Talk:Blackjack

Card Counting

The subject of card counting is not covered in the blackjack article. I would like to add a section introducing the subject, and will remain general (not favoring any individual system).

Has this been done in the past and removed, or would it be welcome?

Mbbradford 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Card counting, but yes, the subject should be included here, but with a link to the main article. You might also do some editing over at the main article, because it still needs some cleaning up. Rray 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference to card counting in the rules section seems flawed. The page says "although this reduced payout has generally been restricted to single-deck games where card counting would otherwise be a viable strategy, the move was decried by longtime blackjack players." The trouble is that card counting doesn't work in single-deck games, because the deck is shuffled after each hand in single-deck games. -DelRayVA 2 January 2007

Point of fact: There are indeed single deck blackjack games to be found that are not shuffled after every round. However, the true trouble with most card counting systems is that they did not and could not take into account the players' facedown cards at single and double deck games, the most winnable and desirable games, because they had not devised a method to account for those cards. So any claim of accuracy falls by the wayside. John Winston (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, counting by inference has been around for decades. Secondly, the fact that the cards are face down does indeed reduce the gain. But all counting systems are approximations and the accuracy hit is more than acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest players re-read Bringing Down The House by Ben Mezrich in which Jeffrey Ma (an MIT team player who provided much if not all of the material for that book) spoke of how ineffective the Hi-Lo card counting system the MIT teams used was. In fact, he said, the small 2 per cent advantage it gave them was so low that, according to him, they had to make huge and risky bets and bring huge sums to the table (each player, if my memory is correct, was given $150,000 per session) in order to profit from that low edge. I would suggest that Jeffrey Ma is one of today's best players and knows what he's saying. He clearly said the "advantage" Hi-Lo gave the MIT teams was not acceptable. He certainly couldn't have afforded to play that way without outside money. Anyone who's tried card counting knows this is true. Card counting is fuzzy math. Richard Harvey has some good examples of this on his blog at http://blackjacktoday.com/blackjackblog.htm. I don't know if I read it there or elsewhere, but he used the example once of how, if four Aces and four 2s were dealt, the Hi-Lo (and many other card counting systems) would say the count is zero. Zero is supposed to mean the cards are balanced or neutral. But, as you can see, they're not close to being balanced or neutral. No other cards were dealt but Aces and 2s. The undealt cards are heavy in 10s, among other things, an important fact that card counting cannot expose. Card counting is not the answer to dealing with the card fluctuations or imbalances Thorp and others admitted make basic strategy highly ineffective. John Winston (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I know most of the top MIT players (had drinks with one last night) and they would in no way agree with the nonsense on Harvey's website. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The advantage from card counting IS small, but that doesn't mean it does not work. There is currently a documentary playing in film festivals about a card counting team that I helped run where we won over $3 Million dollars in 4 years from card counting. It definitely wasn't fuzzy math or luck. We've also trained dozens of others through on how to effectively count cards. I've become friends with the MIT guys, Tommy Hyland, and many other professional card counters, and can verify that it is not "fuzzy math." It's all math, but with the slim margins, you need to follow it perfectly. And to make much money, you need to be properly funded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinbradleyjones (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DianneSteele Edits

Dianne, this is my understanding. Correct me where I am wrong. Les Golden wishes to publish a book on Blackjack. But, he is not known in the field. You are a PR person working with Golden. You have advised him that Wikipedia is a good place to become known, so that he can point the publishers to WP to prove he is known in the field. To that end, you have spent the last month adding new pages and references to Golden throughout the encyclopedia starting with a new page on him.

I am afraid that you have this backwards. You do not use an encyclopedia to become notable. You are added to an encyclopedia BECAUSE you are notable. Your over 100 edits are specifically not allowed. See WP:SPAM, with particular attention to the statement that Wikispam is “adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced.”

Your failure to discuss is not helping matters. Please find a different venue for promoting your client.Objective3000 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The book isn't already published (or it's self published)? If so, then remove all references to it, and immediately block the editor indefinitely if she persists. Rklawton (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not published. Refs are not to the book, but to articles he is written to entice a publisher to publish a book by him. She has made 146 edits, all to promote this person. I am not an admin.Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, this has now gone way too far. I have received a phone call from the person being promoted. I found this quite unnerving. Someone else should handle her continuing edits.Objective3000 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support getting an admin involved. I don't know the situation first hand but if things are as Objective says then this is clearly an abuse. Zargulon (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DianneSteele was found to be one of twelve socks of Drlesmgolden and the accounts have been blocked.Objective3000 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If further admin action is required, please don't hesitate to ask me. I have no objection to blocking spammers or PR people who have been duly advised - as in the present case. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

NW

Why is NW being pushed so hard on this page and who is he that he deserves to have such a large number of references, external links on this page and card counting page? i see qfit.com blackjackincolor.com (both from this NW fellow, who is not notable enough to have his on Wikipedia page) and wizzardofodds.com everywhere, and a huge warning not to add any other external links. I think since we have so many excellent books by blackjack hall of fame legends, there is no need to keep citing these same 3 websites. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with a citation, then say so. I don’t see any reason for what appears to be a general attack. (I will assume it is a coincidence that I !voted delete on an AfD that ended with delete yesterday, for a BLP page of someone that used a dozen socks, including one to attack me on two pages in the exact manner of your attack. I fully expected to be attacked this week as a result of this AfD.) But in response:

• Links to sites of mine that are in external links were NOT added by me.
• I have added cites to sites of mine when citations have been requested and I could find no other sources.
• I have added cites to other sites and books, including to books by people I don’t like. And I have removed cites to my pages that I thought inappropriate. In fact, just recently I removed a link to a site that sells my software as it was inappropriate.
• I !voted against a suggestion to mention BJ software, which would have benefited me.
• The reason so many cites are to sites of mine, is that I have the oldest BJ site on the web, and by far the largest, including a free 560 page book on the subject. Altogether, I have put about 80,000 pages of Blackjack tables, charts, calculators, studies and instructions on the web, without all those blinking online gambling ads you see everywhere else. Fact is, I am the only online source for some of the cited info, and only source period for some info.
• It is no surprise that wizzardofodds.com also has many cites as it is an excellent, very large, source of free gambling info. This is not one of my sites.
• ALL WP links are No Follow and do not give you search engine points – this is commonly not understood by those trying to put links to gambling portals.
• If someone adds a page with my name to WP, I will nominate it for deletion and !vote delete. I have no desire to be in WP.
• I would appreciate it if you did not use my real name and believe this is inappropriate, as I received a disturbing phone call from the editor that just lost the AfD. (See above section.) Please remove the name and substitute with site names. I would also ask if you have been contacted by Les Golden, who was caught canvassing during the AfD and is known to react extremely badly when things don’t go his way, as per his reaction after his trial. Although I assume good faith, the fact that I was attacked in the EXACT manner that I expected, one day after an AfD close, is worrying.Objective3000 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was already investigated earlier this month by a handful of people and was officially declared a real human who don't wear socks. Pure coincidence on my part to get to this page since I just watched a blackjack documentary on card counting and decided to take a peak whats been going on here since I last edited these parts 9 months ago. Dunno much about goldberg or NW. I do know tho, that bonafide blackjack hall of famers have books out that are ignored (for whatever reason) and there is a heavy push for a small number of websites.

I have no issues with wizardofodds, since i see him quoted in relation to gambling statistics often, yet he is not a blackjack guru, and i fail to see why a large number of references for card counting refer to his website.

No Follow links are still followed by google spiders as has been conclusively proven repeatedly by searchenginewatch.com in a number of experiments, and thats besides the point. My issue is with excessive use of the same domains over and over, when they are not authority on the subject when compared to the books listed in the bibliography section.

I am sorry I just read what you wrote in the beginning. maybe you should disclose somewhere what sites you own. because if its those two domains I listed above that have 30% of links pointing to them, yet you revert all others from adding links, it looks like a conflict of interest.

I will take it in good faith, but you must admit that to balance the article out, especially one with hundreds of primary and secondary sources, there simply is no need to rely on a handful of sources. I would like to use books and academic articles from a variety of notable, verifiable sources. Cheers! Meishern (talk)

A few points:

• You have mentioned the BJHOF now three times. Realize that it is just a gimmick created by three guys to promote themselves. They selected all the members at once, then have a party and add one or more of the pre-selected names a year. But, the list is just their names, their friends and some now deceased experts to make it look legit. The BJHOF is not a reliable resource and the page should have been AfD’d long ago.
• I did identify myself on my user page. I removed the id after the disturbing phone call.
• There is NO heavy push, or any push at all, for a small number of websites. That is simply untrue. It is a simple fact that the majority of what has been published on the subject on the Web was published by me and you will find that I had substantially more detail than other sources. Books are good, but most of the books in the biblio are dated, research has since taken place, and books are not as convenient. Which is why Wikipedia is not a book.
• It is simply false that I revert all other links. The gambling pages have a storm of links added to horrible, useless gambling portals promising you riches. So, there is far more addition and deletion of links. And, in fact, the last link I deleted was to a site that promotes my software.
• The “wizard” is foremost in the field in evaluating new rules and side bets. Again, books cannot keep up with this field. Hence the use of sites.

Sorry, but you seem to have popped into this page and made a lot of assumptions, among them that all the other editors on this page are either incompetent or act in bad faith. Please assume good faith. And if you are going to start making wholesale changes to cites that have been accepted for years, please look for consensus first. Regards,Objective3000 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether the hall of fame is made up or not, there are certain authority figures that are accepted as notable individuals when it comes to blackjack. I have no problems with multiple citations on the same concept from different sources. Rather than removing links, I think adding and building on them from other published works (not website based) currently in the Blackjack Literature - Rose, Snyder, Wong, Uston + others. I have no issues with the current citations being left alone as long as we can add citations from books, law library links, etc. As I go through, i dont want to fix what isn't broken, introduce questionable links or remove citations. If there is a disagreement I rather quickly settle it on talk page. I will wait a few weeks anyway for this section to cool off a bit. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Most articles can use additional cites. Of the people you mentioned, Rose is the most topical. I publish his articles on my blog, with his permission of course. (No, I won’t give the link here or add to WP.) I think that you will find that the sources you believe are “current” are generally well behind the times. (Like the rather poor biblio in this article.) A great deal of research has taken place in the last three decades and there exist far better resources. If you have never heard my name, you might want to catch up on your reading as I’m mentioned in 23 books on the subject (as well as the only real magazine that mentioned the BJHOF). (And I still don’t claim “notability,” and as you have seen, I don’t want my name here. Just saying that you might be a bit behind on a fast-moving subject.) Basically, if you read the old books, you cannot make it with today’s rules and circumstances. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I have updated disclosure on my talk page. I write news articles on intentional gambling laws, as well as sports betting, casino games (traditional, online and mobile) including blackjack for salary. I have no equity in the blogs I write for and do Wikipedia editing on my own time. This is why I want to limit myself to using only books and notable academic sources since there is a conflict of interest on my part as well. Wikipedia is a hobby for me and I want to make this article more professional, well rounded - GA level article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI was cleverly written to avoid excluding anyone that has expertise in a subject.:) Speaking of Prof. Rose, hall of fames and academic sources -- by sheer coincidence, I’m on Rose’s mailing list and received an e-mail this morn. He’ll be at the Gaming Hall of Fame dinner Tuesday, where Bill Eadington will be inducted. Eadington is an economics prof and has long studied the gaming industry. He also co-edited Optimal Play: Mathematical Studies of Games and Gambling with Stewart Ethier, Math head at Univ of Utah and probably the best probability expert in the country. I don’t think you’ll find them mentioned on any gambling-related sites (outside of mine) as pure academics are generally given short shrift in gambling discussions.Objective3000 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will look for that book, thanks. I respect Prof. Rose and enjoy reading him. Its not often that a serious academic is capable of expressing complex ideas in a way that's understandable and interesting to both professionals and the general public. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden

If there's anything in here by Les Golden - remove it. He doesn't have the sort of expertise we'd like to see in an encyclopedia, and for awhile he was using this article to promote himself. His own self-created article just got AfD'd. Rklawton (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the refs to Les Golden when they were added. That's when I got the disturbing phone call, and the attacks like the one above. I almost added to the AfD that editors that took part should look out for retribution canvassing.Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, looks like i walked into some kind of a war here. But if u check your history Objective3000, u will see that we already spoke about references 8-9 months ago. I dunno LG or RW, nor really care about your war. However I will start adding proper primary/secondary sources to bring these few articles to academic standard. Since I dunno who is who or what is what, i took out all names from above to be on the safe side. I got death threats myself in the past, over my editing, so I am aware it is not a comfortable experience. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we did discuss refs early in the year. The site you cited contained too much misinformation and the consensus went against the ref. The problem we have with the gambling pages is that there is probably more misinformation and just plain fluff on the web about gambling than any subject except politics. Partly because there are so many gamblers, but mostly because there are tens of thousands of casino affiliate sites and gambling scam sites trying to make easy money. The other problem is that everyone that has read a book on card counting (or just flipped through one) seems to think he is a BJ expert, not realizing how much the advantage play field has expanded in the last couple decades. I am not talking about you. Just realize that there are a lot of folks that edit something based on a movie or documentary they saw, or something a friend said, and as a result the gambling pages tend to require a lot of reverts. Just the nature of the subject. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow that is intense, chill out poeple.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

While this is a well written article there are a few things I believe can be improved. I know it's easier to complain than to correct but I lack confidence in my editing skills.

-Pictures: This is a minor gripe, but this article is centered on casino blackjack and neither picture shows an accurate example of cards laid out in casino fashion. The top picture shows a blackjack spread behind the bet. If this is a handheld game the cards should be in front of the bet, if not spread correctly. The second picture is the worst layout I've ever seen. Cards are always laid out in a staggered fashion so that the center pip of the card and both indices (the corner numbers) are fully visible. In that second picture the 5 of hearts would not be readable by most casino cameras or a floorperson at an average distance since the center pip is not visible.

-"Rules of Play at Casinos": "The players' initial cards may be dealt face-up, or face-down (more common in single-deck games)." This is more common in handheld/pitch games, not just single-deck.

-"Player Decisions": "signal: (handheld) Scrape cards against table. (face up) Tap the table or wave hand toward body" A tap is not an acceptable hit signal at any casino I've ever been to due to the possibility of misconstruing an idle gesture by the player. Nor is a general hand wave toward the body. The correct signal is a scratch of the hand/fingers along the felt away from the bet.

In the UK, a tap or double tap is widely accepted as a valid method to request another card. I have seen some players use the wave described but it is rare and almost always results in the dealer initiating a verbal confirmation. Never really noticed any felt scratching but now that you've mentioned it I shall feel compelled to look out for it. Alan LeHun (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

-"Player Decisions": "doubles: signal: Place additional chips beside the original bet, and point with one finger." There is no common hand signal for doubling a bet. In ambiguous cases such as a pair of fours or fives the dealer will ask the player "one card?" in addition to putting one finger up. This proves to surveillance that the dealer clarified the player's intent. There is also no common split signal. The above ambiguous cases are already covered by the dealer's verbal confirmation plus the dealer's hand motion. In non-ambiguous cases where the player later decides to claim he did not intend to split his cards it will be pointed out that he had plenty of time to object when the dealer set up his cards and his bet for the split.

-"Card Counting": "or by using a shuffling machine to reintroduce the exhausted cards every time a deck has been played." Another minor gripe, but this should read "CONTINUOUS shuffling machine" as they are very different than traditional shufflers. AddBlue (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do go ahead and edit. Worst comes to worst we will have a friendly discussion here. I am not an expert, particularly not on the operations side, but your points all sound reasonable to me. Zargulon (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The way to gain confidence in your editing skills is to edit. :) Be bold. Rray (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not enough to be an expert. Wikipedia has no way to determine which of its editors are experts. Thus, it would be most helpful to all if you edit AND provide reliable sources that back up your edits. Rklawton (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)