Don Johnson - Blackjack Strategy

Quote: darkoz

Possibly.

Would anyone drive an Uber for fun? Must be better ways to get out of the house.

Is he about to join the Uber strike for better wages lol

I know a lot of people who drive part time. It's a great second job. One guy works at the VA and drives for an hour or two before and after his shift. He is two years out of training to be a Physical Therapist, has kids and $150K in student loans. They are knocking off their debt an extra $500 a week from driving.

Quote: darkoz

Possibly.

Would anyone drive an Uber for fun? Must be better ways to get out of the house.

I’ve been picked up in a Porsche Cayenne Turbo ($125K car) Uber in Boston once by an older gentlemen. I asked him the obvious question after complimenting his car. He told me he used to be an exec and retired from an energy commodities trading company. He said he couldn’t stand being home all the time, so he does it for fun. He also half-jokingly said driving for Uber is preventing him from divorcing his wife as he wouldn’t be able stand her nagging at him 24/7. Yes people do drive for “fun” and it does happen.

Quote: gordonm888

If you are playing one-on one with a dealer at a $100,000 high stakes table for 12 hours, then there is no real meaning to a "0-1 Betting Spread." If you Wong out to avoid a negative count and talk on the phone/hit the restroom -then the same negative count is waiting for you when you return. So your question makes no sense.

Reportedly he had other players with him to play through the negative counts. I wasn't there, just something I heard.

Otherwise I agree with your post. The wonging out of negative counts, if it indeed was part of the play, was a minimal part. My read on the situation is that the biggest components to his advantage were the loss rebates and the dealer errors.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Reportedly he had other players with him to play through the negative counts. I wasn't there, just something I heard.

Otherwise I agree with your post. The wonging out of negative counts, if it indeed was part of the play, was a minimal part. My read on the situation is that the biggest components to his advantage were the loss rebates and the dealer errors.

Okay. It just seems strange that if he was making $100,000 bets that he had other players at the table making $10, or even $100 bets. That isn't normal. But maybe that's what he did.

Regarding the Canadian mattress maker:
I think even if we knew nothing else, just watching the guy play in The Casino (2004) and in Theroux's 2007 documentary, it's clear that he was headed for a Terrance Watanabe-esque wreck. Plus in 2004, he was depositing $4M in the Golden Nugget cage, and in 2007, he loses probably around a half million and looks numb, so he was clearly already cash strapped compared to where he was just a few years prior. I mean we're talking about a guy who looks just as numb after winning $50K at a roulette spin as he does when dumping $5K a spin at the same game. Then he wins, what, a $5000. (net $3500. is what he says) jackpot at the slots, and turns to look at Theroux with that same numb look, and says, "See?" In other words, the guy isn't playing to win, he is playing to numb himself, compulsively. So we have a guy who CAN'T stop and who obviously was going to keep playing until he lost it all.

With a player like that, selling his businesses would not cover that sort of play. $200M wasn't enough for Watanabe, and the Canadian mattress maker never cleared anywhere close to that when he sold his businesses.

I think the biggest proof that Canadian mattress maker is broke is that he's not showing up in Vegas any long as a high roller. I asked some of the hosts I know (in Vegas) and they all either had never heard of him, or said that no one has seen him play in years.

I have a hard time believing he was able to take advantage of many dealer errors. I imagine his play was very carefully scrutinized both live and by reviewing tapes. AC isn't shy about asking players to return payouts made in error, and dealers trusted to work high stakes tables simply don't make that many unforced errors. I'm of the opinion he simply exploited the loss rebate and is just making it sound more difficult then it was. I've no idea how accurate the articles I've read about him are. A lot of them don't seem tremendously sourced.

Quote: MDawg

I think the biggest proof that Canadian mattress maker is broke is that he's not showing up in Vegas any long as a high roller. I asked some of the hosts I know (in Vegas) and they all either had never heard of him, or said that no one has seen him play in years.

It's possible he just got tired of that lifestyle. Or realized it wasn't good for him. I tried doing a little googling....

I'm not sure when that documentary was filmed, but as of late 2009, Allan had sold his company and stayed on as president of Eastern operations.

Bloomberg still lists him as the president as of 2018, and he has a Linkedin page, albeit a very bare bones one.

Also, apparently his son died from cancer either right after or before that documentary was filmed, so it possible he had a sick, cancer-ridden child at home while filming was going on and he was gambling to numb the pain.

Those databases such as Bloomberg and even Linkedin may be based on old records. I know deceased people who are still listed as heads of private companies in those databases.

And head...of what? Here is a street view of the old King Koil / Bedford mattress business, lol
https://imgur.com/QskIz4u

And that Alan mattress guy, the way he carries himself and such, he probably inherited those companies or maybe those were something that he could handle at some time in his life. The guy the way he was in 2004 in the Golden Nugget series (before his son's death) and in 2007 (after son's death) was exactly the same sort of compulsive gambler, no change, not even very good at communicating, doesn't seem like someone I would want to be an officer of my company. How could he be a president of a vital company anyway and still drive Uber? Plus you need to have an inaccurate mind in order to think that Uber is a money maker: the cost of driving a car, any car, is over fifty cents a mile when all is factored in, the type of people who think driving an Uber is a good deal are the ones who think that gasoline is the only expense to be calculated in per mile cost of driving. When you drive an Uber all you're doing at best is taking out the depreciating value of your car in Uber payments. Factor in gas insurance maintenance wear and tear and depreciation and some cars cost over a dollar a mile to drive, with the average being fifty cents per mile.

Anyway, it comes down to reality. Do you think that the old lady slots player in Theroux's documentary, who had moved into that little condo with cardboard boxes all over the place after losing $4M in the previous several years "got tired of that lifestyle" and stopped, or did she die with a slot machine handle in her hand?

Quote: MDawg

Those databases such as Bloomberg and even Linkedin may be based on old records. I know deceased people who are still listed as heads of private companies in those databases.

And head...of what? Here is a street view of the old King Koil / Bedford mattress business, lol
https://imgur.com/QskIz4u

That picture is from 2009.... That area is all housing now. The King Koil Toronto factory is in a new location, as per their website. Here is their new location.

Quote:

How could he be a president of a vital company anyway and still drive Uber?

I'm not even personally convinced of the Uber thing. That rumor is based off of one person making a claim online and posting a tiny picture of a guy who vaguely looks like him, which may not even be a real picture to begin with. Regardless, I don't believe there is a single shred of evidence that Allan is bankrupt or gambled himself into debt, and all available evidence points to him still working at the mattress company. All we know, according to still more rumors, is that he's not a high roller anymore.

Quote:

Anyway, it comes down to reality. Do you think that the old lady slots player in Theroux's documentary, who had moved into that little condo with cardboard boxes all over the place after losing $4M in the previous several years "got tired of that lifestyle" and stopped, or did she die with a slot machine handle in her hand?

She probably gambled to the very end.

By far his biggest advantage was entirely the loss rebate he negotiated with the house. The loss rebate alone was huge and enough to earn significant money. At just 0.2% that he estimated, that's a value of $200 per hand. A lot of top-level blackjack players work hard to earn that much per day. To determine the correct way to maximize the loss rebate can get pretty complicated, but understanding it is fairly straight forward. Win $2 million and leave with all your winnings. Lose $2 million and lose only $1,600,000. If those two events happen an equal amount of times, it averages a win of $200,000 every time he sits down to play. He probably lost more than he won, but not by much. Things like getting more aggressive with doubles and splits as he approaches his bottom would make sense.

I am pretty sure he also negotiated free-bet coupons commensurate with his play. If a $100 player could get two $25 free bet coupons for a few hours of play, he would get two $25,000 free bets. It may only add a small percentage to his edge, but it is a huge in terms of total amount.

I am skeptical about the dealer errors at the rate he reports. But I guess it is possible -- an inexperienced dealer at a fast game with a bunch of his buddies partying and him really trying to figure out what type of things can force mental errors. A 1% screwup rate seems possible.

He is a very strong card counter and almost certainly used some of the subtleties involved. Perhaps a slight spread. Getting an early shuffle in "unlucky" shoes. Most likely some strategy deviations -- and those strategy deviations might even help his longevity with this play.

After a quick google search of 'don johnson blackjack,' $6 million in profits seems in line with expectations. I would say it's more likely he underperformed than overperformed, given these advantages.

Dunno why the hard heads here keep referring to his loss rebate. A loss rebate kicks in after a loss.

During most of Johnson's play he sat down, won, and then left. No loss.

If we want to go a creative angle, we just refuse to believe any of the articles and assume that there were heavy losses, but then, what are we talking about anyway. Let's just create our own version of events and forget about what was reported. Why discuss the matter at all if we're going to input what we THINK happened versus what was reported, and what was reported were things like sitting down for 12 hours and walking away millions ahead, for that session, or playing for a certain session and leaving $6M ahead, for that particular session.

Maybe the reason I believe that "winning and stopping/leaving" works, is because it has worked for me.

Quote: MDawg

Dunno why the hard heads here keep referring to his loss rebate. A loss rebate kicks in after a loss.

During most of Johnson's play he sat down, won, and then left. No loss.

Why do you say this? There seem to be no sources reporting that winning and losing deviated that far from expectations. Everything I can find show that he was expected to lose about half the time; because of the loss rebate, even with that rate of losses he would have been expected to win millions. And that's exactly how much he won.
Without a losing day, betting $100,000 per hand, he probably would have won something in the $100 million range, perhaps even higher.

Quote: MDawg

Dunno why the hard heads here keep referring to his loss rebate. A loss rebate kicks in after a loss.

During most of Johnson's play he sat down, won, and then left. No loss.

If we want to go a creative angle, we just refuse to believe any of the articles and assume that there were heavy losses, but then, what are we talking about anyway. Let's just create our own version of events and forget about what was reported. Why discuss the matter at all if we're going to input what we THINK happened versus what was reported, and what was reported were things like sitting down for 12 hours and walking away millions ahead, for that session, or playing for a certain session and leaving $6M ahead, for that particular session.

Maybe the reason I believe that "winning and stopping/leaving" works, is because it has worked for me.

You seem to believe everything written by a guy who appearss to be a bit of a novice and rejecting what the top math guys say. I can't say I'm surprised. You've expressed quite a few , shall we say, unconventional views of the game.
Do you think a person would be permitted to bet $100,000 a hand if he did nothing but win? He had , most likely, a gentleman's agreement that the casino could end at any time. That's why he settled up daily. The man made a brilliant move and outflanked the casinos.
No unusual streaks, no new fangled basic strategy, Casinos make mistakes. He exploited one. I just don't understand why the casino didn't catch on much sooner. I'd love to read more about his camouflage. It must have been impressive.

Quote: MDawg

Dunno why the hard heads here keep referring to his loss rebate. A loss rebate kicks in after a loss.

During most of Johnson's play he sat down, won, and then left. No loss.

I haven't read a detailed session-by-session accounting of Johnson's play. Just summaries mostly. Where are you substantiating this claim that he won most of his sessions? And even if he won "most" of them, that still means he got some (less than "most") of his losing sessions rebated.

Supposedly Johnson's total wins were $15.1M ($6M Tropicana, Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/
"According to Johnson, the Trop pulled the deal after he won a total of $5.8 million, the Borgata cut him off at $5 million, and the dealer at Caesars refused to fill the chip tray once his earnings topped $4 million."

How he did it, I guess we're just left to speculate, but the relatively small number of hands he played and the $100K per hand flat betting belies that card counting could have had much to do with it. The above article is more in depth than some of what has been referenced in this thread.

I'm sure that the trip to trip (versus lifetime) promised 20% loss rebate is part of what brought him in, but I think it was mostly luck and stopping when ahead that kept the chips on his side. Who knows, maybe if the casinos hadn't stopped him he woulda given back most of the money.

The late Kerry Packer won millions at the MGM, and was banned, then a few years later the Bellagio allowed him in to play Baccarat, and I was actually present watching during that re-match when the guy played, with an oxygen tank at his feet, and dumped more than he had won before.

When I was effectively banned from BJ at one point during my play career I later viewed it as a short term gift, I figured that I might have started losing after that particular multi day winning streak. At the point that I was banned I wasn't eking out an edge through pressing the bet into a good count, I was jumping the bet between table min and max and killing them without a single loss on the table maxes - that had to be mostly luck not just the count, that helped me there. So maybe Johnson too, just got lucky.

Quote: MDawg

but I think it was mostly luck and stopping when ahead that kept the chips on his side.

There is a very important distinction here - when you are playing with a loss rebate, there are optimal quit points - both positive and negative. "stopping when you are ahead" becomes optimal strategy to achieve a specific advantage.

When you do not have a loss rebate in play, it is immaterial. If you are playing with an edge due to counting, hole carding, edge sorting, whatever, you should NEVER stop. You should play as much as possible. If you are playing without an edge, every hand is -EV and "quitting while you are ahead" will not turn the game positive. Every hand has a negative expectation. You can quit when you are head a certain amount every time, but if you play long enough you will lose, because sometimes you will never be ahead.

Are we sure DJ was playing 6-8 deck shoes at Atlantic City? Just checking.

Ken Uston used to say that he could flat-bet a single deck game and win regularly - and I believe him, and I know how he could do that. But strategy changes vs remaining card composition is worth much more at single deck than double deck, and with a 6-8 deck show, its virtually worthless (and I doubt that Don Johnson won $6M because of his insurance bets, LOL.)

Quote: MDawg

During most of Johnson's play he sat down, won, and then left. No loss.

That is incorrect. What is your source for that statement?

Quote: gordonm888

Are we sure DJ was playing 6-8 deck shoes at Atlantic City? Just checking.

At that time, Atlantic City was not allowed to run anything other than 8 deck shoes. I remember a time at the Golden Nugget (The Steve Wynn Golden Nugget) where Frank Sinatra demanded to be dealt double deck from the hand.

The request was granted, and the casino was fined heavily, and a few people lost their gaming license and were let go because of it. Zero chance Don Johnson was able to negotiate that.

Quote: gordonm888

Given that he was flat betting and counting cards to make strategy decisions, there is no way that he simply counts high cards vs low cards.

For a 16 vs 10 decision, the presence of 5s in the deck increases the EV of hitting. The presence of 6s in the deck increases the EV of standing. So, you use a count system that gives opposite values to 5 and 6.

For a 10 vs 10 decision (Hit or Double) the only thing that matters is whether or not the remaining cards in the shoe have a surplus of Aces. If the surplus of Aces is large enough in the remaining shoe, you Double. It has nothing to do with the abundance of 5s or Tens, or low cards vs high cards.

I have worked this all out for many of the close call decisions -there are many besides the illustrious 18, which were originally picked because they are sensitive to the abundance of high vs low cards. I can write an article about it if anyone is interested. It is powerful for single deck or double deck BJ, but less powerful for 6-8 decks.

hi, Gordonm888,

yes, please, i am interested. please write an artical about it.

Tom.

Quote: MDawg

Dunno why the hard heads here keep referring to his loss rebate. A loss rebate kicks in after a loss.

I think it all comes down to what kind of loss rebate agreement Johnson had with the casino.
People are saying things like:

Quote: TomG

By far his biggest advantage was entirely the loss rebate he negotiated with the house. The loss rebate alone was huge and enough to earn significant money.

etc. etc.
Let's start with what we know:

Quote: MDawg

Supposedly Johnson's total wins were $15.1M ($6M Tropicana, Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/
"According to Johnson, the Trop pulled the deal after he won a total of $5.8 million, the Borgata cut him off at $5 million, and the dealer at Caesars refused to fill the chip tray once his earnings topped $4 million."

So, the guy played in three casinos, won in three casinos. He did not lose in any casino. And he had this loss rebate agreement in place at all three casinos.
So, again, what it comes down to is: WHAT EXACTLY WAS THIS LOSS REBATE AGREEMENT? or more specifically, WHEN DID IT KICK IN?

Now in this article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ Johnson writes that he already had a lifetime 20% "lifetime discount" in place, meaning that "you have to lose a certain amount to capitalize on it." which he went on to say that "If you had a lifetime discount of, say, 20 percent on $500,000, you would have to lose whatever money you’d made on previous trips plus another $500,000 before the discount kicked in."

So in other words, Johnson already had a 20% loss rebate in place, but he needed something that kicked in more often, which is why, according to the article, he accepted when the casinos told him, "What if we put you on a trip-to-trip discount basis?” SO, the rebate agreement that was put into place, was that Johnson would get a 20% rebate, calculated trip to trip, when he hit that $500K loss.

But, what's a trip? When would this 20% rebate have kicked in? It depends obviously, on what the definition of a "trip" is.

Well, let's talk about what would clearly NOT be a trip...a few hours of play, followed after a short break, with a few more hours of play. Two such sessions would not be separate trips. I can't see how anyone could argue possibly that they were, and certainly no casino would accept multiple sessions on the same day to be separate trips. Nor would, for example, a single session one day, followed by another session the next day, be considered two separate trips.
Bottom line: I don't think Johnson could have played a few hours, lost $500K, collected his 20% rebate of 100K, and then come back a few hours later and started playing again with a "restarted trip clock" ready to collect another 20% if he lost again. I am certain that the casinos would have balked at that.

I am pretty familiar with what this "trip clock" is - I recall one trip years ago at one Vegas casino where I ended up some sixty grand in the hole. I had won over a hundred at other casinos, so from my perspective I was a winner, but from the perspective of the sixty grand loss casino, I was a loser. I checked out of the casino where I lost some sixty grand, EVERYTHING was comp'ed (and the comps were really high too, something like over fifteen grand worth of RFB and spa charges (one dinner alone that someone who shall go unnamed, a family member, charged to my room was five grand), anyway I checked out of that casino where I lost the sixty K, and checked into a different casino in Vegas. The very next day, while still in town, I came back to the casino where I had lost the sixty K, and won 80K. I didn't play again at that casino that trip, and eventually left town. When I called a few weeks later to book my next incoming trip to that casino, my host gave me sh*t, he said that they had me down as winning twenty K and getting comp'ed almost twenty K. I tried to explain how it had gone down, that I had lost then come back and won, but he said that on their computer it all showed as one continuous trip.

Point being, with someone that was being watched as closely as Johnson, there is just no way that he could have played a session, lost $500K, collected his 20% and showed up anytime soon afterwards to claim that this was a "new trip" and therefore that a restarted clock should newly calculate his eligibility for the 20% rebate against a new $500K of losses. I just don't see any casino allowing him to do that. I barely got away with it, and in fact, I didn't - that casino held back my comps for a while until my average bet play justified more comps.

In Johnson's case, what is FAR and away what must have happened, is that each of the three wins - the Tropicana $6M (which incidentally, the article refers to as a 12 hour long session - not days, not weeks, just 12 hours), Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M were each considered a trip. Three trips. Three casinos. So, assuming Johnson DID hit that $500K loss at each casino, he could have, at most, collected $100K for his losses at each casino. How could $100K even times three make any difference whatsoever towards his end reported winnings of $15.1M?

Also, I doubt that the agreement would have allowed Johnson to collect his 20% rebate unless he stopped his play and...left (that's the definition of a trip isn't it? Come into town, play, leave.). So it's conceivable that Johnson never collected a dime against this loss rebate because, HE DIDN'T NEED TO - HE WON BEFORE HE ENDED THE TRIP. Sum and substance, if someone has some other way to look at this, please offer it up - because, I just don't see how Johnson's negotiation of a "per trip" rebate of 20% against $500K of losses would have made any difference here.

I mean, let's look just at the Tropicana. Acording to the article, 12 hours of play...left ahead $6M. How does the "per trip" rebate figure into this in any way? Is someone saying that Johnson played a few hours, lost $500K, collected $100K. Then the casino told him, okay Don, go have a cup of coffee and come back in and we'll call this trip #2 and restart the loss rebate trip clock. So then he won some, then lost some, then ended up $500K down, collected another 100K. And now they told him to go eat lunch, come back, and they'd consider it a third trip now? And then he kept playing until, all within 12 hours, he was up $6M after collecting multiple $100K against $500K loss rebates? Makes no sense. No casino would allow such a thing to go on.

To summarize:
1. Johnson's 20% loss rebate agreement allowed him a PER TRIP rebate of 20% once his losses hit $500K.
2. Johnson had three separate trips - (1) Tropicana, (2) Borgata, (3) Caesar's. According to the article, the play at the Tropicana lasted all of 12 hours. The play at Caesar's, also, seems to be have been a single marathon session, because after they pulled the plug on him when he was up over $4M, the article states that "Johnson went upstairs and fell asleep."
3. I seriously doubt that the casino would have handed him a penny against losses unless he left the property, ended the trip. There is no indication that he was "handed rebate checks" "mid-trip" nor would such a policy make any kind of sense. What would make even LESS sense is that he was handed MULTIPLE rebate checks, mid-session and allowed to keep playing with a re-started "trip clock" without even leaving the resort.
4. Johnson ended up some $15.1M up between the three casinos. Tropicana $6M, Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M

Considering the above, I invite anyone to fashion some kind of play rundown that would have allowed Johnson to collect multiple loss rebate checks (or even ONE rebate check), AND keep playing, NOT leave the property, AND wind up ahead $15.1M. I just can't fathom a scenario that would allow for such a sequence of events.

P.S. According to the article "(playing by the same rules he had negotiated earlier, according to Johnson, but without a discount—he managed to win another $2 million from the Tropicana in October [2012].)" --- so much for the importance of the loss rebate.

Quote: MDawg

To summarize:
2. Johnson had three separate trips - (1) Tropicana, (2) Borgata, (3) Caesar's. According to the article, the play at the Tropicana lasted all of 12 hours. The play at Caesar's, also, seems to be have been a single marathon session, because after they pulled the plug on him when he was up over $4M, the article states that "Johnson went upstairs and fell asleep."

He also had plenty of other trips. Given the conditions we are all familiar with, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to tread water before (and in between) those three trips -- with those three trips representing the bulk of his profits. Those three trips just happen to be what made the headlines and ended his deals

"In all, Johnson racked up about $15.1 million in blackjack winnings during a six-month span, although he acknowledged incurring some undisclosed losses along the way.
"I don't wear Kevlar," he said. "I'm not bulletproof. I do have some losses in between."
https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/meet-the-blackjack-player-who-beat-the-trop-for-million/article_86f42838-83c8-11e0-92d7-001cc4c03286.html

With the deals he had, he was probably playing as much as he could over those six months, not just those three times

Quote: MDawg

3. I seriously doubt that the casino would have handed him a penny against losses unless he left the property, ended the trip. There is no indication that he was "handed rebate checks" "mid-trip" nor would such a policy make any kind of sense. What would make even LESS sense is that he was handed MULTIPLE rebate checks, mid-session and allowed to keep playing with a re-started "trip clock" without even leaving the resort.

And I seriously believe that if the mathematical strategy he was following said for him to stop and collect his loss rebate he left the property, ended his trip and collected his loss rebate -- exactly as he says he did

Looking around a bit, it seems almost all the reporting on his run is based entirely on his self reporting which is then confirmed by the casinos. It seems clear to most everyone that there are some things that happened outside of the headlines

We must go with what was reported, and the most complete article on the matter remains https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ As I wrote before, otherwise - let's not waste time discussing anything and just make up our own facts.

So, sticking to the facts as reported:
He had the three trips in April 2012. (1) Tropicana $6M, (2) Borgata $5M, (3) Caesar's $4M

Note: he was BANNED from Borgata and Caesar's after those two trips, so he could not have returned. Only the Tropicana allowed him to return, which he did:

Then in October 2012 he had this trip: "(playing by the same rules he had negotiated earlier, according to Johnson, but without a discount—he managed to win another $2 million from the Tropicana in October [2012].)" --- so much for the importance of the loss rebate.

That is the six month period. Not six months of trips. Three trips in April 2012 (won $15.1M). One, six months later, in October 2012, won another ($2M).

Sticking with one complete source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ that reported everything from beginning to end.

If we read the article closely, yes it is possible that the trips to Borgata and Caesar's were over the course of "four previous months" which would mean perhaps December 2011 to March 2012, plus whatever happened in April 2012. Or some such.

BUT, the article states clearly that the Tropicana win was $6M and all in one twelve hour session in April 2012. PLUS, he went back to Tropicana in October 2012, with NO loss rebate agreement in place, and won ANOTHER $2M - the reason he didn't care about the loss rebate at Tropicana was probably because he had not needed it or utilized it prior, during the 12 hour Tropicana $6M win in April 2012.

I am not saying that he is bulletproof either. What I am saying is that loss rebate appears to have had nothing to do with these three wins, pretty certainly nothing to do with the 12 hour Tropicana $6M win, and definitely nothing to do with the $2M Tropicana win in October 2012 where he had NO loss rebate agreement in place at all.

I could buy-in at a $15 table for $500 and have 25 hands to lose and if I win 35 hands ahead, I could have $5,000+, with a 1 to 20 progression spread that increases every 5 hands ahead. I could come back the next time and buy-in at a $3000 max bet table with $5000 for 25 hands and if I win 35 hands ahead, I'd total $50,000+. If I could find a $30,000 max bet table, I could turn $50,000 into $500,000 on a 3rd trip. I'd likely only find a $10,000 max bet table so I'd turn $15K into $150K. After 3 winning sessions getting me to $150K, I could divvy that up into 300 x $500 sessions for 7500 hands of Blackjack after winning 55-105 hands to begin with.

Since I'm likely stuck with a $3000 table max in my area, I'd just win 2 sessions to get me to $50K then divvy that up into 100 x $500 sessions for 2500 hands of Blackjack and keep playing the $15 table until I win a session I can parlay in the high limit room.

Quote: MDawg

I think it all comes down to what kind of loss rebate agreement Johnson had with the casino.
People are saying things like:
etc. etc.
Let's start with what we know:
So, the guy played in three casinos, won in three casinos. He did not lose in any casino. And he had this loss rebate agreement in place at all three casinos.
So, again, what it comes down to is: WHAT EXACTLY WAS THIS LOSS REBATE AGREEMENT? or more specifically, WHEN DID IT KICK IN?

Now in this article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ Johnson writes that he already had a lifetime 20% "lifetime discount" in place, meaning that "you have to lose a certain amount to capitalize on it." which he went on to say that "If you had a lifetime discount of, say, 20 percent on $500,000, you would have to lose whatever money you’d made on previous trips plus another $500,000 before the discount kicked in."

So in other words, Johnson already had a 20% loss rebate in place, but he needed something that kicked in more often, which is why, according to the article, he accepted when the casinos told him, "What if we put you on a trip-to-trip discount basis?” SO, the rebate agreement that was put into place, was that Johnson would get a 20% rebate, calculated trip to trip, when he hit that $500K loss.

But, what's a trip? When would this 20% rebate have kicked in? It depends obviously, on what the definition of a "trip" is.

Well, let's talk about what would clearly NOT be a trip...a few hours of play, followed after a short break, with a few more hours of play. Two such sessions would not be separate trips. I can't see how anyone could argue possibly that they were, and certainly no casino would accept multiple sessions on the same day to be separate trips. Nor would, for example, a single session one day, followed by another session the next day, be considered two separate trips.
Bottom line: I don't think Johnson could have played a few hours, lost $500K, collected his 20% rebate of 100K, and then come back a few hours later and started playing again with a "restarted trip clock" ready to collect another 20% if he lost again. I am certain that the casinos would have balked at that.

I am pretty familiar with what this "trip clock" is - I recall one trip years ago at one Vegas casino where I ended up some sixty grand in the hole. I had won over a hundred at other casinos, so from my perspective I was a winner, but from the perspective of the sixty grand loss casino, I was a loser. I checked out of the casino where I lost some sixty grand, EVERYTHING was comp'ed (and the comps were really high too, something like over fifteen grand worth of RFB and spa charges (one dinner alone that someone who shall go unnamed, a family member, charged to my room was five grand), anyway I checked out of that casino where I lost the sixty K, and checked into a different casino in Vegas. The very next day, while still in town, I came back to the casino where I had lost the sixty K, and won 80K. I didn't play again at that casino that trip, and eventually left town. When I called a few weeks later to book my next incoming trip to that casino, my host gave me sh*t, he said that they had me down as winning twenty K and getting comp'ed almost twenty K. I tried to explain how it had gone down, that I had lost then come back and won, but he said that on their computer it all showed as one continuous trip.

Point being, with someone that was being watched as closely as Johnson, there is just no way that he could have played a session, lost $500K, collected his 20% and showed up anytime soon afterwards to claim that this was a "new trip" and therefore that a restarted clock should newly calculate his eligibility for the 20% rebate against a new $500K of losses. I just don't see any casino allowing him to do that. I barely got away with it, and in fact, I didn't - that casino held back my comps for a while until my average bet play justified more comps.

In Johnson's case, what is FAR and away what must have happened, is that each of the three wins - the Tropicana $6M (which incidentally, the article refers to as a 12 hour long session - not days, not weeks, just 12 hours), Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M were each considered a trip. Three trips. Three casinos. So, assuming Johnson DID hit that $500K loss at each casino, he could have, at most, collected $100K for his losses at each casino. How could $100K even times three make any difference whatsoever towards his end reported winnings of $15.1M?

Also, I doubt that the agreement would have allowed Johnson to collect his 20% rebate unless he stopped his play and...left (that's the definition of a trip isn't it? Come into town, play, leave.). So it's conceivable that Johnson never collected a dime against this loss rebate because, HE DIDN'T NEED TO - HE WON BEFORE HE ENDED THE TRIP. Sum and substance, if someone has some other way to look at this, please offer it up - because, I just don't see how Johnson's negotiation of a "per trip" rebate of 20% against $500K of losses would have made any difference here.

I mean, let's look just at the Tropicana. Acording to the article, 12 hours of play...left ahead $6M. How does the "per trip" rebate figure into this in any way? Is someone saying that Johnson played a few hours, lost $500K, collected $100K. Then the casino told him, okay Don, go have a cup of coffee and come back in and we'll call this trip #2 and restart the loss rebate trip clock. So then he won some, then lost some, then ended up $500K down, collected another 100K. And now they told him to go eat lunch, come back, and they'd consider it a third trip now? And then he kept playing until, all within 12 hours, he was up $6M after collecting multiple $100K against $500K loss rebates? Makes no sense. No casino would allow such a thing to go on.

To summarize:
1. Johnson's 20% loss rebate agreement allowed him a PER TRIP rebate of 20% once his losses hit $500K.
2. Johnson had three separate trips - (1) Tropicana, (2) Borgata, (3) Caesar's. According to the article, the play at the Tropicana lasted all of 12 hours. The play at Caesar's, also, seems to be have been a single marathon session, because after they pulled the plug on him when he was up over $4M, the article states that "Johnson went upstairs and fell asleep."
3. I seriously doubt that the casino would have handed him a penny against losses unless he left the property, ended the trip. There is no indication that he was "handed rebate checks" "mid-trip" nor would such a policy make any kind of sense. What would make even LESS sense is that he was handed MULTIPLE rebate checks, mid-session and allowed to keep playing with a re-started "trip clock" without even leaving the resort.
4. Johnson ended up some $15.1M up between the three casinos. Tropicana $6M, Borgata $5M, Caesar's $4M

Considering the above, I invite anyone to fashion some kind of play rundown that would have allowed Johnson to collect multiple loss rebate checks (or even ONE rebate check), AND keep playing, NOT leave the property, AND wind up ahead $15.1M. I just can't fathom a scenario that would allow for such a sequence of events.

P.S. According to the article "(playing by the same rules he had negotiated earlier, according to Johnson, but without a discount—he managed to win another $2 million from the Tropicana in October [2012].)" --- so much for the importance of the loss rebate.

Both very good answers. I don't think he cared about the loss rebate.

In my opinion one can gain an advantage if he somehow negotiated that a tie is a win for the player. Of player gets +50% of the bet on a tie I think I recall him saying something of that sort in an interview. This would give the player an advantage over the house. And since the casinos assumed that he was an bad player. They must've agreed to it.

Maybe someone with better sources can confirm.

Just saw the Don Johnson video, and he seemed to emphasize winning on dealer mistakes as winning him a few hands. You get a free win if the dealer misreads your hand signal for surrender? I'm more likely to inadvertently use the wrong hand signal since I'm out of practice. Tell me, how do you win on dealer error? I play computer BJ and never see errors.
Anyway, Don was playing 2-3 hands per deal. If he wins all hands on 10 dealer busts in a row that's 20-30 hands ahead. If he's betting $100K per pod or $200K-$300K per deal, he'd be up $2-$3 million in a quarter shoe.

His game was closely monitored. With $100,000 bets. I doubt if the casino would've let him keep playing till $6M if they realized that he was up to no good. And was just screwing around with them.

You guys are reading way too much into this. The dollar amounts are really high, but he was betting huge too. With variance in play for a single session with good rules, it's true he could have never lost at some casinos. Notably, there is nothing mentioned in the Atlantic article about how many trips or sessions he had at Borgata - so he could have collected a rebate there. Or not, it doesn't really matter.

Saying he "didn't care" about the loss rebate is balderdash. Playing with a loss rebate means you have a mathematical advantage. If you HAPPEN TO WIN and never use the loss rebate - that doesn't mean you didn't care about it. Just that you experienced positive variance and didn't need it.

He may have been using any number of other advantage plays as well, but one thing he definitely wasn't doing is using some super secret special basic strategy to give himself an advantage. Such a thing doesn't exist - in the absence of other advantage plays (card counting, hole carding, shuffle tracking, god knows what else), BS will never give you an advantage. Any thinking to the contrary is wishful voodoo. And on an 8 deck game strategy deviations will barely shave a bit off the house edge.

Quote: AcesAndEights

You guys are reading way too much into this. The dollar amounts are really high, but he was betting huge too. With variance in play for a single session with good rules, it's true he could have never lost at some casinos. Notably, there is nothing mentioned in the Atlantic article about how many trips or sessions he had at Borgata - so he could have collected a rebate there. Or not, it doesn't really matter.

Saying he "didn't care" about the loss rebate is balderdash. Playing with a loss rebate means you have a mathematical advantage. If you HAPPEN TO WIN and never use the loss rebate - that doesn't mean you didn't care about it. Just that you experienced positive variance and didn't need it.

He may have been using any number of other advantage plays as well, but one thing he definitely wasn't doing is using some super secret special basic strategy to give himself an advantage. Such a thing doesn't exist - in the absence of other advantage plays (card counting, hole carding, shuffle tracking, god knows what else), BS will never give you an advantage. Any thinking to the contrary is wishful voodoo. And on an 8 deck game strategy deviations will barely shave a bit off the house edge.

Instead of brainstorming. Everybody just seems to be negging each other.

We need people with a can do attitude.

If you're playing alone at the RESERVED table, you could probably bet on 200-300 hands an hour, times 10 hours for 2-3 thousand hands. The square root of 2500 hands is 50, so he could be betting to lose 50 hands or to win 50 hands, or some other number inside or outside those bounds.

Quote: PinkJack

Instead of brainstorming. Everybody just seems to be negging each other.

We need people with a can do attitude.

If a can-do attitude does not overcome odds whats the point?

If you are jumping out of an airplane at 20,000 feet without a parachute whats the point of a can-do attitude?

Quote: PinkJack

Instead of brainstorming. Everybody just seems to be negging each other.

We need people with a can do attitude.

Can do what? I'm not trying to neg anyone.

He's an AP. He won a bunch of money. Loss rebates are one legitimate AP if you know the correct strategy. There are many other APs. He could have been employing any number of them, known or unknown.

I'm not trying to be harsh. Read the books, track down a copy of Exhibit CAA if you want to learn about advanced plays (it will cost you thousands of dollars). Or "Advanced Advantage Play" by Eliot Jacobson, also out of print and expensive but not on quite the same level.

There are numerous ways to extract money from casinos. None of them are easy. Your posts indicate you are looking for some kind of obvious, new slam-dunk AP that Johnson was using here. If he was doing something out of the mainstream, it's possible no one here even knows about it. And if they do, they probably aren't going to share it.

It's quite interesting this entire story even years from when it happened. It's pretty much a reversal of what casinos use to hide the house edge from gamblers, by the way of different options such as multiple decks, surrender rules, double/splitting, etc. Not to say the casinos are doing anything nefarious, since you can look up what the house edge is if you know the game and the rules.

The casino could have simply looked up what giving a random a loss rebate is worth to them in terms of loss, and adjusted accordingly for skilled players, dollar amounts, what the likelihood of other casinos to offer this to this particular big player, etc. I'm almost certain any casino that is willing to take 100k+ bets will have a strong team of gaming mathematicians, or at least the resources to hire them.

I'm sure most of us in this forum can eyeball it and figure that getting some sort of loss rebate with a low house edge game like blackjack would be a bad idea to offer to a player, unless they play at a level well below an average player.

Which leads me to end with this question: how valuable are big players in a casino; are they valuable enough to keep them in there at a loss to your bottom line as a casino?

Local casinos here have much lower maximums, like $500, or $1000. You want to bring in the whales who bet $75,000 a hand? No need to ban such players when they win. Just tell them they can't bet more than $5,000 or $10,000 a hand like the rest of the general public. Tell the whales to pay their employees more.

Quote: TigerWu

Has this actually been verified? I've seen that documentary several times, and heard that story about what happened afterwards, and seen that Uber screenshot. But I've also heard didn't go broke, wasn't fired, and just retired and sold the company for millions, and he's doing fine and just drives Uber on the side for fun.

I haven't seen any concrete facts about what actually happened to the guy, just various conflicting word of mouth stories people spread on the internet.

Yeah I saw all the same things you did - however, nothing I saw was verified

Quote: MDawg

We must go with what was reported, and the most complete article on the matter remains https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-man-who-broke-atlantic-city/308900/ As I wrote before, otherwise - let's not waste time discussing anything and just make up our own facts.

Quote: PinkJack

In my opinion one can gain an advantage if he somehow negotiated that a tie is a win for the player. Of player gets +50% of the bet on a tie I think I recall him saying something of that sort in an interview. This would give the player an advantage over the house. And since the casinos assumed that he was an bad player. They must've agreed to it.

There was no agreement whatsoever for his winning on a tie!

Quote: MDawg

What I am saying is that loss rebate appears to have had nothing to do with these three wins, pretty certainly nothing to do with the 12 hour Tropicana $6M win, and definitely nothing to do with the $2M Tropicana win in October 2012 where he had NO loss rebate agreement in place at all.

Quote: PinkJack

very good answers. I don't think he cared about the loss rebate.

That he went ahead and played Tropicana again in October 2012 (and won $2M), with no loss rebate agreement in place, at a minimum means that he was willing to play without it. I am sure he cared about the loss rebate, but obviously not enough to stop him from playing without it.

Quote: PinkJack

Both very good answers. I don't think he cared about the loss rebate.

Maybe someone with better sources can confirm.

Any situation where you can get a 20% loss rebate on a Blackjack game is HUGE! It totally would dwarf any potential advantage from card counting, wonging, dealer errors etc. I'm damn sure he did care.
But the beauty of such a loss rebate is that on the (roughly) 50% chance that any one session's huge wagers put him well ahead, the loss rebate would never need to be crystalised and could be talked down as just a 'Know when to quit' intuition.

One thing I have never seen a clear answer on is the effect of dealer errors. Don Josnson said in many interviews "If the dealer makes a mistake, I get a free bet. That's the casino's rule, not mine." What does that entail? If the dealer makes a mistake, that hand becomes a freeroll? The next hand is a freeroll? He is automatically paid?

Quote: Deucekies

One thing I have never seen a clear answer on is the effect of dealer errors. Don Josnson said in many interviews "If the dealer makes a mistake, I get a free bet. That's the casino's rule, not mine." What does that entail? If the dealer makes a mistake, that hand becomes a freeroll? The next hand is a freeroll? He is automatically paid?

The dealer can make errors in the house's favour ( E.g. clawing in a players chips when the player actually won )
Or he can make an error in the player's favour ( E.g paying out on a losing hand ... or on a tie)

In the case of errors in the house favour, Don Yells 'Woah there matey'. and the error gets corrected instantly by the supervisor.
In the case of errors in players favour, he says nothing. If the pit doesn't notice, then he has free money.

Net result. Only errors in the players favour are allowed to go un-corrected. Free money.

And remember that if the house pays out on a losing hand, that's a double benefit in that they didn't take his lost chips AND they gave the player more chips. ( ignoring paid out ties )

I know Don mentions this, but in truth, i doubt there were too many such dealer errors that went un-noticed.

I have to think the majority of dealer errors, if any, had something to do with exposing a card or being allowed to back up a misunderstood signal, rather than a wrong-way payout. DJ was running a purposeful circus, at least at times. If anything he was doing was not totally fair, it seemed he was introducing distractions and chaos into an already tense table (due to the amounts of money in play). So maybe once or twice an hour he got extra info. At those prices, that would be valuable.

I have read through this thread very carefully -and there has been some interesting information in it. I assert that I have a deep understanding of BJ mathematics.

The explanations that Don Johnson gives for his wins -loss rebates, dealer mistakes, coaching on techniques by PhD mathematicians - don't seem to explain his winning >$10 Million in three casino trips in which there were no losses to be rebated and in which he flat-betted. In fact, these seem to be the kind of reasons for the wins that someone would claim in order to obfuscate the issue.

We should remember that just because Don Johnson has been interviewed and has spoken on the subject, does not mean that he has been candid/truthful about how he won so much.
*********
Theoretically Possible reasons
1. Good variance. With a unit bet of $100K, it is easy to believe that someone might be ahead by 60 unit bets after 12 hours of play.

2. He had an advantage. These techniques have already been mentioned, but advantages such as hole carding requires a dealer who flashes, and that seems an unlikely explanation because he won at three different casinos in three sessions.

The same can be said for some form of dealer cooperation - its seems unlikely because he won at three different casinos. And because the game would have been highly scrutinized by security, and they know how to recognize dealer cooperation.

3. Cheating. Such as marking cards. Clearly, I am not accusing anyone of anything but I don't think it can be ruled out at this point.
******

But my point is that if any of the above had been the real reasons why Don Johnson won, then he might simply blow some smoke and mention loss rebates, dealer mistakes and coaching by mathematicians.

Quote: gordonm888

The explanations that Don Johnson gives for his wins -loss rebates, dealer mistakes, coaching on techniques by PhD mathematicians - don't seem to explain his winning >$10 Million in three casino trips in which there were no losses to be rebated and in which he flat-betted. In fact, these seem to be the kind of reasons for the wins that someone would claim in order to obfuscate the issue.

Using the player advantage just from the loss rebate and free-bets, it would have taken about 400-500 hours to get to $15 million in expected value (at $100,000 per hand). Given that those three trips were spread out over six months, it does explain very well how it could have happened. There may be something more. But with a few dozen trips, there wouldn't need to be much else for it to fit perfectly with expectations. For example:

Quote: gordonm888

Good variance. With a unit bet of $100K, it is easy to believe that someone might be ahead by 60 unit bets after 12 hours of play.

With enough visits to the casino it doesn't take good variance find that a few of those times end at +60 bets. It only takes a typical amount of variance. His big hits that are reported were spread out over months. There may have even been plenty of other times he played under those same conditions even before those million dollar wins started coming.

Quote: gordonm888

But my point is that if any of the above had been the real reasons why Don Johnson won, then he might simply blow some smoke and mention loss rebates, dealer mistakes and coaching by mathematicians.

Agreed that given the flat betting and fact that for example one of the "trips" was exactly 12 hours long (not six months long, no months long, just a half a day long) and he won $6M during those 12 hours at Tropicana in April 2012, loss rebate couldn't have had anything to do with it. I gave my long reasoning for this, but, like many threads on the internet that go past a couple days, people stop reading or listening to each other and it becomes time to just move on with nothing resolved.

My explanation is that he simply got lucky, and quit (or was forced to quit, by being banned) while ahead. But in any case, what does NOT explain his wins is the loss rebate, especially given that in October 2012, he returned to Tropicana with NO loss rebate deal in place, and won another $2M.

Quote: gordonm888

But my point is that if any of the above had been the real reasons why Don Johnson won, then he might simply blow some smoke and mention loss rebates, dealer mistakes and coaching by mathematicians.

I agree with this part. Totally.

Just doesn't sound as impossible if you reduce the numbers, he won $1000 flat betting $10 a hand.

I don't think the deals described are very different than a lot of offers that exist today to VIP players AS LONG AS THEY KNOW YOU. If you have a $500k+ trip bankroll and want to fire, feel free to PM me.

Quote: gordonm888

Given that he was flat betting and counting cards to make strategy decisions, there is no way that he simply counts high cards vs low cards.

For a 16 vs 10 decision, the presence of 5s in the deck increases the EV of hitting. The presence of 6s in the deck increases the EV of standing. So, you use a count system that gives opposite values to 5 and 6.

For a 10 vs 10 decision (Hit or Double) the only thing that matters is whether or not the remaining cards in the shoe have a surplus of Aces. If the surplus of Aces is large enough in the remaining shoe, you Double. It has nothing to do with the abundance of 5s or Tens, or low cards vs high cards.

I have worked this all out for many of the close call decisions -there are many besides the illustrious 18, which were originally picked because they are sensitive to the abundance of high vs low cards. I can write an article about it if anyone is interested. It is powerful for single deck or double deck BJ, but less powerful for 6-8 decks.

How much player can save( in term of %) for 1,2,4, 6 and 8 deck if include all those close call decisions ? I know a 6 deck(play until last 2.5 deck) game with house edge 0.09%, possible to overcome it ?

I think someone needs to take another crack at the B/S chart. With this time assuming that there'll be a variation after each hit. So maybe after 3 hits. I'm a 14 v/s Dealer 7. It's best to hit. Or after 4 hits I'm a 14 v/s Dealer 10. Stay.

If someone is familiar with Genetic Algorithms and knows how to make modification to the code shared in this article. I think we'll have an answer once and for all.

article_genetic_algorithms

Is it any coincidence that the B/S chart could mean

Basic Strategy chart

Or

Bull Shat chart

Either way I think we are talking BS

Quote: PinkJack

I think someone needs to take another crack at the B/S chart. With this time assuming that there'll be a variation after each hit. So maybe after 3 hits. I'm a 14 v/s Dealer 7. It's best to hit. Or after 4 hits I'm a 14 v/s Dealer 10. Stay.

If someone is familiar with Genetic Algorithms and knows how to make modification to the code shared in this article. I think we'll have an answer once and for all.

article_genetic_algorithms

PJ, Some on this forum have ample skills to do the analysis that you propose. They won't do it, because they also have ample wisdom and common sense. Indeed, such composition dependent strategy has long been studied and derivatives of that are in common use. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

It would be a totally pointless exercise because it could only potentially eke out a tiny reduction of the house edge and would not create a usable counting system.
KISS is the way to go with counting. Imperfect but simple and elegant. Or better yet find games and advantages that are ten times more lucrative and ten times more simple to apply and exploit those. Almost certainly not BlackJack.

If you want to waste your time doing what you suggest, then good luck. If you lack the skills but deem it a valuable exercise, hire a programmer.

Report back when you are rich beyond measure and scoff at us mere mortals.

I don’t think you know what the word “basic” means.

“Basic” strategy is perfect.

Also, I’m shocked casinos would let any odd things go on at 100k per hand. I guess if someone gives a confusing hand signal, you can probably get away with it once.

They’re just so protective of their money at a $10 table. Don’t they know the stakes are a tiny bit higher when someone is playing for 100k?