Blackjack Card-Counting Redivivus? NOT!

**Ion Saliu** · 10-07-2010, 02:55 PM

Perhaps the improvements in world economy start benefitting casinos as well. It’s real good when the general state of things benefits everybody and every entity — or as many entities as possible.

It is noticeable that businesses and economic entities want the world to know that the economy is improving. That’s the first tool employed in marketing. Then, the tool of advertising is put to work.

The casinos, as business entities, do the same thing. They let the world know that the economy is getting better and better. Then they advertise by all means available. I know because they opened table games in the newly opened casinos in Pennsylvania. Since table games are a novelty in Pennsylvania, the business in booming. Everybody around here complains loudly that they can’t find enough people to hire, especially as dealers at table games! Unemployment is still very high in the U.S. — but they can’t find enough people to employ in the casino regions of Pennsylvania! Go figure!

To make things even more dramatic, there are already stories of cheating at blackjack. The card-counters are characters of exciting stories again! Translation: Blackjack is a highly winnable game, people! Come down and play — and leave the casino a rich person!

There is a personal side to this. I get more clearly the impression that some want to involve me again. More messages attack my new theory of blackjack odds and house edge. There are more and more public opinions attacking my theory of gambling streaks (the only theory founded on undeniable mathematics).

They attack my gambling theory by contrasting it with the same fanatic religion of counting cards at blackjack. There are even new counting systems devised! I am informed about such systems most likely by the authors themselves. Possibly, their cronies also bring the BJ counting systems to my attention … you know, trying to make me change my mind! I don’t change opinions regardless of what others’ opinions are — no matter how loudly they are expressed. Only verification, especially mathematical, matters — that’s how I found, and sometimes change, my opinions.

I didn’t dismiss the new counting system beforehand. I checked it out in the name of research. I even watched a YouTube video. It was pathetic — it resembled somehow a self-therapy session in a mental institution. The new “blackjack counting system” mixed the 8 and 9 (high cards) with the 2 and 3 cards in the group of small cards. How “small” is 9 compared to 2? The video showed a blackjack shoe with insanely high positive counts. The three players at the table won very frequently, while the dealer busted way too frequently.

I hit the “author” of the counting system with my remarks. I bluntly opinionated that the “developer” cooked the books in his video. He replied in a manner characteristic to fanatics. He affirmed that, actually, his system had lost in the three sessions previous to the final version of his video! Such a winning system! Lose three consecutive sessions — then fabricate a fourth winning session! The strongest indication of cooking the books: The dealer busted far more often than any of the players! The “blackjack” players rarely busted in the YouTube video. The blackjack dealer busting more than the players combined never happens in a real casino — ever!

– Continues –

**Ion Saliu** · 10-07-2010, 03:02 PM

I presented also what I consider to be the best card-counting system for blackjack. The system offers the most comprehensive information regarding the remaining cards in the deck(s). Virtually all other counting systems report only the ratio between the high cards (especially Ten-valued cards) and low cards (especially from 2 to 6). Usually, the 7s, 8s, and 9s are not counted. Sometimes, the Aces are side-counted. If we think that 7, 8, 9 are pretty high cards, a blackjack deck is preponderantly high. But virtually all counting systems falsify the status of a BJ shoe by ignoring those three cards in the middle (7, 8, 9).

The counting system I referred to in a forum was not touted as mine. Let’s say it’s the discovery of Mnionin Vintejay, formerly a mathematics professor and now a Buddhist monk. He spent time in totalitarian jails. Mnionin Vintejay got into trouble because of his computer programming abilities. His software helped him discover that there are no God(s) or entities to blindly believe in. Mnionin Vintejay is monkish only for the purpose of meditating.

This blackjack super card-counting system divides the cards into three groups: A, B, C. The first group, A, consists of the low cards: from 2 to 6 — a total of 5 x 4 = 20 cards in a 52-card deck. The second group, B, consists of the pretty-high cards: 7, 8, 9 — a total of 3 x 4 = 12 cards in a 52-card deck. The third group, C, consists of the high cards: Ten and Ace — a total of 5 x 4 = 20 cards in a 52-card deck. From the blackjack player’s perspective: Ace (A) is very high card. The player doesn’t shoot for an Ace to be counted as 1. We always want the Ace to value 11; and thusly make a blackjack natural; or get to 21 when we double down on 10.

There is a total of 12 + 20 = 32 pretty-high and high cards, or 160% more than the amount of low cards. So, the count being so high, inherently leads to the conclusion that the blackjack shoe is favorable to the player to begin with! Well, then, why do we need card-counting systems?! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

We start analyzing this system in the simplest form: One deck of 52-cards, 100% penetration (all cards are dealt … it must be 0% penetration!), one player against the dealer. I got a distribution of cards like this to begin with (starting with the player, the second card in the round goes to the dealer). 2, 10 | 4, 6 | 9, 4 | 10 – plyer busted! The new count is obtained via … deducting. 4 low cards came out; one pretty-high card; 2 high cards. We say mentally the new count in this manner: A16, B11, C18.

Traditionally, they say the new count is high, something like +2. Raise your bet, they scream in their videos or CD blackjack software! But how about those 11 cards in the middle? It is a pretty good amount of them remaining in the deck. Truth is, the possibilities are countless. But the real painful truth for the card-counting afflicts is this. The counter who raises his or her bet has too many misses compared to the wins. Therefore, the counter loses way too many times big bets compared to the winning big bets. Because of such mathematical reality (named combinatorics of permutations and arrangements), the BJ card-counter can lose the entire bankroll far more quickly than a non-counter. Honest analysts of the theory of blackjack will stress that painful reality.

Of course, I didn’t memorize this counting system! Of course, it offers far, far more information than all other blackjack counting systems. I applied the system in the privacy of my home, at my leisure. I wrote down everything on paper, hand by hand. I accurately recorded the counts for each group. I coined also a new parameter: group deterioration. The parameter was derived by comparing the new group count to the initial values of 20, 12, 20. If group A deteriorated more compared to the initial value of 20, the remaining deck was considered to be clearly high. If, in addition to deteriorated A, there was deterioration in group B, that constituted the best-case scenario. An increase in betting was mandatory.

But there is the rub. I was unable to find anything consistent to win … consistently. I still lost my bankroll more often than not. And that even if such situations would win more hands than the dealer. Problem was the balance between the winning and the losing situations when my bet was bigger. The blackjack card-counting system cannot afford too many misses — the winning cases may not recuperate the increased losses — more often than not.

Those cards in the middle (the pretty-high group) play a very important role. What I noticed, however, is the effect of accented deterioration in groups A and C, but not in group B. It creates more hands to double down. You and the blackjack dealer get equal opportunities regarding such hands. The advantage is the dealer may not double down, while the player is allowed to!

I tell the truth, I don’t make a concession next. There are cases when groups A and B are greatly deteriorated compared to group C. Seasoned blackjack players know what that means. There is a much higher probability for blackjacks (naturals). Both the blackjack player and the dealer get equal opportunities regarding such hands. Once again, the advantage goes to the player: He or she is paid 150%. The dealer still gets the same 100% for a natural blackjack. One strong reason to never take insurance.

The analysis got much more complicated by enabling two blackjack players. It was a lot more inconsistent on how to increase the bet when group C was less deteriorated than groups A and B. The high cards get distributed among all the participants at the table more often than not. That’s one more factor of increasingly fast losses for the counter. You, the card counter, might expect that you’ll be the beneficiary of all those high cards! NOT! Too many times, there is an equitable distribution of the cards, including that nemesis of ours, the dealer!

I never analyzed for more than two blackjack players. The inconsistency is insurmountable. Forget about more than one deck of cards! The inconsistency makes the blackjack analysis mission impossible.

I used inconsistency several times throughout. There is consistency, however. In a majority of cases, blackjack card-counting leads to higher losses in shorter sessions. The card counter does need a really substantial bankroll. The bankroll size is of the essence. The counter must withstand all those misses when the bet was raised significantly. And thus the counter must wait (or, should I say, pray) for those extremely rare situations when the count is extremely rich in Tens and Aces. The winning situations create a 50% profit compared to the losing situations (when only the dealer gets the blackjack naturally). And here is another rub. The counter might not get to play those profitable situations. The pitboss already smelled blood. The counter lost serious money. It’s time to throw him counter out, before reaching those streaks with lopsided deterioration in groups A, B!

Meanwhile, playing my blackjack strategy based on winning - losing streaks does have a solid mathematical foundation. You know that a gambling session consists of wins and losses. The wins and the losses come in streaks of different lengths. The number of streaks of various lengths can be calculated by mathematical formulas. It is undeniable mathematics that a majority of streaks come in shorter lengths (e.g. L, or LL, or WW, or WW, etc.)

The theory of streaks does have virulent opponents. Some vociferously hate my theory. A clear majority of them haters represent the core of gambling authors, developer, vendors, system distributors … and the like. The group also includes casino agents who are paid to attack me. When the attacks in public places don’t succeed, the haters can’t take it anymore! They attack me directly, in my forums, or in email messages. To the attacks I say: Resquiant in pace!

Ion Saliu
Naturally At-Large

**Ion Saliu** · 10-08-2010, 01:34 PM

Well, there is no science when it comes to card counting at blackjack! Most card counting authors and advocates get irritated to the max when you pose them with the mathematical foundation of their theory of counting cards. As Wormtenburger put it best: "Random events cannot, by definition, be captured in formulae".

The reverse comes to life when my theory of streaks is debated. All of a sudden, every opponent becomes a mathematics professor! They shout that the streaks can’t be analyzed mathematically. And they make that overused irrational “argument”: The player can have a losing streak equal to infinity (sic!) But never the casino (the house, or Player’s opponent), mind you! As "Wizard" Lizard of Odds put it best: "Yes, Heads can come out 200 times in a row.". I asked him to prove to me with real data. He reversed himself and replied with another email: "Okay, OK! How about 20 times in a row?".

You know, he was wrong to reverse himself. He was closer to the truth and honesty the first time around. Yes, mathematically it is possible to get 200 Heads in a row. The probability is always the same: p = 1 in 2. But none of them self-proclaimed experts comprehend that random events consist of two more fundamental elements: degree of certainty DC and number of trials N. Possibly, yes: Get 200 consecutive losses (or Heads, or Tails) in a very large number of trials with an extremely low degree of certainty.

Allow me to indulge, will you? I like to tease them opponents with name calling!

As absurd as it might sound, the blackjack card counters are treated by the casinos in a criminal modality! Even more absurd, the courts of laws in the most law-worship-oriented nation rules in favor of the casinos (reminiscent of the mafia era)!! Read more:

Assaults on Mathematics of Gambling and Lottery;

Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp. -- The Decision of the Federal Court of Appeals.

Ion Saliu (name calling: Parpaluck)

**Ion Saliu** · 10-09-2010, 02:20 PM

Actually, there is an army of casino agents or moles out there. A few are in the open; most of them are in denial regarding their “consulting work” for the benefit of the casinos. “There is no place for mathematics in gambling,” they screamingly warn the players. So, they offer their “real winning gambling systems” to the public!

Look at those John Patrick gambling videos filmed with real TV cameras inside a casino, using real casino dealers! Why would the casinos pay good money to developers whose “creations” would damage the casinos financially?! It makes as much sense as the statement “Monotheism consists of God-Father and God-Son, plus an army of Archangels and Saints”! Who could pay them all? A huge army of ignorants, that’s who!

Read this thread in the Ionic Café:
Algo-trading.

But, hey, local politicians would say, calming you down: "All communities need as much revenue in taxes as they can get. More taxes do more social good than more ethics does."

It’s better for this community, for example, to limit the area of the Gettysburg Historic Battlefield and build a casino on the newly freed land. More money from taxes would help the Battlefield in the future! "So, citizens, you would become even better citizens by becoming good gamblers as well. And good gamblers must realize that they are expected to lose their money by entering a casino. Citizens must realize that a casino is like a more expensive movie theater. The patrons pay for entertainment without a right to a refund. Forget about winning altogether!"

Ion Saliu
Wannabe-Good-Citizen At-Large

**Ion Saliu** · 10-09-2010, 05:09 PM

Irony of ironies! Soon after I posted my previous message in this thread, I saw an advertisement from a newly opened casino in Pennsylvania. You should be able to see it again, or similar ads from other casinos. The ad read:

Support XY casino! It brings dollars to the school district.

Another casino advertisement here promises to create hundreds of new jobs.

It is evident what casinos mean by support: Enter the casino early and often and dump your money in their vaults. Some of the money will go to the school district in the form of taxes. The casino patrons winning is absolutely out of the question! What money would go to the school district in such cases?!