A huge card counting myth
Quote: 1BBThat's what I hear. Our friend aceofspades posted it a few weeks ago. It's in the high limit area starting at $25. That's another 0.33% house edge game. I wouldn't get too excited until I saw the penetration. Anyone?
I don't mind penetration like MS if the rules are good. Do you know if the GN is S17 at those tables. I only play $25 and up so that would be ok. The .33% edge is decent
Quote: 1BBS17 is what I was told. That would fit with the .33%.
Brainfreeze....you are right with that. I always thought the surrender rule in AC was controlled by the gaming commission and that it couldn't be changed. I guess I was wrong.
Quote: winnawinnaDid I say something wrong here cause Im getting terrible feedback. If you read many posts on this forum, many people elude to the fact that a +count makes it a likely sure win. I m just saying that its not the case
I was just in one of my pedantic moods. The way you wrote your original statement, you made it sound as if the myth was that it does not guarantee winning the hand (i.e. the fact was that the high count does guarantee it).
And does anyone actually think that a +1 count means you're guaranteed to win?
again... WELCOME !
Quote: winnawinnaMany people think that with a high count, winning is almost certain but that's not the case.
Card Counters, what is your opinion of this article? BJCC
Especially the conclusion.
"It is immediately clear that BJCC is, at best, a mediocre opportunity for the AP."
Quote: Buzzard" One of the biggest myths of card counting is the fact that a positive count does not give you a guarantee of winning that particular hand." In other breaking news : Obama has won the 2008 Presidential Election ........
For the record that was a typo where the word "not" shouldn't be there. We all know what winnawinna meant when he posted that eight days ago, he knew what he meant and he took his razzing in good spirit. He's right, of course, and new counters will do well to understand this.
No comment on Obama.
Quote: IbeatyouracesQuote: TankoCard Counters, what is your opinion of this article? BJCC
Especially the conclusion.
"It is immediately clear that BJCC is, at best, a mediocre opportunity for the AP."
False because you can count 24/7/365. On a players edge outlook, then yes as there are way better opportunities out there but are not easy to find.
I completely agree with you and this is especially true for the recreational AP who doesn't have all day, every day to scout for other opportunities. Vanilla card counting is the ol' reliable of advantage plays...it's hard to get rich, but you can grind out a living. And you can also have a decent chance of making some money on the side.
Quote: SonuvabishQuote: TankoCard Counters, what is your opinion of this article? BJCC
Especially the conclusion.
"It is immediately clear that BJCC is, at best, a mediocre opportunity for the AP."
First thing I noticed were the rules: H17 w/out surrender. When he max bets at plus 1, he is betting into a disadvantage when it is not late in the shoe. So, right there I concluded this simulation was an inaccurate representation.
In my article, +1 is true count, so there is no error. This simulation is by Norm Wattenberger, author of Casino Verite. Use his software to simulate your game using your count and bet spread then compare your results with these. Rules like S17 and LSR are weak compared to deep penetration (52 cards in this sim) and the ability to spread without restriction. I doubt you are making $50/100, but use Norm's software to prove me wrong.
Ordinary blackjack card counting is an extremely weak AP method. If you can't find something stronger, then you don't know what to look for.
Quote: TankoCard Counters, what is your opinion of this article? BJCC
Especially the conclusion.
"It is immediately clear that BJCC is, at best, a mediocre opportunity for the AP."
I strongly disagree. The main attraction of blackjack is the high limits. Most countable side bets are "protected" by having absurdly low limits (like $25 per bet). On the other hand, it is easy to find very good blackjack games with 5-figure max bets.
So, while the conclusion of $33.58 per 100 hands isn't great, that's based on a $100 bet, which is absurd. Change that to a $10,000 bet and all of a sudden you are talking about $3358. Better yet, 2 hands of $10,000 each and you are at $6716 per 100 hands, with lower variance per dollar bet.
Edge is not everything. You also have to be able to bet the money when you have that edge, and blackjack is a game where you can bet a lot -- that's what makes it valuable.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: TankoCard Counters, what is your opinion of this article? BJCC
Especially the conclusion.
"It is immediately clear that BJCC is, at best, a mediocre opportunity for the AP."
I strongly disagree. The main attraction of blackjack is the high limits. Most countable side bets are "protected" by having absurdly low limits (like $25 per bet). On the other hand, it is easy to find very good blackjack games with 5-figure max bets.
So, while the conclusion of $33.58 per 100 hands isn't great, that's based on a $100 bet, which is absurd. Change that to a $10,000 bet and all of a sudden you are talking about $3358. Better yet, 2 hands of $10,000 each and you are at $6716 per 100 hands, with lower variance per dollar bet.
Edge is not everything. You also have to be able to bet the money when you have that edge, and blackjack is a game where you can bet a lot -- that's what makes it valuable.
teliot seems to be on a mission to discourage people from engaging in vanilla card counting. I don't really get it, to be honest.
His analyses are mathematically solid, as always. The assumptions can sometimes be disingenuous, as in the $100 max bet for card counting. Obviously only the rank beginner with a limited bankroll is going to max out with a $100 bet.
Now, as a "game protection consultant" (as best I can tell, this is pretty much his job description now), I can fully support convincing casinos to spend less time thwarting vanilla card counters. If this is his intention, more power to him :).
As has been mentioned ad nauseum by myself, IBYA, etc.; the big draw of vanilla card counting is wide availability. AxiomOfChoice also pointed out high limits. That's pretty important.
Quote: AcesAndEightsNow, as a "game protection consultant" (as best I can tell, this is pretty much his job description now), I can fully support convincing casinos to spend less time thwarting vanilla card counters. If this is his intention, more power to him :)
Yes, I was wondering about that too. I hesitate to accuse anyone of anything, but it does seem to all fit together a little bit too neatly.
I did not say that you will earn "1/3 of a unit per hour counting." The result is 1/3 of a max-bet per 100 hands. That is the practical upper bound on win-rate. There's a big difference. This is an absolute upper bound, you can't get past it using High-Low on a 6D, DOA, DAS, H17 game with the cut card at 52.Quote: IbeatyouracesIf you're making 1/3 of a unit per hour counting, you're doing something wrong.
I am surprised by the lack of thought that is going into many of these posts, from assuming I am making mistakes, to misreading or misunderstanding my results. There is no doubt that my results are correct and that the bounds I derived (with the help of Norm Wattenberger) place absolute limits on the win-rate for a fixed maximum bet.
To answer others, yes I am in game protection. Yes, U.S. casinos obsess over card counters and I want to discourage them from doing so. The amount APs earn from blackjack card counting is minute compared to the amount they earn from a myriad of more lucrative opportunities. Nearly every casino lacks the manpower to watch everything. I am doing my best to get casinos to refocus on meaningful advantage play threats. Hole carding is a much bigger issue, but it is just one of many stronger methods.
Quote: teliotI am surprised by the lack of thought that is going into many of these posts, from assuming I am making mistakes, to misreading or misunderstanding my results. There is no doubt that my results are correct and that the bounds I derived (with the help of Norm Wattenberger) place absolute limits on the win-rate for a fixed maximum bet.
I don't think that your results are being misunderstood. I think that you are stating your results in a way that makes it seem that card counting is less lucrative than it really is.
Giving a numerical example where the max bet is $100 is incredibly (intentionally?) misleading. When was the last time you were in a casino where the max bet on a blackjack table was $100?
It makes no sense to rate and compare games in terms of max bets per hour when they have different max bets. Who cares if a side bet can be beaten for 1.5 max bets per hour when the max bet is only $25? I'll take a third of $10,000 over 1.5x $25.
Quote: teliot[qlk;k;lk;l
Then you haven't read the responses carefully.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't think that your results are being misunderstood.
Are you really wagering $10k? Do you think could actually earn at the rate you are saying and last for more than a few minutes? Are you ready to back count and jump from $0 to $10,000? Please, that's not the world we live in.Quote:I'll take a third of $10,000 over 1.5x $25.
I know a person on this site who beat the Slingo Side Bet for far more than 99% of the people on this board will ever make as ordinary card counters in their lifetimes. I know a player who beat Lucky Ladies for more than $200k over a two year period. And that's the U.S. When you go overseas, you often see side bet limits up to $10k (and much more). But the point is not this card counting vs. that card counting. It is blackjack card counting vs. every other method of advantage play. Card counting is a weak method of advantage play. Not the weakest, but pretty close. You think Grosjean was kidding when he made his comment about blackjack card counters? Do you even know the comment I am referring to?
My high school math teacher used to tell us a story about teaching a mule to pull a wagon. He said that when the mule didn't pull the wagon, he hit it on the side of the head with a 2x4. He said that whacking the mule didn't help the mule learn how to pull the wagon, but it made it much easier for him to continue trying to teach the damn thing. Grosjean's comment is my 2x4.Quote: James Grosjean"There are some people who think that the average card counter is the equivalent of a chimpanzee and I am a fully evolved human. But that's not quite accurate. In reality, card counters are more like salamanders just crawling onto land—even though they think they're swinging through the trees."
By the way, do you know why an infinite direct product of non-empty sets is non-empty?
Quote: teliotAre you really wagering $10k? Do you think could actually earn at the rate you are saying and last for more than a few minutes? Are you ready to back count and jump from $0 to $10,000? Please, that's not the world we live in.
Of course it isn't. But your article was specifically talking about the universe where people are allowed to wong in and out as they wish, which is also not the world we live in.
Note that flat-betting and wonging out aggressively has a similar win-rate if the rules are better (and it's not harder to find better rules)
Quote:I know a person on this site who beat the Slingo Side Bet for far more than 99% of the people on this board will ever make as ordinary card counters in their lifetimes.
Really? More than $0? :)
Quote:I know a player who beat Lucky Ladies for more than $200k over a two year period.
Ok, that's nice. Those says are long gone. Now whenever I see blackjack side bets I always see a $25 max. I think I saw a $50 max at lucky lucky once.
I also don't think that that's really all that much money for a 2 year period. I am fairly certain that there are card counters on this site who make more than that. I'm pretty certain that I could make more than that if it was my full-time job.
Quote:And that's the U.S. When you go overseas, you often see side bet limits up to $10k (and much more).
Maybe. I have no idea what's going on in Europe. That's not the case here though, as far as I've seen.
Quote:But the point is not this card counting vs. that card counting. It is blackjack card counting vs. every other method of advantage play. Card counting is a weak method of advantage play. Not the weakest, but pretty close.
It depends what your skills are. I've found dealers who flash cards at MS Stud. Hell, I've literally seen hole cards from across the room. It doesn't help me though -- when I sit down at the table it flashes through my field of vision too quickly and I can't catch it. I don't have the skills to beat that game -- my eyes aren't good enough.
I've yet to find a casino didn't include a turn in every shuffle, and, even if they didn't, I seriously doubt that I could spot the differences in edges of cards. I've literally stared at backs of cards for minutes and couldn't see any distinguishable difference between them.
Blackjack, on the other hand... I can beat that.
Quote:By the way, do you know why an infinite direct product of non-empty sets is non-empty?
If this is a set up for a punchline.... no, why?
If not, it made me smile.
I am assuming you know, but just in case, the fact that the product is non-empty is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. I was just checking if you understood your name.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf this is a set up for a punchline.... no, why?
If not, it made me smile.
Quote: teliotQuote: James GrosjeanIn reality, card counters are more like salamanders just crawling onto land—even though they think they're swinging through the trees.
LOL, I don't want to know how video poker players would be classified, but it's probably something I would hit really hard with a shoe if I found it crawling across the wall of my living room.
Quote: teliotI did not say that you will earn "1/3 of a unit per hour counting." The result is 1/3 of a max-bet per 100 hands. That is the practical upper bound on win-rate. There's a big difference. This is an absolute upper bound, you can't get past it using High-Low on a 6D, DOA, DAS, H17 game with the cut card at 52.
I am surprised by the lack of thought that is going into many of these posts, from assuming I am making mistakes, to misreading or misunderstanding my results. There is no doubt that my results are correct and that the bounds I derived (with the help of Norm Wattenberger) place absolute limits on the win-rate for a fixed maximum bet.
To answer others, yes I am in game protection. Yes, U.S. casinos obsess over card counters and I want to discourage them from doing so. The amount APs earn from blackjack card counting is minute compared to the amount they earn from a myriad of more lucrative opportunities. Nearly every casino lacks the manpower to watch everything. I am doing my best to get casinos to refocus on meaningful advantage play threats. Hole carding is a much bigger issue, but it is just one of many stronger methods.
I must say, I appreciate this post, teliot. I have long struggled to understand just what you are up to, or the thought process behind your actions. I have always been a fan of Zender's approach and for obvious reasons, would like to see more of the attitude where casino's worry less about card counters at all but the higher limits and focus more on team play and higher advantage play, like HCing among other. Solo low/mid level players are not effecting the casinos one bit.
I also think teliot's number of 1/3 max bet per hour is more than a fair representation, maybe even generous. My EV is NOT 1/3 max bet for most games that I play and my accumulative number is NOT 1/3 max bet per hour. I wish it was.
Quote: teliotI am assuming you know, but just in case, the fact that the product is non-empty is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. I was just checking if you understood your name.
Oh, yes, I know.
Since you started it with "do you know why", I thought perhaps it was the beginning of a (probably terrible) math joke.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAgree. When he cleared that up, it made more sense.
Ok, I was wrong, the article was being misunderstood.
I understood it from the beginning. I just take exception to the notion that 1/3 of a max bet per hour is not a lot of money.
Like this one?Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOh, yes, I know.
Since you started it with "do you know why", I thought perhaps it was the beginning of a (probably terrible) math joke.
Q. What's yellow and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
Quote: teliotLike this one?
Q. What's yellow and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
I know this one....."Zorn's lemon" although i have no idea why it would be funny :)
Quote: TomspurI know this one....."Zorn's lemon" although i have no idea why it would be funny :)
It's not funny. Though not bad for a math joke.
I've always liked: The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?
Quote: SonuvabishFirst thing I noticed were the rules: H17 w/out surrender. When he max bets at plus 1, he is betting into a disadvantage when it is not late in the shoe. So, right there I concluded this simulation was an inaccurate representation.
Many Craps players on this Forum have learned to code and run their strategies using WinCraps Pro.
They often post their results with graphs and charts for discussion.
For all the interest from members in BJCC, aside from this article, I have yet to see any posts concerning BJCC simulations.
QFIT sells the software to do this.
I've learned enough in real play and using CV over the years to agree with the author.
For me, investing in CVData isn't necessary.
Anyone who disagrees with the author's conclusion, or how the analysis was conducted, or wants to sharpen their game, can buy the software for the cost of just a few bets and perform their own analysis using their own parameters.
Your results may be even more disappointing.
Instead of conjecture, the best response is always "I ran my own analysis using the rules 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, RSA, LS........ and this is what I found:"
Quote: kewljI must say, I appreciate this post, teliot. I have long struggled to understand just what you are up to, or the thought process behind your actions. I have always been a fan of Zender's approach and for obvious reasons, would like to see more of the attitude where casino's worry less about card counters at all but the higher limits and focus more on team play and higher advantage play, like HCing among other. Solo low/mid level players are not effecting the casinos one bit.
I also think teliot's number of 1/3 max bet per hour is more than a fair representation, maybe even generous. My EV is NOT 1/3 max bet for most games that I play and my accumulative number is NOT 1/3 max bet per hour. I wish it was.
It's per 100 hands, not per hour. He's betting in about 30% of the hands. So it is 1/10 of a max bet per hour, assuming the lightning quick rate of 100 hands per hour. That is less than I make in the worst game I play. I don't think your analysis is correct.
My bad. I just looked at his numbers and I think he intended the 100 hands to count non-played hands as well. But adding up edge and hand frequency provided in his chart, I get $46 per 100 hands.
Quote: SonuvabishIt's per 100 hands, not per hour. He's betting in about 30% of the hands. So it is 1/10 of a max bet per hour, assuming the lightning quick rate of 100 hands per hour. That is less than I make in the worst game I play. I don't think your analysis is correct.
It's not per 100 hands played, it's per 100 hands dealt.
Quote: Sabretom2That's all you need to know. Oh yeah, and don't eat yellow snow.
awesome LOL
Quote: teliotThen you haven't read the responses carefully.Are you really wagering $10k? Do you think could actually earn at the rate you are saying and last for more than a few minutes? Are you ready to back count and jump from $0 to $10,000? Please, that's not the world we live in.
I know a person on this site who beat the Slingo Side Bet for far more than 99% of the people on this board will ever make as ordinary card counters in their lifetimes. I know a player who beat Lucky Ladies for more than $200k over a two year period. And that's the U.S. When you go overseas, you often see side bet limits up to $10k (and much more). But the point is not this card counting vs. that card counting. It is blackjack card counting vs. every other method of advantage play. Card counting is a weak method of advantage play. Not the weakest, but pretty close. You think Grosjean was kidding when he made his comment about blackjack card counters? Do you even know the comment I am referring to?
My high school math teacher used to tell us a story about teaching a mule to pull a wagon. He said that when the mule didn't pull the wagon, he hit it on the side of the head with a 2x4. He said that whacking the mule didn't help the mule learn how to pull the wagon, but it made it much easier for him to continue trying to teach the damn thing. Grosjean's comment is my 2x4.
Look, we get it; there are better forms of advantage play out there if you have time to scout for the opportunities. Time and opportunity are the big factors there that I, personally, lack.
Personally, I find the latter part of your post to be almost insulting to those of us who don't have the time or inclination to venture into advanced AP methods. All I ask is that you acknowledge some of us understand what you are saying and continue to pursue BJCC due to a variety of circumstances.
Yes, I understand that. No problem.Quote: AcesAndEightsAll I ask is that you acknowledge some of us understand what you are saying and continue to pursue BJCC due to a variety of circumstances.
Where I am coming from is that there is no reason to count cards, none whatsoever, if any opportunity better than card counting exists in the very same casino the person is playing at. At almost every casino in the world, something much better exists. The only thing that separates most card counters from significantly more profit is the desire to learn. So, most APs begin and end their lives with card counting. That's great news for the casino industry. I give seminars on methods that most of the casinos will never see used against them. But the industry is hungry to learn and be current with today's vulnerabilities. I enjoy working with people who are hungry for knowledge. On the other hand, I have no idea why intelligent APs who have the ability to study and practice would choose such a low grade tool when it is so easy to do better.
More true now than ever before. Funny conversation. I apologize for my arrogance.Quote: IbeatyouracesThis is simply not true. Maybe five years ago but not now.
Quote: teliotYes, I understand that. No problem.Quote: AcesAndEightsAll I ask is that you acknowledge some of us understand what you are saying and continue to pursue BJCC due to a variety of circumstances.
Where I am coming from is that there is no reason to count cards, none whatsoever, if any opportunity better than card counting exists in the very same casino the person is playing at. At almost every casino in the world, something much better exists. The only thing that separates most card counters from significantly more profit is the desire to learn. So, most APs begin and end their lives with card counting. That's great news for the casino industry. I give seminars on methods that most of the casinos will never see used against them. But the industry is hungry to learn and be current with today's vulnerabilities. I enjoy working with people who are hungry for knowledge. On the other hand, I have no idea why intelligent APs who have the ability to study and practice would choose such a low grade tool when it is so easy to do better.
I think that's disingenuous. You know full well that it's not so easy; that's why you work for the other side. If being an AP was so easy you would still be one (you've said several times that you were not very good at it). I don't understand how you can talk about how easy it is, while at the same time saying that you can't do it yourself.
This is false logic. There is no reason that being an AP is something that someone should want to do, for any reason.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf being an AP was so easy you would still be one (you've said several times that you were not very good at it).
Quote: teliotThis is false logic. There is no reason that being an AP is something that someone should want to do, for any reason.
You yourself have said that you were, at one time, an AP. I'm assuming that you were not coerced into doing this; therefore I conclude that it was something that you wanted to do.
You have also said that you were not very good at it, you got detained (probably illegally), you may or may not have gotten a settlement (we all know what that means) and you now work for the other side. These aren't secrets; I'm pretty sure that I read all this on your website.
Please explain how you can say "you were not very good at it" and "it is easy" at the same time. These seem contradictory. You very obviously have a solid understanding of all the games and the math behind them; how come you are bad at it if it's so easy?
