History of Card Counting in BlackJack

If there is one thing I have learned about Casinos in the last 10 years or so, it's that a vast amount of time and effort is spent by many, many players trying to figure out a way to beat the odds. This leads them into complete foolishness with betting systems, fallacies, and even cheating, of course, but nonetheless I can hardly believe there is a wrinkle in any game that has not been explored by somebody somewhere, and that it is always so. That is certainly one reason to give pause when a light bulb comes on and you think, hey, what if I did this? Someone, plenty of someones plenty smart, have already thought of it.

But I think the history of card counting in Blackjack is going to go down as something that was invented in the mid-20th Century. I can only come to the conclusion, however, that there *must* have been card counters for this game going way, way back. My reasoning: the obviousness of a building advantage would have occurred to plenty of players, and there used to be just a single deck it seems.

When I searched online, I found some hints that there are "legends" about such players, but that's it. Perhaps I didnt come across a better link.

I realize modern systems really are probably quite superior and that's part of the story. In any case, I am convinced the practice is as old as the game has been around. It's tantalizing to think that it might have been just been a handful of people pulling it off. Casinos aren't dumb and would realize something was going on if it was a lot of players. Or perhaps some of these "legends" got banned, too, way back when.

Time to daydream about time machines, I guess, and think what opportunities you would have if you could go back in time!

The world did not begin with digital computers simulations and monte-carlo methods!

Sure there were probably card counters, particularly when cards were a bit rare and a worn card would be kept in play for awhile. Casino owners have probably had to have been alert to "excessive luck" at all times, even the pre-civilization days without computers.

The trouble is: once the sixties came and Thorp published Beat The Dealer, ... then the concept really took off. Mathematicians had their simulations, tourists had their dreams... and casino owners had people with street smarts who knew how to make mincemeat of would-be card counters. When Beat the Dealer was published, casinos started ripping out craps tables and putting in more blackjack tables. Blackjack dealers became really in demand. BJ was making far more money for a casino than before Beat the Dealer was published.

So were there amateurs who without even knowing what is meant by "monte carlo methods" figured out which cards to count and how to do it successfully. Sure. There were however casino owners back in the good ole days too! And they were not dumb back then either.

Casinos "back off" one person: tell him wander around and play anything you like, but don't play blackjack here anymore. Man thats great advertising for them. He tells his friends and neighbors, the friends and neighbors buy him a drink and ask him some questions, the friends and neighbors come to Vegas with lots of money and lots of dreams ... and leave with lots of dreams.

So even back in the old days prior to Beat the Dealer, card counting was probably profitable... for the casinos!!

The four horseman invented basic strategy in the 1950's and published their findings in a 1956 edition of the Journal of the American Statistical Association, and a year later a 92-page book called “Playing Blackjack to Win,” long out of print. The book, with a cover price of $1.75, contains a foreword by Charles Van Doren, later disgraced in the TV quiz show scandals.

It is an impressive feat to accomplish without digital computers.

As to basic card counting, I am sure that people were counting Aces way back to 1913 shortly after modern blackjack was invented. The core idea that blackjacks benefit players more than the dealer is fairly simple to understand, but without a complete understanding of the percentages of basic strategy it isn't very easy to understand that it can be exploited.

People don't have a good understanding of house edge. Even Edward Thorpe had to refine his techniques with a computer. He originally tried to remember much more information than just the simple count, but he had to simulate it on a computer until he realized that there was very little to be gained from perfect memory (where you know every single card that has been played) vs a simpler system.

It was my understanding that the game was not very popular in the early 1950's when craps, roulette, and poker reigned supreme.

Isn't it also interesting that the house edge, using basic strategy, is just slightly above zero. It's neat that even without all the computers and simulations and whatnot, the game was developed in a way that gave the house an edge, but a slight one at that. It's easier to figure out that the house knew they have a 1/37 edge in Roulette with the single zero, but Blackjack had to have a lot more computations to make sure the house still had an edge. The development of the game as an official casino operation is just as interesting as early counters who tried to tip the balance to the player.

Ed Thorp was recently interviewed on National Public Radio. He was the first to publish a card counting strategy in Beat the Dealer. If memory serves me right, he was asked in the interview if he was the first person to actually count cards. He replied that he had heard rumors that others were doing it before he started, and while he was actively playing. He never met these alleged other players, but they probably figured out the rudiments of card counting, and were trying to be as discrete as possible.

Quote: Wizard

....and were trying to be as discrete as possible.

And that answers the original poster's question.

Quote: cclub79

Isn't it also interesting that the house edge, using basic strategy, is just slightly above zero. It's neat that even without all the computers and simulations and whatnot, the game was developed in a way that gave the house an edge, but a slight one at that. It's easier to figure out that the house knew they have a 1/37 edge in Roulette with the single zero, but Blackjack had to have a lot more computations to make sure the house still had an edge. The development of the game as an official casino operation is just as interesting as early counters who tried to tip the balance to the player.

I find that fairly amazing that the game was invented and that they determined that you can do things like double, split, and surrender and pay 1.5x on blackjack, while maintaining a house edge.

Quote: boymimbo

I find that fairly amazing that the game was invented and that they determined that you can do things like double, split, and surrender and pay 1.5x on blackjack, while maintaining a house edge.

Yes it is kind of remarkable. But they have been playing a variation of this game for a long time. A variant of Spanish 21 was described by Cervantes almost 400 years ago. The blackjack was originally an Ace of Spades and either of two black jacks, and the bonus was 10 to 1. The current variation with the 1.5 payout was introduced to increase interest in the game.

It is possible that the original designers did not know how small the house edge really was because no one played a perfect game. There is virtually no way to know about hitting a player 12 against a dealer 3 or 4, and to stand with a player 13 against a dealer 12 without a computer. Splitting 8's against a dealer 9,10 or Ace was probably assumed to be a stupid move. The doubling soft 16-18 was not intuitive, and even doubling 10's or 11's against high dealer cards is not intuitive. Over the long run the gambling house simply had empirical proof that as long as they didn't let players re-split aces or hit a second time on split aces they were making money. Plus the game was more of a diversion than a main money makers of craps and roulette and poker where the odds were better known.

It is also easy to discount the mathematical skills of people before there were computers. The oldest people knew that PI was about 3, and you could get a pretty good estimate on 3+1/7 with rope (although some people thought it was 3+1/8). Remember rope was not pieces of string like today. But Artistotle calculated it to an accuracy that was remarkable (he explained his technique), and in his notes they found an even more accurate estimate which no one can reproduce even today without a computer. If he hadn't been killed by a soldier at a reasonably young age, there is no telling what he would have accomplished. The card player could not calculate the expected values to the high degree of accuracy of a modern digital computer, but they had access to logarithm tables that were written out several hundred years ago.

Plus you don't know how many gambling houses simply cut the cards and removed two 10 count cards at the start. You don't have to be Cauchy to realize that would hurt the player.

Quote: pacomartin

But Artistotle calculated it to an accuracy that was remarkable (he explained his technique), and in his notes they found an even more accurate estimate which no one can reproduce even today without a computer.

I believe you mean Archimedes.