3 ms·

Probably the best evidence for your argument is the fact that he apparently negotiated a hand-shuffled shoe. I'm amazed anyone would agree to it, since it's pre

by gamble 15y ago

Probably the best evidence for your argument is the fact that he apparently negotiated a hand-shuffled shoe. I'm amazed anyone would agree to it, since it's pretty much a giant warning sign that the guy is planning to exploit poor shuffles.

dsrguru 15y ago
The shuffles needn't be poor. The existence of the hand-shuffled shoe just means he has the opportunity to count or shuffle track. The former is impossible if they use a continuous shuffle machine and I imagine the latter is either impossible or too difficult to use effectively. I agree it makes no sense for the casino to agree to that if that's outside their normal rules. I guess they want high rollers to think they've got an edge, but the casinos realize that most high rollers don't actually know how to count fast enough to realize that edge. And until this guy, they've always been able to identify the successful advantage players (not counting group players a la the MIT blackjack team) before losing millions of dollars...
- danbmil99 15y ago
  another factor: as an inside guy, he probably knew their precise algorithm for catching counters. I suspect he does count, but knows exactly how to vary his play to keep just south of the model targeting him as a counter.
  - thesis 15y ago
    What are you talking about? A CEO got fired because of this. Anyone and everyone was watching this guy.
    - danbmil99 15y ago
      What I'm saying is, they have mathematical models that they follow to decide whether someone is counting. I suspect this guy was in fact using information about cards played to vary his future bets -- in effect counting, but he was doing it in a way that did not fit the house's models for what card counters normally do. He clearly knew more than the people who were watching him, so the fact that all the 'experts' were paying attention doesn't mean he wasn't following a winning strategy.

by gamble 15y ago

dsrguru 15y ago

The shuffles needn't be poor. The existence of the hand-shuffled shoe just means he has the opportunity to count or shuffle track. The former is impossible if they use a continuous shuffle machine and I imagine the latter is either impossible or too difficult to use effectively. I agree it makes no sense for the casino to agree to that if that's outside their normal rules. I guess they want high rollers to think they've got an edge, but the casinos realize that most high rollers don't actually know how to count fast enough to realize that edge. And until this guy, they've always been able to identify the successful advantage players (not counting group players a la the MIT blackjack team) before losing millions of dollars...

danbmil99 15y ago
another factor: as an inside guy, he probably knew their precise algorithm for catching counters. I suspect he does count, but knows exactly how to vary his play to keep just south of the model targeting him as a counter.
- thesis 15y ago
  What are you talking about? A CEO got fired because of this. Anyone and everyone was watching this guy.
  - danbmil99 15y ago
    What I'm saying is, they have mathematical models that they follow to decide whether someone is counting. I suspect this guy was in fact using information about cards played to vary his future bets -- in effect counting, but he was doing it in a way that did not fit the house's models for what card counters normally do. He clearly knew more than the people who were watching him, so the fact that all the 'experts' were paying attention doesn't mean he wasn't following a winning strategy.