Blackjack Player Breaks the Bank At Atlantic City

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blackjack Player Breaks the Bank At Atlantic City

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 22, 2012 @07:20AM from the applied-mathematics dept.

Hugh Pickens writes with a link to Atlantic writer Mark Bowden's account of how one gambler has cleaned up against casinos: "[B]lackjack player Don Johnson won nearly $6 million playing blackjack in one night, single-handedly decimating the monthly revenue of Atlantic City's Tropicana casino after previously taking the Borgata for $5 million and Caesars for $4 million. How did Johnson do it? For one thing, Johnson is an extraordinarily skilled blackjack player. 'He plays perfect cards,' says Tony Rodio. But that's not enough to beat the house edge. As good as Johnson is at playing cards, his advantage is that he's even better at playing the casinos. When revenues slump as they have for the last five years at Atlantic City, casinos must rely more heavily on their most prized customers, the high rollers who wager huge amounts and are willing to lessen its edge for them primarily by offering discounts, or 'loss rebates.' When a casino offers a discount of, say, 10 percent, that means if the player loses $100,000 at the blackjack table, he has to pay only $90,000." Pickens continues: "Two years ago the casinos started getting desperate and offered Johnson a 20 per cent discount. They also offered playing with a hand-shuffled six-deck shoe; the right to split and double down on up to four hands at once; and a 'soft 17,' whittling the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent. In effect, Johnson was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. Johnson had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: 'You'd never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You'd owe them only $400,000.'"

294 comments

That's how it's done... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-03-22 07:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  BTW, FP.
  
  Byotches!
  Does your grandfather know you're using his Slashdot account to post?
2. Re:That's how it's done... by Caratted · 2012-03-22 07:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hi. DBA at a gaming company, here. We dropped poker from the majority of our locations as a result of entirely too small hold percentage (% the house holds on your average bet). Something around 1-2%. This is primarily an artifact of players playing players, instead of playing the house. It is hardly worth the labor when you can push those players to one of two things: Other table games (craps/blackjack run around 8-12% hold on average) or video poker (about 6-7% and no labor involved).
  
  No insult intended, this is just anecdotal evidence that your statement may be misinformation. The reason some of our locations hold on to poker is because the outcry from these players is so dramatic that it effects the turnstyle numbers in a statistically significant way. Even if it is only a fraction of a percentage, it is relevantly outside our margin of error - and so can cost those locations money. This is not because of the game itself, but because word of mouth keeps people off other games.
3. Re:That's how it's done... by f97tosc · 2012-03-22 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
  Luck is a huge component, as the winner himself said he was ready to walk away with a $400k loss which could have happened had the cards come out differently.
  
  Only if you have an infinite amount of time and an infinite loss tolerance (or if you cheat) can you avoid the impact of luck.
4. Re:That's how it's done... by Enderandrew · 2012-03-22 07:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I worked for Harrahs. We had poker at both Council Bluffs properties. Certainly it makes less money directly than other table games, and less money than slots. But Harrahs owning the World Series of Poker creates a lot of visibility for the company and gets people in the door.
  Often men don't enjoy slots as much as women. For some, having poker allows a couple to come and have both partners play something they enjoy.
  Slots will make more money in the same space, but I don't know that you're more profitable overall dropping poker in the long run.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
5. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  Are you talking about Video Poker? Because that's not really heavily promoted. But if you're talking about table poker, you're just dead wrong. In table poker, players play each other, not the house, so the house makes a shitty fixed percentage, significantly less than it makes on any other game. The only reason they keep it around is because it's hugely popular and gets people in the door. It's very common for poker winners to piss away all their winnings on other games.
6. Re:That's how it's done... by f97tosc · 2012-03-22 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  It may be true that they make more money on poker, but it is still an easier game to beat, because you primarily fight other players and not the house.
  
  In black jack, only the most extremely skilled players under very unusual conditions can generate a positive average return based on their strategy.
  
  In poker, there may be one player at every table of 10 (i.e. 10%) that shows a positive average return based on their strategy.
7. Re:That's how it's done... by DamnStupidElf · 2012-03-22 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  He could also have been hit by a bus walking to church instead of going to a casino, probably with higher probability than losing $500,000 in his situation. It's relatively easy to cause unlucky events to be of the unavoidable kind instead of the avoidable (gambling irresponsibly) kind.
8. Re:That's how it's done... by Obfuscant · 2012-03-22 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk. There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  The first three games you mentioned are all played to the house advantage against the house. The best of the three for the player is blackjack where the house percentage can be low (and depends on the specific house rules). But it still favors the house. Blackjack is also the game where counting cards can help you win.
  Poker is played not against the house, but against other people. The only money the poker rooms make is from the rake, or a percentage of each pot. The rake doesn't change the odds of winning a hand, only the amount you win by a small amount. It biases the expected return calculations and thus should have a small effect on how players bet.
  The largest effects on player behaviour are the bonuses like "high hand" or "bad beat", where players who know they are likely to win $500 for getting four of a kind are going to underbet their hands to keep the other players in until the end (trading pot size for jackpot). Or, as I did once, a player who knows the other person has made their straight flush may stay in the pot hoping to complete quads so he'd win his half of the bad beat jackpot.
  The other money poker brings in is from the players who play other games waiting for a seat, or visit the buffet. Getting people in the door is the first step to robbing them blind with Carribean Stud or Craps or Roulette.
9. Re:That's how it's done... by Caratted · 2012-03-22 08:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Our properties are relatively small, but stay busy. That real estate is way more important to us than it would be in a Harrahs, especially during any given promotion. I've shopped both of those properties :)
  
  I have figures from about a year ago showing a promo year over year. The poker tables were full the first year, gone the second year. Sure, there were some men who were displeased. But, response on the promotion went up (as a result of the men having something to do other than head directly to their table until their wives were broke), and profit on the night is up significantly. It could be a shift in play, but analysis says otherwise - the tables never went back in.
10. Re:That's how it's done... by crazyjj · 2012-03-22 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have an unbeatable system too. If I tap each machine in my row three times, then I'll beat the odds on the slots.
  God, I just hope it works.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
11. Re:That's how it's done... by mcmonkey · 2012-03-22 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
  Luck is a huge component, as the winner himself said he was ready to walk away with a $400k loss which could have happened had the cards come out differently.
  Only if you have an infinite amount of time and an infinite loss tolerance (or if you cheat) can you avoid the impact of luck.
  Just like the folks at CERN and the LHC are relying on luck. What an atom or subatomic particle does at any particular moment is as much subject to chance as what card is dealt next.
  But just like the scientist doesn't fire a single particle down the collider, this guy didn't play a single hand.
12. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Busses walk to church?! Why wouldn't it just drive there?
13. Re:That's how it's done... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-03-22 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  My system's better. I tap a machine of my choosing three times, take my roll of quarters out of my left pocket and put it into the right pocket and then go home!
14. Re:That's how it's done... by 228e2 · 2012-03-22 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ^Story of my life, heh.
  
  I go to AC with my roommate maybe 3-4 times a year, along with 1-2 vegas trips. We can easily take in +1000 a weekend playing poker. We then turn around and burn 800 or so playing everything else and having a big meal. Leaving up 200 is usually depends on how reckless we are on the craps table.
  
  --
  Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
15. Re:That's how it's done... by bigdavex · 2012-03-22 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  Yeah, no. Poker is not a great casino money-maker. It's a way to draw players into the building for the more lucrative games
  There are many professional and semi-professional poker players. I'm sure there are some successful blackjack players, perhaps like the article is suggesting, but nothing on the scale of poker.
  Think about it -- player poker profits are fueled by the innumeracy of the general population. This is an abundant resource.
  
  --
  -Dave
16. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  It already spent all its gas driving to the casino and changing its mind.
17. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  The casinos don't care who wins at poker because they pay rake regardless. However, poker doesn't have a built-in house edge. It's still the most profitable game you can find in a casino game for the good players, by far. I'd argue it's more fun too.
18. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
  There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  I am sorry but Baccarat is nothing but luck. The only strategy is the streak break. Bet small until either banker or player gets a streak of wins and then bet against them. But this can quickly ruin you because I have seen streaks 9-12 wins in a row. This is why there is a dealer fee on banker wins. Without the fee, the long term house edge would be almost nil.
19. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 08:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  With a proper size bankroll, and correct play, you can profit. Usually that goes more for poker against actual players, but blackjack with discounts can (obviously) approach that sort of profit.
  When you discuss risk in play for profit, you have to realize that even if the odds are on your side, you have to be able to keep playing when there are dips. That is the function of the bankroll. You need enough money to not be wiped out by a few correctly played hands where the luck did not come out on your side.
  For instance, in hold'em, you have an 80% chance of winning on AA against one remaining opponent on the flop. At that point you try to induce an all-in and go all in yourself. 80% of the time, you win, but 20% of the time, you are cleaned out. Despite the chance for being cleaned out, this is the exact play you have to make to make a profit over time. You need to make sure you have enough money to cover the hands that you are going to lose despite correct play. Thus, if you lose your first few potentially profitable hands due to luck, you're still there to collect the other 8/10 times you don't lose.
  So being "prepared" to lose 400K meant that his bankroll was set to that much and he could absorb that much bad luck to keep himself playing long enough to realize a profit on correct play. Mind you, he did have to play perfect cards, because the odds require that. You only get the percentage if you play the exact cards under the exact conditions and be ready to assume the risk of losing. It is *not* easy to do, and it is rarely fun in the same way that a miraculous alcohol fueled victory would be. It is an exercise in patience and consistency.
20. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  With a proper size bankroll, and correct play, you can profit. Usually that goes more for poker against actual players
  That depends on who the "you" is. If by "you" you mean the average poker player, then what you're suggesting is self-evidently wrong. Poker between a group of players is a zero sum game, therefore, the hypothetical "average" player breaks even. Add the house taking a cut, and the average player is losing money. Those who make money from poker are making money because the money is coming from suckers who hope that they'll make money from poker. Therefore, it's in the interest of good poker players to constantly try to push the image that "you" can make money playing poker because it helps ensure a fresh flow of suckers to the bottom rung of the pyramid scheme.
21. Re:That's how it's done... by ArhcAngel · 2012-03-22 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could make it work to your advantage
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
22. Re:That's how it's done... by Joce640k · 2012-03-22 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not a game - or entertainment or luck. Just calculation of reall odds and risk.
  Ummmm, he was dealt four eights in a row and the dealer had a five visible (the worst possible card for him).
  How is that not luck...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
23. Re:That's how it's done... by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-22 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  It may be true that they make more money on poker, but it is still an easier game to beat, because you primarily fight other players and not the house.
  Let's see... you can't beat the house on poker, because they skim off the top. The only time they'd lose is if nobody wins or the tables are vacant (and so they're paying tax on real estate they can't use profitably).
  When playing poker, you're not playing up to 50/50, because you're (usually) playing against at least 3 other people. This means that instead of being a numbers game, it's a psychology game -- are you more devious in getting other people distracted enough to part with their money than the other people at your table? This means that if you are the best con man at the table, you will likely beat the table over time... but if someone else is better than you, you'll never beat the table, even though you may have a chance win and stop playing (giving the house a cut of your winnings).
  
  In black jack, only the most extremely skilled players under very unusual conditions can generate a positive average return based on their strategy.
  ...and this depends to a large amount on where you start and stop recording that average. Over your lifetime, your average return is likely in the negative except for statistical anomalies. Basically, you need to have skill, advantage, AND luck on your side.
  
  In poker, there may be one player at every table of 10 (i.e. 10%) that shows a positive average return based on their strategy.
  Exactly... and it's likely that unless they are very careful about what tables they play, over time, that average return is either negative or sum zero. You don't win big at poker without creating some very hard feelings (as it implies you've taken advantage of someone who didn't know better).
24. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  This sounds suspiciously similar to a Martingale strategy where you try to overcome your losses by doubling down.
  In reality-land there can only be two possible scenarios for this blackjack player: either he's crazy rich, usually losses money, but got lucky; or somehow has greater than 50/50 odds overall (perhaps because of poor accounting by the casinos, or because he counts cards at establishments where that kind of thing can works.) Actually, I suppose there's technically a third: he's just extremely lucky, and has worked his way to multimillions. Not something to pattern one's life after, though.
25. Re:That's how it's done... by mattack2 · 2012-03-22 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  Since when? I don't have first hand knowledge of this, but based upon poker podcasts I listed to (especially the Two Plus Two pokercast), before the boom (after Moneymaker's win), casinos were removing a lot of poker tables because of their LOW profitability. Even now, poker costs them more (more space taken up, lots of dealers), and I have heard them theorize that it's sort of a marketing opportunity rather than a moneymaking opportunity. (Getting people to come in and play OTHER games.)
  Remember, this is from poker players/fans.
26. Re:That's how it's done... by Obfuscant · 2012-03-22 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  Let's see... you can't beat the house on poker, because they skim off the top.
  You can't beat the house on poker because you aren't playing against the house.
  
  This means that instead of being a numbers game, it's a psychology game --
  Why yes, poker is primarily a game of reading people and messing with their heads. That's pretty well known. That's why online players often have a hard time transitioning to live play. Those avatars the online folks get to see rarely sweat or twitch or display any tells at all. And that's why I use the online/computer games I play to study things like odds and chances, but never how to read a hand.
  
  ... even though you may have a chance win and stop playing (giving the house a cut of your winnings).
  I know of no casino operated poker room where winners are expected to hand over a "cut of the winnings" when they leave a game. Which casinos do you play at where this happens? I'd stay away from them.
27. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  They took it's license for road rage?
28. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  If all players played correctly, you are right. It is a zero sum game. However, bear in mind, I never said *you* are an "average" player, in fact, I pretty much imply that you are not. I only said that profit is possible.
  Against an average pool of players (no more than one other shark and a few fish), you have a real chance at profit specifically because the other players are *not* playing correctly. It is not easy to play correctly, you need to not only play the right cards in the right situations, you also have to have the patience to fold as needed, and the bravery to go all-in on situations where you must to make the profits, even if there is a chance to lose it all. That is why average play is not generally correct play: you can't be an out of control jerk, but you can't be risk-adverse either.
  Needless to say, an "average" is based on the set of people you play. If you're playing a normal casino scene at lower stakes tables, the average will be less professional. If you are playing at the high stakes tables with all pros, you will be facing closer to the zero sum game because they all know the odds and are willing to play them properly. Then, it starts becoming a game of chicken. No moneymaker wants to face that for normal play.
  As for the pyramid scheme... certainly casino owners will push that and possibly pros would too. I think, however, that if it was a choice between poker and say, playing the lottery, I'd feel that poker (or blackjack) would be a much better choice if you committed to it as your hobby. You at least have a legitimate chance to succeed if you prepare. Anything other than blackjack or poker, though, and you can forget it.
29. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  The 80% is pre-flop... after the flop that precentage goes up or down... depending on what the other player is holding...
30. Re:That's how it's done... by Lyrata · 2012-03-22 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  I've never seen someone get a Score: 5 post immediately followed by a Score: -1. Bravo sir. In regards to your actual first post, though, I would agree for the most part. Poker is pushed so heavily because the bad players attract the good players, which means more hands are being played, and that means the casinos get paid. Plus, you don't see a World Series of Slots.
  
  --
  50,000 characters used to live here.
31. Re:That's how it's done... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-03-22 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't pushing this publicity - including the change of James Bond to Hold Em from Baccarat - unless it pays.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
32. Re:That's how it's done... by sootman · 2012-03-22 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  The only guaranteed way to double your money in a casino: take a $50 out of your wallet, fold it in half, and put it back into your wallet.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
33. Re:That's how it's done... by Fred+Ferrigno · 2012-03-22 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  However, bear in mind, I never said *you* are an "average" player, in fact, I pretty much imply that you are not.
  Right. That's the problem. This isn't Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. On average, the "you" reading your post is going to be... average.
34. Re:That's how it's done... by Clever7Devil · 2012-03-22 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  He doesn't roll on Shabbas.
  
  --
  "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
35. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 11:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If all players played correctly, you are right. It is a zero sum game
  I'm right no matter how all players play. It's easy to figure out. At the end of the game, you add up all the money the winners won and all of the money the losers lost then subtract the latter from the former, it comes out to $0.00. The fact that better players take advantage of poorer players and end up with their money doesn't make it somehow not a zero sum game.
  
  However, bear in mind, I never said *you* are an "average" player, in fact, I pretty much imply that you are not. I only said that profit is possible.
  But you're on a public forum addressing the public. You're not addressing "sharks", you're addressing "fish" and telling them "you too can be a shark". That's exactly what the "sharks" want the "fish" to believe so that they can exploit them. People sitting around a poker table are just looking to exploit each other. Nothing is produced, wealth is just shuffled around so, for anyone to profit, there either needs to be a steady stream of fresh suckers, or a stable base of people who lose money consistently and don't quit playing. Sadly, the latter exist and can go a lifetime losing massive amounts of money and deluding themselves into thinking they're winning because they remember their victories but forget their losses.
  The "fish"/"shark" metaphor actually works pretty well. The important thing to remember is that sharks are, in fact, just another type of fish.
36. Re:That's how it's done... by Lunzo · 2012-03-22 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  That username and post align perfectly.
37. Re:That's how it's done... by crazyvas · 2012-03-22 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  A zero-sum strategy. Ahhahh, your user id -- it all makes sense now!
38. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Therefore, it's in the interest of good poker players to constantly try to push the image that "you" can make money playing poker because it helps ensure a fresh flow of suckers to the bottom rung of the pyramid scheme.
  So basically, it's the stock market.
39. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  With a proper size bankroll, and correct play, you can profit. Usually that goes more for poker against actual players
  That depends on who the "you" is. If by "you" you mean the average poker player, then what you're suggesting is self-evidently wrong.
  No, that's actually correct. The average - meaning MEDIAN - poker can make money if you have someone doing a human ATM impression at the table. Low stakes live games are LOADED with them. I've personally played against fish who dispensed more than $800 over the course of 2 hours - at a $1/$2 table.
  -333BB/100. O.o
40. Re:That's how it's done... by black6host · 2012-03-22 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are 3 such games: Craps, Blackjack and Baccarat. Poker is promoted so heavily, because it makes the Casinos so much lucre.
  Baccarat!. (In Atlantic City) My father and I (mostly he...) developed a system for playing Baccarat. I believe it's the only game, at least back then, where you could write with pencil and paper to keep track of where you were.
  The end result: you would win something around $450.00 USD per a complete play through of the system. (The number was exact, I just can't remember it. And it was based on a $5.00 table, if you played on a more expensive table you would win more but your outlay at certain times were proportionately, or perhaps even exponentially higher. The most we could afford was a 5.00 table so we didn't look to much into that.)
  You had to follow the system, if you forgot where you were, you would lose. It also depended on a $5.00 minimum table as the bets required were proportional to the minimum bet on the table. Even on a $5.00 table we would frequently place bets in excess of $3,000.00. But if you followed the system, you were golden.
  What we didn't count on: The psychological aspect of placing a $3,000.00 bet that would be played in a heartbeat. (Baccarat is a very fast game). My father would cave from pressure in the middle of the system, hand me the card with where we were in the system, and expect me to go back in and pick it precisely where he left off. I did. It was his money not mine, so I didn't have the psych barrier going on. We made close to $500.00 every time we played it. You could play 2-3 systems per day easily.
  The other thing we couldn't control was that the casinos would bump our tables from 5.00 to 10.00 minimum bet in the middle of our system. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what they were doing. Anything to disrupt us would put the odds back in their favor.
  If you could afford to bump to a 10.00 table the rewards were even greater. To us, it was a job, we'd leave Friday afternoon, play it all weekend for 8.00-10.00 hours per day and we never lost. But, the pressure of putting that much money out, on a five dollar table, was too much for my dad, so we gave it up........
  He went on to continue sinking his money into something he couldn't win at: boats :)
  True story this.....
41. Re:That's how it's done... by funkboy · 2012-03-22 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the 4th one: the stock market...
42. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct. I misspoke. The 80% only comes into play if you generate a decision before anyone sees the rest of the cards, otherwise the odds change, sometimes quite significantly against your aces.
43. Re:That's how it's done... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-03-22 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. I like this stuff.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
44. Re:That's how it's done... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-03-22 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you run a brokerage or a bank...
  Now, why do you think they are called "BROKErs"?
  'Cos YOU are the "broke-ee".
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
45. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, with simpler rules. Some of the money management aspects of playing poker do make some sense in the world of financial gambling. For one thing, doing your research, being careful, but not overly risk-adverse, and being properly capitalized are three I can think of.
  There are some good plays to make with stocks, and some very, very bad ones. It's not all pure gambling, but certainly it's certainly become a lot more like it as time goes on.
46. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  His (actually appropriately modded for once) post was explaining perfect play and how bankroll affects your ability to make a career out of gambling. Also sounds quite a bit more stressful and boring than anything else. Well, maybe on par with futures trading.
47. Re:That's how it's done... by nabsltd · 2012-03-22 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  I know of no casino operated poker room where winners are expected to hand over a "cut of the winnings" when they leave a game. Which casinos do you play at where this happens?
  Maybe he just means that because the rake comes out of the pot, and the pot goes to the winner, then the winner is giving a "cut" to the house.
  Personally, I tend to think of the rake as money that pays for drinks, guaranteed honest play, and safety for a big winner.
48. Re:That's how it's done... by AdamWill · 2012-03-22 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Poker doesn't make brick-and-mortar casinos much, it's low volume and somewhat heavy on the manpower (dealing poker must be one of the higher skilled blue collar jobs remaining in America...), and you're not betting against the house; the house is offering a service to players who are betting against each other. Casinos offer it because it's something a 'real casino' has to do, and hey, it makes them _some_ money. Brick-and-mortar casinos don't promote poker that heavily.
  The organizations that make a ton of money off poker are the online poker sites, through the miracle of volume; they take a pretty small cut (much lower than brick-and-mortar casinos, as their overheads are WAY lower - essentially they write the software and after that they're a pure IT / marketing operation) of massive volume. Just huge. I don't have any numbers to hand but it's probably something ludicrous like more hands are played online every hour than are played in real casinos all year, that kinda thing.
  Casinos make most of their money on slots, and then sucker table games.
49. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's certainly your opinion of the situation, and if you wish to view it that way, I can't really say that everyone will walk away a winner, because most people will lose monetarily. Still, the concept of exploitation leads me to believe that you feel in some way I was taking advantage of the people at the table. They have access to the same information and abilities that I do. In fact, while it might help to be a fairly smart person with an understanding of odds, and knowledge of how to play, nothing is keeping the other players from being as good as me at the game, or better. In fact, sometimes the best thing to know is when you are facing someone better than you are and GTFO.
  I played because it was fun. It was also interesting as a pastime where you could actually get back some money that you put into it, even make some. It's not the road to riches. Fact is, I throw money at people for entertainment all the time, with no possibility of getting it back. Am I being exploited by them? In general, the people who are "fish" are playing because they enjoy themselves at it. That's why the best times to play are Friday and Saturday. People wanting to have some fun on the weekend seeing if they can get lucky. And some of those lucky people would take my money and walk away with it. It only just so happened I took more from the other players than they took from me.
  As for encouraging people to play, I could care less. I had fun when I played and made some money, but you're absolutely right, if they don't learn the rules and the odds, they will lose money. If they are loose with their money and throw it at the table, they will lose a lot of it. Maybe not immediately or drastically, but definitely over time. They will become money pinatas for people who play correctly.
  Still, you know, that's how most of the rest of the real world works too. If you invest in anything and you don't know the rules and how to actually extract the value from it, you can certainly lose a lot more than a couple of hundred bucks at a table. We all know that being a shitty gambler with no self control can make you into a bum. I hope no one thinks I am suggesting that this cannot happen to them.
  In the end, facts are facts. Certain games of chance, like any endeavor approached seriously, can reap some reward under the right circumstances. Not many of them, but some. You're not going to end exploitation by ending gambling with cards, you're just going to move the money to people who are a lot more...exploitative about it.
50. Re:That's how it's done... by tnk1 · 2012-03-22 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all. The concept of a bankroll is merely capitalization. Consider that there is a percentage chance of making money by playing correctly. However, you have to pay to play. Probabilities indicate you will get a positive result a certain number of times out of 100, but they do not indicate at what point in the 100 hands you will get the profitable result.
  So, with the 80/20 pre-flop aces, if you hit your 20% of failed all-ins on aces early, before you have hit any of the 80% of successes, you will cease to have any money to realize your odds if you don't bring enough money to survive to make your 100 hands. On the other hand, you could get your 80% of wins early, and not have to worry about it, but proper play (and common sense) dictates that you prepare for the worst by ensuring that tactical losses don't become strategic failures.
  You might say: OMG I may just have a streak of bad luck and never get those positive results! And this is possible, but as stated before, improbable over time if you play the hands properly. Consider the casinos and games like roulette or slots. The casino has to have a certain amount of money in reserve to pay out on winnings. However, the probabilities on the games ensures that the casinos consistently make their money. The casinos have to have money to pay out, at least initially, but after a certain amount of time, they're no longer handing out their investor's money, they are handing out money they took from players who lost.
  And let me state very clearly. Probabilities must be realized OVER TIME. If you think you will get 80/20 when you play just a few hands, you can forget it. Indeed, you may have to play hundreds of hands to actually hit the promised ratio. That is the point of the bankroll, it's not supposed to be a fund for you to constantly bet from, it's only capitalization. Most times you will never even come close to using half of it, even early on, but you still need the full amount.
51. Re:That's how it's done... by spasm · 2012-03-22 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  To both parent posters: out of curiosity, working for casinos, how do you sleep at night?
  Seriously, your work lives are dedicated to using your mathematical / computing / other skills to improving the efficiency of a process designed to extract money from relatively poor people's pockets and put it into the pockets of already rich people.
  At the end of your lives, is that what you want to be remembered for? Really?
  Ok, you have kids to feed. That's legitimate. It's a hard economy, maybe this was your only option when you took the job.
  Can you, even just for yourself, write down your plan to move on to another job which doesn't involve using your skills to completely fuck people over? Or that doesn't involve looking at your end-users as 'idiots' who *deserve* to be exploited as a way of justifying what you do each day when you go in to work?
52. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's certainly your opinion of the situation
  
  The part about poker, and other similar gambling systems being zero sum games isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. It is _literally_ a game where the average amount of money won is zero, except when there's a house to take a cut, in which case it's worse than a zero sum game. I don't see how that part of what I said could be viewed as an opinion. Every success by one player in poker is precisely balanced with one or more players failure.
  Some people can make money with poker, the math guarantees it (except when there's a house taking a cut, of course), but telling a general audience that they can make money with poker is false. General audience means average case. The mean average poker player will break even (once again, unless there's a house taking a cut, in which case they will lose money). As for the median average poker player, the expected distribution almost guarantees that they'll also be losing money (it might depend on how you're determining the mean: based on number of hands played, simple number of players, etc. but they're virtually guaranteed to be net losers). So the majority of poker players lose money to the few who profit from it. It's not untrue that someone can make money from it. That's obvious. It's the _typical_ experience you seemed to be misrepresenting.
  As for exploitation, I understand that it's voluntary (except for hardcore addicts, which there are not a few of). For entertainment fine. Anyone who hopes to make money at it is either lying to themselves or not really understanding where the money is coming from if they don't think they're exploiting people. The whole point, as you admit, is to try to play against people who aren't as good as you are and avoid playing against people who are better than you are. Terms like "fish" and "sharks" are clear language of exploitation.
  
  Still, you know, that's how most of the rest of the real world works too. If you invest in anything and you don't know the rules and how to actually extract the value from it, you can certainly lose a lot more than a couple of hundred bucks at a table.
  The difference between poker and the stock market is that the stock market is not (meant to be) a zero sum game (unless you want to be pedantic and do all your accounting from the perspective of the end of the universe). The prevalence of speculation in the stock market sadly makes investing a lot more like poker than it should be. Frankly, the stock market leaning more and more towards being a giant casino is one of the things that's been causing all the economic turmoil that's been going on. The stock market is meant to be for constructive investing. Money goes into ventures that need growth capital to produce real goods or services. Value is added. The real world has the benefit (and sometimes the downsides of being real), while poker is just a game. If you invest in the real world, it might turn out that the company isn't successful, or they're beaten by a competitor, or the entire earth might be hit by an asteroid and be destroyed. A hand of poker is just a hand of poker.
  All this said, I don't think people should be stopped from gambling by law. Same for taking drugs, or indulging whatever consensual sexual predilections people may have or any other "vices". People should be warned, but, even if society thinks it's a mistake, they should still be allowed to go ahead.
53. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  The mathematical mean poker player breaks exactly even. As for the MEDIAN poker player. They're almost certain to be net losers, not net winners. You said "Low stakes live games are LOADED with them". If the games are loaded with a particular type of player, then that means a representative of that type of player is going to be the median, not a representative of the money-making players. It probably depends a bit on how you determine the median point. The "ATM" poker players you mention are probably not going to play as many hands of poker over their lifetimes as the professionals, unless they're hopeless addicts (of course, there are plenty of hopeless addicts), but they seem to be replaced by plenty of fresh ATMS. Poker is going to be like any predator/prey relationship with an order of magnitude more prey than predators.
54. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-22 15:32 · Score: 2
  
  Some exceptional players, who also have the right lucky breaks at the right times, can make a career out of gambling. Just like some exceptional athletes, who also have the right lucky breaks at the right times, can make a career out of sports. The vast majority of people cannot.
55. Re:That's how it's done... by hawk · 2012-03-22 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes.
  so do we.
  hawk, las Vegas local, who doesn't have to pay taxes over these "systems"
  Seriously, we understand the system math here. It's not that hard to make one where you're almost certain to win. The catch, though, is that you're risking $3k to win $5.
  Casinos don't even kick people out for counting cards: first, they analyze the counting. Most such systems still favo4r the casino, and the person may get comped instead of kicked.
  This town does have a standard response to people with systems, though: "Welcome!"
56. Re:That's how it's done... by initialE · 2012-03-22 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is so much better than risking your life on the Miami PD... Now where's my Armani Jacket and T-shirt?
  
  --
  Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
57. Re:That's how it's done... by nedlohs · 2012-03-22 19:09 · Score: 2
  
  It sounds nothing like a Martingale strategy. It's simple math.
  Say I have $1 million and I'm willing to play a coin toss game with you. Fair coin, no cheating. If a flip comes up heads I pay you $2. if a flip comes up tails you pay me $1. We play until one person has all the money.
  How much money do you need to bring in order to have a 80% chance of winning my million? How much in order to have a 90% chance? 95%? 99%?
  That's what managing a bankroll is about - even if you have an edge you still have runs of bad luck and you have to be able to survive them without going broke. Well not have to survive - have a low enough risk of ruin to be prepared to go with it.
58. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  > For instance, in hold'em, you have an 80% chance of winning on AA against one remaining opponent on the flop.
  That's just incorrect. Your odds against any opponent, barring some extreme circumstances (like holding the nuts that can't be outdrawn on future streets), is basically unknown and can only be speculated about. There are certainly no hard and fast rules like "80% with AA on flop against 1 opponent"
59. Re:That's how it's done... by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Craps and Blackjack are mind numbingly tedious once you're over fourteen, I've never played baccarat but the casino version sounds as though it's equally boring as it relies on pure chance.
  
  Poker is promoted so heavily because it is at least partly about skill rather than luck, and is psychologically absorbing. Watching someone play blackjack is about as exciting as watching someone play a fruit machine, i.e. not at all.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
60. Re:That's how it's done... by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  What's so bad or different about gambling?
  
  Because all companies extract money from relatively poor people's pockets.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
61. Re:That's how it's done... by Enderandrew · 2012-03-23 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  Casinos actually prefer to take from the rich. In the end, Vegas certainly doesn't mind people feeding nickle slots, but they go out of their way to cater to Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley dropping $100,000 in a weekend.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
62. Re:That's how it's done... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  With the recent explosion of the popularity of poker I would think it is used as a draw to get people into the casinos. There are always waits thus the players will go and camp some slot machine and dump money into it until they get called for a seat in the poker room. It wouldn't surprise me if the machines nearest the poker room (or for that matter any of the table games) are some of the ones with the worst odds. Most table games have among the lowest house advantage (when played correctly which most people don't) and are much slower than the slots so the rate at which money is transferred to the casino is much slower.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
63. Re:That's how it's done... by Enderandrew · 2012-03-23 01:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For what it is worth, I did seriously consider turning down the job over moral objections. I won't work for a company I see as evil.
  When I was offered the job working for Harrah's, my wife had just been laid off, she was pregnant and we were a broke couple. I really needed work.
  And while my experiences working for Harrah's weren't great, at no point did I feel like they were out to get people. The company tried to detect people with gambling problems and banned them from their properties.
  Gambling is an entertainment expense like any other. I don't partake in it, but I don't believe it is ultimately evil.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
64. Re:That's how it's done... by tshak · 2012-03-23 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Poker between a group of players is a zero sum game, therefore, the hypothetical "average" player breaks even.
  This is not necessarily true. For example, it is not uncommon to have one or two really bad players at the table feeding the rest of the game. While the "sharks" may have the largest edge, the average player may have an edge as well. The inverse is also true. One or two exceptional players could be the only players at the table with an edge.
  
  --
  
  There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
65. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  What you say is true. The casinos still make money, the locals who don't have to pay taxes save money, the people who follow the systems correctly make money and all is well.
  I'd just add though that the payout was closer to $500.00 than $5.00 (can't remember exactly what it was) and we never did lose on it, therefore we didn't risk 3K for 5. Actually the risk was much greater, you could be down to a 10k loss (but your loss would never be greater than 10k, the system saw to that, before it turned around. And it always did. It was work though, I'll certainly say that.
66. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  To both parent posters: out of curiosity, working for casinos, how do you sleep at night?
  Seriously, your work lives are dedicated to using your mathematical / computing / other skills to improving the efficiency of a process designed to extract money from relatively poor people's pockets and put it into the pockets of already rich people.
  At the end of your lives, is that what you want to be remembered for? Really?
  Ok, you have kids to feed. That's legitimate. It's a hard economy, maybe this was your only option when you took the job.
  Can you, even just for yourself, write down your plan to move on to another job which doesn't involve using your skills to completely fuck people over? Or that doesn't involve looking at your end-users as 'idiots' who *deserve* to be exploited as a way of justifying what you do each day when you go in to work?
  Yeah! Quit working at Apple!
67. Re:That's how it's done... by bradleyjg · 2012-03-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think craps with large enough allowed odds bets (e.g. 100-1) beats perfectly played non-card counting blackjack.
68. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting to hear about the slots making them more money.
  I know one guy who supports himself comfortably playing slots full time at small casinos in Northern California. It was a revelation to me that it's possible to get to know the slot machines well enough to come up with a a strategy that's profitable. This same guy said that they casinos have been gradually replacing older slot machines with newer ones that have resulted in reducing his profits almost 40% over the last 3 years. Still, I watched him every step of the way as he started with $300 and by the end of the weekend had $2600 solely from playing slot machines. He claimed it was a slower than usual weekend. Sure was a lot of work though and spending 40 hours a week in a casino would be too depressing for me.
69. Re:That's how it's done... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Say I have $1 million and I'm willing to play a coin toss game with you. Fair coin, no cheating. If a flip comes up heads I pay you $2. if a flip comes up tails you pay me $1. We play until one person has all the money.
  How much money do you need to bring in order to have a 80% chance of winning my million? How much in order to have a 90% chance? 95%? 99%?
  Oddly enough, I think the answer is much smaller than you think. I got 10$ giving better than 99% chance of success for any amount of winnings. Basically, the mean of your expected winnings goes to infinity as fast as the variance increases, so your chance of going bankrupt does not increase much as the number of flips increases. Intuitively: it doesn't matter how much money you start with, since after the first couple flips, you're playing with the other guy's money anyway. For a less biased game, of course, your point remains valid.
70. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  By "hypothetical average" I mean the mean average player. The mean average profit in a poker game is 0 unless there's a house taking a cut, in which case it's negative. There's more leeway for the median player to possibly be making money, but that requires some truly remarkable losers to provide the profit for everyone else. It depends quite a lot on how you determine the median also. You can simply take all the people who have ever played poker and find the one in the middle, or you can rank them in one of a number of different ways based on the number of hands of poker they've each played and other information, then pick the one in the middle. Pretty much any way you can do it, you can be assured that the median average poker player is going to be losing money.
71. Re:That's how it's done... by terjeber · 2012-03-23 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, just a calculation in said games. For normal people, the calculations always end up the same, the house has a certain percentage advantage, and you can not win. For a traditional casino though, poker is not a lucrative business in the same way other games are. Not sure what you mean by "it makes the Casinos so much lucre", but if it is in any way intended to indicate that casinos benefit hugely from poker, you are wrong. They do not. Poker is one of the most expensive games casinos offer (for the casino) and one where the casino makes very little money. This is why, for example, traditionally poker players, and tournament players specially, were never comped at all with casinos. Blackjack players always are.
  The popularity of poker is not decided by its profitability for the casinos, though these days casinos make tons on TV rights etc. Not much from the playing it self though.
72. Re:That's how it's done... by Cederic · 2012-03-23 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  completely fuck people over
  I agree completely. What would be better is a job in a venue that provides entertainment to the masses, give them a way of taking a risk and enjoying the chance of a big reward while putting on a show, giving them free drinks and letting them feel special for the evening.
  What should we call this venue? Is the word 'Casino' available?
  Just because some people are too fucking stupid to realise the percentages favour the house, or lack the control to stop before they get hurt doesn't make the whole venture immoral or wrong. There's no fraud taking place, there's nobody forcing people to withdraw their life savings and head inside, there's just an opportunity for people to spend a little money having fun.
  I kind of guess both posters sleep pretty well at night. I know I would.
73. Re:That's how it's done... by Cederic · 2012-03-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is a zero sum game
  Only in raw cash terms. Factor in things like the money that would've been spent seeking alternate entertainment, the TV revenues from televised poker, the free drinks provided by a casino.. Net it all out and there's a benefit.
74. Re:That's how it's done... by tragedy · 2012-03-24 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, only in raw cash terms. However, since the sentence that inspired my original reply was "with a proper size bankroll, and correct play, you can profit" and the poster was talking in raw cash terms, raw cash is the context of the discussion. You can't just pull a context switch and invalidate what I was saying retroactively. If I said: "with a proper size bankroll, and correct [skiing], you can profit [monetarily from helicopter skiing on glaciers]", the fact that it's entertaining isn't going to change the fact that you don't profit monetarily from it. Same for all kinds of entertaining activities you can insert instead of poker.
And that's why by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:24 · Score: 0

That's why I bought a Saturn.
Decimate by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-22 07:24 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't think decimate means what the submitter thinks it means. (or it doesn't mean what I think it means).
I was always under the impression it meant to take "one tenth" based on the practice of the Roman's killing one in ten men of a legion that showed undue cowardice.
It sounds like the gambler took more than one tenth of their income based on the article.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Only if you're a pedantic twat. Or living during the Roman rule.
  Here's what the Random House dictionary (via dictionary.com) says:
  1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
  2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
  3. Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.
  In other words, unless you're talking about the specific case of people, not only is "to destroy a great proportion of" the first definition, but your definition is marked obsolete.
2. Re:Decimate by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-03-22 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  That was the original meaning of "decimate". It has since gained another meaning akin to leaving them with one tenth what they started with!
3. Re:Decimate by Arrepiadd · 2012-03-22 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  You are right, but so is the submitter...
  Decimate
4. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't do this. Now 'decimate' is in the top 20% of lookups on Merriam-Webster.com and etymologists everywhere will be confused by its popularity.
5. Re:Decimate by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-22 07:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Not pedantic- just come from a science/math background where decimate is used to refer to removing 1/10th.
  I've honestly never heard it used with such a vague meaning. I did do a quick glance on wiktionary to prove I'm not crazy before posting (although looking closer- I do see it has the more vague meaning at the bottom).
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
6. Re:Decimate by spottedkangaroo · 2012-03-22 07:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The dictionary shows common usage, not correct usage. This usage was clearly based on a mistake. They mean devastate and it caught on because people didn't know better. The educated should defend the word imo.
  
  --
  Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
7. Re:Decimate by fermion · 2012-03-22 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  So in this case the casino would line up all their dealers and kill one out of every ten.
  The problem I have with the use of decimate is that it does imply that 1/10th is gone. So I get a little annoyed when a newscaster is talking about a town being decimated by a tornado when, for all intents and purposes, the entire village has been destroyed. Or in this case, where it is implied that the entire profits have been wiped out. Wiped out is not decimated, it is wiped out.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
8. Re:Decimate by Your.Master · 2012-03-22 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  I basically disagree except that they missed the golden opportunity to use "decimate" instead of "discount". They decimate his losses by discounting them 10%.
9. Re:Decimate by gstoddart · 2012-03-22 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The dictionary shows common usage, not correct usage.
  As has been pointed out in countless threads on Slashdot -- by the time it's been in common usage long enough, it is the correct usage.
  Since you're talking about a word which originated with the Roman Army, it's had a lot of time to change its meaning. In fact, it's apparently been in use like this since the 19th Century. So, well over 100 years by now.
  In fact, in my lifetime, I've only heard it in its modern form. So, sorry you're all bummed out that the usage of the word has changed over time ... but I'd suggest getting over it. :-P
  Hell, even Oxford says:
  
  Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.
  Language evolves over time. This is just one instance.
  But, hey, cling to your pedantry if that makes you feel better.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
10. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I understand the origin and the historical meaning. But I dispute your assertion that it is 'obvious'. Why couldn't it refer to reducing something to one-tenth, rather than by one-tenth? Decimate a meter, end up with a decimeter. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
11. Re:Decimate by lightknight · 2012-03-22 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  So you've never played MUDs before?
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
12. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I also come from a science/math background, and I'm not sure I've ever heard it used in it's "remove 1/10th" manner.
  Roughly where in the world do you live?
  I also apologize for being a bit of a tard in my previous post. People "correcting" non-mistakes is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
13. Re:Decimate by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-22 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well... don't read this in one breath... I'm an anglo-magyar-german-romanish-gypsy-american.
  Spent my formative years in England- but have lived about half my life in South Carolina.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
14. Re:Decimate by datavirtue · 2012-03-22 08:20 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  I'm going to have to side with the 1/10th thing. The non-pedants are wrong in this case. I guess that means they are trying to be pedantic about the pedantry. Slashdot, who would have known?
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
15. Re:Decimate by sirlark · 2012-03-22 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The term decimate refers orginally to the roman army's collective punishment for desertion. Every ten ten men in the deserters unit drew lots, short straw was killed immediately. Deci = 10, i.e. to kill one tenth of your force. I agree decimate isn't used in science/maths generally, but it's common meaning is still correctly to reduce/destroy 1/10th, although mainstream media and other wannabe sound like smart people who use big words on T.V. have generally corrupted this meaning.
16. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's not obvious at all. You'd have to invent the definition, considering it could be a one tenth increase, decrease, or reduction to one tenth, or a tenfold increase.
  If you had any understanding of language, you'd realize it changes over time and that you are wrong on all counts. Keep being pedant fucks about it though. If it helps you all feel superior to the people who are actually correct, without accomplishing anything, then it should be in line with all those other things pedants do. I've never heard anyone refer to it as taking away 1/10th. It is not the most common usage.
17. Re:Decimate by Rakishi · 2012-03-22 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  So you look dumb to people who are OCD driven idiots? This matters why again?
  Actually scratch that, I hope people like you think I'm dumb. Saves me the effort of having to listen to you drivel on about some inane thing that no one else would ever care about but you're too socially inept to realize.
18. Re:Decimate by retchdog · 2012-03-22 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  i have such a background. i've never heard the term decimate used except in ee, where it doesn't (necessarily) refer to removing 1/10th. it's certainly not a term a mathematician (being a master of abstraction) would use.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
19. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Right, make sure you stop the traffic when it takes up 10% of the lookups on Merriam-Webster.com. Then once you get that statistic, you can write a blog post and submit a /. summary about decimating a dictionary website. Which will result in more people double-checking the meaning of decimate.
20. Re:Decimate by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-22 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The Master knows the correct definition.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
21. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oh really?
  Submitting to 4chan...
22. Re:Decimate by camperdave · 2012-03-22 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! We're slashdotting a dictionary.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
23. Re:Decimate by AlamedaStone · 2012-03-22 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The dictionary shows common usage, not correct usage. This usage was clearly based on a mistake. They mean devastate and it caught on because people didn't know better. The educated should defend the word imo.
  I agree. Public ignorance really decimated the original use of the word hacker, but we won that fight, so we should be able to adjust the meaning of decimate back 2000 years with no problem. ...~
  
  --
  "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
24. Re:Decimate by davidbrit2 · 2012-03-22 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  We need to decimate the ranking. Quickly.
25. Re:Decimate by cowboy76Spain · 2012-03-22 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  They will call the FBI to warn them that a horde of terrorist are getting ready to kill one of each ten habitants of the USA.
  
  --
  Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
26. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Because OCD driven idiots make up a substantial fraction of the population. The rest won't know the difference anyhow unless you bitch about others' usage. So you make a better impression with more people by being quietly pedantic.
27. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect that may have to do with it. I've lived in the US my whole life (I've spent a little less than two months and a half across three trips to Europe, but obviously that's not enough to have much experience), and like I said, "decimate" is basically never used in the manner you claimed here.
  Call it the dumbing down of English or whatever, but here decimate really does pretty much mean "to destroy".
28. Re:Decimate by EdIII · 2012-03-22 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's entirely obvious to me. The word itself involves an action being performed with the number 10.
  What might it mean? Whatever it is, I know it involves the number 10 right?
  That's why the definition that includes 1/10th is obvious to me and not deprecated in any way.
29. Re:Decimate by EdIII · 2012-03-22 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny how seriously everybody takes this.
  My point is simple. If the word is constructed with other word roots it is not terribly complex to derive a meaning. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to continue to hold to a definition that includes the value of 10 and hold a different definition (added later in time) with no reference to the value 10 as less accurate.
  Now you can claim the meaning is deprecated all you want, and that things do change over time, but it is awfully silly to specifically deprecate a meaning that is derived from the word roots themselves.
  I wholly disagree about the obviousness. If you look at the definitions themselves, the 1st definition is not even limited by the value of 10. Come one.... how logical is it to have a word with the value 10 so prominent... and then completely disregard it in the claimed primary definition?
  This has nothing to do with being pedantic or superior. Only that if you are educated and have been exposed to language and word roots, it is not unreasonable to use that knowledge to derive their meanings. In this case, that is 100% accurate. The only thing you are claiming is not that the definition does not exist, only that we should no longer apply it.
  That is crazy. Just plain crazy.
  Without a dictionary I have had a fair amount of success deriving the meaning of words just from word roots themselves. Try verisimilitude. Somebody asked me what that meant a week or to ago and I nailed it just from understanding a smattering of Latin that allowed me to derive to other words, Truth and Similarity.
  Are you going to seriously sit there and tell me that in 200 years it is not being pedantic to say the definition of verisimilitude should not be about some chick's thong?
30. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Don't do this. Now 'decimate' is in the top 20% of lookups on Merriam-Webster.com and etymologists everywhere will be confused by its popularity.
  No, no, no. Not the top 20%. It's in the top 1/10th of lookups.
31. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  It has been used in that fashion, in reference to battles in later bloodier conflicts. (In WWI it was not uncommon for a unit to end up with 1/10 of its strength after an attackon the enemy trenches.
32. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  Except I wasn't talking about deci, so most of your post was useless. Again, the common usage is not the removal of one tenth, it's the other definition. English evolves, people need to get along. When words have two definitions, this is what happens sometimes. Insisting otherwise will just get you misunderstood unless you work in an environment where you constantly use the term the "old" way.
33. Re:Decimate by EdIII · 2012-03-22 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  LOL.
  You still don't get it. This is not about the evolution of language. It is specifically about stating that the inherent definitions of a word like decimate are wrong, or the "old" ways.
  To make it simpler, it would be like saying that the word sunrise no longer means the rising of the sun. Sure.... our language *could* evolve for that. However, having this conversation in another 500 years will not make it any less ridiculous that you are claiming that it is unreasonable to define sunrise as sun rising.
  Its right there, sun and rise. How else could you define it? Are you going to make the sun rising the obsolete definition of that word?
  Decimate is no different. The word roots themselves are defining the word!
  Sheeeesh.
34. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  One might say the definition of "decimate" has been decimated over time.
35. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  As a scientist, I would never use the word decimate when there's any ambiguity over its meaning. If you want to reduce something by 10%, then say exactly that. Not everyone in the world speaks English fluently, and at least two prominent dictionaries (M-W and OED) disagree on which meaning of decimate should come first, so you can't even count on your readers being able to look up the meaning you intended.
36. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  The term decimate refers orginally to the roman army's collective punishment for desertion. Every ten ten men in the deserters unit drew lots, short straw was killed immediately. Deci = 10, i.e. to kill one tenth of your force. I agree decimate isn't used in science/maths generally, but it's common meaning is still correctly to reduce/destroy 1/10th, although mainstream media and other wannabe sound like smart people who use big words on T.V. have generally corrupted this meaning.
  I believe the modern meaning is based on the effect decimation had on the moral and psyche of the soldiers and not the effect on the number of soldiers.
37. Re:Decimate by spiralx · 2012-03-23 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in England all my life, and have never heard the word used as you described it, although I knew the definition... probably from someone else posting the same here :)
38. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  I do get it. The reason you're wrong is because you still think this all matters if everyone else believes the word is different. Damn right Sunrise will mean what people say it means. You know why? Because language is meant for you to be understood. It's not made so a dozen chucklefucks get mad when the word changes meaning after its usage changed completely. Your pedantry is useless because no one will understand you. Being pedant in this case is missing the bigger picture just to partake in intellectual masturbation. You have fun with that.
39. Re:Decimate by EdIII · 2012-03-24 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you get it, then I am not wrong.
  If people want to make the word sunrise no longer mean that the sun is rising, then I will leave them to such idiocy.
  It's really funny that all of you ACs attack me with such vulgar responses void of any facts or logic other than, "It is because we say it is".
  Intellectual masturbation? Reading a word and understanding the definition from the word itself is masturbatory? I guess that means I have a lot more fun with language than you do.....
40. Re:Decimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you refuse the logic doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dictionaries are including the new meaning, the old one is even marked obsolete in some of them. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the word has changed meaning. The very document that tells you what is right and what is wrong tells you it is wrong. Bury your head in the sand, pedant. No one will understand you in some years. You're in the minority and the minority is not what defines English common usage. Thus, you are wrong.
The question is will he live to collect it by Wansu · 2012-03-22 07:24 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The house doesn't like to lose.

--
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
1. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by BradleyUffner · 2012-03-22 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The house doesn't like to lose.
  Sounds to me like he didn't so much "win" as was "paid for a commercial". This is going to attract tons of people who think they can do the same thing. They will make their money back 10 fold thanks to him.
2. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by jesseck · 2012-03-22 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I agree... I doubt a casino (no less three) will gladly let a person take their monthly income's worth home in winnings if there wasn't more to gain.
3. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  I also heard Google is involved, targeting ads at the players in every step of the way.
  Seriously, people, get real.
4. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by Enderandrew · 2012-03-22 07:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I worked for a casino. I worked in IT, but the company trained all employees to root for the customer. Celebrate their winnings. The house isn't worried because they know they'll win in the long run.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
5. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by gstoddart · 2012-03-22 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sounds to me like he didn't so much "win" as was "paid for a commercial". This is going to attract tons of people who think they can do the same thing. They will make their money back 10 fold thanks to him.
  Sure, all you need is a million of your own money, and a rep with the casino as a big spender.
  Once that happens, you too can have 50/50 odds at blackjack if you're skilled enough at it.
  I'm sorry, but if I walk into a casino, I'm not getting any of the things he did which skewed the house take. By the time you've put in enough time to "game" the system this way, they've probably already collected just as much money from you.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by bloodhawk · 2012-03-22 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, given such a discount and the same rules anyone "can" do exactly the same thing. The problem is the vast majority of people are not discipled enough to do it or have the starting capital required (even when the odds are in your favour you can lose to start with). So yes they will probably make a ton off undiscipled people, but if they continue to offer such discounts you can be assured many others will take them for a fortune.
7. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by timeOday · 2012-03-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Who's to say even this particular guy will be a winner, in the long run? How much did he lose before and after his miracle month?
8. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by dreemernj · 2012-03-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's like in a horror movie when a psycho killer steadily follows after a group of fleeing campers. He doesn't have to run. He knows he'll catch enough of them.
  
  --
  1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
9. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by tunapez · 2012-03-22 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. How many people say, 'I lost my mortgage payment in Vegas last week!'? None. All you ever hear is how much they 'won'.
  
  BTW, only counting these wins in his history I am confident he will be a winner in the long run. When his name hit the 'blacklist' he is forever barred from entering any casino offering wagers that high ever again.
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
10. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by cowboy76Spain · 2012-03-22 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  You are assuming that everyone that reads the news report will calmly and reasonably think if it can be applied to them, and act accordingly. You do not expect people to understand it as "OH MY GOD I CAN DO THE SAME FREE MONEY AND PONIES!" and to rush irresponsably to their financial death.*
  Sir, I do admire your optimism.
  * Now seriously, of course there will be both kind of readers. Type 1 readers won't make any money for the casino, nor any loss. Type 2 will make money for the casino. Anyway, I agree that type 2 people won't be enough (and most importantly, won't go to the same casinos reported in the news) so probably the casinos would have preferred to keep the money even if they missed the publicity.
  
  --
  Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
11. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  He knows he'll catch enough of them.
  
  The psycho or casino, knows their prey and has surprise on their side. (For the casino: surprise! The rules aren't fair and we lied about the possibility of winning.) Casinos and sometimes psychos, have prepared for the hunt. When the victims are following the herd, running on adrenalin, failing to counter-attack, they will always lose.
12. Re:The question is will he live to collect it by Inda · 2012-03-22 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's like that with bookmakers too. They congratulate me when I win. Large wins are celebrated by the manager of the shop. On the track, shorts are bought. You're made to feel fantastic.
  
  They next day, they welcome you back with all your winnings knowing 9 out of 10 of your punts are going to fail.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Rebate didn't matter by punker · 2012-03-22 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

The rebate did not factor in at all once he was ahead. The soft 17, playing perfect cards, and being allowed to vary his bets as he saw fit did it. Kid Dynamite covered this much better.
http://kiddynamitesworld.com/why-cant-journalists-who-write-articles-about-gambling-understand-math/
1. Re:Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  THIS is the article that should have been on the front page.
  If we are all not going to read the article and still speculate wildly, THIS is the article we should not be reading!!!
  Carry on.
2. Re:Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  From the comments for that:
  
  This is the second article on this subject in about a year at this site. In all that time it seems that no one here as bothered to google this guy Johnson.
  From "http://www.pressofatlanticcity..." we learn that:
  "Johnson, 49, of Bensalem, Pa., is the chief executive officer of
  Heritage Development LLC, a Wyoming-based company that uses
  computer-assisted wagering programs for horseracing."
  Google: "Don Johnson" heritage wyoming. Click on his LinkedIn link (a year ago about 15 down from the first). Read.
  Sure enough, Don Johnson is "CEO of Heritage Development, LLC". Sure enough, Heritage Development is in the "Cheyenne, Wyoming Area". And what business is Heritage Development in? Programing? Software? Investment? Gaming? No, no, no & no. Rather...it's in "Public Relations and Communications".
  Methinks the Johnson/casino story has a wee bit of the rotten egg stink about it.
  Which is an idea raised here, but no one here substantiated it by looking through his background.
3. Re:Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  The rebate did not factor in at all once he was ahead. The soft 17, playing perfect cards, and being allowed to vary his bets as he saw fit did it. Kid Dynamite covered this much better.
  http://kiddynamitesworld.com/why-cant-journalists-who-write-articles-about-gambling-understand-math/
  Thanks for the link. Sounds like Kid Dynamite was as confused as I was as to how this feat was managed. I'm glad it wasn't only me who thought "based on the information provided, this makes no sense".
Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:26 · Score: 0

I'm really not impressed.
Why did the casinos give him such advantages? Why were they so desperate? What is it about him specifically that made the casinos give him the advantages and not everyone else?
Winning when you practically have a 50/50 chance is not that difficult in Blackjack. It really isn't.
1. Re:Not impressed by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-03-22 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm really not impressed. Why did the casinos give him such advantages? Why were they so desperate? What is it about him specifically that made the casinos give him the advantages and not everyone else? Winning when you practically have a 50/50 chance is not that difficult in Blackjack. It really isn't.
  They did this because whatever the casino "lost" is nothing compared to what they'll rake in from all the wannabes that now think they have a shot a making a big score.
2. Re:Not impressed by Translation+Error · 2012-03-22 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the casinos give him such advantages? Why were they so desperate? What is it about him specifically that made the casinos give him the advantages and not everyone else? Winning when you practically have a 50/50 chance is not that difficult in Blackjack. It really isn't.
  They were desperate because they weren't taking in enough money. According to the article, the casinos want to encourage the high rollers who aren't great gamblers to come while discouraging those who are. In Johnson's case, they mistakenly classified him in the wrong group.
  
  As for why they'd do this, even for the poor gamblers, in blackjack, it's simple: you only get those odds if you play perfectly, making the mathematically optimal choice in each situation. Most players don't play that way and end up giving the house a huge edge. So, when you're talking about people with lots of money to throw around, who according to your records, don't play optimally, it becomes pretty clear why they'd do this.
  
  --
  When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
3. Re:Not impressed by suso · 2012-03-22 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The casinos lost because their marketing and sales people probably know nothing about Expected Value. The expected value on a blackjack game is slightly positive in the casino's favor. This is also why the dealer always stays on 17. My college probability professor told us a story about a guy who found some casino game back in the mid 20th century where the expected value worked out to be negative and in the players favor. The guy took out a loan and broke the casino. Maybe that's just a story, but it really doesn't take much.
4. Re:Not impressed by publiclurker · 2012-03-22 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  What's strange is that he was able to do this multiple times. I always thought the Casinos kept tabs on people like this and shared the information between themselves.
5. Re:Not impressed by durdur · 2012-03-22 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Au contraire, I'm quite sure everyone in the casino business knows the house has a built-in edge. And if the marketing side of the house is spending money (e.g. by granting comps) you can bet there is a bean counter deciding that it's an investment worth making.
6. Re:Not impressed by gstoddart · 2012-03-22 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  What's strange is that he was able to do this multiple times. I always thought the Casinos kept tabs on people like this and shared the information between themselves.
  They do. But, since he wasn't cheating, and was playing according to the rules they established, it's not like he was doing anything wrong.
  In fact, they were competing for his business:
  
  Johnson had not played a game at the Borgata in more than a year. He had been trying to figure out its blackjack game for years but had never been able to win big. At one point, he accepted a âoelifetime discount,â but when he had a winning trip he effectively lost the benefit of the discount. The way any discount works, you have to lose a certain amount to capitalize on it. If you had a lifetime discount of, say, 20 percent on $500,000, you would have to lose whatever money youâ(TM)d made on previous trips plus another $500,000 before the discount kicked in. When this happened to Johnson, he knew the ground rules had skewed against him. So it was no longer worth his while to play there.
  He explained this when the Borgata tried to entice him back.
  "Well, what if we change that?" he recalls a casino executive saying. "What if we put you on a trip-to-trip discount basis?"
  Johnson started negotiating.
  Once the Borgata closed the deal, he says, Caesars and the Trop, competing for Johnson's business, offered similar terms. That's what enabled him to systematically beat them, one by one.
  Basically he managed to negotiate terms that allowed him to beat the house odds.
  They screwed up on the math to keep a high stakes player coming to them. He won, fair and square. Well, at least as fair and square as if they'd won it from you based on the same math.
  They might not offer him the same terms, but he did nothing at all that would cause them to ban him. They just won't be stupid enough to change their edge in such a way as to give him the advantage.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
7. Re:Not impressed by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-22 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  There was someone a while ago who identified a flaw in a slot machine that gave it a negative EV. I think she said she could make about $10 an hour.
8. Re:Not impressed by swalve · 2012-03-22 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because he had a million dollars that they wanted. The only way to get their hands on that million was to offer (or accept) the easier odds and the discount.
9. Re:Not impressed by gl4ss · 2012-03-22 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  that's the reason why they'd normally only give the discount to people who had previously lost large sums at the given casino..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re:Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  The weird thing about that story is that the person would disclose such knowledge.
11. Re:Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  I have a similar experience when I visited a new casino shortly after gambling was legalized in the state.
  I like playing paigow poker when I am at the tables. In this game you're allowed to bank (essentially become the house) and play directly against the other players at the table. I can't remember exactly what I said since it was over a decade ago, but somehow I convinced the pit manager to allow me to bank every hand, play table maximum on the six spots on the table, not have the dealer play (Normally when you bank the dealer plays against your banking hand - if your banking hand loses you pay the casino the amount of your bet. The dealer is also supposed to bank at least once every seven hands which they weren't that night), AND still be rated and comped for all six of my spots. Although I am breaking even at the table and it is pretty tedious, the comps more than made it worthwhile - it paid for all of our meals, the hotel room, and I received 5% cash back on the total cash amount I wagered.
  It only lasted one night though, the next day when I went into the casino the shift manager said I could still play Paigow but I wasn't allowed to bank at all. Thankfully they honoured the comps I earned the previous night - he said it was a gesture of "goodwill".
12. Re:Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  What's strange is that he was able to do this multiple times. I always thought the Casinos kept tabs on people like this and shared the information between themselves.
  Promotion, silly. Of course they keep tabs on guys like this. Attendance is down, though, and a news article like this is more likely to raise it (and not with people who play like this guy). If their attendance was up, they wouldn't mind the negative publicity from refusing him a seat at the table. They just got a nationwide ad campaign run for 6 million bucks, that's a pretty good deal, since they'll get to write it off as a loss anyway.
13. Re:Not impressed by toddestan · 2012-03-24 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking about something that knowingly exploiting will probably land you in jail if you are found out. All for $10 and that's probably only if you pull it off perfectly - one slip-up and you're earning less than minimum wage for that hour. I'd take the notoriety for pointing out the flaw myself.
I Can't Help But Feel by eldavojohn · 2012-03-22 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's how it's done ...
Conversely, I can't help but feel like this article is just designed to put the idea into millions of readers' heads that you can go into a casino with a strategy or method or system and take home millions at the blackjack table. I can assure you that neither the Tropicana nor Borgata nor Caesars will be closing its doors anytime soon despite losing millions to this guy. If they do, it will be just to demolish the building to build an even bigger more expensive casino on top of the site.

Going to Atlantic City is a mistake, putting any real money down on a blackjack table is a bigger one. The casinos I've been to actually promote handing out these little cards that tell you (statistically) what to do given your two cards and what the dealer is showing. They want you playing "perfect cards" because it's just a steady continuous stream into their pockets and you feel like you're doing everything correctly as it happens.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I can't help but feel like this article is just designed to put the idea into millions of readers' heads that you can go into a casino with a strategy or method or system and take home millions at the blackjack table.
  It might help if you read the article, then you'd lose that feeling. It made it abundantly clear that he made deals that reduced his losses and gave him better odds. The word "discount" must be in the story a hundred times. Just skim the article and you'll see your feeling is dead wrong.
  
  Anyway, I've known a number of "strategy" morons and there's nothing you can do to convince them that luck doesn't exist and that odds don't change after a run.
2. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2012-03-22 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Conversely, I can't help but feel like this article is just designed to put the idea into millions of readers' heads that you can go into a casino with a strategy or method or system and take home millions at the blackjack table.
  Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
3. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  If they do, it will be just to demolish the building to build an even bigger more expensive casino on top of the site.
  With blackjack, and hookers!
4. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Enderandrew · 2012-03-22 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I worked for Harrahs which has two casinos in Council Bluffs. We had a customer take us for a few million between our two properties in a month. There is a competing casino in town. He ended up losing the millions back to the third casino.
  People focus on the stories when people win big, but that usually isn't sustained long term. If the casinos gave up their statistical advantage, that is foolish and they'll revise those decisions. But you're absolutely correct that people should not for a moment believe that this is something you can do under most circumstances.
  The house wins over time.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
5. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Kelbear · 2012-03-22 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well to put this in perspective, while Tropicana AC's (a.k.a "East") Net revenues was $279m, their operating income was only $2.3m after operating expenses are deducted.
  So no, Tropicana AC's management definitely does feel a $6m hit. It's not a lot of money compared to consolidated net revenues of $623m. However, on a consolidated level, Tropicana entertainment had a net loss of $2.8m.
  Bear in mind that Tropicana AC had also gone through a bankruptcy reorganization in March 2010.
  A $6m hit still stings them considerably when margins run tight. Atlantic City in general has not been doing well over the past few years due to the recession. While house odds are in their favor, they're not wildly in their favor, so to make money they need lots of people playing a lot of lot of rounds. When attendance drops, their operating costs can't be cut as quickly, they do have unionized employees.
  All of this information can be found on their latest 10-K: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1476246/000144530512000602/a20111231-10k.htm#s18F7C3BC4B5443E4BDFBC1717B852C6C
6. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by RobertLTux · 2012-03-22 07:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  no no no if you are building a better one its
  Bacarat and "Escorts"
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
7. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by jazman_777 · 2012-03-22 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  That's how it's done ...
  Conversely, I can't help but feel like this article is just designed to put the idea into millions of readers' heads that you can go into a casino with a strategy or method or system and take home millions at the blackjack table.
  You are not a Jedi. Do not trust your feelings on this.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
8. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by uigrad_2000 · 2012-03-22 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I want to contradict you, but after reading the entire article, there's no claim that he had actually proved a way to beat the house, even with his custom rule changes.
  The article seems to indicate that he always like gambling (ie. playing even when you can lose), but only increased his rate of gambling once he started getting these special custom deals. Since he hadn't played big before, he wasn't known at the time, and that gave him the opportunity to get in and out fast. The evidence that he took enough from 3 chains to be banned is anecdotal evidence only.
  I saw a 60-minutes special on a sports gambler who hired 4-5 people to do full-time research for him. He turned it into a sustainable business, and kept extremely close records of every wager placed. I don't see any evidence that Don Johnson has done the same thing. He could have won big a few places and been thrown out, and lost just as much at other casinos, and the article would still have been written.
  
  --
  Free unix account: freeshell.org
9. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. The only special thing he did was know how to negotiate these high-roller deals with the casino management. He also benefited from the fact that casinos are more willing to wheel and deal now because of the economic situation and the increased competition among casinos in the USA.
  What's more, their numbers guys checked out his play patterns and they actually found no evidence that he was using a system, counting cards, or anything like that. He just got lucky, plus took advantage of the casinos' willingness to change their incentives in his favor.
10. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  I think he was referring to the rest of us who don't get discounts.
11. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by afidel · 2012-03-22 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, for the plebs who can't get these kinds of discounts the house always wins, he was able to get some amazing discounts and the pit bosses made it even worse in that a discount that is normally across all play for a year was given to him on a per trip basis meaning he could actually come out ahead. Basically he pulled an old cracker trick and rather than attack the system (card counting), he attacked the human who could manipulate the system.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
12. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by jo_ham · 2012-03-22 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
  Well, there's always opening a brown envelope and briefcase store in Washington DC during lobbying season.
13. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  You may not help it, but
  I can feel it coming in the air tonight...
  There you go, Don Johnson reference neatly tied up. Time to go home for the day.
14. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  I hear those little cards actually give you the wrong information too.
15. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Anyway, I've known a number of "strategy" morons and there's nothing you can do to convince them that luck doesn't exist and that odds don't change after a run.
  Um.... The odds do change after a run in blackjack. You might want to research card counting as well as the Kelly coefficient. Unless they use continuous shuffle machines, the odds for the next hand change with each card dealt because you know the proportion of low to high cards that remain in the deck. When there are a lot of high cards left in the deck, that favors the player quite a bit.
  The Kelly coefficient has to do with the amount of cash you need to have in order to have a 50% change of doubling your money before you half it based on a certain amount of cash that you place on each bet. It also has the property that it gives you a 10% chance of winning 10% more than your starting money before losing 10% etc. However, it seems unlikely that he had sufficient starting money to make use of this since he was betting like $100,000 per hand. On the other hand, in his games, he was able to negotiate it to where they only had a 0.25% advantage on each hand. But, they were giving him 10-20% of his losses back, which mitigated some of his risk. Plus, they said that he wasn't card counting, but they didn't mention whether or not he was shuffle tracking. Since they were hand shuffling the decks, I would assume that he was. If you can determine when a 10 will be dealt, you have an 80% advantage over the house on that hand.
  I think the correct strategy, in his case, would have been to bet big at one casino and then if he won, go to a different casino that was also giving him the 10-20% loss discount. Because while the first casino wouldn't count his newfound winnings as part of the loss stuff, the new casino would. So, if he won $100,000 at casino 1, and he gambles that at casino 2, the most he could lose is $80-90,000 of it. His expected value if they gave him an 80,000 loss guarantee would be $9,550. That is per hand.
16. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Belial6 · 2012-03-22 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that the non-stategy morons are almost as rare as unicorns.
17. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by residieu · 2012-03-22 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And now we have this story that a player won big (really big) at the Tropicana. How many people visiting Atlantic City are going to pick the Tropicana to gamble at from a (perhaps unconscious) idea that they can win big too (when they lack the real prerequisite here, having enough money to be considered a high-roller)
18. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by iamhassi · 2012-03-22 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't help but feel like this article is just designed to put the idea into millions of readers' heads that you can go into a casino with a strategy or method or system and take home millions at the blackjack table.
  It might help if you read the article, then you'd lose that feeling.
  I think this is the only quote I needed to lose the feeling of heading to a blackjack table to be a millionaire:
  "He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.” "
  
  So he was already a millionaire... actually, multi-millionaire, because he had one million to just hand to the casino to play a game.
  
  The whole article they make him sound like Joe the Plumber that just played one day and won millions. Nothing could be further from the truth, this guy reaches in his pocket and hands out a million dollars to play a game.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
19. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Going to Atlantic City is a mistake, putting any real money down on a blackjack table is a bigger one.
  Going with the expectation of winning is perhaps a mistake. I gamble on occasion but always set a limit and consider it money spent on entertainment. Set a budget and never exceed it.
20. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Avarist · 2012-03-22 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  My kingdom for a modpoint!
  
  --
  In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
21. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly... I show up to the table with $100 dollars and leave with $600 (sometimes more) all the time. He didnt do anything special here except play really high limits...
22. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Tetsujin · 2012-03-22 10:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
  Well, there's always opening a brown envelope and briefcase store in Washington DC during lobbying season.
  Hey, I used to know a great place like that. It was right next to the place that sold signs with catchy, grossly one-sided messages to protesters.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
23. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by isorox · 2012-03-22 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly... I show up to the table with $100 dollars and leave with $600 (sometimes more) all the time.
  And sometimes less. On average you walk away with $90.
  This guy managed to get the odds down (through casino discounts) so he'd be quids in regardless. IF you get a "only pay 90% of your debt", you put $100 on red, $100 on black, and there's a 98% chance you'll walk away with $220 -- a 10% profit.
24. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  ... consolidated net revenues of $623m. However, on a consolidated level, Tropicana entertainment had a net loss of $2.8m.
  Net loss for tax purposes? How much of the $623m was siphoned off as virtual expenses? Only wage slaved don't have the tax shelter of creative accounting.
25. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by GWBasic · 2012-03-22 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  The article explains how he won: He negotiated got the odds very close to 50/50, and once he was on a winning streak, continued. He would only walk once he was down $500,000, but only owe $400,000. In contrast, the casinos wouldn't shut him off until he was up in the millions. Basically, instead of counting cards, he got lucky at outsmarting the casinos at their own business.
  
  --
  No, I will not work for your startup
26. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  So basically he's doing what the investment banks have been doing, thanks to discounts provided to them by the various low / zero interest rate lending programs.
27. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by gl4ss · 2012-03-22 11:34 · Score: 2
  
  he _was_ known before. he was a known high roller, enough of a high roller that they called him up and offered a stupid deal(for the casino).
  whats interesting is that he was shown to _not_ count cards. he only played (mathematically) perfect games though to minimize the house edge, and was lucky when it mattered(and he had enough bank so that he could maximize when he had a good chance to split and so on and since he was approved for 100 000 dollar bets.. ). so he can still go to most places where the casino is in loss to him, those casinos have just withdrawn the offered discounts.
  a desperate casino is a high roller perfect playing capable gamblers friend it seems, though on second thought that's not really a surprise.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
28. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually he loses only $180, not the entire $200 when he loses, but yes, his numbers don't make sense. And I assume you mean that the 'walking away with $90' statement is wrong because he would play many hands? If so, his disadvantage would accumulate and be much more than $10.
29. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Paradise+Pete · 2012-03-22 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think the correct strategy, in his case, would have been to bet big at one casino and then if he won, go to a different casino that was also giving him the 10-20% loss discount.
  Yes, ideally he would limit his sessions to a single hand. Ignoring all the practical issues, that would maximize his advantage (per dollar wagered). In a real-world situation of course he would not be able to do so, but shorter sessions are always better because it "resets" where the discount starts.
30. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by jo_ham · 2012-03-22 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
  Well, there's always opening a brown envelope and briefcase store in Washington DC during lobbying season.
  Hey, I used to know a great place like that. It was right next to the place that sold signs with catchy, grossly one-sided messages to protesters.
  The ones that had that offer on 30% more spelling mistakes or your money back?
31. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by hwolfe · 2012-03-22 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Bzzzt. Read the article and try again. Not all casinos use 8 decks of cards, and these certainly did not, nor did they continuously shuffle for him.
32. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Rick+Zeman · 2012-03-22 14:10 · Score: 2
  
  The house wins over time.
  Yup. Like Pittsburgh Phil is alleged to have said, "If you could beat the ponies they wouldn't be racing them."
33. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by arth1 · 2012-03-22 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  There are 38 numbers on the wheel. Two of them are losers in your plan.
  That depends on where you are. In most of the world, you won't find a 00.
  
  And since more than 5% of the time you lose the entire $200
  Even assuming a wheel with 00, that's not always true. Some casinos only take half of the outside bets when rolling a green.
34. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  More than that, this guy was both a gambling manager, as well as a FRICKING commission member! IE he'd dealt with all layers of the gambling industry before dipping his toes into this high stakes run. And from the sounds of it, he had dropped half a mil or more gambling before.
  So yes, in no way was this guy an 'average joe'.
35. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Phroggy · 2012-03-22 15:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know a guaranteed way to become a millionaire!
  Step 1: start with a billion dollars...
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
36. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Captain+Hook · 2012-03-22 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  If the casinos gave up their statistical advantage, that is foolish and they'll revise those decisions.
  I bet those casino's will be filled with suckers for the next year thinking they are going to win as much as this guy did after reading about it online and probably in the press, and as a result will collectively lose more than he won.
  
  Casino's need a big winner once in a while.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
37. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Gary+van+der+Merwe · 2012-03-22 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  The article states that he nogiated for a hand shuffled deck, and for a hand shuffled deck, card counting is more effective the more packs there are.
38. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly... I show up to the table with $100 dollars and leave with $600 (sometimes more) all the time. He didnt do anything special here except play really high limits...
  There's a word Im thinking of, let's see if yo can guess it?
  
  Clue: it rhymes with fullshit.
  
  If you could regularly make 500% profit a visit, you'd start with a lot more than $100 and you wouldn't be posting as an AC on slashdot when you could be out snorting cocaine off supermodels' tits with the vast fortune you would have earned by now.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
39. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Also, he was playing blackjack, not roulette.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
40. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Although it won't make you rich, not gambling will at least stop you from becoming poor.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
41. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you suffer from something I noticed when I regularly went to the casino. Most people don't seem to want to remember the bad losses but always remember the wins, something called selective memory. Like the slot players who claim they have a strategy that always guarantees a win on one specific machine. There is a fair amount of luck and also knowing when to call it quits but in the long run using the correct basic strategy for the given rules won't give you an edge over the house in most cases*. To gain an advantage you need to be looking for the best odd and then take it to the next level and counting cards. This takes lots of practice and effort to do. When I was in college my group of friends did the same thing that the MIT blackjack team was doing but on a much smaller scale at the same time. The casino we went to had $2 tables (great for poor collage students), dealer stood on all 17s, allowed splitting aces up to 4 times, allowed more than one card on splitting aces, doubling after splitting, early surrender, and the shoe was also only 4 decks hand shuffled. We would pool our money and then divide the winnings equally after each casino run. When the news of the MIT blackjack team broke my former AI professor (I had taken the courses the previous year) stopped me in the hall and asked if I had seen the story. His next question was if I was doing that since for my projects in the classes I only studied gambling problems to which I replied yes. It takes lots of practice and effort to do this as it requires constant attention to what is going on at the table as well as massive amounts of wrote memorization and practice when not at the casino.
  
  *There are some cases where playing the basic strategy does give you an advantage but only when playing with the absolute best rules but even then it is only a fraction of a percent. If you make slight mistakes that advantage goes away very fast. The casino we went to at the time had such rules which is why we went to that one instead of one of the other ones that would have taken the same amount of time to get to. They have since tightened up their rules but like most casinos most of the money didn't come from table games (they only had 4 blackjack tables $2-$50, $5-$100, $10-$200, $25-$500) but from the one armed bandits.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
42. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  ... consolidated net revenues of $623m. However, on a consolidated level, Tropicana entertainment had a net loss of $2.8m.
  Net loss for tax purposes? How much of the $623m was siphoned off as virtual expenses? Only wage slaved don't have the tax shelter of creative accounting.
  You do know that companies are audited and can't just make up the numbers to go in their financial statements?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
43. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  You may not help it, but
  I can feel it coming in the air tonight...
  There you go, Don Johnson reference neatly tied up. Time to go home for the day.
  Phil Collins, mate, but nice try.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
44. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-03-23 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  Depends on how long you play. With a 1% disadvantage per hand (typical disadvantage when playing the basic strategy for most rule sets) you would expect over the long run to loose $0.05 on each $5 bet (typical table minimum) so if you played 200 hands expect to loose about $10 on average. If you play more hands expect to loose $0.05 per $5 bet over the long run average. Of course there are the "hot streaks" and "cold streaks", a.k.a dumb luck, so for your typical play time the sample size is very small. With the right rules as well as tossing in counting cards you can get a 1-2% advantage over the house, again on average. Also of note most table games, when played correctly, have better odds than the slot machines but also require higher minimum bets.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
45. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Not true. I was in Las Vegas in September and was playing at a single deck table at Paris. $25 min bet, $2000 max bet. They didn't shuffle after each hand either. Played that table with $100 for 2 hours, mostly for fun. The third dealer at the table was a complete cooler and I lost hand after hand until I lost my initial $100. Still a cheap 2 hours in Vegas.
46. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Turn in your geek card.
47. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by StikyPad · 2012-03-23 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  And, of course, there's always the possibility (perhaps even likelihood?) that he'll give it all back and then some chasing after it. Most people who walk away from gambling do it after losing, not after winning. As stated in the article, he wanted to keep playing; it was the casino that said no. (But only for that session, and only for the rules he'd negotiated for that session.) The hard parts of running a casino have nothing to do with winning and everything to do with keeping people coming back after they lose. If they win, they come back on their own.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
48. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2012-03-23 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Correct.
  The key point here is that his expectation value was not necessarily great when he walked in the door. He could have lost 400k roughly as easily as he would win 500k, for an expectation value in the neighborhood of 100k, maybe a lot less. But once he won 500k he was playing on a very fair table will cash to play 100k hands.
  From a mathematical POV, having won his 500k his expectation value was a small negative. But that small number also meant that he had time to see where luck might take him. If things go badly he just walks away 400k poorer having had some fun and enjoyed free meals, free drinks, a free hotel room, and free tickets to a show.
  We do not have articles written about the guys who were almost as smart or smarter, and who lost 400k and walked away. The casinos love it when articles are written about outsmarting the casinos, as long as the details are either vague or they can easily learn to detect the gambit. For every person smart enough to outwit the casinos are a thousand guys who are not up to snuff but think they are.
  Even this guy is hardly telling us everything, and that some details were private were part of the negotiations.
49. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  To nearly quote Howie Mandel from years ago, "I know an easy way to become a millionaire. First you get a million dollars..."
50. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by terjeber · 2012-03-23 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Um.... The odds do change after a run in blackjack
  Not in most casinos for most people. Not enough for it to matter, even if you count cards. Casinos today shuffle four decks or more, and they cut the deck close to the half-way mark. This significantly (within the rather narrow margins already in place) reduces the odds variability as the game goes on, and it also significantly reduces the advantage of counting cards.
51. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  multi-deck games are bogus. if you have the skill to count cards, you should be allowed to.
52. Re:I Can't Help But Feel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  You may not help it, but
  I can feel it coming in the air tonight...
  There you go, Don Johnson reference neatly tied up. Time to go home for the day.
  Phil Collins, mate, but nice try.
  Miami Vice reference, mate. Since you are presumably from the UK I guess I can describe it this way "Inspector Lewis but not so formulaic... and with more swimsuits." But nice try.
The quote of the day seems oddly fitting by sgrover · 2012-03-22 07:29 · Score: 1

The quote at the bottom of my page is currently
"He flung himself on his horse and rode madly off in all directions."
This seems oddly fitting for this story.
Not much skill by leathered · 2012-03-22 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is little skill in playing Blackjack. Sure there's an optimum strategy that everyone should follow but I would hardly call that 'skill'.
Of course you could say that he was card counting, but if there was any suggestion of that his ass would have been out of the door and he would have been banned from every casino in the city. The casinos have counter measures to this anyway, such as more frequent shuffling or stopping players from entering half way through a shoe.
The only news here is that the casino offered a discount which negated the house edge. In other words the casino gambled and lost.

--
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
1. Re:Not much skill by UnknowingFool · 2012-03-22 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Also the article states that in the last casino, his $100,000 a hand bets were authorized by a high ranking employee meaning those large bets are not normally allowed. The employee was let go afterwards. The article suggests that similar events happened in the other casinos.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Not much skill by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Card counting using nothing but your intelligence is legal in AC.
  If you use a mechanical device of any kind, it is not.
3. Re:Not much skill by Depili · 2012-03-22 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you would have read even the summary he got the casinos to play with hand shuffled decks defeating many of the card counting counters, also as mentioned in another comment in atlantic city black jack is considered a game of skill legally so card counting must be allowed.
4. Re:Not much skill by SpinyNorman · 2012-03-22 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually the real news wasn't mentioned in this awful slashdot summary. The discount didn't help him win - it would only have reduced his losses if he lost.
  The real reason he was able to win, was because the casinos were willing to drastically negotiate the rules of the game (in addition to the discount) to the point where the house had only the tiniest advantage.
  The guy was of course under heavy scrutity at the casinos (gambling $100K per hand), and they didn't detect him card counting, but I suspect he probably was counting but only acted occasionally when the payoff was huge (such as the single hand where he split twice and won $800K, mentioned in the article).
  One of the many rule changes he negotiated was a small hand shuffled shoe, so he may well have been tracking cards through the shuffle too, as the top players are able to, thereby giving him a further edge beyond that nominally calculatable per the agreed rules.
5. Re:Not much skill by xero314 · 2012-03-22 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  You are not understanding the discounts and how it applies in this case. In games of odds reducing lose is as good as winning (assuming there is at least some chance of winning). As his example explains if he spent 500k, he could cash out and actually get 100k of that back. It's the same as a rebate, where you buy something for 500k and then you get 100k back after purchase. Even if the house had a 19% advantage he would still be able to profit if he played statistically perfectly (as the article claims he does). Over the course of spending a million dollars he would lose 19% (190k) and gain 20%(200k) for a net gain of (10k), assuming he cashed out after ever loss. The fact that the house percentage in this case was 1/4 of one percent just made the profit that much higher. If it were not for the discount he would have ultimately lost money.
  In reality he only cashed out after a certain level of loss so his gains where not the full 20% but still more than enough of an advantage to beat the house.
  I am a piss poor Black Jack player, since I focus on Poker games, but if I were offered a 20% discount on my loss I would sit at the table until my discount ran out, because even with my poor play the house would not have a 20% advantage.
6. Re:Not much skill by cfa22 · 2012-03-22 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  The guy was of course under heavy scrutity at the casinos
  I for one would enjoy reading your definition of "heavy scrutity".
7. Re:Not much skill by Tetsujin · 2012-03-22 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also the article states that in the last casino, his $100,000 a hand bets were authorized by a high ranking employee meaning those large bets are not normally allowed.
  Well, it's not so much that they're "not allowed", I think. Seems like they're happy to have people come and drop that kind of cash. They just like to pick and choose, try to find the marks who will lose more than they win.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
8. Re:Not much skill by swalve · 2012-03-22 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not intelligence. Memory.
9. Re:Not much skill by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the real news wasn't mentioned in this awful slashdot summary. The discount didn't help him win - it would only have reduced his losses if he lost.
  I don't think you understand. We play a game where we flip a coin. If it's heads, you give me a dollar; tails, I give you a dollar. In the long run there is no chance of making substantial profit here. Now consider what happens if we change it so that if I lose, I only give you 90 cents.
Money to burn? by John3 · 2012-03-22 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny

'You'd never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You'd owe them only $400,000.'
Only $400,000? This guy has money to burn.

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
1. Re:Money to burn? by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-03-22 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  'You'd never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You'd owe them only $400,000.'
  Only $400,000? This guy has money to burn.
  No, he's planning to make it up on volume!
2. Re:Money to burn? by Dog-Cow · 2012-03-22 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you Captain Obvious.
  The whole premise is that the guy is a "whale", aka someone with a lot of money to burn.
3. Re:Money to burn? by PPH · 2012-03-22 07:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Overheard on the flight to Atlantic City: "I hope I break even this time. I sure could use the money."
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Money to burn? by John3 · 2012-03-22 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  True.
  However the example seems to be poorly thought out. Shouldn't he have said "If you got to $1,000,000 in losses you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You'd owe them only $800,000". Why did he choose the arbitrary $500,000 to stop at for his example, especially since he was explaining how you'd never lose the $1,000,000.
  Even someone who flunked math wouldn't lose the million if they stopped at $500,000 in losses (with or without the 20% discount).
  
  --
  "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
5. Re:Money to burn? by the+phantom · 2012-03-22 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  The 20% discount only applies to the first $500,000 lost. After that, there is no discount. Thus, the casino requires him to bank a million, but he won't lose that much, because he will stop when the discount no longer applies.
  
  --
  Rhapsody in Numbers
6. Re:Money to burn? by John3 · 2012-03-22 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I missed that information.
  His "never lose a million" still doesn't make sense with the example he provides. Any gambler would never lose a million if they banked a million and then stopped when their losses hit $500,000. Sure, they'd be out $100,000 more than he would, but they'd be out "only $500,000".
  Or am I missing something else?
  
  --
  "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
7. Re:Money to burn? by foradoxium · 2012-03-22 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  Similar, after watching some lucky person get a royal flush on progressive video poker...she shouted "wahoo, I've been trying to get this for 6 years!"
8. Re:Money to burn? by SleazyRidr · 2012-03-22 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's true that for that session where he lost $500k he's only $100k better off than your "Average Joe" who loses $500k. Where he made his money is that he was playing it at almost 50-50 odds, so each time he loses $500k statistically he has one session where he's up $500k. If you have enough money to wait for it to balance out, you average up $50k each time you play. 5% return on your million dollars invested isn't bad for 1 night's work!
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
9. Re:Money to burn? by John3 · 2012-03-22 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Especially if he enjoys playing the game. I've done OK playing blackjack several times, but I'm in the range of $500 max ever at risk, and lifetime I've broken even and had fun for several hours at a time.
  The last few times I traveled to Vegas I put the blackjack money into show tickets instead...Penn & Teller are quite amusing live.
  
  --
  "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
10. Re:Money to burn? by xero314 · 2012-03-22 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing that he still has the 500k he did not lose, plus the casino paid him 100k to play. At the end of the last hand he played he had 500k banked. After cashing out he had 600k. The casino paid him 100k to play. He then goes back with 600k and starts the process all over again. as long as his odds where less than 20% against him, then he is making money every time he plays (not that he goes home with money, but he is affectively making money).
  The guy without the discount is out his full losses, and even with the house only having a quarter of a percent advantage he is losing money every time he plays.
Roulette by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · 2012-03-22 07:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

I worked as an intern for two summers at the Casino Dealers School in Atlantic City in the late 1980s. Roulette wasn't a legal game in the casinos there at the time, but he had a table in the back for kicks (nobody was trained on it). He said anyone who's dealt roulette for 10 years could make the ball land wherever he wants 8/10 times or more. He then showed me first-hand, telling me in advance the color and number on which the ball would land. 8/10 times.
1. Re:Roulette by Enderandrew · 2012-03-22 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Having worked for Harrahs and having been trained on roulette, I'm highly skeptical. Even if you spun at roughly the same force every time, the position of your hand, the twist of your fingers, and the variables of a BOUNCING ball will change greatly.
  There are a few individuals who have exceptional fine motor control with their fingers (card magicians come to mind), but I doubt even someone with exceptional fine motor control could get a ball on a certain number 2 times out of 10, let alone 8. And I certainly don't believe all experienced roulette dealers could do this.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
2. Re:Roulette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Considering that there are computers which can quickly and accurately guess what the result will be when an observer inputs some initial parameters about how the ball is thrown/dropped, I have no problem believing a skilled dealer could control the result.
3. Re:Roulette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  My brother is a trained roulette dealer. He is quite adept at making the ball go where he wants. Not sure about the 80% percentage, but certainly high enough to be beyond chance.
4. Re:Roulette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Having worked for Harrahs and having been trained on roulette, I'm highly skeptical. Even if you spun at roughly the same force every time, the position of your hand, the twist of your fingers, and the variables of a BOUNCING ball will change greatly.
  There are a few individuals who have exceptional fine motor control with their fingers (card magicians come to mind), but I doubt even someone with exceptional fine motor control could get a ball on a certain number 2 times out of 10, let alone 8. And I certainly don't believe all experienced roulette dealers could do this.
  One other option, of course, is that the table in the GP's post was rigged. No special motor skills required.
5. Re:Roulette by Enderandrew · 2012-03-22 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  The house wins without cheating. Any casino getting caught cheating with a rigged table would lose a massively profitable business. No one would ever want to go to that casino for anything ever again. And given how heavily the casinos are regulated by law, you'd see people in jail very quickly. And because casinos are under massive surveillance, it isn't like people can just screw around with the tables to rig them without someone noticing it. I'm not saying one person isn't stupid enough to attempt it, but I can't say I've ever heard of a single documented case of that happening.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
6. Re:Roulette by heson · 2012-03-22 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  A friend did it four times in a row (missing the fifth) after three months of working 4 evenings a week at a local bar with roulette. (My friend was the kind of guy that plays flipper until he gets bored, instead of when he is out of balls). I never played roulette again (after winning quite alot since he aimed for my number)
7. Re:Roulette by ArundelCastle · 2012-03-22 09:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why so skeptical? If you can't trust an internet comment from THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER, what *can* you trust?
  P.S. Clams got legs!
8. Re:Roulette by evil_aaronm · 2012-03-22 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming this is true, how would I, a sucker just ambling up to the roulette table, use this to my advantage? Or is it only to the house's advantage?
9. Re:Roulette by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-22 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are computers that can make a decent guess, using video cameras. Definitely not "some initial parameters."
10. Re:Roulette by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  The OP was talking about a "for fun" illegal table in the back room. NOT a roulette table on the floor for actual (legal) use.
11. Re:Roulette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  You tip the dealer a lot of money at some point. I have friends that know roulette dealers and that is my understanding.
12. Re:Roulette by SleazyRidr · 2012-03-22 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  You make friends with the roulette dealer, then agree to split the profits with him.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
13. Re:Roulette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  If this were the case, wouldn't we hear more about collusion between dealers and players?
  It's more likely that this "illegal, backroom" table had a biased wheel, or was missing the modern anti-cheating features, or your friend was rolling incorrectly (ie: rolling with the spin instead of against it).
  Nothing my google skills find regarding collusion between croupiers and roulette players have to do with ball control, they all seem centered around late betting or tricks with the chips.
  So either no one has ever gotten caught, or it's not possible.
14. Re:Roulette by gl4ss · 2012-03-22 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  to make this a nerdy thread.. yeah there was a gang of people who went from casino to casino cleaning them up with a machine like that.
  not going to link that.
  instead. www.cheatbook.de/files/u7bg.htm
  Tons of Gold:
  -------------
  In the casino hall in Buccaneer's Den there is a roulette table. The wheel spins
  slowly enough that you can guess a moment or two before it stops what color is the
  winner. Simply move your wager to the appropriate color. Repeat ad nauseum.
  --------------
  that's what comes to my mind about that every time. that and rat races.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re:Roulette by AndrewStephens · 2012-03-22 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  With Roulette you don't need to predict very well to get an edge on the house. Even you if can fairly consistently guess which quarter of the wheel the ball will land in, you can shift the odds well into your favor over the long run. That's what the "cheaters" with electronic aids were doing.
  
  --
  sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
16. Re:Roulette by snerdy · 2012-03-23 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  P.S. Clams got legs!
  Careful -- you could get kicked to death talking that way.
17. Re:Roulette by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · 2012-03-27 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  The pit bosses are trained to watch for that.
Desperate Odds by fermion · 2012-03-22 07:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

The nyt has an article on the Indian Casinos in New England. Part of it is basically talking about how slots are very profitable due to the fact that they can are computer controlled so can be precisely calibrated to balance user experience and profit(split with the state), while table games are increasingly becoming less reliable. As verified here, the problem appears to be that the casinos are dependent on smaller and smaller groups of people to visit the casinos, and even smaller of people who will play with real money. So the casinos are cutting their advantage with these discounts, and allowing players to split twice, essentially cutting the house advantage to the point where, on average, the house does not win.
Of course the story is that there are too many casino chasing too few players, and given the online competition, the time of the casino may be over.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. Re:Desperate Odds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  The nyt has an article on the Indian Casinos in New England. Part of it is basically talking about how slots are very profitable due to the fact that they can are computer controlled so can be precisely calibrated to balance user experience and profit(split with the state), while table games are increasingly becoming less reliable. As verified here, the problem appears to be that the casinos are dependent on smaller and smaller groups of people to visit the casinos, and even smaller of people who will play with real money. So the casinos are cutting their advantage with these discounts, and allowing players to split twice, essentially cutting the house advantage to the point where, on average, the house does not win.
  Of course the story is that there are too many casino chasing too few players, and given the online competition, the time of the casino may be over.
  You should've used HugeUrl to go with that huge amount of link text.
2. Re:Desperate Odds by boristdog · 2012-03-22 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  given the online competition, the time of the casino may be over.
  Yes, because sitting at your computer gambling alone in your underpants is exactly the same as going to Vegas.
3. Re:Desperate Odds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, the slots are computer controlled. First it was just the individual chip on the slot, or the central computer drawing numbers if the slot was a bingo slot.
  Now there's server-based control of individual machines. Seriously, they can change the denomination, they can change the overall payout percentage, all from a central computer to which the slots are networked. All that is required is that the machine is idle for a specified time, such as a 7 minute idle time.
  So if someone won a decent payout on a 1 penny slot with a 92% pay percentage, and now that machine has been idle for about 7 minutes or whatever? Now the house can change that machine to a 5 cent/92% pay percentage machine, increasing just the denomination. Or they leave the machine at a 1 cent denomination but the they can decrease the pay percentage to as low as 86% with some server based software. The player will notice if the denomination changed, but they will not see that the pay percentage had been decreased. I doubt the house would be so generous as to increase the pay percentage.
  Don't even bother playing slot machines seriously, because the machines can be genuinely rigged by a central computer. Look up slot machine server-based gaming, you'll see.
The casino's will be just fine by onyxruby · 2012-03-22 07:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

The casino's will still come out ahead though in the end. This guy will inspire a thousand some imitators and those imitators will repay the casino in spades. They lose money on one guy just to make it up by the throng inspired from the first. It's the same reason casino's put a big winners in their advertisements and a jackpot has lots of flashing lights and noise. /Credit to the guy for doing this without cheating, not an easy thing to do.
decimate? by spottedkangaroo · 2012-03-22 07:44 · Score: 1

He split the bank into 10 parts? Or did he apply a 10% tax maybe? ... Maybe the author means devastate?

--
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
1. Re:decimate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  For every ten croupiers, he ordered the rest to kill one.
2. Re:decimate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
  See definition 3b.
3. Re:decimate? by hawk · 2012-03-23 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  He meant it literally.
  The casino employees were marched down the highway, and every mile, they stopped, drew a name by lot, and crucified that employee, until a 10% "layoff" had been achieved.
  when you can instill *that* level of fear in your workforce, you need no longer worry about morale . . .
  hawk
Can't bust the bank in OZ by OzPeter · 2012-03-22 07:44 · Score: 5, Informative

For some Blackjack games, Crown casino has gotten the gambling regulators to allow the dealer to go bust, but not pay out to the players: Crown can bust and still not lose

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
indeed - Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

from your link
"Johnson, 49, of Bensalem, Pa., is the chief executive officer of
Heritage Development LLC, a Wyoming-based company that uses
computer-assisted wagering programs for horseracing."
Google: "Don Johnson" heritage wyoming. Click on his LinkedIn link (a year ago about 15 down from the first). Read.
Sure enough, Don Johnson is "CEO of Heritage Development, LLC". Sure enough, Heritage Development is in the "Cheyenne, Wyoming Area". And what business is Heritage Development in? Programing? Software? Investment? Gaming? No, no, no & no. Rather...it's in "Public Relations and Communications".
Methinks the Johnson/casino story has a wee bit of the rotten egg stink about it.
1. Re:indeed - Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Check the published date on the TFA. This is an Early April fools article. They got us all
2. Re:indeed - Rebate didn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Where did you find "Public Relations"?
  I see his other company "C.J. and Associates" is headed by his wife? Colleen Johnson. But neither Heritage Development nor C.J. and Associates seem to do anything with their business other than exist on paper. Both mailing addresses go directly to a law firm in Cheyenne, hence Wyoming-"based".
Card counting by tepples · 2012-03-22 07:52 · Score: 4, Informative
and being allowed to vary his bets as he saw fit
Isn't that just the old standby of card counting, like what the MIT Blackjack Team did? The system relies on the fact that 10s and aces are better for the player than for the house because of the 3:2 payout on a player's blackjack (two-card soft 21) and make it more likely for the dealer to bust on a hard 12-16. The common "high-low" system looks like this:
- 2-6: +1
- 7-9: 0
- 10-A: -1
- When the running count is more than four times the number of decks left in the shoe, bet high.
And Atlantic City casinos can't do smurf-all about it except end shoes early, as blackjack is legally a game of skill there (Uston v. Resorts International).
And don't forget to tell your friends. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 07:54 · Score: 0

I hope they treat him better than deNiro did to this poor sap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa1IsxGVuc
"And don't forget to tell your friends what happens if they fuck around here."
50% expected return still not enough to "live on" by goffster · 2012-03-22 08:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

you have to play roughly 100,000 hands of blackjack to
establish a reasonable bell curve. You need about a 60%
expected return (and there do exist such methods using
teams and card counting)
Eventually, a losing streak will break your bank.
Las Vegas wins because it is able to play 100,000 hands of blackjack
in a relatively short amount of time while risking only a fraction of their bankroll.
Anybody can win at casino games by tomhath · 2012-03-22 08:09 · Score: 2

People who think they're winning tend to remember the hands they win and forget the hands they lose. Lottery winners are the same way, spend $100/week and brag when they hit a $500 ticket every six months...
Blackjack is the only game I play by XxtraLarGe · 2012-03-22 08:09 · Score: 3, Informative

When I go to a casino, Blackjack is the only game I'll play, since it has the best odds of any card game. I don't count cards, I just play by the standard strategy. It's also important to know the house rules. What's the payout on a Blackjack? Some casinos pay 3/2, but many have switched to 6/5. I don't play there. I also like to play either $5 or $10 tables. You can go to a $5 table and play for hours on $200. The most important thing though is money management. Only gamble what you can afford to lose. I have two stacks in front of me. The left is my betting pile, and my right is my winnings pile. When the left pile is gone, that's when I quit. I might take a break, put my original amount in my pocket, and then just gamble on the houses money if I feel like it. At that point it's pure entertainment. This strategy has served me very well. I have very seldom left the casino with less money than I walked in with.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
1. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Assuming you are not counting cards and you are playing perfectly you still wouldn't be able to beat the house's edge over a long period of time. If it's true that "I have very seldom left the casino with less money" as in more than 50% of the time you've just been lucky.
2. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by XxtraLarGe · 2012-03-22 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you are not counting cards and you are playing perfectly you still wouldn't be able to beat the house's edge over a long period of time. If it's true that "I have very seldom left the casino with less money" as in more than 50% of the time you've just been lucky.
  I've lost a couple of times making smart bets. Once I was playing at a $25 table, did a split on some 8's, then doubled down when I drew a 2 on one. Had a 19 & a 20, the dealer drew enough to get 21 so I busted on both. $75 gone in a flash. That's what made me decide to stick to the smaller tables. Also, like I said, I let my money tell me when to quit. When the left pile is gone, I'll stop. Usually I'm up at that point. I also don't tip every time I get a blackjack, only when I'm done playing, or if I see they're about to switch out dealers. Besides, it's near-impossible to count cards on an 8-deck shoe.
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
3. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by networkBoy · 2012-03-22 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  When I go to a casino I play craps and Blackjack. I usually come out relatively even, sometimes greatly ahead, never too far behind. Most I've ever lost in a trip is $50, most I've won is $3500. Craps is fun, may not be as even as blackjack, but it is more fun.
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
4. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by trout007 · 2012-03-22 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  I used to play lots of craps back when there was always a $5 table with a 5x odds which gets the house bug down to around .3%.
  My money management was to accept small wins. I'd go with a $2k bankroll and be happy to win $100. Also if I got ahead at all in a session I never gave back the money. Play with the house money and keep pocketing a portion of your wins until you are done.
  Imagine flipping a coin. What are the odds you will be ahead at some point before you are down 15? If you are happy with a 5% gain in a night you will keep in the game long enough for the big wins.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
5. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by Fred+Ferrigno · 2012-03-22 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  An economist will tell you that it's all your money and you should be as careful with your winnings as you would be with the money in your bank account. That said, it is psychologically much easier to cope with losing something if you weren't expecting to get it in the first place.
6. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  "Usually I'm up at that point"
  
  You're still insisting that you win more than 50% of the time. You should either gamble professionally or write a book about your system. Given the fact that your original post was modded +5 it seems like you've got your audience.
  
  There are also probably a few math professors would be interested in how you've managed to beat blackjack without counting cards and simply "let(ting) my money tell me when to quit".
7. Re:Blackjack is the only game I play by djmurdoch · 2012-03-22 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't hard to put together a scheme that wins more than 50% of the time, if the losses are bigger than the wins. The standard doubling up scheme does that:
  Bet $1 at even odds the first time, and keep doubling your bet until you win, run out of money, or hit the maximum bet, then quit. If each bet has a 45% chance of winning, and you're allowed to play 5 times (i.e. the max bet is $16), you'll come out ahead 19 times out of 20.
  The problem is that when you come out ahead, you're ahead by $1; when you lose, you lose $31.
"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I guarantee you whatever "loss" is on paper, is exactly that, only on paper. I worked in the backroom, everyone in there is either ex-IRS, or current IRS who happen to be on the payroll.
1. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Kelbear · 2012-03-22 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Do you know of any specific examples of fraud or non-GAAP financial reporting? Even if you only know of rumors or hearsay, I would like to know.
2. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-22 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  So what's it like working for the IRS?
3. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's a huge chasm between fraud and the border of non-GAAP. And GAAP (which is itself not even required) leaves an incredible amount of room for playing with numbers, especially in specialized industries where "generally accepted" can be made relative. Making movies in Hollywood or running a casino in Atlantic City is nothing like selling widgets in Omaha.
  Ask Donald Trump what GAAP means. Every business he touches goes bankrupt. I'm sure he tells his partners and investors, "Oh, don't worry; we use GAAP like everyone else."
4. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand how you could fiddle a casino's books other than by outright fraud. If you take in x dollars in cash, you take in x dollars in cash. There's no way I know of to account for cash received other than declaring it as income. And I don't see that the expenses side is open to much creative accounting either. You pay your staff, you have the winnings you pay out, it's not rocket science.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
5. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Every free drink they hand out is an expense.
6. Re:"Hollywood accounting", Vegas style. by Kelbear · 2012-03-23 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  There's a lot of ways. I was asking that anon if he knew of specifics so I could follow-up if there was any actual situation to deal with, but it is definitely true that there is a lot of room for play within GAAP. Cash is actually relatively low risk in most industries because it's easily tracable through banks, but in casinos a lot of it is on-hand, so it's a high-risk area of audit in this industry.
  Revenue and expense are just accounting concepts that are easier to play with since a lot of them have to do with estimates. For example, you should expense a building over the course of it's useful life. But what is the useful life of a building? Management gets to say if the $3m building will be useful for 30 years ($100k expense per year), or 10 years ($300k expense per year), and they even get to change up that estimate partway through if they can convince auditors that they have a reasonable basis for doing so.
  A recent well known example: Lehman brothers hid their financial health behind repo 105 transactions which their auditors gave a pass for being "in line with GAAP", which was arguably true. However, the E&Y auditors are also obligated to consider whether the financials fairly represents the company, and they are in hot water for giving them a pass on repo 105.
His secret by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 08:31 · Score: 0

He did it by not tipping the waitresses!
What? by g0bshiTe · 2012-03-22 08:43 · Score: 1

4 + 5 + 6 = 11 million, and they still claim that the house has an edge? I'm sure it does, but winning like that I'm surprised a casino lets this guy to walk past the doors, much less in the place to gamble.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
1. Re:What? by Moses48 · 2012-03-22 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  What they don't tell you is that on other occasions he lost 20 million.
Wheel? by Teufelsmuhle · 2012-03-22 09:06 · Score: 0

Walk? There's no way this guy can walk anymore, what with the repeated leg breakings and all.
Yeah, I was going to say by YesIAmAScript · 2012-03-22 09:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

As a poker player from before the poker boom, I can assure you the house doesn't make a ton of money on it. That's why poker rooms were disappearing all up and down the strip before the boom. Caesar's Palace had even closed the poker room on their main floor about 18 months before the poker boom started (with Chris Moneymaker's win).
Poker was seen by most casinos as only being there to bring in players who wouldn't otherwise come in. So it was located next to the sportsbook if it was there at all. Only Wynn's properties (The Mirage and later Bellagio) were trying to use poker with the casual (as opposed to townie) crowd.
I was sure glad to see that change, but I don't kid myself that it could easily swing back. Because the house loves high take games, and poker isn't one of them. They also like things that are cheap to run (automated systems like slots) and poker isn't one of those either.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You don't need any advantage by V-similitude · 2012-03-22 09:54 · Score: 2

You don't need any advantage to do this. Just a little luck and a big bankroll. Twice, I've won over 1k in Vegas starting with just 200, betting 25-50 at a time. (And a third time, I lost my starting 200 and that was it.) If I started with 1mm and bet 100k a hand, I'd have won in the 4mm range each of those times too. Assuming I had the stomach for it of course. And that's without having dropped enough in the past to get the casinos to offer you the kinds of deals they did for this guy.
The only story here is who let this guy make such big bets. Other than that, I'm sure these sorts of winnings pretty much happen all the time, just people aren't particularly forward about discussing it.
In related news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 10:13 · Score: 1

Mr Johnson was then found later off the coast. Coroners at the scene report cause of death was listed as "deprivation of oxygen due to inability to swim with concrete footwear."
Lucky ! by GuB-42 · 2012-03-22 13:20 · Score: 1

He was simply lucky.
Giving a 20% discount on $500000 is like a gift of $100000 from the casino in case of loss, the value of just one of his bets. There is no way it can transform into millions in a single night if you are not lucky.
Statistically, considering a 0.25% house edge and a $100000 flat bet, if he uses his discount less than once every 400 hands (about 7h of continuous play at 1 hand per minute), he is losing money in the long run.
The only unusual thing is that the stakes are extremely high. Coming in with $100, flat betting $10 and leaving with $1100 and a free drink is nothing extraordinary. Here, the same happened, x10000.
The difference is that the law of large numbers no longer apply and the casinos start to take risks even if they have the edge.
Money is not the only thing of value. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 18:03 · Score: 0

If the players get more than 0 (summed) entertainment/pleasure out of the game, then it is no longer a zero sum game.
That is a fact. Therefore you are wrong.
See how that feels?
Oh, and that stuff about what the stock market is "meant" to be. Hilarious! I bet you kill at the traders conventions.
1. Re:Money is not the only thing of value. by tragedy · 2012-03-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's an interesting point. The problem I see with it though is that virtually all games are played for entertainment value and the actual entertainment value is pretty much an intangible. If you want to say that poker isn't a zero sum game because of the intangible entertainment value, then the term "zero sum game" has just lost all meaning, because all games may have an intangible entertainment value, making it impossible to determine if they are zero sum or not. So, although your argument is interesting, it isn't convincing.
  
  That is a fact. Therefore you are wrong.
  The problem there is that you were using fuzzy logic while I was working on the strict definition. You can state anything you like and call it a fact.
Simple Math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 22:45 · Score: 0

1) The discount has no effect on the outcome of THIS game (because he doesn't lose anything)
2) Winning 4 million with a bet limit of 100.000 is not a difficult thing, because the house edge might be 0.25% in his case (and around 0.6% for "normal" players). So the expected value might be 0.15 bets per hour (single player, 1 game a minute) But standard deviation is around 10 bets per hour (if playing a single hand every minute).
3) The article suggests, that he was playing multiple hands, which further increases standard deviation.
3) The article did not describe the huge betting spreads typical for card counting . (All card counting techniques I heard of, concentrate on betting strategies, as playing strategies have only a minimal influence on the edge). Card counting does further increase standard deviation (depending on strategy)
4) The game situation shown in the article is quite normal (and does not need card counting): You ALWAYS split 8s (especially against 5), you ALWAYS double 10 or 11 against 5.
An article on gambling by wiredog · 2012-03-22 23:14 · Score: 1

And no one mentions The Eudaemonic Pie?

--

Best Slashdot Co