Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

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