| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: OT - Blackjack Rules Posted by: WiddleAvi - [337382016] Mon, Aug 20, 16:41 Hey guys. Quick question....Is there any rule in Vegas that prevents someone from doubling their previous bet everytime they lose a hand ?? For example: I bet $5 and I lose that hand...next hand I bet $10....if I lose that hand then next one I bet $20 and if I lost again next bet would be $40 etc. until of course I hit the table limit. I was just wondering if there is any sort of rule that stops someone from doing that ? | ||||||
| 34 | WiddleAvi ID: 337382016 Tue, Aug 21, 00:22 | How about using a mix of basic card counting (Keeping track of 9,10,j,q,k cards and 2,3,4,5 cards) and doubling after losing. Of course you would then only double your bet when the cards are in your favor. That actually sounds like a nice mix to me. If you lose a hand and the cards are not in your favor then you don't double your bet. | |||||
| 35 | kev ID: 36925310 Tue, Aug 21, 00:38 |
Im not the mathmatician some of you are above, but I couldnt help getting involved in a gambling thread... Blackjack is the best bet for the player in the casino. You can increase your odds of winning by counting cards, and watching the shuffle carefully. I used to count cards all the time, and try different strategies, but the big point I would to make is that it always comes back to bite you in the butt- take RFS's stated before- you can try a certain technique, weather it is doubling the bet, or counting cards, whatnot...but it will come back to the casino getting your money. Its very hard to break even at any game in the casino. There are the very big winners, which has to be some astronomical low percentage, and the very many losers. I have given up at Blackjack, for all your card counting, all your strategy, all your effort, can be messed up by one person on the table, who insists on splitting face cards and not splitting 8's with a 7 up (just 2 of my most agonizing things to watch) My suggestion- dont worry about making 5 bucks per hand. Go and enjoy your time And bet on hard six when your playing craps...it and poker now are the only things that keep me intrested in the casino. | |||||
| 36 | Craig H ID: 287241713 Tue, Aug 21, 07:39 | I thought this thread was going to be about the Yankee Flipper, Jack McDowell making a comeback :) | |||||
| 38 | ChicagoTRS Sustainer ID: 117541522 Tue, Aug 21, 08:11 |
Sure you can make money counting cards but as soon as they figure you are doing it they will blacklist you from the casino. That makes it a little difficult to make a living doing it unless you are willing to where disguises and travel around the country to different casinos until you end up getting black listed in all of them. Counting cards definitely works if you are good at it. You know it does work because it will get you banned from the casino so there definitely must be something to it. I always thought it was BS that you are not allowed to count cards. You are not using anything but your mind in most cases...can't see how it is cheating? But I guess if they did allow card counting they would just do away with blackjack all together because they would lose money. | |||||
| 39 | Bodacious Tatahs ID: 137191511 Tue, Aug 21, 09:07 | I actually tried this at the casinos recently. My first eight hands at 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,and 640 were losers. I was sweating balls. My 1280$ hand was a 16 against an ace up which I tucked bucking the odds (which I previously hadnt done). The dealer busted and I left the casino after three very hard minutes with a gigantic profit of 5$. LOL. I was too scared to keep going. | |||||
| 40 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Tue, Aug 21, 10:14 |
CTRS - Let me correct something I said in #32. Did a little poking around last night, and found out that there are video poker machines that actually give the player the edge if they play perfectly. If I'm to understand what I read correctly, however, they require very complicated strategies. I think the reason there are so many high quality books on counting cards is that the authors ran out of places to play or decided that selling a book was an easier approach to making money. :) | |||||
| 41 | absolut_cdi ID: 35730916 Tue, Aug 21, 10:36 |
lol... i use this strategy playing hoyle casino but instead of going 5,10,20,40, etc i got 5,15,35,75, etc to make a slightly larger profit | |||||
| 42 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Tue, Aug 21, 14:04 |
Warning: Statistics ahead. Happy reading. Martingale betting system. Starting bet $1. No doubling or splitting. No table limit, only a limit to your money. Let p1 = Probability of winning without a blackjack given that the player or dealer wins (no push). Let p2 = Probability of winning with a blackjack given that the player or dealer wins. Let q = Probability of not winning = 1-p1-p2. Assume each hand independent of the other (for 6 decks, this is basically true). You can basically reduce the strategy to playing a series of independent strings of hands until you win.
The above table lists all the possible net winnings for one of these strings of hands except the case where you lose the string. The net winnings for that is -1-2-4-...-2^n=-2^(n+1)+1, and the probability of that occuring is q^(n+1). The expected net winnings is just sum of the possible net winnings times their probabilities. That is: sum(1*q^j*p1, j=0..n) (winning w/out bj) + sum((1+2^(j-1))*q^j*p2, j=0..n) (winning w/ bj) - 2^(n+1)*q^(n+1) + q^(n+1) I'm not going through all the details, but the expected winnings simplifies to: 1 + p2/(4q-2)((2q)^(n+1)-1)-2^(n+1)*q^(n+1) Now, the question is: When is this negative? What values for n, p1 and p2 make it positive or negative? Although the solution is simple, it is best shown graphically. The probability of a blackjack is 0.0475=p2, so it really reduces to 2 variables, n (the number of hands you can play) and p1 (the probability of winning without a blackjack). The graph below is a 3-d plot of the expected winnings as n and p1 are allowed to vary.  The function is always negative unless p1 is greater than about 0.44 (0.440625 to be exact). p1 is never above 0.44. At best, it's between 0.40 and 0.42. Also notice that the more money you have to wager (larger n), the greater the expected loss, so a casino should actually love you to walk in with $1 million and play the Martingale! For the case when it's negative, the expected net loss is minimized when n=0 (n only goes from 1 to 20 in the graph). n=0 represents the game where you bet 1 unit every time, or play without the Martingale system. I don't expect this to convince anyone, but if you can follow the math, go ahead and check it for yourself. One final note: I used a minimum bet of $1. To figure out what it would be for a minimum bet of $5 or $10 or $100 or whatever, just multiply the expected winnings by the minimum bet. | |||||
| 43 | Gangman Leader ID: 147262114 Tue, Aug 21, 15:23 |
Oh, that makes it clear. I was just thinking the same thing. Thanks. I know that when I get to the table, I'm all about 1 + p2/(4q-2)((2q)^(n+1)-1)-2^(n+1)*q^(n+1). LOL | |||||
| 44 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Tue, Aug 21, 15:30 |
Nice job, Sludge (I think!). Now could you please tell me if the expected winnings (err... losings) is greater than this if you bet an equal number of hands while maintaining a constant betting amount? Thank you. My accountant thanks you also. ...and my fiancee. | |||||
| 45 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Tue, Aug 21, 15:32 | Or... maybe compare expected losings for martingdale vs. the constant bet amount, given equivalent risk (amount willing to be wagered). This might make more sense than same number of hands... | |||||
| 46 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Tue, Aug 21, 16:12 |
Gangman - It's no wonder that kids are so hesitant to become scientists with such attitudes. bili - Yeah. Your expected net winnings (losses) are higher (lower) when you place a constant bet per hand. In fact, they'd be even better than the graph shows because now you can afford to double and split. WiddleAvi #31 - If you can count cards correctly, you can probably push the probability of winning up to a point where the expected profit from the Martingale system is positive, and it would be a viable strategy. Looking at the graph, however, the expected profit per string of hands is only marginally higher than for the case where you play a constant bet per hand. (Hard to see at the orientation I saved the graph.) patjams #30 and absolut_cdi #41 - This is actually a worse strategy (doubling then adding the minimum) than the simple Martingale if you don't have an advantage over the casino (p1<0.44), and is a better strategy if you have an advantage over the casino (p1 > 0.44). | |||||
| 47 | Rogue's Strikers ID: 33732119 Tue, Aug 21, 16:29 |
lol @ 43 Was thinking the same thing... I had enough calculus last semester to last me a lifetime. NO MORE MATH! :) FWIW, I find the best game at the casino to make money is the roulette tables. Roulette is probably the game that has the odds tilted in the casino's favor the most, but thats taking one thing out of the equation: Human error. I usually watch the tables before sitting down at one for a good half an hour, looking for a tired dealer. (Someone working on that last hour of an 8 hour shift.) These guys almost always spin the ball without thinking, and more often than not they end up spinning it with about the same strength and speed. I bet on the numbers in the area of the wheel of the previous hit number and usually walk away with profit. It doesn't always work of course, as the ball can bounce wierd one time and mess you up, or the dealer might spin the ball a bit harder for no reason, but more often than not the ball will land in my selected area. I've been doing this for 3 years now, betting no more than 40$ at a 1$ table each trip to the casino. My friends and I have been keeping a running count of our profits/losses at the casino ever since we started going and right now I'm up to 850$ profit. Its not a sure thing, and I've lost all 40$ at least 10 times, but it works well enough that its the only game I feel that I have a fair chance of winning at. | |||||
| 48 | The Beezer Leader ID: 191202817 Tue, Aug 21, 18:56 |
Another point about roulette to complement Rogue's observation is that if a roulette wheel isn't perfect, and some numbers come up even slightly more than others, the odds shift to the player. Rule of thumb is that if within 76 spins you see a number come up 6 or more times, it's better than 90% that the wheel is favoring that number to the player's advantage. 5 or less, and it's generally just luck of the draw. Can't say that I've actually used this strategy, so YMMV. | |||||
| 49 | James K Polk ID: 4455731 Tue, Aug 21, 19:12 |
I'm not a gambler and never have been, but I find the subject somehow fascinating. I've enjoyed reading this thread, and enjoy hearing people who actually know stuff about gambling discuss the subject. In that vein, I recently ran across a well-written, fantastic account at kuro5hin.org of someone's casino gambling experiences. Thought I'd throw a link here for anyone interested. Here's the intro the writer provided: "In 1990, our neighboring state of Mississippi legalized gambling. Two years later, for the first time in my life I walked into a casino. This was the beginning of an odyssey which would, more through faith in math and hard work than luck, and against all normal expectation, turn my debt into a healthy savings. It would see me develop an appreciation for 60-year-old Scotch and and US$50 steaks. It would show me a great deal of the excitement and drama people go to casinos for. And in the end it would leave me and my friends with a deep, abiding hatred of these places and a terrible understanding of how they affect most of their clientele." It's a four-part story, and here's a link to Part One. Links are provided to the next section at the bottom of each part. The writer obviously comes to a moral conclusion about casinos, but that's not why I'm posting the link. It's just a really good tale. | |||||
| 50 | Lutefisker ID: 3175615 Tue, Aug 21, 23:18 |
Personally, the best way to win at the casino is to count cards and make sure you take all of the perks. free meals, free drinks, free shows and free motel rooms, etc will give you a pretty good deal if the tables don't wipe you out in the process. Also, several casinos have tournaments where you are not playing against the house but rather against other players. Just my 2 cents. | |||||
| 51 | winmiller Sustainer ID: 107452613 Wed, Aug 22, 00:21 |
Mr. President, Thanks for the link. It wasn't working for me when you first posted it, but it's working now. That was indeed a fascinating story. I studied up on card-counting in the 1980's after reading Ken Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack." I tried counting cards and had some very small success using card counting methods. My bankroll was far too limited to turn Blackjack into a profession. If I recall correctly, the bare minimum bankroll was 400 times the minimum bet (basic unit). In other words, if the starting bet was 5 dollars, you needed to walk into the casino with two grand. Two grand provided a 5% element of ruin. Restated that means that one time out of twenty the whole two grand would be lost. That was under ideal conditions. The expected gain was between 1 to 1.6 basic units per hour. In other words, 5 to 8 dollars per hour, if you started with a $2000 bankroll, with wide swings in the process. To try to turn the whole thing into a profession, a player would need to make more money than that. So begin multiplying. Want $25/hour? Take $10,000 to the casino and start with the green chips. Is a 5% element of ruin to risky for your blood? Then take even more money with you, knowing that you still might lose it all. In any event, I only play Blackjack for fun anymore. I don't bother counting because it is work, not fun. But, getting back to the original question posed in this thread, I have only one hard and fast rule when playing Blackjack: Never raise the bet after a losing hand. Raise the bet only after a winning hand. This will at least keep you away from sudden and devastating losing streaks, and once in a while you end up in a sudden and satisfying winning streak. But as they say, those bright lights, casino comps, and fancy buildings aren't built on the backs of the winners. Bottom line: Don't fall into the belief that you can make money in a casino unless you have a very large bankroll, a penchant for deceit, and a stone-lined stomach. | |||||
| 52 | Gangman Leader ID: 22351310 Wed, Aug 22, 06:42 |
Sludge....just being tongue in cheek. I might as well have been reading Chinese..... I bow down to your intellect. Sorry if I offended you...the slight was unintentional. | |||||
| 53 | Stuck in the Sixties Leader ID: 12451279 Wed, Aug 22, 09:49 |
For a few years in the '70s, I played professionally and I'll share this only because I value the people on these boards. 1 - The Martingale is a sure loser. There were many times when I lost 12-13 hands in a row. Short-term probability absolutely guarantees that. And keep in mind I was playing mathematically perfect blackjack. 2 - The only way to beat the game is to count. There are a number of systems out there but for any of them to succeed they must be played flawlessly. Your average winning percentage, playing perfectly, is about 1.2%. One mistake per hour will nullify that. 3 - You should take a bankroll that is 100 times your maximum bet in order to be certain that a short-term loss cannot wipe you out. 4 - Good luck Don | |||||
| 54 | Sludge Donor ID: 1440310 Wed, Aug 22, 13:37 |
Gangman - I'm not offended at all. Rather, I'm used to it. If anything, you could say that I'm saddened to constantly hear such remarks, whether made in jest or not. It's especially disheartening in a thread like this where you're trying to do your best to save someone some money before they go off and try something stupid like play a Martingale. To simplify the "proof" above, let me just say this: If the probability of winning a hand without getting blackjack is less than 44%, then you're going to lose your ass in the long run. Also, to keep this message somewhat on-topic, the way I approach gambling is that we (my wife and I) bring a certain amount of money that we feel comfortable losing. If it's lost, oh well, we had a good time at the tables drinking the weak drinks and talking with the dealer and people around us. If we win, woo hoo! We don't go in there planning on winning anything to buy a new (insert toy), and the one thing we won't do is chase after lost money. I think that's when a person has crossed the line from recreational gambling to a problem. | |||||
| 55 | Myboyjack Leader ID: 4443038 Wed, Aug 22, 14:08 | Nice article JKP. Thanks for the link. | |||||
| 56 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Wed, Aug 22, 15:04 | Oh man, This is an awsome thread! Next time my buddy throws down a casino night I am going to take him for all he is worth! Which is about $250 bucks. : ( | |||||
| 57 | Supermex13 ID: 337272218 Wed, Aug 22, 19:34 |
Ditto TM. Truly fascinating thread. I think I need to print this out and study for a whole weekend before going to Vegas. Heck, I better do it this weekend because I'll be going to Laughlin for Labor day. Another game I like, which lets you play for a while with little money and lots of drinks, is Pai Gow. My wife is hooked on Eazy E's game: "Let it Ride"...she won $1500 her first time playing. -Supermex13 | |||||
| 58 | Sludge ID: 56202214 Wed, Aug 22, 22:22 |
Okay... feeling industrious and curious, I wrote up a macro in Excel to simulate the game I described in the example above. It doesn't actually simulate the blackjack hands. It assumes you have a fixed probability of winning each individual hand that you can specify, and it simply generates a random number and compares it to that probability. It also assumes that the probability of a blackjack is a constant 0.0475. Anyway, it will simulate the number of strings of hands (hands played until a hand is won) you specify, and show you the net winnings after playing that many hands for every conceivable (and much more) amount of money one would (and could) bring to the casino. Description of the columns: A - Hand: Hand number in the string. B - Wager: The wager you would have to make on that hand. C - Additional BJ Win: The extra amount you would win if you hit a blackjack on that hand. D - Wins: After the macro is run, the number of wins you had on that hand number. E - BJs: After the macro is run, the number of blackjacks you had on that hand number. F - Temp: The possible (assuming enough money) addition to the net winnings. G - Money to Wager: How much money do you have to wager? Pick your level, and... H - Winnings: ...your winnings after playing the specified number of strings is given. I - Probability of Winning: Probability of winning a hand (blackjacks included). Set right now at the "break even" point, 0.4875 = 0.44+0.0475. J - Num Strings to Play: How many strings of hands do you feel like playing? Note: It does not assume that after you've lost all your money at a certain level that you quit and go home. In a sense, it assumes that you go home, make some more money, and go back to the casino for more punishment. To see if you would have gone home or not, just watch the cell in Col H corresponding to your level of Money to Wager in Col G. If that ever goes negative, you went bust and went home. (I could keep track of it, but that would slow down the macro considerably. It takes long enough for only 10,000 strings as it is.) Anyway, specify the value for I2 and J2, and push the "Run Simulation" button, and watch it go. The file can be found here. | |||||
| 59 | Sludge ID: 56202214 Wed, Aug 22, 22:28 |
Some quick notes: * I used the built-in random number generator in Excel, and I have no idea how good it is. * If you want to simulate a game that has no blackjack (i.e., all payouts are 1-1), just make every value in column C 0. * No bells and whistles. Probably nowhere near bug free. Just quick and dirty and, hopefully, error free where it counts. | |||||
| 60 | Lutefisker ID: 7712310 Thu, Aug 23, 10:04 |
Do you know what they call it when a person wins a small amount of cash or a small jackpot at a casino? The insiders term for a small jackpot is: "short term loan" | |||||
| 61 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Thu, Aug 23, 10:11 |
"Uncategorized Personal Pages are Restricted." Was looking forward to trying out your little program Sludge but I am at work. DAMN! | |||||
| 62 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Thu, Aug 23, 10:12 | Gimme an email, and I'll send it to ya as an attachment. | |||||
| 63 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Thu, Aug 23, 11:40 | There you go! | |||||
| 64 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Thu, Aug 23, 12:05 | On its way. One thing of note is that the "Winnings" column is actually the gross winnings, and not the net winnings. | |||||
| 65 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Thu, Aug 23, 12:55 |
The house ALWAYS has the advantage. You proved that the Martingale betting system is a loser in the long run. But its better to use the maringale (Assuming you had the $$)Then just going through the motions and drinking free booze no? (actually, They never give me free booze..Why is that?) | |||||
| 66 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Thu, Aug 23, 14:20 |
because you're 12? ;) See Sludge #46 - he doesn't provide a proof (what's wrong with him!), but he does claim (and I believe him) that playing constant bet blackjack using the decisions that provide the best odds, you're expected losses are lower than martingale. | |||||
| 67 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Thu, Aug 23, 15:05 |
bili - Yeah, I provided proof. It's in #42. I just didn't feel like pointing out to you that I answered your question before you even asked it. :) For the case when it's negative, the expected net loss is minimized when n=0 (n only goes from 1 to 20 in the graph). n=0 represents the game where you bet 1 unit every time, or play without the Martingale system. The_Mentors - The following is exactly what makes playing a Martingale so attractive to people: "If I have enough money, say $1,000,000 times the minimum bet, the chances of me walking away from the table a loser are extremely small." That is an accurate statement. The chances are extremely small. For example, being as optimistic as possible (p1 = 0.4875, the break-even point), the chance of losing 21 hands in a row is only 0.0000008, or about 1 in 1,248,615. But what people fail to consider is the number of strings of hands you'd have to play to make any reasonable amount of money when compared to what you started with. The program defaults to 10,000 strings of hands (a little more than 20,000 total hands of blackjack, on average). The probability of at least one of those strings of hands going past 21 hands becomes 1-0.9999992^10,000 = 0.008, or 1 in 125. Let me summarize. If you play about 20,000 ($1 minimum) hands using the Martingale, and you started with 1,000,000, 124 out of 125 times, you'd walk away with an average $8,000 more than you started with. 1 out of 125 times, however, you'd lose your $1,000,000. Is that a gamble you'd wanna take? Furthermore, if you had $1,000,000 to gamble, are you gonna put it on the line to only make $8,000? I'd just as soon put it all on Red or Black on a Roulette table or on the Pass Line at a Craps table. At least then, you'd get to stay in the high roller's suite. They might not notice you sitting at a $1 table. :) No free drinks? What kind of casino you playing at? | |||||
| 68 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Thu, Aug 23, 16:10 | D'oh! Sorry sludge. You caught me in skimming mode. | |||||
| 69 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Fri, Aug 24, 14:40 |
124 out of 125 times, you'd walk away with an average $8,000" Any way(increasing your min bet?) to lower your chances of winning and increasing your avg from $8,000? | |||||
| 70 | Sludge Donor ID: 1440310 Fri, Aug 24, 14:46 | Yeah, there sure is. Find a casino that'll let you make a $1,000,000 bet, and play one hand using basic strategy. You've got a 41-43% chance (depending on house rules) of walking out with $2,000,000, and a 5% chance of walking out with $2,500,000. Of course, that leaves a better than 50% chance that you'll leave broke, but like I like to say, "yous rolls the dice, and yous takes your chances." | |||||
| 71 | The_Mentors ID: 9432248 Fri, Aug 24, 14:53 | So I have a better chance just playing my normal game of BJ. Screw the merenge! | |||||
| 72 | perk9600 ID: 4542177 Fri, Aug 24, 15:13 | It seems to me this would be maybe a little more effective blaying BLACK/RED on the roulette table. The odds seem about the same, but you don't have to worry about when to split, double down etc. You place the bet and watch the ball go. Just an opinion. Of course you have no potential black jack so all you could possibly win is 5$ more than what you put down. But I just thought I would toss it out there. | |||||
| 73 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Fri, Aug 24, 17:32 |
perk - I'd actually go for the Pass Line in Craps. It's a better bet. | |||||
| 74 | kev ID: 36925310 Fri, Aug 24, 17:44 |
The pass line is a better bet than RED/Black in roulette, but you can lose your money astonishly faster, if you back bet the line. I tend to think this idea would work well playing the darkside in craps. The odds you can place are lower, and winnings will take more of a time, but at a percentage, it is a better bet I beieve (mathmaticians, take into account, I am not one) | |||||
| 75 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Fri, Aug 24, 18:16 |
Pretty much all I do is roll the dice when I go to a casino - most fun AND best odds - especially when they let me back up my $15 pass line bet with $50! You have to be ready to lose at least $300 (often fairly quickly) to take advantage of these odds, however. You can win a ton of jack just as quickly, however. | |||||
| 76 | kev ID: 36925310 Fri, Aug 24, 18:30 |
billi- YES! Another craps player. I myself usually just bet the pass line, but lately, I have been watching the game a bit before joining in. I wait for a hot streak, and if a couple good rolls have gone by, I will bet the darkside, and watch as the table turns to crappy rolls. I stick to that until I get to roll, and I try and see what I can do on the pass line. It works pretty good. You can get burned sometimes, but if you play the "dont pass" line, and you get a quick roller, in and out, your making good money. | |||||
| 77 | kev ID: 36925310 Fri, Aug 24, 18:30 |
billi- YES! Another craps player. I myself usually just bet the pass line, but lately, I have been watching the game a bit before joining in. I wait for a hot streak, and if a couple good rolls have gone by, I will bet the darkside, and watch as the table turns to crappy rolls. I stick to that until I get to roll, and I try and see what I can do on the pass line. It works pretty good. You can get burned sometimes, but if you play the "dont pass" line, and you get a quick roller, in and out, your making good money. | |||||
| 78 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Fri, Aug 24, 18:33 | The odds are the same - pass or don't pass - and it is more fun (for me) winning when every else is, so I don't play Darth too much. | |||||
| 79 | kev ID: 36925310 Fri, Aug 24, 18:44 |
See, Im a class one jerk. I like cheering when I hear "7 out, 7 out, 7 out" I dont get to high five many people, but I like winning money, while peope swear at me. | |||||
| 80 | Sludge Donor ID: 113368 Sat, Aug 25, 00:27 | According to thewizardofodds.com, Don't Pass is slightly more advantageous to the player than Pass. Link | |||||
| 81 | James K Polk ID: 23754811 Tue, Sep 03, 2002, 20:44 |
Another good article in the Sept. 2002 issue of WIRED. Hacking Las Vegas For six years in the 1990s, Kevin Lewis was a principal member of the MIT Blackjack Team, an infamous cabal of hyper-geniuses and anarchistic whiz kids who devised a method of card counting that took the gaming world completely by surprise. Funded, in part, by shadowy investors and trained in mock casinos set up in classrooms, dingy apartments, and underground warehouses across Boston, Lewis and his gang used their smarts to give themselves an incredible advantage at the only truly beatable game in the pit. A baby-faced card-counting team possessed with impressive mathematical skills — here was a novelty that turned blackjack into an arbitrage opportunity. Their system was so successful, it took nearly two years before the casinos began to catch on — engaging in a cat-and-mouse war with the well-trained MIT conspirators. | |||||
| 82 | balls Donor ID: 193311316 Tue, Sep 03, 2002, 23:47 | I enjoyed that article. Thanks, Mr Prez. | |||||
| 83 | Donkey Hunter Sustainer ID: 55220159 Wed, Sep 04, 2002, 00:10 | I played craps one time. The guy rolled 3 consecutive 3's and I never played again. | |||||
| 84 | Rogue's Strikers ID: 278536 Wed, Sep 04, 2002, 00:38 | Pretty cool article Prez. I wish I wasn't only 13 in 1994... lol | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||