4 ms·

Yeah this article is awfully written. Its portrayal of counting as even possibly unfair ("he had beaten the casinos fair and square [by not counting]") is ridi

by dsrguru 15y ago

Yeah this article is awfully written. Its portrayal of counting as even possibly unfair ("he had beaten the casinos fair and square [by not counting]") is ridiculous, and it does a horrendous job explaining his method. His method isn't even addressed until half-way through the article, the article is littered with totally unnecessary comments like "He plays perfect cards" (if you're not counting, every hand's decision should be set in stone), and the actual method they describe isn't logically consistent. At first they make it sound like he won by bargaining down special rules to give himself a substantially greater discount than the house's edge, but then they go on to say that he won $2 million later on without the discount (despite the house having a fractional edge), without further explanation. They've already made it clear that this guy plays to win rather than to gamble, so he obviously didn't win it by pure luck. So we're clearly missing something here...

cantbecool 15y ago
You couldn't have written it any better. Mark Bowden, the writer of the article, is superficially looking at the situation and not telling us Don's methods of success. I'm more interested in what tactics Don is doing rather then the romanticized story behind it all. That's just me though.
- mikeleeorg 15y ago
  I was really hoping to read about Don's tactics too, but when I saw the publication source, I removed those expectations ;)
vacri 15y ago
if the balance is 50/50 (or close enough to), but your losses are 20% less than your wins, then over the long game (which is repeated several times in the article) you will come out ahead. You will have some winning streaks and some losing streaks. But in the long run, that 20% difference at 50/50 win/loss will give you an overall win. He did not just walk into each casino and win those millions in one sitting apiece.
- dsrguru 15y ago
  But they said he won 2 million afterwards when they didn't give him the discount.
  - vacri 15y ago
    which can happen on a winning streak - stats works that way. $2M is only a part of the $15M he took the casinos for. If he's playing on 'their money' - that is, he's already ahead, he can keep playing until the streak turns.
    - dsrguru 15y ago
      He wouldn't do that. He's playing to win, not to gamble. Streaks aren't a statistical phenomenon in the sense that once you start a streak, you'd be more likely to keep winning. As far as non-card counters are concerned, and as far as all players are concerned if a continuous shuffle machine is in use, each hand of blackjack is an independent event. Once this player wins the casino's money, it becomes "his money," not "their money." By "their money" the article meant if he's up during a game and the odds are still in his favor, he'll continue as long as he feels like it. If the odds are no longer favorable, there's no way an advantage player like him would start gambling $2M for kicks.
      - true_religion 15y ago
        I don't really agree. He was a known player, thus he gambled previously. It's entirely possible he'd just continue playing because he enjoys the came, and knows that for the time being he's "up".
        dsrguru 15y ago
        You might be right. Apparently he "would not divulge his betting strategy" (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/meet-the-blackjack-player-who-beat-the-trop-for-million/article_86f42838-83c8-11e0-92d7-001cc4c03286.html http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/meet-the-bl...), which means we won't be able to even know if he is an advantage player or just got really, really lucky. Nevertheless, the article I just linked to says that $100,000 per hand is the highest maximum Johnson has ever heard of, so assuming he is in fact the only person betting this much, and since he claims to have bet that much only because he's using a mathematical strategy that puts the odds in his favor, a liberally applied combination of Occam's Razor and Bayes' Theorem suggests that the positive outcome is likely more than just luck but that the odds really are in his favor.

by dsrguru 15y ago

cantbecool 15y ago

You couldn't have written it any better. Mark Bowden, the writer of the article, is superficially looking at the situation and not telling us Don's methods of success. I'm more interested in what tactics Don is doing rather then the romanticized story behind it all. That's just me though.

mikeleeorg 15y ago
I was really hoping to read about Don's tactics too, but when I saw the publication source, I removed those expectations ;)

vacri 15y ago

if the balance is 50/50 (or close enough to), but your losses are 20% less than your wins, then over the long game (which is repeated several times in the article) you will come out ahead. You will have some winning streaks and some losing streaks. But in the long run, that 20% difference at 50/50 win/loss will give you an overall win. He did not just walk into each casino and win those millions in one sitting apiece.

dsrguru 15y ago
But they said he won 2 million afterwards when they didn't give him the discount.
- vacri 15y ago
  which can happen on a winning streak - stats works that way. $2M is only a part of the $15M he took the casinos for. If he's playing on 'their money' - that is, he's already ahead, he can keep playing until the streak turns.
  - dsrguru 15y ago
    He wouldn't do that. He's playing to win, not to gamble. Streaks aren't a statistical phenomenon in the sense that once you start a streak, you'd be more likely to keep winning. As far as non-card counters are concerned, and as far as all players are concerned if a continuous shuffle machine is in use, each hand of blackjack is an independent event. Once this player wins the casino's money, it becomes "his money," not "their money." By "their money" the article meant if he's up during a game and the odds are still in his favor, he'll continue as long as he feels like it. If the odds are no longer favorable, there's no way an advantage player like him would start gambling $2M for kicks.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      I don't really agree. He was a known player, thus he gambled previously. It's entirely possible he'd just continue playing because he enjoys the came, and knows that for the time being he's "up".
      - dsrguru 15y ago
        You might be right. Apparently he "would not divulge his betting strategy" (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/meet-the-blackjack-player-who-beat-the-trop-for-million/article_86f42838-83c8-11e0-92d7-001cc4c03286.html http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/meet-the-bl...), which means we won't be able to even know if he is an advantage player or just got really, really lucky. Nevertheless, the article I just linked to says that $100,000 per hand is the highest maximum Johnson has ever heard of, so assuming he is in fact the only person betting this much, and since he claims to have bet that much only because he's using a mathematical strategy that puts the odds in his favor, a liberally applied combination of Occam's Razor and Bayes' Theorem suggests that the positive outcome is likely more than just luck but that the odds really are in his favor.