Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

[Mission146]

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.

Do you really believe, of all the angles mentioned, that none of us have worked any of them? Hell, even I have, and I fully well admit to being nothing to speak of compared to a lot of other AP's. Straight up, I'm a writer, math geek and low-limit hustler. I harbor no delusions of grandeur.

Here's my advice if you want to EARN a profit in casinos rather than (allegedly) lucking your way into it: Stop writing, start reading and WISE UP!

[Mission146]

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

As far as you, young man, you need to just accept the fact that you know next to nothing about gambling. Worse than that, for someone who participates on gambling forums so extensively, you either have no desire to learn or are the worst student of any class ever.

You couldn't spell, "AP," if I spotted you the first letter.

[Moses]

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.

Rob. I must admit to being naive about following DJs career. I'm consumed with the guy who begins with M. FWIW, my easy chair was probably purchased with blackjack or sportsbook earnings.

Also, I don't concern myself too much about AP status, being a Pro, or what happened yesterday/year. Win today. Play tomorrow. I'm more concerned about how I react or my mental approach. IMO, speaking from experience, one needs to be careful about not letting someone or something get in their head. This is where forums can be lethal.

If I'm wrong? No problem. But I'm not returning the money.

[mickeycrimm]

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?

And what, is you are putting up shit that everyone has been aware of for years and acting like you are delivering some breaking news.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

The problem is....he wasn't playing a -EV game. At least not with Grosjean at the table.

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

And what, is you are putting up shit that everyone has been aware of for years and acting like you are delivering some breaking news.

Sorry mickeycrimm but what you just wrote is what everyone has known for years. Thanks Captain Obvious.

[Alan Mendelson]

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

As far as you, young man, you need to just accept the fact that you know next to nothing about gambling. Worse than that, for someone who participates on gambling forums so extensively, you either have no desire to learn or are the worst student of any class ever.

You couldn't spell, "AP," if I spotted you the first letter.

Congratulations. You have made the transition to asshole. I knew it wouldn't take that long.

[Rob.Singer]

DJ was playing a hugely -ev game, even though admitting as such would be akin to suicide by any of the armchair gambling theorists like Mickey here--who's every boast comes in the form of "earned phantom bucks". And we do know the wasted, non-productive, useless and meaningless life of "mickeycrimm" comes at near the top of that failed heap.

Heed Alan's words: some people actually forget that a player has to WIN to have a gambling profit. With the itsy bitsy theoretical "advantage" these people wanted DJ to have because of some big mouth player at his table, a useless rebate, etc., none of it ever figured into even a tiny percentage of what this -EV player won.

Dumb people like to claim that my strategy would have been a winner had I played games a percentage point higher....when my actual results have been massively larger than whatever they could dream up from their easy chairs.

[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?

This is what I can gather from the 888 article. It was 2010 and Johnson had just been shut down from playing at Taj Mahal. He had booked only a $220,000 win. Why would they cut him off for just getting ahead for that amount? I think they pegged him as a card counter so backed him off.

After the Taj backoff Johnson called Caesar's, told them he wanted to play, and that he had a check from Taj for $220,000. They told him to come right over. This is from the article:

"Johnson had shown up at the casino with two guys in tow and a pair of hot looking girls....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.

And yes, Johnson went and called "Andy" after this session. So Andy wasn't with him at Caesars. But it is clear from the above quote out of the 888 article that Johnson was card counting and had agents there hole-carding and sequencing for him. I think the big win was what brought Andy out of the woodwork to collaborate with Johnson.

It's amazing how bad Rob's reading comprehension is. He thinks Johnson was just playing basic strategy with a big bankroll and that's how he won.

BTW, there were no loss rebates involved in those Taj and Caesar's sessions. But Johnson was definitely playing with an edge.

[mickeycrimm]

That's right. And what?

And what, is you are putting up shit that everyone has been aware of for years and acting like you are delivering some breaking news.

Sorry mickeycrimm but what you just wrote is what everyone has known for years. Thanks Captain Obvious.

You're an idiot.

[mickeycrimm]

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

As far as you, young man, you need to just accept the fact that you know next to nothing about gambling. Worse than that, for someone who participates on gambling forums so extensively, you either have no desire to learn or are the worst student of any class ever.

You couldn't spell, "AP," if I spotted you the first letter.

Congratulations. You have made the transition to asshole. I knew it wouldn't take that long.

Alan, that's the effect you have on people.

[Mission146]

Congratulations. You have made the transition to asshole. I knew it wouldn't take that long.

Do I get a celebratory dinner or, at least, some kind of certificate?

[Alan Mendelson]

Congratulations. You have made the transition to asshole. I knew it wouldn't take that long.

Do I get a celebratory dinner or, at least, some kind of certificate?

Sure. A ten piece box of McNuggets.

[Mission146]

DJ was playing a hugely -ev game, even though admitting as such would be akin to suicide by any of the armchair gambling theorists like Mickey here--who's every boast comes in the form of "earned phantom bucks". And we do know the wasted, non-productive, useless and meaningless life of "mickeycrimm" comes at near the top of that failed heap.

Heed Alan's words: some people actually forget that a player has to WIN to have a gambling profit. With the itsy bitsy theoretical "advantage" these people wanted DJ to have because of some big mouth player at his table, a useless rebate, etc., none of it ever figured into even a tiny percentage of what this -EV player won.

Okay, dumbass, here's your last free lesson from me (unless you decide to read past and future posts that are not in direct response to you).

Let's suppose for a second that you were playing Craps with one million dollars that you could bet at once. Except, here's the catch, I'm going to give you 20% back if you lose your bet. For simplicity, we'll say you play the Pass Line. Therefore, if you win, you profit $1,000,000 and you lose $800,000 if you lose.

(1000000 * .4929) - (800000 * .5071) = 87220

You'll notice how the number on the right is positive, what that means is that you are expected to profit in this scenario, specifically, $87,220. Since you are betting $1,000,000, that makes your expected profit $87,220 or 8.722% advantage.

Because you have an expected profit, you're no longer playing a -EV game, you're playing a +EV one. That's what advantage play is. It's a state in which you are playing for a positive expected value, rather than a negative one.

So, when you say he was, "Playing a hugely -EV game," you're either trolling and doing it very poorly, or you actually are a literal fucking retard. It has to be one of the two. It can't possibly be anything else.

Now, Blackjack has a lower base House Edge than does Craps and DJ had a lot of other factors working in his favor, as well. The LR, by itself, put him at a huge advantage, but then every other factor added to it.

Anyway, I haven't and don't challenge your personal results (even in light of certain other factors) because I wasn't there and I consider them mathematically possible. More importantly, I consider you an insignificant little shit who is a complete waste of time.

You've done it. You should be proud. You are actually one of the only people who, if someone came on here with news that you had dropped dead from a stroke, I couldn't even be arsed enough to give a dismissive, "That's a shame." I actually do not care enough about your life to be moved to type fifteen characters. Isn't that neat? I'm not even saying that to be mean, I actually thought about it for a second just to make sure I'm being honest. I am. Wouldn't care. Couldn't be bothered enough to do a simple common courtesy.

[Mission146]

Sure. A ten piece box of McNuggets.

Fancy. Do I have to wait for you to put $2 in the machine so you can load your free play and run it through?

[jbjb]

As mentioned, he had a HUGE advantage just from the CC'ing, ST'ing, and HC'ing. Piss on the rebates!!

[Alan Mendelson]

Well I play craps so I'd like to comment.
First, I think Mission had a typo and meant "back" instead of "bet."

Now the numbers.

If I get a 20% discount on my losses this happens:

Bet $1,000,000 but lose 800,000.
Net loss is $200,000. I don't see anything positive yet?

Bet $1,000,000 again and win. I collect $1,000,000.

I have bet a total of $2,000,000.
I won $1,000,000 and lost $800,000.
Total win is $1,800,000.
Total bet is $2,000,000.
Net loss is $200,000.

Where's the positive in that?

[Alan Mendelson]

As mentioned, he had a HUGE advantage just from the CC'ing, ST'ing, and HC'ing. Piss on the rebates!!

I have to agree with jbjb. The rebates only take the sting out of losing but don't make you a winner or give you an edge.

[mickeycrimm]

DJ was playing a hugely -ev game, even though admitting as such would be akin to suicide by any of the armchair gambling theorists....Heed Alan's words: some people actually forget that a player has to WIN to have a gambling profit. With the itsy bitsy theoretical "advantage" these people wanted DJ to have because of some big mouth player at his table, a useless rebate, etc., none of it ever figured into even a tiny percentage of what this -EV player won.

Like most of you I've always loved comedy. I think one of the most comical things we could ever see is a conversation on gambling between Rob Singer and Don Johnson. I think what would be hysterically funny would be the look on Johnson's face after practically every Rob Singer comment.

We've got to get it on film. Alan?

[mickeycrimm]

As mentioned, he had a HUGE advantage just from the CC'ing, ST'ing, and HC'ing. Piss on the rebates!!

I have to agree with jbjb. The rebates only take the sting out of losing but don't make you a winner or give you an edge.

If that were the case the casinos would be giving 20% loss rebates to video poker plays 24/7/365.