The Man Who Broke Atlantic City
March 21st, 2012 at 10:17:42 AM
permalink
great article
Vote for Nobody 2020!
March 21st, 2012 at 10:29:20 AM
permalink
Yup. The guy writing it may or may not know that much about gambling, but the story gets properly told eventually. I can't believe he got a 20% loss rebate at multiple properties.
The casinos have math models to handle the loss rebate, but I wonder whether they underestimate the percentage of 'whales' who know how to (ab)use the rebate. It's a huge advantage play for people with a large bankroll.
The casinos have math models to handle the loss rebate, but I wonder whether they underestimate the percentage of 'whales' who know how to (ab)use the rebate. It's a huge advantage play for people with a large bankroll.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
March 21st, 2012 at 10:32:08 AM
permalink
Oh man what a poorly written article.
I'm used to bad descriptions of the game in the media but that was one of the worst. That last sentence is also a grammatical nightmare.
Ugh, just ugh.
I know, in my heart of hearts, that the author meant traditional poker room poker.
Quote:The goal is to get to 21, or as close to it as possible without going over. Scanning the cards on the table before him, the player can either stand or keep taking cards in an effort to approach 21. Since the house’s hand has one card facedown, the player can’t know exactly what the hand is, which is what makes this a game.
I'm used to bad descriptions of the game in the media but that was one of the worst. That last sentence is also a grammatical nightmare.
Quote:Card counters seek to gain a strong advantage by keeping a mental tally of every card dealt, and then adjusting the wager according to the value of the cards that remain in the deck. (The tactic requires both great memory and superior math skills.) Made famous in books and movies, card counting is considered cheating, at least by casinos.
Ugh, just ugh.
Quote:For what doth it profit a man to gain a $20,000 ride on a private jet if he drops $200,000 playing poker?
I know, in my heart of hearts, that the author meant traditional poker room poker.
March 21st, 2012 at 11:22:33 AM
permalink
He got a loss rebate, so what. That only applies
if he lost, and he didn't lose. He got the HE lowered
to 1/4 of 1%. So its now almost a 50/50 game, but
he still has to win. If he wasn't counting, what told
him when to raise his bets? Because he certainly didn't
win 15mil flat betting.
I think he was counting and was real tricky about it.
He didn't raise his bet all the time when he should
have and raised at times when he shouldn't. This
would throw off the pit who was counting right along
with him. But he had to be doing something else too,
and he ain't talking about that.
if he lost, and he didn't lose. He got the HE lowered
to 1/4 of 1%. So its now almost a 50/50 game, but
he still has to win. If he wasn't counting, what told
him when to raise his bets? Because he certainly didn't
win 15mil flat betting.
I think he was counting and was real tricky about it.
He didn't raise his bet all the time when he should
have and raised at times when he shouldn't. This
would throw off the pit who was counting right along
with him. But he had to be doing something else too,
and he ain't talking about that.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 11:27:58 AM
permalink
I agree with Bob, it's hard to believe in such winnings with flat bets. But, the point is: if people get heat with bet spread at the purple level, I can't even imagine what would happen at 100,000.00 a hand. And by the way, isn't 20% way too generous?
No bounce, no play.
March 21st, 2012 at 11:52:22 AM
permalink
Quote: bigfoot66great article
A retread of what was posted here last summer and discussed at great length, to the dismay of some members.
Johnson has returned to the Trop, despite assertions about barring winners, although it has not been made clear whether is he being rebated again.
March 21st, 2012 at 12:10:58 PM
permalink
Quote:So when Johnson got far enough ahead in his winning sprees, he reasoned that he might as well keep playing. “I was already ahead of the property,” he says. “So my philosophy at that point was that I can afford to take an additional risk here, because I’m battling with their money, using their discount against them.”
This is actually wrong math wise. The rebate its most valuable when he is close to zero where he should continue to play so as to either make a win or a loss and get the rebate. The further away he moves from zero either positive or negative the less the value of the rebate and he should have calculated both a stop win and a stop loss limit to maximize his Ev.
The most important information about his terms is not stated. That's what is the minimum number of bets he should make before he can qualify for the discount. That would usually be stated in number of hours. In a game with negative Ev (even a very small negative Ev) if the number of bets required is big, he will still playing a negative Ev game. But with a small negative Ev (like -0.25% the article states) and short trip you can turn it into positive Ev with a 20% rebate. But still his positive Ev will be relatively small. To compare with counting I think the Ev will be less than half than normal counting Ev.
He was probably playing with a small positive Ev and got lucky, his results being way above expectation.
The casinos were wrong mathematically speaking to ban him at that high win points (provided that he was playing a negative Ev game and not counting or using other method to turn the game into positive Ev without the rebate). The value of the rebate when he was so much ahead is very little which means at that level he was probably playing a negative Ev game.
March 21st, 2012 at 12:16:55 PM
permalink
Quote: AceTwoBut still his positive Ev will be relatively small. To compare with counting I think the Ev will be less than half than normal counting Ev. He was probably playing with a small positive Ev and got lucky, his results being way above expectation.
You don't get that kind of lucky at
3 different casinos. There something
going on here we don't know about.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 12:29:36 PM
permalink
It's wrong mathwise, but it's right gamewise, because he has the right set of rules. Why not play an even game at 100k per bet, when you are ahead in the session, and any bankroll money you might lose is rebated 20%?
There are two ways of looking at it, after all. You can look at it as minimizing your losses, or as maximizing your winnings. If your goal is to maximize your winnings, you do what he did. His risk/reward was way, way into the positive.
There are two ways of looking at it, after all. You can look at it as minimizing your losses, or as maximizing your winnings. If your goal is to maximize your winnings, you do what he did. His risk/reward was way, way into the positive.
A falling knife has no handle.
March 21st, 2012 at 12:54:46 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaThere are two ways of looking at it, after all. You can look at it as minimizing your losses, or as maximizing your winnings.
But it has nothing to do with how to win. You can take
the zeros off the roulette wheel and pay 36 to 1, and
most people would still lose because they have no
winning strategy. A rebate isn't a winning strategy, its
an incentive to play. If he wasn't counting, how did he win?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 1:22:29 PM
permalink
A rebate is a winning strategy, as long as he quits at certain points (even if it's after X hands) and claims the rebate or pockets the winnings.
If you have a 50/50 game, and play 100 times, and get a 20% rebate on your loss, your EV is positive in that game. Even if the game was tilted 51/49 in favour of the house, a 20% rebate will give you an advantage.
Think about this... say you played until you either lost 5 units or won 1, on a 51/49 game. You will win about 81% of the time.
And all those times you lose, you lose 4 units, as you get your rebate back of 1 unit.
Therefore (0.81*1)+(0.19*-4) = 0.05 Expected Value. In a game which is negative EV.
The rebate can be used to turn a -EV single game into a positive expectation sequence of bets. The rebate is extra money up for grabs. This only works if you keep the number of games you need to play to hit the win target relatively small. 1 Unit wins on 5 unit bank roll, not 10 unit wins on 50 unit bank rolls.
Now if I can make the game a a 50/50 game by card counting, it's even better. The general EV grind disappears and the chance of hitting any target win is :
Bankroll / (Target Win + Bankroll)
So if you have 100 units to gamble, and want to win 20, you are 5 in 6 (87%) chance to make it. Add in a 20% loss rebate on the 100 unit loss :
(0.87 * 20) + (0.13 * - 100) = 4.4 Units -> Or a 4.4% EV.
So yes, the rebate on it's own is not enough, but it's a big part of it.
If you have a 50/50 game, and play 100 times, and get a 20% rebate on your loss, your EV is positive in that game. Even if the game was tilted 51/49 in favour of the house, a 20% rebate will give you an advantage.
Think about this... say you played until you either lost 5 units or won 1, on a 51/49 game. You will win about 81% of the time.
And all those times you lose, you lose 4 units, as you get your rebate back of 1 unit.
Therefore (0.81*1)+(0.19*-4) = 0.05 Expected Value. In a game which is negative EV.
The rebate can be used to turn a -EV single game into a positive expectation sequence of bets. The rebate is extra money up for grabs. This only works if you keep the number of games you need to play to hit the win target relatively small. 1 Unit wins on 5 unit bank roll, not 10 unit wins on 50 unit bank rolls.
Now if I can make the game a a 50/50 game by card counting, it's even better. The general EV grind disappears and the chance of hitting any target win is :
Bankroll / (Target Win + Bankroll)
So if you have 100 units to gamble, and want to win 20, you are 5 in 6 (87%) chance to make it. Add in a 20% loss rebate on the 100 unit loss :
(0.87 * 20) + (0.13 * - 100) = 4.4 Units -> Or a 4.4% EV.
So yes, the rebate on it's own is not enough, but it's a big part of it.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 21st, 2012 at 1:27:43 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
So yes, the rebate on it's own is not enough, but it's a big part of it.
Not of winning 15mil it isn't. Its a small part. It doesn't
give you the edge, the casino would never agree to
something that gave the player the edge. This guy
obviously had the edge. How?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 1:31:28 PM
permalink
I don't agree. A rebate CAN give you an edge (I was doing the sums to work it out above) if you have some sort of discipline to quit at the right times.
I had missed how big the win was, for sure this can't be the whole story.
I had missed how big the win was, for sure this can't be the whole story.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 21st, 2012 at 1:34:35 PM
permalink
I get this magazine, have for 30+ yrs, so will wait to read the article... must be in the next issue.
A writer is just going to include all the winning fun and little about the losing times. But I believe the rebate is everything. It is confusing to think that rebate on actual loss is actually better than comps for theoretical loss. Of course it is confusing, that is why, I guess, a casino can make this blunder.
I hate to admit I am this stupid, but I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to be describing:
"called the game" ? What?
A writer is just going to include all the winning fun and little about the losing times. But I believe the rebate is everything. It is confusing to think that rebate on actual loss is actually better than comps for theoretical loss. Of course it is confusing, that is why, I guess, a casino can make this blunder.
I hate to admit I am this stupid, but I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to be describing:
Quote:It was the dealer’s turn. He drew a 10, so the two cards he was showing totaled 15. Johnson called the game—in essence, betting that the dealer’s down card was a seven or higher, which would push his hand over 21. This was a good bet....
"called the game" ? What?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 21st, 2012 at 1:40:24 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBut it has nothing to do with how to win. You can take
the zeros off the roulette wheel and pay 36 to 1, and
most people would still lose because they have no
winning strategy. A rebate isn't a winning strategy, its
an incentive to play. If he wasn't counting, how did he win?
Simple, he was lucky. He said so. He understood that he could lose, but he also knew that he'd only lose 80% of what he stood to win at a near 50-50 game. Because of the rebate he had the balls to play on at big numbers: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000... I was already ahead of the property,” he says. “So my philosophy at that point was that I can afford to take an additional risk here, because I’m battling with their money, using their discount against them.”
He knew that the short number of trials would result in greater variance, and in a situation with greater variance he had the advantage. It was 50-50 that he'd start out winning, and when that happened, he rode a short streak to a big victory.
A falling knife has no handle.
March 21st, 2012 at 1:47:58 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaSimple, he was lucky. He said so.
Of course he said so, what else would he say. If
it been one casino I say luck. Three casinos for
huge amounts, nobody is that lucky. He has to
know when to raise the bets. He's reduced the
game to the same as betting red and black in roulette.
They could give you a rebate there too, but you'll
never win flat betting without a strategy on when
to raise the bets.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 1:51:03 PM
permalink
A rebate can give you an edge in a negative Ev game provided that you do not play too long. He was was winning 50 units at his 100k unit bet. If he was playing a negative Ev game (with the 20% rebate turning the overall trip positive) he should have stopped long before if he was an advantage player playing exclusively on math. At +50 units the value of teh 20% rebate is very little. If these are the facts, continuing playing is not an advantage play proposition.
March 21st, 2012 at 2:34:10 PM
permalink
(snip)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 21st, 2012 at 2:51:57 PM
permalink
Quote: AceTwoA rebate can give you an edge in a negative Ev game provided that you do not play too long. .
Unless you have the edge, then you can play as
long as you want. Because he did it 3 times for
mega amounts, he obviously had the edge.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 2:53:10 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambit"called the game" ? What?
He stood, and didn't take any more hits.
"What, me worry?"
March 21st, 2012 at 2:57:19 PM
permalink
Anybody who thinks he doesn't track the count is crazy.
I am sure he just covered his counting well enough to not get backed off.
I am sure he just covered his counting well enough to not get backed off.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 21st, 2012 at 2:59:54 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBoAnybody who thinks he doesn't track the count is crazy.
I am sure he just covered his counting well enough to not get backed off.
Yup, thats what I think and I bet its what the
casinos think too. Thats why Johnson talks so
much about the rebate, to throw them off what
he was really doing. Rebates don't tell you when
to bet.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 3:21:20 PM
permalink
first of all, this happened many months ago.. not a new topic. second of all, the guy is a smart businessman in the business of stats and data..look it up. people are making too much of whether he is a card counter or not. they didnt make a fuss when he lost hundreds of thousands before this run. put it into perspective, if you were betting 100 a hand , 3 hands at a time, and the deal goes on a bust streak, it would not be too difficult to get to 4,000. multiply that by 1000 and that is what he did... AT THREE CASINOS! I love it! Carl Icahn invited him back personally.
This is great publicity for the casisno industry. Thats why the article is running now. People read this and think they have a chance too. So off to the table they go. Ill stay in the poker room and craps table thank you.
This is great publicity for the casisno industry. Thats why the article is running now. People read this and think they have a chance too. So off to the table they go. Ill stay in the poker room and craps table thank you.
'Winners hit n run... Losers stick around'
March 21st, 2012 at 4:26:42 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI hate to admit I am this stupid, but I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to be describing:
Quote:It was the dealer’s turn. He drew a 10, so the two cards he was showing totaled 15. Johnson called the game—in essence, betting that the dealer’s down card was a seven or higher, which would push his hand over 21. This was a good bet....
"called the game" ? What?
I think the writer is saying DJ predicted the dealer was going to bust (not an actual bet, just saying what he thought was going to happen, like the whole table shouting "monkey!" when the dealer is drawing to a stiff). Not a bad prediction when hitting on a 15...
But the writer got it backwards. As everyone knows, the dealer reveals their hole card before taking a hit. He made it sound like the dealer had a 5 up, drew a 10, and then revealed a 7 in the hole. I'm sure what actually happened was a 10 in the hole, and a 7 drawn for the bust.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
March 21st, 2012 at 4:29:34 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYup, thats what I think and I bet its what the
casinos think too. Thats why Johnson talks so
much about the rebate, to throw them off what
he was really doing. Rebates don't tell you when
to bet.
I tend to agree, but with his play scrutinized as much as I'm sure it was at that betting level, it seems improbable he could have gotten away with it, even with tons of camouflage. Every camouflage play cuts into your EV, and you can bet surveillance was watching every hand dealt to him. Putting in enough camouflage to throw them off the track would probably reduce your EV to 0. But of course, that may have been his whole plan...make it a 50/50 game and use the loss rebate if you need it.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
March 21st, 2012 at 4:49:24 PM
permalink
Quote: WatchMeWinput it into perspective, if you were betting 100 a hand , 3 hands at a time, and the deal goes on a bust streak, it would not be too difficult to get to 4,000. multiply that by 1000 and that is what he did... AT THREE CASINOS! I love it!
That isn't what he did, have the dealer go on a bust
streak at 3 casinos and he won 15mil. Who told you
that? And who said it was a new story, the guy was
on Mike's radio show awhile back, its an old story.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 4:50:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AcesAndEightsthat may have been his whole plan...make it a 50/50 game .
That wouldn't give him the edge.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 4:53:22 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI get this magazine, have for 30+ yrs, so will wait to read the article... must be in the next issue.
A writer is just going to include all the winning fun and little about the losing times. But I believe the rebate is everything. It is confusing to think that rebate on actual loss is actually better than comps for theoretical loss. Of course it is confusing, that is why, I guess, a casino can make this blunder.
I hate to admit I am this stupid, but I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to be describing:
"called the game" ? What?
I took that to mean that the dealer actually hit his hand first and then flipped his hole card. If he was showing a 5 he would have to hit regardless of the hole card so Johnson may have asked them to hit first and expose the hole card second. For a $100,000 a hand they might be willing to break the precious procedures. I have seen that here they will sometimes open hands differently at the baccarat tables at the players request. For example I am opening the player hand and look at one card, I ask the dealer to open one of the bankers cards, then I look at the 2nd card in the players hand....
Vote for Nobody 2020!
March 21st, 2012 at 4:54:50 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThat wouldn't give him the edge.
True, but it would make the probability of his winning streaks much higher than if he was using no advantage play.
Now that I think about it, the terms specified a hand-shuffled 6 deck shoe. He also may have been shuffle tracking, card steering, ace-sequencing, or any of the other related shenanigans.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
March 21st, 2012 at 5:02:01 PM
permalink
Quote: AcesAndEightsTrue, but it would make the probability of his winning streaks much higher than if he was using no advantage play.
Now that I think about it, the terms specified a hand-shuffled 6 deck shoe. He also may have been shuffle tracking, card steering, ace-sequencing, or any of the other related shenanigans.
Certainly possible but far from probable. This is a guy who is so successful in business that he can afford to bet $100,000 a hand. It makes no sense that he would invest weeks and weeks and weeks to become so good at this stuff that he could do it under intense scrutiny, while drinking, just to get a small edge over the casino. To me, this sounds like a terrible use of his time when he is so productive in other areas. Besides, don't you have to vary your bet size and number of hands played to make money from that stuff? Article makes it sound like he just bet 1 hand at the max every round. To paraphrase what he said on Gambling with an Edge, I have read about card counting and you would have to develop a leather ass to make any money at that.
The guy said that with the 20% discount he could basically bet 80 cents to win a dollar at an almost break even game and he found this attractive. I know this is not a totally accurate description of how loss rebates work but this is how he described it. It seems pretty clear that he just got lucky, and he likely had several trips where he lost a million bucks and then stopped.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
March 21st, 2012 at 5:06:38 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThat wouldn't give him the edge.
A loss rebate on a 50/50 game DOES give you an edge if you have a stop-loss and win-target.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 21st, 2012 at 5:10:56 PM
permalink
Quote: bigfoot66It seems pretty clear that he just got lucky
It doesn't seem clear at all. I really detest
the word 'lucky' because it describes nothing.
Its a cop out from trying to understand what
really happened. Luck is the word people use
for positive variance. He got enough positive
variance in 3 casinos to win 15mil dollars. At
a 50/50 game. How?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 5:12:01 PM
permalink
do you honestly think a guy playing for 100K a hand is going to rely solely on luck?
dont be naive.
dont be naive.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 21st, 2012 at 5:22:26 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBodo you honestly think a guy playing for 100K a hand is going to rely solely on luck?
dont be naive.
Exactly my point. He gets a rebate if he loses,
so he bets 100K a hand depending solely on
luck to win? I don't think so.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 21st, 2012 at 5:27:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AcesAndEightsNow that I think about it, the terms specified a hand-shuffled 6 deck shoe. He also may have been shuffle tracking, card steering, ace-sequencing, or any of the other related shenanigans.
The biggest thing that stood out to me in the article was that he insisted on a hand-shuffled 6-deck shoe. That screams shuffle tracking to me.
March 21st, 2012 at 5:29:21 PM
permalink
come on, you guys, you are over-thinking this. Play craps with someone for a dollar a hand, taking turns as the house; then propose that on your turn you only have to pay 80 cents when you lose. Who is going to take you up on that? How could you fail to clean up?
The casino must have cased this guy as a whale who would have theoretical losses in "hold" that were guaranteed to be enormous. Perhaps he sold himself to them that way [that was his big gamble if so].
Not sure I can wait to get the magazine, might have to keep reading.
The casino must have cased this guy as a whale who would have theoretical losses in "hold" that were guaranteed to be enormous. Perhaps he sold himself to them that way [that was his big gamble if so].
Not sure I can wait to get the magazine, might have to keep reading.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 21st, 2012 at 5:49:25 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitPlay craps with someone for a dollar a hand, taking turns as the house; then propose that on your turn you only have to pay 80 cents when you lose..
Thats not the same. Here's what the article said:
"In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”
He didn't get the rebate every time he lost a hand,
that would be ridiculous. He never got the rebate
at all, because he won. The rebate had nothing to
do with him winning, how could it. It had a lot to do
with him playing, but not on winning.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
