When I was counting a lot it would be really difficult to play without counting. I automatically just count without wanting to. Even when I was playing other card games like hearts I would count.
2 Likes
With the number of decks in the shoe increasing, it makes counting that much harder. Vegas KNOWS people are counting. They probably can even tell who is counting through the use of focus groups and facial recognition. They just don’t care, because most people don’t do it well enough to win. And those that do, well they simply blacklist them.
1 Like
I don’t think the number of decks in your typical shoe has increased much in the last 10 years, but they’ve made counting less favorable in several other ways.
Continuous shuffling machines would be one example.
Also, 6/5 blackjack (where they pay 6 to 5 for a player’s blackjack rather than 3 to 2) games have emerged and become fairly common on the strip, which significantly increases the house edge.
I also think the vast majority who has ever seriously considered taking up card counting ultimately decide against it being anything more than a hobby when they do the math and realize that without a significant bankroll (or taking on an unacceptably high risk of ruin) their rate of return with card counting is likely to converge to a similar $/hr result as a job at McDonald’s and arguably the job at McDonald’s would probably be more enjoyable than spending that many hours at a blackjack table mentally exhausting yourself and trying to remain low-key.
The one good way to make money counting cards (after casinos moved to multi-deck games many years ago) was something called the Big Player routine. I linked to a book on it earlier in this thread by Uston. Understandably, most probably don’t want to commit to reading a book just for the concept so you could also pick it up by watching the movie 21. Not that I recommend this movie or that they really have their story straight, but it does contain the central concept:
In essence, the Big Player gambit involves having a casino floor with a half-dozen or so card counters each playing at different tables (but not varying their bets to make money – they’re losing, but just there to keep track of the count at each table). The Big Player stumbles into to the blackjack pit, dressed like money and looking drunk off his ass. When the count goes positive at any one table the counter there will use some sort of signal to let the Big Player know. The Big Player will then polish off another shot (or whatever) and set himself down at that table, betting the table max (maybe on multiple hands), only half-paying attention to the game itself. He plays basic strategy (which being drunk shouldn’t interfere with) and keeps playing until the counter at that table signals to him that the count is no longer positive. At this point the Big Player gets up and stumbles to another table where the count is positive.
I’m sure every casino out there is familiar with this gambit now, but that was how one made real money counting cards, while evading casino scrutiny. As long as the casino didn’t realize the link between the counters and the Big Player they had nothing to go on since it was abundantly clear there was no way the Big Player was counting cards himself.
2 Likes
The big player is still possible, but not at the bet levels written about then and in the books about the MIT teams. No more bouncing around tables playing 5-10k at fat true counts. That’s why most high limit games are no mid shoe entry. Or $100 max mid shoe.
There are still pro blackjack teams around but they mostly do more advanced stuff than the straight count game. Shuffle tracking. Ace location, etc.
The individual card counter is a tough way to earn a living. Hard to get enough hours in to reach the long run, and playing to a typical solo bankroll is riskier than pooling with a trusted group. The problem is betting a lot gets you a lot of attention and 86ing, and betting $100 max bet doesn’t make enough per hour. Some of my old private group colleagues (think fragile deals for gambling) are still at it, but they supplant it with gaming casino loyalty programs, usually via VP.
On the other hand, if you’ve got a taste for gambling and are rich and/or have a stable job, you can earn $25/hour counting cards playing to a 25k bankroll and it won’t ruin your life if you bust out. It’s fun just for vacations but it gets old really fast once it’s a job.
3 Likes
Good to hear blackjack teams are still alive and well. I never really moved past the theoretical with B&M casinos, but did go as far as coding software to model different counting strategies to estimate EV for different playing conditions. Most of my experience was bonus hunting at online casinos in the 2000-2002 timeframe, initially with FW, then FB, then TG forums. Sadly, I lost touch with everybody from that time period, but it was fun while it lasted.
1 Like
It lasted until 2006, thankfully 
1 Like
A lot of the benefit of counting is modifying basic strategy based on the count. Good dealers will notice this, but it’s not difficult to find weak dealers. And another benefit of finding weak dealers that seem like they would engage in a discussion is that if you get them involved in an interesting discussion they can make mistakes like paying pushes, flipping the wrong card, hitting a surrender, etc. A couple of those mistakes in a 4 hour stretch can make the difference. What I learned after getting permanently flat bet (and had to research methods to stay under the radar) at a small casino was that there are a lot of methods to subsidize the profits from pure, basic card counting.
That said, for me it basically only pays for my trips to Vegas and eating at really nice restaurants, and every once in a while getting to go to an interesting event or really good seats to a show.
1 Like
When counting you’ll find that you make changes to your bet based on the count (improved betting efficiency) and changes to how you play VS standard basic strategy (improved playing efficiency). The whole point to the Big Player gambit is to allow for an extreme form of improved betting efficiency. You as an individual would draw suspicion if you regularly varied your bet between the table maximum and the table minimum, but the Big Player is effectively giving you a means to do that without drawing heat.
Improved playing efficiency is another story and it isn’t always practical for the Big Player to do that. To do that you’d need either:
1: A Big Player who is a proficient counter himself. This is risky since in gaining that experience they may have become known to whoever is filling in for Griffin these days or casino management might recognize them from coming in a few months ago dressed as a scrub rather than the wealthy persona they’re trying to portray now.
2: The counter at the table with the Big Player to be using some sort of signaling system to tell them how to play their hand. This is risky since the more signaling you’re doing the more likely a casino is to detect it. Of course, given that the Big Player technique is meant to be more of a smash and grab system than something you repeat at a given casino every weekend, as long as they don’t detect the signaling while your team is still in the casino you’re probably okay. Still, this does introduce additional risk.
It’s also worth noting that the kind of blackjack game you’re playing determines how much betting efficiency and playing efficiency can be gained through counting. On a single or double deck game there’s much playing efficiency to be gained and a player could go from negative to positive EV on deviating from basic strategy based on the count alone (especially if they’re utilizing a multi-factor count or even using a counting system that’s suited to playing efficiency rather than betting efficiency). When you’re talking about a 6-8 deck shoe there’s not much EV to be gained from basic strategy deviations based on the count and the lion’s share of your EV increase is going to be from improved betting efficiency.
Presumably the Big Player gambit would be more practical to conduct against a 6-8 shoe VS a single or double-deck game. Unless the casino is completely dead there are going to be several other players at each table (meaning less hands between shuffles). Even in a double-deck game by the time the count goes positive and the Big Player is able to sit down enough cards are going to be depleted that it’s either time to shuffle or there’s only one hand remaining before the next shuffle. Capturing that final hand with a nice positive count before the shuffle is great for the Big Player (and you’re going to see some amazingly positive true counts with great EVs), but if they Big Player is only ever hitting the final hand before shuffling with their large bets that’s a pretty big tell right there.
In a shoe game the true count is going to be less volatile so the Big Player will tend to stay at a table for several hands while the count remains positive before moving onto the next table (which should appear more natural). As an aside (unrelated to Big Player gambit) it’s worth noting that this reduced true count volatility is NOT actually an advantage for counting in general (although many mistakenly infer that). The proper interpretation of that is instead of being able to capture a larger EV spike over a shorter number of hands you’re forced to sit through a larger number of hands, each with a smaller EV spike.
Tying this back my original point: Since the Big Player gambit is going to appear more natural when applied against a multi-deck shoe game, the Big Player will be in conditions where there’s less (if any) EV to be gained through deviations to basic strategy based on count.
3 Likes