zengrifter
Banned
You are just spouting mythology. zgJack_Black said:
IMO, Card Counting is a scam.
- Thread starter MDcounter
- Start date
Well honestly stfu then - you post saying it's a scam then you say it's not, but that's just because you just can't make the money you want? Talk about talking bullsh*t. Either it's a scam or it's not - make up your f*ck*ng mind and let the rest of us get on with it.MDcounter said:
RJT.
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
No, it's a tall tale. Or maybe I'm just trying to prepare for the day when I become an old fuddy duddy and wanting to talk the ears off of any youngin who wants to listen to stories of how great things used to be.zengrifter said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
Does it really matter what this or that counter made or lost? If you believe that computer simulations are valid (and this is scientifically verifiable), isn't that all you need to know that counting is a valid and profitable methodology? The hardest part is figuring ways to count without detection. Quick hits of an hour or less seem a fairly foolproof way to win and be gone before the casinos have time to evaluate your game. There are many other strategies, but I think the validity of counting itself is beyond question.
Brock Windsor
Well-Known Member
This is wrong. Table max is the limit. That combined with heat, surveillance, CTR's, etc. means that there IS a limit. After a certain point you can no longer scale larger. Those making 6 figure returns are not solely counting cards and IMO no person gambling only against the house is making a 7 figure annual return after expenses like partners and travel costs. Movies and TV shows about gambling are far from the reality. It is hard work. Lots of fun, but hard work.Jack_Black said:
-BW
b jay cobbson
Active Member
Stanford Wong unpublished quote...
"Counting cards is easy. Making money counting cards is the hard part."Brock Windsor said:
I first began card counting 20 years ago and at first I too was skeptical. I wrote a computer program back then in basic. The program was as random as I possible could make it. Back then computers were very slow or at least the one I had was. The program counted cards (a simple one count system), increased bets based on the true count and adjusted play based on the true count. Unfortunately I do not recall what book I used for the counting system or play adjustments.MDcounter said:
Every day for two weeks I would start the program before I left for work and then shut it down when I came home. The computer averaged a thousand hands per day, it was that slow. After 10000 hands of play I checked the results. At that time according to the experts you should get a return of 3% of your total bets if you play perfectly. My bet spread was $5 to $25 and the average bet was approximately $10. So my total bets came to $100,000.00. My profit was $3000.00 - exactly 3%. That proved to me that counting truly works and I have been counting ever since.
Today I use a little more sophisticated count sytem and I keep records. My bet spread is a little higher ($5 to $30) and my hourly win rate is about $24 dollars per hour. I live in Las Vegas so I can play whenever I want. Since I have a regular job I only play about 8 hours a week. Counting cards and adjusting play can be challenging and stressful at times so I don't really want to play more than 8 hours a week.
Counting cards is not a scam - it works!!!! Even though counting cards gives you an advantage there have been some weeks when I lost money and there have been weeks when I won significantly more than the expected average.
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
uhhh. That's why I mentioned the other AP techniques and how important it is to learn them in today's games. That was the crux of the whole post.Brock Windsor said:
Also, there is no limit. I don't understand how you think that table max is the limit. Granted I agree it gets to be very very hard to make 7 figures, but I didn't give specific numbers in the first place. as to no one making 7 figures? james grosjean, MIT teams come to mind.
From http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/interviewJC.htmjohndoe said:
"JC: One thing I think I’d like to add is what kind of threat the MIT blackjack team really is to the casinos. Despite our vaunted reputation, we really haven’t taken that much money out. A little more than $10 million is my guess. That might sound like a lot but considering the amount of time [over 20 years] and number of people it’s not particularly impressive. Over the years, the average yearly income of a blackjack player from our group has been $25,000. Granted, it’s part time work, but it’s not that profitable really."
As great a player and team leader JC was and or is, he was not part of the team for about the last 5 years of large operation. The major players of that period made very good money. Much more than is quoted by JC. SI the first team I personally was aware of took huge losses. The years following that were much more lucrative. If you factor SI's losses into the total equation it will bring the median sum down. There are some players on the team that only played on the more prosperous teams. Not to mention various off shoots that have done extremely well.assume_R said:
There are many myths about the MIT teams. But they did make money, and some of the players are still alive and kicking today. Those that are, have made quite a lot of money lifetime. Gone are the days of $1500 units, but so is the shackle of straight counting with a sledgehammer approach. When MIT was exposed, only those that could adapt to the change carried on, the others, well they have different stories.
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
I agree with maz. I remember reading about semyon dukach and amphibian investments doing extremely well, with much less team members. granted I did mention the MIT teams hastily, as I was thinking about people who made millions playing BJ. But I was also talking about other AP methods and their importance to gaining those limitless numbers. MIT played only shoes and did straight card counting, albeit with large groups of people. Kinda like 100 people digging a ditch with spoons. James grosjean, "mickey finn", however had other means.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I would like to weigh the money that the MIT team took from the casinos against the money that the casino's have won as a result of that publicity, from amateur ill-prepared want-a-be counters, who saw the movie and went running off to "donate" to the casinos. We get some idea of how prevalent this is just from the posts that occur here very regularly. The casinos should be grateful that movie was made.
It's funny how we went from countings a scam to the MIT team, but here's my opinion:
I haven't read too much into the MIT team or it's leaders, or the people involved. I appreciate all the important ideas and info that they brought to light over the years, but personally I don't care how much, how little, how good, or what they're doing with the life now. As long as they are all healthy and doing well, thats all that matters. If their willing to share stories and helpful tidbits, thats always welcome too.
I think the entire point is completely missed. The number of zeros in their winning is based on the their unit.
Many guys here have made $10,000 in a year or even $25,000 in a year playing $25 units. Now change that unit to $100, $250, or even $500 and now the yearly win rate is significant.
Consider that guy playing $25 units who can now play $100 units because some investor is backing him:
at 10k per year win rate @ $25u = 400u
which becomes 40k if you play with a $100u
a 25k winner at $25u is = to 1000u
which becomes $100k winner at $100units.
Throw in a BP at $500 units flat betting, if he's up 400u at the end of 1 year thats $200,000.
Throw together a few BP's, multiple stores at a time, a bunch of excellent players at $50-$100 units, along with a bunch of minimum bet play all players and combined it totals a big number.
No doubt it takes more work then my simple example, but the number of zeros is all relative to the unit size and total BR.
One more thought, at a 3% win rate it takes $35 million dollars in action to win $1 million, ok so they are "that good" and won at a 5% win rate, so they still bet $20 million dollars to win 1 million.
It still comes down to one thing, to win big means you need to be able to bet big.
BJC
I haven't read too much into the MIT team or it's leaders, or the people involved. I appreciate all the important ideas and info that they brought to light over the years, but personally I don't care how much, how little, how good, or what they're doing with the life now. As long as they are all healthy and doing well, thats all that matters. If their willing to share stories and helpful tidbits, thats always welcome too.
I think the entire point is completely missed. The number of zeros in their winning is based on the their unit.
Many guys here have made $10,000 in a year or even $25,000 in a year playing $25 units. Now change that unit to $100, $250, or even $500 and now the yearly win rate is significant.
Consider that guy playing $25 units who can now play $100 units because some investor is backing him:
at 10k per year win rate @ $25u = 400u
which becomes 40k if you play with a $100u
a 25k winner at $25u is = to 1000u
which becomes $100k winner at $100units.
Throw in a BP at $500 units flat betting, if he's up 400u at the end of 1 year thats $200,000.
Throw together a few BP's, multiple stores at a time, a bunch of excellent players at $50-$100 units, along with a bunch of minimum bet play all players and combined it totals a big number.
No doubt it takes more work then my simple example, but the number of zeros is all relative to the unit size and total BR.
One more thought, at a 3% win rate it takes $35 million dollars in action to win $1 million, ok so they are "that good" and won at a 5% win rate, so they still bet $20 million dollars to win 1 million.
It still comes down to one thing, to win big means you need to be able to bet big.
BJC