enough to stand on this hand or not. So he plays his hunch and stands.
Bad play. The high-low index number for this play is +20 true. He’s nowhere near it. If this player makes many hunch plays like this one when he’s not certain of the index numbers, he will significantly hurt his long-run expectation. This player may think of himself as an excellent card counter, and he may well be excellent at counting itself, but he’d be doing himself a big favor if he eliminated all of his hunch errors.
Even worse than the hunch errors are the “blindfolded errors” — errors caused by unforgivable ignorance of the correct play. For instance, a card counter who has been playing in Atlantic City for a few years takes a trip to Las Vegas. Suddenly, he encounters some games where the players are not allowed to double down after splits. Rather than take the time and trouble to learn the new pair split strategy, he simply follows his Atlantic City pair-split strategy. Variations on this theme would be failing to utilize the surrender option, or the soft doubling option, because the games you were used to playing didn’t allow these options, and you never learned the strategies.
Hunch errors and blindfold errors are both types of errors frequently made by card counters who are otherwise good players. The best way to eliminate these types of errors is to 1) never make a play you’re unsure of; if in doubt, revert to basic strategy; and 2) always travel with a reference book for the card counting system you are using, so that you can look up the proper plays, rule variations, etc., should you encounter unfamiliar conditions when traveling.
Another type of error virtually never made by world class players is the competence error. Miscounting the cards on the table, failing to adjust for the true count accurately, etc., would be competence errors. These are the types of errors that keep the casinos up to their ears in chandeliers. The average card counter makes these types of errors continually, and never even knows it. Nothing can get rid of this type of error except serious practice.
The final type of error, which can be made by almost any player due to fatigue, regardless of talent, is the pure dolt error. Example, hitting hard 17, because you read it as 16. Or standing on soft 13 (vs. anything!). On a hand for hand basis, these types of errors are the most costly to make, but for any half-decent player, they occur rarely.
If you make a single error of this type, it means one thing, and one thing only — it’s time to take a break. Stop for an hour, or maybe for the rest of the day, but stop. It’s time to rest your mind, stop looking at the cards, have something to eat, take a nap, anything.. . . Just stop putting money on the tables. ♠
For More Card Counting Tips
For specific lists of the most expensive card counting playing errors as well as more card counting tips from professional gamblers, see Arnold Snyder’s Blackbelt in Blackjack and Blackjack Blueprint by Rick Blaine.
To test yourself for card counting mistakes and keep in practice between playing trips, use Casino Verite Blackjack Software. It does a good job of creating realistic conditions—players leaving and arriving at the table, servers bringing drinks, etc.
Question from a Reader: What do you think of a betting strategy for card counting where you always come off the top of the shoe with a midsize bet, say $25, then cut back to smaller bets, say $20, then $10 and even $5 as the count goes down, but raise up to $50 and then $100 as the count goes positive? I call this my “Up & Down” card counting betting system.
All the books I’ve read — and I think I’ve read them all — say that you should always come off the top of the shoe with your low bet. I find I can get away with a much bigger spread with card counting if I come off the top with a midsize bet, then spread up or down with the count. I have been winning more since I started playing this way, but a card counter friend tells me I have just been lucky, and that this “Up & Down” betting strategy is unwise.
Answer: In order to do a really thorough analysis of your strategy, I’d need a few more facts — the number of decks in play, the shuffle point, the rules, the card counting system you’re using, and the exact count parameters you use to alter your bet size. With all the facts, this would be pretty easy to set up for a computer simulation.
I can give you some general guidelines, however. The books all tell you to come off the top with your minimum bet, because right off the top of the shoe the house has the advantage. Any time the house has the advantage, you’d prefer to bet nothing. This is why many card counters who play against shoes table hop. They literally bet nothing when the count is negative.
Sometimes, conditions are not favorable for table-hopping, and some players — due to factors like poor eyesight or less physical stamina — find that table-hopping is simply not a practical approach to beating the game. In this case, you do need a more substantial betting spread to beat a shoe game than you would need to beat a single or double-decker.
But, let’s say you’re playing in a very paranoid casino, where all you can get away with is a 1-to-4 spread, say $25 to $100. You know if you try to spread from $5 to $100, you’ll set off warning bells in the pit, and the heat will come down.
However, you discover that if you come off the top of the shoe with $25, you set off no warning bells if you later spread down to $5, even if you sometimes later spread up to $100. Is this a preferable betting strategy to the $25-$100 strategy?
Absolutely. In fact, a $25-$100 betting strategy would barely break even in many shoe games. The $5-$100 strategy — even if you come off the top with $25 — is a substantially more profitable method of attack for any card counter in a blackjack game.
Your “Up & Down” method of spreading from $5 to $100 is substantially less profitable than an ideal $5-$100 betting strategy, in which you would come off the top with $5, and only bet more when the advantage goes positive. So, although your up & down betting gets you a 1-to-20 spread, it’s not as powerful as a 1-to-20 spread should or could be, if applied the way the books tell you to bet.
This is the real world, however, and all card counters have to do what they can to camouflage their play. Your “up & down” betting strategy is an excellent form of camouflage, since coming off the top of a shoe with anything other than a low bet is rarely done by card counters. Hey, they’ve all read the same books! As a form of camouflage, up & down betting is not an unintelligent method of getting a profitable spread in an otherwise tough game.
One thing you could do to increase your advantage would be to come off the top with $25, but quickly spread down to $5 or $10, unless the advantage goes to your favor. I.e., don’t just bet $25 any time the count is 0, spreading down only on negatives, as you seem to indicate is your style. After coming off the top with your $25, be aware that unless the count goes up considerably, you have too much money on the table.
Incidentally, you are not the first card counter to use this type of up & down betting strategy. I’ve known many counters over the years who have used variations on this. The late Paul Keen, writing under his pen name, Suzanne Le Counte, described his variation on this style of camouflage betting in Blackjack Forum a few years ago.
Paul primarily played single-deck games in Las Vegas. He would always come off the top with a quarter, then would spread down to two nickels, or up to two quarters, according to the count. Paul played this $10-$50 spread in Las Vegas one-deckers for many years, with very little heat, while players spreading $5-$25 were getting barred all around him.
More than any other factor, card counters are given away by their betting strategies. Any betting camouflage you can pull off successfully will add longevity to your career. The problem with most betting camouflage for card counting is that it is very costly, and you will often risk completely eliminating your advantage over the house if you don’t know what you’re doing.
A less intelligent variation on “up & down” betting is simply “down” betting according to the count. I.e., you always come off the top with your high bet, and spread down if the count goes down, but leave your bet the same if the count goes up. This type of betting strategy would probably buy you untold hours of play in most any casino, but unfortunately, you’re unlikely to be able to beat most shoe games with such an approach.
Up & down betting is a more sensible and powerful method of attack. And, if you think about it, you can improve it even further.♠
[Note: Being as this article was written almost 30 years ago,a lot of the recommendations will be obsolete. But the author does provide a lot of good information on hos counters should think about their accommodations, plus, it has historical value. – A.S.]
I wouldn’t mind trying a two-story suite at Caesars Palace like the one where Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise stayed in the movie Rainman, or even a regular old single-level suite on the ninth floor of the Desert Inn where Howard Hughes lived for a few years, but I can’t afford those places and I don’t bet enough to get those kinds of comps. It is a fact of life for most card counters that a room in Las Vegas is simply a place to sleep and maybe practice the game. It is also a place that most of us want to get in and out of as fast as possible—time is money if you are only in town for a few days.
Some players like to stay at one of the main places they intend to play in order to make it easy to fall out of bed at 3 a.m. and stumble down to the pits for the graveyard prime time. Other people like to stay in nice places with the possibility of a comped room, or just because they enjoy staying in nice places. Some card counters never stay where they play. Some counters double-up with others, some stay in cheap motels and some have been known to sleep in their cars, or even worse, at the Airport Inn (soap the size of a cough drop, see-through towels, and their vacuum cleaner broke in ’88—all for $100 on Saturday night).
When I first started playing blackjack as a card counter, I never stayed where I played. I slipped in and out of the blackjack pits like a man whose picture was hanging in the post office. I thought that my goose was cooked every time a pit boss sneered at me. It took a while before I realized that a sneer was the permanent expression on many pit boss faces. (There is also the permanent scowl, the comatose look, and of course, the bosses who resemble animals—you may have seen the guy on grave shift at Palace Station who looks exactly like a pig.)
Also, in those days, I rarely played for more than 30 minutes in a casino for fear of overexposure. On one memorable two-day trip, I played at 21 different casinos and got in a total of nine hours of blackjack. I hardly slept for all of the walking and driving. I won $9.
Staying at the Hotel Where You Play
Eventually I became more confident and began staying where I played, with the goal of spending one night in every major hotel in Las Vegas. I had also started keeping detailed records of my play and had scheduled myself to never play the same casino shift more than once in three months. If I had a particularly notable session in a casino—had a big win, got comped, or for some other reason might be easily remembered—I would skip the shift for six months. In the larger casinos I would play for an hour or two per shift.
This greatly increased the amount of time that I spent playing quality games and, of course, increased the amount that I won relative to the amount of time I spent in Las Vegas. After a few months of this and 12 different hotels, I was having a couple of problems with this staying where I was playing.
On those occasions when I was only in town for the weekend, getting in and out of major resorts took up an excessively large portion of my time. It can take an hour or more to check in on a Friday night or a Saturday.
Getting from the room to the car can also take a lot of time. Even if you use the valet parking, you still have to wait for your car and then are often forced to exit out onto the Las Vegas Strip where you may be stuck for an eternity trying to get through a light.
It also costs a buck for the valet—or two bucks, if you follow the tipping guidelines in the Las Vegas visitors literature. Between “What’s On in Las Vegas” and “Today In Las Vegas,” 22 categories of Las Vegas employees are suggested as being deserving of tips, including security guards, pool attendants and shuttle drivers. These publications are written by the same kind of folks who wrote the version of basic strategy where you never hit 15 or 16. They really want you to leave town broke.
Twice I was trailed by security guards and twice I was followed to the elevators by pit bosses. The security guards were not a problem. I spotted them early on and simply led them around the casino a couple of times and then exited.
The bosses were not so easy. The first time it happened, I didn’t see the boss until he was in the elevator with me. I nodded at him and then calmly, I think, got off two floors above mine, found the stairway and raced down two flights and then sat down and perspired for ten minutes. This was a hotel, the Imperial Palace in Las Vegas, where once you are in the stairwell the only exit is at the first floor. Would he be waiting for me? He wasn’t.
The second time it happened, at the Golden Nugget in Laughlin, I was able to continue past the elevators and out to the garage exit as if I were on the way to the Gold River next door. The boss trailed along with me for a bit and we chatted about how hot it was. When I looked back into the garage, the guy was standing there smoking a cigarette, watching me.
The reason for this following is that they are trying to identify you—pull your name or your car license up on their computer—presumably to find out what they can about you and to check if your name or picture are in anybody’s book of known or suspected card counters or cheats. They also may want to know who your friends are—are you sharing a room with a known card counter, or do you meet up in the coffee shop with two or three other people that were playing in the pit at the same time you were? As far as they are concerned, it’s just business; as far as I’m concerned, it is something to avoid and something to be particularly careful about when you stay where you play.
The Blackjack Hotels of Las Vegas
If you read my article “Blackjack Routes of Las Vegas” in the September Blackjack Forum, you’ll know that, as a part-time card counter or Las Vegas tripper, I divide the town into sections or routes in order to simplify the driving chores and to maximize my time at blackjack tables with good games. Each route includes at least three main places to play with reliably good games.
If my current trip is during the week when rooms are cheap, I may try to stay at the hotel where I expect to do the most playing, but I am careful about how I get to my room and usually don’t return to the room right after a session in the pits.
Hotels on the strip that presently offer enough good single or double-deck games to make it worthwhile to stay and play would be Circus Circus, Excalibur and the block of double-deck pits around Flamingo Road, including the Imperial Palace, Harrah’s, the Mirage and maybe Treasure Island. The last two are pretty expensive for my budget—they both maintain the same rates throughout the week, $89 at the T.I. and $159 for the Mirage.
Weekday standard rooms (rack rates) at the other places run from $21-$29 at the Circus to $60 at Excalibur. Keep in mind that room rates in Las Vegas may vary even within a week. As an example, I recently checked the rates at the Imperial Palace for the first week in December and found three different standard room rates ($35, $45, and $55) depending on which days I would stay. For the same period, I had a Valued Guest (Valued Sucker) offer from the Imperial Palace that gave me two week nights, two buffet comps, and other goodies for a total cost of twenty bucks, and rooms were available.
Off the strip, both Palace Station on Sahara and the new Boulder Station out on Boulder Highway have enough good double-deck tables for staying and playing. Standard rooms at both places run from $39 to $69 during the week. The tower rooms at Palace Station, $69, are one of the better values in town and, as you probably know, both the food and the blackjack are good.
If you stay at Circus Circus, ask for the Skyrise Tower; the rooms have been recently renovated (but the décor is still hot pink and red). In downtown Las Vegas, the Horseshoe, $40 per week night (and the famous $2.00 steak dinner from 11 p.m. to 11 a.m.) or the Golden Nugget, $58 per night (delicious Chinese food special $3.95 from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.) would be my choices.
A Card Counters’ Guide to the Motels of Las Vegas
If you intend to stay in Las Vegas for a week or more, there are motels that offer weekly rates. In the late 60s when I worked at the Stardust, I lived at a motel a block from the strip for $25 per week. It was a new place with small refrigerators in the rooms, daily maid service and a management that was anxious to please. These days you can find rooms for about $150 per week—or less, if you have a high threshold for grime and are not particular about your neighbors. Some will come with refrigerators and some will even have kitchenettes.
The motels on the strip generally don’t offer weekly rates (although there are many that specialize in hourly rates!) Two motels on the strip that do offer weekly rates are the Fun City Motel, $145 per week, and the Sulinda Motel, $185 per week. The best place to look for a good value in weekly rates is east of the strip on Paradise Road near the convention center, and on the Boulder Highway.
Due to the demands of my other job, the one in Southern California that provides an unfluctuating bi-weekly paycheck and insurance benefits, I am often stuck with tripping on weekends. In addition to that, I usually don’t know in advance which weekends I’ll be able to go until Friday comes around and, thus, often hit town without a reservation. After some stressful times searching out beds in overpriced dumps, I discovered a couple of motels on the strip that are perfect for weekend card counters on a budget.
These two places are not chain motels, but they are clean and quiet (cleaner than the Imperial Palace or the old rooms at the Frontier, for instance), and it only takes about 5 minutes to check in. You get to park in front of your room. Best of all, they let me check-in early and stay late.
A typical routine is to drive up from Southern California early Saturday morning and check-in by 7 or 8. That gives me a room for between $30 and $50, depending on how busy the town is, from then until noon or later the next day. When I really need to get in some blackjack hours on a weekend, I’ll drive up late Friday night, arriving about 2 a.m., and play until I’m tired, then crawl in the back of the van and sleep until I can check in at one of my motels.
So, in the end, there are a number of ways to stay in Las Vegas. If you visit only a couple of times per year, I don’t think it makes much difference where you stay—stay at a place that you like that also has a reputation for a good game. If, like me, you go a couple of times a month, and intend to keep on doing it for many years, a little thought and planning is required. Incremental exposure can get to us all if we’re not careful. You will never wear out your welcome if they don’t know that you were there.
Las Vegas Room Reservations
There are 60 or 70 major hotels in the Las Vegas area and over 200 motels, which together offer about 80,000 rooms. However, often on weekends they are all full. The COMDEX convention in mid-November and the International Rodeo Finals in the first week of December each draw more than 100,000 visitors. Reservations are advised unless you have a strong sense of adventure.
If you want to get the best deal, you might consider using one of the reservation services. They don’t cover all of the hotels, but they cover most of them and you can often get a rate less than the hotel’s. ♠
by Arnold Snyder