Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

While counting cards today to make money is mostly a myth--thanks to the software and safeguards casinos utilize that effectively combat every counter but the occasional "anonymous professional" who can basically make up any scenario they want without having to back up what they claim--doing so has never helped anyone make millions year after year. If counters were lucky, they supplemented whatever primary income they already had.

While people like Stanford Wong and his silly "Wonging" concept has had the "advantage player community" continually going gaga over everything he says and writes, he cunningly makes them look the other way as his real life's earnings has come via the same method most Americans make their living: hard work. In his case, he writes about and sells casino gaming strategies. Period. Good work Stan!

While all this has been going on, Don Johnson has simply and methodically made fools of everyone in the blackjack community by winning millions upon millions, year after year. With him, there has never been any of the nonsense people sell when he plays. He sticks to a solid understanding of the game, playing basic strategy, and most of all--he uses a healthy enough bankroll that allows him to easily get through the dry spells. In other words, he uses his head and does not waste his time trying to count cards and being undetected at the same time--something nobody can really do in the long term today.

DJ is a big name who plays big. You can see how his hefty bankroll makes him a winner in an otherwise "-EV" setting. Well, how many of you bazookas know anyone who only plays mostly -ev video poker, and who does so with a $171,600 overall bankroll....and $57,200/session....with a relatively paltry win goal of $2500? And consistently wins!

I think you're starting to get the point.

I don't know a damned thing about current blackjack, as I haven't played in more than 25 years, and I played so little, I don't recall if I ever really knew what I was doing. LOL. But Argentino/Singer is once again not being terribly honest in his reporting. Don Johnson, and this is ridiculously well known, won money playing negative EV blackjack because he suckered competing casinos into giving him loss rebates on short-term bases, sometimes just days. So he used his bankroll as a lure to sucker brain-dead management into offering large, short-term rebates, therefore flipping the numbers, and creating...are you ready for this? An obvious advantage play.

Now if I know this, and I don't know diddly about blackjack, and I don't stay particularly well-informed regarding various whale action, how can the inestimable Argentino not know this? So if Argentino gets the basic fundamentals of what Don Johnson does wrong, why even post such gibberish? In fact, Don Johnson's manipulation of repeated, competing rebates is a complete rejection of the Argentino theory that rebates have minimal value.

Man, there had to be a better example than Don Johnson to peddle voodoo.

Although I did like him a lot in Miami Vice.

From the various articles I've read and the interviews and programs I watched Johnson used every tool possible to beat the casinos INCLUDING card counting. But it was his giant bankroll that opened the door to the special rules and rebates that he says gave him the advantage. Out of all the articles and videos I saw only one actual reference to card counting and hole carding and in that case "an associate" of Johnson was playing at the table.

Card counting is proven to work. The question is can you do it undetected long enough to make enough?

What Redietz said. That is among the stupidest OPs I have ever read. Even if there were no card counting, he definitely used AP tactics that would, in Singer's terms, disqualify him from, "Winning at gambling."

Alan, depends on how much is, "Enough," does it not?

Casinos do stupid shit sometimes for big money to come in, even against proven advantage players. If Don Johnson isn't enough of an example, just look at the two casinos that rolled out the carpet for Phil Ivey at Baccarat.

There's no question that if you are known to bet big the casinos will welcome you and give you special "terms." Didn't Ivey ask for a particular dealer and brand of cards?

The casinos think they can't lose until someone shows they can lose.

But can any "regular player" get those same terms? Money talks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

From the various articles I've read and the interviews and programs I watched Johnson used every tool possible to beat the casinos INCLUDING card counting. But it was his giant bankroll that opened the door to the special rules and rebates that he says gave him the advantage. Out of all the articles and videos I saw only one actual reference to card counting and hole carding and in that case "an associate" of Johnson was playing at the table.

Card counting is proven to work. The question is can you do it undetected long enough to make enough?

---

Exactly! He used NUMEROUS AP techniques during his run.

As for Rob's post, he's partially correct. CC'ing is a very slow, tough grind. But there is still money to be made at it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There's no question that if you are known to bet big the casinos will welcome you and give you special "terms." Didn't Ivey ask for a particular dealer and brand of cards?

The casinos think they can't lose until someone shows they can lose.

But can any "regular player" get those same terms? Money talks.

---

Oh, Christ, more than that!

He asked for a specific dealer, a specific brand of cards, he wanted the dealer to speak the language of his accomplice, he asked the dealer to TURN THE CARDS FOR HIM (edge-sorting) before returning them to the shoe, he wanted the same cards to be used during his entire trip...I wrote an entire article about it if you're interested:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/i...highest-court/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gratuitous Quote of My Own Article

If there is one thing that poker and baccarat have in common it is the fact that they are both gambling games, so when one of the greatest poker players in the history of the world is eager to play any sort of gambling game at your casino, you can probably bet your sweet ass that he is going to be at some sort of advantage. The nice thing about making that bet, of course, is that you won’t be losing your ass!

---

I agree with mission. This is the stupidest post Rob has ever made. And that is saying something because many of his posts qualify as stupid and are in contention.

Don Johnson has absolutely nothing to do with card counting. I don't know why anyone would bring up Don Johnson's advantage play in the same breath as card counting. Johnson's advantage came from the lucrative rebates that he negotiated with the casinos. What he did has little to even do with blackjack. He could have played almost any casino game under those terms and played with a huge advantage. He chose blackjack because it has one of the lower house edges, under 1% in most cases.

AND Rob is wrong as he almost always is, in that Johnson could not do this year after year. His play lasted about 6 months, in 2011 and that was the end. Casinos stopped giving him that rebate.

Obviously this thread was Rob's answer to my thread and posts discrediting his video poker claims. The difference is that I used mathematics to prove Rob's claims impossible. He came up with some weird story that isn't even about card counting and got most of the facts wrong. ;)

Oddly enough, the only useful thing I see so far in this thread, is a comment by Alan Mendelson of all people. Giving credit where credit is due, I am quoting the comment, below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Card counting is proven to work. The question is can you do it undetected long enough to make enough?

---

In a rare moment of clarity (maybe the blind squirrel theory), Alan is 100% correct. Card counting is proven to work. And the challenge in today's environment is to figure ways to be able to get play in. But it is less about being "undetectable" than it is about identifying what tolerance and comfort levels are. This has to do with betting levels, session lengths and session wins, which all tie in together. Short sessions at moderate levels takes care of everything.....at least for now.

But I do worry about how long I, or any other card counter really has. Time and technology are definitely working against us. BUT players have been saying that since the day I started and that was 15 years ago. I think we have another 5 years. No guarantees after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There's no question that if you are known to bet big the casinos will welcome you and give you special "terms." Didn't Ivey ask for a particular dealer and brand of cards?

The casinos think they can't lose until someone shows they can lose.

But can any "regular player" get those same terms? Money talks.

---

Oh, Christ, more than that!

He asked for a specific dealer, a specific brand of cards, he wanted the dealer to speak the language of his accomplice, he asked the dealer to TURN THE CARDS FOR HIM (edge-sorting) before returning them to the shoe, he wanted the same cards to be used during his entire trip...I wrote an entire article about it if you're interested:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/i...highest-court/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gratuitous Quote of My Own Article

If there is one thing that poker and baccarat have in common it is the fact that they are both gambling games, so when one of the greatest poker players in the history of the world is eager to play any sort of gambling game at your casino, you can probably bet your sweet ass that he is going to be at some sort of advantage. The nice thing about making that bet, of course, is that you won’t be losing your ass!

---

---

About Ivey. 8:19-8:26 says it all.

https://youtu.be/YSPD1iWcyYY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I agree with mission. This is the stupidest post Rob has ever made. And that is saying something because many of his posts qualify as stupid and are in contention.

Don Johnson has absolutely nothing to do with card counting. I don't know why anyone would bring up Don Johnson's advantage play in the same breath as card counting. Johnson's advantage came from the lucrative rebates that he negotiated with the casinos. What he did has little to even do with blackjack. He could have played almost any casino game under those terms and played with a huge advantage. He chose blackjack because it has one of the lower house edges, under 1% in most cases.

AND Rob is wrong as he almost always is, in that Johnson could not do this year after year. His play lasted about 6 months, in 2011 and that was then end. Casinos stopped giving him that rebate.

Obviously this thread was Rob's answer to my thread and posts discrediting his video poker claims. The difference is that I used mathematics to prove Rob's claims impossible. He came up with some weird story that isn't even about card counting and got most of the facts wrong. ;)

Oddly enough, the only useful thing I see so far in this thread, is a comment by Alan Mendelson of all people. Giving credit where credit is due, I am quoting the comment, below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Card counting is proven to work. The question is can you do it undetected long enough to make enough?

---

In a rare moment of clarity (maybe the blind squirrel theory), Alan is 100% correct. Card counting is proven to work. And the challenge in today's environment is to figure ways to be able to get play in. But it is less about being "undetectable" than it is about identifying what tolerance and comfort levels are. This has to do with betting levels, session lengths and session wins, which all tie in together. Short sessions at moderate levels takes care of everything.....at least for now.

But I do worry about how long I, or any other card counter really has. Time and technology are definitely working against us. BUT players have been saying that since the day I started and that was 15 years ago. I think we have another 5 years. No guarantees after that.

---

Ahh, but he WAS counting, ST'ing, HC,ing, and causing huge dealer errors.

Don Johnson made a fool of those who think loss rebates have no value. Lose $1 million, I only owe $800,000. Win $1 million, I’ll keep it all. Rinse and repeat. That was an extraordinarily EV+ play.

JBJB,

That's a great quote! We need a thank you button here. This feels like a wasted post, but I wanted to acknowledge how good a quote you highlighted.

Card counting is the biggest #fake news I’ve heard in a long time. It makes people think that they can beat blackjack, despite there being a built in house edge mechanism. Like people thinking they have a negative EV video poker system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Don Johnson made a fool of those who think loss rebates have no value. Lose $1 million, I only owe $800,000. Win $1 million, I’ll keep it all. Rinse and repeat. That was an extraordinarily EV+ play.

---

My understanding is that DJ never used the loss rebate...he had it, but never needed it.

If he never used the rebate, then how did it affect his results?

Kewlj you have a short memory. I've said that before about card counting. It's proven to work when you can do it.

You might not have been on this forum when I told about a video editor I worked with at KCAL. He was a very good card counter but blew it because he didn't hide it.

The story I told was about a weekend we had in Vegas about 15 years ago where we played craps with a half dozen other reporters and editors from KCAL. My buddy lost big. On the drive home we stopped at Primm and he wanted to play blackjack.

$5 tables so I joined in though I hate the game. His blunder: he went from $5 bets to a single $100 bet when the count changed and the pit boss came over and simply said "stop."

They let him continue to play but no more of those big increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Don Johnson made a fool of those who think loss rebates have no value. Lose $1 million, I only owe $800,000. Win $1 million, I’ll keep it all. Rinse and repeat. That was an extraordinarily EV+ play.

---

My understanding is that DJ never used the loss rebate...he had it, but never needed it.

If he never used the rebate, then how did it affect his results?

---

The loss rebate was just one thing he negotiated. I think the most interesting thing he did was having others at the table to cause the dealers to make errors. He gloated about that. Plus his special rules. And all of it was because he had a big bankroll.

Didn't some big Microsoft exec negotiate to have a special video poker paytable at Caesars because he had a bankroll?

Of course he used the loss rebate. It was a “marker reduction” of 20%. After he was down a certain amount (usually $1mm but sometimes as little as $500k) he would end the trip, Pay back only 80% his loss, and start up the same play down the street.

Massive advantage play if you only pay 80% of your losses but collect 100% of your winnings. He had the same deal with 3-4 casinos in AC. It didn’t last long since he was crushing them with it.

Dankyone summed it up admirably.

Now here's the thing. The original poster has been silent. No f****** kidding. How is he going to try to spin this embarrassment of misinformation on his part? That he's given us the great insight that big bankrolls are advantageous? That "big bankrolls" are an advantage play? LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Of course he used the loss rebate. It was a “marker reduction” of 20%. After he was down a certain amount (usually $1mm but sometimes as little as $500k) he would end the trip, Pay back only 80% his loss, and start up the same play down the street.

---

That's not the way I read that it happened.

Johnson was quoted that he never even used the rebate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

While counting cards today to make money is mostly a myth--thanks to the software and safeguards casinos utilize that effectively combat every counter but the occasional "anonymous professional" who can basically make up any scenario they want without having to back up what they claim--doing so has never helped anyone make millions year after year. If counters were lucky, they supplemented whatever primary income they already had.
.

---

Well Rob, let's put it this way. I wouldn't play without exact knowledge of what has played, and more importantly, what still remains. My shoes are on my feet. My ladies shoes fill two closets. And, that's all I have to say about that.

No. I wouldn't touch a pitch game with a conventional count. I'm not saying it's bad or can't return income with patience and discipline. I am saying it's not worth my time for several reasons.

However, the only supplemental income I know is what I give to my kids. So I can't complain about what the game gives to me. But it's work. Still a damn good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Dankyone summed it up admirably.

Now here's the thing. The original poster has been silent. No f****** kidding. How is he going to try to spin this embarrassment of misinformation on his part? That he's given us the great insight that big bankrolls are advantageous? That "big bankrolls" are an advantage play? LOL.

---

Rob is not totally wrong. Don Johnson only got his deals because of his big bankroll.

What we DO NOT KNOW is how much impact card counting had on his winning. Does anyone know? I saw only one reference to card counting and it was done by an "associate" playing with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Of course he used the loss rebate. It was a “marker reduction” of 20%. After he was down a certain amount (usually $1mm but sometimes as little as $500k) he would end the trip, Pay back only 80% his loss, and start up the same play down the street.

Massive advantage play if you only pay 80% of your losses but collect 100% of your winnings. He had the same deal with 3-4 casinos in AC. It didn’t last long since he was crushing them with it.

---

Hold it a second. If he won at the table he would have to pay back all markers before he got any cash. I'm sure they watched him like a hawk considering his special deal.

So if he only won at the tables (and I don't know that he did) there was no marker reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Of course he used the loss rebate. It was a “marker reduction” of 20%. After he was down a certain amount (usually $1mm but sometimes as little as $500k) he would end the trip, Pay back only 80% his loss, and start up the same play down the street.

---

That's not the way I read that it happened.

Johnson was quoted that he never even used the rebate.

---

You know, does anyone else find it strange that coach's responses in this thread sound like one might imagine an uninformed "Rob Singer" might throw out there when baffled at how wrong his information was? Evidently coach and "Rob" use the same library. They both must have "read that it happened" the same way.

Of course he didn’t always or only win, Alan. If he lost on a trip, he paid off 80% of what he owed and the markers were considered clear. Meanwhile he could start a trip at another hotel down the street, or come back next week to the same one and do it all over again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...c-city/308900/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Dankyone summed it up admirably.

Now here's the thing. The original poster has been silent. No f****** kidding. How is he going to try to spin this embarrassment of misinformation on his part? That he's given us the great insight that big bankrolls are advantageous? That "big bankrolls" are an advantage play? LOL.

---

Rob is not totally wrong. Don Johnson only got his deals because of his big bankroll.

What we DO NOT KNOW is how much impact card counting had on his winning. Does anyone know? I saw only one reference to card counting and it was done by an "associate" playing with him.

---

Jesus, Mr. Mendelson, who has "consulted for casinos," informs us that large bankrolls get advantageous treatment. Maybe even free drinks! Tomorrow's intrepid headlines: "Sky is blue. Sun came up. Stay tuned."

Yes, big bankrolls are an advantage play. In sports books, a big enough bankroll can get you -105 some places. That's been going on at least 30 years. Check in tomorrow for more expert revelations. Same bat time. Same bat channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Of course he didn’t always or only win, Alan. If he lost on a trip, he paid off 80% of what he owed and the markers were considered clear. Meanwhile he could start a trip at another hotel down the street, or come back next week to the same one and do it all over again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...c-city/308900/

---

Dankyone, let them do their own homework. Argentino stays silent because he f***** up. Meanwhile, coach and Mendelson chime in with weirdness. If you removed the names from the posts, one would assume Argentino was writing coach's posts. It's that bad.

Then redietz you are in agreement with Rob. The big bankroll opens doors.

Thanks for stopping by.

If anyone cares to read the article, Johnson is quoted as saying “you’d never lose the million. If you got down $500,000 you’d quit and pay $400,000.

Then he would start playing elsewhere, after essentially collecting $100,000 from the marker discount.

If he won, he would just keep playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Then he would start playing elsewhere

---

I recall reading Johnson quoted as saying he never used the loss rebate.

I'll try to find that quote, as I'm sure I read it online years ago.

I did skim through the Atlantic Monthly article,
and it doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate.

If it does say that, then post the quote, because I must have missed it.

What the article does say right at the top is this...

Atlantic Monthly April 2012
Don Johnson won nearly $6 million playing blackjack in one night, single-handedly decimating the monthly revenue of Atlantic City’s Tropicana casino. Not long before that, he’d taken the Borgata for $5 million and Caesars for $4 million.

If he won $6 mil in one night at the Trop, before they cut him off,
then how could have used his loss rebate for that trip?

And where did he/would he have gone "down the street" to play if he had lost at Trop,
as Caesars and Borgata were no longer taking his action under the loss rebate conditions?

There is no mention that he lost at Borgata, took the rebate and played elsewhere,
or that he lost at Caesars, took the rebate and played elsewhere.

In a 50-50 game, you’re taking basically the same risk as the house,
but if you get lucky and start out winning, you have little incentive to stop.

So when Johnson got far enough ahead in his winning sprees, he reasoned that he might as well keep playing.

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.

LOLZ @Singer. What a fucking retard. Attempts to disparage card counters but ends up shooting himself in the foot with his total cluelessness. Priceless stuff from the full of shit greaseball. LOLZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

If anyone cares to read the article, Johnson is quoted as saying “you’d never lose the million. If you got down $500,000 you’d quit and pay $400,000.

Then he would start playing elsewhere, after essentially collecting $100,000 from the marker discount.

If he won, he would just keep playing.

---

This is his description of his strategy. Has anyone actually seen an accounting of his play? In other words everyone here is just arguing about their guesses. This is typical of forums. I never saw a ledger or record of Johnsons play, so I don't know if he ever used a rebate or not. And does it really make a difference? The bottom line is he won a lot of money with special rules made possible because he had a big bankroll and played big.

That's what we know from the various reports.

We don't know how often he used rebates or what the bottom line value was for the rebates. We don't even know the impact card counting had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is his description of his strategy...everyone here is just arguing about their guesses.

---

Correct, his strategy may have been to quit if down by $500K,
but Johnson is not quoted that he lost, used the rebate, and continue playing elsewhere.

Coach by now you know that everyone on Internet forums believes they have all the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We don't even know the impact card counting had.

---

Here's another quote from the Atlantic Monthly article...

The wagering of card counters assumes a clearly recognizable pattern over time, and Johnson was being watched very carefully. The verdict: card counting was not Don Johnson’s game. He had beaten the casinos fair and square.

Here's another good one...almost sounds like he's talking about using
hot and cold streaks as part of a short-term playing strategy...

Many casinos sell laminated charts in their guest shops that reveal the optimal strategy for any situation the game presents. But these odds are calculated by simulating millions of hands, and as Johnson says, “I will never see 400 million hands.”
More useful, for his purposes, is running a smaller number of hands and paying attention to variation. The way averages work, the larger the sample, the narrower the range of variation. A session of, say, 600 hands will display wider swings, with steeper winning and losing streaks, than the standard casino charts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We don't even know the impact card counting had.

---

Here's another quote from the Atlantic Monthly article...

The wagering of card counters assumes a clearly recognizable pattern over time, and Johnson was being watched very carefully. The verdict: card counting was not Don Johnson’s game. He had beaten the casinos fair and square.

---

Copied for emphasis.

When Johnson and the Trop finally agreed, he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”

Johnson is quoted above as doing exactly what I said. In the article I just posted.

Alan, he won by exploiting loss rebates. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

When Johnson and the Trop finally agreed, he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”

---

That doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate, that's what he said would happen if you lost, but that's not what did happen.

If it happened to him, then why didn't he use the first person?

He says if "you" lost, not when "I" lost.

He played one night and won $6 mil in one night...when did he lose and take the rebate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We don't know how often he used rebates or what the bottom line value was for the rebates. We don't even know the impact card counting had.

---

Yeah, but he didn’t, “Use his big bankroll to grind out the dry spells,” like Singer said. He used multiple advantage play techniques at once. It’s not like he just sat there, played basic strategy and tore the house down.

Point is he was +EV all the way and a ridiculously bad comparison to how Singer plays.

Now you guys are arguing he may not have used the rebate at all? Okay, if he didn’t, then there would be no, “Dry spells,” to get through (as Singer claimed) due to the substantial advantage the other AP elements had.

It’s one thing to ignore it if your boy steps in shit, but taking a big whiff and telling him the shit he stepped in smells good is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

While counting cards today to make money is mostly a myth--thanks to the software and safeguards casinos utilize that effectively combat every counter but the occasional "anonymous professional" who can basically make up any scenario they want without having to back up what they claim--doing so has never helped anyone make millions year after year. If counters were lucky, they supplemented whatever primary income they already had.

While people like Stanford Wong and his silly "Wonging" concept has had the "advantage player community" continually going gaga over everything he says and writes, he cunningly makes them look the other way as his real life's earnings has come via the same method most Americans make their living: hard work. In his case, he writes about and sells casino gaming strategies. Period. Good work Stan!

While all this has been going on, Don Johnson has simply and methodically made fools of everyone in the blackjack community by winning millions upon millions, year after year. With him, there has never been any of the nonsense people sell when he plays. He sticks to a solid understanding of the game, playing basic strategy, and most of all--he uses a healthy enough bankroll that allows him to easily get through the dry spells. In other words, he uses his head and does not waste his time trying to count cards and being undetected at the same time--something nobody can really do in the long term today.

DJ is a big name who plays big. You can see how his hefty bankroll makes him a winner in an otherwise "-EV" setting. Well, how many of you bazookas know anyone who only plays mostly -ev video poker, and who does so with a $171,600 overall bankroll....and $57,200/session....with a relatively paltry win goal of $2500? And consistently wins!

I think you're starting to get the point.

---

QFP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We don't even know the impact card counting had.

---

Here's another quote from the Atlantic Monthly article...

The wagering of card counters assumes a clearly recognizable pattern over time, and Johnson was being watched very carefully. The verdict: card counting was not Don Johnson’s game. He had beaten the casinos fair and square.

---

Copied for emphasis.

---

From the 888.com blog which I'll link to when I have a better internet connection:

"In fact, things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson card-counting, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards and another collaborator sequencing the deck, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way. Besides serving as distractions, the good-looking girls made small bets and ate cards when the count got bad."

https://www.888casino.com/blog/burni...of-don-johnson

Speaking of Don Johnson. I would advise against wearing bright flowery shirts in a casino. The other side see it as an out-of-towner dumb enough to carry alot of cash on them. I remember the early days. I was sick and my friend, the cocktail waitress, was giving me free hot totties for my cold for the price of a tip. Let's say I was downing them like chicken soup. I walk up to the bar to get another free one and I almost got more than that.

In trying to get her attention, I was standing next to a hooker at the bar in the middle of a negotiation. I'm proudly wearing my colorful shirt, naive as all fuck, unable to talk from a sore throat, and about half tipsy. Next thing the man on the other side thought I was cutting in...which was the furthest thing from my mind. Cocktail waitress? Yes. Hooker? O hell no. But he starts ranting "who is this Don Johnson motha fucka"? Now, I'm about to go mano with him because I thought he was talking to my cocktail waitress friend.

My buddy grabs me and explains what was really happening. I went home an threw away all my colored shirts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards

---

Is that where they stash the weak dealers that you can hole-card, at the $100K table?

jb's AP play of the month...can't wait to exploit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

When Johnson and the Trop finally agreed, he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”

---

That doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate, that's what he said would happen if you lost, but that's not what did happen.

If it happened to him, then why didn't he use the first person?

He says if "you" lost, not when "I" lost.

He played one night and won $6 mil in one night...when did he lose and take the rebate?

---

Because that’s the way some people speak for God’s sake. He was doing an interview, not writing a legal document. It is obvious what he meant.

Of course in the night he won $6 million he collected 100% of it and started another trip later or elsewhere when he may have won. Or may have collected the rebate.. That is the whole point of the entire play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Johnson is quoted above as doing exactly what I said. In the article I just posted.

Alan, he won by exploiting loss rebates. Period.

---

Yeah, what you have here is a forum with an absentee owner and two dominant posters, one of whom was a consumer reporter for KCAL who now pretends he can't actually read, and the other of whom is trying to sucker people into 25K even money wagers that he's a significant favorite to win, even though he has retired because he has all the money he needs.

Really, the forum does more harm than good with these two loose cannons. Todd/Dan should do the public a favor and shut it down.

Meanwhile, you have coach, who is apoplectic searching for a gotcha. Don't worry, coach. The Atlantic's wasn't the only major piece on the events. I'm sure if you look hard enough on your own, you'll track them down. You may have to find another library than the one you usually frequent, however. And coach, the attempt above at a gotcha -- really about three levels below your best. You need a serious vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards

---

Is that where they stash the weak dealers that you can hole-card, at the $100K table?

Can't wait to exploit them.

---

Go get them!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Is that where they stash the weak dealers that you can hole-card, at the $100K table?

jb's AP play of the month...can't wait to exploit it.

---

I also don’t think 100 k bets are conducive to getting through the dry spells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

When Johnson and the Trop finally agreed, he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”

---

That doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate, that's what he said would happen if you lost, but that's not what did happen.

If it happened to him, then why didn't he use the first person?

He says if "you" lost, not when "I" lost.

He played one night and won $6 mil in one night...when did he lose and take the rebate?

---

Because that’s the way some people speak for God’s sake. He was doing an interview, not writing a legal document. It is obvious what he meant.

Of course in the night he won $6 million he collected 100% of it and started another trip later or elsewhere when he may have won. Or may have collected the rebate.. That is the whole point of the entire play.

---

Except that's not what actually happened. He got lucky and won from the start.

He didn't lose, didn't collect the rebate, didn't leave and play elsewhere,
and he is not quoted to say that he did any of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The Atlantic's wasn't the only major piece on the events. I'm sure if you look hard enough on your own, you'll track them down.

---

I was provided a link to the Atlantic's article by Danky, I didn't need to look hard at all.

But I do recall reading a quote by Johnson claiming that he did not need or use the rebate,
that's why I replied and asked my question, and I haven't read a quote that says otherwise yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

That doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate, that's what he said would happen if you lost, but that's not what did happen.

If it happened to him, then why didn't he use the first person?

He says if "you" lost, not when "I" lost.

He played one night and won $6 mil in one night...when did he lose and take the rebate?

---

Because that’s the way some people speak for God’s sake. He was doing an interview, not writing a legal document. It is obvious what he meant.

Of course in the night he won $6 million he collected 100% of it and started another trip later or elsewhere when he may have won. Or may have collected the rebate.. That is the whole point of the entire play.

---

Except that's not what actually happened. He got lucky and won from the start.

He didn't lose, didn't collect the rebate, didn't leave and play elsewhere,
and he is not quoted to say that he did any of that.

---

LOL -- coach, you do realize your responses have a Singer-esque desperation to them?

For a man searching so hard for gotchas, I find it very strange that you let the whole Argentino tax mythology just ride with nary a question and nary a gotcha. If you're not going to at least broach the truck-size holes in his alleged tax history, you lose all of that objective veneer of yours, don't you?

And yes, there were other summaries and other major pieces on the whole shindig. It was very clear Johnson used rebates.

I'd really like to know what he got from rebates. Any additional info, articles or links?

I never liked Rob's tax claims and I called him out on it, but WTF has that got to do with this discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you're not going to at least broach the truck-size holes in his alleged tax history, you lose all of that objective veneer of yours, don't you?

---

I can't comment on tax issues, tax schedules or preparation...I just sign the forms.

If you would be so kind, please direct me to some links about the Johnson shindig,
or is it less trouble for you to print them out, wrap them up like a mental patient,
and mail to Alan so that he can corroborate everything?

You know, when you go on an Internet forum you sometimes find people you don’t agree with, so you just let go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you're not going to at least broach the truck-size holes in his alleged tax history, you lose all of that objective veneer of yours, don't you?

---

I can't comment on tax issues, tax schedules or preparation...I just sign the forms.

If you would be so kind, please direct me to some links about the Johnson shindig,
or is it less trouble for you to print them out, wrap them up like a mental patient,
and mail to Alan so that he can corroborate everything?

---

Yeah that`s what most people like teenagers and busboys that make under 20 grand a year do too, understood....and dickbrain Alan won`t corroborate shit, he never goes to the office, remember?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you're not going to at least broach the truck-size holes in his alleged tax history, you lose all of that objective veneer of yours, don't you?

---

I can't comment on tax issues, tax schedules or preparation...I just sign the forms.

If you would be so kind, please direct me to some links about the Johnson shindig,
or is it less trouble for you to print them out, wrap them up like a mental patient,
and mail to Alan so that he can corroborate everything?

---

I didn't know your expertise was a limiting factor in your search for gotchas. Evidently you must be an expert on whale-size rebates, card-counting, and the Atlantic interviewers, or you wouldn't be commenting, eh?

More than half a million people read the Atlantic, and I suspect those who read that piece and decided Johnson was not getting rebates are restricted to this forum. Coach, why don't you send an email off to the author and ask him if Johnson used his rebates? That should settle it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

If you would be so kind, please direct me to some links about the Johnson shindig

---

Check the gambling with an edge archives for the first interview with Don Johnson, probably some time in 2012.

If I recall correctly, coach belly is correct in that I believe he used the rebate 1 time. He won 4 to 6 million at 3 different casinos totaling 15 million. 2 of those casinos, Tropicana and not sure the other....maybe Caesars, were a single winning session of between 4 and 6 million, so the rebate didn't actually come into play. The third Casino was Borgata and the 4-6 million he won there was over 3 or 4 sessions, one a losing session that he collected the rebate and the other sessions winning sessions that he did not.

So while coach belly is correct that the rebate wasn't directly responsible for the wins and he just happened to get lucky and have winning sessions, that doesn't change the fact that the rebate was in effect....in effect making it so he was playing with an advantage, even though as it turned out he didn't need the rebate on those sessions. Sort of along the lines of a free roll. I believe Don stated that he would not have even been playing, if not for the rebate, or wouldn't have been playing the amounts (100k/hand) that he was. So the rebate is still very much part of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I didn't know your expertise was a limiting factor in your search for gotchas. Evidently you must be an expert on whale-size rebates, card-counting, and the Atlantic interviewers, or you wouldn't be commenting, eh?

---

My comment was based on what I had read, a quote from Johnson himself where he claimed
not to have needed or used the rebate. Apparently a GWAE interview with DJ confirms that.

I asked how not using the rebate would affect his results.

Others replied to my comment...insisting that he had used the rebates.

As it turns out, my recollection seems to be correct...he did not.

On a very smaller scale, Casino Royale on the strip has a 20% rebate for machine play.

They have a $20 100% rebate for new players, that most people know about, but they also have a 20% loss rebate for returning players.

So you can go in on Monday lose $100 and get $20 back for a net loss of $80. Then go in on Tuesday and win $100 and keep the $100. In theory big player advantage. Unfortunately after collecting the rebate twice, they usually put an end to it, even though there is no written rule limiting usage.

Silver Seven had a similar rebate back when they were still Terrible's for table games. It was also 20%. Go in one day and play blackjack and lose $500 and you get $100 back for a net loss of $400, The next day if you win, $500, you keep the entire amount. Again, big advantage player. But just like Casino Rpyale, the stopped paying out the rebate after the second time, even though there was no written rule limiting the number of times. They just point to small print that says something about "at the casino's discretion".

Now I believe Silver Severs rebate is only 5% and is good on your monthly losses, although I don't bother with it, so am not sure.

I would not be surprised to find out Johnson used loss rebates. If not, it would mean he never lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach, why don't you send an email off to the author and ask him if Johnson used his rebates? That should settle it.

---

Or you could listen to an interview with DJ himself and maybe that would settle it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Check the gambling with an edge archives for the first interview with Don Johnson,
probably some time in 2012.

If I recall correctly, coach belly is correct

---

Why would you assume Don Johnson would correctly report his use or non-use of rebates in that particular AC sequence in an interview? The correct people to ask would be (1) the casinos, who are not going to tell you how stupid they were, and (2) the author, who has much more information than appeared in that story. If I were Johnson, who makes Billy Walters look shy, I would never publicly admit to taking a rebate. There is no advantage to it.

Why would you assume he had not used rebates previously in the same AC context to set up this sequence? I'm going to go out on a limb, and say he didn't just show up out of the blue without greasing the wheels.

Why do you assume he hasn't done and didn't attempt other versions of this all over the world? He did. This AC sequence was just his biggest splash with the most egregious casino mismanagement.

OK, I just listened to a portion of the GWAE interview. Johnson had the rebate in effect but didn't need it during two big single session wins at Trop and Caesars of roughly 4-5 million dollars each. The fact that the rebate was in effect means he was playing with that advantage even though he didn't use it. Again, it is a kin to a free roll.

At Borgata, he said he lost a session and collected the rebate, but somehow he is not sure if that was during this time period. That is kind of odd. Seems like something he ought to remember. :rolleyes: But whatever.


So to vary off topic just slightly, Don Johnson is a member of the Blackjack Hall of Fame, based on this 3 month period, where he won 4-6 million dollars each at 3 different casinos. He says a total of 5 sessions, 1 at Trop, 1 at Caesars and 3 at Borgata.

Ok, so betting 100k a hand, and winning 4-5 million is winning 40-50 units. That is a good win. Positive variance. But let's take it down a notch. That is equivalent to playing $5 a hand and winning $200 to $250. Like I said, a good session win. But is a couple good session wins (ie lucky sessions) worthy of entry into the Blackjack Hall of Fame? Does that put him on par with Thorp, Uston, Wong, Snyder, Schlesinger and some of the other big names in Blackjack history?

I mean my dear, dear friend, Norman Wattenberger :rolleyes: created the best blackjack software that has helped 1000's of blackjack players, professional and recreational alike and he has yet to receive this honor. But a guy has 3 decent session wins and he is in? :confused: Just seems like BJHoF should be about a larger piece of work that 3 lucky sessions. That is my opinion of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Why would you assume Don Johnson would correctly report his use or non-use of rebates in that particular AC sequence in an interview?

---

Why would he lie? He isn't fooling the casinos. THEY know if they paid him the rebate or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Why would you assume Don Johnson would correctly report his use or non-use of rebates in that particular AC sequence in an interview?

Why would you assume he had not used rebates previously in the same AC context to set up this sequence?

Why do you assume he hasn't done and didn't attempt other versions of this all over the world?

---

I can imagine the ditz's dumbo ears turning purple over this.

Your jerky questions are irrelevant, no assumptions were made.

I reported that I had heard that DJ did not need or use the loss rebates,
and asked how that would affect he results.

You implied that I had made it up...what say you now...jerk-off?

I listened to the GWAE interview.

Takeaways:

Luck played a big factor in his huge score in AC.

He’s not a card counter.

“There were a few losses in there that I didn’t disclose to the paper” during the run in AC (meaning he took rebates on those)

Would he play without a rebate? “No.”

His biggest loss was around $1 million but he couldn’t remember when it was. (He took a rebate on that one too.)

Is everything he said true? I’m sure I don’t know. If nothing else, the loss rebates increased his total win before his eventual barring, and he considers the rebates valuable enough that he wouldn’t play without them. The 20% rebates emboldened him to play for extremely high stakes and thus enabled the very large wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Here's another quote from the Atlantic Monthly article...

The wagering of card counters assumes a clearly recognizable pattern over time, and Johnson was being watched very carefully. The verdict: card counting was not Don Johnson’s game. He had beaten the casinos fair and square.

---

Copied for emphasis.

---

From the 888.com blog which I'll link to when I have a better internet connection:

"In fact, things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson card-counting, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards and another collaborator sequencing the deck, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way. Besides serving as distractions, the good-looking girls made small bets and ate cards when the count got bad."

https://www.888casino.com/blog/burni...of-don-johnson

---

I`ve seen and heard several different podcasts/articles about the Don Johnson plays. This article is something I hadn`t seen yet though; thanks for posting that. Did anyone else notice how in the bottom right-hand corner of each picture in the article, it says, "Credit: James Grosjean"? Not that I`m shocked he was involved; it makes way more sense that he was of course. I just hadn`t heard that before. That has to be the person who was dubbed "Andy" in the article.

Welcome SFD.

Howdy SplitFaceDisaster,

I don't know whether to welcome you or apologize to you for the misfortune of finding yourself here.

(Kidding, kidding, the people here are mostly cool.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Welcome SFD.

---

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Howdy SplitFaceDisaster,

I don't know whether to welcome you or apologize to you for the misfortune of finding yourself here.

(Kidding, kidding, the people here are mostly cool.)

---

Haha! Well I appreciate the sentiment either way. I lurked here a bit before joining so I get it.

Let's start with the original post; no, card counting is not a myth. It bothers me that a fellow engineer would state this. Fellow mathematicians and blackjack grinders would argue that point.

If a person writes a book and makes more residuals from that book than from gambling, it that a sin? I wish I wrote a book. Gambling, per income (very minor to me, if at all, no I do not have a system yet) is a low percentage. yes, I do have a minor issue with the original post.

DJ won big. Yes. But he gave himself a great edge on a slightly -EV game. He won an exceptional amount of money. In my opinion, it does not matter that he had access to a rebate, and may not have used it. But he had it, and knew it. That makes the difference. That makes a big difference.

DJ took a game and made it a good AP play. Funny, certain individuals will not use that statement To some, it was a simple blackjack play, with big money, and no edge. Please, no one bets that amount of money without a strategy.

PS Do not sit in the bleachers when it is 98 degrees.

He won. His rebate gave him the edge.

The initial comment was that DJ made fools of everyone due to basic strategy, a healthy bankroll, and not waste counting cards, so to be undetected. I am sure at such a high betting pattern that he was not undetected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

JBJB,

That's a great quote! We need a thank you button here. This feels like a wasted post, but I wanted to acknowledge how good a quote you highlighted.

---

Ivey was known to have a bad craps habit for years. It kept him broke to the point he had to have backers to play tournaments. But he had no problem selling himself in them. People were chomping at the bit to get a piece of him. The huge Full Tilt Poker money put him on easy street. My guess is the edge sorting wasn't his idea. Someone sold him on it. And he had to have the agent there at the table to recognize the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Then redietz you are in agreement with Rob. The big bankroll opens doors. Thanks for stopping by.

---

Alan, what you are calling the big bankroll here is what casino hosts call "whales." Enticing the whales into the casino is a technique as old as Las Vegas. Lavish them with gifts to get their action. The casinos are known for fleecing the whales. But in the DJ case he turned the tables on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dankyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

That doesn't say that he lost and used the rebate, that's what he said would happen if you lost, but that's not what did happen.

If it happened to him, then why didn't he use the first person?

He says if "you" lost, not when "I" lost.

He played one night and won $6 mil in one night...when did he lose and take the rebate?

---

Because that’s the way some people speak for God’s sake. He was doing an interview, not writing a legal document. It is obvious what he meant.

Of course in the night he won $6 million he collected 100% of it and started another trip later or elsewhere when he may have won. Or may have collected the rebate.. That is the whole point of the entire play.

---

Except that's not what actually happened. He got lucky and won from the start.

He didn't lose, didn't collect the rebate, didn't leave and play elsewhere,
and he is not quoted to say that he did any of that.

---

If you read the 888 article there is a quote in there of "Andy," one of Johnsons agents, where he says that Johnson was good at taking six figure losses, not panicking, and coming back the next day. I think that statement implies that Johnson took loss rebates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SplitFaceDisaster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Copied for emphasis.

---

From the 888.com blog which I'll link to when I have a better internet connection:

"In fact, things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson card-counting, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards and another collaborator sequencing the deck, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way. Besides serving as distractions, the good-looking girls made small bets and ate cards when the count got bad."

https://www.888casino.com/blog/burni...of-don-johnson

---

I`ve seen and heard several different podcasts/articles about the Don Johnson plays. This article is something I hadn`t seen yet though; thanks for posting that. Did anyone else notice how in the bottom right-hand corner of each picture in the article, it says, "Credit: James Grosjean"? Not that I`m shocked he was involved; it makes way more sense that he was of course. I just hadn`t heard that before. That has to be the person who was dubbed "Andy" in the article.

---

Bingo! In the 888 article, when Andy was described as the sharpest mind in gambling I immediately thought of James Grosjean. Johnson wasn't just playing basic strategy. At a quarter percent the game was close anyway. Counting, sequencing and hole carding was going on (that's what Andy was there for) and when the shoe went negative the girls jumped in and ate up the bad cards until the it went back positive. Though Johnson was flat betting I'm sure, especially with Grosjean involved, there was an edge in there somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Ivey was known to have a bad craps habit for years. It kept him broke to the point he had to have backers to play tournaments. But he had no problem selling himself in them. People were chomping at the bit to get a piece of him. The huge Full Tilt Poker money put him on easy street. My guess is the edge sorting wasn't his idea. Someone sold him on it. And he had to have the agent there at the table to recognize the cards.

---

I agree with you 100%. I can't promise I could find the quote again, but my understanding was that he negotiated loss rebates at Craps at a few places before, I admit I could be wrong.

Either way, the allowances that they gave him on Baccarat would be like allowing him to play Craps with only one die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

If you read the 888 article there is a quote in there of "Andy," one of Johnsons agents, where he says that Johnson was good at taking six figure losses, not panicking, and coming back the next day. I think that statement implies that Johnson took loss rebates.

---

Andy never references loss rebates in the 888 piece.

The AC wins took place in 2010-2011.

The Atlantic Monthly article and GWAE interview were in 2012.

The 888 piece was written in 2016.

Andy wasn't with DJ at Caesars, and it's not established by 888 that Andy was ever in AC with DJ.

After cashing out, Johnson went to his suite and called a man who goes by the single name of Andy. Regarded as a possessor of the sharpest mind in casino gambling, he and Johnson had talked about working together. But Andy was backlogged with projects.

If you read the 888 article, DJ first becomes aware of the possibility of loss rebate offers
at least 2 months after the big Ceasars win...

It was a couple of months after the Caesars smash. The Eagles were playing the Redskins and an Atlantic City casino host was there with a group of local whales. Johnson overheard the host offering a deal for players that seemed too good to be true: optimal rules, limits of up to $100,000 per hand, $50,000 just for walking in and a 20-percent refund on all losses up to $500,000.

It's unclear when DJ and Andy began their partnership,
but it's implied that it was some time after his AC wins...

Before long, Andy began joining Johnson on jaunts to casino jurisdictions
from one end of the United States to the other.

Is it likely that DJ could have been offered loss rebates in other jurisdictions after being cut off in AC?

How obvious that all of the ap's would be scrambling to claim DJ's consistent winning was only because he secured some kind of small "theoretical advantage". However, as coach so clearly points out to the dismay of the probability theorists, DJ simply won and consistently beat a -EV game because he used the computer attached to his neck instead of the ones ap's regularly hide behind as they spew their nonsense.What he actually secured were ACTUAL RESULTS, while these people keep on blabbing pre-play theory from the comfort of their easy chairs.

Wise up, ap's....and admit you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Then redietz you are in agreement with Rob. The big bankroll opens doors. Thanks for stopping by.

---

Alan, what you are calling the big bankroll here is what casino hosts call "whales." Enticing the whales into the casino is a technique as old as Las Vegas. Lavish them with gifts to get their action. The casinos are known for fleecing the whales. But in the DJ case he turned the tables on them.

---

That's right. And what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

How obvious that all of the ap's would be scrambling to claim DJ's consistent winning was only because he secured some kind of small "theoretical advantage". However, as coach so clearly points out to the dismay of the probability theorists, DJ simply won and consistently beat a -EV game because he used the computer attached to his neck instead of the ones ap's regularly hide behind as they spew their nonsense.What he actually secured were ACTUAL RESULTS, while these people keep on blabbing pre-play theory from the comfort of their easy chairs.

Wise up, ap's....and admit you are wrong.

---

What surprises me is that there is so much talk about loss rebates that it APPEARS that they forget you also must win. LOL