Blackjack Card Counting...

[tedtodd]

i've just read "Bringing Down the House" about the MIT card counting team that made bundles of $$$. it's a great book!

i've been using this card-counting method for the past year and my wins are certainly outnumbering my losses now, but i can't seem to "get over the hump" when i play. the book has really given me the bug to try this system again, it's just that i've only had minimal success with it.

please share your thoughts or experiences with card-counting...
any big wins? do u believe in it?

also any thoughts on shuffle tracking- not for individual cards but maybe a 20-30 card "hot" section of the decks.

[Jezebel]

I used to play quite a bit of BJ using the "Knock Out" count system. Counting the cards was always the easy part, getting big action on the table unnoticed was the tricky part. Also if you count perfectly your edge is still very small, probably around 1.5% at best. It can take A LOT of hours to see the long run counting cards, even longer than playing poker. Combine the above with the fact that most games are unplayable due to penetration issues and it is clearly a hard way to make easy money. The most sucessful counters are the ones that have a great cover, such as the wild and crazy druken girlfriend on their lap calling out amounts to bet.

If you sit there like a nit, varying your bets and showing no emotion your career as a counter will not last long.

Good luck and let us know how its going occassionally.

P.S. - Also, shuffle tracking is for chumps. You'd be better off going out to buy a craps system.

[Homer]

P.S. - Also, shuffle tracking is for chumps. You'd be better off going out to buy a craps system.

Can you elaborate? I'm faily certain you have shuffle tracking confused with card clumping.

-- Homer

[Jezebel]

Homer, you are correct. I was thinking of card clumping.

I have never tried shuffle tracking, but as I remember it did have a mathematical basis and helped you decide where to cut the deck, and favorable parts of the deck. Is that correct? I was never a pro BJ player and this seemed like much more work for a teeny extra edge, so I never pursued it. Learing to count cards efficiently was tough enough /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[charlie_t_jr]

Bringing Down the House is a fun read. But there's not much practical advice from the book, that you could put to use in the real world. It's been awhile since I read it, but it seems they used the Hi/Lo system. Problem is, that through out the book, the runnig count was mentioned. With the Hi/Lo, you have to convert the running count, to true count, based on number of decks left in play.

If running count and true count are foriegn to you, then your not applying the count system right. As I said, its a fun read, but if you want to learn to count, using Hi/Lo, get Professional Blackjack, by Wong. Or as Jezebel mentioned get the Knockout Blackjack book...matter of fact, you can go to the KO website, and the "rookie" system is explained for free. Beyond that get Blackjack Attack.

Counting cards does indeed work, but the variance can be a killer...have fun & good luck!

[OnlinePokerCoach]

Card counting works but the swings are deadly and (unlike poker) you are going against the casino. They have therefore made card counting "illegal." I consider poker a much easier game to beat, since you only have to beat other players (and the rake). On the other hand, I was recently debating this very point with a fellow who has successfully played BJ for many years. He had not tried poker, but insisted BJ was easier because it was just a numbers system and did not involve the human element of poker.

[bogey]

In response to: "Counting the cards was always the easy part, getting big action on the table unnoticed was the tricky part."
"If you sit there like a nit, varying your bets and showing no emotion your career as a counter will not last long."

As a former casino surveillance officer, I thought I would throw in my 2 cents on this issue. You can definitely get enough of a spread to make playing profitable. However, you are definitely right about getting big action on the tables. (By big action I mean at least purple ($500 chips)). But if your just starting, you can get away with a $5-$60 spread as long as you want. The trick to getting away with big action and spreads now is to table hop a lot. Pit bosses hardly do anything anymore except call upstairs when they notice a big bet. Thus, when we get a call for a big bet, and it is the middle of a shoe there is usually nothing that anyone can do or cares to. So I'd recommend just hopping tables after getting a real hot shoe. That way its very hard to get enough hands documented to "prove" you were counting cards. Contrary to popular belief, the casino doesn't like kicking out patrons who most likely are just playing a hunch. And trust me, no one cares about the emotion or how you "look" while your playing the hand. The only time this might matter, is for team play, just for the purpose of not seeming togethor. But, if your just playing by yourself, dont worry about disguising anything and certainly do not make any not mathematically correct plays for the sake of advertising.

So all that being said, as Jezebel pointed out the real trick is finding games that are even beatable while counting anymore. I at least missed the 70's and early 80's when card counting could have been very profitable. It is much harder these days, although still definitely doable. But don't fret we're now in the age of online poker!!!

Good luck.

PS. Don't place ANY merit at all in that book, Bringing Down the House. I would pretty much take it at best as a fun read with very loose mathematical relevance. (And to glorify MIT for doing absolutely nothing new.) Kind of like how Rounders relates to playing poker. <font color="red"> </font>

[tedtodd]

i've been practicing the hi-lo system of card counting over the past year- and the book has really just re-sparked my interest.
i'd say that i've had BETTER results counting than when i didn't count in the past- i can keep a good count and tend to have more "educated guesses" for when to hit or stay and ultimately i have been winning more often. winning is relative- out of 10 trips to foxwoods in the past year, i've only won over $1000 once, and the rest were couple hundred dollar wins or losses- pretty evenly split.
but you guys are right about the swings- i'll play the minimum bet until i get a good "true count" (factoring in the number of decks)then up it to $50-$75 with the occassional Black Action, and these bets only get me back to even and mostly wash themselves out.
eventually i'll hit a winning streak with my bigger hands, but my results so far don't justify a larger wager.

i think the MIT crew was successful because they were able to play so many big hands- counting does favor you a small %, but you need a large enough sample size for it work. they could play +2000 big hands in a weekend- and a small % of 2000 big bets = a lot of money.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
i can keep a good count and tend to have more "educated guesses" for when to hit or stay and ultimately i have been winning more often.

[/ QUOTE ]


When you say "winning more often", I'm not sure if you mean more winning sessions, or winning more hands. If I misunderstand, I apologize. But, with counting, you don't really win more hands. For the most part, you still win or lose the same number. Counting tells when to increase your bet, when the player is at an advantage. The players advantage really comes from the spread of bets, from the lowest to the highest.

That's why if say, you're playing a 6 deck game, and playing all hands, and using a small spread...you could be the best counter in the casino, but you would be playing a neg ev game....without the spread.