Playing winning blackjack is often fun, but not always. Some players, including the moderators of this Web site, make a living playing blackjack and some (including some of the moderators of this site) have gotten rich playing blackjack, but to succeed takes the same hard work it takes to succeed at anything else. Don’t believe all the get rich quick spouters who claim it’s easy and anyone can do it. Read “Blackjack Reality vs. Blackjack Hype” to learn more about what to expect.
What Card Counting is Really Like
To get a realistic idea of the both the fun and frustrations of playing blackjack to win, as well as the kind of money you’ll make as a new card counter, see A First Year in the Blackjack Pits.
Blackjack Basic Strategy
The first and single most important step in learning to play winning blackjack is learning blackjack basic strategy. Read our basic Strategy articles for complete instructions and charts for every game. Then start with one of the simplified versions specifically for the types of games you’ll be playing, based on the rules and the number of decks in play. You can always make adjustments for different conditions later. Many pros learn one simplified version and never even learn all of the adjustments. But you must learn a generic version of basic staretgyso well that it’s second nature and you don’t even have to think about it. Do this before you start trying to master a counting system.
Why Card Counting Works
Card counting is not the only way professional gamblers make money playing in casinos, but it’s where you should start, because the fundamentals of card counting will prepare you for every other form of winning blackjack play.
Start off on the right foot by reading the articles in our card counting section so you fully understand the basics of card counting and why it works. Then, choose a simple counting system and start drilling.
The Easy Red 7 Count and Even Easier OPP Count
Aggression and simplicity are the keys to the money. Our articles provide complete instructions on using the super-easy OPP Count or the slightly more difficult but more powerful Red 7 count.
But don’t feel you have to start with a professional level count. It’s far important to get comfortable at the tables with an easy count than it is to start with a more powerful counting system. Your long-term success will depend on aggressive betting and remaining welcome at casinos far more than your counting system.
And you’ll be surprised how easy it will be to switch to a professional-level count down the road.
Do You Have What It Takes To Succeed?
What really separates the players who go on to win at gambling from those who never quite get started?
The guts to stick with it when you’re losing. Read the articles in our Those Damn Fluctuations section to understand. ♠
A number of players have asked for true count indices for the Zen Count, using the conventional count-per-deck adjustment (that is, True Count = Running Count /Number of Remaining Decks).
Complete Zen Count Indices for True Count Method (Multi-Deck)
Stand
Stand
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
17
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-13/-10*
16
-16
-18
-20
-24
-25/-28
H
H
8
0
13/5
15
-10
-12
-14
-17
-17/-21
H
H
13
6
15/8
14
-6
-8
-9
-12
-12/-16
H
H
20
12
H
13
-2
-4
-5
-8
-7/-11
H
H
H
H
H
12
6
3
1
-2
-1/-5
H
H
H
H
H
A7
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
H
H
S
Double Down, Hard Totals
Double
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
11
D
D
D
D
D
-19
-14
-10
-91
11/-21
10
D
D
D
D
D
-14
-9
-4
71
51/41
9
2
-2
-5
D
D
7
H
H
H
H
8
H
H
10
7
4/4
H
H
H
H
H
Double Down, Soft Totals
Soft Totals
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
A
(A,9)
S
S
S
9
8/7
S
S
S
S
S
(A,8)
S
7
5
2
2/0
S
S
S
S
S
(A,7)
1
-4
-8
Ds
Ds
S
S
H
H
S
(A,6)
2
-5
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
(A,5)
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
(A,4)
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
(A,3)
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
(A,2)
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
Surrender (Late)
Late Surrender
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
17
16
8
0
-8
-1/-12
8-8
16
0
15
12
4
0
4/0
7-7
4
14
8
4
8/4
13
20
12
Surrender (Early)
Early Surrender
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
17
12
Y
16
12
0
-12
Y
8-8
16
-4
Y
15
12
4
-4
Y
7-7
16
8
0
Y
14
16
8
0
Y
13
20
8
Y
12
20
-12
7
-12
6
-8
5
0
* Number before slash (/) is index for S17; number after slash is the index for H17
1 = European No Hole: Hit
S = Stand, H = Hit, D = Double Down (if doubling not available, then hit), Ds = Double Down (if doubling not available, then stand), в = Surrender
Pair Splits With Double After Splits
Pairs
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
A
(A,A)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-8
(T,T)
17
13
12
10
9/8
N
N
N
N
N
(9,9)
-4
-8
-8
Y
Y
4
Y
Y
N
4
(8,8)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
16**
Y
(7,7)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4
N
N
N
(6,6)
-4
-8
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
(5,5)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(4,4)
N
12
4
0
-4
N
N
N
N
N
(3,3)
-8
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
8
N
N
N
(2,2)
-8
-8
Y
Y
Y
Y
12
N
N
N
Pair Splits No Double After Splits
Pairs
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
A
(A,A)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-8
(T,T)
17
13
12
10
9/8
N
N
N
N
N
(9,9)
-4
-4
-8
-8
-8
12
Y
Y
N
8
(8,8)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
8**
Y/0
(7,7)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
(6,6)
4
0
-4
-8
Y
N
N
N
N
N
(5,5)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(4,4)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(3,3)
12
4
0
-8
Y
12**
N
N
N
N
(2,2)
12
4
-4
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
**Split if below index number
INSURANCE: Take insurance at +5 True Count or higher
Complete Zen Count Indices for True Count Method: Single Deck For Depth Chargers and Serious Fanatics Only!!! (Otherwise just use multi-deck charts)
Single Deck Stand
Stand
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
17
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-14/-12*
16
-16
-19
-22
-26
-23/-27
16
12
9
0
13/5
15
-10
-13
-15
-18
-18/-22
18
16
14
7
15/8
14
-6
-8
-10
-13
-12/-16
27
H
21
13
22/15
13
-1
-3
-5
-8
-7/-11
H
H
H
H
H
12
7
4
2
-2
1/-4
H
H
H
H
H
A7
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
H
H
-4/15
Single Deck Double Down, Hard Totals
Double
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
A
11
-24
-26
-28
-32
-34
-18
-13
-9
-9
-2/-4
10
-19
-20
-22
-26
-29
-12
-8
-4
7
5
9
1
-2
-5
-9
-12
7
14
H
H
H
8
23
16
11
7
6
26
H
H
H
H
7
24
20
20
Single Deck Double Down, Soft Totals
Soft Totals
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
A
(A,9)
17
15
11
11
10/9
S
S
S
S
S
(A,8)
12
6
5
1
2/0
S
S
S
S
S
(A,7)
3
-2
-12
-11
-13/-18
S
S
H
H
S
(A,6)
1
-4
-11
-16
-25
H
H
H
H
H
(A,5)
H
4
-4
-12
-25
H
H
H
H
H
(A,4)
H
8
-2
-9
-21
H
H
H
H
H
(A,3)
21
9
-3
-5
-12
H
H
H
H
H
(A,2)
15
9
2
-1
-6
H
H
H
H
H
Pair Splits (For other pair splits, see multi-deck charts)
Pairs
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
A
X,X
19
15
13
11
11/10
26
* Number before slash (/) is index for S17; number after slash is the index for H17
1 = European No Hole: Hit
S = Stand, H = Hit, D = Double Down (if doubling not available, then hit), Ds = Double Down (if doubling not available, then stand), ¢ = Surrender ♠
Brace yourself, dear card counter, because this is another one of those all-the-blackjack-experts-have-been-wrong bombshells I’ve been having so much fun dropping on my faithful followers lately. John Gwynn dropped this one on true counts on me eight months ago, and it’s taken me this long to put it all together with some coherence.
If you own a copy of the Zen Count, you will see, on page 4, that I list the various true counts at which I estimated a card counter would have a ½% advantage in various blackjack games. When Gwynn completed his first 4-deck blackjack computer simulation runs of the Zen Count, he wrote to me that my advice was only partially true. He pointed out that the player advantage using the Zen Count was, as I advised, ½% or better at a true count of +4 in the 4-deck strip game, but if 62.5% or more of the cards had been dealt out, the player would have an edge of ½% or better at a true count of only +3.
This was a revelation to me. The whole purpose of adjusting running count to true count is to obtain an accurate estimate of your advantage at any deck level. Expert opinion in blackjack has always held that a running count of +6 with one deck dealt out of a 4-deck game indicates a player advantage equivalent to that of a running count of +4 with 2 decks dealt out or +1 with 3½ decks dealt out. In all cases, the “true” count is +2 (on a count-per-deck basis.)
John Gwynn’s 23+ million hand simulations of blackjack systems indicate otherwise. Since Gwynn’s original comment to me regarding the Zen advantage, he discovered an error in his simulation program (Blackjack Forum Vol. II, #2). His corrected data show that his original observation, that a Zen player would average a ½% edge at +3 in the 4-deck Strip game with 2½ decks dealt, to be untrue (but close). However, his remark led me to examine closely the corrected data for any tendency of the true count to prove significantly “untrue”. The results, to me, are startling.
Actual Advantage for any True Count Changes with the Depth of the Deal
For instance, let’s look at the simulation results for Hi-Opt I (4 decks, no ace count, Vegas Strip rules). The depth of the deal is listed horizontally along the top of the table. The true count is listed vertically on the left. The table entries show the actual rate of win (or loss) for the player at each given true count. True counts are rounded, i.e., +2 = +1½ to +2½. The advantage shown is the cumulative advantage for all hands played up to that point:
Hi-Opt I Advantage (in %)
50%
62.5%
75%
87.5%
-2
-1.40
-1.41
-1.38
-1.30
-1
-.85
-.86
-.84
-.84
0
-.41
-.41
-.41
-.38
+1
.10
.13
.13
.18
+2
.53
.57
.62
.66
+3
.87
.96
1.05
1.13
+4
1.36
1.52
1.70
1.8
+5
1.58
1.81
2.14
2.22
Note here that in 18 instances, the player advantage rose as depletion increased. In two instances, player advantage fell. In four instances, it remained the same.
Note how much each true point is worth with only 50% dealt out. Note how much each true point is worth with 87.5% dealt out.
Let me explain briefly how these simulations were done. Gwynn’s computer is programmed to play through 23+ million hands (or 700,000 shoes), using any inserted system. It then tallies the data for the various circumstances. Separate runs are not necessary to obtain data for the various shuffle-points and true-count values.
To obtain the player advantage at a true count of +2 with only 50% dealt, the computer is simply instructed to tally all results obtained when the true count was between +1.5 and +2.5, and to disregard the results of all hands played after two decks have been depleted. Because of this methodology, the total number of hands played at the various levels of deck depletion differ.
At the 87.5% shuffle-point, 23.6 million total hands were played. With 75%: 20.3 million. With 62.5%: 17 million. And with 50%: 13.6 million hands. This also means that these advantages in the table are cumulative, i.e., the listings at 75% do not indicate the player edge only at 75% depletion, but the average advantage of all hands up to 75% depletion.
For instance, look at the entries for a +2 true count:
50%
62.5%
75%
87.5%
+2
.53
.57
.62
.66
What this means is that up until 50% deck depletion, the player gained .53% on all his bets placed when the true count was +2. By the time 62.5% were dealt out, the player had gained .57% on all these bets at +2 true count. By the time 75% of the cards were dealt out, he was averaging a .62% advantage, etc. This is a very important point, because…
If the player was averaging .53% on all +2 true hands up to a 50% shuffle-point, then it would take an average advantage of .73% to raise this figure to .57% by the time a 62.5% shuffle-point was reached. And, to raise the .57% to .62% (at the 75% shuffle point), it would take an average edge of .87% on those hands played between these points.
Average Point Value and Deck Depletion
Another way to analyze this Hi-Opt I data is to estimate the value of an average true point between various levels of depletion. If, as Peter Griffin tells us, the starting advantage in this game is -.48%, we can estimate the average point’s value up to the 50% shuffle-point by taking the difference between the player edge at true counts of +5 and 0, and dividing by the 5 true points. We can then calculate the value of an average point between two levels of deck depletion, according to the point value necessary to cause such a change in “average” point value.
Up to 50%
51% to 87.5%
Average Point Value
.41%
.71%
This raises serious questions about the “truth” of the true count. Gwynn’s data for the Hi-Opt I system are generally consistent in showing notable increases in player advantage at any true count as deck depletion increases. The value of a true point appears to depend on a number of factors, one of which is the level of deck depletion. Another factor seems to be the system itself. Here is a similar table for Uston’s APC:
Uston APC (with Ace)
50%
62.5%
75%
87.5%
-2
-1.01
-1.02
-1.01
-.97
-1
-.83
-.81
-.80
-.75
0
-.39
-.38
-.38
-.37
+1
.11
.05
.05
.07
+2
.41
.44
.41
.43
+3
.31
.42
.47
.56
+4
1.03
1.07
1.04
1.04
+5
1.50
1.37
1.48
1.52
+6
1.20
1.53
1.85
1.93
+7
2.29
2.48
2.56
2.56
Here, we’ll note that in 22 instances, player advantage rose as deck depletion increased. It fell in five instances. In three instances, it remained the same. The average point values for Uston’s APC, at various levels of deck depletion:
Up to 50%
51% to 87.5%
Average Point Value
.40%
.51%
This data indicates that the radical change seen in the value of a true point for the Hi-Opt I system may not necessarily be expected for any system. But the difference is still significant.
Look at a similar table of player advantages for the Zen count (with 25 indices):
Zen Count Advantage (in %)
50%
62.5%
75%
87.5%
-2
-.78
-.77
-.75
-.72
-1
-.79
-.77
-.75
-.70
0
-.38
-.36
-.35
-.32
+1
-.05
-.10
-.13
-.10
+2
.20
.18
.12
.16
+3
.35
.44
.49
.50
+4
.57
.62
.69
.76
+5
.79
.68
.76
.81
+6
1.26
1.28
1.32
1.33
+7
1.50
1.61
1.58
1.45
+8
1.70
1.82
1.72
1.84
+9
2.26
2.16
2.28
2.47
Here, in 27 instances, player advantage rose as deck depletion increased. In nine instances, player advantage fell. The average point values for the Zen Count, at various deck levels:
Up to 50%
51% to 87.5%
Zen Average Point Value
.30%
.37%
Here again, this table as a whole shows the same tendency as Uston’s APC; the results are less consistent and more erratic.
Looking at the results for all three of these systems, it appears we cannot say with any degree of certainty what a true point is worth for any one of them. Occasionally, I get a letter asking me to clarify the precise value of a point for some system. Assigning such a value appears to be, at best, an oversimplification.
Gwynn’s Hi-Opt I results are the most consistent and dramatic. Based on this simulation, it appears that a single true point is worth twice as much (or more) deep in the shoe as shallow.
The results I used in this analysis were for player advantages up to about 2½%. Gwynn provided no data for true counts below -2. I used these results because they are the most frequently occurring true counts, thus the most significant. The data distorts radically at progressively higher true counts due to chance fluctuation.
But look at this table, which shows the Hi-Opt I advantage for all true counts from 0 through +20, with 87.5% of the cards dealt out:
True Count
Player Advantage
Point Value
0
-.38
–
+1
.18
(.56)
+2
.66
(.48)
+3
1.13
(.47)
+4
1.80
(.67)
+5
2.22
(.42)
+6
2.80
(.58)
+7
3.32
(.52)
+8
4.18
(.86)
+9
4.67
(.49)
+10
4.95
(.28)
+11
5.78
(.83)
+12
5.64
(-.14)
+13
7.37
(1.73)
+14
7.51
(.14)
+15
7.32
(-.19)
+16
9.51
(2.19)
+17
7.59
(-1.92)
+18
9.72
(2.13)
+19
10.38
(.66)
+20
10.07
(-.25)
The figure in parentheses, the “point value”, shows how much each individual true count raised the player advantage over the previous true count. For instance at +6, the win rate was 2.80%. This particular true point raised the player advantage by .58% over the player win rate at a true count of +5, which was 2.22%. Thus the “point value” of this particular true point was .58%.
The data in this table run contrary to one currently held theory that the “strategy gain” from card counting increases dramatically at higher true counts. Gwynn was employing all 201 strategy indices in this 23.6 million hand simulation.
According to The World’s Greatest Blackjack Book (Humble and Cooper), a single Hi-Opt I point is worth .515% (pp. 265-66). The formula they provide for estimating advantage at any true count is to multiply .515% times the true count, then to add both the “strategy gain” and the Starting Advantage of the game. Applying this formula to a +12 true count, we get:
(.515% x 12) + 3% – .48% = 8.7%
The -.48% is our starting advantage in this 4-deck Strip game. The 3% is the amount of “strategy gain” that Humble and Cooper explain is added at a true count of +12. (They also explain the strategy gain would be 2% at 8, and 1% at 6). Humble’s predicted 8.7% edge, at a true count of +12, is more than 3% higher than the computer simulation result.
Gwynn’s +12 advantage of only 5.64% suggests that Humble’s “strategy gain” is either virtually non-existent in the 4-deck game, at least as any highly significant factor, or that the average value of a Hi-Opt I point is quite a bit lower than .515% in the 4-deck game. This 3+% discrepancy between the Humble/Cooper estimate and Gwynn’s simulation results cannot be attributed to normal fluctuation. Gwynn’s computer played more than 52 thousand hands at this +12 true count, so one standard deviation is only .48%.
Again, these results question the validity of many currently held beliefs about true count. Gwynn’s simulation data indicates that the value of a true point for any system varies with both deck depletion and, as we shall see, with the number of decks in play.
The Hi-Opt I data indicates that a true point may be worth only .3% to .4% early in a 4-deck shoe and .7% to .9% deep in the shoe, with an average value of about .5%. From the data Gwynn has provided, it is impossible to tell how much lower these values would be without the playing strategy indices which the computer employed throughout. It appears that the total gain for the Hi-Opt I player, including the “strategy gain”, with each increase in true count, averages to about .5% by the time three decks have been depleted.
Guidelines for Card Counters
My recommendations: Since the Hi-Opt I data suggest such a radical departure from long-standing card counting theory and because the Zen and Uston APC data are more erratic, though still supportive of the “untrue” true count notion, with greater point values at deep shuffle points, I’ll be cautious in my recommendations. It may be that an entirely new method of adjusting running count to true count is needed.
The concept of true count goes back to E.O. Thorp. In his original ten-count (Beat the Dealer, 1962), Thorp described his method of estimating advantage according to the ratio of tens to non-tens. In essence, this simple ratio provided the first true count. John Gwynn has produced a body of data which leads me to question the validity of Thorp’s assumption and methodology.
Gwynn’s data does suggest certain guidelines for players. First of all, it appears to be a waste of time arguing about the actual value of a true point. This value depends not only on deck level, but also on the precise point in question. The point between +4 and +5 may be significantly more or less valuable than the point between +3 and +4.
If you are a table hopper, attempting to bet in proportion to your advantage, I would advise more conservative estimates of advantage, especially if you are in the habit of adding a “strategy gain.” None of the three systems for which Gwynn provided data indicates that true points are consistently worth more as true counts become higher. It would be interesting to see a Hi-Opt I run using no indices, but playing basic strategy. Such a run would by comparison show the actual strategy gains at the various true counts and deck levels in this 4-deck game.
I will suggest being more conservative in sizing bets early in a shoe, and somewhat more aggressive later. Table hoppers will tend to play far more hands at lower levels of deck penetration than players who keep their seats through the negative counts. Thus, the high true counts they see will more often be indicative of less of an edge than has generally been assumed by blackjack experts.
This is not an argument against table-hopping, which is still your best multi-deck count strategy. This is simply a caution to be more conservative in estimating your advantage. Essentially, Gwynn’s data show that any oversimplified methods of estimating advantage must be viewed as rough approximation techniques only.
Alas, true count, like true love, is rarely true.
Let’s look at some one-deck data for these three systems. These simulations were done in the same way, though results were tabulated at only three deck levels: 25%, 50% and 75%. A total of 20.1 million hands were played by the 75% level. Again, these results are for Vegas Strip rules, and assume that no ace side counts are being used.
Hi-Opt I
25%
50%
75%
-2
-1.18
-.79
-.62
-1
-.51
-.63
-.63
0
-.03
.05
.23
+1
.75
.80
.80
+2
1.06
1.24
1.54
+3
1.38
1.45
1.45
+4
2.05
2.25
2.63
Complete Zen
25%
50%
75%
-2
-.26
-.02
.13
-1
-.06
-.17
-.17
0
-.01
.02
.16
+1
.34
.45
.45
+2
.89
1.05
1.32
+3
.81
.99
.99
+4
1.10
1.27
1.53
Uston APC
25%
50%
75%
-2
-.67
-.59
-.26
-1
-.58
-.38
-.21
0
-.03
.01
.14
+1
.54
.55
.62
+2
.71
1.01
1.33
+3
1.02
1.25
1.36
+4
1.68
1.76
2.03
Again, note that in all three systems the win rate at any given true count increases as deck depletion increases. There are a few variations from this tendency, but the overall effect of deck depletion on true point value is consistent with our 4-deck findings. In fact, in these single-deck runs, this tendency appears even stronger than in 4-deck games. A single-deck true point generally appears to be worth more than a 4-deck true point. The effect of deck depletion in single-deck games is even more radical than in 4-deck games.
For all three systems, look at the win rates at true counts of +2. Compare the win rates at 25% depletion and 75% depletion.
How can you use this knowledge at the tables? First of all, I don’t believe anyone is going to come up with a highly accurate method of adjusting running count to true count. Nor can anyone define the value of a point as specifically as most experts and writers, including myself, have been doing for years.
Nor does it appear feasible to develop a practical betting scheme that allows you to bet in proportion to your advantage with any high degree of accuracy. I’m not suggesting that you throw out your attempt to bet in proportion to your advantage, but that you realize how rough any estimate of your advantage is.
Player Advantage is not Linear
Advantage is not in any sense linear in the game of blackjack, nor does it appear to follow any pattern without variation. The value of a true point depends on the deck level. However, even at a true count of 0, the player is significantly better off in single-deck games deeper in the deck.
Although I reproduced here only the Vegas Strip results, Gwynn’s data shows the same tendency for all three count systems vs. Northern Nevada rules, to about the same degree. Although Gwynn’s printout does not show win rates at true counts below -2, it appears that you are also better off at the same negative true counts later in the deck, i.e., a true count of -2 is not so bad with 75% dealt out as with only 25% dealt out.
Strange quirks exist throughout all of the systems. The Zen Count, for instance, in the single-deck Vegas Strip game, actually indicates a player edge at a true count of -2, but a house edge at -1. This is not due to an isolated weird run of hands.
Even with Northern Nevada rules, you are better off at a true count of -2 than -1 if you are using the Zen Count. Likewise, you have a greater advantage at a true count of +10 than you do at a true count of +11, and also greater at +2 than +3, regardless of rules; and you usually have a greater advantage at +4 than at +5, depending on the penetration of the deck.
Most of these same anomalies exist to a lesser extent in 4-deck games with the Zen Count. Similar type occurrences are apparent in the other count systems, but occurring at different true counts. A precise explanation of such phenomena does not present itself.
There are undoubtedly precision system fanatics who would attempt to modify their play according to such data as Gwynn has developed. They would raise their bets at a true count of -2, lower them at -1, and raise them again at 0 (providing more than 50% of the deck was depleted). In sizing their bets, they would realize that they were always better off at a true count of +2 than +3, and better off at +4 than +5 (if 75% of the deck had been depleted), etc. However, such a betting scheme would drive most players nuts.
Precision Doesn’t Pay
Gwynn’s data indicate to me that some players are wasting a lot of time and effort with precision techniques. Gwynn programmed his computer to adjust to true count by counting the exact number of cards, “accurate to the gnat’s ass,” as he put it, and also to adjust to true count by estimating to the nearest quarter-deck (13 cards). There was no significant difference in win rates between these two methods.
Since true count isn’t true anyway, this is understandable. Why use a toothbrush to scrub the side of a barn? Such precision appears to be a waste of time.
I’m not advocating sloppy play. Most players use a quarter-deck true count approximation and should stick with it. In single-deck games, using a half-deck approximation is too sloppy. Gwynn tried this with Uston’s APC and found that it was no better than Hi-Opt I, when Hi-Opt I used a quarter-deck true count approximation.
In the next issue of Blackjack Forum I’ll continue my examination of John Gwynn’s massive body of simulation data. In particular, I’ll be comparing the single-deck win rates of various systems in single-deck games with both Vegas and Reno rules with various shuffle-points. Gwynn has already provided me with this data for Hi-Opt I, Uston’s APC, and the Zen Count. He hopes to have his single-deck runs completed for Hi-Opt II and the Hi-Lo count in time for the next issue.
This computer simulation data that John Gwynn has been making available to me for publication in these pages since Blackjack Forum Vol. I #4 is, to my knowledge, the most extensive and important computer research being done on blackjack today. Analysis of Gwynn’s extensive data answers many questions, but raises many others.
I am grateful to Dr. Gwynn for allowing me to publish his extremely valuable data with my initial analyses and commentary. I realize that this “rush to press” methodology leaves many questions unanswered, but I feel the information contained in this data is of such importance to blackjack players that they should get this information as soon as possible. Hopefully, further research on these findings, and input from other experts, will ultimately lead all of us to a better understanding of the game. ♠
This article deals primarily with playing video poker online to meet the wagering requirement for an Internet casino bonus.
If you have a bankroll of $5,000 or more—and especially if you are already a knowledgeable video poker player—you may be interested in going after some of the better bonus offers that exclude blackjack play for meeting the wagering requirement, but allow video poker. If you are playing bonuses at a high (professional) level, then I advise you to invest in a software program called “WinPoker” by Bob Dancer. It is not expensive and it can be used to analyze virtually any video poker game and provide the correct strategy for any hand.
I’m going to cover only the most common and popular forms of video poker—Jacks or Better and Deuces Wild. The house advantage on these games, assuming full-pay payout schedules, is very close to the house advantage on a blackjack shoe game—for Jacks or Better about 0.5% and for Deuces Wild typically a little over 0.6%. There are many other forms of video poker that you’ll find on the Internet (and in live casinos), some of which—like true full-pay Deuces Wild or Joker Wild Kings or Better—even offer a tiny player advantage (a few hundredths of a percent) with perfect play. Unfortunately, these games are not as commonly available on the Web and when they are, they are often available with less-than-full payouts that increase the house advantage significantly. More importantly from most players’ perspective, they are even more volatile than Jacks or Better when it comes to variance. Players with tight funds should simply avoid these games even when the full-pay versions are available.
If you are already a video poker nut, and you already know all of this stuff, including the payouts that make the various games full-pay games, as well as the strategies for playing these games, then make your decision on whether to play these games based on the bonus value and your bankroll.
A couple of attractive features of video poker are that you can often play for very low stakes, 5 cents or 10 cents, and you can often find machines that will play multiple simultaneous hands, often as many as 50 simultaneous hands (and even 100 in some casinos). That is, the machines will deal you ten hands with identical cards, you make your hold decisions on one hand, and all ten hands will hold those cards. Then each of the ten hands is separately dealt new cards—that is, with a separate randomly-shuffled deck being used for the dealing on each hand.
On a short bank, you will have much less variance on a ten-play game with 5-cent bets (betting 50 cents per round), than you would with a single-play, five-coin-in, dime game (also betting 50 cents per round). Your speed of play on both games would be similar for getting your action in toward your WR, but you will smooth out the fluctuations dramatically with the ten-play game.
The House Advantage at Jacks or Better
For video poker games, we estimate the house advantage by looking at the Pay Table for the game. Each game has a Pay Table that is considered “full pay,” and variations from this Pay Table make the game a “short pay” game. You should be aware that in a short pay game, the house advantage is much higher. Most Internet casinos that offer video poker games offer Jacks or Better or Deuces Wild, so if we can’t play a blackjack variation for our wagering requirement, our task is to find a Jacks or Better video poker game with a full-pay Pay Table or a Deuces Wild game with payouts at least as good as those that will be shown below.
The Pay Table is simply a chart that displays the payouts for the various hands. In most cases, you must play five “coins” in order to get the full payout on a royal flush. So, on a 5-cent machine, you will bet 25 cents per hand, and on a 25-cent machine, you will bet $1.25 per hand. If you are not penalized for betting a single coin, then it doesn’t matter how many coins you bet. The important factor is that you are playing a full-pay game. This is what you are looking for on Jacks or Better:
Full-Pay Jacks or Better Pay Table
Hand
1 Coin
5 Coins
Royal Flush
800
4000
Straight Flush
50
250
4 of a Kind
25
125
Full House
9
45
Flush
6
30
Straight
4
20
3 of a Kind
3
15
2 Pair
2
10
One Pair, Jacks or Better
1
5
Most players should not play Jacks or Better with any other pay table. This table shows the full-pay payouts for both single and five-coin play. If the single-coin play is not full pay, but the 5-coin play is full pay, then only play this game with 5 coins per bet.
Be especially careful to read all of the payouts before you play. A typical short-pay Jacks or Better game will pay only 8 coins for a full house and 5 coins for a flush, instead of 9 coins and 6 coins for these hands respectively, for a single-coin play. With 5 coins in, these short payouts are 40 and 25 instead of 45 and 30. This short-pay Pay Table gives the house a 3% advantage instead of 0.5%, which is unacceptable for most players.
A common trick Internet casinos use to confuse players about a Pay Table’s value is to increase payout(s) on one or more rare hands, while decreasing the payout(s) on more common hands. Don’t be fooled. If a Jacks or Better Pay Table is not identical to the Pay Table above, forget about it unless you are experienced enough to analyze the house edge and related bonus value on your own. I’ve never seen a Pay Table that has been altered from the standard full payouts that doesn’t screw the player and increase the house advantage.
Double or Nothing
Many Internet casino video poker games give the player the option to play “double or nothing” on any win. That is, if you hit say, 3 of a kind on Jacks or Better with 5 coins in for a 15-coin payout, you have the option of trying to double your win to 30 coins by picking a card (one out of four) against the dealer’s card—high card wins. If your card beats the dealer’s card, you may continue to play double or nothing on the 30-coin win, and again on the 60-coin win, etc., until you are satisfied with your win, you lose it all, or you run into the house’s doubling maximum.
There is no house advantage on a doubling bet. It’s like flipping a coin. Be aware that double-or-nothing bets increase the variance on the game.
The strategies for playing video poker are more complicated than the strategies for blackjack. There are a number of good books that describe “simplified” video poker strategies. For our purposes, since you can sit with this book in front of you as you play, all you need is a chart of the Hand Rankings for Jacks or Better.
Jacks or Better Hand Rankings
1. Royal Flush
2. Str Flush
3. 4 of Kind
4. 4 to Royal
5. Full House
6. Flush
7. 3 of Kind
8. Straight
9. 4 to Str Flush (open)
10. 2 Pair
11. 4 to Str Flush (inside)
12. Hi Pair
13. 3 to Royal
14. 4 to Flush
15. TJQK
16. Lo Pair
17. 9TJQ
18. 89TJ
19. QJ9 suited
20. JT9 suited
21. 4 to Str (open)
22. QJ8 suited
23. 3 to Str Flush (open)
24. (KQ9 or KJ9) suited
25. (QT9, JT8, or J98) suited
26. QJ suited
27. AKQJ
28. (KQ or KJ) suited
29. (AK, AQ, or AJ) suited
30. 4 to Str, inside, w/3 Hi Cards
31. 3 to Str Flush, 2 gaps, 1 Hi Card
32. 3 to Str Flush, 1 gap, 0 Hi Cards
33. KQJ
34. QJ
35. 2 Hi Cards
36. 1 Hi Card
How to Use the Jacks or Better Video Poker Chart
First, a few tips so that you do not need to consult the chart on every hand.
1) If you have one or two high cards (J, Q, K, or A) in your hand, and no other made or potential hand of value (no pair, and no 3 cards to a possible straight or flush), just keep the high cards and throw away the others.
2) If you have three high cards (and no pair), and two of the high cards are suited, throw away the non-suited high card and draw to the two suited cards.
3) Always draw to a small pair unless you have four cards to a flush, three cards to a royal flush, K-Q-J-10, or 4 cards to a straight flush, in which cases you would draw to non-small-pair hand. Even with four cards to other open-end straights, you keep the small pair.
4) Always draw to a high pair, even when you have four cards to a straight or flush.
5) If you have no high cards, no open-end straight draw, and no four to a flush, throw all five of your cards away and draw a new hand.
6) If you have four to a royal flush, always draw to the royal, unless it means breaking a straight flush. That is, if you have a 9TJQK suited, keep it. But if you have 8TJQK suited, throw away the 8, even though you are throwing away a made flush hand.
If you look at the Hand Ranking chart above, you can see why we follow Tip 6. Four cards to a royal flush is ranked as Hand #4, while a flush is ranked as Hand #6. This example also explains precisely how we use the chart. If we have a choice between a made hand and a draw of potentially higher value, or between two possible draws, we simply consult the chart to see which hand has a higher ranking. You might note that a low pair is ranked at Hand #16, while four cards to an open-end straight is ranked at #21. So, we keep the pair.
If you consult the Hand Ranking chart any time you have a question, you will play accurately and the house advantage over you will be only about 0.5%. ♠
Question from a Player: I am looking for anyone who has experience with big player (BP) blackjack teams. I have been gambling for quite some time, most recently blackjack. I am very devoted and very much of a perfectionist. I’ve played in casinos solo and done fine, but I wanted to form a team. So, instead of looking for people I didn’t know, I found a bunch of players and trained them to count… we’re still in the process of learning. I thought it would be better for everyone to learn together, thought it would increase trust, etc.
Anyway, I’ve read much of the material out there and am still left with many unanswered questions. First, at what counts do blackjack teams call in their big players? Do the BPs vary their bets or do they flat bet—which works better? Also, if the BPs do vary the bet, what spread is needed? I’m assuming not much of one since they are only betting on positive counts.
I’m also looking for practical advice on paying for team lodging, meals, etc. with casino comps.
Arnold Snyder: The count at which you call in a big player depends on your bankroll, the number of spotters you have in the casino, the card counting system you’re using, and the house edge off the top.
You don’t want to leave your BP in an empty casino constantly circling the pit, waiting to be called into a game. Look up the term “Buzzards” in Cellini’s Casino Surveillance Glossary, and see Al Francesco’s comments on his preferred number of spotters in Interview with Al Francesco. Al Francesco was the inventor of the big player type of blackjack team, and ran such teams successfully for many years.
If you only have 3 or 4 spotters, you may have to call in your big player at a 1% or smaller advantage. If you have 6 spotters, you may want to call in your BP at a 1 1/2 to 2% advantage. Look at a frequency distribution for the games you intend to play and figure it out.
Question: Should the big players vary their bets or flat bet? Which works better? Also, if they do vary the bet, what spread is needed?
Arnold Snyder: If you must call in your big player at a smaller advantage, he should spread his bets up as the advantage rises. If you have enough spotters to call in your big players at only a higher advantage, they can flat bet. Again, look at some frequency distributions and work out the best plan for your blackjack team.
Using Casino Comps for Blackjack Team Expenses
Question: I’m wondering how the logistics of accommodations work for a blackjack team? Our team is a pretty small one, about half a dozen. Can you get a room for someone and it won’t be a problem (as in, the casino won’t try to see who’s staying in your room)?
Arnold Snyder: Look at Tommy Hyland’s remarks on this subject in Interview with Tommy Hyland in the Blackjack Forum Library.
The casinos may well try to see who’s staying in a big player’s room. If you’re not supposed to know each other at the tables, you shouldn’t show up together in rooms, coffee shops, etc.
Casino Surveillance and Blackjack Teams
Question: How much heat does a big player usually get, especially if he or she is foreign and has a good act? What about aliases? How necessary are they and what about the legality of them?
Arnold Snyder: The heat your BP gets will depend on your playing plan (again, don’t make him a Buzzard), his win, whether your signals are picked off, the casino, crowd conditions, etc. I would advise against any BP using an alias in casinos. The player will have to cash in a lot of chips and attempting to use fake ID for this could cause serious legal problems.
More Advice on Big Player Blackjack Teams
Question: I know this is a lot but I would appreciate as much input as possible from as many people as possible. I am determined to be one of the teams that makes it out there.
Arnold Snyder: Be sure to see the Interview with Johnny C. (of the MIT blackjack team) in the library and work out the math for your team just as you’d work it out for playing solo. Also, check out the articles in the table of contents (at the left of this article) for blackjack team play.
How Many Spotters Do I Need for My Card Counting Team?
Question: If a BP has six spotters, is it still possible to be profitable? I guess what i mean is, is one big player enough for six spotters?
Arnold Snyder: In order to make it profitable to employ six spotters, your BP’s bets have to be big enough, and placed at a high enough edge, that the earnings on them will pay for the house edge on all the spotters’ bets, plus cover your team expenses, and still return a good profit to you. This means you will need a considerable team bankroll.
Blackjack Teams and Fluctuations
Question: When considering the number of hands being played (for calculating team win rates and fluctuations), do you count all hands (including your spotters’ hands) or just the hands the BP plays? Are you able to get the benefits of reduced team fluctuation with only one BP?
Arnold Snyder: There are many different types of blackjack team approaches. With a seven-player blackjack team where all players are betting equivalent amounts (that is, not a BP/spotter team but an every-man-for-himself team), the flux will be cut significantly, as it is unlikely for all seven players to have negative flux at the same time. Players’ results on this type of team will smooth out each other’s flux.
With the type of team you’re talking about, a team that has one big player and six spotters, by contrast, there is no reduction in fluctuations. The flux for the team will essentially be the flux for the BP.
Spotter hands should be played at the table minimum bet, so they don’t really count much for anything in terms of team bankroll fluctuations when your big player is playing at a much higher level than the spotters are. However, if your spotters are betting $25 a hand and your big player can only bet $200, you’re probably not going to be profitable. If your big player is betting $2000 while your spotters are betting $25, the overall fluctuations will essentially be due to the BP’s fluctuations—the fluctuations on your spotters’ hands won’t significantly affect your team bankroll.
As a general guideline, for every spotter you have at work, you’d like your BP to be able to place bets at least eight times the size of the spotters’ bets (or more). So, with six spotters at $25 per hand, you’d want your BP to be able to bet at least 6 x 8 x $25 = $1200. If your bank doesn’t support this kind of action, then you should get your spotters onto lower minimum tables.
Six spotters betting $25 per hand, at 100 hands per hour each, is $15,000 in action per hour just on the spotters’ hands. If the house edge is one-half percent on these hands, the hourly cost of the spotters’ hands is $75. That’s not much, compared to what your BP might expect to earn. To keep this simple, let’s say your BP is flat-betting $1200 at a 1 1/2% overall win rate and getting to bet 75 hands per hour. He’s going to be making $1350 an hour. But you also have to pay all these spotters, whether a percentage or an hourly rate, and you may have to pay investors, etc.
To get closer estimates of the number of hands your big player will be betting, and his overall win rate, the cost of spotters’ hands, etc., you need info on exact game conditions, including rules, penetration, etc., as well as your exact betting strategy. Always try to use a strategy that will return a lot more than the minimum you would be satisfied with. Most real-life advantage play results in a lower return than players calculate on paper.
Also, your spotters should have different signals to tell the BP how strong the advantage is when they call him in—that is, their signals should indicate how much he should bet. This way the BP can choose a stronger opportunity when two spotters are calling him in at the same time.
With six spotters, you should be able to keep your BP in action most of the time. If not, then the penetration is probably too poor to make much money, even with a BP/spotter team approach.
With the right crowd conditions, your spotters may not have to play at all. If they can just stand behind tables and watch the games, this would be the most profitable betting strategy. In some crowd conditions, this works better than having your spotters seated and playing. It allows the spotters to move if a table is no good.
It also allows them to concentrate on tables where the BP will likely be able to get a seat. If the table fills up, they can move on. And the spotters themselves are not taking up seats, making it even more likely that a seat for the BP will be available. Obviously, you need the right crowd conditions for this.
Bet Sizing for Big Player Blackjack Teams
Question: When you said “your BP should be able to bet 1200 dollars a hand” ,did you mean top bet or minimum or average? How would adding a BP change this number, if at all? We are hoping to be working on a pretty healthy bank.
Arnold Snyder: I’m deliberately not being specific. Unless we specify the exact penetration, rules,, etc., we’re just ball-parking. And even if you do specify these things, then it depends on how well the crowd conditions will cooperate with your goal of getting your BP 75 hands per hour. Can your BP jump in with two hands? If so, that’s a plus.
The message is that you want to shoot for a very big spread by having your BP’s bets increase as the number of spotters increases. If you add a second BP, you’d ideally like to add more spotters. With two BPs, you will increase the number of BP hands per hour, but you’re not going to get 150 hands per hour with only six spotters.
Penetration will be a huge factor in the actual number of hands your BPs can play per hour. The deeper the better.
Calculating Your Blackjack Team’s Win Rate
Question: From your books, I am assuming the only way to find the average expectation for a game is to enter the rules, penetration, betting scheme, etc. and run the numbers, right? Put the edge into your profit formula from Blackbelt in Blackjack times hands per hour for the BP times average bet for the BP, to get the team’s hourly expectation?
Arnold Snyder: Yes, but remember that the way things work on paper is not always how they work in reality. Some of your spotters may make counting mistakes when fatiqued or distracted, or misjudge the deck penetration. Even a good BP may misread a signal now and then, or miss out on responding to a spotter with a higher count and edge because he’s involved at a table where the count and edge are lower. Or a civilian may climb into the only open seat, just before your BP reaches it.
This is why you want to find a strategy that should deliver a huge return, and avoid any strategy that has you thinking, “Well, this should be about enough to make it worth our time and effort…” When you look at the numbers on a potential blackjack team play, you want to be thinking that it looks extremely profitable.
Most pros, including many of the big blackjack team operators, will tell you that they actually get only about half the return in real world casinos that they expect on paper.
I strongly urge you to try a practice play at a low limit casino where your BP(s) and spotters can work out their signal problems and get a feel for the play before you ever try this with big money. If the first practice play doesn’t go well, do another one, and another, if necessary. Big Player call-in plays are extremely chaotic when you first try this type of attack. As a result of your first half dozen trials, you will likely be changing signals that don’t work, adding new signals that would be helpful to have, etc.
If the frequency distribution shows that a 1.5% advantage occurs only 2% of the time, then you cannot expect your BP to be able to play 75 hands per hour at a 1.5+% advantage, even with six spotters. You need deeper penetration. If you look at a frequency distribution and you see that a 1.5% advantage or more arises 13% of the time, then with six spotters, you might be tempted to think your BP could get 6 x 13 = 78 hands per hour, assuming each spotter is seeing 100 hands per hour. But it doesn’t work this way. There will be times when more than one spotter will have this advantage on their tables simultaneously.
In this example, with two spotters, the probability that they would each have a 1.5% or more advantage at the same time would be 13% times 13%, so your BP would not have a chance to bet at a 1.5% advantage 26% of the time, but only about 24% of the time. The next spotter you add will have a chance of having a count with a 1.5% advantage at the same time as at least one of the other two spotters 13% of 24% of the time, and so on as you add more spotters.
You can add big players to take advantage of these simultaneous betting situations that arise, but you will also have one or both BPs standing around quite often when there are not two good tables available. So, even though it might be somewhat more profitable to have two BPs with six spotters, you have to think about how it looks in the casino. You really want your BPs in action, and not looking like buzzards in the pit. Blackjack team success is not just about the numbers. It’s about camo too.
Camouflage for Blackjack Team Spotters
Question: Also, doesn’t it look suspicious to have a spotter just flat betting the minimum? I don’t recall seeing anyone in a casino NEVER alter their bet. Do spotters need a small spread for cover?
Arnold Snyder: I don’t think flat betting ever looks suspicious. In fact, nothing makes a player more invisible to the house. If casinos had to start worrying about players who flat bet, they’d go nuts. It’s very common for players on a short bank to flat bet at blackjack and many other games.
Big Player Blackjack Teams and Shuffle Tracking
Question: I have a couple of questions about shuffle tracking. In a book about the MIT blackjack team, they spoke of shuffle tracking like it was something the BPs did. I would guess there is no reason why a BP couldn’t track shuffles, since he is theoretically seeing only positive counts and hence high cards. Are there blackjack teams that don’t do the whole betting with the count thing and only bet where they can cut a favorable slug?
Arnold Snyder: Well, now we know why the MIT blackjack teams never made any money tracking shuffles!
Shuffle tracking is definitely not a job for the big player, since he is generally not at the table throughout the shoe. Don’t even think about trying to incorporate something like this into your team strategy.
If you have an interest in shuffle tracking, that’s an entirely different approach, and one that I would not advise for most blackjack team attacks. Believe me, I tried training players for such a team myself, and abandoned it.
For now, if you’re looking to use a blackjack team approach, stick with the more traditional and proven methods. Keep it simple and very aggressive. If you want to look into more advanced techniques you might try down the road, study this stuff on your own and see if you have the talent for it.
Compensation for Blackjack Team Members
Question: What is the best way to pay members of blackjack teams? How about simply paying BPs a percentage when the team wins?
BPs can be very important to the success of a team, and I don’t want to minimize their value. It can actually be difficult to find someone who is actually able to put out the money. Some of the big teams pay BPs an hourly rate as an advance against the percentage they’ll get when the team hits a win target. This helps to keep a good BP playing.
But paying a percentage of the win after every play is a terrible idea. Even with an extremely high edge (much higher than you get from card counting), a free roll may not be a good idea. Back in the early 1980s, when Sam Case was playing the Five Card Drop with Crazy Bob’s team in Reno, the advantage on the play was huge, and they gave Sam a free roll on the wins for his pay. He ended up making more money than anybody else on the team, with no risk (if I remember correctly, he made all the money), before they realized what a bad idea this free roll on wins was for a team play.
Big Player Team Plays and Simplicity
Question: I was reading the interview with Johnny C of the MIT team and he mentioned how his team started winning like crazy when they stopped using index numbers. Why would you earn more with a less precise strategy? Shouldn’t more index numbers be worth something?
Arnold Snyder: The reason the MIT blackjack team started winning more when they used the fixed strategy is not because of any intrinsic value in using fewer indices or fixed indices (in theory you’ll make more using every indice you can learn). The MIT team started winning more with a fixed strategy because the BPs made many fewer errors.
Card counters tend to greatly underestimate their error rates and the cost of these errors. Johnny C.’s bookkeeping records provided his team with hard proof of the cost of such errors. When you’re a card counter working solo, or you’re working with a blackjack team, simplicity is worth money. ♠
I have taken a giant step in my blackjack playing career — I have formed a blackjack team with some of my card counting friends. Five of us have each contributed equal amounts to a joint bank, and we suddenly find ourselves black chip players. It is fun, even thrilling, to be playing at this level. The upside is the high roller treatment — the comps and personal attention from the casinos; the downside is the increased scrutiny.
On some weekends, we “hire” other card counters to back-count tables for us. In order to protect our blackjack bankroll, we have found counters who are willing to play for a percentage of our win on the nights they work for us, instead of playing for a flat hourly rate. This way, if we have a losing night, we don’t have to pay them at all. They trade this risk for the possibility of winning a lot more than they would get on a flat hourly rate.
Although our blackjack team bank at this point is in the hole, the hired card counters are making out quite well. In fact, it appears they will do better than all of us if it takes us much time to dig out of the hole we’re in. I think we might be paying them too high of a percentage on the nights we win. What percentage should they get?
Answer from Arnold Snyder:
On a blackjack card-counting team, you are making a major error by paying them any percentage at all. You will probably tap out your joint bank in the long run if you use this type of arrangement regularly. By paying “hired” counters or big players (BPs) a percentage of the win on individual playing sessions, you are “chopping the tops off” of your positive fluctuations, while suffering the full force of your negative fluctuations.
Since you don’t require the “hired” counters to reimburse you for any losses on nights you lose substantially, these guys are getting a free roll at your expense. You and your fellow team investors bear all the risk, while you hand over a portion of every random win. This is bankroll suicide.
Let me give you a radical example of how such an arrangement can be ultimately devastating. For simplicity, let’s say your blackjack team consists of four player/investors, all of whom have invested equal amounts (say $10K each) to the joint team bank ($40,000 total) with an agreement that you will all play an equal number of hours, and will ultimately (after doubling your bank) divide your win into quarters.
Now, let’s say you know a number of competent local card counters (or BPs) who will be willing to work on various nights for 10% of your team win on the nights they play. So, each night, you “hire” one counter on this basis. These hired counters have no investment in the bank, so if your team loses on any nights they play, they get nothing — but they also lose nothing (other than their time).
You figure that since, on any given night of play, you will have five players total — the four original player/investors plus one hired counter — each of you will ultimately be responsible for 20% of your win on the nights when you win. So, paying out only 10% of your win to a hired counter sounds like a good deal for your team.
But consider what happens if it ultimately takes you 100 nights of play to double your team bank, just due to the ups and downs of normal blackjack fluctuation. Let’s say on 50 nights your team wins money (with an average $4,000 win on your winning nights); and on 50 nights your team loses money (with an average loss of $3,200 on your losing nights). These would be fairly normal blackjack fluctuations in such a venture and would ultimately result in a $40,000 win, doubling your bank, after 100 nights of play.
But, what happens if you are paying 10% of each win to a hired counter or BP on your winning nights? Ten percent of $4,000 is $400; and $400 x 50 winning nights = $20,000 paid out to the hired help.
This means that if only one out of your five players has this arrangement to collect just 10% of your win on your winning nights, you would literally cut your 100 days’ winnings in half (from $40,000 to $20,000) with this one player collecting half of all your team’s 100 days’ winnings! At this rate, it would take you 200 nights to double your bank, and the hired counter, who put in only one-fifth of the total hours, with no monetary risk, will have profited as much as the other four of you combined!
Furthermore, imagine what happens if your team goes into a period of heavy negative fluctuations — which is not at all unlikely. Blackjack teams experience such losses all the time due to normal fluctuations. Imagine a scenario where you play for 100 days and have 50 winning days and 50 losing days, but your losses averaged $4,000 on your losing nights, and your wins averaged only $3,600 on your winning nights. This means that after 100 days of team play — without the hired counter — you will be down by $20,000, and facing a long period of “digging out.”
If, during this period, you were paying one hired counter 10% of your win on winning nights, the hired help will have already been paid $18,000, and your remaining team bank will not be $20,000, but only $2,000 — hardly a bank at all!
Paying win shares on short term positive fluctuations can devastate a team when it goes into a slump. No team can survive such an arrangement. This is why I say that what you are doing when you pay win shares on short term wins prematurely (i.e., prior to final distribution of the bank) is “chopping the tops off” of all your positive fluctuations.
Think of the logic: In order for a blackjack team to win $10,000, it will go through many winning sessions and many losing sessions. Ultimately, it will hit a point when the total win of its winning sessions will be $10,000 greater than the total losses on its losing sessions. You don’t just win $10,000; you more likely win $110,000, while losing only $100,000. If you are distributing win shares on a session by session basis, you will be distributing win shares on $110,000 when you ultimately had only a $10,000 win!
If you are going to enlist the aid of hired non-investor counters or BPs on your team, you either must determine a fair hourly rate to reimburse your hired help — based on a small fraction of your expected value from their playing; or, you must get the hired counters to agree to play for a percentage of the final win — when you ultimately break your bank — which could be many months later, and which could prove to be substantially larger (or smaller!) than what they might consider to be a fair hourly rate.
The free roll method you have developed to “protect” your team bank, incidentally, is a fairly common mistake for new blackjack teams. Unfortunately, this method protects nothing but the interests of the hired counters, to the ultimate detriment of your team. ♠
[Editor’s Note: Most books on gambling provide a glossary of terms peculiar to that form of gambling. A book on card counting, for example, might describe terms like “camouflage” and “penetration” as they are generally used by most counters.
The glossary provided here by Cellini, from his book The Card Counter’s Guide to Casino Surveillance (an Arnold Snyder Professional Gambling Report), is not a glossary of card counters’ jargon, but a glossary of the terminology and slang used in the casino surveillance rooms by the agents who monitor the casino play.
Some of these terms may seem to be insensitive, or even insulting. Keep in mind that the purpose of providing this glossary is not to be politically correct, but simply to inform the reader of the actual terminology used. The common slang used by any special-interest group often provides a revealing glimpse into the psychology of the members of that group. –Arnold Snyder]
Anchor: The player seated at the last possible square (dealer’s far right hand), also known as third base. In face-up games, this player is frequently seeking the advantage of seeing the previously played cards before making a decision on his own hand.
Bi: A term used for unabashed lesbians (sorry, but it’s true, as surveillance people are by nature voyeuristic). Also a term used to order an observer to run a player through the Biometrica system.
Bum Rushed: Said of an angry player who seeks and finds the pit boss after being denied his claim.
Buzzard: A “Big Player” who circles the pit too much waiting for a signal from a spotter.
Call Number: A number input to the keyboard to bring up a certain camera.
Cat in the Hat: A player who is garbed in a fashion that is not consistent with the weather his surroundings, such as a coat in the middle of summer or wearing sunglasses indoors.
Channel: Another term for a camera, as in, “What channel is he on?”
Chaser: A non-advantage player who chases his losses. These player are usually steaming mad about their losses.
Chunker: A player that makes numerous small stacks of chips as wagers all over the green on a roulette layout.
Claimer: A person who makes false claims.
Clock him, Dano: A term used by supervisors to request a surveillance observer to run down (watch closely) a suspected advantage player.
D.A.R.: Daily Activity Report. Part of the surveillance observer’s shift report.
Destroyer: An observer who is instructed to watch all entrances laying in wait for an advantage player who has just left an adjoining or neighboring casino. Destroyers always work off of fresh or hot tips.
Dougherty: A “Dougherty” is an advantage player who makes all the wrong camo moves.
Green: A cheque with a house value of $25.00.
Grill Shot: A request for a facial shot of a suspected shot taker or advantage player.
Headstone: A player that has not left his seat for almost the entire surveillance shift and is passed on to the next shift, as in, “You’ve got a headstone on table 13.”
Heat Seeker: A team player who attempts to draw as much heat as possible on another table to keep surveillance from watching his team mates. This is a bold move and usually done at a precise time. It’s also known as “Russian BJ.”
Hit and Runner: An advantage player who “Wongs,” then leaves. Also a case bettor.
Hog Hunting: A cruel game once played for money by surveillance people. The goal is to find and photograph the ugliest person of the opposite sex in the casino for a given shift. I’ve seen up to $100 in the pot up for grabs. And they think card counters are bad people.
Hunch a Buncher: A player who makes wild bet spreads for no apparent reason. His play has been proven to be unskilled.
I.R.: An Incident Report. If a “cube misses the boat” (die misses the table on a craps game) and hits the carpet, an I.R. is generated. A typical day’s worth of paperwork in a surveillance room could easily weigh a pound.
J.N.R.: Just Not Right, said of a person who appears to be acting suspicious.
K: Thousand, as in “He’s in 10k,” or “He’s losing 5k!”
Keyboard: A computer-type keyboard that allows a surveillance observer to input the camera number of his choice.
Kibitzer: A nosey person who stands behind a player on a live game.
Meth’ed: A player who is more than obviously under the influence of speed or other stimulant narcotics.
Monkey: Any ten card (Asian term).
Mult-Plexer: Multi Vision, a piece of electronic equipment used in surveillance operations that allows up to 16 cameras to be recorded on to one VCR.
Nurser: A suspected advantage player who pretends to be drinking an alcoholic beverage for hours without actually drinking.
Paint: A 10 value card, either a jack, queen, or king.
Peek Freak: A hole carder.
Pict: A printed photo generated by means of either a computer scanner device or a medical scan device (ultra scan).
Pigeon: The perfect player (big loser) according to casino and surveillance people.
Port Number: A Switcher number that reflects the Pseudo number.
The Rags: The junk cards eaten (played) by an agent in order to use up a certain amount of cards or to steer cards (as in, “That player on square one was eating up the rags for the anchor.”)
Rat-hole: The act of attempting to physically hide one’s large denomination winnings (cheques). Usually attempted by an advantage player to reduce pit heat or scrutiny.
Red: A cheque with a house value of $5.00.
Review: The act of reviewing a possible incident, as in, “Do you guys do a lot of claimer reviews?”
Rimmer: Slang used by surveillance observers to convey credit players to the next shift.
Roller: A dealer or card cheat who turns on his friends after getting busted.
S.R.: Surveillance Room.
Scellard, or Scale: A degenerate player (loser). Also a kibitzer.
Scorpion: A player (possible advantage player) that has the financial means to “sting you” (hurt the casino).
Sign-in sheet: A log sheet of all non-pre-authorized people who have entered the surveillance room.
Slugger: A player who makes numerous attempts to cut the deck to locate a slug. Also a person using fake or lead tokens in a slot machine.
Special Ops: Special Observation, also known as a “Blow by Blow.” This is where the surveillance department scrutinizes the subject’s every move. It’s not something anyone would want to go through. It’s the equivalent of having a police car behind you at all times.
Spotter: A team player who counts cards and calls in a Big Player to his table to bet big when the count is high.
Squirrel or Chipmunk: A suspected advantage player who hops from table to table in reaction to signals from his “Spotters.”
Steamer: See “chaser” (above).
Survey Him: A term used by a shift manager or a surveillance supervisor to request an observer to run a suspected advantage player on the BJ Survey Voice counter-catching computer software.
Switch(er): An electronic monstrosity that converts the “pseudo” numbers (or camera numbers) into “call” numbers.
“T or P’er”: A “Take or Place” wager, usually made by an advantage player or a Chaser. The term “T or P” means “Take or play to table max.” The phrase is announced by the table dealer when an unknown amount of currency hits the layout.
T. C. Time:Tape change time in the surveillance room. This time is also commonly referred to as “Elbows and A-Holes” time.
Turner: The same as a heat seeker, but this player utilizes means other than making bold card counter moves. A turner may trip and fall or even jump on a live table and start dancing.
Walker: A player who makes a large wager then departs in an obvious advantage play.
Warpster: Player who adjusts his play according to the bends of the cards.
Webster: Said of a floor person who thinks he knows everything.
Witch: A female dealer who can’t “hold her own” (has been unlucky). ♠
Question from a Reader: What do you think of the “Triplet” system that I recently purchased by mail order? The system is made for playing craps, but I think the theory behind it would be useful for blackjack also, or any other games of chance. The author even says you can use it for roulette, and describes how on the last page.
The system costs $100, but I only had to send $25 to get it. I’m supposed to send the other $75 after I win it from the casinos. It seems to me the publisher is pretty confident that I’ll win, since he sent me the complete system “below wholesale.”
Answer: You purchased four photocopied pages for $25. The total cost to “manufacture” this system to the author/publisher/seller was realistically about 25¢. Add to this the cost of an envelope and a 32¢ postage stamp, and the seller’s overhead expenses on this sale come to about 60¢.
So, even though you were shrewd enough to buy this system “below wholesale,” I don’t think the seller is sweating that $75 you still owe him. I suspect most “shrewd” purchasers of this system never send the remaining $75 owed for one simple reason: This system isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. My heart goes out to the tree that died for this nonsense.
I agree with you that the “theory” behind this craps system would apply equally to all even money bets in any game of chance, assuming the theory was valid for the game of craps in the first place. But it’s not. Ironically, it’s slightly more valid for blackjack than it is for other casino games — but not valid enough to be profitable.
To simplify the author’s brainstorm, he is proposing that because it is unlikely to have three consecutive same results, you will make money if you wait until two consecutive same results have already occurred, then bet against the third occurrence. For example, if the pass line wins twice in a row, bet don’t pass. At roulette, if red comes up twice in a row, bet black, etc. The system combines this ploy with a martingale double-up betting strategy to be applied when you are losing.
At any given time in the past twenty years, you would have been able to find dozens of craps, roulette and blackjack systems on the mail order market espousing this same faulty theory. When I read your letter, and examined the “Triplet” system you enclosed, I almost tossed it in the circular file as just more garbage. I wanted to write you a short personal note telling you the system was worthless, but you failed to include your address on your letter.
Then, it struck me that this type of system is one of the most common types of phony baloney systems on the market, that seems to be based on “logic.” So, let’s debunk this theory once and for all.
It makes sense to many people that it is unlikely (or, at least, less than a 50/50 chance) that three consecutive same results would occur. If the crap table had an even money payout bet on the layout that three consecutive pass or don’t pass results would occur, and you could take either side of this wager — call it “triplet” or “don’t triplet” — we could all get rich by betting “don’t triplet.” This, in fact, is the analogy the author of the Triplet system uses in describing the “logic” behind his method.
The error the author makes is in assuming that the “don’t triplet” bet is just as strong after two of the three “don’t” results have already occurred, when all you’re betting against is the occurrence of the third result.
WRONG!
The reason the “don’t triplet” bet would be so profitable if it were on the layout with an even money payout is precisely because there are three chances for the triplet to fail. Using a simple coin flip example, we all know that with an honest coin there is a 50/50 (even money) chance that heads will come up. For two consecutive heads results, however, the odds are 3-to-1 against it. This is easy to see if we consider all possible results of two flips: (1) H,H; (2) H,T; (3) T,H; or (4) T,T. We only win once, but lose three times, with the four possible outcomes.
For three consecutive heads to come up, the odds are 7-to-1 against it: (1) H,H,H; (2) H,H,T; (3) H,T,H; (4) T,H,H; (5) H,T,T; (6) T,H,T; (7) T,T,H; or (8) T,T,T. Out of these eight possible outcomes of three consecutive flips, there are seven losses and one win, if we’re betting on three consecutive heads.
But, as soon as I stipulate that two consecutive heads have already occurred, the odds against the third occurrence are no longer 7-to-1. What I’m looking at is “H,H,?” where only that third result figures in to the bet, and we’re back to a 50/50 chance of it being either heads or tails.
If I pulled out an honest quarter, and offered you an even money bet that I could flip three heads in a row, you’d be very smart to take the bet, since the odds against me doing it are 7-to-1. In fact, you could give me 6-to-1 odds and still make money on this bet in the long run.
But if I said, “Wait until I flip two consecutive heads, then I’ll bet you that I can flip a third head,” you’d be foolish to give me anything other than even money, because it’s back to being a 50/50 proposition. At a crap table, or roulette table, you are giving the house odds on that third bet, because unlike our coin flip example, the house has a 1.41% advantage over you on the pass line, and a 5.26% advantage over you on the even money bets with a double-0 wheel. The Triplet system does nothing to change the house edge.
Any time you see a system which tells you to consider the likelihood or unlikelihood of occurrence of some result, based on results which have already occurred, don’t waste your time or money with it. I call these “overdue” systems, because the sellers often claim that when there has been a preponderance of reds, black is “overdue,” etc.
The reason I said that this “Triplet” system is slightly more valid if applied to blackjack than to other casino games is that computer simulations have shown that in blackjack, wins are slightly more likely to follow losses, and losses to follow wins. Unlike dice or roulette, the cards do have “memory.” I.e., cards which have already been played are out of the game until the next shuffle.
But don’t expect to get rich applying the “Triplet” system to blackjack. The total amount of the change in your win/loss expectation based on previous wins or losses at a blackjack table is measurable in thousandths of a percent — not enough to overcome the house advantage. ♠
Question from a Reader: I have been playing blackjack and craps for about 40 years, and have been competing in blackjack and craps tournaments pretty seriously for about five years. I’ve always been a system player. Believe me, I’ve tried them all (except for card counting, since I do not have a good memory, and my eyesight is also poor). I have to admit I never really made any money at the gaming tables until I got into the tournaments. I’ve been making very good money at tournaments for about two years now.
Recently, I’ve been applying my tournament strategies at the tables even when I’m not in a tournament. In other words, I pretend it’s a tournament, and I have to beat the other players at my table using a fixed bankroll, with self-imposed betting limits, over a fixed (short) time period.
In my four decades of system play, I’ve never heard of a system anything like this. Have you? Since I’ve seen this approach win over and over in actual tournament play, I feel that a strategic approach to being the “best at the table” would work even when I’m not in a tournament.
Competing with the other players at my table, instead of trying to beat the house, strikes me as a more realistic approach. I know that I can’t always win, so my goal is to lose the least when everyone else loses, and to win the most when everyone else wins. Regardless of what happens at the table, I want to come out in the best shape. Doesn’t this make sense?
But, Bishop, as logical as this may sound, I’ve been having some serious problems applying this method, and I have suffered some tremendous losses in my attempts to compensate for the confusing situations that arise. For instance, as you might imagine, the other players at these “pretend” tournaments don’t abide by my imaginary rules. I try to adjust my strategy based on the units that other players win and lose (instead of dollars), but since new players suddenly enter “mid-round” as it were, and other “competitors” just as suddenly quit, this is more complicated than it might seem. Other players also make “illegal” bets (such as spreading to multiple blackjack hands), and constantly violate the “limits” I’ve imposed on myself, even if I translate their bets to units.
It seems to me that I should be able to win more often in these imaginary tournaments than I do in real tournaments, since my imaginary “competitors” don’t really know that they’re competing with me, don’t know when the end of a “round” is approaching, etc., etc. When I first came up with this idea, I thought I had the system to beat all systems. Just be the best at your table. It sounds simple. But how do I do this in the real world?
Answer: When it comes to systems, I thought I had seen them all. However, yours is a new one to me. But just because no one else has thought of this system before, does not mean it’s a valid, winning system. As a matter of fact, it is not a valid method for beating the blackjack tables. You will continue to “suffer tremendous losses” if you persist with this approach.
Consider what you know from your many years of experience.
For forty years, you’ve played blackjack and craps, but you’ve only made any real money in the past few years, by playing in tournaments. What does this tell you? That the systems you’ve been using simply don’t work — except in tournaments.
What is it about tournament play that is different from playing at the normal, house banked, gaming tables? Two major differences: One, you are competing with other players and not the house. (Obviously, you realize this.) Two, if you finish with more money than any of the other players, you will win the jackpot. (You seem to be totally ignoring this!)
In your “pretend” tournaments, there is no jackpot. Other than whatever money you might win from the dealer, there is no reward for being the best at your table. Since you obviously have a natural talent for competing with other players, proven by your success in real tournaments, you should reserve all of your serious play for tournaments. Don’t try to use betting systems to beat other players, unless those other players have put money into a pot that you will collect when you come out ahead of them.
Look at it this way: Make a list of all of the tournaments you’ve played in for the past two years. Then make three columns. List the amounts you’ve paid in entry fees in all of the tournaments you’ve competed in. List the amounts you’ve won and lost during play at the tables in all of the tournaments you’ve competed in. And finally, list all of the prize moneys you’ve collected in all of the tournaments you’ve competed in. Now, total up the columns and see what your net profit has been from tournament play.
Now, ignore both the entry fee column, and the prize money column, since your “pretend” tournaments don’t include either of these factors, and just look at the amounts you’ve won and lost at the tournament tables in the process of competing. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this number is a net loss. How do I know this? Because if you are a successful tournament player, you will often tap out in the tournaments where you do not finish in the money (and this will be the majority of the tournaments you play). The reason you come out ahead in the long run in tournament play is because the prize moneys you collect for your aggressive betting strategies will exceed the total of your losses from entry fees and table play.
Using tournament strategies when there is no jackpot for the winner is a very foolhardy way to bet your money. So, you invented a new system. Unfortunately, it’s a lousy system. So, stick to the real tournaments.Send memorabilia from casinos and hardware stores for my soon to be published book,“Casinos and Plumbing Supply Outlets of America,” to the Bishop at Blackjack Forum Online. ♠
Blackjack Betting Systems: The Long Run Vs. The Short Run
Players ask me more questions about betting systems for blackjack than just about any other topic. Not betting systems for card counters—just betting systems.
I always start by going into my spiel that pure betting systems don’t win in the long run. They can make you more likely to win in the short run (in the case of Oscar’s System, a lot more likely). But not in the long run. And the usual response I get is, “I don’t care about the long run. I’m going to Vegas this weekend. I just want to win on this one short run.” (Continued below)https://www.888casino.com/blackjack/free
As a matter of fact, there are betting systems that provide a player a much bigger chance of finishing a trip with a win than a loss. If you use this type of betting system, and you look over your records after years of play, you’ll see a whole lot of small wins—and one (or a few) big losses, big enough to wipe out the profits from all of your small wins, and then some. (Mustn’t forget that house edge!)
But, you don’t care about the long run. You just want a win this weekend. So, let’s look at what betting system works best in the short run. We can’t guarantee a win, but there is a logic to betting systems that can greatly increase your chances of success.
Types of Blackjack Betting Systems
There are two main types of betting systems for blackjack or any casino game—positive progressions and negative progressions. With a positive progression, the general theory is that you raise your bets after wins, which means that your bigger bets are primarily funded by money won. This is a conservative betting system insofar as a long string of losses will not wipe out your bankroll as quickly as with a negative progression.
With a negative progression, you raise your bets after your losses. This is more dangerous, since a bad run of losses can wipe you out quickly. In its favor, however, it allows you to win on a session in which you’ve lost many more hands than you’ve won. Since your bets after losses are bigger bets, you don’t have to win so many of them to come back, assuming you can avoid a truly disastrous series of losses that empties your pockets.
There are dozens of variations on betting systems that incorporate features of both the positive and negative progressions, in an attempt to create the “perfect” betting system that wins the most often with the least chance of busting out.
But the best system of this type I’ve seen for accomplishing this end was first published 40 years ago by mathematician Allan N. Wilson, in his Casino Gambler’s Guide (Harper & Row, 1965). Dr. Wilson called it “Oscar’s system,” named after the dice player who’d invented it.
How to Use Oscar’s Blackjack Betting System
Here’s how Oscar’s System works:
The goal for any series of bets is to win just one unit, then start a new series. Each series starts with a one-unit bet. After any win, the next bet is one unit more than the previous bet. After any loss, the next bet is identical to the previous bet. That is, if you lose a two-unit bet, your next bet is a two-unit bet until you have a win, at which point you raise your bet one unit to a three-unit bet.
That is the whole system, except for one stipulation—Never place any bet that would result in a win for the series of more than one unit. In other words, if you win a 4-unit bet, and you are now down only 2 units for the series, you would not raise your next bet to 5 units because of the 4-unit win; you’d only to 3 units, which would be all you’d need—if successful—to achieve a one-unit win for the series.
Oscar’s betting system combines the best features of both the positive and negative progressions. You can suffer much longer runs of losses without busting out than you can with a negative progression, since you don’t raise your bets after losses. Yet, a much shorter run of wins can get back your previous losses on a series, since you raise your bets following wins. It’s kind of brilliant, actually. Strings of losses hurt less, yet strings of wins pay more.
When Oscar told Dr. Wilson that he had been using this system for many years and had never had a losing weekend in Las Vegas, Dr. Wilson did some mathematical and computer simulation analysis on it. Was this possible? His findings were amazing. Using a $1 betting unit on an even money payout game, the betting progression is so slow that the player would bump up against the house’s $500 maximum bet (at that time) on only one series of every 5,000 played. On 4,999 of those series, the player would expect to achieve his $1 win target.
Since Oscar was shooting for a weekend win of only $100 (back in 1965, this was a very healthy win!), Dr. Wilson concluded that it was quite likely that Oscar had played on many weekends over a period of years with never a loss.
So, should we all start using Oscar’s system? One word of caution: Watch out for that one losing series. How much does Oscar lose when his system fails on that one unlucky series out of 5,000?
About $13,000.
You see, even though he’s just bumped into the house’s table maximum of $500, he’s gotten to this point by losing lots of bets in the $100+, $200+, $300+, and $400+ range during this horrendously long series. So, if you try Oscar’s system, you still have to be prepared to lose in the long run.
Oscar’s System: Sample Betting Sequences
Bet
Result
Total
Next Bet
1
L
-1
1
1
L
-2
1
1
W
-1
2
2
W
+1
done
Bet
Result
Total
Next Bet
1
L
-1
1
1
L
-2
1
1
L
-3
1
1
W
-2
2
2
L
-4
2
2
W
-2
3
3
W
+1
done
Bet
Result
Total
Next Bet
1
L
-1
1
1
L
-2
1
1
W
-1
2
2
L
-3
2
2
L
-5
2
2
W
-3
3
3
W
0
1
1
W
+1
done
Conclusion
No betting system will ever overcome the house edge in the long run. But they’re not worthless. Professional gamblers do find opportunities for profiting from various types of betting systems in gambling tournaments, as “camouflage” to disguise an advantage play that is not based on the betting system itself, and especially in online casinos where betting systems can be used to milk the casino “bonuses.”
To actually win at normal casino blackjack in the long run, however, you have to start by counting cards–not because card counting is the best or most profitable way to win at blackjack, but because the principles behind card counting are the same principles that are behind every type of professional gambling system at blackjack, even methods that don’t require counting. ♠
