The WoV Thread

If you've ever played any blackjack, and counted for fun, for a while, you would soon find out that it would take a long, long time to make any money by playing a few hands here, and a few hands there. And that you would stick out like another sore thumb with all the coming and going day after day. The number of casinos is finite, and so is the gaming information of which they apprise themselves. Gamblers like to say that it's all one long session. The casinos know and say, and watch out for, the same things. I recall how Jacobson shook his head at KJ's posts, years ago at the WoV forum, in an attempt to relate how the days of blackjack counting are over in Vegas. Anyone with any longevity isn't doing any real damage. KJ and MC never tell us how many places told them to get out, and stay out. They never talk about stuff like that, or show any proof of anything. We would be fools to just believe any of it. Though many of us have to just believe to make sense of our own gambling addictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

But if I take a shellacking today there is nothing in the calculation that says I'm now due to run above expectation for X number of hands.

---

If your results so far are negative, and the game must converge to expectation, then how can that happen without running above expectation?

---

The "must" you used in your sentence is a false premise.

---

No, it makes total sense. You just can't comprehend his question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

The "must" you used in your sentence is a false premise.

---

I don't know about that, but that's what tableplay wrote earlier.

I doubt that's what he was referencing when he later wrote....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The answerer can only point out that the premise is bogus and move on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Of course the biggest tell of all is bet spread. And that is one that is a little more difficult to eliminate or remove. But even with bet spread there are two parts to that tell....when the player raises bets...and when he lowers back to minimum wager. Particularly when a player goes back to minimum wager at the shuffle after betting bigger before the shuffle. That is a huge "tell"....the biggest. And that can be eliminated by simply moving on at the shuffle after showing your bigger bets.

---

This makes sense, and it helps to answer my unasked question about you: "How can this guy survive as a card counter in Las Vegas these days, given the counter-measures used by casinos?"

The answer: you play very short sessions, probably just one shoe, then move on; you make smaller bets unless the count is favorable, then go for it til the shoe is done or the count is unfavorable.

Is it rare for you to play more than one complete shoe?

---

this goes along the lines of the people who say that Dice setting is very doable and profitable....and the casinos are just too stupid to recognize it...thats why the casinos dont outlaw "setting"....just too stupid.

I am thinking that after a few months or even a few years, that KJ is recognized as a "regular" and as a guy that wins, And as a guy that doesnt play long at one shoe.
The casinos arent stupid, blind, uncaring about protecting their money. None of those things. So I am willing to bet that a number of casinos have already recognized what KJ is and have taken measures...or will take measures. Especially since he has a repeatable "method". Especially since he is a year round player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

If your results so far are negative, and the game must converge to expectation, then how can that happen without running above expectation?

---

The "must" you used in your sentence is a false premise.

---

No, it makes total sense. You just can't comprehend his question.

---

Your statement here is a false premise. You're just as stupid as pork belly.

Guys,

I'm not vouching for what KJ does or what mickeycrimm does, but as someone who has spent 90-100 days a year in Las Vegas for 30-something years, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that you are way overestimating the IQ and attention to detail of casino protocols and casino personnel. I mean, really, these are the same companies that have managed to undercut solid addictive behavioral training of customers by blowing the profits on giant ferris wheels and clubs that compete with each other in side-by-side casinos. In some respects, they have been incredibly stupid.

Yeah, I think the heyday of counting cards was a long, long time ago. But this putting casinos on a pedestal as brilliantly run places immune to exploitation is semi-ridiculous. They ain't that well run.

People who are improperly trained, lack discipline, are addicted to this or that, and who have lost lifetime, I understand why they prefer to believe in these impregnable genius corporations that have everything figured out. I'd recommend McDonalds or Wal-Mart as exemplars, however, not the staggering idiocy of CET and its ilk.

Well, I'm thinking that I wouldn't put my lawn mower through that "tunnel of love". And that it's the stupid casino operators that really put the screws to you.

Anyway, if KJ were making all that money, he should think to flag down a cab when he is on the move, instead of retain a whole other person throughout the day. But moms are free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

This makes sense, and it helps to answer my unasked question about you: "How can this guy survive as a card counter in Las Vegas these days, given the counter-measures used by casinos?"

The answer: you play very short sessions, probably just one shoe, then move on; you make smaller bets unless the count is favorable, then go for it til the shoe is done or the count is unfavorable.

Is it rare for you to play more than one complete shoe?

---

I am just going to ignore Bill Young who is jumping all over everyone giving trolling answers that make it more than obvious he knows absolutely nothing about which he is speaking of. I suggest everyone else do likewise.

So yes MrV, I play short sessions and move around quite a bit. It is a style that is very well tolerated in Vegas, but for anyone who is not in it for the money, not very much fun to play. Because I am not fond of driving, my partner/spouse served as my driver and he had it down to a science. When I was ready to move, he was almost always one step ahead of me. Reduced down time considerably. Unfortunately he is now gone and I am making adjustments with a new driver and sometimes driving myself, which slows things up. I am only now beginning to appreciate how good I had it....how spoiled I was.

So anyway, no it is not rare for me to play more than one shoe. When playing 6-8 deck shoe games, the count generally moves slowly, sometimes not at all. It is pretty common to have 2-3 shoes where the count just kind of hovers in the neutral range, or maybe slightly positive, but not enough to make significant bets. But the good thing about playing shoe games, is that when the count gets positive, especially significantly positive, it stays there for a while. If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly.

But there is a second exit trigger that is even more responsible for my short sessions. And that is that I exit negative counts aggressively. I have a true count -1.5 to -2 exit trigger and that can occur pretty easily. I am just not interested in playing through a whole shoe of negative counts, hoping it turns around, when I can exit and join a second game either fresh off the shuffle, or that I have been keeping an eye on, while playing my primary game. Yes, this is where my tracking a second table comes in very handy, when the opportunity presents itself. And the beauty of this part of the exit trigger (leaving negative counts) is that I will have shown none of my spread. While the count was neutral and negative, I will have only been betting my minimum...showing nothing, so it is more than acceptable to move to a new game right there in the same pit, even the next table. You just mumble some kind of goofy ass reason. "This dealer is too hot". "I lost with this dealer last week". You can point to the next table and say "Oh I won with that dealer a couple weeks ago". Doesn't even matter what you say...they have heard it all.

Now in answer to LarryS's question, I have a fairly big rotation of stores that I play. Usually between 30-36 at any given time. It's currently 31. And BTW, this is the beauty of Vegas! There is no place else that has the number of games and casinos in such close proximity. This is absolutely why I picked up my life and moved here. Some casinos in my rotation, I play 2-3 times a month and try to make it different shift. Some I play weekly, also mixing up shift. A few that seem very tolerant of me, I push the envelope and play twice a week. But there is a method to this too. I keep a detailed record of every session, including pit people. In sessions that anything out of the ordinary occurred, and that could be a big win, or I just sense heat for whatever reason, I will specifically avoid that pit person for a month or so.

And one other part to Larry's question or observation. My game isn't so much trying to trick anybody as it is finding just what they are tolerant of. This is specifically why I play the green to mid black level that I play. I now have the bankroll to support much higher level of play, where I would be piling up larger amounts of EV and ultimately winning more money. But that is just the kind of thing these pit folks HAVE to answer for and HAVE to take action about. If you find the comfort zone of what is tolerated and keep sessions short, you aren't creating a problem for them that they HAVE to answer for and 95 times out of a hundred no one will bother you.

95% (except for the real gung-ho type which are easy to spot) of these pit people aren't looking to make a scene, come over to the table and tell you that you can't play, or that you have to leave the property. They are just working people looking to get through their day, without having to answer for anything. If you try to help them do that, by playing short sessions and limits that are tolerated, you generally won't have a problem....except like I said, that occasion gung-ho type out to make a name for himself and you can spot him a mile away. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly.

---

Shoes that you can make or lose a lot of money quickly? Do tell....

Besides the count getting significantly positive early enough, what distinguishes those shoes from any other where you max bet for 30-40 rounds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Devil's advocate here.

Somewhere up above we were playing a 51.5% game. We had a bad day and lost a sizeable amount. But each spin, flip, roll, whatever is an independent event at 51.5%. So when the loss was incurred, we were quite a bit below the 51.5. We may have to hit at 62.5 or some larger amount to recoup the loss. But the game is a 51.5% game. You make it sound like we can expect to outperform the 51.5% by virtue of the loss previously incurred, although each spin, flip, roll etc. is 51.5%.

That is where this theory of accumulated EV is questioned by some. You make it sound like having lost we must now win because of all the EV we have accumulated. So should you now double or triple your bets since you have all that EV and you may as well cash it in at a higher level? Almost a Martingale.

---

I'd say for starters, a lot of the math can be rather confusing and there's a bit of misinformation (sort of) about how 'the long run' works or how expectation works after you've played and won or lost some amount.

You've never "due" to win more, nor win less, nor lose, than expected, going forward. If my EV is $1 per spin, then every spin I do going forward is worth $1. Whether I'm up or down $10k doesn't matter. The part where "your EV evens out" or "converges towards the mean" oftentimes isn't explained properly, because it means the PERCENTAGE tends towards the mean, not the DOLLAR amount. If you lose $500, then that money's lost forever. You're never "due" to make that back above and beyond your future EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Good illustration RS. I especially appreciate the part about being mistake free. It all hinges on optimal play. I don't play blackjack and i don't imagine a pro like KJ making any mistakes when he plays. But, VP is a different animal. I can comfortably play 1000 hands an hour but i'm sure i occasionally make a mistake or the button sticks or have had too many beers, etc., that causes an erosion to the EV.

P.S.

KJ, this may be a dumb question, but, do you ever make a sub optimal hit or stand just on a hunch or some other reason? Do you ever make a mistake?

---

I'm not KJ but I'll give my own answer, too.

Realistically, a player can't play perfectly. Mistakes will happen. Either you're playing fast and miss a hand on VP, or you're counting and you can't tell if there's 3 decks or 3.5 decks remaining, so your TC is going to be slightly off, or sometimes you'll miss a card....or sometimes (rarely, hopefully) you'll just flat out make the wrong decision because you thought you had a 12 not a 13. Small mistakes don't really matter, if they are small and infrequent. If I'm playing a game worth $100 an hour and I accidentally hit a 13 when I should have stood and that costs me $2 in EV for the hour, so what? Now my EV is $98/hr instead of $100/hr. On the other hand, if I make a bunch of mistakes, I may be playing a game worth $80/hr, $50/hr, or even some negative amount per hour if I'm playing poorly enough. Knowing mistakes will be made regardless of how perfect you try to play, one key in playing an overall winning game is playing an actually GOOD and STRONG game.

I'm not saying you should go ahead and make mistakes or be careless, because mistakes do cost money. Just don't get all bent out of shape when you make a tiny mistake that's worth a few cents or dollars when you're on something that's worth hundreds or perhaps thousands per hour.

On the other hand, sometimes we do make mistakes on purpose. When I played blackjack, I would always stand on 16vT and take even money when I got a blackjack. The overall cost is miniscule, since when the count is very low, you have a small bet, thus the error is only worth a few cents. If the count is high, then I'd have a big bet out, and at that count, the play is correct. On occasion I would deviate from this if there was a big change in count, like if I got 16vT at a +4 count, then by the time it's my turn to act, the count is -3.

Another example of making a mistake on purpose is doing something that'll severely lower the variance of the game while not giving up much value. Some APs do this, particularly on machines, although I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

Ok I have a devils advocate type question and keep in mind I am not a mathoby so it may seem impossible or silly.

But what if you flip[ a coin and get 60/40 heads/tails with you being on the losing end. Is it possible that from that point on, putting that sequence aside......the outcomes are 50/50 and when you play the coinflip game.....you never make up that 60/40 . The 60/40 is an outlier and from that point on you are in the 50/50 range. Is that possible? And if that is possible....take it another step further. What if you have a bad 6 months of 10,000 spins, rolls, flips........where you are on the bad end of the "expectations". Couldnt that 6 month period just be the utlier and going forward you get the mathmatical expections....and that 6 month period is like it never existed in the math universe...it happened but it is never "made up" when you play.

Is it possible that someone gets a "bad" 6 months....and it never "evens out(assuming perfect play) or never evens out ver the next 10 years? I mean that I guess things could even out over a time had we lived long enough or had we played long enough without stopping.

But who is to say when the positive EV accumulated will kick in.

---

There're two parts to this. Expectation and variance.

From expectation, after being on the bad side of a 60/40 session, you will always expect to be "down 20". After 2000 spins you expect to be at 1060/1040. But remember variance exists. If you play a game long enough, the results (actual and %) will land on BOTH SIDES, positive and negative, of EV. So I guess that's kind of a paradox, sorta. But you're still never "due" to make more than EV. Confusing, eh?

But no, the "accumulated EV" will never "kick in", if you're saying what I think you're saying.

I'd say a caveat to the variance part is if you're playing a game with no variance. For instance, let's say I could make a sports wager where I can get both sides at +110. If I always bet $100 on each side, I'm always going to have a $10 net profit, and there will be no variance -- my actual results would always be spot on with the EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

The expectation after mX hands = Y, where Y is a positive number, and after X hands the results are negative...is that a bogus premise?

In order to reach expectation for mX hands, then the results for the next (m-1)X hands must make up the loss, and move into the positive.

If the game must converge to expectation for mX hands, then the results must be greater than expectation for the next (m-1)X hands.

What other way could that happen?

---

I guarantee if you flip a fair coin enough times you will eventually get to the point where you've flipped 10,000 more heads than tails and 10,000 tails more than heads. It might take a long time, but eventually it will happen. Read above for more information, I'm not going to write this out many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly.

---

Shoes that you can make or lose a lot of money quickly? Do tell....

Besides the count getting significantly positive early enough, what distinguishes those shoes from any other where you max bet for 30-40 rounds?

---

I am afraid I don't understand the question, coach belly. A shoe where the count goes positive early and I am throwing out my max bet for 30-40 rounds (more if I am playing heads up) IS what is special about those shoes. THAT is absolutely the goal. That situation (early high positive count) is hitting the jackpot. 30, 40, 50 rounds playing my max bet at anywhere from 2-5% advantage is what card counting is all about. That is the ultimate goal. We play through all the other crap in search of those opportunities.

I have a story of my own very best of this situation that occurred in 2011 that I call "the perfect shoe". I posted about it on blackjackinfo shortly after it occurred. I recounted the story on WoV at some point as well. It is pretty long, but I will try to look it up and reprint it here. You might find it interesting.

I am just going to link to my "perfect shoe" post at wizard's site, if that is allowed. Makes it much easier.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...sy/#post318916

There is a couple things I should recap about that "perfect shoe". It occurred in 2011. When the dust had settled I won over 20,000 on that shoe. That may not seem like a lot to any larger bettors. It's NOT a 100k royal or anything. I am sure it seems small potatoes to the likes of a monet who plays larger stakes. But for my level of play, it was huge. And still is. I have never had another 20k day....let alone session. I have never had a 15k session. I have never had a 12k session. I have had 12k days but not sessions.

So that 20k win, which occurred in 15 minutes of play ended up being about a third of my Blackjack win for the year. Later that year, I had my first go around with heart surgery, so I missed considerable time and that is why my win for the year was a little low.

And one other interesting thing that occurred from that incident. The guy in the pit that day, who I did not know, is now one of my very good friends. He sort of knew me from another bar that I sometimes frequented at that time, a mile off the strip and he waited until he saw me there and introduced himself, bought me a couple drinks and told me that he could never let me play on his shift again. We have been friends ever since and I frequently invite him to my home for various get togethers with friends. And there are benefits to having a friend that works the pits. (think OSN and biometrics databases) :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly.

---

Shoes that you can make or lose a lot of money quickly? Do tell....

Besides the count getting significantly positive early enough, what distinguishes those shoes from any other where you max bet for 30-40 rounds?

---

I am afraid I don't understand the question, coach belly. A shoe where the count goes positive early and I am throwing out my max bet for 30-40 rounds (more if I am playing heads up) IS what is special about those shoes. THAT is absolutely the goal. That situation (early high positive count) is hitting the jackpot. 30, 40, 50 rounds playing my max bet at anywhere from 2-5% advantage is what card counting is all about. That is the ultimate goal. We play through all the other crap in search of those opportunities.

I have a story of my own very best of this situation that occurred in 2011 that I call "the perfect shoe". I posted about it on blackjackinfo shortly after it occurred. I recounted the story on WoV at some point as well. It is pretty long, but I will try to look it up and reprint it here. You might find it interesting.

---

Why do you answer this clown?....He`s not interested in a real answer...only in playing the fucking fool. But he`s really good at that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

When I played blackjack, I would always stand on 16vT and take even money when I got a blackjack.

---

My understanding is that the player's biggest advantage is getting paid 3:2 for blackjack.

What you are saying is that you always take insurance when you have blackjack vs a dealer's Ace.

I'm no expert but from what I've read I am certain that this is not correct strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I am afraid I don't understand the question, coach belly.

---

You wrote "If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly."

How is that different than any shoe?

You can bet max for 30-40 hands on any shoe.

Betting max, you can make or lose money quickly on any shoe, regardless of the count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

When I played blackjack, I would always stand on 16vT and take even money when I got a blackjack.

---

My understanding is that the player's biggest advantage is getting paid 3:2 for blackjack.

What you are saying is that you always take insurance when you have blackjack vs a dealer's Ace.

I'm no expert but from what I've read I am certain that this is not correct strategy.

---

I don't want to answer for RS, but insuring all BJ is another play from "card counter's basic strategy". The optimal play is to not take insurance until the count is +3 or more when insurance becomes profitable. Always taking insurance has a small cost but not nearly as much as you might think because you are playing it incorrectly when you have your minimum wager out, but still playing correctly (taking insurance) when your much larger bets are out. So again, you have eliminated the "tell" of playing the hand differently at different times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I am afraid I don't understand the question, coach belly.

---

You wrote "If the count gets significantly positive early enough, you can have 30-40 rounds (more if playing heads up) playing your max bets. Those are the shoes you can make or lose a lot of money quickly."

How is that different than any shoe?

You can bet max for 30-40 hands on any shoe.

Betting max, you can make or lose money quickly on any shoe, regardless of the count.

---

Why do I want to max bet if I am not playing with an advantage. That is gambling! I'll leave that to the likes of you, Alan and Singer.

But more importantly, you have just beyond a doubt proven Keystone correct. I mean come on coach....how old are you? Isn't it time to stop all your trolling, and trying to find "gottach ya" moments and act like an adult?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Always taking insurance has a small cost but not nearly as much as you might think

---

Is there any math to back that up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Always taking insurance has a small cost but not nearly as much as you might think

---

Is there any math to back that up?

---

1/13'th of the time the dealer has an ace up.

Probability of a player blackjack is (1/13)*(4/13)*2 = 1/21.125

(1/13) * (1/21.125) = 1 in 274.625


Taking even money on a blackjack on a $100 bet is $100 in value. If you play it normally, then 4/13 of the time you win $0 and 9/13 of the time you win $150. $150 * 9/13 = $103.84.

So the difference between the two is 3.84% for that hand....but that should occur once every 274.625 hands. If your average bet is $100, then you're giving up about $0.014 per round in EV, that's 1.4 cents (one point four cents).

And if you have a 1% advantage with an average bet of $100, then your EV is $1/round. After taking away the 'blackjack insurance' thing it's $0.986/round.