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.'"

89 of 294 comments (clear)

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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. 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!
11. 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'?
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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.
19. Re:That's how it's done... by Lunzo · 2012-03-22 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  That username and post align perfectly.
20. 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.
21. 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!"
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
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 Arrepiadd · 2012-03-22 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  You are right, but so is the submitter...
  Decimate
2. 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.
3. 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%.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Re:Decimate by lightknight · 2012-03-22 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  So you've never played MUDs before?
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
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/
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 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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)
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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."
19. 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;
20. 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
21. 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
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.
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 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.
2. 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.
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.
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 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.
2. 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
3. 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!"
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 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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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 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."
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.
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.
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.