# Blackjack player wins $6m + $5m + $4m... smart cookie!



## Timmy (16 March 2012)

*The Man Who Broke Atlantic City*
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ho-broke-atlantic-city/8900/?single_page=true



> Don Johnson won nearly $6 million playing blackjack in one night, single-handedly decimating the monthly revenue of Atlantic City’s Tropicana casino. Not long before that, he’d taken the Borgata for $5 million and Caesars for $4 million. ...
> 
> Fifteen million dollars in winnings from three different casinos? Nobody gets that lucky. How did he do it?
> 
> The first and most obvious suspicion was card counting ... In most states (but not New Jersey), known practitioners are banned. The wagering of card counters assumes a clearly recognizable pattern over time, and Johnson was being watched very carefully. The verdict: card counting was not Don Johnson’s game. He had beaten the casinos fair and square.


----------



## basilio (16 March 2012)

Good find. Fascinating story with it's insight into how casinos try to find the whale punters who will lose  enough money. And good to see the tables were turned.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2012)

> sprayed the world’s most expensive bottle of champagne on a crowd of clubgoers in London



 isn't there a thread about this somewhere on ASF??


----------



## Logique (16 March 2012)

If he's not a card counter, it will be interesting discover how on earth he managed this. Has the guy got x-ray vision or something? $15 Mill USD  is a bit more than dumb luck.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (16 March 2012)

Great story, thanks.

The most interesting part I find is this:

"He was neither nervous nor excited".  

If you could apply that to trading, would surely help.


----------



## Timmy (16 March 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Great story, thanks.
> 
> The most interesting part I find is this:
> 
> ...



Agree. I was nervous and excited just reading the article 



Logique said:


> If he's not a card counter, it will be interesting discover how on earth he managed this.



Check this out, discusses it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ho-broke-atlantic-city/8900/?single_page=true


----------



## robman (16 March 2012)

Great read, it may inspire some gambling on the weekend for those who feel like they now 'know more' about black jack and the idea that 'if he could do it, so could I'. When Monday hits, they'll realise how mistaken they were.


----------



## robz7777 (16 March 2012)

robman said:


> Great read, it may inspire some gambling on the weekend for those who feel like they now 'know more' about black jack and the idea that 'if he could do it, so could I'. When Monday hits, they'll realise how mistaken they were.




I would hope that not many expect to go into the casino in an attempt to make money.. I know I walk out ecstatic if I break even!!


----------



## Glen48 (16 March 2012)

I am ecstatic if  can walk out..


----------



## village idiot (16 March 2012)

> I would hope that not many expect to go into the casino in an attempt to make money.. I know I walk out ecstatic if I break even!!




depends if you're playing poker or one of those other mug's games


----------



## barney (16 March 2012)

Glen48 said:


> I am ecstatic if  can walk out..




LOL .... funny ....... 

I deduce from that comment Glen that you must be quite well off .... who can afford to get smashed at Casino prices:


----------



## Glen48 (16 March 2012)

Or being hurled by the bouncers. I having one thing money can't buy... poverty .


----------



## Tyler Durden (17 March 2012)

He had a lot of luck, I wouldn't put it _all_ down to skill. In that description of one of the hands, he drew four 8's in a row - that comes from luck, not skill.

I remember going to the casino with my friend and he played blackjack. He played about 20-30 hands I think. On about 7-10 occasions, he got 19 and stood, thinking he was safe. But every single time the dealer beat that by getting either 20 or 21.

He was not a happy boy afterwards.


----------



## Logique (17 March 2012)

Timmy said:


> ..Check this out, discusses it:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ho-broke-atlantic-city/8900/?single_page=true



Thanks Timmy, that makes good reading, the guy had done his homework.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 March 2012)

Timmy said:


> Agree. I was nervous and excited just reading the article
> 
> 
> Check this out, discusses it:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ho-broke-atlantic-city/8900/?single_page=true




That's the same link as the original timmy.


----------



## craft (17 March 2012)

Timmy said:


> *The Man Who Broke Atlantic City*
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ho-broke-atlantic-city/8900/?single_page=true






> he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. 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



.



> In a 50-50 game, you’re taking basically the same risk as the house, but if you get lucky and start out winning, you have little incentive to stop.




I can’t believe the casinos handed him a positive expectancy.  With enough capital and enough range in the bet limit you are set. Keep the bet size small enough when you are betting your own stake to ensure that you can play enough hands for the expectancy to come through and then when you are betting with the house money bet big so that the natural randomness in 49.75/50.25 accuracy pays off big for a winning streak.  Eventually he had to hit the house limit and they locked his gains in for him. 
Notice the article was silent on how many times he had stopped himself out – presumable at the 400K mark.  He is more famous now but not necessarily that much more wealthy – depends how soon into the strategy the randomness went his way.

Whether it’s gambling, trading or investing, the long term ‘lucky’ always have the maths on their side.


----------



## cynic (18 March 2012)

The only thing that surprises me about this event is the fact that the Casinos actually allowed it to happen.

I can remember half a dozen security staff materializing behind me whilst I was testing one of my favourite probability theories at a SIC BO table. I couldn't understand their concern given that I was only a few chips in front at the time!



Glen48 said:


> Or being hurled by the bouncers. I having one thing money can't buy... poverty .




Upon reading some of the posts in the Storm thread, it would seem that there have been a number of Financial Advisers/Planners who actually succeeded in selling poverty to their clients.


----------



## Tyler Durden (18 March 2012)

cynic said:


> I can remember half a dozen security staff materializing behind me whilst I was testing one of my favourite probability theories at a SIC BO table. I couldn't understand their concern given that I was only a few chips in front at the time!




Care to share that probability theory?


----------



## cynic (26 March 2012)

As many of us are already aware, the casino industry is not a charity, hence, mug punters are welcomed. Professionals, however, are well advised to find a way to stay under the radar if they wish to succeed. Over the years, I've had friends express interest in the possibility of extracting a living from casinos. I generally try to alert them to the difficulties they will inevitably encounter if/when they succeed in their quest for a profitable edge. Unfortunately, some things need to be experienced before they are to be readily believed. The shortcomings of probability theory and casino circumvention mechanisms are amongst the things that gambling aspirants seem incapable of acknowledging (sans direct experience).

There are definite flaws in the (advertised) implementation of probability theory within casino games. When using relatively unbiased equipment (wheels, dice etc.) the equal probability of each outcome is based upon millions of continuous repetitions, so humans ( and casinos alike) generally only get to experience a small snapshot within the full spectrum of probabilistic outcomes. Additionally, the ability of the player to vary their bet (subject to table limits) also introduces a further dimension of uncertainty for the house. If all outcomes had to be backed uniformly on every repetition, then the house might maintain its profitable edge. Whilst the argument that things will approximately smooth out over time may have some justification, it could hardly be expected to guarantee maintenance of the somewhat scant 3% edge in daily casino operations.  

The ability of card counters to vary their bet is one of the particularly apparent examples of the inefficient manner in which probability theory has been implemented within the gaming industry.

ASFers with a calculator on hand may wish to calculate 37 raised to the power of minus 3. That was the probability of a certain roullette player losing every single chip placed on the roullette table during one of my visits to the Adelaide casino. I observed said player using a somewhat creative system of inside bets (corners, lines , splits etc.) where every number was covered except the green zero. I thought it rather curious that this number chose to be so accommodating to the house by eventuating for 3 consecutive spins! Of course no government (no matter how much revenue might be at stake) would allow a casino to have undisclosed mechanisms in place ensuring their profitability - so it must have been a coincidence! Needless to say, after witnessing said event (and having had a statistically similar experience a couple of years prior), I decided to desist from betting at the roullette tables. I do occasionally bet on the big  wheel (but only in opposition to the larger bets of other players).

As for my favourite probability theory, it's not rocket science, but it is controversial, and I've found that devotees of conventional mathematics often dispute my theories vehemently or (if I'm lucky) simply smirk and politely nod. So my preference for now is to withhold it from public scrutiny.


----------



## jimmyizgod (26 March 2012)

have a decent bankroll, go to the roulette table and 

1)bet X on black.
if you win, bet X on black. if not go to 2)

2) bet 2X on black.
if you win, go to 1) if not, go to 3)

3) bet 4X on black
if you win, go to 1) if not, go to 4)

4) bet 8X on black etc etc


----------



## Knobby22 (26 March 2012)

cynic said:


> As for my favourite probability theory, it's not rocket science, but it is controversial, and I've found that devotees of conventional mathematics often dispute my theories vehemently or (if I'm lucky) simply smirk and politely nod. So my preference for now is to withhold it from public scrutiny.




My dad (as do many probabilty game players) believe in the theory, that the past effects the future. Though I am a huge Dr Who fan I have undertaken to a deep level probability theory as part of my Uni course.  I therefore have little faith in these theories.

I always smile and politely nod.


----------



## rryall (26 March 2012)

jimmyizgod said:


> have a decent bankroll, go to the roulette table and
> 
> 1)bet X on black.
> if you win, bet X on black. if not go to 2)
> ...




Follow this method if you want to go broke with 100% certainty.


----------



## Tyler Durden (26 March 2012)

rryall said:


> Follow this method if you want to go broke with 100% certainty.




It would work if there weren't any table limits.


----------



## rryall (26 March 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> It would work if there weren't any table limits.




It would only work if there were not any table limits AND your bankroll was infinite not just "decent".


----------



## cynic (12 April 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> It would work if there weren't any table limits.




Given that the table limit applies to each of the individual players (not the sum total of bets by players at the table), what (apart from the control mechanisms that I alluded to in my earlier post) is stopping a syndicate of players from exceeding the house limit whilst employing the "Martingale" strategy?



rryall said:


> It would only work if there were not any table limits AND your bankroll was infinite not just "decent".




This might be true if all components of the game were perfectly engineered (i.e. no mechanical or human/croupier bias whatsoever). In the absence of such perfection, one might agree that the low rate of return compared to the considerable bankroll would render this strategy impractical. Furthermore, I believe this strategy would fail consequent to "other" unrelated considerations that I've alluded to in my earlier post.



Knobby22 said:


> ...Though I am a huge Dr Who fan...




Yes - during his visit to Australia in 1979, his fourth incarnation (Tom Baker) autographed my copy of one of the target novelisations, and true to form, he offered me a jelly baby.



Knobby22 said:


> My dad (as do many probabilty game players) believe in the theory, that the past effects the future. Though I am a huge Dr Who fan I have undertaken to a deep level probability theory as part of my Uni course.  I therefore have little faith in these theories.
> 
> I always smile and politely nod.





Knobby, did you really have to let the cat out of the bag?
I fear I may have created some unrealistic expectations when referring to my unconventional probability theory - so to those posters that were kind enough to PM me - I am sorry to disappoint, but there's really not a lot more to it than has already been mentioned in Knobby's post.

Approximately 2 to 3 decades ago I conducted a number of crude (although not exhaustive) experiments, the results of which led me to conclude that the probability of successive events is indeed influenced by preceeding events. 

The assertion that events will be evenly represented over a sufficiently large number of repititions could be used to argue the veracity of said theory and was concurrent with my observations during aforementioned experiments. None of the original experiments that led me to my theory were performed on casino premises. The first time I attempted to profit from casino gaming (roullette and the big wheel), the theory promptly failed. This was puzzling as the data obtained from my experiments outside of the casino grounds (where no money was in contention) appeared to validate said theory.

Whilst I was content with my findings then, and maintain my viewpoint to this day, I do feel the need to reiterate that casinos do not take kindly to winners!


----------

