The New Jersey Blackjack Whale and Rob Singer: what they have in common

[Alan Mendelson]

Take a look at the article about the guy who "broke" several of the Atlantic City casinos. Here is the link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

Pay close attention to this in the article -- the reference to long term math vs short term math. Where have we seen this before? Rob, do you know this guy?

From the article:

"...these odds are calculated by simulating millions of hands... I will never see 400 million hands.”

So this whale has his own system for playing blackjack which is different from what we call the regular long term math of the game.

Verrrrrrry interesting.

[arcimede$]

If you read the article the player negotiated better odds. Sounds like he plays basic strategy perfectly and used that to beat the casinos. The only reason short term math is mentioned is because he wasn't going to play millions of hands and the edge he negotiated would only be effective over the short term.

He created an edge and took advantage of it. He still could have lost, but as I've said many times ... using the math does not require the long term to win.

[quahaug]

Arci and that punk Kneeland can't get it through they're gambling addicted heads that quitting while ahead makes perfect sense if your goal is to make money. If that guy never plays again he will be up big while playing very few hands lifetime. Same thing is true for VP or any other game for that matter. Arci just can't imagine that people can live without that gambling "fix". You don't have to play to infinity to have fun! p.s. the man was obviously lucky and he was betting a hundred grand a pop so winning 5.8 million is no more shocking than a red chipper winning a couple hundred, its all relative.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you read the article the player negotiated better odds. Sounds like he plays basic strategy perfectly and used that to beat the casinos. The only reason short term math is mentioned is because he wasn't going to play millions of hands and the edge he negotiated would only be effective over the short term.

He created an edge and took advantage of it. He still could have lost, but as I've said many times ... using the math does not require the long term to win.

It appears to me that after reading the article that Don Johnson did not play "basic strategy" nor did he use conventional math. The sentence in the story that sticks out in my mind is this one:

"More useful, for his purposes, is running a smaller number of hands and paying attention to variation."

Now, I didn't interview Don Johnson, nor the writer, and this thought of mine is only my interpretation. But I get the feeling that he developed some -- dare I use the term -- "special plays" which included varying the official casino rules for his level of action.

I share Arc's statement that "using the math does not require the long term to win" because the math pretty much says that we will all lose at most if not all casino games over the long term. I think the key to winning is knowing when to stop playing -- pocketing your wins -- and then repeating the process. Dare I say it-- isn't that part of Rob's system?

[arcimede$]

Arci and that punk Kneeland can't get it through they're gambling addicted heads that quitting while ahead makes perfect sense if your goal is to make money. If that guy never plays again he will be up big while playing very few hands lifetime. Same thing is true for VP or any other game for that matter. Arci just can't imagine that people can live without that gambling "fix". You don't have to play to infinity to have fun! p.s. the man was obviously lucky and he was betting a hundred grand a pop so winning 5.8 million is no more shocking than a red chipper winning a couple hundred, its all relative.

You are right about the amount won. It's equivalent to a $10 player winning $580. While a nice win I'm sure many low denom players have done just as well.

Quitting while ahead is fine but unless you quit forever it is nothing but a ruse to fool yourself. It doesn't change the fact you could walk into a casino the next time and lose it all. The only way to give yourself a good chance of winning over time is to do exactly what this BJ player did. Only play with and edge.

The fact you seem to think that is a bad approach while stopping at some magic moment only to start again at some unspecified time provides some kind of advantage ... says one heck of a lot about your thinking skills.

[arcimede$]

Alan, the sentence you quote is simply a reference to variance. The reason he had an edge is he would have received a rebate if he had lost. It's the money from the rebate that gave him the edge. Think of a coin toss where you win $100K for each head and lose it for each tail and you play 10 tosses .... now, you also get 20% back for each loss. Any session will most likely result in a small win or loss. If you came out exactly even there would be no gain as there would be no rebate. That is the "variation" he was referring to. You win you keep all the money ... you lose you get a rebate. Over time you would come out ahead.

[redietz]

I haven't read this article, but I followed his career earlier. He negotiated rebates with the casinos that were based on very short-term play. So if he lost, say, 100K in an afternoon or an hour, he ended the session and received his rebate. But if he won 100K, he ended the session and walked. He basically flipped the odds, using the casinos greediness against them. It was brilliant in its obviousness and simplicity.

[redietz]

And I just want to mention that it is possible, not likely but possible, that someone who can sing can also dance. For example, say some nameless high-stakes vp player found himself getting rebates and all manner of comps while playing and advocating high-stakes martingale-type play. Well, if he stuck to the math (while loudly proclaiming he didn't stick to the math), and created all kinds of massive special effects with fog and mirrors, he'd get comped way, way better than a professorial advantage player banging away at the same stakes all day. It would provide an edge beyond what the identified advantage player would be able to generate.

[quahaug]

You are right about the amount won. It's equivalent to a $10 player winning $580. While a nice win I'm sure many low denom players have done just as well.

Quitting while ahead is fine but unless you quit forever it is nothing but a ruse to fool yourself. It doesn't change the fact you could walk into a casino the next time and lose it all. The only way to give yourself a good chance of winning over time is to do exactly what this BJ player did. Only play with and edge.

The fact you seem to think that is a bad approach while stopping at some magic moment only to start again at some unspecified time provides some kind of advantage ... says one heck of a lot about your thinking skills.

I didn't say start again on a different day. I said quitting while ahead would result in less total play over a lifetime.

[Alan Mendelson]

Why is there such an argument over the concept of "quitting when you're ahead" whether its for the trip, the month, the week, or even until after lunch?

What's so wrong with walking away from the machine when you are showing a profit -- any kind of profit?

Is it better to keep playing until you have no money left and you feel like a total jerk? Or is it better to savor the profit whether for a month, a week, or until after the show or dinner?

As a recreational player, anytime Im "ahead" and not at the machine and at risk of giving it back, I feel "good." Do the math guys have some sort of opposition to feeling "good" ??

[arcimede$]

Why is there such an argument over the concept of "quitting when you're ahead" whether its for the trip, the month, the week, or even until after lunch?

What's so wrong with walking away from the machine when you are showing a profit -- any kind of profit?

Is it better to keep playing until you have no money left and you feel like a total jerk? Or is it better to savor the profit whether for a month, a week, or until after the show or dinner?

As a recreational player, anytime Im "ahead" and not at the machine and at risk of giving it back, I feel "good." Do the math guys have some sort of opposition to feeling "good" ??

There's nothing wrong with quitting when you are ahead. I don't know any math person that would make that statement. So, I can only think you are making that up.

A problem only comes into play if someone thinks that will help them do better over time. It won't. I'm simply pointing out fallacious thinking.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, Arc, why wouldn't it help you over time? My experience has been that there is a time in each session when I am ahead. It might not be much -- I might be ahead by only one payoff of a high pair. What if I did quit each and every time I found myself ahead by five dollars? Why wouldn't that help me over time?

You have made this blanket statement that quitting when ahead will not help players over time -- and I take that to mean the long term. But the long term is made up of short steps.

Why do you call this money management technique -- quoting you now -- "fallacious thinking" ??

[arcimede$]

I've experienced many sessions where I've never been ahead. Not even in the first few hands. So, your statement is nonsense. In addition, it's not really profitable for most people to take a trip to casino and leave if they are a few credits ahead. So, that eliminates another large chunk of sessions.

The fact is you are just as likely to do well or poor in the future at any point in time. So, arbitrarily leaving at some point in time will have no affect on your future results. You are just as likely to have missed out on increasing your winnings on this session as you are in winning the next session. Same for losing ... you are just as likely to lose big on your next session as you are to lose in the current session.

The math is the math.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've experienced many sessions where I've never been ahead. Not even in the first few hands. So, your statement is nonsense. In addition, it's not really profitable for most people to take a trip to casino and leave if they are a few credits ahead. So, that eliminates another large chunk of sessions.

The fact is you are just as likely to do well or poor in the future at any point in time. So, arbitrarily leaving at some point in time will have no affect on your future results. You are just as likely to have missed out on increasing your winnings on this session as you are in winning the next session. Same for losing ... you are just as likely to lose big on your next session as you are to lose in the current session.

The math is the math.

So if I understand you... you're saying it's simply okay to keep playing to put it all back, and never enjoy leaving with some extra cash in your pocket? So why do you bother playing, Arc? Just to keep sitting there pounding on the keys?

I guess the casual players have this advantage over the so-called advantage players --- we can leave.

[slingshot]

So if I understand you... you're saying it's simply okay to keep playing to put it all back, and never enjoy leaving with some extra cash in your pocket? So why do you bother playing, Arc? Just to keep sitting there pounding on the keys?

I guess the casual players have this advantage over the so-called advantage players --- we can leave.

And NOT suck in the cigarette smoke, cold temperature, loud noise, and rude people.

[Alan Mendelson]

slingshot, you're bothered by the cold temperature too? I thought it was just me. No matter what the season is, what the temp is outside, every casino I go it always has the air conditioning set to "freeze 'em" and where ever I sit at a machine or stand at a craps table, the air is always blowing directly on me. I always wear a jacket in the casino -- even during the summer.

Do they keep the temp so cold so we are more likely to punch the buttons faster to try to generate some heat? Or is it to keep the employees active and moving around? Or to keep the sodas from sticking to the slot keys?

[slingshot]

slingshot, you're bothered by the cold temperature too? I thought it was just me. No matter what the season is, what the temp is outside, every casino I go it always has the air conditioning set to "freeze 'em" and where ever I sit at a machine or stand at a craps table, the air is always blowing directly on me. I always wear a jacket in the casino -- even during the summer.

Do they keep the temp so cold so we are more likely to punch the buttons faster to try to generate some heat? Or is it to keep the employees active and moving around? Or to keep the sodas from sticking to the slot keys?

I've heard everything for the reasons. I do know that if I stay longer than a couple of hours, the moisture seems to leave my nasal and sinus passages and I don't feel the normal air restriction when breathing through my nose and if extra smoky I cough for a day or two. I know I must look quite comical with thick windbreaker during the summer months. If necessary, I pull the hood over my head while playing-it's that cold.

[arcimede$]

So if I understand you... you're saying it's simply okay to keep playing to put it all back, and never enjoy leaving with some extra cash in your pocket? So why do you bother playing, Arc? Just to keep sitting there pounding on the keys?

I guess the casual players have this advantage over the so-called advantage players --- we can leave.

I'm simply saying it makes no difference what you do unless you decide to never play again. Sorry if that is too complicated for you to understand. Each and every hand is independent. Your future expectation is exactly the same after every hand. If you want to leave that's fine, if you want to change machines that's fine, if you want to get up and walk around that's fine ... just don't think that any of those changes anything about your winning or losing over time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I disagree with you. While every hand is independent, it is possible to bank your wins instead of keep playing till all is lost. No one is arguing that all hands aren't independent, it's just that you can leave after a certain number of credits have been won that you can use as your bankroll for the next trip.

Of course, to do this, you will also have to make up your mind in advance how many credits you want to risk at each session.

I can understand how an "advantage player" or a professional wouldn't/couldn't see it that way because playing is their job and they look at each "advantage hand" as being profitable even when they are losing.

I always got a laugh out of that concept, which goes like this:

Advantage player says: I'm playing a pay table that returns 100.17% and on top that I'm getting cash back and comps and meals. But it doesn't matter that I've just lost $5,000 on this game because on each hand my expected return 100.9% of everything I put in.

Yep, that's the kind of reasoning that will get you a mortgage.

Come to think of it, did we get into a mortgage crisis in this country because the bankers play video poker too??

[arcimede$]

Arc, I disagree with you. While every hand is independent, it is possible to bank your wins instead of keep playing till all is lost. No one is arguing that all hands aren't independent, it's just that you can leave after a certain number of credits have been won that you can use as your bankroll for the next trip.

And, since that "next trip" is no different than continuing to play on the current trip, how exactly does leaving "bank your wins"? For your argument to hold water you have to assume that the odds are magically better when you return than they are at the moment you leave. Sorry, but that is just plain silly.

I can understand how an "advantage player" or a professional wouldn't/couldn't see it that way because playing is their job and they look at each "advantage hand" as being profitable even when they are losing.

I always got a laugh out of that concept, which goes like this:

Advantage player says: I'm playing a pay table that returns 100.17% and on top that I'm getting cash back and comps and meals. But it doesn't matter that I've just lost $5,000 on this game because on each hand my expected return 100.9% of everything I put in.

Yep, that's the kind of reasoning that will get you a mortgage.

Come to think of it, did we get into a mortgage crisis in this country because the bankers play video poker too??

It turns out that "kind of thinking" has resulted in winning years for 13 out of the 14 years I've used that approach. But since simple math and logic seem to be beyond your capabilities, I'm not surprised you have difficulty understanding it.