If you think that card counting is an easy road to riches, you're deluding yourself. The pro gamblers I know work harder for their money than most people who hold regular jobs. They don't even begin to think they're getting "something for nothing." They know that every penny they make comes from long hours of work, study, sweat, and guts.

And don't think that just because the state requires a casino to post the 800-number for Gamblers Anonymous that the state has any concern whatsoever for gambling addicts. They care as much about gambling addicts as they do about drunks. Every state makes bundles of money from casinos, and politicians in states where gambling is legal get their palms greased regularly by the industry powers that be. The state will be just as happy to take money from you as any casino, poker player, or racetrack.

I live in Nevada now, but up until a few years ago, I lived in California, and the Golden State provided me with an invaluable education in the perfidious tactics of pushers who supply gambling addicts with an excuse for indulging in their drug of choice. Shortly after California instituted its usurious state lottery some years back (50% house edge, like most state lotteries), a front-page article in the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that nearly half of the lottery tickets sold in the state were being purchased by the same small percentage of buyers, who happened to reside in the depressed big city ghettos, with little education, and poverty-level incomes. An official spokesperson for the lottery commission stated that these high volume ticket buyers fell into two classifications—"compulsive gamblers" and "professional gamblers."

I like that. Professional lottery players. A spokesperson for the state declares on the front page of the daily papers that certain individuals whom demographics would lead us to categorize as poor and uneducated, are in fact a new breed of urban professional. Perhaps, it won't be long before California's universities begin offering classes like Big Spin 101, so that some of the more educated citizens of the state, who don't currently buy lottery tickets, can obtain a Bachelor of Lotto degree.

If you are a compulsive gambler, my advice is: Don't gamble. And don't try to convince yourself that counting cards is an "investment." Throw this book away—and stay away from the casinos.

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)

A pro has one goal: to maximize the return on his investment. He's in it for the money. A compulsive gambler has a different goal: to keep his money in action. He's in it for the action. It's a different motivation, that's all.
This is what it boils down to: A pro sees gambling as a means to money; a compulsive sees money as a means to gambling. That's the difference between the two.
Compulsive gamblers pose big problems to the professionals, like, "should we eat them for breakfast, lunch, or dinner?" This is true in all forms of gambling, including the stock market, real estate, commodities, and just about any activity that could fall under the general headings of "business" or "investing." If any risk of capital is involved, it's gambling, and the pros will beat the amateurs and the compulsives.
So, although I believe it's possible that a compulsive gambler could become a professional blackjack or poker player; the problem is that he'll operate in the red a lot. If he is an otherwise intelligent person who has access to money from some other source, he will provide bread and butter for the noncompulsive professionals, who much prefer to operate in the black.
This could be the best way to tell the compulsives from the noncompulsives. Operate in red: compulsive; operate in black: non-compulsive. Unfortunately, it's not easy to gather data on this, because both compulsive gamblers and professional gamblers tend to lie about their finances.
So the real answer to the question is: No.
In the same way that the liquor industry thrives on alcoholics, the gambling industry thrives on gambling addicts. Despite the Gamblers Anonymous brochures most casinos display near their cashiers' cages, usually in compliance with state gaming regulations, the industry knows that addicts are their best customers, just like your local bartender knows that the neighborhood drunks pay a good portion of his rent every month.
One of the main dangers of gambling addiction, compared to other self-destructive addictions, is that—unlike drinking or eating or taking drugs—gambling really is a profession for some people. So any gambler can convince himself that he is "investing" his money in his chosen occupation, since every gambler does sometimes see a return on his investment. Casinos understand the compulsive gambler's perspective, and they target their marketing specifically at players who possess the one psychological trait found in virtually every gambling addict—an inordinate desire to get something for nothing. Casinos offer more freebies to their customers than any other business, and these misnamed "complimentaries," or "comps," are NEVER really complimentary. They are always based on a player's volume of action at the casino's games, and that action has a real cost in dollars and cents.

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)

It may seem peculiar for a book on card counting to address compulsive gambling, but I've gotten too many letters through the years from players who have lost their life savings trying to beat the tables. I've been asked many times if I thought a compulsive gambler could learn to play blackjack professionally.

This used to strike me as a weird question; now I know that it's a question that is seriously pondered by compulsive gamblers. I have no way of knowing how many compulsive gamblers will read this book, but I suspect more than a handful.
If I were considered to be an expert on fine wines by those who appreciate fine wines, would I be asked: "Do you think an alcoholic could learn to be an expert on wine so that he could make his living by drinking?"

I suppose a compulsive gambler could learn to play blackjack at a professional level, to the same extent that an alcoholic might be able to make a successful career out of drinking. This is a bizarre world we live in, so anything is possible. I'm sure a sex addict could find work in porno films, and a psychopathic killer could get a job as an executioner.

Generally speaking, however, most addicts do best in life by learning to stay away from activities and environments that fuel their addictions. One problem that a compulsive gambler faces is that he is competing with professional gamblers (in most cases, casinos), who do not share his compulsion, and his competition will likely take advantage of his weakness, which means that he will have more than his share of losing streaks.. .and if you lose more than you win, are you still a professional? Let's define the players:

A professional gambler is a player who's willing to risk money on the outcome of the game, and who, by selecting only advantageous bets, wins more than he loses in the long run. In poker games, for instance, the professionals make a living by taking money from the amateurs. At the racetrack, the pari-mutuel betting system assures the track of making a profit, while the professional horse bettors beat the public. Likewise, a bookie, or any casino sports book, takes it's vigorish from both sides of the line, while the pro sports bettors beat the public at large. In all of these arenas, bettors primarily compete against each other, while the house rakes a percentage from everybody. In all of these types of games, compulsive gamblers contribute mightily to the share taken home by the pros. In a game like casino blackjack, however, the bettor competes with the casino directly. The casinos are themselves the largest class of blackjack professionals, as they always make money at this game, though there are a few professional players (mostly card counters) who beat the casinos.

But whether we're talking about individual players, teams, or casinos, any professional gambler will immediately put his money away the moment it becomes apparent to him that he no longer has the best of it. This is not an emotional decision to a professional gambler, any more than it is an emotional decision to a professional stock investor to pull capital out of one investment, and stick it in another, based on factors of estimated risk and expected return on investment.

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)

One more real question sent to me by a player:

Has there ever been a test of psychic abilities with regards to making gambling decisions? How would the casinos protect themselves against psychic gamblers?

I am not psychic myself but I have seen some pretty impressive demonstrations by psychics, especially one very gifted individual with whom I have discussed this idea at some length. I am considering forming a team with this gentleman to take on the casinos of the world, starting in Atlantic City. Would the A.C. casinos be allowed to prohibit us from playing for exhibiting psychic abilities under the current regulations?

My response:

"Is this a put on? Every few years it seems I get a letter asking about the use of mental telepathy, or astrology, or numerology, or some other less-than-scientific approach to beating the gaming tables. Though I make no personal claim to psychic talents, I prefer to take these queries at face value, give the questioner the benefit of the doubt, and assume the question is sincere.

"The good news is that the Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to bar players for displays of psychic power! In fact, if it's the possibility of being barred that most distresses you in this proposed venture, then you and your psychic sidekick should just stay put in A.C, and forget the rest of the world.

"Casinos in Nevada, and everywhere else that I know of except New Jersey, may bar players from their games pretty much at whim. In New Jersey, the Casino Control Commission requires casinos to allow all players who are playing according to the rules and regulations—provided they are not drunk and disorderly or otherwise a public nuisance—to gamble. The official rules and regulations do not define psychic decisionmaking as a gaming violation.

"You can thank the late Ken Uston for making AC's gaming tables safe for psychics—though I'm sure he never intended that.

"I have a couple questions for you, however:

"One, why would any real psychic want to team up with you, since you admit you possess no such skills? Any player who could predict just the blackjack dealer's hole card, or the next card to be dealt from the shoe, could quickly bankrupt any table he sat down at. Likewise, if he could predict the next roll of the dice, or where the roulette ball would fall…A psychic doesn't need a team. Donald Trump is no match for an honest-to-goodness psychic.

"Two, don't you find it just a little bit curious that no casino in the world has provisions for dealing with psychic threats to their coffers? Especially when you consider that no casino could survive if even a small handful of psychics were roaming the pits looking for action?

"Wait…I know… your job in this 'psychic team' deal is to supply the money, right? Am I right? (Am I psychic, or what?)

"Quite frankly, if there is some self-styled psychic trying to convince you to 'invest' in this get-rich-quick scam, wise up. And why didn't this psychic wonder inform you in advance of my opinion on this matter?"

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)

If the crap table had an even money payout bet on the layout that three onsecutive pass or don't pass results would occur, and you could take either side of this wager—call it 'triplet' or 'don't triplet'—we could all get rich by betting 'don't triplet.' This, in fact, is the analogy the author of the Triplet system uses in describing the 'logic' behind his method.

"The error the author makes is in assuming that the "don't triplet" bet is just as strong after two of the three 'don't' results have already occurred, when all you're betting against is the occurrence of the third result.

"WRONG!
"The reason the 'don't triplet' bet would be so profitable if it were on the layout with an even money payout is precisely because there are three chances for the triplet to fail. Using a simple coin flip example, we all know that with an honest coin there is a 50/50 (even money) chance that heads will come up.

"For two consecutive heads results, however, the odds are 3 to 1 against it. This is easy to see if we consider all possible results of two flips:

1. H,H
2. H,T 3.T,H 4.T,T

"We only win once, but lose three times, with the four possible outcomes. For three consecutive heads to come up, the odds are 7 to 1 against it:

1. H,H,H
2. H,H,T
3. H,T,H
4. T,H,H
5. H,T,T
6. T,H,T
7. T,T,H
8. T,T,T

"Out of these eight possible outcomes of three consecutive flips, there are seven losses and one win, if we're betting on three consecutive heads.

"But, as soon as I stipulate that two consecutive heads have already occurred, the odds against the third occurrence are no longer 7 to 1. What I'm looking at is 'H, H,' where only that third result figures into the bet, and we're back to a 50/50 chance of it being either heads or tails. If I pulled out an honest quarter, and offered you an even money bet that I could flip three heads in a row, you'd be very smart to take the bet, since the odds against me doing it are 7 to 1. In fact, you could give me 6 to 1 odds and still make money on this bet in the long run. But if I said, 'Wait until I flip two consecutive heads, then I'll bet you that I can flip a third head,' you'd be foolish to give me anything other than even money, because it's back to being a 50/50 proposition. At a crap table, or roulette table, you are giving the house odds on that third bet, because unlike our coin flip example, the house has a 1.41% advantage over you on the pass line, and a 5.26% advantage over you on the even money bets with a double-0 wheel. The Triplet system does nothing to change the house edge.

"Any time you see a system that tells you to consider the likelihood or unlikelihood of occurrence of some result, based on results that have already occurred, don't waste your time or money with it. I call these 'overdue' systems, because the sellers often claim that when there has been a preponderance of reds, black is 'overdue.'

"The reason I said that this 'Triplet' system is slightly more valid if applied to blackjack than to other casino games is that computer simulations have shown that in blackjack, wins are slightly more likely to follow losses, and losses to follow wins, as explained in our discussion of 'situational' betting systems. Unlike dice or roulette, the cards do have 'memory.' That is, cards that have already been played are out of the game until the next shuffle.

"But, as also explained, you can't expect to get rich applying the 'Triplet' system to blackjack. The total change in your win/loss expectation based on previous wins or losses at a blackjack table is measurable in thousandths of a percent, not enough to overcome the house advantage."

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System (0)

Here's another question sent to me by a player:

What do you think of the "Triplet" system, which I recently purchased by mail order. The system is made for playing craps, but I think the theory behind it would be useful for blackjack also, or any other games of chance. The author even says you can use it for roulette, and describes how on the last page. The system costs $100, but I only had to send $25 to get it. I'm supposed to send the other $75 after I win it from the casinos. It seems to me the publisher is pretty confident that I'll win, since he sent me the complete system below wholesale.

My answer:
"You purchased four photocopied pages for $25. The total cost to 'manufacture' this system to the author/publisher/seller was realistically about 250. Add to this the cost of an envelope and a 370 postage stamp, and the seller's overhead expenses on this sale come to about 650. So, even though you were shrewd enough to buy this system 'below wholesale,' I don't think the seller is sweating that $75 you still owe him. I suspect most 'shrewd' purchasers of this system never send the remaining $75 owed for one simple reason: This system isn't worth the paper it's printed on. My heart goes out to the tree that died for this nonsense.

"I agree with you that the 'theory' behind this craps system would apply equally to all even money bets in any game of chance, assuming the theory was valid for the game of craps in the first place. But it's not. Ironically, it's slightly more valid for blackjack than it is for other casino games—but not valid enough to be profitable.

"To simplify the author's brainstorm, he is proposing that because it is unlikely to have three consecutive same results, you will make money if you wait until two consecutive same results have already occurred, then bet against the third occurrence. For example, if the pass line wins twice in a row, bet 'no pass' rather than pass. At roulette, if red comes up twice in a row, bet black, etc. The system also combines this ploy with a martingale double-up betting strategy to be applied when you are losing.

"At any given time in the past twenty years you would have been able to find dozens of craps, roulette, and blackjack systems on the mail order market espousing this same faulty theory. When I read your letter, and examined the 'Triplet' system you enclosed, I almost tossed it in the circular file as just more garbage. I wanted to write you a short personal note telling you the system was worthless, but you failed to include your address on your letter. Then, it struck me that this type of system is one of the most common types of phony baloney systems on the market that seem to be based on 'logic' So, let's debunk this theory once and for all.

"It makes sense to many people that it is unlikely (or, at least, less than a 50/50 chance) that three consecutive same results would occur.

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System (0)

So, why aren't blackjack experts singing the praises of the situational systems?
The problem with utilizing this type of strategy is that none of the advantage indicators are very strong. In most games, they would simply indicate that the house had less of an advantage over the player, not that the advantage is with the player. In deeply dealt one-deck games, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules, all of these indicators combined might provide a player making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $l-$2 per hour. In other words, no individual situational indicator is worth more than a few hundredths of a percent, and all of them combined are not worth much more than a few tenths of a percent, in a deeply dealt one-deck game with a big betting spread.

I have nothing against any player making $l-$2 per hour, especially if he would otherwise be breaking even (or worse) just using basic strategy, so why don't I advise players who are not up to the task of card counting to use this easy situational approach? Because this non-counting method looks more like card counting to the game protection personnel than real card counting! Using a system like this is the fastest way to get barred as a card counter! All you have to do is consider the situations that are used as positive/negative indicators. In every case, the positive indicators coincide with a probability that more low cards than high cards have just come out of the deck. The negative indicators come into play when the opposite is true.

For example, Indicator #3 is that a push indicates a drop in player advantage. Why would this be true? It's not that every push indicates this; but the most common push is a player 20 (two tens) against a dealer 20 (two tens), so that pushes taken as a group more often indicate that high cards have been removed from the deck.

Gwynn's and Serf's studies also showed that, more often than not, a player win was slightly more likely with high cards coming out of the deck, and vice versa. Technically, it's not the win, loss, or push that really indicates the more probable result of the next hand, but the removal of high or low cards from the deck.

In fact, this type of situational play—despite the fact that you are not technically assigning count values to the cards—really is just a very weak card counting system. It's not strong enough to win you any money, but it will be recognizable enough to casino personnel to get you kicked out of the game (assuming you can find a deeply dealt one-decker with Strip rules, so that you can even test your 1-20 betting spread).
So, situational play is just an interesting theory, not a practical moneymaking system.

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System (0)

Various books and systems purport to contain workable "non-counting" systems for blackjack. Most of these systems are based on some form of betting progression—and there are hundreds of variations on both the martingale and other types of progressions and regressions.

Some systems, however, take a "situational betting" approach. These types of systems are a radical departure from normal card counting systems, and also from the standard "betting progression" systems. The system sellers who propose these types of systems claim that computer simulations show that without counting cards, per se, certain playing situations will indicate that the house advantage will be higher or lower on the next hand to be dealt.

In fact, there is a truth to this claim. As far back as 1978, Dr. John Gwynn and Professor Armand Serf (both of California State University in Sacramento) published a paper that first described valid situational betting techniques—and Gwynn and Seri based their findings on extensive computer simulations.

What Gwynn and Seri determined beyond any doubt were three facts:
1. If a player loses a hand, he will be more likely to win the next one— i.e., losing one hand is a positive indicator that the player has a better expectation on the next.
2. If a player wins a hand, he will be more likely to lose the next one i.e., winning one hand is an indicator that the player's expectation on the next has dropped.
3. If a player pushes a hand with the dealer, it is an even stronger indicator that the player's expectation on the next hand has dropped.

For a number of years following the Gwynn/Seri situational discoveries, blackjack betting systems began appearing that advanced situational betting theory beyond the win/loss/push indicators. Other proven situational advantage indicators are:
4. Following a non-ace pair-split, the player's expectation rises.
5. Following an ace split, the player's expectation drops.
6. Following a hard double down, the player's expectation rises.
7. Following any hand (player or dealer) that requires 4 or more cards, the player's expectation rises.
8. Following any hand in which both the player and the dealer use 4 or more cards, the player's expectation rises more dramatically.
9. Following any blackjack (player or dealer), the player's expectation drops.
10. Following any hand in which neither the player nor the dealer has taken any hits, the player's expectation drops.

All of this can be proven by computer simulation. A player who always raises his bet after positive indicators, and lowers it after negative indicators, will have an expectation greater than a player who puts the same amount of money into action flat betting. (We're assuming that both players are playing basic strategy.)

Now, wouldn't it be much easier than employing a card counting system for a player to just memorize the 5 positive indicators and the 5 negative indicators and to raise and lower his bets accordingly?
Absolutely!

• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems 2 (0)
• Blackjack – The “overdue” Systems (0)
• Blackjack – The “no Need To Count” System Part 2 (0)